Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards
for Heavy-Duty Vehicles: Phase 3
Response to Comments
rnA United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
-------
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards
for Heavy-Duty Vehicles: Phase 3
Response to Comments
Assessment and Standards Division
Office of Transportation and Air Quality
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
EPA-420-R-24-007
March 2024
-------
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ii
List of Commenters' Excerpts Included Verbatim in This Document vii
1 Introduction 1
2 CO2 Standards 3
2.1 Legal Authority 3
2.2 Applicability (specific applications) 149
2.2.1 Motorcoach 149
2.2.2 Concrete Mixer/Concrete Pumper 161
2.2.3 Recreational Vehicles 166
2.2.4 Other 168
2.3 Structure of the Program 192
2.3.1 Modifying Phase 2 192
2.3.2 Phase 3 Implementation Years 201
2.3.3 Lead time and stability (including year-over-year approach) 211
2.4 Stringency and Feasibility 231
2.5 Calculating the standards 439
2.6 Costs 445
2.7 Accounting for federal and state measures 458
2.8 Intentionally Left Blank 489
2.9 Post-rule actions 489
2.10 Coordination for Implementation of the Program 501
2.11 Other Legal Issues 506
3 HD TRUCS Tool 510
3.1 Sales Distribution 519
3.2 Component Performance 521
3.2.1 BEV Component Efficiencies 521
3.2.2 Fuel Cell System Efficiency 523
3.2.3 Battery Specific Energy and Energy Density 527
3.2.4 Other Efficiency Improvements 534
3.2.5 PTO 536
3.3 Battery Sizing 541
3.3.1 90th Percentile VMT 541
11
-------
3.3.2 HVAC Loads 549
3.3.3 Depth of Discharge and Deterioration 552
3.3.4 En-Route Charging 556
3.4 Component Cost 559
3.4.1 Battery Cost 559
3.4.2 E-Drive 576
3.4.3 FC Stack & H2 Tank Costs 579
3.5 Intentionally Left Blank 590
3.6 Intentionally Left Blank 590
3.7 Maintenance and Repair 590
3.8 Additional Costs 604
3.8.1 Other Costs 604
3.8.2 Insurance 612
3.8.3 Battery Replacement 616
3.9 Alternative Inputs and Sensitivities 620
3.9.1 Fuel Price Adjustments 620
3.9.2 Inflation Adjustment 622
3.9.3 Other sensitivities 624
3.10 Feasibility 627
3.10.1 Pay load 627
3.10.2 Intentionally Left Blank 637
3.10.3 Battery Volume 637
3.11 Payback Period, Baseline, Projected Compliance Pathway, TCO 639
3.11.1 Baseline 639
3.11.2 Payback Period 672
3.12 General Errors and Missing Information 719
4 BEV Technologies 722
4.1 Technology Readiness and Model Availability 722
4.1.1 Model Availability 722
4.1.2 Technology Readiness 730
4.2 Upfront ZEV Cost 733
4.3 Range 743
4.3.1 General EV Range 743
4.3.2 Effects of Ambient Temperature on Range 748
in
-------
4.3.3 Hours of Service and Slip-Seating 752
4.3.4 Alternative Battery Chemistry 754
4.3.5 Towing Capacity 756
4.4 Intentionally Left Blank 757
4.5 Intentionally Left Blank 757
4.6 Vehicle Weight 757
4.7 Recycling and Environmental Issues 761
4.8 Safety 773
4.9 BEV Mounting Systems and Tires 790
4.10 Fuel Operated Heaters 791
5 FCEV Technologies 798
5.1 FCEV Technology Readiness 800
5.2 FCEV & Hydrogen Safety 810
5.3 H2 Storage Tank Packaging 815
6 Electric Charging Infrastructure 818
6.1 Charging Infrastructure Availability 818
6.2 Charging Infrastructure Lead Time and Deployment 895
6.3 Charging Infrastructure Analysis 918
6.3.1 General 918
6.3.2 EVSE Costs 930
6.3.3 Charging Costs 939
6.3.4 Dwell Time & EVSE Sharing 956
6.4 Charging Infrastructure (Miscellaneous) 964
7 Distribution 976
7.1 Generation and Transmission 1089
7.2 Resilience 1165
8 Hydrogen Infrastructure 1172
8.1 Hydrogen Infrastructure Readiness and Lead Time 1172
8.2 Hydrogen Fuel Costs 1190
9 ICE Vehicle Technologies 1200
9.1 Fuels 1200
9.2 Phase 2 Vehicle and Engine Technologies 1247
9.3 H2 ICE Vehicles 1281
9.4 Other Technologies 1305
iv
-------
10 ABT Program 1314
10.1 General ABT 1314
10.2 ABT in Setting Standards 1320
10.2.1 Fleet averaging methodology 1320
10.2.2 U.S.-Directed Production Volume 1369
10.3 ABT as a Compliance Flexibility 1383
10.3.1 Credit Multipliers 1383
10.3.2 Averaging Set 1406
11 Battery Durability and Warranty 1417
11.1 Battery Durability 1417
11.2 Warranty 1438
12 Program Costs 1451
12.1 Vehicle costs 1451
12.2 RPE 1451
12.3 Learning curve 1455
13 Emission Impacts 1465
14 Climate Change Impacts 1507
15 Health and Environmental Effects of Non-GHG Pollutants 1533
16 Air Quality Impacts of Non-GHG Pollutants 1546
17 Life Cycle and Critical Minerals 1548
17.1 Life Cycle Assessment 1548
17.2 Critical Materials and Supply Chain Considerations 1602
18 Environmental Justice 1678
18.1 EJ, Non-GHG Impacts 1696
18.2 EJ, Lifecyle Analysis/Cumulative Impacts 1714
19 Economic Impacts 1725
19.1 Energy Efficiency Gap 1742
19.2 Rebound 1744
19.3 Uncertainty, including regulatory and technological uncertainty 1747
19.4 Vehicle Sales, including pre- and low-buy, fleet turnover and class shift 1750
19.5 Purchaser Acceptance 1758
19.6 Employment 1771
20 Social Cost of GHGs 1807
20.1 Discount Rate 1807
v
-------
20.2 Domestic versus Global 1816
20.3 Modeling of SC-GHG and benefits 1836
20.4 Process Level SC-GHG 1860
21 Criteria Pollutant Health Benefits 1872
22 Energy Security 1888
23 Benefit-cost analysis 1902
24 Technical Amendments 1910
24.1 Amendments for 40 CFRpart 1036 1910
24.1.1 OBD and Inducements 1910
24.1.2 Level of Standards 1915
24.1.3 Interim Provisions 40 CFR 1036.150 1916
24.1.4 Test Procedures 1918
24.2 Amendments for 40 CFRpart 1037 1931
24.2.1 A/C 1931
24.2.2 Labeling 1933
24.2.3 Interim Provisions 40 CFR 1037.150 1934
24.2.4 Test Procedures 1935
24.2.5 Intentionally Left Blank 1945
24.2.6 Standards and confirmatory testing 1945
24.3 Amendments for 40 CFR 1065 1956
24.4 ABT Reporting (Cross-Sector Applicability) 1958
24.5 General Amendments for the Regulations 1961
25 Stakeholder Engagement 1965
26 Regulatory Flexibility Act 1968
27 General Comments on Rule Process 1972
28 Out of Scope Comments 1983
29 Additional Comments 1995
Appendix A: Other Comments Received, Not Reproduced Verbatim in RTC Text 2032
Appendix B: List of Mass Comment Campaigns 2059
Appendix C: List of Testifiers at Public Hearings 2081
Appendix D: List of Abbreviations, Acronyms, and Symbols 2090
vi
-------
List of Commenters' Excerpts Included Verbatim in This
Document
Index
Docket Number
Commenter Name
Additional Signatories
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1442
ABF Freight System, Inc.
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1652
Advanced Energy United
3
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1600
Advanced Engine Systems Institute
(AESI)
4
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1532
Allergy, & Asthma Network et al.
Asthma and Allergy Foundation
of America; Alliance of Nurses
for Healthy Environments;
American College of Physicians;
American Lung Association;
American Public Health
Association; Children's
Environmental Health Network;
Climate Psychiatry Alliance
Health Care Without Harm;
Medical Society Consortium on
Climate and Health; National
Association of Pediatric Nurse
Practitioners; Physicians for
Social Responsibility Public
Health Institute
5
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1571
Alliance for Vehicle Efficiency (AVE)
6
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1657
Allison Transmission, Inc.
7
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1481
American Association for Laboratory
Accreditation (A2LA)
8
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1634
American Bus Association (ABA)
9
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1573
American Chemistry Council (ACC)
10
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1574
American Chemistry Council (ACC)
11
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1593
American Concrete Pumping
Association (ACPA)
12
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1560
American Council for an Energy-
Efficient Economy (ACEEE)
13
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1660
American Free Enterprise Chamber of
Commerce (AmFree) et al.
AmFree Center for Legal Action;
Energy Equipment and
Infrastructure Alliance
Foundation; Iowa Conservative
Energy Forum; Transportation
Consultants, Inc.; Golden Grain
Energy, LLC; Iowa Motor Truck
Association; Iowa Motor
Carriers Foundation
vii
-------
Index
Docket Number
Commenter Name
Additional Signatories
14
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1659
American Fuel and Petrochemical
Manufacturers (AFPM)
15
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1550
American Highway Users Alliance
16
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1617
American Petroleum Institute (API)
17
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1549
American Soybean Association (ASA)
18
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1517
American Thoracic Society (ATS)
19
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1535
American Trucking Associations (ATA)
20
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1773
Anonymous public comment
21
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1867
Anonymous public comment
22
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1621
Arizona State Legislature
23
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-2252
Barry Supranowicz
24
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1473
Ben Banks, TCW
25
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1602
Black Tie Transportation Bus Charters
26
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1605
BlueGreen Alliance (BGA)
27
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1578
BorgWarner Inc.
28
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1591
California Air Resources Board (CARB)
29
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1594
California Air Resources Board et al.
Maryland Department of the
Environment; Colorado Energy
Office; New Mexico
Environment Department; Maine
Department of Environmental
Protection; New York State
Department of Environmental
Conservation; Oregon
Department of Environmental
Quality; Washington State
Department of Ecology
30
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1656
CALSTART
31
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1485
Center for Regulatory Effectiveness
(CRE)
32
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1581
Ceres BICEP
33
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1552
Chevron Corporation
34
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1658
China WTO/TBT National Notification
& Enquiry Center
viii
-------
Index
Docket Number
Commenter Name
Additional Signatories
35
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1640
Clean Air Task Force et al. (Part 1 of 3)
Center for Biological Diversity;
Environmental Law & Policy
Center; National Parks
Conservation Association; Public
Citizen; and Sierra Club
36
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1614 and EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-2666, Day 1
Clean Fuels Alliance America
37
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1585
Clean Fuels Development Coalition et
al.
ICM Inc.; Illinois Corn Growers
Association; Indiana Corn
Marketing Council; Kansas Corn
Growers Association; Kentucky
Corn Growers Association;
Michigan Corn Growers
Association; Missouri Corn
Growers Association; and
Wisconsin Corn Growers
Association
38
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1579
CleanAirNow
39
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1654
ClearFlame Engine Technologies
40
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1785
Colin Kuroishi
41
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1530
Colorado Department of Transportation
Colorado Department of Public
Health and Environment;
Colorado Energy Office
42
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1498
Compass Coach Inc.
43
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1661
Consolidated Edison, Inc.
44
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-2674
Corporate Electric Vehicle Alliance
(CEVA)
45
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1598
Cummins Inc.
46
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1555
Daimler Truck North America LLC
(DTNA)
47
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1610
Dana Incorporated
48
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1970
David Brown, Holiday Tours
49
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1561
Delek US Holdings, Inc.
50
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1618
Diesel Technology Forum (DTF)
51
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1620
District of Columbia Department of
Energy and Environment (DOEE)
52
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1556
Eaton Corporation
53
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1509
Edison Electric Institute (EEI)
IX
-------
Index
Docket Number
Commenter Name
Additional Signatories
54
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1558
Electrification Coalition (EC)
55
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1604
Energy Innovation
56
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1590
Energy Marketers of America (EMA)
57
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1626
Energy Strategy Coalition
58
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1576
Energy Vision
59
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1644
Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)
(Part 1 of 2)
60
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1523
Environmental Protection Network
(EPN)
61
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1595
Evergreen Action
62
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1662
Fermata Energy
63
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1971
Field trips 101, Inc.
64
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1565
Ford Motor Company
65
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-2665
GreenLatinos et al.
Alliance of Nurses for Healthy
Environments, CALSTART,
C40 Cities, Center for Biological
Diversity, Chispa LCV, Clean
Air Coalition Laredo, Clean
Energy Works, Coltura,
Conservation Law Foundation,
Dream.org, Earthjustice, Electric
Vehicle Association, Endangered
Species Coalition,
EVHybridNoire, EV Charging
for All Coalition (EVCAC),
Evergreen Action, GRID
Alternatives, itselectric, La
Marana, Mothers Out Front
Silicon Valley, New Mexico
Voices for Children, Plug In
America, Project Green Home,
Prosperity Works, Respiratory
Health Association, Responsible
Alpha, Sierra Club, Southern
Alliance for Clean Energy,
Southwest Energy Efficiency
Project, The Asthma and Allergy
Foundation of America, The
Reno + Sparks Chamber of
Commerce, Together for
Brothers (T4B), Warehouse
Workers for Justice, Zero
Emission Transportation
Association (ZETA)
X
-------
Index
Docket Number
Commenter Name
Additional Signatories
66
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1507
Hexagon Agility Inc.
67
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1461
Hill Bros. Inc.
68
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1599
Howmet Wheel Systems
69
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1643
Institute for Policy Integrity at NYU
School of Law et al.
Center for Climate and Energy
Solutions; Clean Air Task Force;
Institute for Policy Integrity at
New York University School of
Law; Montana Environmental
Information Center; Natural
Resources Defense Council;
Sierra Club; Western
Environmental Law Center
70
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1553
International Council on Clean
Transportation
71
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1438
John Bailey
72
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1981
John Felton
73
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1497
Jonathan Moody, Holiday Companies,
Inc.
74
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1691
Jorge Morales
75
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-2675
KALA Consulting, LLC
76
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1506
Lion Electric, Co. USA
77
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1651
Lubrizol Corporation
78
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1470
Lynden Incorporated
79
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-2007
Mayor Becky Daggett, City of Flagstaff,
Arizona et al.
Aisha Chughtai, Council
Member, Ward 10 Minneapolis,
MN; Amy Falcone, Council
Member Kirkland, WA; Andrew
Johnson, Council Member
Minneapolis, MN; Andy
LaBarre, Member of the
Washtenaw County Board of
Commissioners, Ann Arbor, MI;
Angela Conley, County
Commissioner Minneapolis,
MN; Anthony (Tony) Palomba,
Councilor at-Large, City
Council, Watertown, MA;
Brendan Johnson, Oakland
County Commissioner Rochester
Hills, MI; Charlie Cavell,
Oakland County Commissioner
Pontiac, MI; Deputy Mayor Jay
Arnold Kirkland, WA; Dimple
Ajmcra. Council Member, At-
xi
-------
Index
Docket Number
Commenter Name
Additional Signatories
large Charlotte, NC; Dow
Constantine, King County
Executive Seattle, WA; Dr. Ajay
V. Raman, Oakland County
Commissioner, District 14 Novi,
MI; Elliott Payne, Council
Member Minneapolis, MN; Erica
Briggs, Council Member Ann
Arbor, MI; Jason Chavez, City
Council Member, Ward 9
Minneapolis, MN; Jeffrey Joneal
Lunde, Hennepin County
Commissioner Brooklyn Park,
MN; John Hayes, Chair,
Sustainability, Energy, and
Resiliency Committee, Salem,
MA; John Odell, Chief,
Department of Sustainability &
Resilience, Worcester, MA;
Katherine Golub, City Councilor
Greenfield, MA; Kelli Curtis,
Council Member Kirkland, WA;
Kelly Rae Kirkpatrick, Council
Member Rochester, MN; Kristen
Nelson, Oakland County
Commissioner Waterford, MI;
Marion Greene, Hennepin
County Commissioner
Minneapolis, MN; Martha
Simon, School Committee
Member Burlington, MA; Mayor
Angela Birney Redmond, WA;
Mayor Cassie Franklin Everett,
WA; Mayor Chance Cutrano
Fairfax, CA; Mayor Christopher
Taylor Ann Arbor, MI; Mayor
Devin T. Murphy Pinole, CA;
Mayor Jacob Frey Minneapolis,
MN; Mayor John J. Bauters
Emeryville, CA; Mayor Kim
Norton Rochester, MN; Mayor
Mason Thompson Bothell, WA;
Mayor Matt Mahan San Jose,
CA; Mayor Melvin Carter Saint
Paul, MN; Mayor Mike Nelson
Edmonds, WA; Mayor Penny
Sweet Kirkland, WA; Mayor Pro
Tem Braxton Winston Charlotte,
NC; Mayor Pro Tem Travis
Radina Councilmember, Ward 3,
Ann Arbor, MI; Mayor Viola
Lyles Charlotte, NC; Michael
Bettencourt, Select Board
Member Winchester, MA; Mitra
-------
Index
Docket Number
Commenter Name
Additional Signatories
Jun Jalali, Council Member Saint
Paul, MN; Robin Wonsley,
Council Member, Ward 2
Minneapolis, MN; RyanN.
Mello, Chair, Pierce County
Council Tacoma, WA; Samantha
Perlman, City Councilor
Marlborough, MA; Teresa
Mosqueda, Council Member
Seattle, WA; Trista Matas
Castillo, Chair, Ramsey County
Board of Commissioners, St.
Paul, MN
80
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1629
MCS Referral & Resources
81
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1521
MECA Clean Mobility
82
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1570
MEMA, The Vehicle Suppliers
Association
83
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1609
Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe (Band),
Department of Natural Resources
84
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1584
Missouri Farm Bureau Federation
(MOFB)
85
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1608
Moving Forward Network (MFN)
Center for Community Action
and Environmental Justice
(CCAEJ); Central California
Asthma Collaborative; Citizen
for a Sustainable Future;
CleanAirNow; Clean Water
Action NJ; Coalition for a Safe
Environment (CFASE); Comite
Civico Del Valle, Inc.;
Duwamish River Community
Coalition; EarthJustice; Paul
Cort, Sasan Saadat, Yasmine
Agelidis, Adrian Martinez; East
Yard Communities for
Environmental Justice (EYCEJ);
Environmental Health Coalition;
Greater Frenchtown
Revitalization Council;
GreenLatinos; Groundwork
Northeast Revitalization Group
(Groundwork NRG); Harambee
House/Citizen for Environmental
Justice; Ironbound Community
Corporation (ICC); Little Village
Environmental Justice
Organization (LVEJO);
Lowcountry Alliance for Model
Communities (LAMC); Mobile
Environmental Justice Action
Coalition (MEJAC); Natural
Resources Defense Council
xiii
-------
Index
Docket Number
Commenter Name
Additional Signatories
(NRDC); New Jersey
Environmental Justice Alliance
(NJEJA); People's Collective for
Environmental Justice ; Regional
Asthma Management and
Prevention (RAMP); Respiratory
Health Association (RHA);
Rethink Energy Florida; Robert
LaumbachM.D. ; Solutionary
Rail; Southeast CARE Coalition
Angela Harris; Raquel Garcia -
Southwest Detroit
Environmental Vision (SDEV);
South Ward Environmental
Alliance (SWEA); Sustainability
Action Network; Tallahassee
Food Network (TFN);
Warehouse Workers for Justice
(WWJ); West Long Beach
Neighborhood Association;
Union of Concerned Scientists
(UCS)
86
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1564
National Association of Chemical
Distributors (NACD)
87
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1499
National Association of Clean Air
Agencies (NACAA)
88
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1603
National Association of Convenience
Stores (NACS) et al.
NATSO: Representing America's
Travel Plazas and Truckstops;
SIGMA: America's Leading Fuel
Marketers
89
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1649
National Association of Manufacturers
90
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1478
National Association of Mutual
Insurance Companies (NAMIC)
91
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1592
National Automobile Dealers
Association (NADA)
92
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1622
National Corn Growers Association
(NCGA)
93
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1472
National Federation of Independent
Business (NFIB)
94
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1613
National Parks Conservation
Association (NPCA)
95
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1515
National Rural Electric Cooperative
Association (NRECA)
96
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1551
National Tank Truck Carriers, Inc.
(NTTC)
97
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1616
National Waste and Recycling
Association (NWRA)
98
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1522
Natural Gas Vehicles for America
(NGVAmerica)
xiv
-------
Index
Docket Number
Commenter Name
Additional Signatories
99
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1527
Navistar, Inc.
100
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1615
Neste US
101
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1896
Nicole, McKenzie
102
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1562
Northeast States for Coordinated Air
Use Management (NESCAUM) and
Ozone Transport Commission (OTC)
103
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1510
NTEA - The Association for the Work
Truck Industry
104
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1572
Nuwe Holding Corporation
105
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1623
Odyne Systems, LLC
106
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1588
Office of Attorney General, State of
California et al.
Connecticut; Hawaii; Illinois;
Maine; Maryland;
Massachusetts; Michigan;
Minnesota; New Jersey; New
York; North Carolina; Oregon;
Pennsylvania; Rhode Island;
Vermont; Washington;
Wisconsin; Chicago; Los
Angeles; New York
107
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1526
Office of the Attorney General, States of
California et al.
Connecticut; Delaware; Maine;
Maryland; Massachusetts; New
Jersey; New York; Oregon;
Pennsylvania; Washington; and
the District of Columbia
108
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1633
Our Children's Trust
109
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1632
Owner-Operator Independent Drivers
Association (OOIDA)
110
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1607
PACCAR, Inc.
111
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1528
POET, LLC
112
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1628
Proterra
113
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1529
RMI
114
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1655
Roush Clean Tech
115
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1486
RV Industry Association (RVIA)
116
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-2462
Sean San Josa
117
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1525
Schneider National, Inc.
XV
-------
Index
Docket Number
Commenter Name
Additional Signatories
118
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-2666, Day 2
South Carolina Trucking Association,
Rick Todd
119
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1575
South Coast Air Quality Management
District (AQMD)
120
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1639
South Dakota Department of
Agriculture and Natural Resources
(DANR)
121
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1554
Southern Environmental Law Center
(SELC)
122
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1520
Stellantis
123
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-2427
Steven G. Bradbury
124
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1647
Strong Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle
(PHEV) Coalition
125
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1587
TeraWatt Infrastructure, Inc.
126
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1505
Tesla, Inc.
127
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1488
Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF)
128
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1596
The International Union, United
Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America (UAW)
129
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1624
The Sulphur Institute (TSI)
130
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1534
Transfer Flow, Inc.
131
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1487
Transportation Departments of Idaho,
Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota
and Wyoming
132
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-2668
Truck & Engine Manufacturers
Association (EMA)
133
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1577
Truck Renting and Leasing Association
(TRALA)
134
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1583
U.S. Chamber of Commerce
135
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1635
U.S. Tire Manufacturers Association
(USTMA)
136
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1627
United Motorcoach Association (UMA)
137
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1619
United Steelworkers (USW)
138
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1514
United Steelworkers Union (USW)
139
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1566
Valero Energy Corporation
140
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1491
Vandalia Bus Lines Inc.
xvi
-------
Index
Docket Number
Commenter Name
Additional Signatories
141
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1606
Volvo Group North America
142
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1533
Western States Trucking Association
(WSTA)
143
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1567
Westport Fuel Systems
144
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1686
William Urban
145
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1612
Winnebago Industries, Inc.
146
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1601
World Resources Institute (WRI)
147
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-2429
Zero Emission Transportation
Association (ZETA)
xvii
-------
1 Introduction
EPA's Proposed Rule: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles -
Phase 3 was signed by Administrator Michael Regan on April 11, 2023. A pre-publication
version of the proposal was made available on EPA's website on April 12, 2023, after
Administrator Regan's announcement of the program but prior to publication of the proposal in
the Federal Register on April 27, 2023 (88 FR 25926 et seq.). The proposal indicated that the
rule would be open for public comment until June 16, 2023. The Docket ID No. for the rule is
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985.
This Response to Comments (RTC) document is a compilation of public comments submitted
to the public docket for this rule as well as EPA responses to those comments. Some aspects of
our responses appear in the preamble to the final rule or other documents in this rule's docket
and are incorporated by reference in this document.
This RTC document is organized by category of comment topic. The original documents
submitted by commenters, including any attachments, footnotes, tables, and figures, are included
in the docket.
More than 172,000 written comments were submitted to the public docket for this proposal.1
The vast majority of these, about 170,500 comments, were submitted in the form of 29 mass
comment campaigns. Some of these are identical letters submitted by many individuals, while
others consist of a petition with many signatures. The vast majority of comments submitted in
the form of mass comment campaigns express general support for the proposed rule or urge EPA
to adopt even more stringent standards to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from heavy-duty
engines and vehicles, although some other mass comment campaign commenters urged EPA not
to adopt the proposal. More information about the mass comment campaigns can be found in
Appendix B to this RTC document.
There were nearly 1,200 other, individual comments on the proposal submitted to the public
docket by individuals, organizations, companies, or government entities. Many of these
comments express support for the proposal or urge EPA to adopt more stringent standards,
although some express concern with or opposition to its adoption.
Of these comments, nearly 150 comments provide specific information and feedback about
particular data or assumptions used in EPA's analysis supporting the proposal or other aspects of
the proposal. A list of these comments can be found at the beginning of this RTC document.
They are reproduced verbatim, in excerpts, in the following sections, organized by issue topic.
Each section includes a summary of the comments received on that topic and EPA's response.
Note that an individual comment or part of an individual comment submitted by a particular
commenter may be reproduced in more than one section of this document if it contains
observations on more than one aspect of an issue. It is worth noting that if a comment has been
reproduced in more than one section it may be addressed in only one of those sections.
Conversely, an individual comment that touches on several issues may not be duplicated
verbatim across this document if the same issues were raised by other commenters. In other
1 The total numbers of comments excludes a mass comment campaign that was submitted twice to the docket (EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1540, identical to EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2155, 756 signatures).
1
-------
words, the responses contained in this document reply to the comments raised in the public
process and are not solely to the specific commenters' verbatim comments that precede the
responses in the document.
An additional 1,000 additional individual comments on the proposal express general support
for or opposition to the proposal and/or contain opinions or statements about issues but without
detailed data, information, or comment relating to specific provisions of the proposal or EPA's
supporting analysis. These comments are not reproduced verbatim in this document because they
do not raise issues with reasonable specificity. However, we note that we have provided a
detailed rationale for the final rule in the preamble and that, to the extent the same issues were
raised by other commenters with reasonable specificity, they are addressed in our responses in
this document. These comments are listed in Appendix A along with a brief description of their
overall nature.
EPA held a public hearing on the proposal, and the transcript of that hearing is included in the
docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2666). During the 2-day public hearing (May 2 and 3, 2023),
213 individuals testified. Appendix C contains a list of the testifiers and a brief description of the
overall nature of the testimony. If public testimony provides information that is specific in nature
and was not subsequently included in written comments submitted by the testifier or the
testifier's organization, that statement is included verbatim in this RTC document.
Comments received after the comment period closed were considered to the extent
practicable, and those received through July 18 are included in the various sections of this RTC
document. Additional comments that were received after July 18, 2024, are set out in Section 29.
The proposed rule included proposed revisions to the locomotive preemption regulations at 40
CFR part 1074; comments on those changes were submitted to the docket for this rule. EPA
finalized the changes to the locomotive preemption regulations in a separate final rule (88 FR
77004, November 8, 2023). The comments pertaining to the proposed locomotive preemption
regulation are addressed in that rulemaking.
The responses presented in this RTC document are intended to augment the rationale and
responses to comments that appear in the preamble to the final rule and to address comments not
discussed in the preamble to the final rule. To the extent there is any confusion or apparent
inconsistency between this RTC document and the preamble, the preamble itself remains the
definitive statement of the rationale for the final rule. This document, together with the preamble
to the final rule and the information contained in the Regulatory Impact Analysis, and related
technical support documents, should be considered collectively as EPA's response to all of the
significant comments submitted on the proposal.
2
-------
2 CO2 Standards
2.1 Legal Authority
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Alliance for Vehicle Efficiency (AVE)
AVE supports EPA's goal to reduce emissions from the heavy-duty vehicle segment of the
transportation sector. The automotive supplier community provides solutions to develop cost-
effective technologies to meet current and future emissions standards. AVE members appreciate
the continued partnership with EPA in advancing vehicle technologies through meaningful
standards that make a difference to the country's environmental goals, innovation, and
economy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1571-A1, p. 1]
AVE requests that EPA seek to maximize immediate environmental gains by implementing
greater flexibility into the Proposal's ZEV definition. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1571-A1, p. 2]
Considering the need for significant and immediate greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions, the
current definition of ZEVs serves as a barrier to automotive technologies that can deliver
significant real-world emission reductions. It serves as a de facto technology mandate and
undermines our national effort to dramatically reduce emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1571-A1, p. 2]
EPA's goal should be to reduce emissions from ALL new trucks since it is estimated that in
2050 over 70% of our energy consumption will continue to come from petroleum and natural
gas.4 This is another reason why EPA should do more to incentivize all technology options and
to further the development of the renewable fuels market. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1571-A1,
p. 3]
4 U.S. Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2022 (AEO2022)
AVE requests that EPA finalize a proposed rule that is truly technology neutral. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1571-A1, p. 4]
Despite claims of technology neutrality, the Proposal incentivizes specific technologies,
including BEVs and hydrogen fuel cell powered vehicles. AVE supports the development of
these important technologies, but our concern with such a pathway is well-established: An
incentive for one technology proves to be a disincentive for other technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1571-A1, p. 4]
To fully meet our environmental goals as a nation, EPA should encourage technology
investments in ALL heavy-duty truck platforms that significantly reduce C02. Heavy-duty
trucks sold today will remain on American roads for decades. Only focusing on how many BEVs
may be produced will ignore the need for reducing emissions from all other trucks. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1571-A1, p. 4]
Compliance pathways that incentivize the increased use of renewable fuels, advanced
emission control technologies, and new internal combustion platforms, will accelerate
3
-------
investment and fleet turnover with cost-effective technologies that are ready to be adopted today,
not eight to ten-years from now. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1571-A1, p. 4]
Furthermore, we should not base the success or failure of our environmental goals on the
public statements made by manufacturers and fleet owners. The Proposal should provide
alternatives for manufacturers to reach compliance if the proposed standards are not achievable
with only ZEV production. Incentivizing the production and use of renewable and low-carbon
fuels and cleaner engine systems will offer greater emissions reduction and be a strong hedge
against the unknowns we face as the heavy-duty fleet attempts to decarbonize. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1571-A1, p. 4]
The challenge of decarbonizing heavy-duty trucks demands action and hydrogen-powered
vehicles should be a part of the clean transportation solution because they are scalable, clean, and
affordable. All technology solutions should be implemented in parallel to address the urgent need
to solve the climate crisis. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1571-A1, p. 6]
Organization: Allison Transmission Inc.
Allison supports the EPA in developing durable regulations that provide certainty to our
industry, our supply chain, and our customers and that enables development of new technologies
such as BEV, FCEV, and ICE powered by renewable net-neutral fuels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1657-A2, p. 1]
Organization: American Free Enterprise Chamber of Commerce (AmFree) et al.
We are deeply concerned about the federal government's ongoing push to mandate the
electrification of the American vehicle fleet. While electric vehicles are a promising technology,
the attempt to mandate electrification rather than to improve efficiency and reduce emissions
through realistic, technology-neutral standards is both bad policy and, in many instances,
contrary to law. Unfortunately, this proposal exemplifies both problems. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1660-A1, p. 2]
EPA should not press forward with finalizing an unlawful, irrational rule that cannot succeed
and is unlikely to survive judicial scrutiny. The agency should instead engage meaningfully with
all affected stakeholders to develop sound, workable measures to address vehicle
emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1660-A1, p. 6]
DISCUSSION
EPA should not and cannot lawfully adopt the Heavy-Duty rule it has proposed. EPA lacks
statutory authority to remake the motor-vehicle industry, a massive segment of the Nation's
economy and daily life, by forcing manufacturers to produce electric and other zero-emission
vehicles. Even if EPA had such authority, the approach it has proposed in the Heavy-Duty rule is
arbitrary and irrational at every turn. The transformation it would mandate is not feasible,
especially on the proposed truncated timeline. EPA's projections of resulting emissions
reductions are unreliable, and its approach to assessing compliance is illogically selective and
sets the rule up for failure. EPA's cost-benefit analysis also suffers multiple fatal defects, and the
proposed rule fails to address obvious, more workable alternatives. Finally, by expanding the
issues on which California may (with EPA's future blessing) develop its own idiosyncratic (and
4
-------
even more aggressive) regulatory framework, the proposed rule exacerbates existing tension
between the Clean Air Act and the Constitution. EPA should not press forward with its unlawful
and unrealistic Heavy-Duty rule. It should instead engage meaningfully with stakeholders to
develop permissible, viable solutions to GHG emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1660-A1,
p. 8-9]
And it will have profound impacts on national security by forcing the American truck and
engine manufacturing industry to depend on critical minerals coming from foreign suppliers,
with geopolitical challenges—most notably, China—rather than a domestically-abundant and
secure resource. EPA should, but does not, address the market constraints for foreign sources of
critical minerals needed to produce EV batteries and copper for transmission wiring.25 These
issues go well beyond EPA's expertise, and the Agency is not positioned to fully grapple with
the consequences that such a rapid push for ZEV will have across the nation. EPA can only
proceed with the Proposed Rule if Congress bestowed clear authorization to do so. But Congress
did not. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1659-A2, p. 9]
25 International Energy Agency, The Role of Critical Minerals in Clean Energy Transitions (March 2022),
available at https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/ffd2a83b-8c30-4e9d-980a-
52b6d9a86fdc/TheRoleofCriticalMineralsinCleanEnergyTransitions.pdf: James Fernyhough, Copper Mine
Flashes Warning of 'Huge Crisis' for World Supply, Bloomberg News, May 2, 2023.
DISCUSSION
I. The Proposed Rule Exceeds EPA's Statutory Authority
Like every agency, EPA '"literally has no power to act' ... unless and until Congress
authorizes it to do so by statute." FEC v. Ted Cruz for Senate, 142 S. Ct. 1638, 1649 (2022)
(citation omitted). Moreover, under the major-questions doctrine, given the nature and breadth of
the power EPA claims to reshape a large sector of the economy, congressional authorization
would have to be unmistakably clear. But nothing in the Clean Air Act plausibly—let alone
clearly—authorizes EPA to mandate replacing a particular percentage of internal- combustion-
engine vehicles with a different category of vehicles that themselves emit no GHGs at all. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985- 1660-A1, p. 9]
A. The Forced Electrification Of The Country's Heavy-Duty Vehicles Is A Major Question
For the first time, EPA has proposed heavy-duty vehicle-emissions standards that it
recognizes cannot be met by internal-combustion-engine vehicles alone. Instead, as EPA
forthrightly admits, its proposed Heavy-Duty rule (like its proposed Light- and Medium-Duty
rule) would compel manufacturers to transform their heavy-duty vehicle fleets, by increasing the
percentage of electric vehicles from zero percent today to between 25 and 57 percent by 2032.
See 88 Fed. Reg. at 25,932, 25,940. That is the proposed rule's purpose, consistent with the
Administration's avowed goal "that 100 percent of all new medium and heavy-duty vehicles sold
in 2040 be zero-emission vehicles, with an interim 30 percent sales target for these vehicles in
2030."1 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1660-A1, pp. 9 - 10]
1 FACT SHEET: Biden-.Harris Administration Proposes New Standards to Protect Public Health that Will
Save Consumers Money, and Increase Energy Security, White House Briefing Room (Apr. 12, 2023),
https://www.whitehouse.gOv/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/04/12/factsheet-biden-harris-
administration-proposes-new-standards-to-protect-public-health-that-willsave-consumers-money-and-
increase-energy-security/.
5
-------
EPA's proposal "to substantially restructure" a major sector of the American economy
implicates the major-questions doctrine, under which EPA must identify '"clear congressional
authorization' for the power [EPA] claims." West Virginia v. EPA, 142 S. Ct. 2587, 2609-10
(2022) (citation omitted). The Supreme Court formally recognized and applied the major-
questions doctrine last Term in West Virginia, which rejected a similarly aggressive assertion of
regulatory power by EPA under the Clean Air Act. Under West Virginia and in a long line of
cases predating it, the proposed rule here presents a major question, for at least three
reasons. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1660-A1, p. 10]
First, EPA has claimed a power of "vast economic . . . significance," West Virginia, 142 S.
Ct. at 2605 (citation omitted): the power, in effect, to phase out internal-combustion-engine
heavy-duty vehicles in favor of electric vehicles. The financial consequences alone are
staggering: EPA's own estimates project that the rule will have a net effect of $320 billion, much
more than in West Virginia. 88 Fed. Reg. at 26,081; cf. Ala. Ass'n of Realtors v. HHS, 141 S.
Ct. 2485, 2489 (2021) (per curiam) (noting that the "sheer scope" of the agency's "claimed
authority . . . counsels] against the Government's interpretation"). The economic significance of
the proposed rule extends beyond those immediate financial effects. A shift of this scale would
have spillover effects on the broader economy that EPA's projections do not even attempt to
capture. For example, in addition to those who manufacture and purchase conventional vehicles,
the proposed rule would affect those who fuel them (oil, natural-gas, and biofuel producers), and
in turn other sectors that depend on those products (from asphalt to lubricants). These effects
would also spread to industries that rely on heavy-duty vehicles, such as the shipping,
construction, and agricultural industries. From any standpoint, the "magnitude" of the
"'unprecedented power over American industry'" EPA has claimed reflects a major question.
West Virginia, 142 S. Ct. at 2612 (quoting Indus. Union Dep't, AFL-CIO v. Am. Petroleum
Inst., 448 U.S. 607, 645 (1980)). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1660-A1, pp. 10-11]
Second, the proposed rule wades deep into issues of "political significance" that are "the
subject of an earnest and profound debate across the country." West Virginia, 142 S. Ct at 2613-
14 (citations omitted). Congress is currently considering vehicle electrification. See, e.g., Pub. L.
No. 117-58, §§ 25006, 40435, 40436, 135 Stat. 429, 845-49, 1050 (2021) (requiring reports on
"the cradle to grave environmental impact of electric vehicles" and supply-chain impacts).
Proposals have been introduced, for example, to impose electric-vehicle mandates, but none thus
far has made it out of committee. See, e.g., Zero-Emission Vehicles Act of 2019, H.R. 2764,
116th Cong.; Zero-Emission Vehicles Act of 2018, S. 3664, 115th Cong. That Congress has
"considered and rejected" such proposals is a sign that EPA is "attempting to 'work around' the
legislative process to resolve for itself a question of great political significance." West Virginia,
142 S. Ct. at 2620-21 (Gorsuch, J., concurring) (brackets and citations omitted). Just recently,
151 members of the U.S. House of Representatives, led by the Energy and Commerce
Committee Chair, joined a letter urging EPA to rescind these proposed emissions standards—
calling them an effort to "commandeer America's transportation sector and force its complete
vehicle electrification under the guise of mitigating climate change." Letter from Rep. Cathy
McMorris Rodgers et al. to Adm'r Michael S. Regan, at 1 (May 22, 2023). [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1660-A1, p. 11]
Third, EPA's assertion of authority here is an "unheralded power representing a
transformative expansion in its regulatory authority." West Virginia, 142 S. Ct. at 2610
(quotation marks omitted). Although EPA has long set emissions standards with which
6
-------
manufacturers must comply, until recently it has treated shifting to electric vehicles merely as
one "option" manufacturers may select that provides them "flexibility" in meeting much less
radical emissions standards. See, e.g., 77 Fed. Reg. 62,624, 62,917 (Oct. 15, 2012); NRDC v.
Thomas, 805 F.2d 410, 425 (D.C. Cir. 1986) ("EPA's argument that averaging will allow
manufacturers more flexibility in cost allocation while ensuring that a manufacturer's overall
fleet still meets the emissions reduction standards makes sense." (emphasis added)). Unlike the
proposed rule, prior heavy-duty emissions standards "were not in any way premised on the
application of [zero-emission vehicle] technologies." 88 Fed. Reg. at 25,957; see 88 Fed. Reg.
4296, 4304 (Jan. 24, 2023) (noting that standards in recent heavy-duty rule on criteria pollutants
were "not based on projected utilization of [zero-emission vehicle] technology"). [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1660-A1, pp. 11 - 12]
Under the proposed rule, however, manufacturers will have no choice but to introduce a
significant number of electric heavy-duty vehicles into their fleets to meet EPA's stringent
standards. EPA "based the proposed standards on technology packages that include both
[internal-combustion-engine] and [zero-emission vehicle] technologies," and it projects that by
2032, in order for manufacturers to comply with the standards, 50 percent of vocational vehicles,
35 percent of day-cab tractors, and 25 percent of sleeper-cab tractors will have to be electric. 88
Fed. Reg. at 25,933, 25,991. EPA's projections of a massive shift to a new, "non-emitting"
category of motor vehicles belie its suggestion that the proposed rule amounts to business as
usual and merely continues a longstanding regulatory approach. See id. at 25,929. As in West
Virginia, EPA has never previously claimed power to use emissions limitations to shift a
significant portion of this industry from one technology to another. Its proposed rule thus
embodies "an enormous and transformative expansion [of] EPA's regulatory authority." Util. Air
Regul. Grp. v. EPA, 573 U.S. 302, 324 (2014). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1660-A1. p. 12]
Like EPA's assertion of authority in West Virginia, its unprecedented claim of power in the
proposed rule to reshape a major industry through emissions limitations presents a major
question. EPA therefore lacks authority to promulgate the rule absent "'clear congressional
authorization' for the power [EPA] claims." West Virginia, 142 S. Ct. at 2609 (citation
omitted). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1660-A1, p. 12]
CONCLUSION
For all of these reasons, EPA should not and cannot lawfully promulgate the Heavy-Duty rule
it has proposed. The proposed rule would far exceed EPA's statutory authority and is arbitrary
and irrational in numerous respects. EPA should abandon this misguided approach and engage
meaningfully with stakeholders to develop lawful, empirically supported alternative approaches.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1660-A1, p. 70-71]
Organization: American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)
EPA contends President Biden's Executive Order 14037, "Strengthening American
Leadership in Clean Cars and Trucks," necessitates the proposed changes, but an executive order
cannot expand an agency's statutory authority. Likewise, EPA cannot transform the carrot from
Congress to voluntarily incentivize electric and fuel cell vehicle companies in the Inflation
Reduction Act and Bipartisan Infrastructure Law into a regulatory stick to require the
electrification of the transportation sector. The Proposed Rule far exceeds EPA's authority under
7
-------
the Clean Air Act. In setting truck standards that diesel-powered trucks cannot meet, EPA is
claiming authority to effectively ban ICEVs. However, Congress has never authorized and has
specifically rejected legislation to phase out ICEVs. Moreover, EPA fails to account for impacts
outside of the Agency's expertise and jurisdiction that would counsel against a ZEV mandate,
such as impacts on the economy, the demand and stability of the electric grid, the U.S. refining
and petrochemical industry, and national security. While the American Fuel & Petrochemical
Manufacturers ("AFPM") supports cost-effective efforts to increase fuel efficiency and reduce
the carbon intensity of transportation, we oppose a de facto mandate to a single compliance
option—the production of ZEVs. Instead, AFPM endorses a cost-effective, technology-neutral
approach for greenhouse gas emission standards that is authorized by Congress. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1659-A2, pp. 1 - 2]
AFPM represents the U.S. refining and petrochemical industries. Our members are committed
to sustainably manufacturing and delivering the fuels that power our transportation needs and
enable our nation to thrive. We are further committed to finding ways to improve emissions from
our nation's fleet of vehicles affordably and reliably. AFPM does not oppose ZEVs, which
should be part of a diverse transportation future. AFPM seeks to maintain a level playing field.
When considering the available suite of emission control technologies, EPA must pursue policies
built on a holistic assessment of a vehicle's cradle-to-grave lifecycle emissions - the carbon
intensity of different transportation fuels is only one component of that assessment. This
approach requires a complete evaluation of the GHG emissions from heavy-duty vehicles. EPA's
Proposed Rule fails to establish standards that take a comprehensive view of all available
technologies and their associated environmental impacts. Instead, the Proposed Rule forces
heavy-duty automotive electrification in a manner that both exceeds its statutory authority and
employs arbitrary and capricious decision-making. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1659-A2, p. 2]
EPA's Proposed Rule must be put in context. The Agency takes this action as part of a
"whole-of-government" effort to electrify the entire transportation sector. Contemporaneously to
this proposal: (1) EPA published a proposed rule to extend and substantially increase greenhouse
gas ("GHG") standards for light-duty vehicles; (2) the Department of Energy ("DOE") published
a proposal to revise its regulations regarding calculating a value for the petroleum-equivalent
fuel economy of electric vehicles ("EVs") for use in determining compliance with the Corporate
Average Fuel Economy program; 4 (3) the Internal Revenue Service proposed regulations
regarding the Inflation Reduction Act's New Clean Vehicle Credit; (4) the California Air
Resources Board ("CARB") submitted to EPA a preemption waiver for CARB's Advanced
Clean Cars II program, which requires all light-duty vehicles be electric, plug-in hybrid, or fuel
cell by 2035; and (5) EPA issued waivers for California's Advanced Clean Trucks Regulation,
the Zero Emission Airport Shuttle Regulation and the Zero-Emissions Power Train Certification
Regulation. These actions represent a coordinated effort to completely transform the
transportation sector. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1659-A2, p. 2]
4 88 Fed. Reg. 21525, 21526 (April 11, 2023).
EPA's Proposal Runs Afoul of the Major Question Doctrine
This rule requires 40-percent sales of zero-emission vehicles by 2032, up from 0.1 percent
globally for heavy-duty trucks, and 4 percent globally for bus fleets. 5 The Multi-Pollutant
Emissions Standards for Model Years 2027 and Later Light-Duty and Medium-Duty Vehicles
(Light-Duty Rule) would require close to 67 percent of new vehicles sold in model year 2032 to
8
-------
be ZEVs - a dramatic shift away from ICEVs.6 If promulgated, these proposals will
comprehensively convert vehicle and vehicle parts manufacturing, eliminate U.S. refining of
liquid fuels (including renewables), overhaul the electricity sector, require construction of a
coast-to-coast charging infrastructure system, and nationwide decommissioning of
approximately 145,000 fueling stations across the United States.7 The electrification required to
implement the Heavy-Duty and the Light-Duty Vehicle proposals profoundly impacts national
security by forcing the American truck and engine manufacturing industry to depend on critical
minerals coming from foreign suppliers, most notably China - rather than utilize domestically-
abundant and secure resources. The transformational shift of our nation's transportation and
electricity sectors raise "major questions" of "vast economic and political significance" that must
be addressed by Congress. 8 As explained in these comments, Congress clearly conveys its
preference to decarbonize liquid fuels through the Clean Air Act's Renewable Fuel Standard, and
to incentivize, not mandate, ZEVs through the Inflation Reduction Act and the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1659-A2, pp. 2 - 3]
5 Trends in electric heavy-duty vehicles, IEA (2022).
6 Multi-Pollutant Emissions Standards for Model Years 2027 and Later Light-Duty and Medium-Duty
Vehicles, 88 Fed. Reg. 29,329.
7 American Petroleum Institute, Service Stations FAQs, https://www.api.org/oil-and-natural-gas/consumer-
information/consumer-resources/service-station-
faqs#:~:text=How%20many%20service%20stations%20are,are%20convenience%20stores%20selling%20f
uel.
8 West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, 142 S. Ct. 2587 (2022).
The Proposal is Contrary to the Clean Air Act and the Energy Independence and Security Act
(EISA).
EPA lacks congressional authorization under the Clean Air Act to impose a single
manufacturing-shifting standard to all vehicle classes. Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act
authorizes EPA to only set "standards" for "emission[s]" from "any class or classes of new
motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, which . . . cause, or contribute to" the emissions of
pollutants.9 EPA's emissions standards address solely tailpipe emissions for a single class of
vehicles - ICEVs. EPA is authorized under the Clean Air Act to increase emissions standard
stringency through lower-polluting fuels and installation or enhancement of vehicle emissions
control technology. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1659-A2, p. 3]
9 Clean Air Act, Section 202(a).
EPA suggests a single fleet-wide emissions standard applicable to both ZEV and ICEV
classes, but that cannot be met by ICEVs alone. There is nothing in the statute to support EPA's
authority to allow averaging across vehicle classes. In fact, the Clean Air Act's regulatory
structure contemplates EPA regulating each vehicle class separately. EPA also attempts to
circumvent lead time requirements by not providing four full years that manufacturers need to
meet new standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1659-A2, p. 3]
The Agency also violates the Clean Air Act's requirement to sufficiently evaluate ZEVs' real-
world health and safety impacts. The docket is replete with documentation regarding the health
effects of tailpipe emissions but is devoid of any discussion of the full lifecycle impact of ZEVs
9
-------
and the safety implications of significantly heavier ZEVs and the risks posed by their
batteries. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1659-A2, pp. 3 - 4]
II. Banning the Internal Combustion Engine is a "Major Question" that Congress did not
Delegate to EPA.
The Proposed Rule goes beyond setting an appropriate and feasible GHG emissions standard
for all vehicle classes; rather, it establishes standards that require the OEMs to sell increasing
amounts of ZEVs and ultimately phase out ICEVs. Though EPA contends the proposed
standards do not mandate a specific technology (e.g., battery electric vehicles ("BEVs")), it
would be impossible for heavy-duty vehicle manufacturers to comply with the proposed
standards unless they shift production to ZEVs. Consequently, the Proposed Rule obligates
manufacturers to increase the percentage of ZEVs in their fleets at rates well in excess of market
forces. EPA predicts that for MY 2032, ZEV adoption rates will be between 15-57% across all
regulatory subcategories of vehicles covered by the Proposed Rule. 16 This is a tremendous jump
from the 0.2 percent of the heavy-duty vehicles ("HDV") that were ZEV certified by EPA in MY
2021.17 As a result, the Proposed Rule transforms the transportation system far beyond the
authority delegated to the Agency by Congress. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1659-A2, pp. 7-8]
16 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Heavy Duty
Vehicles: Phase 3, Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis," pg. 245,
https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P10178RN.pdf [hereinafter, "RIA"].
17 Proposed Rule, 88 Fed. Reg. at 25,940.
The question of whether the U.S. government will order vehicle manufacturers to shift
production to BEVs is a "major question" of economic significance that has not been delegated
to any agency, let alone EPA. The "major questions doctrine" holds Congress must "speak
clearly when authorizing an agency to exercise [such] powers" of "vast economic and political
significance." 18 And as EPA is aware, this doctrine applies in the context of environmental
regulation. In West Virginia v. EPA, the Supreme Court relied on the major questions doctrine in
holding that the EPA exceeded its statutory authority in adopting its Clean Power Plan. That
regulation sought to impose GHG caps by requiring utilities and other providers to shift
electricity production from coal-fired power to natural gas and then to renewable energy in place
of imposing source-specific requirements reflecting the application of state-of-the-art emission
reduction technologies. 19 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1659-A2, p. 8]
18 Nat'l Fed. Of Indep. Bus. v. Dep't of Labor, 595 U.S. , slip op. at 6 (Jan 13, 2022); see also Ala.
Assoc. of Realtors v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 141 S. Ct. 2485, 2489 (2021); Utility Air
Regulatory Group v. EPA, 573 U.S. 302, 324 (2014); U.S. Telecom Assoc. v. FCC, 855 F.3d 381, 419-21
(D.C. Cir. 2017) (Kavanaugh, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc) (explaining provenance of
"major rules doctrine").
19 West Virginia v. EPA, 597 U.S. _ (2022).
As noted by the Court, EPA "announced] what the market share of coal, natural gas, wind,
and solar must be, and then require[d] plants to reduce operations or subsidize their competitors
to get there."20 EPA's attempt to devise GHG emissions caps based on a generation-shifting
approach would have had major economic and political significance impacting vast swaths of
American life and substantially restructured the American energy market; however, EPA's
purported authority was only based on a "vague statutory grant" within Section 111(d) of the
10
-------
Clean Air Act—far from the "clear authorization required by [Supreme Court]
precedents."21 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1659-A2, p. 8]
20 Id., slip op. at 33, n.4.
21 Id., slip op. at 24.
EPA's Proposed Rule presents an analogous situation. Mandating a GHG emissions standard
requiring a rapid transformation from ICEVs to ZEVs will dramatically reshape the American
transportation system. While it is impossible, given the abbreviated public comment period, to
quantify the full economic impact of EPA's effort to mandate the conversion of light-, medium-,
and heavy-duty ICEVs to ZEVs, it is clear EPA's rulemakings directly impact the entire
transportation system and will have collateral effects of "vast economic and political
significance" without any congressional authorization. Indeed, as discussed below, Congress
expressed its preference for incentives, rather than mandate. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1659-
A2, p. 8]
As further discussed herein, the direct compliance costs are enormous - EPA estimates that
the cost of vehicle technology (not including the vehicle or battery tax credits) and electric
vehicle supply equipment ("EVSE") would be approximately $9 billion and $47 billion
respectively, and these figures do not include the enormous investments required by the electric
power sector (i.e., upgrades to power generation, transmission, and distribution infrastructure).22
The reach of this proposal is vast. Virtually every product delivered by a heavy-duty vehicle, and
the petroleum supply industry (from upstream oil extraction to the retail sale of gasoline), the
trucking industry, and agricultural interests will be impacted by EPA's proposal. The Proposed
Rule could change what consumers are able to purchase by commanding a market transition to
an entirely different product. The Proposed Rule undoubtedly forces manufacturers to meet
production lead times that would not exist but for EPA's new ZEV mandate. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1659-A2, p. 9]
22 Proposed Rule at 25,935.
Beyond the obvious impacts to heavy-duty vehicle and utility markets, the Proposed Rule will
eliminate American jobs in the refining sector. The Proposed Rule will significantly strain the
electric grid, requiring utilities to rapidly increase generation, transmission, and distribution
capacity to a degree not fully analyzed by EPA. EPA assumes the Inflation Reduction Act
("IRA") incentives will contribute significant quantities of electricity generated from renewable
sources.23 Yet, the U.S. may need to invest $4.5 trillion to fully transition the U.S. power grid to
renewables during the next 10-20 years, annual investments exceeding the U.S. defense budget
and not fully provided for by the IRA.24 Clearly such expenditures require congressional
approval. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1659-A2, p. 9]
23 88 Fed. Reg. at 25,935, n.63.
24 Dan Shreve and Wade Schauer, Deep decarbonization requires deep pockets (June 2019),
https://www.decarbonisationthink.woodmac.com/.
And it will have profound impacts on national security by forcing the American truck and
engine manufacturing industry to depend on critical minerals coming from foreign suppliers,
with geopolitical challenges—most notably, China—rather than a domestically-abundant and
secure resource. EPA should, but does not, address the market constraints for foreign sources of
11
-------
critical minerals needed to produce EV batteries and copper for transmission wiring.25 These
issues go well beyond EPA's expertise, and the Agency is not positioned to fully grapple with
the consequences that such a rapid push for ZEV will have across the nation. EPA can only
proceed with the Proposed Rule if Congress bestowed clear authorization to do so. But Congress
did not. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1659-A2, p. 9]
25 International Energy Agency, The Role of Critical Minerals in Clean Energy Transitions (March 2022),
available at https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/ffd2a83b-8c30-4e9d-980a-
52b6d9a86fdc/TheRoleofCriticalMineralsinCleanEnergyTransitions.pdf; James Fernyhough, Copper Mine
Flashes Warning of 'Huge Crisis' for World Supply, Bloomberg News, May 2, 2023.
As with the Clean Power Plan, EPA lacks Congressional authorization in the Clean Air Act to
impose a manufacturing shifting standard to a preferred powertrain and effectively order
regulated parties to phase out combustion engine technologies. EPA's standard-setting tools are
limited to those which Congress provided in Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. Here, EPA is
only authorized to set "standards" for "emission[s]" from "any class or classes of new motor
vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, which . . . cause, or contribute to," potentially harmful air
pollution. EPA has elected to focus solely on tailpipe emissions. But ZEV do not have tailpipe
emissions of carbon dioxide, the pollutant of concern here, so the operation of such vehicles
alone cannot "cause, or contribute to," air pollution within the scope of a tailpipe emissions
regulation, especially when EPA does not require vehicle manufacturers to account for the
upstream emissions from ZEVs in their compliance calculations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1659-A2, pp. 9-10]
Far from "clear congressional authorization," Section 202(a) provides EPA no authority to set
standards that go above and beyond that which could be achieved by improvements to ICEVs
alone, such that manufacturers must completely cease to produce the underlying technology
governed at the time the Clean Air Act was adopted and amended. Notably, Congress instituted a
clean fuel vehicles program with reference to "clean alternative fuel" vehicles, which includes
BEVs, in its 1990 updates to the Clean Air Act. In doing so, Congress explicitly distinguished
such vehicles from "conventional gasoline-fueled or diesel-fueled vehicles of the same category
and model year," dispelling the notion that BEVs and ICEVs can be lumped together to set
standards that are designed for the former to eventually displace the latter.26 While EPA points
to the clean fuel vehicles program to suggest it has the authority to set standards related to
ZEVs,27 EPA does not—and cannot—explain how such authority can be read to regulate ZEVs
and ICEVs under a common standard.28 It is no surprise then that until the current
Administration, EPA has never claimed the authority to mandate even partial
electrification. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1659-A2, p. 10]
26 42 U.S.C. §§ 7581, 7582(b); see also § 7585(a) (defining NOx and non-methane hydrocarbon emission
standards for heavy-duty clean-fuel vehicles as a percentage of conventional heavy-duty vehicles).
27 88 Fed. Reg. at 25,950.
28 AFPM does not dispute EPA's authority to regulate ZEV emissions consistent with Title II of the CAA.
Congress clarified that it, not EPA, must make the important policy decisions affecting if,
when, and how the American transportation system will transition from ICEVs to ZEVs. In the
116th Congress, for example, Congress introduced 44 bills seeking to reduce petroleum-based
fuel consumption and GHG emissions from the transportation sector through customer rebates,
vehicle and fuel producer incentives, local funding, development of standards, and research and
12
-------
development. But none went so far as to propose requiring adoption, let alone mass adoption of
heavy-duty ZEVs through the phase-out of ICEVs.29 In fact, Congress rejected bills banning the
sale of new light duty ICEVs by 204030 and it has consistently disapproved of EPA's efforts to
hamstring the vehicle sector with more stringent air pollution standards than are
feasible.31 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1659-A2, p. 10]
29 "Alternative Fuel and Vehicles: Legislative Proposals," Congressional Research Service (July 28, 2021).
30 See Zero-Emission Vehicles Act of 2019, H.R. 2764, 116th Cong. (2019); Zero-Emission Vehicles Act
of 2018, S. 3664, 115th Cong. (2018); see also 116 Cong. Rec. 19238-40 (1970) (proposed amendment to
Title II that would have banned ICE vehicles by 1978).
31 See, e.g., S. J. Res. 11, 118th Cong. (2023) (Although passed only by the Senate thus far, the joint
resolution calls for disapproval of the rule submitted by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency relating to "Control of Air Pollution From New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle
Standards," 88 Fed. Reg. 4296 (January 24, 2023).).
More telling, in April of this year, both houses of Congress passed a Congressional Review
Act resolution to rescind EPA's December 2022 heavy-duty NOx standards, sending a strong
signal that Congress views EPA's efforts in this space as unnecessary, infeasible, and
uninformed in light of economic and energy security concerns.32 It should be no surprise then
that in the wake of the Proposed Rule and EPA's parallel proceedings proposing new standards
for light-duty vehicles,33 members of Congress requested the Agency to rescind the proposals,
asserting they "effectively mandate a costly transition to electric cars and trucks in the absence of
congressional direction."34 That Congress intended for it, not EPA, to direct these policy
decisions is made all the more clear by the passage of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law
("BIL")35 and the IRA,36 whereby Congress identified the policy levers it deemed appropriate.
Congress could have, but did not, direct EPA to establish a fleet-wide credit trading regime to
further drive ZEV development and rapid adoption. The Proposed Rule also stands in opposite to
the Renewable Fuel Standard Program, whereby Congress mandated that "gasoline sold or
introduced into commerce in the United States" must contain a year-over-year increasing share
of renewable fuels37 and, in 2022, must include tens of billions of gallons of renewable fuel.38
There is no similar congressional instruction to EPA directing a shift in transportation
technology from vehicles that can operate on increasing volumes of renewable fuel to ZEVs. In
fact, such a statutory construction contradicts the Clean Air Act's Renewable Fuel Standard.
Consequently, Congress, not EPA, most determine how to regulate electrification of
transportation either through market forces influenced by several billion dollars earmarked in the
IRA, the mandates such as those EPA proposed, or through some other mechanism. EPA does
not have the proper expertise or authority to make this threshold decision.39 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1659-A2, pp. 10-11]
32 Senate Resolution S.J. Res. 11, 118th Congress (April 26, 2026); House Resolution H2523 (May 23,
2023); see also Congressional Record, H2523 (May 23, 2023) at 1444, Statement from Mr. Walberg (R-
MI) ("From tailpipe emissions regulations that will force people to buy expensive and less practical EVs to
new rules on power plants that will threaten the reliability of our electric grid. It seems like the EPA hasn't
even thought about the economic and energy security of our constituents."). See also U.S. EPA, Our
Nation's Air: Trends Through 2021 (Since 1990, annual concentrations of nitrogen dioxide have fallen by
61%, with 85% of nitrogen dioxide concentrations below the National Ambient Air Quality Standards) in
2021.
33 Multi-Pollutant Emissions Standards for Model Years 2027 and Later Light-Duty and Medium-Duty
Vehicles, 88 Fed. Reg. 29,184 (May 5, 2023).
13
-------
34 Letter from Senator Shelley Capito, et al. to Administrator Michael S. Regan, EPA (May 25, 2023).
35 Public Law 117-58, November 15, 2021.
36 Public Law 117-169, August 16, 2022.
37 42 U.S.C. § 7545(o)(2)(A)(i).
38 Id., § 7545(o)(2)(B); 87 Fed. Reg. 39,600 (July 1, 2022).
39 See "Grassley-Cornyn Bill Pulls Plug on Latest Biden Boon for EVs," (May 18, 2023),
https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-cornyn-bill-pulls-plug-on-latest-biden-boon-
for-evs (discussing proposed legislation entitled "No Fuel Credits for Batteries Act" introduced to
"preserve the integrity of the Renewable Fuels Standard" in light of EPA's proposed E-RINS rule").
III. The Proposed Rule Contravenes the Clean Air Act and Energy Independence and Security
Act.
A. EPA Lacks Statutory Lacks Statutory Authority to Set Fleetwide-Average Emission
Standards, and EPA May Not Average In Vehicles that Do Not Emit the Relevant Pollutant.
As set forth in detail in the attached brief, EPA lacks statutory authority under Section 202(a)
of the Clean Air Act to set fleetwide emission standards, and even if it had such authority, it
could not lawfully use it to force electrification by including vehicles that have no tailpipe
emissions in the fleetwide average standard for ICEVs. The Proposed Rule results in fleet-wide
standards that cannot be met by ICEVs alone; however, under the Clean Air Act, EPA may only
set individual vehicle-level emission standards. Such standards must be for "emission[s]" from
"any class or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, which . . . cause, or
contribute to," potentially harmful air pollution.40 The plain language of this provision
authorizes EPA to set standards for classes of individual vehicles or engines that emit air
pollutants. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1659-A2, p. 12]
40 42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(1).
The Clean Air Act does not authorize EPA to create an emissions standard premised on
accounting for vehicles that EPA views as emission-less within the constructs of a tailpipe
emissions regulation. For HDVs specifically, emission standards must reflect "the greatest
degree of emission reduction achievable through the application of technology which the [EPA]
determines will be available" during the relevant model year.41 The Supreme Court has noted
that similar language in Section 111(d) of the Act generally refers to "measures that would
reduce pollution by causing [pollution sources] to operate more cleanly."42 But ZEVs are not the
"technology" contemplated by Congress here. Instead, Congress enabled EPA to increase
emission standard stringency through cleaner fuels and improved emissions-related systems to be
incorporated into ICEVs such as advances in fuel injection, exhaust gas combustion
management, and catalysts to neutralize pollutants of concern.43 By factoring in ZEV
performance as a part of its averaging scheme, EPA is ignoring the technological feasibility of
emissions-related systems and simply requiring the production of fewer ICEVs. The Proposed
Rule does not consider advances to ICE technologies when setting the standard. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1659-A2, p. 12]
41 42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(3)(A)(i).
42 West Virginia, 142 S. Ct. at 2599.
14
-------
43 For example, Section 202(m) requires the monitoring of "emission-related systems" such as the
"catalytic converter and oxygen sensor." 42 U.S.C. § 7521(m)(l).
And even for criteria pollutants emitted from ICEVs, the Clean Air Act says nothing about
averaging across fleets or banking and trading credits across different model years, different
vehicle classes, and vehicle manufacturers. While EPA has previously adopted fleetwide
averaging, it has also acknowledged that "Congress did not specifically contemplate an
averaging program when it enacted the Clean Air Act."44 And "[jjust as the statute does not
explicitly address EPA's authority to allow averaging, it does not address the Agency's authority
to permit banking and trading."45 By definition, then, the Act does not address—let alone
clearly authorize—the use of averaging, banking, and trading in a manner that mandates
electrification of the national vehicle fleet of heavy-duty motor vehicles and motor vehicle
engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1659-A2, pp. 12 - 13]
44 48 Fed. Reg. 33,456, 33,458 (July 21, 1983).
45 54 Fed. Reg. 22,652, 22,665 (May 25, 1989); see 55 Fed. Reg. 30,584, 30,593 (July 26, 1990) (same).
The structure of the Clean Air Act and its regulatory provisions for standard setting,
certification, compliance enforcement, warranties, and penalties also directly conflict with a
fleet-wide averaging regulatory regime. Notably, under Section 202(a), EPA "shall test, or
require to be tested in such manner as [it] deems appropriate, any new motor vehicle or new
motor vehicle engine submitted by a manufacturer" and issue a certificate of conformity "if such
vehicle or engine" complies with the standards.46 And EPA must "test any emission control
system incorporated in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine ... to determine whether such a
system enables such vehicle or engine to conform to the standards required to be prescribe under
[Section 202(b)] of the Act."47 Section 202(b)(3) further authorizes EPA to grant waivers from
certain nitrogen-oxide emission standards-which, again, are standards "under" Section 202(a),
for no "more than 5 percent of [a] manufacturer's production or more than fifty thousand
vehicles or engines, whichever is greater."48 This provision would be nonsensical under a
fleetwide-averaging regime where, if applied, a manufacturer could essentially give itself a
waiver for large swaths of its fleet by over-complying for certain product lines. Taken together,
the Clean Air Act regulatory framework contemplates EPA regulating vehicles on an individual
basis. But this cannot be accomplished if there is not a clear emission standard applicable to a
single vehicle at the start of a model year. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1659-A2, p. 13]
46 42 U.S.C. § 7525(a)(1).
47 42 U.S.C. § 7525(a)(2).
48 42 U.S.C. § 7521(b)(3).
B. EPA Fails to Adequately Evaluate ZEV Safety Risks and Incidental Emissions as Required
by Clean Air Act Section 202(a)(4), as well as associated real-world costs.
In setting new emissions standards, EPA must consider whether any technology used to
comply with the requirements "will cause or contribute to an unreasonable risk to public health,
welfare, or safety in its operation or function" as well as "to what extent the use of any device,
system or element of design causes, increases, reduces, or eliminates emissions of any
unregulated pollutants."49 The Proposed Rule's health and safety assessment, however, is
myopically limited to the health effects of tailpipe emissions. Therefore, it fails to fully account
15
-------
for all the risks posed by more ZEVs on the road. Nor does it account for the emissions impacts
from the full life cycle of ZEVs, particularly heavy-duty ZEVs with batteries that may not
achieve either "useful life" standards or mandatory emission control technology warranties
applicable to other vehicles with emission standards issued under the Clean Air Act. To the
extent heavy-duty ZEVs and their batteries have not been demonstrated to achieve useful life
standards and minimum emission control warranty requirements, in real-world operation, EPA
must include their replacement costs as part of their analysis; EPA has not. Notably, EPA does
not consider that ZEVs—particularly BEVs—are heavier than equivalent ICEVs and, therefore,
may result in more severe accidents given the additional mass of the battery. As recognized by
National Highway Transportation Safety Authority ("NHTSA") Administrator Ann Carlson,
"[b]igger is safer if you don't look at the communities surrounding you and you don't look at the
other vehicles on the road . . . [i]t actually turns out to be a very complex interaction."50 Yet
EPA has not considered this interaction, on safety directly or the associated increase in insurance
costs,51 which is all the more critical to the Proposed Rule as commercial trucks are involved in
13 percent of all fatal crashes on U.S. roadways and these trucks will be heavier and faster under
the Proposed Rule.52 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1659-A2, p. 14]
49 42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(4)(A) and (B).
50 Reuters, "U.S. NTSB chair raises safety concerns about heavy electric vehicles," David Shepardson
(January 11, 2023) available at https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/us-ntsb-chair-raises-
safety-concerns-about-heavy-electric-vehicles-2023-01-11/.
51 Jason Metz & Michelle Megna, Electric Car Insurance: Why It Costs More (Jan. 4, 2023),
https://www.forbes.com/advisor/car-insurance/electric-vehicle/ (explaining that electric vehicles are
costlier to insure)
52 U.S. DOT, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, "2020 Pocket Guide to Large Truck and Bus
Statistics," available at https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/sites/fmcsa.dot.gov/files/2020-
10/FMCSA%20Pocket%20Guide%202020-v8-FIN AL-10-29-2020.pdf.
1. EPA May Not Use the Proposed Rule to Sidestep Regulatory Limits Established under the
Energy Independence and Security Act.
Under Section 103 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 ("EISA"), NHTSA
has the exclusive authority to issue fuel efficiency standards for medium and heavy-duty
vehicles. Because fuel economy and GHG emissions are two sides of the same coin, EPA issued
joint standards with NHTSA in prior Phase 1 and Phase 2 heavy-duty GHG emission standard
proposals. But EPA did not do the same for the proposed Phase 3 standards here. If it did, the
joint standards would have to comply with the EISA requirement that all new fuel
efficiency standards "shall provide not less than 4 full model years of regulatory lead time."56
That means a fuel efficiency standard promulgated in calendar year 2023 cannot be implemented
until MY 2028. The Proposed Rule does not meet this standard and, because it effectively
promulgates equivalent fuel efficiency standards in the form of greenhouse gas emissions
standards, is undercutting Congress's intent in EISA and regulating in a way that is inconsistent
with NHTSA's authority.57 Similarly, the joint standards would have to comply with the EISA
requirement that NHTSA may not consider the fuel economy of electric vehicles in setting fuel
economy standards.58 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1659-A2, pp. 14 - 15]
56 49 U.S.C. 32902(k). In contrast, under the Clean Air Act, new heavy-duty emission standards can begin
"no earlier than the model year commencing 4 years after such revised standard is promulgated." 42 U.S.C.
§ 7521(a)(3)(C).
16
-------
57 See Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 532 (2007) ("The [EPA and NHTSA] obligations may
overlap, but there is no reason to think the two agencies cannot both administer their obligations and yet
avoid inconsistency.").
58 49 U.S.C. 32902(h).
B. The Proposed Rule is Arbitrary and Capricious.
In addition to the fact that the proposal is infeasible, and the data and analysis gaps identified
along this section raises additional concerns, that would render EPA's finalization of this
proposed rule arbitrary and capricious. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1659-A2, p. 23]
1. EPA Cannot Adequately Substantiate the Need for Regulatory Action
EPA states the "need for regulatory action" is supported by the BIL and the IRA, which
"together include many incentives for the development, production, and sale of ZEVs, electric
charging infrastructure, and hydrogen, which are expected to spur significant innovation in the
heavy-duty sector."88 True, the BIL and IRA support the government-wide approach to reducing
emissions through the manufacture, sale, and use of ZEVs. According to EPA, the BIL and IRA
will lead to an increase in Class 4-8 ZEV sales anywhere between 13 and 48 percent, with
an average of 29 percent by 2029.89 And the IRA alone is anticipated to result in a 32-40
percent decrease in GHG emissions, compared to 2005 levels, over the same period.90 But the
BIL and IRA do not empower EPA to promulgate ZEV mandates or phase out the use of ICEVs.
Congress could have chosen to mandate ZEVs and instead chose to provide incentives through
the BIL and IRA. If Congress desired EPA to phase out ICE and mandate ZEV, it would have
said so (and if Congress believed that EPA has existing authority under the Clean Air Act to
mandate ZEVs, it may very well have concluded that incentivizing ZEVs via the BIL and IRA
was unnecessary). EPA cannot interpret congressional silence in the IRA and BIL as tacit
acceptance of its approach here.91 Thus, EPA's reliance on these Acts to underwrite proposed
standards' feasibility is arbitrary and capricious. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1659-A2, pp. 23 -
24]
88 Proposed Rule at 25,928.
89 Proposed Rule at 25,941.
90 Congressional Research Service, Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA): Provisions Related to Climate
Change, 2 (Oct. 3, 2022).
91 The BIL and IRA themselves are at risk of recission under a new Administration or Congress. See, e.g.,
Josh Siegel and Kelsey Tamborrino, Politico, GOP's debt-limit plan would gut Biden's climate law. White
House's response: 'Jobs' (Apr. 20, 2023), available at https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/20/house-
gop-debt-limit-plan-inflation-reduction-act-00092891 ("The GOP proposal would revive a prior $7,500 tax
credit for qualifying electric vehicles, but would restore that tax break's per-manufacturer limit of 200,000
vehicles. It would entirely repeal the IRA's new incentives for critical battery minerals that are extracted
from the U.S. or a close trading partner, and for batteries manufactured or assembled in North America.").
The structure of the Clean Air Act and its regulatory provisions for standard setting also are
premised on EPA identifying sources of emissions that cause or contribute to non-attainment
with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards ("NAAQS"). However, EPA makes no attempt
to outline a baseline scenario whereby all stationary and mobile sources in the country achieve
current EPA standards. Such a baseline is necessary because it is the only means by which the
agency and the public can compare the marginal costs and benefits of further tightening emission
17
-------
standards and deploying different technologies and alternatives. EPA's failure to conduct either a
baseline or marginal analysis (while also failing to account for billions of dollars in costs) is
inconsistent with the structure of the Clean Air Act, and good regulatory practice, and makes it
impossible to conduct an alternatives analysis, as required under Executive Order 12866
(Regulatory Planning and Review) and OMB Circular A-4; as such, the proposed rule, if
finalized, is arbitrary and capricious. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1659-A2, p. 24]
2. EPA Fails to Adequately Account for the Lifecycle Emissions of ZEVs.
As discussed above, because EPA may only prescribe standards applicable to vehicles that
"cause or contribute" to air pollution, its standards cannot account for ZEVs with no tailpipe
emissions. However, if EPA is authorized to promulgate such standards, those standards must
account for any upstream emissions from upstream electric generating units ("EGU"), and the
mining of battery materials. The failure to do so ignores the policy objectives of the statute and
creates an uneven playing field that substantially disadvantages ICEVs and fails to address a
major aspect of GHG emission reduction. Indeed, Clean Air Act Section 202(a)(4)(B) requires
that EPA calculate these lifecycle emissions impacts. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1659-A2,
p. 24]
Organization: American Petroleum Institute (API)
c. Both this proposal and the light- and medium-duty proposal miss the mark.
i. EPA is missing millions of vehicles that will contribute to emissions
API is concerned that this proposal, as well as EPA's light- and medium-duty proposed GHG
rule, seriously misses the mark with respect to reducing carbon emissions from the transportation
sector. The proposals focus heavily on ZEV technologies, and specifically BEVs, for reductions
in the 2027 to 2032 timeframe. Yet, EPA is leaving emissions reductions on the table for existing
HD vehicles, given HD vehicles' lifespan, as well as new ICEVs that will be sold between now
and 2032. EPA's overly limited focus on ZEV solutions, and specifically BEVs, ignores options
that could better accomplish the agency's objectives to achieve greater transportation sector-
related emission reductions at lower cost to society. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1617-A1, p. 6]
According to data from the American Trucking Associations (ATA), over 38 million trucks
were registered and used for business purposes (excluding government and farm) in 20203, with
an additional 400,000-500,000 HD trucks expected to be sold annually, based on data over the
past decade4. The proposed rule's focus on new zero-emission vehicles ignores the secondary
benefit that a technology-neutral approach could accomplish through reductions from millions of
in-fleet vehicles that will contribute to carbon emissions over the life of the program. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1617-A1, p. 6]
3 American Trucking Associations "Economics and Industry Data": https://www.trucking.org/economics-
andindustry-data.
4 "ATD Data 2022", North American Dealers Association - American Truck Dealers division
(https://www.nada.org/media/5008/download7inline).
ii. EPA failed to address carbon reductions in the existing HDV fleet to help achieve near
term emission reductions
18
-------
Fuel- and vehicle-based carbon reduction solutions are currently available in the marketplace,
and could achieve nearer-term emission reductions from the existing HD fleet. A singular focus
on future ZEV technologies (some of which may not come to fruition as anticipated) does not
seem to meet the stated goals of the proposed program. The proposal would require the use of
potential technologies that are unproven at the scale of the current market, would depend on
infrastructure that is not yet available, and would be on an extremely challenging (at best)
timeline. Meaningful carbon emission reductions are achievable sooner, and potentially at lower
cost, via the use of proven and available technology. For example, the U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE) Co-Optimization of Fuels & Engines (Co-Optima) initiative examined fuels and
engine/vehicle technologies simultaneously.5 The combination of sustainable fuels uncovered by
Co-Optima research can reduce the emissions of vehicles now, while enabling a faster transition
to net-zero-carbon emissions for on-road transportation in the future. Such an approach could be
utilized by EPA to better achieve the stated goals of the proposed Phase 3 program. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1617-A1, pp. 6 - 7]
5 U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, "The Road Ahead Toward
a Net-Zero-Carbon Transportation Future Findings and Impact, FY15-FY21"
(https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2022-06/beto-co-optima-fyl5-fy21-impact.pdf).
1. Technology neutrality - all solutions should be allowed to compete
In the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA states that "[t]he proposed standards do not
mandate the use of a specific technology, and EPA anticipates that a compliant fleet under the
proposed standards would include a diverse range of technologies, including ZEV and ICE
vehicle technologies." (81 FR 25952) EPA further notes that the proposal does not mandate ZEV
sales like California's programs. However, we disagree, as the stringency of the proposed
standards - and even the technology mixes suggested by EPA in the proposal - essentially forces
manufacturers to solely focus development efforts on BEVs. API strongly believes in an all-of-
the-above strategy to reducing carbon emissions, and we recommend that EPA adjust the
standards to allow all solutions the ability to compete. Further, doing so would provide more
time for nascent technologies to be proven with less risk to vehicle original equipment
manufacturers (OEMs) and the public if these technologies do not pan out in the proposal's
implementation timeframe. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1617-A1, p. 7]
To that end, various studies have highlighted the importance of allowing all technologies to be
utilized to reduce emissions faster, more effectively, and at a lower cost.6 7 By limiting the
scope to tailpipe emissions, the proposal is inherently not technology neutral. Setting strict
tailpipe-only standards results in a limited, prescribed solution set. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1617-A1, p. 7]
6 "Environmental Benefits of Medium- and Heavy-Duty Zero Emission Vehicles Compared with Clean
Bio- & Renewable-Fueled Vehicles 2022-2032," prepared for Diesel Technology Forum by Stillwater
Associates LLC, July 19, 2022.
7 "Multi-Technology Pathways to Achieve California's Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Goals: Heavy-
Heavy-Duty Truck Case Study," prepared for Western States Petroleum Association by Ramboll US
Consulting, Inc., February 1, 2021.
2. Current and future solutions - lower carbon fuels, hydrogen, ICE-based solutions
19
-------
As previously noted in our comments, lower carbon options currently exist and could be used
for near-term reductions as well as the early years of the HD GHG Phase 3 program. Lower
carbon fuels are available in the market now, and research and development to bring costs down
and improve operability is ongoing. Vehicle-based solutions also currently exist and are being
developed, including the development of engines and vehicles to meet EPA's recently finalized
HD LowNOx program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1617-A1, pp. 7 - 8]
g. Legal Concerns.
The Phase 3 proposal is fundamentally different than the Phase 1 and Phase 2 HD GHG rules
that preceded it. Rather than continuing to rely exclusively on improved technology for gasoline-
and diesel-powered vehicles, the rule instead would establish standards that require a significant
portion of new vehicle production and sales to consist of ZEVs (again, most of which EPA
projects would be BEVs). While we believe that ZEVs can and should be a choice available to
manufacturers and vehicle purchasers, we disagree that EPA should impose a binding mandate
for the production of ZEVs and believe that such a mandate exceeds EPA's authority under the
Clean Air Act (CAA). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1617-A1, p. 16]
i. EPA does not have authority to impose standards that are only achievable through the use of
ZEV technology because there is no clear statement in the Clean Air Act authorizing EPA to
mandate a shift away from internal combustion engines.
The Proposed Rule marks a pronounced shift in EPA's approach to regulating greenhouse gas
("GHG") emissions from heavy-duty vehicles. EPA explains in the Proposed Rule, it "did not
premise the HD GHG Phase 2 C02 tractor emission standards on application of hybrid
powertrains or ZEV technologies." 88 Fed. Reg. at 25957. But in the current proposal, the
Agency "developed technology packages that include both ICE vehicle and ZEV technologies."
Id. at 25958. Moreover, the Proposed Rule would do more than just lock in the ZEV sales
projected to occur in the absence of this rule. Instead, it would mandate that more ZEVs be sold
than otherwise would be the case. Today, ZEVs make up just a tiny fraction of the heavy-duty
vehicle fleet and current new heavy-duty vehicle sales. Under the Proposed Rule, EPA projects
that, by 2032, ZEVs would comprise 50% of new vocational vehicle sales and 25-30% of new
tractor sales. Id. at 26000. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1617-A1, p. 17]
Such a shift from internal combustion engines ("ICE") to ZEVs would be truly
transformative. BEVs, which EPA predicts will be the technology that is mostly used to satisfy
the proposed ZEV mandate, require fundamentally different vehicle technologies than those used
on conventionally fueled vehicles - e.g., electric motors instead of internal combustion engines,
batteries to store power rather than on-board fuel tanks. Moreover, BEVs rely on a wholly
different infrastructure (e.g., electric power generation and distribution, charging stations, battery
manufacturing) - much of which does not yet exist or exists only in limited form. Additionally,
switching to BEVs will fundamentally change the manner in which vehicles are used, for
example requiring careful scheduling of vehicle operations to accommodate the long periods
needed to adequately charge the vehicles. Lastly, a ZEV mandate would produce widespread
effects on the national economy, such as the reduced need for oil and gas production, gas
processing, changes to petroleum refining, and distribution. Such changes are fundamentally
different and far more expansive than those caused by EPA's heavy-duty motor vehicle
emissions standards up to now, which worked by requiring changes to ICE drivetrains and
20
-------
vehicles and in the fuels used by these vehicles instead of (as here) forcing a shift to a wholly
different powertrain technology. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1617-A1, p. 17]
EPA asserts that the ZEV mandate is authorized under Clean Air Act ("CAA") Sections
202(a)(1) and (2). 88 Fed. Reg. at 25927. EPA explains that these provisions "are technology
forcing when EPA considers that to be appropriate." Id. at 25949. EPA further explains that
"Section 202 does not specify or expect any particular type of motor vehicle propulsion system
to remain prevalent." Id. The Agency points to legislative history to support the notion that
Congress understood that powertrain technologies might evolve over time and quotes
Representative Pallone as opining that the "recently enacted [Inflation Reduction Act]
"reinforces the longstanding authority and responsibility of [EPA] to regulate GHGs as air
pollutants under the Clean Air Act," 204 and "the IRA clearly and deliberately instructs EPA to
use" this authority by "combin[ing] economic incentives to reduce climate pollution with
regulatory drivers to spur greater reductions under EPA's CAA authorities."" Id. at
25050. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1617-A1, p. 17]
But such an expansive claim of authority cannot depend on a generally stated statute, such as
CAA §§ 202(a)(1) and (2), or on the views of Members who participated in the development of
the CAA or the IRA. The U.S. Supreme Court has concluded that such an "extraordinary" claim
of authority exists only when there is "clear congressional authorization." West Virginia v. EPA,
142 S.Ct. 2587, 2609 (2022). At their core, CAA §§ 202(a)(1) and (2) authorize EPA to establish
"standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor
vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, which in [the Administrator's] judgment cause, or
contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or
welfare." Because this provision includes no clear statement that EPA may mandate a
fundamental shift in propulsion technology, EPA lacks authority to impose emissions limitations
that effectively will require the production and sale of ZEV vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1617-A1, p. 18]
The lack of a clear statement is particularly notable given that Congress's most recent efforts
to address GHG emissions - the Inflation Reduction Act and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Act -
almost exclusively consisted of economic incentives and pointedly gave EPA no new or
expanded authority to substantively regulate GHG emissions. If Congress had intended EPA to
have authority to mandate a fundamental shift in powertrain technology, surely it would have
done more than spend money on the issue. Moreover, EPA's claim of authority plainly conflicts
with other relevant statutes, such as the Renewable Fuel Program, under which Congress
mandated that significant and increasing volumes of renewable fuels should be blended into that
national motor fuel supply. In contrast, the Proposed Rule is designed to significantly reduce the
amount of motor fuel consumed by the heavy-duty fleet. The Proposed Rule thus would frustrate
Congressional intent by reducing rather than expanding the volume of renewable fuel consumed
by motor vehicles in the U.S. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1617-A1, p. 18]
It also is telling that EPA has abandoned any pretense of "co-regulating" with NHTSA, the
national regulatory authority that actually has been authorized by Congress to establish motor
vehicle fuel efficiency standards. Among other things, this is a clear attempt to free EPA from
unambiguous statutory obligations that otherwise would constrain a joint rulemaking, such as the
requirements that NHTSA must provide a full four years of model year lead time and NHTSA
may not regulate more than five years in advance. It is simply not plausible that the general
21
-------
standard-setting authority of CAA § 202(a) can be construed to confer omnibus authority for
EPA to effectively rewrite directly relevant statutory directives. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1617-A1, p. 18]
ii. EPA's authority under CAA §§ 202(a)(1) and (2) to prescribe emissions standards for
vehicles and engines does not extend to a mandatory shift in powertrain technology.
As explained above, the Proposed Rule would require that a significant proportion of new
heavy-duty vehicles must be powered by ZEV drivetrains. That proportion exceeds the level of
new vehicle ZEV sales that otherwise would occur. As a result, the Proposed Rule would
constitute a mandate to produce ZEV vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1617-A1, p. 18]
Moreover, ZEVs are not just another form of conventional diesel or gasoline fueled ICE-
driven vehicles. For example, a ZEV cannot be produced by modifying a conventional
ICE drivetrain (e.g., by changing combustion conditions) or by adding pollution control
technology to a conventional ICE drivetrain (e.g., catalytic converter or diesel particulate filter).
Rather, ZEVs employ wholly different propulsion technology as compared with conventional
ICE drivetrains. The BEVs that EPA predicts will make up the vast majority of the ZEVs that
would have to be produced under the Proposed Rule use electricity and batteries rather than
liquid fuels stored in fuel tanks and employ electric motors for propulsion rather than ICE
engines. In short, ZEVs are a fundamentally different type of drivetrain than conventional ICE
drivetrains. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1617-A1, pp. 18 - 19]
EPA asserts that CAA §§ 202(a)(1) and (2) authorize the imposition of a ZEV mandate. But
for the following four reasons, EPA does not have authority under CAA §§ 202(a)(1) and (2) or
under any other CAA provision to impose such a fundamental and mandatory shift in powertrain
technology. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1617-A1, p. 19]
First, EPA may regulate a class of motor vehicles under CAA § 202(a)(1) only if emissions
from that class of vehicles "cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger public health or welfare." EPA treats ZEVs as if they do not emit GHGs
for the purposes of this proposal. As a result, under EPA's rationale, ZEVs do not emit the
pollutant that is the object of the Proposed Rule and cannot cause or contribute to the
endangerment that EPA asserts as the basis for its authority to regulate here under CAA §
202(a)(1). Thus, it is beyond EPA's authority to impose a ZEV mandate. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1617-A1, p. 19]
Second, CAA § 202(e) - entitled "New power sources or propulsion systems" - states that
EPA may defer the certification for a new motor vehicle employing a new power source or
propulsion system until after the Agency has "prescribed standards for any air pollutants emitted
by such vehicle or engine which in [the Administrator's] judgment cause, or contribute to, air
pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger the public health or welfare but for
which standards have not been prescribed under [CAA § 202(a)]." Thus, EPA must take two
actions when assessing a new power source or propulsion system. EPA first must determine
whether emissions from the new power source or propulsion system cause or contribute to air
pollution that endangers public health or welfare. If the answer is yes, EPA second must
establish new emissions standards for the new power source or propulsion system or,
alternatively, determine that appropriate standards have already been established. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1617-A1, p. 19]
22
-------
ZEVs clearly constitute a new power source or propulsion system. As a result, before
certifying any ZEVs, CAA § 202(e) requires EPA determine whether emissions from ZEVs
cause or contribute to air pollution that endangers public health or welfare. But, under EPA's
rationale, ZEVs do not emit GHGs, which is the pollutant that would be regulated under the
Proposed Rule. Consequently, EPA cannot determine that emissions from ZEVs cause or
contribute to any endangerment caused by GHG emissions and, therefore, the Agency has no
need or authority to impose GHG emissions standards on ZEVs prior to certifying them. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1617-A1, p. 19]
Third, CAA § 202(a)(1) in relevant part authorizes EPA to establish "standards applicable to
the emission of any air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor
vehicle engines." CAA § 202(a)(1) (emphasis added). This provision requires EPA to define
appropriate classes of vehicles for purposes of making the cause/contribute finding and in
subsequently establishing emission standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1617-A1, pp. 19 - 20]
From the outset of its CAA-based motor vehicle regulatory program, EPA has properly
distinguished between fundamentally different powertrain technologies - e.g., regularly
developing and issuing separate standards for gasoline-powered vehicles and diesel-powered
vehicles. In contrast, EPA here combines all powertrain types into the same classes for purposes
of imposing GHG emission standards. That is unreasonable and arbitrary because conventionally
powered vehicles have fundamentally different emissions characteristics than electric powered
vehicles. See also CAA § 202(e) (requiring EPA to separately evaluate emissions from "a new
power source or propulsion system.") [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1617-A1, p. 20]
As demonstrated by EPA's Phase 1 and Phase 2 GHG standards for heavy-duty vehicles,
there is a wide variety of emissions control techniques that may be applied to conventionally
powered heavy-duty vehicles to reduce GHG emissions - including such things as improved
engine efficiency, better aerodynamics, and lower rolling resistance. Applying such measures to
ZEVs does not affect their GHG emissions profile because, by EPA's definition, ZEVs do not
emit GHGs. This shows that conventionally power vehicles and ZEVs should not occupy the
same class under these rules because wholly different regulatory approaches are needed to
appropriately control GHG emissions from these two fundamentally different types of vehicles.
Further to our argument, the Clean Fuel Vehicles program can only be prescribed to areas that
have the worst ozone nonattainment and to the pollutants that contribute to ambient ozone
levels. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2022-0985-1617-A1, p. 20]
Fourth, EPA's regulatory approach is unlawful because it treats ZEVs as if their powertrain
were an emissions control technology and then mandates the use of that purported emission
control technology. EPA claims throughout the proposed rule that its proposed standards do not
require manufacturers to implement any specific technology and, instead, that they retain
flexibility to comply with the rule in whatever manner they deem appropriate. But the proposed
rule inescapably will require a significant industry-wide shift from internal combustion to ZEVs.
A particular manufacturer may avoid producing a ZEV though creative use of the ABT
provisions, but the industry as a whole will have no choice but to produce increasing numbers of
ZEVs over time. This is contrary to CAA § 202(a), which authorizes EPA to set emissions
standards, but does not authorize EPA to mandate the use of any particular emissions control
technology in meeting those standards. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2022-0985-1617-A1, p. 20]
iv. The use of ZEV technology is not an emissions standard under CAA §§ 202(a)(1) and (2).
23
-------
By factoring ZEVs into the proposed emission standards, EPA effectively is treating ZEVs as
an emissions control technology that can form the basis of an emission standard. This exceeds
EPA's authority under CAA § 202(a). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1617-A1, p. 22]
EPA is authorized under CAA § 202(a)(1) to prescribe "standards applicable to emissions." In
other words, EPA is authorized to prescribe emission standards for motor vehicles. The term
"emission standard" means a requirement "which limits the quantity, rate, or concentration of
emissions of air pollutants." CAA § 302(k). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1617-A1, p. 22]
The problem with EPA's regulatory approach here is that a ZEV is not an emissions control
technology for a conventionally powered vehicle. A ZEV does not limit the "quantity, rate, or
concentration" of air pollutant emissions from a conventionally powered vehicle. Rather, a ZEV
represents an entirely different type of propulsion system and powertrain. The existence of ZEVs
has no bearing on the relative emissions from conventionally powered vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1617-A1, p. 22]
Consequently, a ZEV powertrain is not an emissions reduction technology applicable to
conventionally powered vehicles and cannot form the basis of emission standards applicable to
conventionally powered vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1617-A1, p. 22]
v. The Clean Air Act already expressly provides a regulatory scheme for Clean Fuel Vehicles
in Part C of Title II. That regulatory scheme precludes the regulation of ZEVs together with
internal combustion engines.
CAA § 242(a) requires EPA to "promulgate regulations under this part containing clean-fuel
vehicle standards for the clean-fuel vehicles specified in this part." A clean fuel vehicle is one
that is powered by a "clean alternative fuel," which is defined to include electricity. CAA §
241(2). CAA § 245 limits EPA's authority to regulate heavy-duty clean fuel vehicles -
specifying that EPA may establish standards for NOx and NMHC, and further specifying that no
standards may be promulgated for heavy-duty vehicles of more than 26,000 lbs. gross vehicle
weight. The state implementation plan for areas designated in severe or greater nonattainment
with ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards must include a clean-fuel vehicle program.
CAA § 182(c)(4). The program must apply to centrally fueled fleets. Id. at § 246. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1617-A1, p. 22]
EPA cites the Clean Fuel Vehicles program as an indication that Congress generally intended
to "promote further progress in emissions reductions." 88 Fed. Reg. at 25950. EPA thus points to
the Clean Fuel Vehicles program as supporting its proposed interpretation that CAA §§ 202(a)(1)
and (2) authorize EPA to mandate the production and sale of ZEVs. But in doing so, EPA fails to
address the regulatory program required under the Clean Fuel Vehicles program and fails to
reconcile the particular requirements of that program with the CAA § 202(a) general rulemaking
authority on which it relies as the primary authority for the Proposed Rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1617-A1, p. 22]
The Clean Fuel Vehicles program plainly requires EPA to establish an alternative regulatory
scheme for clean fuel vehicles, including electric powered vehicles. For heavy duty vehicles,
CAA § 242(b) specifies that such vehicles "shall comply with all requirements of this title which
are applicable in the case of conventional gasoline-fueled or diesel-fueled vehicles of the same
category and model year." This provision clearly signals that Congress intended EPA to develop
24
-------
emissions standards for ICE-powered vehicles and to apply those standards to clean fuel vehicles
(including BEVs). In the very least, Congress's explicit inclusion of electric powered vehicles in
the Clean Fuel Vehicles program and its exclusion of any mention of electric powered vehicles
in Section 202 must be given meaning. Compare 42 U.S.C. § 7581 with 42 U.S.C. § 7521(a), (e);
Bittner v. United States, 143 S. Ct. 713, 720 (2023) ("When Congress includes particular
language in one section of a statute but omits it from a neighbor, we normally understand that
difference in language to convey a difference in meaning (expressio unius est exclusio
alterius).") This Clean Fuel Vehicles Program would be rendered meaningless if, as in the
Proposed Rule, EPA were to consider conventionally fueled vehicles together with clean fuel
vehicles (including BEVs) in developing and implementing emissions standards. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1617-A1, p. 23]
Moreover, the Clean Fuel Vehicles program is narrowly targeted to the worst ozone
nonattainment areas and to the pollutants that contribute to ambient ozone levels. The program
also imposes important constraints on how vehicles may be regulated (for example, as explained
above, it dictates separate emissions standards for clean fuel vehicles and limits the applicability
of those standards to only certain heavy-duty vehicles). These detailed and prescriptive
requirements demonstrate that Congress intended EPA to regulate clean fuel vehicles only in
particular ways. EPA's claim in the Proposed Rule of omnibus authority to regulate clean fuel
vehicles along with conventionally fueled vehicles cannot be reconciled with the targeted and
carefully crafted regulatory scheme set out in the Clean Fuel Vehicles program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1617-A1, p. 23]
Lastly, the Proposed Rule also is flawed because EPA fails to acknowledge the regulatory
requirements imposed under the Clean Fuel Vehicles program and fails to explain how it still
finds authority to regulate under CAA § 202(a) in the face of the more specific obligations
imposed under the Clean Fuel Vehicles program. That violates EPA's procedural obligation to
set forth in the Proposed Rule "the major legal interpretations ... underlying the proposed rule."
CAA § 307(d)(3)(C). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1617-A1, p. 23]
In sum, the CAA clearly instructs EPA as to where and how heavy-duty clean fuel vehicles
should be regulated. Those specific requirements displace any authority EPA might otherwise
have had to regulate clean fuel vehicles under the general authority of CAA §§ 202(a)(1) and (2).
EPA is thus mistaken in asserting that CAA §§ 202(a)(1) and (2) authorize the proposed Phase 3
emissions standards for heavy-duty vehicles. In addition, the Proposed Rule fails to provide
adequate notice and opportunity to commenters on the important legal questions surrounding the
scope and extent of the Clean Fuel Vehicles program and how the specific regulatory scheme
established under that program can be reconciled with EPA's claim of authority under CAA §§
202(a)(1) and (2). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1617-A1, p. 23]
Organization: Arizona State Legislature
The proposed rule violates the Major Questions Doctrine EPA touts this rule for heavy-duty
vehicles and its companion for passenger vehicles as the 'strongest-ever pollution standards for
cars and trucks to accelerate transition to a clean-transportation future.'4 Numerous media
reports recognize that the goal of the proposed rules is not to reduce emissions on existing
vehicles, but to force a transition to new types of vehicles. Or, as the EPA administrator put it,
'usher in a new generation' of clean cars. 5 For example:
25
-------
• The proposed rules 'could require as much as 67% of all new vehicles sold in the U.S. by
2032 to be all-electric, representing the country's most aggressive climate regulations to
date.'6
• 'The Biden administration is proposing stiff new automobile pollution limits that would
require up to two-thirds of new vehicles sold in the U.S. to be electric by 2032, a nearly
tenfold increase over current electric vehicle sales.'7 4
• 'The proposal for light- and medium-duty vehicles was accompanied by a proposal for
heavy-duty fleets to electrify 25 percent of their trucks and half of all new buses to be
electric by 2032.'8
• 'The overarching goal is not just cleaner cars, but the transformation of the auto industry:
The EPA would essentially impose regulatory penalties on companies that do not move
quickly enough toward electric cars.'9 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1621-A1, pp. 3-4]
4 U.S. EPA, 'Biden-Harris Administration Proposes Strongest-Ever Pollution Standards for Cars and
Trucks to Accelerate Transition to a Clean-Transportation Future,' Apr. 12, 2023, available at
https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/biden-harris-administration-proposes-strongest-ever-pollution-
standards-carsand.
5 Camila Domonoske, The big reason why the U.S. is seeking the toughest-ever rules for vehicle
emissions, NPR, Apr. 12, 2023, available at https://www.npr.org/2023/04/12/1169269936/electric-vehicles-
emission-standards-tailpipesfuel-economy.
6 Emma Newburger, Biden proposes toughest auto emissions rules yet to dramatically boost EV sales,
CNBC, Apr. 12, 2023, available at https://www.cnbc.eom/2023/04/12/epa-proposes-auto-pollution-limits-
to-aggressively-boostev- sales-.html.
7 Matthew Daly and Tom Krisher, Stiff EPA emission limits to boost US electric vehicle sales,
ASSOCIATED PRESS, Apr. 12, 2023, available at https://apnews.com/article/biden-electric-vehicles-epa-
tailpipe-emissions-climate- 406d74el8459bcl35f089c681ba9e224.
8 Aaron Cole, Proposed vehicle emissions standards would be America's toughest yet, POPULAR
SCIENCE, Apr. 12, 2023, available at https://www.popsci.com/technology/epa-electric-vehicle-emissions-
targets/.
9 Domonoske, supra note 5.
The former head of EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality recognized the
significance of EPA's proposed rules as 'the single most important regulatory initiative by the
Biden administration to combat climate change and to really reduce the worst outcomes of
climate change.'10 They are intended to radically transform America's entire automotive
industry. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1621-A1, p. 4]
10 Matthew Daly and Tom Krisher, Stiff EPA emission limits to boost US electric vehicle sales,
ASSOCIATED PRESS, Apr. 12, 2023, available at https://apnews.com/article/biden-electric-vehicles-epa-
tailpipe-emissions-climate- 406d74el8459bcl35f089c681ba9e224.
The proposed rule violates the Major Questions Doctrine because Congress did not clearly
delegate EPA this authority. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1621-A1, p. 4]
But Congress has not delegated to EPA the authority to transform the automotive industry.
EPA relies on Clean Air Act section 202(a)(l)-(2) for its authority to issue the proposed
regulation. See 88 Fed. Reg. 25,926, 25,927 (Apr. 27, 2023). This portion of Section 202(a)
provides in full: (a) Authority of Administrator to prescribe by regulation Except as otherwise
provided in subsection (b)~ (1) The Administrator shall by regulation prescribe (and from time
26
-------
to time revise) in accordance with the provisions of this section, standards applicable to the
emission of any air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor
vehicle engines, which in his judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may
reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. Such standards shall be
applicable to such vehicles and engines for their useful life (as determined under subsection (d),
relating to useful life of vehicles for purposes of certification), whether such vehicles and
engines are designed as complete systems or incorporate devices to prevent or control such
pollution. (2) Any regulation prescribed under paragraph (1) of this subsection (and any revision
thereof) shall take effect after such period as the Administrator finds necessary to permit the
development and application of the requisite technology, giving appropriate consideration to the
cost of compliance within such period. 42 U.S.C. 7521(a). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1621-
Al, p. 4]
EPA's proposal extends beyond this authority because it seeks to transform the automotive
industry. EPA implicitly acknowledges that its emissions standards for carbon dioxide cannot be
met exclusively with existing internal combustion engines. See, e.g., 88 Fed. Reg. 25,958 ('And
in this rule, we developed technology packages that include both [internal combustion engine]
vehicle and [zero-emission vehicle] technologies.') (emphasis added). In addition, EPA's
analysis of requisite technology and cost-benefit balancing focuses primarily on production and
purchase of electric and hydrogen-powered vehicles. See, e.g., id. at 25,930-931 ('The
Opportunity for Clean Air Provided by Zero-Emission Vehicle Technologies'), id. at 25,936
('[T]he HD industry would save approximately $250 billion in operating costs (e.g., savings that
come from less liquid fuel used, lower maintenance and repair costs for [zero-emission vehicle]
technologies as compared to [internal combustion engine] technologies, etc.)'). Although EPA
uses averaging to avoid requiring a specific percentage of electric and hydrogen-powered
vehicles, EPA 'projects that one potential pathway for the industry to meet the proposed
standards would be through' 50% zero-emission vehicles for vocational vehicles, 34% zero-
emission vehicles for day cab tractors, and 25% zero-emission vehicles for sleeper cab tractors
by model year 2032.11 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1621-A1, p. 5]
11 U.S. EPA Fact Sheet, 'Proposed Standards to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Heavy-Duty
Vehicles for Model Year 2027 and Beyond,' Apr. 2023, available at
https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P101762L.pdf.
The transformative nature of EPA's proposal is reminiscent of EPA's past attempt to
transform power plants, which the Supreme Court struck down under the Major Questions
Doctrine last year. See West Virginia v. Env't Prot. Agency, 142 S. Ct. 2587 (2022). As set forth
in West Virginia, the Supreme Court presumes that 'Congress intends to make major policy
decisions itself, not leave those decisions to agencies.' Id. at 2609 (internal citation omitted). In
'extraordinary cases,' like here with a regulation that seeks to transform the entire automotive
industry and entire American vehicle fleet, '[t]he agency instead must point to 'clear
congressional authorization' for the power it claims.' Id. (internal citation omitted). [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1621-A1, p. 5]
The Court's description of what happened in West Virginia closely resembles what EPA
proposes here. 'Prior to 2015, EPA had always set emissions limits under Section 111 based on
the application of measures that would reduce pollution by causing the regulated source to
operate more cleanly,' explained the Court. Id. at 2610 (internal citation omitted). EPA 'had
never devised a cap by looking to a 'system' that would reduce pollution simply by 'shifting'
27
-------
polluting activity 'from dirtier to cleaner sources." Id. (internal citation omitted). Shifting
polluting activity from 'dirtier' to 'cleaner' sources is exactly what EPA proposes here by
forcing a transition from internal combustion engines powered by fossil fuel to zero-emission
vehicles powered by electricity or hydrogen fuel cells. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1621-A1,
p. 5]
The West Virginia Court also focused on the technology-based approach to individual
sources. 'A technology-based standard, recall, is one that focuses on improving the emissions
performance of individual sources.' Id. at 2611. But' [r] at her than focus on improving the
performance of individual sources, [EPA] would 'improve the overall power system by lowering
the carbon intensity of power generation.' And it would do that by forcing a shift throughout the
power grid from one type of energy source to another.' Id. at 2611-12 (internal citation omitted)
(emphasis original). With this position, 'EPA can demand much greater reductions in emissions
based on a very different kind of policy judgment: that it would be 'best' if coal made up a much
smaller share of national electricity generation. And on this view of EPA's authority, it could
go further, perhaps forcing coal plants to 'shift' away virtually all of their generation—i.e., to
cease making power altogether.' Id. at 2612. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1621-A1, pp. 5-6]
EPA's proposed standards here require another massive shift away from current market
operations. EPA projects that its proposed standards could be satisfied through a mix of 50%
zero-emission vehicles for vocational vehicles, 34% zero-emission vehicles for day cab tractors,
and 25% zero-emission vehicles for sleeper cab tractors by model year 2032.12 But in 2021,
global sales of electric medium- and heavy-duty trucks totaled just 0.3%, and nearly 90% of
electric truck registrations occurred in China. 13 Overall, electric trucks and electric buses
comprised about 0.1% and 4%, respectively, of the global fleet. 14 This is consistent with EPA's
analysis, which reported that heavy-duty battery electric vehicles represented just 0.2% of heavy-
duty vehicles certified by EPA for model year 2021. 88 Fed. Reg. 25,940. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1621-A1, p. 6]
12 U.S. EPA Fact Sheet, supra note 11.
13 International Energy Agency, 'Global EV Outlook 2022,' 35 (2022), available at
https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/ad8fb04c-4f75-42fc-973a-
6e54c8a4449a/GlobalElectricVehicleOutlook2022.pdf.
14 Id.
In West Virginia, 'EPA decides, for instance, how much of a switch from coal to natural gas
is practically feasible by 2020, 2025, and 2030 before the grid collapses, and how high energy
prices can go as a result before they become unreasonably 'exorbitant." West Virginia, 142 S.
Ct. at 2612. Here, EPA is deciding how much of a switch from internal combustion engine trucks
to zero-emission vehicles or hydrogen-powered vehicles is practically feasible by model years
2027 to 2032. The West Virginia Court found it 'highly unlikely that Congress would leave to
agency discretion the decision of how much coal- based generation there should be over the
coming decades.' Id. at 2613. Instead, '[t]he basic and consequential tradeoffs involved in such a
choice are ones that Congress would likely have intended for itself.' Id. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1621-A1, p. 6]
The magnitude of EPA's proposed rule implicates the Major Questions Doctrine. EPA is
attempting to use emissions standards for vehicles to force a shift from gasoline-powered
28
-------
vehicles to electric- and hydrogen-powered vehicles. The shift will impact energy production by
dropping demand for oil exploration and refineries and increasing demand for electricity
generation and mining for rare earth minerals. The rule will cost tens of billions of dollars. 88
Fed. Reg. 25,936. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1621-A1, p. 6]
Under the Major Questions Doctrine, EPA must point to 'clear congressional authorization'
to regulate in this manner. West Virginia, 142 S. Ct. at 2614. EPA relies exclusively on Section
202(a), which provides EPA with authority to set vehicle emissions standards for any air
pollutant that causes or contributes to air pollution 'which may reasonably be anticipated to
endanger public health or welfare.' 42 U.S.C. 7521(a). This terse provision does not vest EPA
with authority to determine the types of vehicles manufactures can make or the proper vehicle
energy mix in the country. 'A decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress
itself, or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body.' West
Virginia, 142 S. Ct. at 2616. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1621-A1, p. 6]
Accordingly, EPA should reject the proposed rule because it violates the Major Questions
Doctrine. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1621-A1, p. 6]
The proposed rule violates the Major Questions Doctrine because it conflicts with authority
Congress delegated to another agency. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1621-A1, p. 7]
In determining that the Clean Power Plan violated the Major Questions Doctrine, the West
Virginia Court also emphasized EPA's lack of expertise. West Virginia, 142 S. Ct. at 2612-13.
'When an agency has no comparative expertise in making certain policy judgments, we have
said, Congress presumably would not task it with doing so.' Id. (internal quotations omitted).
[EPA-HQ-0AR-2022-0985-1621 - A 1, p. 7]
For almost 50 years, Congress has looked to the U.S. Department of Transportation to set
vehicle fuel efficiency standards. 49 U.S.C. 32902. Indeed, as recently as 2007, Congress
directed the Secretary of Transportation to set a fuel efficiency improvement program for heavy-
duty trucks. Id. at 32902(k). Congress prohibited the Department of Transportation from
considering electric vehicles when it sets fuel efficiency standards. Id. at 32902(h)(2). [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1621 -A1, p. 7]
When EPA has previously proposed vehicle greenhouse gas emissions standards, it has done
so in a joint rulemaking with the Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration. See Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards
for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles, 76 Fed. Reg. 57106 (Sept. 15, 2011);
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty
Engines and Vehicles—Phase 2, 81 Fed. Reg. 73478 (Oct. 25, 2016); see also 88 Fed. Reg.
25,938-939. Yet this time, EPA only 'coordinated' with the Department of Transportation and
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and did not issue a proposed joint
rulemaking. 88 Fed. Reg. 25,939, 25,951. In the preamble, EPA states, 'EPA has similarly
concluded that it is not necessary for this EPA proposal to be issued in a joint action with
NHTSA.' Id. at 25,951. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1621-A1, p. 7]
EPA does not explain why it did not issue a proposed joint rulemaking with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration. EPA claims there is not 'statutory requirement for EPA
to consult with NHTSA' and that its charge to protect public health and welfare is 'wholly
29
-------
independent' of the Department of Transportation's energy efficiency mandate. Id. However,
EPA does not reconcile how its independent rulemaking will affect the Department of
Transportation's energy efficiency standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1621-A1, p. 7]
EPA's proposed rule intrudes upon the Department of Transportation's delegated authority to
determine energy efficiency standards. Under EPA's stringent standards, manufacturers that are
fully compliant with the Department of Transportation's standards will be unable to meet EPA's
standards without changing production to non-fossil-fuel-powered vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1621-A1, p. 7]
Congress charged the Department of Transportation with setting energy efficiency standards,
not EPA. This is further evidence that the proposed rule exceeds EPA's authority and violates the
Major Questions Doctrine. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1621-A1, p. 7]
Organization: BlueGreen Alliance (BGA)
Additionally, manufacturers can leverage a range of fuel and engine efficiency technologies to
help bring their fleets into compliance, including high compression ratio engines, waste heat
recovery, cylinder thermal insulation, reduced friction losses, aerodynamics, efficient
transmissions, cylinder deactivation, high efficiency turbochargers, and micro- and mild hybrids.
The EPA's proposed Phase 3 Heavy-Duty Vehicle Emissions Standards are both technology-
forcing, and technology-agnostic, which means that manufacturers will need to deploy some zero
emission technologies to meet the emissions targets, but their choice of zero emission technology
is not prescribed [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1605-A1, p. 3]
The range of EPA's proposals effectively advances research, development and deployment of
zero-emission technologies like those in battery electric and fuel cell vehicles, while also pushing
advanced fuel and engine efficiency technologies for use cases where zero-emission technology
is not yet available, affordable, or scalable. The tech-forcing and tech-agnostic nature of EPA's
proposals also means that the standards have the potential to create and protect domestic
manufacturing jobs in a diverse range of facilities, from those producing battery components for
electric transit buses to those making low rolling resistance tires and lightweight sheet metal for
tractor trailers (see Figure 2). A standard that advances the deployment of zero emission and fuel
efficiency technologies provides manufacturers with ample flexibility as they determine how
they will meet the requirements, while also maximizing the standards' potential to create and
protect jobs in the domestic automotive supply chain. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1605-A1,
p. 3.] [See Figure 2 on page 4 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1605.]
Organization: BorgWarner Inc.
Penetration, however, at the Class 7 and 8 levels seems more challenging. Because of these
challenges, we urge EPA to consider as many technology pathways as possible for decarbonizing
these larger vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1578-A1, p. 3]
We recognize the urgency to combat global warming by minimizing greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions as fast as possible. For this reason, all cost-effective technology solutions should be
considered to decarbonize the HD fleet in parallel. This effort should not become a competition
between technologies that delay or dilute the goal and allow more irreversible damage to our
planet. BEVs, hydrogen fuel cells (H2FC), hydrogen combustion (H2ICE), and advanced engine
30
-------
technologies, all have their strengths, and we must enable via regulation every solution
possible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1578-A1, p. 3]
BorgWarner supports performance-based regulations and opposes technology mandates.
We urge regulators to develop standards that are technology neutral, and performance based
to encourage innovation.2 All technology pathways with practical applications should be
included as potential solutions to assist the U.S. in achieving its environmental goals.
Regulations based on the end goals of a clean environment, minimizing C02 emissions, and
preserving resources should not give preferential treatment to a specific technology. Public
policies should let innovation and market dynamics determine the most effective
solutions. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2022-0985-1578-A1, p. 5]
2 See BorgWarner Comments EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055; FRL-7165-03-OAR
BEVs, H2FC, and H2ICE all have strengths depending on the use case, and we must enable
every technology solution to reduce GHG emissions as fast as possible. The EPA has
demonstrated an enthusiasm for BEV and H2FC technologies and we urge the EPA to include
H2ICE in its clean transportation strategy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1578-A1, p. 5]
Organization: Bradbury, Steven G.
Introduction
With these rules, EPA is proposing to interfere with and displace market forces on a massive
and unprecedented scale, and the effects of these regulatory edicts on the American people and
the U.S. economy will be disastrous if even one of the EPA's many key supporting assumptions
turns out to be incorrect. EPA's notices of proposed rulemaking (NPRMs) discuss the possibility
of alternative adjustments to its proposed emissions limits for different pollutants, but those
alternatives fall within a narrow band above and below EPA's proposed levels. They do not
encompass any true alternative approaches, and they do not even leave room for automakers to
rely on the various different powertrain modalities that consumers have shown a greater
willingness to embrace, such as hybrid vehicle technologies and bio-fuel options, to achieve
improved environmental performance. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2022-0985-2427-A2, p. 3]
It seems apparent that the EPA's primary goal is not to improve environmental performance
of new motor vehicles, but rather to force the industry to transform its production processes and
to achieve an artificially rapid transition to zero-emission-vehicle platforms, such as fully electric
vehicles, to the extent and on the schedule that President Biden and the California Air Resources
Board (CARB) have announced as their goals. Thus, the EPA's proposed rules seem to be
guided by and aimed at hitting goals that are more aspirational and political in nature; they are
not legitimate standards based on an accurate and objective assessment of technological and
marketplace realities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2427-A2, p. 3]
The Proposed Rules Exceed EPA's Statutory Authority
Congress has never voted to cede to the Administrator of the EPA the far-reaching power and
discretion the Agency is claiming in these rulemakings. There has been no delegation from the
people's elected representatives—let alone a clear and express delegation— of such economy -
31
-------
wide transformational power that could survive analysis under the Major Questions Doctrine.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2427-A2, p. 3]
If finalized as proposed, these rules would exceed the bounds of EPA's statutory authority in
two fundamental respects—one relating generally to the Agency's regulation of carbon dioxide
emissions from new motor vehicles; the other involving its leveraging of pollution-control
authority to force on the American people a hyper-accelerated transition to electric vehicles.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2427-A2, pp. 3-4]
EPA may not use carbon dioxide regulation to displace DOT's exclusive authority over fuel
economy standards.
Setting limits on carbon dioxide emissions for gas-powered vehicles and prescribing fuel
economy standards for those vehicles are two sides of the same regulatory coin. They cannot be
separated, because there is a direct and consistent relationship between the amount of carbon
dioxide a vehicle's internal-combustion engine will generate per mile traveled and the number of
miles the vehicle will go on a gallon of gas. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2427-A2, p. 4]
The problem for the EPA is that ever since enactment of the Energy Policy and Conservation
Act (EPCA) in 1975, which created the fuel economy program, Congress has given the Secretary
of Transportation, not the EPA, the sole authority to establish fuel economy standards for new
motor vehicles offered for sale to private buyers in the United States8—authority delegated by
the Secretary to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), a component of
DOT. NHTSA consults with EPA and the Energy Department in setting the standards, and EPA
is tasked with measuring the automakers' compliance with the standards NHTSA sets, but
neither EPA nor any other agency has authority to supersede or interfere with NHTSA's mandate
under EPCA. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2427-A2, p. 4]
8 See 49 U.S.C. § 32902, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/32902.
Congress assigned to DOT the exclusive authority to set fuel economy standards, rather than
EPA under the Clean Air Act, because the fuel economy program is not about environmental
regulation. Congress wanted to prod the automakers toward the production of more fuel-efficient
vehicle models to help lessen America's strategic dependence on foreign oil in the wake of the
Arab oil embargoes of the 1970s. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2427-A2, p. 4]
Congress's delegation of authority over the fuel economy program has always been carefully
limited.
Initially, Congress specified mileage targets by statute and put a tight collar on DOT's
regulatory authority: Any proposed fuel economy standard that fell outside the collar was subject
to veto by either House of Congress—a restraint that was nullified when the Supreme Court held
legislative vetoes unconstitutional in INS v. Chadha (1983). And from time to time, Congress
has put statutory caps on the mileage standards through appropriations riders. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-2427-A2, p. 4]
Ultimately, when it allowed broader standard-setting discretion to DOT under EPCA,
Congress still did so in a manner designed to ensure that NHTSA's regulatory power would
never be used to frustrate Americans' love affair with the automobile or impose disruptions in
the traditional automotive industry. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2427-A2, pp. 4-5]
32
-------
In administering the fuel economy program, NHTSA must (i) respect the practical needs and
desires of American car buyers; (ii) take into account the economic realities of supply and
demand in the auto markets; (iii) protect the affordability of vehicle options for American
families; (iv) preserve the vitality of the domestic auto industry, which sustains millions of good-
paying American jobs; (v) maintain highway traffic safety for the country; (vi) consider the
nation's need to conserve energy; and (vii) advance the goal of reducing America's strategic
dependence on foreign supplies of critical inputs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2427-A2, p. 5]
And, significantly, EPCA expressly prohibits NHTSA from considering the fuel economy of
electric vehicles in setting or amending its standards.9 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2427-A2, p.
5]
9 See id. § 32902(h); see also 49 U.S.C. § 32901(a)(1), (8), (9) & (10),
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/32901.
In sum, NHTSA has no authority to compel the phaseout of internal-combustion engines or to
require automakers to use new technologies that are not responsive to consumer demand or that
fail to align with the industry's existing production realities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2427-
A2, p. 5]
In Massachusetts v. EPA, 10 the Supreme Court concluded that, in theory, there is no
necessary conflict between the control of carbon dioxide emissions under section 202 of the
Clean Air Act and NHTSA's authority to prescribe fuel economy standards under EPCA. 11 But,
in practice, whenever EPA actually proposes to impose such emissions controls, it must do so in
a manner that avoids displacing NHTSA's authority over fuel economy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-2427-A2, p. 5]
10 549 U.S. 497 (2007), https://www.oyez.org/cases/2006/05-1120.
11 See id. at 532 ("The two obligations may overlap, but there is no reason to think the two agencies cannot
both administer their obligations and yet avoid inconsistency.").
It is a basic principle of law that when there is a potential for inconsistent application of two
federal statutes, the statutes must be interpreted and applied in harmony, if reasonably possible.
The agencies charged with faithfully carrying out those statutory mandates are required to
respect and preserve the roles and priorities assigned by Congress. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
2427-A2, p. 5]
The Obama administration was the first to confront this issue when it launched the EPA into
the business of regulating carbon dioxide emissions from new motor vehicles in 2012. Both the
Obama administration and later the Trump administration addressed the requirement for
harmonization by having NHTSA and EPA conduct joint rulemakings in the setting of common
fuel economy standards and carbon dioxide emissions limits. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2427-
A2, p. 5]
But the present administration has broken that mold, and the current proposed tailpipe rules
are an egregious example. By acting on its own, in advance of NHTSA, to dictate draconian new
reductions in carbon dioxide emissions limits for future model years of vehicles, EPA would
render entirely irrelevant NHTSA's judgment about the appropriate fuel economy standards for
those same vehicle fleets. If finalized in their current form, the proposed limits on carbon dioxide
emissions from new motor vehicles (both for light- and medium-duty vehicles and for heavy-
33
-------
duty trucks) would be an unlawful usurpation by EPA of NHTSA's exclusive statutory role. Any
determination by NHTSA to establish fuel economy standards for gas-powered vehicles that
would allow for greater carbon dioxide emissions than EPA's proposed rules would have no
regulatory effect—it would be a nullity. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2427-A2, p. 6]
Congress has not delegated to EPA the power to force the conversion to electric vehicles.
EPA is very candid about the goal of its proposed rules: The Agency is trying to use tailpipe
emissions limits on carbon dioxide and criteria pollutants as a tool to coerce the automotive
industry to build far more electric vehicles (EVs) than market demand would currently support.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2427-A2, p. 6]
Right now, EVs account for less than 6 percent of new light-duty vehicle sales in the United
States and an even lower percentage of medium- and heavy-duty commercial truck sales.
Following the script laid down by President Biden in an executive order, 12 the EPA is aiming to
force those percentages way up—to 60 percent of light-duty vehicle sales by 2030 and 67
percent by 2032. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2427-A2, p. 6
12 See Executive Order 14037 ("Strengthening American Leadership in Clean Cars and Trucks"), August
5, 2021 (setting goal of 50 percent of U.S. new vehicle sales to be zero-emission vehicles by 2030).
And through these rulemakings, the Agency is proposing to align its regulatory objectives
with the zero-emission vehicle, or ZEV, mandates recently issued by CARB, the California Air
Resources Board, which are designed to phase out the sale of all gas-powered passenger cars and
light trucks by 2035 and all medium- and heavy-duty trucks by 2045. The EPA now appears to
be committed to a similar trajectory. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2427-A2, p. 6]
It is not surprising the Agency would act to conform its policies to CARB's, since CARB was
able to issue its mandates only because the EPA has granted California a special waiver from
preemption under the Clean Air Act. Both sets of rules flow from the policy decisions of the
EPA in accordance with directions from the White House. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2427-A2,
p. 6]
Where does EPA purport to find this authority in the Clean Air Act?
The logic is as follows: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2427-A2, p. 6]
Because most automakers have announced ambitious timetables for transitioning to the
production of EVs going forward and have pledged to make large capital investments to finance
this gradual switchover, 13 and because Congress has recently approved generous federal
subsidies for some EV purchases and charging infrastructure, 14 EPA says it can now declare that
battery-electric vehicle technology is a "feasible" alternative to the traditional internal-
combustion engine (ICE) powertrain. 15 And on that basis, EPA is proposing to treat EVs as an
available "control technology" for achieving compliance with the tailpipe emissions restrictions
under Clean Air Act section 202.16 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2427-A2, p. 7]
13 See 88 FR at 29191, Figure 1 (reproducing a chart prepared by the Environmental Defense Fund
depicting the automakers' announced goals for future electrified vehicle sales as a percentage of total
sales); id. at 29193-94 (summarizing automakers' announced plans for investments in EV technology).
14 See id. at 29195-96; Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Public Law 117-58, 135 Stat. 429 (2021),
https://www.congress.gov/! 17/plaws/publ58/PLAWl 17publ58.pdf; Inflation Reduction Act of 2022,
34
-------
Public Law 117-169, 136 Stat. 1818 (2022),
https://www.congress.gOv/l 17/bills/hr5376/BILLSl 17hr5376enr.pdf.
15 See 88 FR at 29194 (light-duty and medium-duty vehicles); 88 FR at 25972 (heavy-duty tracks).
16 See 88 FR at 29284 (for light-duty and medium-duty vehicles); 88 FR at 26015 (for heavy-duty tracks).
This reasoning obviously depends on a kind of feedback loop. The automakers are pledging to
invest in the transition to EVs because governments around the world—like China, the EU, the
Biden White House, and Governor Gavin Newsom and his climate regulators in California—are
demanding that they do so. But everyone knows there is a large looming impediment to this
Green Dream: resistance from American consumers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2427-A2, p. 7]
The American public is not jumping on the electric bandwagon. EVs are expensive— beyond
the reach of many American families—and most Americans remain skeptical that EVs will
reliably serve the full range of their needs, that quick and convenient charging stations will be
widely available, that EVs will maintain their promised driving range over time or in cold
weather, that they will have any significant resale or trade-in value down the road, and that
insurance carriers will cover the huge costs of battery replacement when the battery wears out or
is damaged in a minor accident. 17 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2427-A2, p. 7]
17 See Nick Carey, Paul Lienert, and Sarah McFarlane, "Scratched EV battery? Your insurer may have to
junk the whole car," Reuters, March 20, 2023,
https://www.reuters.com/business/autostransportation/scratched-ev-battery-your-insurer-may-have-junk-
whole-car-2023-03-20/ ("For many electric vehicles, there is no way to repair or assess even slightly
damaged battery packs after accidents, forcing insurance companies to write off cars with few miles—
leading to higher premiums and undercutting gains from going electric.").
To push the automakers to convert to EV production in the absence of sufficient market
demand, EPA plans to ratchet down the emissions limits for carbon dioxide and for the
traditional criteria and other pollutants associated with smog (such as unburned hydrocarbons,
particulate matter, oxides of nitrogen, and ozone) to super-stringent levels that are
technologically impossible for gas-powered vehicles (even hybrids) to satisfy. 18 At the same
time, EPA is proposing to phase out certain regulatory buffers that allow automakers to report
better emissions compliance results, such as "off-cycle credits" for the addition of onboard
technologies that improve the fuel efficiency of ICE vehicles. 19 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
2427-A2, pp. 7-8]
18 See, e.g., 88 FR at 29237-38; id. at 29257-61.
19 See id. at 29249-50.
The automakers' only recourse will be to replace more and more of the ICE vehicles in their
fleets (including hybrids) with the "alternative control technology" of battery-electric vehicles.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2427-A2, p. 8]
And here is the trick: For enforcement purposes, EPA applies the emissions limits to each
automaker on a fleetwide average basis, and it proposes to reduce these fleetwide averages
dramatically each model year from 2027 through 2032 on a ramp rate calculated to achieve the
Biden administration's desired percentage mix of EVs in the U.S. auto fleets. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-2427-A2, p. 8]
35
-------
In other words, EPA is now proposing to set fleetwide average tailpipe pollution limits that
are intended by design to apply increasingly over time to vehicles that have no tailpipes and that
EPA says emit none of the pollutants covered by the regulations.20 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
2427-A2, p. 8]
20 Automakers can avoid violating the average emissions limits in certain circumstances with regulatory
"credits," earned by producing vehicles, like EVs, that outperform the limits. Under the EPA's rules,
credits can be "banked" from one model year to another within limits, "transferred" from one fleet to
another (for example, from the automaker's light truck fleet to its passenger car fleet), or "traded" between
automakers, which usually involves a privately negotiated purchase. Tesla, which manufactures nothing but
EVs and accounts for approximately 70 percent of the U.S. EV market, receives a large portion of its
income from selling emissions credits to the other automakers. Predictably, the EPA is proposing to retain
this credit system to continue the subsidization of EV manufacturing. See 88 FR at 26245-46.
This scheme bears no resemblance to EPA's past approach to the regulation of vehicle
emissions under the Clean Air Act. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2427-A2, p. 9]
Previously, when EPA has set emissions limits for criteria pollutants under section 202, the
available control technologies that EPA has recognized as feasible for achieving compliance
have involved cleaner fuels and discrete types of equipment added to the ICE vehicle. This
equipment includes, for example, enhanced catalytic converters to capture certain types of
pollutants and scrub them out of the vehicle's exhaust, onboard computers to control more
precisely the fuel mixture burned by the vehicle's engine, vapor-capture systems for refueling,
and fuel-injection systems to recycle unburned fuel back into the cylinders. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-2427-A2, pp. 8-9]
The use of these types of discrete control technologies has already achieved impressive
reductions in smog-producing criteria pollutants. As EPA itself acknowledges, existing control
technologies applied under previous regulations have enabled automakers to attain "reductions of
up to 80 percent in tailpipe criteria pollutant emissions" from ICE vehicles.21 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-2427-A2, p. 9]
21 88 FR at 29188.
But now, in these rules, EPA is proposing to do something radically different. The so-called
control technology here is not some discrete equipment added to the ICE vehicle to achieve
lower emissions; it is entirely separate replacement technology that uses a new and different
powertrain. These are replacement vehicles, not true control technology; they are different
vehicles from bumper to bumper, built on entirely different production lines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-2427-A2, p. 9]
The EPA's current proposals are thus closely analogous to the Clean Power Plan that was
struck down by the Supreme Court last year in West Virginia v. EPA:
There, EPA was relying on its Clean Air Act authority to regulate power plant emissions
based on the "best system of emission reduction" available to the plant operator. EPA had
previously exercised that authority by setting emissions standards that required individual plants
to take measures "to operate more cleanly." But in the Clean Power Plan, EPA concluded that
coal-fired power plants could not eliminate enough carbon dioxide emissions to satisfy EPA
simply by employing additional measures at the plant. Instead, EPA proposed to require them to
choose between greatly reducing their own electricity production (potentially even shutting down
36
-------
the plant) or paying to subsidize increased electricity generation from alternative sources,
including natural gas, wind, and solar power (the so-called "generation shifting" concept). The
overall goal was to reduce the percentage of national electricity generation supplied by coal and
increase the percentage contribution from wind and solar. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2427-A2,
p. 9]
The Supreme Court held that the Clean Power Plan implicated the Major Questions Doctrine
because EPA was claiming the power to "restructure the American energy market," and this
represented a "transformative expansion" in the Agency's exercise of its regulatory authority.
The Court was unconvinced that Congress had "implicitly tasked" the EPA "with balancing the
many vital considerations of national policy implicated in deciding how Americans will get their
energy," or with the authority to decide "how much of a switch from coal to natural gas is
practically feasible" for the nation. There was "little reason to think Congress" had assigned
matters of such economic and political significance to the EPA's discretion. "The basic and
consequential tradeoffs involved" are "ones that Congress would likely have intended for itself."
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2427-A2, p. 9]
Everything the Supreme Court said about the Clean Power Plan can be said about the EPA's
current proposals for regulating vehicle emissions. As it tried to do with the power market, EPA
is now attempting to leverage its authority to set emissions limits for particular types of vehicles
into a grand new scheme for shifting and rebalancing the overall mix of ICE, battery-electric,
and other powertrains in the national auto fleet—an extravagant role for the Agency to play, and
one with enormous economic and political implications. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2427-A2,
pp. 9-10]
Indeed, the current proposals represent an even more extreme example of regulatory
overreach than the Clean Power Plan. Here, EPA is attempting to coerce the automakers into
financing the entire transformation of the manufacturing base of a major industrial sector by
converting their own production of ICE vehicles to EVs on a large scale, not simply contributing
toward the marginal subsidization of alternative investments by others. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-2427-A2, p. 10]
Moreover, in the name of ensuring that its own preferred "control technology" will actually
deliver the expected performance as a suitable long-term substitute for ICE vehicles, EPA is also
claiming the authority to regulate the design and functionality of battery-electric technology over
the entire life cycle of EVs. Like CARB, EPA proposes to adopt and enforce "Global Technical
Requirement" (GTR) No. 22, promulgated by the United Nations Economic Commission for
Europe, which sets standards and requirements for validating electric battery durability.22 [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2427-A2, p. 10]
22 See 88 FR at 29284-85; 88 FR at 26013-15.
Thus, EPA expects to be in the permanent business of regulating EV technologies, which
involve no tailpipes at all, let alone tailpipe emissions—all under the aegis of a statute enacted by
Congress to address air pollution from vehicle tailpipes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2427-A2, p.
10]
What is clear is that EPA sees an endless horizon for its new-found power to regulate
practically all aspects of the American automotive market. No doubt, for example, the Agency
intends to be involved in overseeing the buildout and operation of electric vehicle charging
37
-------
infrastructure around the country—once again, as an incident of the regulators' own expansive
conception of their section 202 authority to ensure the adequacy of EPA's chosen control
technology. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2427-A2, p. 10]
We can easily imagine that someday this self-assumed mandate will include the power to
ration the timing and extent of drivers' access to charging networks, as EPA deems necessary to
maintain the general supply of electricity for EVs. California is already doing this. Because the
buildout of charging infrastructure will depend critically on government subsidies and approvals,
government rationing of access to this infrastructure is a very real prospect, especially given the
strains on grid reliability that I discuss below. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2427-A2, p. 10]
The bottom line under the Major Questions Doctrine is that section 202, on which the
proposed rules rest, contains no clear and express delegation of any authority that could sustain
these massively consequential proposals. As the Court observed in West Virginia v. EPA,
"Congress certainly has not conferred [such] authority upon EPA anywhere ... in the Clean Air
Act." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2427-A2, p. 10]
The Analyses and Assumptions on Which the Proposed Regulatory Actions Are Based Are
Arbitrary, Fundamentally Flawed, and Fail to Recognize and Account Properly for the Hugely
Negative Consequences that Would Result from These Actions
EPA claims that, despite the coercive power and industry-transforming ambition behind its
proposals, these rules will somehow deliver a stupendous bounty of net benefits, ranging at the
high end from $1.5 trillion to $2.3 trillion for the light- and medium-duty vehicle rule,23 plus
another $180 billion to $320 billion for the heavy-duty truck rule.24 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
2427-A2, p. 11]
23 Id. at 29200.
24 88 FR at 25937.
This miracle of regulatory cost-benefit accounting cannot hold up under scrutiny. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-2427-A2, p. 11]
Conclusion
If and when the American people feel the true effects of these rules—when they lose the
vehicle options they love at the local dealership and find themselves stuck driving older and less
safe cars, when the bottom falls out of the job market in the U.S. auto industry, when drivers
cannot find convenient charging stations for their electric vehicles—in sum, when American
voters realize what the EPA's far-reaching regulatory enterprise has wrought for the nation, they
will be angry. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2427-A2, p. 24]
At issue are matters of life, liberty, and prosperity, and the considerations involved are
fundamentally political in nature. That is exactly why, under our constitutional republic, it is for
Congress, and Congress alone, to make the monumental decisions that EPA is purporting to take
upon itself in these proposed rules. For these reasons, EPA should withdraw its proposed tailpipe
rules and reconsider the wisdom of these proposals. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2427-A2, p. 24]
38
-------
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
U.S. EPA is promulgating the proposed Phase 3 GHG emission standards pursuant to the
statutory authority of Title II of the federal CAA, and specifically sections 202(a)(1) and (2),
sections 202-209, 216, and 301 (42 U.S.C. 7521 (a)(1) and (2), 7521-7543, 7550, and
7601).19 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1591-A1, p.14]
19 U.S. EPA's Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles—Phase 3, Proposed Rules,
88 Fed. Reg., April 27, 2023, page 25948.
CAA section 202(a)(2) [42 U.S.C.§ 7521(a)(2)] provides that "[a]ny regulation prescribed
under paragraph (1) of this subsection (and any revision thereof) shall take effect after such
period as the Administrator finds necessary to permit the development and application of the
requisite technology, giving appropriate consideration to the cost of compliance within such
period." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1591-A1, p. 14]
Courts interpreting section 202(a) of the CAA have recognized that Congress intended U.S.
EPA to rely upon projected future developments and advances in pollution control technology in
establishing emission standards and expected U.S. EPA to "press for the development and
application of improved technology rather than be limited by that which exists today." Natural
Resources Defense Council v. U.S. EPA, 655 F.2d 318, 328 (D.C. Cir. 1981). The Natural
Resources Defense Council (NRDC) court noted that a longer lead time "gives the U.S. EPA
greater scope for confidence that theoretical solutions will be translated successfully into
mechanical realizations,"20 and further stated that "the presence of substantial lead time for
development before manufacturers will have to commit themselves to mass production of a
chosen prototype gives the agency greater leeway to modify its standards if the actual future
course of technology diverges from expectation." (Id.) The court concluded:
We think that the U.S. EPA will have demonstrated the reasonableness of its basis for
prediction if it answers any theoretical objections to the [projected control technology], identifies
the major steps necessary in refinement of the [projected control technology], and offers
plausible reasons for believing that each of those steps can be completed in the time
available.21 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1591-A1, pp.14-15]
20 Id. at 329.
21 Id. at 331-32. Accord, Husqvarna AB v. Environmental Protection Agency, 254 F.3d 195, 201 (D.C.
Cir. 2001) and National Petrochemical & Refiners Association v. Environmental Protection Agency, 287
F.3d 1130, 1136 (D.C. Cir. 2002).
In this NPRM, U.S. EPA has identified and discussed a broad range of compliance strategies
and technologies that vehicle manufacturers may elect to utilize to comply with the Proposed
Standards, including technology packages consisting of both internal combustion engine (ICE)
vehicle and ZEV technologies that CARB staff concurs will be commercially available and that
will enable vehicle manufacturers to comply with the Proposed Standards within the proposed
time frames. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1591-A1, p. 15]
CARB staff also recommends U.S. EPA assess the impacts of the existing ATC multipliers
and expected HD ZEV production from 2023 through 2026 on the Proposed Standards. As a
result of the ACT regulation, manufacturers will be building increasing volumes of HD ZEVs in
California and Section 177 states beginning as early as 2024. Manufacturers are also expected to
39
-------
produce and sell HD ZEVs in other states at a smaller fraction of sales. Manufacturers are
already announcing HD ZEV sales in other state sales, recruiting and training dealers in these
areas, and supporting public high power HD chargingl88 and hydrogenl89 infrastructure
corridors to promote sales in the Southeast, Texas, Southwest and elsewhere. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1591-A1, p.53]
188 HD charging infrastructure examples.
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/introducing-greenlane-daimler-truck-north-americanextera-
energy-resources-and-blackrock-forge-ahead-with-public-charging-infrastructure-joint-venture-
301811101.html
https://www.volvotrucks.us/news-and-stories/press-releases/2022/july/constructing-california-
electrifiedcharging-corridor-for-medium-and-heavy-duty-electric-vehicles/
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/pilot-company-and-volvo-group-partner-to-build-
chargingnetwork-for-medium—and-heavy-duty-electric-trucks-301678542.html
189 Hydrogen infrastructure examples.
https://tankstoragenewsamerica.com/nm-to-be-part-of-clean-freight-corridor/
https://www.nikolamotor.com/press_releases/nikola-announces-additional-hyla-branded-
hydrogenrefueling-station-in-california/
https://www.sae.org/news/2023/05/hyundai-fuel-cell-class-8-act-expo
The manufacturer infrastructure efforts are complementary to additional HD corridor efforts
by private enterprises. 190 An illustration of the business case for HD ZEVs in the other states is
a specialty HD BEV manufacturer that has reported already selling over half of their class 8
tractors unassisted by incentives as of 2021.191 These additional HD ZEVs unanticipated in the
proposed baseline are most likely to be BEVs which are eligible to earn credits with an ATC
multiplier of 4.5. Fuel cell HDVs well beyond California that would contribute to the baseline
with the 5.5 multiplier have also been announced. 192 Given that U.S. EPA based the standards
for the Phase 2 GHG regulation on a scenario with no HD ZEV penetration, there is a significant
chance that early proliferation of HD ZEVs will create a credit glut in 2027 which allows
manufacturers to defer increased emission reductions (including HD ZEV production) until later
years as discussed further in Part I. Section 1.1 below, CARB staffs comments on the definition
of U.S.-directed production volume. CARB staff urges U.S. EPA to assess the potential for, and
impact of, this credit glut and either eliminate the credits earlier or adjust the standards to prevent
it or blunt its impact. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1591-A1, pp.53-54]
190 Additional infrastructure efforts from private entities.
https://terawattinfrastructure.com/electric-corridor/
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/wattev-to-open-nations-largest-heavy-duty-truck-
chargingdepot-at-port-of-long-beach-the-week-of-may-15-30181643 9.html
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/forum-mobility-and-cbre-investment-managementannounce-
400-million-joint-venture-and-15-million-series-a-targeting-equitable-electrification-of-heavy duty-port-
transit-301721528.html
https://zeemsolutions.com/about/
191 Orange EV: Ten Years and Four Million Miles Later, Orange EV Leads Heavy Duty Electric Truck
Market, February 16, 2022. https://orangeev.com/orange-ev-news/orange-ev-leads-electric-truck-market/
192 Hyundai's fuel-cell dreams remain Xcie, May 25, 2023. https://www.sae.org/news/2023/05/hyundai-
fuel-cell-class-8-act-expo
40
-------
Organization: Chevron
2. Maximize and accelerate GHG reduction
The heavy-duty proposal does not incentivize GHG reductions from the existing vehicle fleet,
thus missing an opportunity to accelerate GHG reduction in the early years of the program. For
example, the Ramboll HHDT Case Study showed that a ZEV-only strategy did not achieve the
maximum emission reductions possible. A fleet mix that deployed a wider range of technologies,
including ZEVs, FCEVs, and low-CI, low-NOx combustion engines, out-performed the ZEV-
only deployment strategy in the near-term and achieved equitable emission reductions in the
long-term.3 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1552-A1, p.4]
3 Environmental Benefits of Medium- and Heavy- Duty Zero Emission Vehicles Compared with Clean
Bio- & Renewable-Fueled Vehicles 2022-2032, Prepared for Diesel Technology Forum by Stillwater
Associates LLC, July 19, 2022, https://dieselforum.egnyte.com/dl/MWHPcRW4e6
Recent published research from SUNY5 shows that the time value of carbon is important in
evaluating technology pathways to maximize emission reductions from the fleet of heavy-duty
trucks that includes new and older trucks in-use. GHG emissions generated by the truck fleet
accumulate in the atmosphere and dissipate slowly over time. GHG emissions that may be
reduced or eliminated today can be more valuable than future emission reductions given the
annual accumulation of emissions. A GHG reduction strategy that focuses on lifecycle
emissions, as opposed to tailpipe emissions only, would incentivize near term emission
reductions that would create long term environmental benefits. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1552-A1, p.4]
5 Quantifying the comparative value of carbon abatement scenarios over different investment timing
scenarios - College of Environmental Science (exlibrisgroup.com)
Ignoring the benefit of these more immediate solutions while focusing on future adoption of
zero tailpipe emissions solutions may result in higher cumulative fossil-carbon emissions. A
companion research study from SUNY6 analyzes different scenarios for technology adoption
that includes existing lower carbon intensity fuels, namely biomass-based diesel, and future
adoption of nascent zero tailpipe emission solutions. Biomass-based diesel includes biodiesel and
renewable diesel fuel that may reduce emissions up to 86 percent, depending on feedstock type,
compared to 100% petroleum diesel fuel. These solutions are already available in the market
while heavy-duty truck zero tailpipe emission solutions at scale are still under development. A
strategy that encourages the use of lower carbon intensity fuels in the near term, coupled with the
gradual replacement of trucks with zero tailpipe emission solutions in future years, results in
greater GHG emission reductions compared to the future introduction of zero tailpipe emission
options alone. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1552-A1, pp.4-5]
6 "Quantifying and comparing the cumulative greenhouse gas emissions and financial viability of heavy-
duty transportation pathways for the Northeastern, United States" Fuel, Jenny Frank, Tristan Brown,
HakSoo Ha, Dave Slade, Martin Haverly, Robert Malmsheimer.
3. Broad technology approach
There are a wide variety of vehicle technologies and fuel types that can be used in the
substantial number of unique heavy-duty applications. It is unlikely that the market would
identify a single vehicle technology that would be appropriate for all different usage categories.
41
-------
The proposed rule should be broadened to encourage the use of multiple technologies by
establishing a neutral, market-based, lifecycle standard. Heavy-duty vehicles powered by
biofuels, hybrid technologies, and renewable natural gas leverage the existing infrastructure and
are proven to deliver the power, uptime, reliability, and efficiency required for heavy goods
transportation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1552-A1, p.5]
Organization: Clean Air Task Force et al.
1. The Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to rely on zero-emission technologies in standard-
setting.
As set forth in detail in the proposal, the Clean Air Act authorizes the Agency to consider
zero-emission technologies when setting emission standards and to finalize standards at levels
that will lead to greater deployment of ZEVs. See 88 Fed. Reg. at 25948-51 (relying on statutory
language, legislative materials, case law, and regulatory history). Sections 202(a)(l)-(2) do not
give preference to any particular emission control technology, propulsion system, or powertrain
type.31 Congress was intensely interested in electrification and other emerging vehicle
technologies in the 1960s and 1970s, and it expected EPA to consider emission reductions that
could be achieved through the use of alternative fuels and propulsion systems (including
electrification) that control air pollution more effectively than combustion vehicle
technologies.32 Both at the tailpipe and on a "lifecycle" basis, ZEVs offer superior emissions
reductions compared to combustion vehicles.33 As "complete systems.. .to prevent" air
pollution, 42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(1), ZEVs fall well within the scope of section 202(a)(1).34 [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985- 1640-A1, pp. 13 - 14]
31 EPA Br. 7-10; Oge & Hannon Amicus Br. 17-18; Final Br. of State & Pub. Int. Respondent-Intervenors,
Texas v. EPA, Case No. 22-1031 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 27, 2023), ECF No. 1996908, 6-8, 28-29 [hereinafter
"State & Pub. Int. Br."]; Br. of Sen. Thomas R. Carper & Rep. Frank Pallone, Jr. as Amici Curiae in
Support of Respondents, Texas v. EPA, Case No. 22-1031 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 2, 2023), ECF No. 1988363, 12-
16, 19-22 [hereinafter "Carper & Pallone Amicus Br."].
32 See 88 Fed. Reg. at 25947-50; EPA Br. at 7-10, 40-46; State & Pub. Int. Br. at 6-8, 28-29; Carper &
Pallone Amicus Br. at 12-16, 19-22.
33 See generally Adrian O'Connell et al., Int'l Council on Clean Transp. (ICCT), A Comparison of the
Life-Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of European Heavy-Duty Vehicles and Fuels (2023),
https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/lca-ghg-emissions-hdv-fuels-europe-feb23.pdf; Lu Xu, Life
Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Conventional and Alternative Heavy-duty Trucks: Literature Review
and Harmonization (Thesis), at chs. 3-4 (2021), https://hdl.handle.net/1807/108920; Dora Burul & David
Algesten, Scania, Life cycle assessment of distribution vehicles: Battery electric vs diesel driven (undated),
https://www.scania.com/content/dam/group/press-and-media/press-releases/documents/Scania-Life-cycle-
assessment-of-distribution-vehicles.pdf; Georg Bieker, ICCT, A Global Comparison of the Life-cycle
Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Combustion Engine and Electric Passenger Cars (2021),
https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Global-Vehicle-LCA-White-Paper-A4-revised-v2.pdf;
Jarod C. Kelly et al., Argonne National Laboratory, Cradle-to-Grave Lifecycle Analysis of U.S. Light-Duty
Vehicle-Fuel Pathways: A Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Economic Assessment of Current (2020) and
Future (2030-2035) Technologies, at ch. 8 & app. B, (2022),
https://publications.anl.gov/anlpubs/2022/07/176270.pdf; Fuels Institute, Life Cycle Analysis Comparison,
(2022), https://www.transportationenergy.org/wp-
content/uploads/2022/10/FI_Report_Lifecycle_FINAL.pdf; Maxwell Woody et al., Corrigendum: The role
of pickup truck electrification in the decarbonization of light-duty vehicles, Env't Rsch. Letters, July 15,
2022, https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac7cfc/pdf; David Reichmuth et al., Union of
Concerned Scientists, Driving Cleaner: Electric Cars and Pickups Beat Gasoline on Lifetime Global
42
-------
Warming Emissions (2022), https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/2022-09/driving-cleaner-report.pdf;
Florian Knobloch et al., Net emission reductions from electric cars and heat pumps in 59 world regions
overtime (Dec. 1, 2020), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7308170/pdf/EMS85812.pdf
(author manuscript; published in final edited form at 3 Natural Sustainability 437 (2020)).
34 Section 202(a)(4), which references an "emission control device, system, or element of design," 42
U.S.C. § 7521(a)(4)(A) (emphasis added), provides further evidence that Congress envisioned that EPA
may consider, and that manufacturers may use, a wide variety of emission control technologies and
approaches. Electrification is a "system" and an "element of' motor vehicle "design."
Accelerating the deployment of zero-emission technologies through the Phase 3 rule would
also build on EPA's long and consistent practice of both considering and incentivizing these
technologies in its section 202(a)(1) rulemakings.3 5 EPA began doing so more than two decades
ago when it finalized the "Tier 2" criteria pollutant standards.36 65 Fed. Reg. 6698 (Feb. 10,
2000). That rule required manufacturers to certify all new light-duty vehicles into one of eight
emissions profiles, or "bins." Id. at 6734. A sales-weighted average of those bins determined the
manufacturer's compliance with the fleet-average NOx standard. Id. Bin 1 was designated for
ZEVs. Id. at 6746. EPA recognized that including ZEVs in the fleet average would "provide a
strong incentive" for manufacturers to develop and introduce ultra-clean vehicle technologies,
serving as "a stepping stone to the[ir] broader introduction." Id. (EPA's prediction has proven
correct, as ZEVs have grown to comprise ever-greater portions of the light-duty37 and heavy-
duty fleets38 since that time.) Later, in a series of GHG emission rulemakings spanning three
presidential administrations, the Agency continued to include ZEVs in fleet average standards
for light- and heavy-duty vehicles, as shown in the table below. EPA took the same approach in
2014 for its Tier 3 criteria pollutant standards for light-duty vehicles. 79 Fed. Reg. 23414, 23454,
23471 (Apr. 28, 2014). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, pp. 14 - 15.] [See Docket Number
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, page 15, for referenced table]
35 Oge & Hannon Amicus Br. at 14-15, 24-25, 28-30.
36 Even before the Tier 2 standards, EPA included ZEVs in its 1997 National Low Emission Vehicle
Program regulation. Those standards, however, were voluntary. 62 Fed. Reg. 31192, 31208, 31211-12,
31224 (June 6, 1997).
37 EPA, The 2022 Automotive Trends Report, at 74, Table 4.1 (2022),
https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-12/420r22029.pdf (production share by powertrain,
showing increasing shares of hybrids, plug-in hybrids, and battery electric vehicles).
38 88 Fed. Reg. at 25939-43.
Finally, we agree with EPA that recent actions by Congress reinforce the Agency's authority
to set emission standards that rely on and accelerate the deployment of zero-emission vehicle
technologies. See 88 Fed. Reg. at 25950. As members of Congress have emphasized, the BIL
and IRA provide "a clear signal of Congress' intent to support vehicle electrification and robust
EPA authority to accelerate it." Carper & Pallone Amicus Br. at 29; see generally id. at 29-35.
And by significantly lowering the cost and increasing the availability of zero-emission
technologies, the BIL and IRA assist EPA in setting standards that will achieve ambitious
reductions in GHG emissions.39 EPA should use its clear authority under the Clean Air Act to
do so here by finalizing standards more stringent than it has proposed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1640-A1, p. 15]
39 See Greg Dotson & Dustin J. Maghamfar, The Clean Air Act Amendments of 2022: Clean Air, Climate
Change, and the Inflation Reduction Act, 53 Env'tL. Rep. 10017, 10018, 10029 (2023).
43
-------
2. The averaging, banking, and trading program continues to be an important way for
manufacturers to maintain flexibility in meeting EPA's greenhouse gas emission standards.
Like its Phase 1 and Phase 2 HD GHG emission standards, and standards for certain criteria
HD emissions dating back to 1985, EPA's proposed standards rely on an ABT approach
allowing manufacturers to meet the standards by averaging emissions across subcategories of
their HD vehicles. EPA has employed similar approaches in certain standards issued under
section 202 of the Clean Air Act since 1983, including in its light-duty vehicle GHG standards
beginning in 2010. Given its longstanding use of this approach under section 202, EPA's
proposal emphasizes that EPA is "not reopening the general availability of ABT" or the general
structure of the compliance provisions it uses to enforce and implement the ABT approach. 88
Fed. Reg. at 25952 n.211; id. at 26008 n.567. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 16]
We agree with EPA's determination that there is no reason to reopen the question whether it
is permissible to use an ABT approach under section 202. EPA has not only repeatedly used
ABT in section 202 standards but also repeatedly explained that ABT is consistent with and
gives full effect to the requirements of section 202 as well as the Clean Air Act's compliance and
enforcement provisions applicable to standards issued under section 202. Under such
circumstances, it is eminently reasonable for EPA not to reconsider a question that has been
settled for decades. See Growth Energy v. EPA, 5 F.4th 1, 13 (D.C. Cir. 2021). In promulgating
its final standards, EPA should refrain from "substantive reconsideration," id. at 21, of whether
ABT is a permissible approach under section 202, which might inadvertently suggest,
notwithstanding the statements in the proposal, that EPA has reopened the issue. EPA may, of
course, express its continued adherence to its previously settled view that section 202 permits
standards using ABT without reopening the issue, and it may respond to any unsolicited
comments it may receive on the issue. See Banner Health v. Price, 867 F.3d 1323, 1341 (D.C.
Cir. 2017) (quoting Kennecott Utah Copper Corp. v. U.S. Dep't of Interior, 88 F.3d 1191, 1213
(D.C. Cir. 1996)). But reexamination and reconsideration of whether ABT is consistent with the
Clean Air Act is unnecessary and uncalled-for. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 16]
EPA first promulgated a section 202 standard that used averaging when it issued its
particulate standards for light-duty diesel vehicles in 1983. See 43 Fed. Reg. 33456 (July 21,
1983). EPA explained at that time that standards employing averaging fell within its "broad
authority" under section 202 and were "consistent with the [Clean Air Act's] certification
scheme." Id. at 33458. Specifically, the 1983 standard required EPA to certify the conformity of
a manufacturer's vehicles with a standard that was established based on a combination of testing
of the families of vehicles making up their fleets and planned production volumes. This process
would yield a fleet whose average emissions complied with the standard; the certificate would be
conditioned on the manufacturer actually "maintaining] family production volumes such that the
production-weighted average of the manufacturer's family limits indeed meets the standards at
year's end." Id. at 33459. As EPA explained, averaging thus accords with the Act's prohibition
on the sale of vehicles not covered by a certificate of conformity and allows imposition of
appropriate penalties for any violations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 16]
EPA's 1985 standard for NOx emissions from light-duty trucks, as well as for NOx and
particulates from HD engines, similarly employed an averaging approach. See 50 Fed. Reg.
10606 (Mar. 15, 1985). EPA's final rulemaking notice again explained that its averaging
approach was consistent with the statutory requirement that compliance be certified before
44
-------
vehicles were sold, and that certification was subject to the condition that the certificate would be
voided if the manufacturer's production-weighted average emissions did not meet the standard at
the end of the model year. See id. at 10633, 10636-37. EPA found that "the averaging concept"
was "fully consistent with the technology-forcing mandate of the Act," id. at 10634, while at the
same time "eas[ing] the compliance burden" for manufacturers, id. at 10635. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1640-A1, pp. 16 - 17]
The D.C. Circuit rejected arguments that the 1985 standard's averaging approach was
unauthorized under the Clean Air Act in NRDC v. Thomas, 805 F.2d 410 (D.C. Cir. 1986). The
court observed that "EPA's agreement that averaging will allow manufacturers more flexibility
in cost allocation while ensuring that a manufacturer's overall fleet still meets the emissions
reduction standards makes sense." Id. at 425. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 17]
Thomas noted that there were potential arguments against averaging that it did not address
because they had not been raised before the agency, including an argument that an averaging
approach might not be consistent with the Act's testing and certification provision, section 206.
Id. at 425 n.24. The court suggested that EPA consider this question in future proceedings and
provide a further explanation of how averaging conformed to statutory requirements. Id. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 17]
EPA took the court up on that invitation in its subsequent 1990 rulemaking proceeding
establishing certification programs for banking and trading of NOx and particulate emission
credits for HD engines. That rulemaking resulted in an expanded averaging regime, with the
addition of provisions for banking and trading of credits generated if manufacturers' production-
weighted average emissions were below the requirements of the NOx and particulate standards.
See 55 Fed. Reg. 30584, 30584-86 (July 26, 1990). Both in the final rulemaking notice and the
proposal for those standards, EPA addressed the issues flagged in Thomas and explained at
length how the ABT program conformed with the Clean Air Act's certification requirements. See
id. at 30593-94 (final rule); 54 Fed. Reg. 22652, 22665-67 (May 25, 1989) (proposed rule). EPA
articulated in detail how its ABT approach entails presale certification of the conformity of each
engine or vehicle with the applicable standards based on testing of emissions generated by
engine families and projected production estimates, with certification conditioned on a final end-
of-model-year determination that a manufacturer's actual production-weighted average
emissions comply with the standard. See 55 Fed. Reg. at 30585, 30594, 30600-04. These features
of the ABT program, EPA explained, facilitate application of the Act's enforcement and penalty
provisions. See id. at 30594, 30603-04. EPA similarly used ABT in its Tier 2 light-duty NOx
standards promulgated in 2000. See 65 Fed. Reg. at 6744. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1,
p. 17]
Having determined in these earlier rules that ABT standards are consistent with section 202,
EPA employed the ABT approach pioneered in the 1990 HD standards when it first adopted
GHG standards for light-duty vehicles in 2010 and HD engines and vehicles in 2011. See 75 Fed.
Reg. 25324, 25405 (May 7, 2010); 76 Fed. Reg. 57106, 57127-28 (Sept. 15, 2011). In each case,
EPA explained at length how, in implementing ABT standards, it fulfills its statutory obligations
to certify conformity of vehicles or engines with the standards before they are introduced into
commerce, to require warranties of compliance, and to test for in-use compliance. See 75 Fed.
Reg. at 25468-77; 76 Fed. Reg. at 57254-92. EPA also explained how, under an ABT approach,
it would give full effect to the statute's provision for calculation of penalties for each
45
-------
nonconforming vehicle in the event of a violation of the standards. See 75 Fed. Reg. at 25482; 76
Fed. Reg. at 57257. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, pp. 17 - 18]
Subsequent iterations of GHG and other motor-vehicle emission standards under section 202
for both light-duty vehicles and HD vehicles and engines have likewise used an ABT approach
consistent with that used in the 2010 and 2011 GHG standards. See 77 Fed. Reg. 62624, 62788
(Oct. 15, 2012) (light-duty GHG standards); 79 Fed. Reg. at 23419 (light-duty and HD Tier 3
NOx standards); 81 Fed. Reg. 73478, 73495 (Oct. 25, 2016) (HD Phase 2 GHG standards); 85
Fed. Reg. 24174, 25103-04, 25114 (Apr. 30, 2020) (light-duty GHG standards); 86 Fed. Reg.
74434, 74441 (Dec. 30, 2021) (light-duty GHG standards). In none of those rulemaking
proceedings did EPA reopen the issue whether section 202 permits use of ABT in standard-
setting; the agency treated the option to use ABT under section 202 as a settled matter. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 18]
The agency's settled practice of using ABT in section 202 standards from 1990 onward did
not generate further legal challenges until the most recent set of light-duty GHG standards. As to
the latter standards, however, petitioners challenging the standards have argued in review
proceedings pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit that section 202 permits
only the use of standards that specify emissions limits on an individual-vehicle basis, and that
standards employing averaging render the Clean Air Act's compliance and enforcement
provisions meaningless. See Final Br. for Priv. Petitioners, Texas v. EPA, Case No. 22-1031
(D.C. Cir. Apr. 27, 2023), ECF No. 1996915, at 36-50. EPA rejected those arguments when it
considered them in the 1990 rulemaking, and they run counter to the settled construction of the
statute on the basis of which EPA has issued standards since that time. EPA's brief in the D.C.
Circuit and the brief of the state and nongovernmental organizations supporting EPA explain that
challenges to ABT are untimely attempts to challenge determinations made decades ago, but also
detail the reasons ABT is consistent with the language and structure of section 202 and the
applicable enforcement and compliance provisions of the Act. See EPA Br. 34-39, 62-75; State
& Pub. Int. Br. at 3-6, 9-17. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 18]
In sum, the proposal's statement that "EPA has long included averaging provisions for
complying with emission standards in the HD program" is unquestionably accurate. 88 Fed. Reg.
at 25950. Given that EPA long ago addressed and resolved the lawfulness of ABT under section
202, that EPA's use of ABT is consistent with the D.C. Circuit's precedent in Thomas, that EPA
has repeatedly explained how the statute's certification, warranty, testing, and enforcement
provisions function effectively in the context of ABT, and that the arguments against the use of
ABT are essentially the same as those discussed in Thomas and revisited in the round of
rulemaking that followed, there is no reason for the agency to reopen these settled questions by
reexamining them substantively in this rulemaking (or appearing to do so). The agency should
adhere to its statement in the proposal that it is not reopening these issues. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1640-A1, p. 18]
To foster understanding of how the Act's testing, certification, warranty, in-use compliance,
and penalty provisions operate in the context of a standard using ABT, it may be useful to
include in the final rule's preamble a clear description of how EPA uses testing and
manufacturers' production plans to issue certificates of conformity before vehicles or engines are
marketed; how manufacturers warrant compliance; how EPA determines in-use compliance; how
EPA determines whether a manufacturer's vehicles and engines have met the conditions imposed
46
-------
on their initial certification by ultimately complying with the production-weighted emission
standards to which they are subject; and, in the event of noncompliance, how EPA would
identify noncompliant vehicles and impose penalties or other remedies. See 88 Fed. Reg. at
25949. If it does so, EPA should make clear that it is describing the operation of the statute and
the ABT rules, not reexamining EPA's settled view that its ABT standards and their
implementation conform to the Act's requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, pp. 18
-19]
Although the agency need not, and should not, reconsider the lawfulness of ABT standards
under section 202, EPA's analysis more than adequately explains the benefits of continuing to
use the ABT approach for this latest set of emission standards. EPA's analysis of the benefits
ABT provides in this context, see 88 Fed. Reg. at 26001-02, 26008, amply justifies the agency's
choice of retaining the ABT approach for this set of standards. As EPA has indicated, the ABT
structure allows EPA to require the reductions in GHG emissions that are essential to addressing
the endangerment of public health and welfare attributable to those emissions in a manner that
best balances the need for significant cuts in emissions with the requirement that standards be
feasible and achievable within the time allowed for compliance. The ABT approach
"recognize[s] that manufacturers typically have a multi-year redesign cycle and not every vehicle
will be redesigned every year to add emissions-reducing technology;" ABT allows
manufacturers to keep pace with required improvements by overcomplying with newly designed
or redesigned vehicles while other vehicles whose designs are already locked in undercomply. 88
Fed. Reg. at 26002. Thus, "[ajveraging and other aspects of the ABT program ... continue to
help provide additional flexibility for manufacturers to make necessary technological
improvements and reduce the overall cost of the program, without compromising overall
environmental objectives." Id. at 26008. These benefits of the ABT approach are recognized by
regulators, environmental advocates, and industry alike. See Final Answering Br. for Intervenor
Alliance for Automotive Innovation, Texas v. EPA, Case No. 22-1031 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 27, 2023),
ECF No. 1996757, at 8-9 (stating that ABT has "been essential to the auto industry's efforts to
meet EPA's increasingly ambitious goals for greenhouse gas reduction" and that "the automotive
industry has relied for more than a generation" on ABT "to enable cost-effective emissions
reductions"). These considerations more than justify EPA's selection of this rulemaking
approach for purposes of its latest HD GHG standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, p.
19]
Organization: Clean Fuels Alliance America
XII. Statutory Authority and Legal Provisions
Whether EPA can effectively require manufacturers of heavy-duty vehicles to manufacture
dramatically increased proportions of electric vehicles is undoubtedly a "major question."9 The
scope of EPA's proposal represents a fundamental regulatory shift that has massive economic
consequences. When such a major question is at issue, an agency "must point to clear
congressional authorization for the authority it claims."10 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1614-A1,
p. 4]
9 See W. Virginia v. Env'tProt. Agency, 142 S. Ct. 2587, 2595 (2022)
10 Id.
47
-------
Section 202 of the Clean Air Act does not provide the necessary clear authorization for EPA's
proposal. Section 202 gives EPA authority to set "standards" that relate to particular air
pollutants, not the authority to pick an entire set of vehicles over another. 11 But the latter is what
EPA proposes—by setting a very low GHG standard while treating EVs as emitting zero grams
per mile of GHGs (despite considerable upstream emissions from power plants) and treating all
internal combustion engines the same (despite considerable GHG benefits of biofuels like
biodiesel and renewable diesel), EPA's proposal ensures that manufacturers will need to convert
large portions of their fleets to EVs. That is doing more than setting a standard; it is effectively
mandating a shift to an entirely different engine. And that is beyond EPA's Section 202
authority. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1614-A1, p. 4]
11 42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)
Conversely, in the past, users and producers have repeatedly requested that EPA create or
expand vehicle incentives for higher biodiesel blends. The goal would be to create a fleet of
capable vehicles so that the maximum amount of low carbon fuels can be used. We believe that
dual fuel B20 biodiesel blend vehicles can currently benefit from fuel economy credits under
NHTSA rules, though thus far no one has taken advantage of them. Indeed, B85 also qualifies
for the 0.15 divisor for fuel economy calculations. To utilize these structures B20 and B85
certification fuels may need to be defined as well as F Factors that quantify projected use of the
fuels. We would welcome the opportunity to speak further about potential opportunities to create
or expand vehicle incentives for higher biodiesel blends. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1614-A1,
p. 4]
Lastly, EPA's proposal is inconsistent with another statement by Congress—its express desire
for increased blending of biofuels in the 2007 EISA. That statute, which established the
Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program, requires refiners and importers of petroleum fuels to
blend increasing percentages of biofuels into their products. 12 Congress also established an
explicit minimum amount that must be blended each year for one category of fuel under the
program: biomass-based diesel.13 So, Congress has not just declined to provide EPA with
authority for a shift entirely away from liquid fuels but explicitly dictated to the contrary. And it
has been particularly clear that biomass-based diesel must remain part of our country's solution
to decarbonizing the transportation sector. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1614-A1, p. 5]
12 See 42 U.S.C. § 7545(o)
13 Id. § 7545(o)(2)(B)(v)
Organization: Clean Fuels Development Coalition et al.
The proposed rule would set new C02 emissions standards for heavy-duty vehicles in the
same subcategories at increasing levels of stringency for model years 2027 through 2032. While
the proposal does not establish an express electric vehicle mandate, its standards are set in such a
way that it would be impossible to meet the standards in many categories without a higher
fraction of electric vehicle sales. See 88 Fed. Reg. 25,932, Table ES-3. This, indeed, is the point:
the President's explicit goal is to mandate that "50 percent of all new vehicle sales be electric by
2030," 1 specifically "targeting that 100 percent of all new medium- and heavy-duty vehicles sold
in 2040 be zero-emission vehicles, with an interim 30 percent sales target for these vehicles in
2030."2 [EPA-HQ-0AR-2022-0985-1585- A 1, pp. 1 - 2]
48
-------
1 FACT SHEET: Biden-Harris Administration Announces New Private and Public Sector Investments for
Affordable Electric Vehicles, White House Briefing Room (April 17, 2023),
https://www.whitehouse.gOv/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/04/17/fact-sheet-biden-
harrisadministration-announces-new-private-and-public-sector-investments-for-affordable-electricvehicles/.
2 FACT SHEET: Biden-Harris Administration Proposes New Standards to Protect Public Health that Will
Save Consumers Money, and Increase Energy Security, White House Briefing Room (April 12, 2023),
https://www.whitehouse.gOv/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/04/12/factsheet-biden-harris-
administration-proposes-new-standards-to-protect-public-health-that-will-saveconsumers-money-and-
increase-energy-security/.
This endeavor lacks the necessary statutory authority and is plagued with serious legal and
factual problems. The vehicle electrification envisioned in EPA's proposed rules represents a
"transformative expansion in EPA's regulatory authority" for which the agency has no "clear
congressional authorization." Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 573 U. S. 302, 324 (2014).
Indeed, almost everything about these rules is unlawful. EPA lacks the statutory authority to
even use fleet-wide averaging in its rules, much less to use fleet-wide averaging to force the
transformation of an entire industry. EPA likewise lacks the authority to ignore upstream
emissions for electric vehicles. And the proposal's ham-fisted attempts at a de facto
electrification mandate are at war with the carefully calibrated structure of the Clean Air
Act. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1585-A1, p. 2]
Nor is EPA's factual justification for its rulemaking plausible. The proposal imagines an
EPCOT-style "tomorrow land" with hundreds of thousands of electric heavy-duty vehicles
trundling along by the decade's end. As a thought experiment, this is no doubt interesting; but as
a real-world policy proposal it is far too speculative to pass muster under the Administrative
Procedure Act ("APA"). In 2020, a mere 900 total electric heavy-duty vehicles were sold
throughout both the U.S. and Canada, 88 Fed. Reg. 25,940, nearly all of which were purchased
using taxpayer dollars. And nothing in the proposal gives any persuasive reason for thinking that
EPA's desired sea-change could actually take place on anything like the time scale
proposed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1585-A1, p. 2]
Similar problems arise at every turn. As explained in detail below, the proposal has
consistently overestimated the factors which tend to make its standards more feasible or cost
effective while consistently ignoring the aspects of the problem which indicate that EPA's
undertaking is, in fact, unfeasible or cost prohibitive. This violates the APA's requirement for
reasoned decision-making, and would render the proposed rule, if finalized, arbitrary and
capricious. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1585-A1, p. 2]
The proposal's failures are the result of the Biden's Administration's myopic focus on electric
vehicles as the best—and perhaps only—way of meeting its domestic greenhouse-gas emission
goals. As this comment will describe, this unrealistic and idealistic effort is foolish. There are far
better ways, like incentivizing an increased reliance on renewable fuels, that are within EPA's
statutory authority, are feasible, and are cost effective. Commentors submit this letter to urge
EPA to withdraw its unlawful and unreasonable proposal, and to try a different approach. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1585-A1, pp. 2 - 3]
I. Electrification of the Heavy-Duty Fleet is a Major Question for which EPA Lacks Clear
Statutory Authorization.
49
-------
Under the major-questions doctrine, agencies may not construe a statute to "authoriz[e]
[them] to exercise powers of 'vast economic and political significance'" unless the statute does
so in "clea[r ]" terms. Alabama Ass'n of Realtors v. HHS, 141 S. Ct. 2485, 2489 (2021) (quoting
Utility Air, 573 U.S. at 324 (2014)). Thus, an agency seeking to exercise such significant powers
must identify "something more than a merely plausible textual basis for the agency action." West
Virginia v. EPA, 142 S. Ct. 2587, 2609 (2022) (quoting Utility Air, 573 U.S. at 324). "The
agency instead must point to 'clear congressional authorization' for the power it claims." Id.
Whether and how to transition the heavy-duty fleet away from internal combustion engines to
electric motors and massive batteries is a major question of economic and political importance.
EPA therefore needs clear statutory authority. It has none, and that is the end of the
matter. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1585-A1, p. 3]
EPA's proposal is very similar to the Clean Power Plan. Just as in West Virginia v. EPA, the
agency is claiming the power to shift the nation's energy policy by reverse-engineering its
preferred balance of fuel sources through emission standards. In West Virginia, EPA attempted
to force a shift from coal-fired plants to gas-, wind-, and solar-powered plants. Here, EPA
attempts to force a shift from liquidfuel vehicles to electric vehicles. As this proposal and EPA's
sister proposal for lightand medium-duty vehicles show, there's no stopping point to EPA's
claim of authority. As in West Virginia, with this power EPA "could go further, perhaps forcing
[automakers] ... to cease making [conventional vehicles] altogether." 142 S. Ct. at 2612.
Whether "the future of the auto industry is electric"3 is—pace President Biden—very much an
open question. But whether it is or not, it is not a future that the Executive Branch can mandate
by reimagining a decades-old statute. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1585-A1, p. 3]
3 FACT SHEET: Biden-Harris Administration Ensuring Future is Made in America, White House Briefing
Room (February 8, 2022), https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statementsreleases/2022/02/08/fact-
sheet-biden-harris-administration-ensuring-future-is-made-in-america/.
A. The proposal claims a power of vast economic and political significance. In assessing the
economic and political significance of a rule, courts look to both a rule's direct effects and the
implications of the agency's underlying claim of authority. For example, in West Virginia,
although EPA's Clean Power Plan only incrementally shifted power generation, the Court
reasoned that EPA had asserted the "highly consequential power" to "announc[e] what the
market share of coal, natural gas, wind, and solar must be, and then requir[e] plants to reduce
operations or subsidize their competitors to get there." 142 S. Ct. at 2609 & 2613 n.4; see
Alabama Ass'n of Realtors, 141 S. Ct. at 2489 (considering the "sheer scope of the [agency's]
claimed authority" in addition to the rule's "economic impact"). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1585-A1, pp. 3-4]
The proposal candidly indicates that that is exactly what EPA is doing here. Table ES-3
describes EPA's "Projected ZEV Adoption Rates in Technology Packages for the Proposed
Standards." 88 Fed. Reg. 25,932. EPA lays out what it expects (read: requires) "the market
share" of "zero-emission vehicles" to be in each year under its new standards. Light-Heavy Duty
Vocational Trucks, for example, must be 22 percent electric by 2027, 39 percent by 2030, and 57
percent by 2032. There are effectively none now. This regulatory transformation is exactly the
sort of "highly consequential power" that the Supreme Court had in mind in West
Virginia. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1585-A1, p. 4]
50
-------
A transition to an electric heavy-duty fleet also implicates policy matters of national
importance well outside of EPA's mission and expertise, including "deciding how Americans
will get their energy," West Virginia, 142 S. Ct. at 2612, and the national security implications of
importing billions of tons of critical minerals from hostile foreign powers like China, see 88 Fed.
Reg. 25,966 (recognizing that "most global battery manufacturing capacity is currently located
outside the U.S."). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1585-A1, p. 7]
But even the raw "economic impact" of the proposal raises it to a level of significance capable
of triggering major question scrutiny. The proposal estimates $56 billion in costs: $9 billion in
"vehicle technology costs" and $47 billion in "electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) costs."
88 Fed. Reg. 25,936-937 (Apr. 27, 2023). That alone would render this one of the most
expensive rules in U.S. history. In 2027 alone, the technology and ESVE will cost the economy
$3.3 billion, rising to $4.6 billion by 2032.4 88 Fed. Reg. 26,088, Table IX-18. This is
comparable to the economic cost of the Clean Power Plan, which triggered the major-questions
doctrine in West Virginia. See 142 S. Ct. at 2610; EPA, Regulatory Impact Analysis for the
Clean Power Plan Final Rule 3-22 (projecting up to $3 billion in 2025 rising to $8.4 billion in
costs in 2030). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1585-A1, p. 4]
4 In Table IX-18, EPA misleadingly displays lower total cost numbers ($3 billion by 2027 and $0.86 billion
by 2032) by counting some "benefits" in the operating cost column. These "operating costs" can be
negative because EPA defines them not as costs, but rather as costs "compared to comparable ICE
vehicles." DRIA at 288; see also 88 Fed. Reg. 25,986 ("[W]e are ... interested in costs that differ for a
comparable diesel-powered ICE vehicle and a ZEV."). In any case, EPA's operating costs analysis ignores
crucial aspects of maintenance and is severely underestimated, as described below.
The proposal's political significance is equally vast. The target of EPA's proposal is "the
subject of an earnest and profound debate across the country." West Virginia, 142 S. Ct at 2614.
The Biden Administration and a small number of states favor an aggressive transition away from
the internal combustion engine, while many other states are actively opposing it. See, e.g., State
of Iowa, et al v. EPA, et al., D.C. Circuit No. 23-1144 (where Iowa, Alabama, Arkansas,
Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska,
North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming are all
challenging EPA's approval of California's Advanced Clean Trucks plan, which like EPA's
proposed rule here, would force the electrification of the heavy-duty fleet). [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1585-A1, p. 7]
While Congress has provided certain taxpayer subsidies, grants, and loans to incentivize
electric vehicles, it has never clearly authorized a transition away from the internal combustion
engine by agency fiat. Indeed, proposals to impose electric vehicle mandates have never even
made it out of committee. See, e.g., Zero-Emission Vehicles Act of 2019, H.R. 2764, 116th
Cong. (2019); Zero-Emission Vehicles Act of 2018, S. 3664, 115th Cong. (2018). Such a
proposal would be foolish. Congress recognizes that heavy-duty trucking is the circulatory
system of the U.S. economy, and a rule that threatens the effectiveness of this system threatens
the body politic as a whole. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1585-A1, p. 7]
A transition to an electric heavy-duty fleet also implicates policy matters of national
importance well outside of EPA's mission and expertise, including "deciding how Americans
will get their energy," West Virginia, 142 S. Ct. at 2612, and the national security implications of
importing billions of tons of critical minerals from hostile foreign powers like China, see 88 Fed.
51
-------
Reg. 25,966 (recognizing that "most global battery manufacturing capacity is currently located
outside the U.S."). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1585-A1, p. 7]
That Congress has consistently rejected forced electrification is also evident from the way in
which it would conflict with its broader legislative schemes it has enacted. For example,
Congress has consistently sought to address greenhouse-gas emissions from the transportation
sector by promoting corn ethanol and other renewable fuels, which can be amply supplied
domestically. See e.g., Renewable Fuel Standard, 42 U.S.C. § 7545(o)(2)(A)(i); Inflation
Reduction Act of 2022, Pub. L. No. 117-169, §§ 13202, 13404, 22003, 136 Stat. 1818, 1932,
1966-1969, 2020 (2022). And it has granted EPA separate—and limited and procedurally
cabined—authority to regulate fuels and fuel additives, further indicating that Section 202 is not
a broad delegation of authority to phase out liquid-fueled internal combustion engines. See
42 U.S. Code § 7545. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1585-A1, pp. 7 - 8]
Notably, Congress has already disapproved of EPA's attempts to reshape the heavy-duty
market. Both the House and the Senate approved a resolution of disapproval under the
Congressional Review Act that would have rescinded EPA's heavy-duty NOx rule, had that
measure not been vetoed by President Biden. David Shepardson, Biden Vetoes Bill That Would
Negate EPA Heavy Truck Pollution Cuts, Reuters (June 14, 2023),
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-vetoes-billoverturn- heavy-duty-truck-pollution-cuts-
2023-06-14/. The same congressional disapproval is even more likely if these rules are finalized
as proposed, and at the very least this bicameral agreement on this issue highlights that EPA is
here contending with a question of political significance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1585-A1,
p. 8]
The proposal is also a novel assertion of agency authority. The Supreme Court has explained
that skepticism is warranted when an agency asserts an "unheralded power representing a
transformative expansion in its regulatory authority." West Virginia, 142 S. Ct. at 2610 (cleaned
up). Until this administration, EPA never claimed the authority to mandate even partial
electrification. Now it claims the power to transform the entire fleet in just a few years' time.
And EPA, unlike NHSTA, has no fuel economy or credit trading authority, but only authority to
prescribe "standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any class or classes of
new motor vehicles." 42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(1). Now EPA seeks to expand that authority by
creating from whole cloth regulatory cross-subsidies, spreading costs for one class of heavy-duty
vehicles across many classes of heavy-duty consumers. This is audacious and
unprecedented. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1585-A1, p. 8]
III. Nothing in the Inflation Reduction Act Grants EPA Additional Authority to Mandate
Electrification.
The proposal also suggests that the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) provides some additional
reinforcement to its claims of statutory authority for these sweeping changes. "The recently-
enacted IRA 'reinforces the longstanding authority and responsibility of [EPA] to regulate GHGs
as air pollutants under the Clean Air Act,' and 'the IRA clearly and deliberately instructs EPA to
use' this authority by 'combin[ing] economic incentives to reduce climate pollution with
regulatory drivers to spur greater reductions under EPA's CAA authorities.'" 88 Fed. Reg.
25,950 (quoting 168 Cong. Rec. E868-02 (daily ed. Aug. 12, 2022) (statement of Rep. Pallone)
and 168 Cong. Rec. E879-02, at 880 (daily ed. Aug. 26, 2022) (statement of Rep.
Pallone)). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1585-A1, p. 13]
52
-------
Not so. The words in a statute must be read in their context to understand how they fit into the
overall statutory scheme. Davis v. Michigan Dept. of Treasury, 489 U.S. 803, 809 (1989). In
making this determination, consideration must be given to the overall type and purpose of the
statute. Dolan v. U.S. Postal Service, 546 U.S. 481, 486 (2006). Here, the relevant context is that
the IRA was passed through the reconciliation process under the Congressional Budget and
Impoundment Control Act. That act established the congressional budget process giving
Congress an expedited process by which it can pass by a majority vote legislation pertaining to
revenue, spending, or the debt limit levels. This reconciliation process was intended to be used to
reduce the deficit through some combination of spending reductions or revenue increases.
Congressional Research Service Report RL30862, The Budget Reconciliation Process: The
Senate's "Byrd Rule" (updated Sept. 28, 2022), at 1, available at
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL30862. Legislation passed under this process
does not alter other substantive obligations and it must be related to spending, revenue, or the
federal debt limit. In other words, "If Congress wants to assign this authority to the EPA or any
other federal agency, it cannot do so by way of a budget reconciliation bill such as the IRA."
John Dixon, et al., No Inflation Act Boost For EPA Power Over Greenhouse Gases, Law360
(Sep. 19, 2022), https://www.law360.com/articles/1531794/no-inflation-act-boost-for-epa-
power-overgreenhouse-gases. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1585-A1, p. 14]
Indeed, nothing in the IRA grants any authority "under the Clean Air Act" at all. Instead, the
IRA provides several section-specific definitions of greenhouse gases, that apply only to that
section for the purposes of grantmaking. For example, "Definition of Greenhouse Gas.-In this
section, the term 'greenhouse gas' means the air pollutants carbon dioxide, hydrofluorocarbons,
methane, nitrous oxide, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride." 136 Stat. 2069. Moreover,
none of these various definitional provisions address the EPA's authority under Section 202. See,
e.g., 136 Stat. 2069 (applying the term to grants to address air pollution at schools under Section
103 and 105); id. (grants to states under Section 177); id. (grants for "education" and "outreach"
about low-emissions electricity generation); id. at 2070 (grants for biofuels under Section 211);
id. at 2072 (grants for corporate reporting); id. at 2077-78 (grants for labeling of construction
materials); id. at 2083 (same for federal buildings). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1585-A1, p. 14]
These provisions do nothing to change the EPA's ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions
and do not alleviate the many problems the proposal already has under the major questions
doctrine. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1585-A1, p. 14]
IV. The Proposed Rule Fails to Adequately Consider Low-Carbon Renewable Fuel
Alternatives.
Beneath the complexity of its reverse-engineered system, the proposal's plan for reducing
greenhouse gas emissions is remarkably straightforward: electrify the heavy-duty fleet as fast
as—or perhaps even faster—than possible. But this narrow vision of pursuing a singular
regulatory White Whale entirely neglects other more feasible technological solutions auto
manufacturers could adopt to meet the standards if they were properly credited for them: namely
the manufacture of vehicles that run on low-carbon, renewable fuels. Agencies are required, as
part of any reasoned decision-making process, to consider all "significant and viable and obvious
alternatives" to their proposed action. Dist. Hosp. Partners, L.P. v. Burwell, 786 F.3d 46, 59
(D C. Cir. 2015); see Spirit Airlines, Inc. v. DOT, 997 F.3d 1247, 1255 (D.C. Cir. 2021) ("[T]he
failure of an agency to consider obvious alternatives has led uniformly to reversal."). EPA has
53
-------
the authority to consider the carbon reductions that come from these fuels and neglecting this
option for compliance violates EPA's duty to give "appropriate consideration to the cost of
compliance" with the proposed regulations. 42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(2). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1585-A1, p. 15]
B. EPA must account for lifecycle emissions and establish new certification fuel pathways to
account for the benefits of low-carbon, renewable fuels.
The proposal projects that millions of liquid fueled vehicles will continue to be sold
throughout the compliance period and that millions more will remain on the road in the decades
to come. There are two ways to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions from this fleet. New
vehicles can be improved—albeit only modestly—by improving the fuel efficiency of the
engines. But almost all these vehicles could reduce net greenhouse-gas emissions much more
significantly if fueled with renewable fuels. Increasing the volumes of renewable diesel and
biodiesel blending would have an immediate impact on global greenhouse gas emissions. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1585-A1, p. 16]
While vehicles running on these fuels would emit approximately the same amount of C02
from their tailpipes, the net C02 emitted would be substantially reduced. This is because these
fuels make use of carbon that was recently sequestered by plants, and thus removed from the
atmosphere in the same quantity that it will reenter it. Converting plants to biofuels does not
result in any net increase in carbon emissions within this natural cycle. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1585-A1, p. 16]
There are two ways renewable fuels can reduce future greenhouse-gas emissions and improve
the feasibility of the rule. First, renewable diesel and biodiesel already play a significant role in
our nations fuel fleet. EPA knows this because it administers the Renewable Fuel Standard and
has significant data about the volumes of these fuels that are already used by the fleet. EPA also
has authority to set those volume standards, and EPA knows that almost all conventional heavy-
duty diesel vehicles could immediately accept higher volumes of renewable fuels with minimal
change in vehicle performance and dramatically reduced lifecycle emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1585-A1, p. 16]
Second, there are several emerging technologies that promise to make new heavy-duty
vehicles capable of running on different and potentially more effective renewable fuels. For
example, the Cummins X-15—a 500hp 15L heavy-duty engine discussed in EPA's DRIA—is
fuel agnostic and could potentially make use of a variety of low-carbon fuels. ClearFlame Engine
Technologies recently completed a test in which a Class 8 diesel truck was converted to run on
renewable E98 ethanol. ClearFlame Engine Technologies completes on-road demo of Class 8
truck with Cummins X15 running E98 ethanol, Green Car Congress (Feb. 11, 2022). The current
proposal would treat ClearFlame's ethanol-fueled engine as though it is operating on diesel fuel
and calculate resulting tailpipe emissions in a way that has no connection to reality. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1585-A1, pp. 16 - 17]
EPA must update its certification pathways to allow vehicles to certify on dedicated
alternative fuels, like the various, widely available high ethanol blends. Establishing new
pathways for high ethanol blends—like EPA is proposing to do with hydrogen—is the most
effective way to rapidly reduce the emissions of the heavy-duty fleet. By failing to consider a
lifecycle emissions approach, and the acute safety risks of forced electrification, EPA precludes
54
-------
the most effective way to set and meet its standards. This would violate EPA's statutory duty to
consider feasibility or would, at the very least, make the proposed rule arbitrary and capricious.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1585-A1, p. 17]
Organization: Cummins Inc.
It is vitally important to us that EPA carefully considers our comments to ensure that Phase 3
is finalized as a truly performance-based, technology-neutral regulation that provides full
emissions crediting of zero fuel carbon emissions and that does not pose greater certification or
compliance barriers for some technology solutions versus others. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1598-A1, p. 5]
Organization: Daimler Truck North America LLC (DTNA)
DTNA's impetus for such investment in charging infrastructure is, in part, driven by the
significant hurdle to ZEV adoption that we and our customers, the nation's largest fleets, have
faced when attempting to deploy BEVs. Between 2018 and 2022, our combined pre-series trucks
were placed with nearly 50 different fleets and collectively accumulated more than 1.5 million
miles in real-world operation. Recharging needs, even at the depot level (so called behind-the-
fence charging), proved a serious limitation to utilization, given the lead times for utility and
facilities upgrades and surge(s) in power demand. DTNA's participation in pilot programs like
California's Joint Electric Truck Scaling Initiative (JETSI), which seeks to accelerate ZEV
adoption along Southern California's freight corridors, also serves as a blueprint for large fleets
to electrify at scale. The feedback and data garnered from investments in these early programs,
as well as our ongoing commitment to the surrounding ZEV ecosystem, will continue to yield
benefits for direct participants and others as we collectively navigate the ZEV transition. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 7]
In light of these significant investments and ongoing contributions to the holistic ZEV
ecosystem, DTNA is aligned with EPA in supporting proliferation of the low- and zero-emission
technologies of the future. In addition, the Company generally supports EPA's approach to this
rulemaking, particularly its recognition that the achievability of stringent GHG emission
standards for the HD sector will depend in significant part upon future market uptake of HD
ZEVs. We also appreciate EPA's recognition that projecting future market developments is a
complex undertaking that involves careful consideration of purchasing behavior, costs,
incentives, fleet operational needs, infrastructure availability, and other factors. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1555-A1, pp. 7-8]
Further, the Company supports EPA's proposal to shift regulatory focus away from
conventional vehicle technologies in the next phase of HD GHG emission regulation and to
adopt a technology-neutral approach that will not require changes to ICE vehicles. We also
endorse the proposed fleet-based averaging approach to emission compliance, and we appreciate
EPA's recognition that continuation of the current emission credit program will be key to many
manufacturers' compliance strategies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 8]
DTNA Supports the Core Components of EPA's Proposal.
DTNA generally supports EPA's proposal to retain the basic structure of the Phase 2
standards, namely the establishment of emission standard stringency based upon a fleet average
55
-------
technology mix and use of the averaging provisions of the ABT program for compliance. The
Company also appreciates EPA's continued recognition that its GHG emission standards must be
suitable for a wide variety of HDV applications with different drive cycles rather than based on a
'one size fits all' approach. The Company supports EPA's decision to allow Phase 2 credits to
carry over into the Phase 3 program, subject to the five-year credit life limitation. DTNA agrees
with EPA's decision to premise Phase 3 standards on technology packages that include both ICE
and ZEV technologies. This structure—including EPA's determination not to increase engine
emission standard stringency as part of this rulemaking—will allow manufacturers to focus their
resources on ZEV development and to choose whether or not to allocate resources to C02-
reducing technologies for conventional vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 16]
Organization: Delek US Holdings, Inc.
EPA's Proposed Rule eviscerates the free market and imposes a new, overly burdensome
regulatory regime for automotive electrification at the expense of the internal combustion engine
("ICE")—all without Congressional authorization2—based on flawed and illogical
reasoning. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1561-A1, p. 2]
2 See West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, 142 S. Ct. 2587 (2022) (holding the Clean Air
Act did not authorize EPA to devise emissions caps based on the generation shifting approach the Agency
adopted in the Clean Power Plan and that the Agency's actions constituted a "major question," reserved for
Congress). Like the Clean Power Plan, nowhere in the Clean Air Act did Congress authorize EPA to set
standards beyond what could be achieved with a disfavored power source and effectively order regulated
parties to phase out that technology. EPA's standard-setting tools are limited to those which Congress
provided in Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.
EPA's Proposed Rule is, at best, arbitrary and capricious or otherwise not in accordance with
the Clean Air Act because it is based on flawed projections for zero emissions vehicles
("ZEVs"), such as battery electric vehicles ("BEVs"), will increase domestic reliance on foreign
supply chains, underestimates the lifecycle GHG emissions associated with BEVs, overstates the
benefits of the proposal, severely underestimates the costs, and fails to consider the impacts to
other industries. Accordingly, Delek urges EPA to abandon or substantially reconsider its
proposal. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2022-0985-1561 - A 1, p. 2]
Organization: Diesel Technology Forum (DTF)
The newest generation of advanced diesel vehicles makes up a growing portion of the total
diesel commercial truck population. In 2021, more than half of all diesel commercial vehicles on
the road in the United States were the newest generation equipped with the advanced diesel
engines in 2011 and later model years. These trucks have near zero emissions of NOx and
particulate mater. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1618-A1, p. 1]
While making commercial trucks much lower in emissions, diesel engine and truck
manufacturers have also made them increasingly more fuel-efficient. Since 2011, new diesel
commercial trucks realized an average 5% improvement in fuel economy, thanks to advanced
emissions controls (selective catalytic reduction) than have enabled optimized engine design
toward greater fuel efficiency. This translates into petroleum reduction equivalent to 5.8 billion
barrels of crude oil. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1618-A1, p. 1]
56
-------
An owner of a single new Class 8 truck powered by the latest advanced diesel engine can
expect to save about 2,200 gallons of fuel each year compared to previous generations of
technology. This reduces greenhouse gas emissions by nearly 30 tons. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1618-A1, p. 2]
New diesel vehicles continue to increase their penetration in the marketplace in part, due to
fuel efficiency requirements of Phase 1 of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Fuel Efficiency standards that went
into effect in 2014 and the more stringent Phase 2 rules that started in 2021. The Phase 2 rule is
expected to eliminate over 1 billion tons of greenhouse gas emissions from new trucks between
2021 and 2027. More efficient diesel trucks will deliver the overwhelming majority of these
benefits even as zero-emissions technologies are expected to gain some market share during the
lifetime of the rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1618-A1, p. 2]
II. Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles (ICEV) Will Continue to Play a Significant Role for
Commercial Vehicles Well into The Future.
While this proposal to establish future GHG emissions standards for heavy duty vehicles
focuses substantially on zero emission vehicle technologies, EPA acknowledges that ICEV -
including diesel and natural gas — will continue to play a considerable role in the future of
commercial truck transportation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1618-A1, p. 2]
EPA notes in the proposed rule that
"The proposed standards do not mandate the use of a specific technology, and EPA
anticipates that a compliant fleet under the proposed standards would include a diverse range of
technologies (e.g., transmission technologies, aerodynamic improvements, engine technologies,
battery electric powertrains, hydrogen fuel cell powertrains, etc.). (88 Fed Reg 25952)
The technologies that have played a fundamental role in meeting the Phase 2 GHG standards
will continue to play an important role going forward as they remain key to reducing the GHG
emissions of HD vehicles powered by internal combustion engines (referred to in this proposal as
ICE vehicles). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1618-A1, p. 2]
In developing the proposed standards, EPA has also considered the key issues associated with
growth in penetration of zero-emission vehicles, including charging infrastructure and hydrogen
production. EPA's assessment that supports the appropriateness and feasibility of these proposed
standards, includes a technology pathway that could be used to meet each of the standards. The
technology package includes a mix of ICE vehicles with C02 -reducing technologies and
ZEVs." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1618-A1, pp. 2 - 3]
Throughout the proposal EPA references a multitude of sources each forecasting varying
expectations and analysis of the potential penetration of ZEV technology across different
commercial vehicle sectors. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1618-A1, p. 3.] [See Table ES-4 on
page 3 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1618-A1.]
These sources include trade press, government agencies, various NGO stakeholders (ICCT,
ACEEE, EDF) users, truck and engine manufacturers, electric vehicle charging vendors and
others. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1618-A1, p. 3]
57
-------
An aggregate view of technology packages and projected ZEV adoption rates as show in
Table ES-4 above from the proposed rule (88 Fed Reg 25933) indicates clearly that the
expectation is that ICEV will continue to power various segments of the trucking sector at 60 to
80 percent of the market share in 2032 and beyond if the strategies in the proposed rule are
adopted. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1618-A1, p. 3]
EPA also supports the case for Phase 3 GHG rules with an emphasis on driving a ZEV
transition by relying on the anecdotal reports, press announcements and ZEV experience from
some of the nation's largest and most visible fleets such as Walmart, Amazon, and others. These
companies, while they have considerable resources to explore lesser known and as yet fully
unproven fuels and technologies and manage the risk thereof, are not representatives of the
majority of trucking industry. As previously noted 99.7% of all trucking companies are fleets of
less than 100 vehicles. We question as to whether all of EPA's assumptions and logic in crafting
the overall rule and support of the standard apply equally to the large fleets vs. the small carriers.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1618-A1, p. 3]
Considerable uncertainty exists within the forecasts and projections presented by each source,
and in some cases the sources are citing each other. EPA makes an extensive case for the impacts
of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) on facilitating
the introduction of more ZEVs into the marketplace. 3 Ultimately the adoption of ZEV hinges
largely on the timing and availability of infrastructure, costs of ZEV and competing fuels —
petroleum fuel and renewable fuels, and the user readiness, market acceptance and other factors.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1618-A1, p. 4]
3 88 Fed. Reg. 25930
Organization: Energy Marketers of America (EMA)
EMA is concerned over EPA's tailpipe emission standards for heavy-duty vehicles for model
year 2027 and beyond which will effectively discourage investment in lower carbon liquid fuels.
The focus on EV heavy-duty vehicle production will eliminate an opportunity to provide liquid
fuels that immediately lower emissions not only for new trucks, but for the heavy-duty trucks
currently on the road. In addition, the proposed rule will limit consumer choice and threaten the
viability and jobs of small business energy marketers around the country. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1590-A1, p. 1]
Organization: Environmental Defense Fund (EPF)
EPA has clear authority to establish performance-based emission standards under Section
202(a)(1). EPA's approach, including setting performance-based standards, considering ZEVs,
and continuing the longstanding use of averaging, banking, and trading (ABT), is consistent with
the text and structure of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and the history of EPA regulation. Moreover,
the recent enactment of the IRA strongly reaffirms EPA's authority under the CAA and removes
any doubt that EPA's actions here are fully consistent with Congress's will. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 10]
a) EPA Has Authority to Consider ZEV Technology in Setting Emission Standards
58
-------
The language and structure of the CAA clearly show that Congress granted EPA authority to
consider all available technologies, including ZEV technologies in setting emission standards
under Section 202(a). Relying on this authority, EPA has factored such technologies into
its standards for over two decades, 11 including in each of its six past GHG rules. 12 Accordingly,
its decision to do so again in this rule now that ZEV technologies are more widely available is
eminently reasonable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 10-11]
11 65 Fed. Reg. 6698 (Feb. 10, 2000) ("Tier 2" criteria pollutant standards).
12 75 Fed. Reg. 25324 (May 7, 2010) (Light-duty model year 2011 and later); 76 Fed. Reg. 57106 (Sept.
15, 2011) (Heavy-duty model year 2014 and later); 77 Fed. Reg. 62624 (Oct. 15, 2012) (Light-duty model
year 2017 and later); 81 Fed. Reg. 73478 (Oct. 25, 2016) (Heavy-duty model year 2021 and later); 85 Fed.
Reg. 24174 (Apr. 30, 2020) (Light-duty model year 2021 and later); 86 Fed. Reg. 74434 (Dec. 30, 2021)
(Light-duty model year 2023 and later).
Section 202(a)(1) directs EPA to set emissions standards applicable regardless of "whether
such vehicles and engines are designed as complete systems or incorporate devices to prevent or
control such pollution." 13 This language explicitly rejects limitations to internal-combustion
engines or to particular kinds of technologies. It just as clearly includes technology beyond
internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs), including zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs), which
are plainly a "complete system[]" that can "prevent" pollution. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1644-A1, p. 11]
13 42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(1).
This reading of Section 202 is well supported by its core function and the long history of its
interpretation by EPA and the courts. In Section 202, Congress authorized EPA to "project future
advances" in technology, and not be confined to pollution-control methods that were currently
available. 14 Indeed, Congress expected EPA to "adjust to changing technology." 15 Based on its
clear CAA authority, EPA has factored ZEV technologies (ranging from mild hybrid
technologies to fully electric battery-powered vehicles) into its rules for more than two
decades. 16 EPA first included ZEVs in its fleetwide averages in its 2000 "Tier 2"
criteria pollutant standards. 17 The agency has continued to consider and incentivize these
technologies in every one of its six greenhouse gas (GHG) rules for both light- and heavy-duty
vehicles. 18 More recent acts of Congress have reaffirmed Congress' intention that EPA consider
the emissions-reducing potential of ZEVs in its rules. The IRA and BIL both include myriad
provisions that seek to support a transition to ZEV technology through funding of credits for
vehicles, components, and critical infrastructure. These laws were passed with the knowledge
that EPA was already setting standards under Section 202(a) that would increase ZEV
proliferation and an intent to support those regulations. 19 Congress' aim with the funding was to
"combine[] new economic incentives to reduce climate pollution with bolstered regulatory
drivers that will allow EPA to drive further reduction under its CAA authorities,"20 with the
expectation that "future EPA regulations will increasingly rely on and incentivize zero-emission
vehicles as appropriate."21 Moreover, given that, in setting standards under Section 202(a), EPA
must consider the present or probable future availability of effective technologies, as well as the
cost of such technologies and the time necessary to apply them, the significant changes of the
IRA and BIL will result in accelerating broader availability of ZEV technologies, and reducing
their cost, which will necessarily affect EPA's analysis of what emissions standards are
appropriate. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 11-12]
59
-------
14 NRDC v EPA, 655 F.2d 318, 329 (1981) (quoting Senate report from 1970 amendments stating EPA
was "expected to press for the development and application of improved technology rather than be limited
by that which exists today." S. Rep. No. 1196, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. 24 (1970)).
15 S. Rep. No. 89-192, at 4 (1965).
16 For a detailed review of this history, see Brief of Amici Curiae Margo Oge and John Hannon in Support
of Respondents, Texas v. EPA, No. 22-1031, 24-31 (D.C. Cir, Mar. 2, 2023), Texas v. EPA, No. 22-1031,
33 (D.C. Cir, Mar. 2, 2023). (Attachment D)
18 Supra note 1212; See also EPA's Answering Brief, Texas v. EPA, No. 22-1031, 15-16 (D.C. Cir, Apr.
27, 2023), https://www.edf.org/sites/default/files/2023-05/Texas%20-%20EPA%20Final%20Brief.pdf.
(Attachment E)
19 The BIL was passed after EPA's 2023-2026 light-duty GHG standards, which rely on ZEV technology,
had been proposed and the IRA was passed 9 months after they were finalized. Brief of Senator Thomas R.
Carper and Representative Frank Pallone, Jr. as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondents, Texas v. EPA,
No. 22-1031, 29 (D.C. Cir, Mar. 2, 2023). (Attachment F).
20 168 Cong. Rec. E868-02 (daily ed. Aug. 12, 2022) (statement of Rep. Pallone discussing the IRA).
21 168 Cong. Rec. at 880-02 (daily ed. Aug. 12, 2022) (statement of Rep. Pallone); see also Greg Dotson
and Dustin J. Maghamfar, The Clean Air Act Amendments of 2022: Clean Air, Climate Change, and the
Inflation Reduction Act, 53 ENV'T L. REP. 10017, 10030 (2023) ("The IRA directs EPA to support zero
emission technologies for heavy-duty vehicles and port equipment, to reduce emissions in low-income and
disadvantaged communities, as well as to support state ZEV requirements. This is a recognition of the
evolving importance and availability of zero emission technologies."),
https://www.eli.org/sites/default/files/files-pdf/53.10017.pdf. (Attachment G)
Additionally, several provisions in the IRA directly affirm EPA's authority to consider ZEVs
under Section 202(a). Section 60106 of the law provides $5 million for EPA "to provide grants
to States to adopt and implement greenhouse gas and zero-emission standards for mobile
sources pursuant to section 177 of the [CAA] "22 Section 177 allows other states to adopt
California's vehicle emission standards, which must be at least as protective as the federal
standards and meet certain other statutory requirements.23 Thus, as members of Congress stated
in an amicus brief supporting EPA's MY 2023-2026 light-duty GHG standards, "Congress's
explicit endorsement of states' use of Section 177 to enact 'greenhouse gas and zero-emission
standards' clearly demonstrates its comfort with and support for state and federal standards that
contemplate compliance through zero-emission vehicle manufacturing."24 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 12-13]
22 Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, P.L. 117-1698, 136 Stat. 2068-69 (2022).
23 42 U.S.C. § 7507, 7543(b).
24 Brief of Senator Thomas R. Carper and Representative Frank Pallone, Jr. as Amici Curiae in Support of
Respondents, Texas v. EPA, No. 22-1031, 33 (D.C. Cir, Mar. 2, 2023),
https://www.edf.org/sites/default/files/2023-03/Texas%20-
%20Members%20of%20Congress%20%28Sen.%20Carper%20and%20Rep.%20Pallone%29.pdf; see also
Greg Dotson and Dustin J. Maghamfar, The Clean Air Act Amendments of 2022: Clean Air, Climate
Change, and the Inflation Reduction Act, 53 ENV'T L. REP. 10017, 10030 (2023) ("[I]t is a necessary
precondition [of the IRA's funding for zero-emission standards under section 177] that. . . EPA can
establish zero emission standards pursuant to the CAA."), https://www.eli.org/sites/default/files/files-
pdf/53.10017.pdf.
The IRA also made amendments to the CAA affirming that Congress regards programs
incorporating ZEV technology as an important aspect of EPA's mission to reduce air pollution
60
-------
under the law.25 Those amendments include adding a definition of "zero-emission vehicle" into
the newly added CAA Section 132, which consists of a program of EPA grants and rebates
towards the purchase of zero-emission heavy duty vehicles.26 In passing the IRA, Congress
made clear that it "recognizes EPA's longstanding authority under CAA Section 202 to adopt
standards that rely on zero emission technologies."27 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1,
p. 13]
25 Brief of Senator Thomas R. Carper and Representative Frank Pallone, Jr. as Amici Curiae in Support of
Respondents, Texas v. EPA, No. 22-1031, 32 (D.C. Cir, Mar. 2, 2023) ("By incorporating these new
programs into the Act's existing air pollution control framework, Congress clearly demonstrated that clean
energy and zero-emission vehicle programs are central to the Act's implementation going forward."),
https://www.edf.org/sites/default/files/2023-03/Texas%20-
%20Members%20of%20Congress%20%28Sen.%20Carper%20and%20Rep.%20Pallone%29.pdf.
26 42 U.S.C. § 7432(d)(5); see also Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, P.L. 117-1698, 136 Stat. 2064-65
(2022) (creating new CAA section 133 to provide grants for "zero-emission port equipment or
technology.").
27 168 Cong. Rec. E879-02, at 880 (daily ed. Aug. 26, 2022) (statement of Rep. Pallone).
Organization: Lubrizol Corporation (Lubrizol)
Lubrizol believes that vehicle owners and fleets in the heavy-duty vehicle sector will use a
range of fuels and technologies to meet their future operational and environmental needs. Thus,
we are pleased to see EPA acknowledge that it expects to see Original Engine Manufacturers
("OEMs") use an array of technologies to meet the requirements of the Final Rule. Lubrizol
strongly encourages EPA to promulgate a Final Rule that will advance all three strategies
highlighted in the Biden administration's Transportation Decarbonization Blueprint (the
"Blueprint"), i.e., Sustainable Liquid Fuels ("SLFs"), Battery-Electric Vehicles ("BEVs"), and
Hydrogen.2 While there is exciting progress being made to develop heavy-duty engines and
vehicles that will operate on electricity and hydrogen, the majority of new heavy-duty vehicles
will continue to use internal combustion engines ("ICE") for many years to come. This will be
especially true in the heavier vehicle classes in the heavy-duty vehicle market.3 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1651-A2, p. 2.]
2 The U.S. National Blueprint for Transportation Decarbonization: A Joint Strategy to Transform
Transportation (the "Blueprint"). Accessed on June 11, 2023 at The U.S. National Blueprint for
Transportation Decarbonization: A Joint Strategy to Transform Transportation | Department of Energy.
See, e.g., page 5, Figure B and similar references elsewhere in the Blueprint.
3 Lubrizol notes that, even in California and the other states that adopt California's Advanced Clean
Transportation ("ACT") rule (collectively, the "ACT States"), most new trucks sold in 2035 will still be
ICE vehicles fueled by petroleum diesel fuel, absent any further changes in state or federal fuel policy.
More specifically, manufacturers who certify Class 2b-8 chassis or complete vehicles with combustion
engines will be required to sell zero-emission trucks as an increasing percentage of their annual sales in the
ACT States from 2024 to 2035. By 2035, zero-emission truck/chassis sales will need to be 55% of Class 2b
- 3 truck sales, 75% of Class 4-8 straight truck sales, and 40% of truck tractor sales in the ACT States.
Organization: Lynden Incorporated
Lynden values the goal of cleaner air and cleaner trucks, however the proposed Phase 3
emissions standards for heavy trucks limits innovation and puts other viable options to reduce
emissions in the near-term out of reach. Rules with such a broad-reaching impact on the freight
61
-------
industry on which the American economy depends and which ultimately impacts the cost of
goods essential to every individual, requires a substantially broader view than strictly focusing
on tailpipe emission standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1470-A1, p. 5]
This is outside the scope of the EPA and should be addressed by Congress. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1470-A1, p. 5]
Organization: Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association (MECA)
Several engine and powertrain technologies have evolved to be commercially viable since the
Phase 2 standards were finalized and may be deployed by OEMs to meet the proposed C02
emission limits. Technologies such as cylinder deactivation, advanced driven turbochargers,
hybrid powertrains, vehicle electrification and hydrogen internal combustion engines should be
considered in EPA's analysis. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1521-A1, pp. 2-3]
The portfolio of technology options available to reduce GHG emissions from heavy-duty
trucks and engines is continually growing in response to federal GHG standards. A review of
heavy-duty engine certifications from 2002 to 2023 shows that once emission control and
efficiency improving technologies were required on engines in 2010-2011, the inverse
relationship between C02 and NOx emissions at the tailpipe was overcome and both were
reduced simultaneously (see Figure 1 below). Several engines certified since 2010 have shown
the ability to achieve 0.1 g/bhp-hr or lower NOx emissions over the composite FTP certification
cycle, which is 50% below the current standard. Of those engines, several have demonstrated the
ability to meet future Phase 2 GHG regulation limits for vocational engines that go into effect in
2021, 2024 and 2027. Setting stringent emission targets for both C02 and NOx through realistic
regulations has caused engine calibrators to expand their toolbox from the engine to the
powertrain to enable simultaneous NOx reductions and engine efficiency improvements. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1521-A1, p. 3.] [See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1521 -Al,
page 4, for Figure 1.]
These technologies represent only a few of the potential pathways available to OEMs to
reduce C02 from commercial engines and vehicles. It is MECA's recommendation that EPA
expand their analysis of potential compliance pathways, beyond only battery electric or fuel cell
powertrains, to include improvements in engine and powertrain efficiency and incorporate them
into a more robust final rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1521-A1, p. 9]
Organization: MEM A
The Final Rule Must Reflect Regulatory Certainty Paired with Technology Neutrality
EPA must provide sufficient regulatory certainty to manufacturers and consumers to ensure
the most favorable outcome of this ambitious market transformation. The final rule must contain
an effective mix of feasible, demonstrable technology along with emerging technology, and
leverage all available options to improve emissions reductions in today's advanced propulsion
designs. At the same time, the final rule must encourage innovation in clean transportation,
including more advanced low- and zero-emissions technology. MEMA opposes a 100% ZEV
mandate. A ZEV mandate stifles innovation and would disallow technologies that could address
the urgent need to decarbonize applications for HD and MD vocational vehicles. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1570-A1, p. 4]
62
-------
Technology neutrality pairs with Regulatory Certainty The proposed rule disproportionally
favors battery electric propulsion, which in turn discourages high-efficiency diesel and other
internal combustion technology, including carbon-neutral renewable fuels. Emerging innovations
and recent technologies offer significant reduction in emissions from ICE vehicles. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1570-A1, p. 4]
Technology forcing regulations that foster innovation aligned with policy, rather than
regulations that mandate a narrowly defined technology path, will lead to a more positive
national outcome. The chassis in the scope of this rule are not only expected to carry heavy loads
long distances, but also perform work during and after transit. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1570-
Al, p. 5]
MEMA recognizes that the proposal attempts a performance-based standard, and the agency
makes forecasts that estimate a variety of technology combinations in future fleets. At the same
time, the supplier industry projects more time is needed for innovation of nonelectric technology
than EPA has estimated. By accepting the potential for technologies other than battery electric
and hydrogen fuel cell, EPA can make a more immediate, widespread, positive impact on
nationwide emissions reductions. Therefore, EPA must incent the development and deployment
of advanced technology options to include advanced internal combustion (ICE) technologies and
renewable fuels. These incentives will assist in accelerating the necessary infrastructure
improvements needed to support advanced technology vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1570-A1, p. 5]
The proposal should be more technology-neutral and provide added regulatory certainty by
fairly assessing carbon content of vehicle's technologies, their production and where vehicle
charging electricity comes from. At this time, there is no review of carbon content of
components or vehicles in the Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis (DRIA). We understand the
complexity of this endeavor, but EPA unfairly tilts the balance toward battery electric vehicles
by a selectively narrow focus on tailpipe emissions. We agree with EPA statements that its
authority stems from Congressional directives to reduce tailpipe emissions. Electric vehicles
have no tailpipe, and thus no tailpipe emissions. If EPA is determined to regulate zero-emissions
vehicles, EPA should address lifecycle carbon content of vehicles in scope of this rule to better
balance technology vs. tailpipe. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1570-A1, pp. 5-6]
Recommendation: EPA to move beyond tailpipe emissions and examine lifecycle carbon
assessment to compare and evaluate vehicles in scope of this rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1570-A1, p. 6]
Recommendation: EPA to act decisively to further encourage and incent the development and
deployment of advanced clean ICE technologies, including renewable fuels and H2ICE. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1570-A1, p. 6]
Organization: Missouri Farm Bureau (MOFB)
We write today to express our opposition to the proposed rule. MOFB's member-adopted
policy states: 'We oppose increased restrictions on vehicle emissions, including mandates on
greenhouse gas emissions.' [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1584-A1, p. 1]
63
-------
In conclusion, MOFB believes EPA's proposed rule is ill-conceived and, as currently written,
will not achieve its purported purpose. We call upon EPA to immediately withdraw the proposed
rule and to work with transportation stakeholders, like MOFB, to better allow for emission
reductions from a variety of vehicles and fuels technologies that will support the American
economy, rather than those of foreign countries, and not cripple our essential transportation
sector we so heavily depend on. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1584-A1, p. 3]
Organization: National Association of Convenience Stores (NACS), NATSO, and SIGMA
EPA's Proposed Rule Is a 'Major Question' Reserved for Congress.
EPA's GHG standards should not favor one technology over another. The Proposed Rule,
however, goes beyond favoritism and signals the agency's intention to phase out non-EV
technologies, such as ICE vehicles. Despite EPA's assertions to the contrary, the Proposed Rule
mandates non-ICE technologies because OEMs cannot comply with the standards through the
sale of ICE vehicles alone. And EPA explicitly anticipates EV adoption rates high and above
current market rates to achieve these standards. By MY 2032, EPA predicts an EV adoption rate
between 15-57% across all regulatory subcategories of vehicles.27 At minimum (e.g. a 15%
adoption rate), this is a 7,400% increase over the number of HD electric vehicles certified by
EPA in 2021.28 The Proposed Rule will therefore introduce a transformational shift in the
automotive industry—including the fuel retail industry—far beyond that which EPA has
authority to mandate as delegated by Congress. Whether this shift is necessary and how best to
achieve such a shift are 'major questions' reserved for Congress and Congress alone. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1603-A1, p. 10]
27 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 'Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Heavy Duty
Vehicles: Phase 3, Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis,' 245, available at
https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-05/420d23004.pdf [hereinafter, 'DRIA'].
28 Proposed Rule, 88 Fed. Reg. at 25,940.
Consistent with the 'major questions doctrine,' Congress must 'speak clearly' to authorize an
agency to exercise powers of 'vast economic and political significance.'29 Overreaching
environmental regulatory programs like the Proposed Rule fit precisely into this doctrine. In
West Virginia v. EPA, the Supreme Court invoked the doctrine when it held that EPA had
exceeded its statutory authority in adopting the Clean Power Plan.30 Through the Clean Power
Plan, EPA sought to reduce emissions by requiring utilities and other power generators to
transition from coal-fired power to natural gas and, ultimately, renewable energy sources rather
than by imposing source-specific requirements reflective of the best available emission reduction
technologies, as it had done in the past.31 Through the Clean Power Plan, EPA announced 'what
the market share of coal, natural gas, wind, and solar must be, and then require[d] plants to
reduce operations or subsidize their competitors to get there.'32 The Supreme Court struck down
the proposed program, concluding that EPA's relied upon 'vague statutory grant' within the
Clean Air Act was far from the 'clear authorization required' for a regulatory program that
would have major economic and political significance, impacting vast swaths of American life,
and substantially restructuring the American energy market.33 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1603-A1, pp. 10-11]
29 Nat'l Fed. Of Indep. Bus. v. Dep't of Labor, 595 U.S. , slip op. at 6 (Jan 13, 2022); see also Ala.
Assoc. of Realtors v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 141 S. Ct. 2485, 2489 (2021); Utility Air
64
-------
Regulatory Group v. EPA, 573 U.S. 302, 324 (2014); U.S. Telecom Assoc. v. FCC, 855 F.3d 381, 419-21
(D.C. Cir. 2017) (Kavanaugh, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc) (explaining provenance of
'major rules doctrine').
30 West Virginia v. EPA, 597 U.S. _ (2022).
31 Id.
32 Id., slip op. at 33, n. 4.
33 Id., slip op. at 24.
EPA's Proposed Rule presents an analogous situation. Mandating a rapid shift from ICE to
EV technology will reshape the American automotive market with profound and far-reaching
collateral effects, thus encroaching on an issue of 'vast economic and political significance.'
These standards are contrary to natural market forces and would vastly alter what consumers are
able to purchase by indirectly requiring the production of a product different from that currently
being purchased (e.g., ICE HD vehicles). The Proposed Rule forces both the manufacturer's and
consumer's hand in requiring rapid scaling to meet production lead times and adoption rate
requirements that would not exist but for EPA's electrification mandate. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1603-A1, p. 11]
Beyond the obvious impacts to consumer automotive markets, the Proposed Rule will also
greatly affect fuel retailers across the country. It will require utilities to rapidly increase
generation, transmission, and distribution capacities to meet needs not fully assessed by EPA.
Forcing the American automotive industry to shift reliance from domestically abundant and
secure oil and gas to foreign-supplied critical minerals will have profound impacts on national
security. These are only a few of the critical effects of the Proposed Rule that go well beyond
EPA's expertise. The Agency is not situated to fully analyze the consequences resulting from
such a rapid shift to EVs, if feasible at all—and the Agency has not done so. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1603-A1, p. 11]
Similar to the Supreme Court's finding in West Virginia, EPA lacks congressional
authorization in the Clean Air Act to impose a shifting manufacturing standard to a preferred
powertrain and effectively require regulated manufacturers to phase out combustion engine
technology. EPA's authority to impose emissions standards is limited to that provided in Section
202(a) of the Clean Air Act. EPA's authority is limited to setting 'standards' for 'emission[s]'
from 'any class or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicles engines, which ... cause
or contribute to,' potentially harmful air pollution. ZEVs do not have tailpipe emissions of
GHGs, though. Thus, operating such vehicles alone cannot 'cause, or contribute to,' air
pollution. In stark contrast to 'clear congressional authorization,' Section 202(a) of the Clean Air
Act provides EPA no authority to set standards beyond that which could be achieved by
improvement to ICE vehicles and eventually phase out the only technology contemplated when
the Act itself was adopted and amended. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1603-A1, p. 11]
Further evidencing EPA's lack of authority, the Proposal attempts to sidestep regulatory
requirements established by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 ('EPCA')34 and
the Energy Independence and Security Act ('EISA'). Pursuant to these authorities, the National
Highway Transportation Safety Authority ('NHTSA') has the authority to issue fuel efficiency
standards for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles. Because fuel economy and GHG emissions are
two sides of the same coin, EPA issued joint standards with NHTSA in prior Phase 1 and Phase
65
-------
2 heavy-duty GHG emission standard proposals. But EPA did not do the same for the proposed
Phase 3 standards here. If it did, the joint standards would have to comply with the EISA
requirement that all new fuel efficiency standards 'shall provide not less than 4 full model
years of regulatory lead-time,' so that new GHG standards are tethered to achievable vehicle
technology.35 That means a fuel efficiency standard promulgated in calendar year 2023 cannot
be implemented until MY 2028. The Proposed Rule does not meet this standard and, because it
effectively promulgates equivalent fuel efficiency standards in the form of GHG emissions
standards, is undercutting Congress' intent in EISA and regulating in a way that is inconsistent
with NHTSA's authority as well as its own.36 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1603-A1, pp. 11-12]
34 Pub. L. 94-163, 89 Stat. 871 (Dec. 22, 1975).
35 49 U.S.C. 32902(k). In contrast, under the Clean Air Act, new heavy-duty emission standards can begin
'no earlier than the model year commencing 4 years after such revised standard is promulgated.' 42
U.S.C. 7521(a)(3)(C).
36 See Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 532 (2007) ('The [EPA and NHTSA] obligations may
overlap, but there is no reason to think the two agencies cannot both administer their obligations and yet
avoid inconsistency.').
Moreover, EPA has never before claimed authority to mandate even partial electrification—
similar to EPA's reliance on Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act for the promulgation of the
Clean Power Plan. Congress has made clear that it, not EPA, must make policy decisions—or,
rather, answer the 'major question'—regarding if, when, and how the American automotive
industry will transition from ICE vehicles to EVs. In the 116th Congress (2019-21), Congress
introduced 44 bills seeking to reduce petroleum-based fuel consumption and GHG emissions
from the transportation sector through customer rebates, vehicle and fuel producer incentives,
local funding, development of standards, and research and development.37 But none went so far
as to propose the mass adoption of heavy-duty ZEVs through the phase-out of ICE vehicles.38 In
fact, Congress rejected one bill that would have banned the sale of new light-duty ICE vehicles
by 2040,39 and it has continuously disapproved of EPA's efforts to hamstring the automotive
sector with more stringent air pollution standards than are feasible.40 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1603-A1, p. 12]
37 CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE, 'Alternative Fuel and Vehicles: Legislative Proposals'
(July 28, 2021).
38 Id.
39 See Zero-Emission Vehicles Act of 2019, H.R. 2764, 116th Cong. (2019); Zero-Emission Vehicles Act
of 2018, S. 3664, 115th Cong. (2018); see also 116 Cong. Rec. 19238-40 (1970) (proposed amendment to
Title II that would have banned ICE vehicles by 1978).
40 See, e.g., S. J. Res. 11, 118th Cong. (2023). (Although passed only by the Senate thus far, the joint
resolution calls for disapproval of the rule submitted by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency relating to 'Control of Air Pollution From New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle
Standards,' 88 Fed. Reg. 4296 (January 24, 2023).)
Congress intended to direct these policy decisions, as evidenced by the passage of the
bipartisan infrastructure law41 and the Inflation Reduction Act ('IRA')42 whereby Congress
identified the policy levers it deemed appropriate. Congress could have, but did not, direct EPA
to establish a fleet-wide credit trading regime to further drive EV development and rapid
adoption. Instead, the Proposed Rule stands in direct contrast to other legislation, such as the
66
-------
Renewable Fuel Standard Program, whereby Congress mandated that 'gasoline sold or
introduced into commerce in the United States' must contain a year-over-year increasing share of
renewable fuels43 and, in 2022, must include tens of billions of gallons of renewable fuel.44 An
EPA-mandated shift in transportation technology from vehicles that can operate on increasing
volumes of renewable fuel to ZEVs does not square with such requirements. Consequently,
Congress, not EPA, should determine how to regulate electrification of transportation and the
many industries affected thereby. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1603-A1, pp. 12-13]
41 Public Law 117-58, November 15, 2021.
42 Public Law 117-169, August 16, 2022.
43 42 U.S.C. 7545(o)(2)(A)(i).
44 Id., 7545(o)(2)(B); 87 Fed. Reg. 39,600 (July 1, 2022).
Organization: National Association of Manufacturers
Emissions Standards Should Be Technology-Neutral
Commercial vehicle manufacturers have been making historic investments to ensure that zero
emissions vehicles will have a growing place on America's roads. In finalizing the rule, the
NAM urges the Environmental Protection Agency to remain technology-neutral, allowing
market forces to determine which technologies work best for specific sectors. A technology-
neutral approach provides the greatest flexibility and opportunities for manufacturers to meet the
administration's zero emissions goals. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1649-A2, p. 1]
Organization: Neste US
III. PROPOSED RULE IS INCONSISTENT WITH STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS OF
THE RENEWABLE FUEL STANDARD
While EPA has insisted this proposed rule is technology neutral, it is worth noting that any
EV mandate would be inconsistent with the statutory mandate of the Renewable Fuel Standards
(RFS), which incorporates the congressional assumption that decarbonization of liquid fuel will
remain a cornerstone of the United States' climate policy for the foreseeable future. Because
Congress directed EPA to implement 6 the RFS program, EPA cannot promote the substantial or
exclusive use of another technology that will frustrate Congress' RFS goals. Indeed, by adopting
the suggestions offered in these comments, the Agency would be ensuring these standards work
hand-in-glove with the RFS in the most efficient and logical path to addressing GHG emissions
from heavy-duty vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1615-A1, p. 3]
6 Americans for Clean Energy v. EPA, 864 F.3d 691, 697 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (quoting the Energy
Independence and Security Act, Pub. L. No. 110-140, 121 Stat. 1492 (2007) (noting that Congress enacted
requirements in the Renewable Fuels Program in order to "move the United States toward greater energy
independence and security, [and] to increase the production of clean renewable fuels").
Organization: Natural Gas Vehicles for America (NGVAmerica)
EPA Must Take Steps to Address the Damage Caused by Its Uneven Treatment of Low
Carbon Technologies
67
-------
EPA's prior notice as part of the Clean Truck Initiative was extremely frank about the reasons
that the agency had provided significant regulatory credits for electric vehicles. 12 Pertinent parts
of that discussion are included here:
As stated in the HD GHG Phase 2 rulemaking, our intention with these multipliers was to
create a meaningful incentive to those considering adopting these qualifying advanced
technologies into their vehicles. The multipliers are consistent with values recommended by
California Air Resources Board (CARB) in their supplemental HD GHG Phase 2 comments,
(footnote omitted). CARB's values were based on a cost analysis that compared the costs of
these technologies to costs of other conventional GHG-reducing technologies. Their cost analysis
showed that multipliers in the range we ultimately promulgated would make these technologies
more competitive with the conventional technologies and could allow manufacturers to more
easily generate a viable business case to develop these technologies for heavy-duty vehicles and
bring them to market at a competitive price. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1522-A1, p. 10]
As we stated in the 2016 HD GHG Phase 2 final rule preamble, we determined that it was
appropriate to provide such large multipliers for these advanced technologies at least in the short
term, because they have the potential to provide very large reductions in GHG emissions and fuel
consumption and advance technology development substantially in the long term. However,
because the credit multipliers are so large, we also stated that we should not necessarily allow
them to continue indefinitely. Therefore, they were included in the HD GHG Phase 2 final rule
as an interim program continuing only through MY 2027.
The above passages appear on pages 17594 and 17595 of the March 28, 2022, Federal
Register notice. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1522-A1, p. 10]
It is noteworthy that EPA acknowledges the credits are not based on emission benefits. The
credits are based on cost with the intent on making electric vehicles "more competitive" with
conventional technologies. It is noteworthy that the notice in this rulemaking contains virtually
the exact word for word explanation regarding the incentives for electric vehicles. 13 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1522-A1, pp. 10 - 11]
13 See 87 FR at 26010-26011.
NGVAmerica believes that by its own admission EPA has sought to create an unlevel and
anti-competitive advantage for electric vehicles over other technologies including NGVs. Natural
gas vehicles involve significant cost due to their low-volume and the cost of the storage vessels
and systems. Like electric vehicles, natural gas vehicles when powered by RNG deliver
significant greenhouse emission reductions and therefore should have been similarly encouraged.
Thus, EPA has every reason to treat natural gas vehicles like electric vehicles when providing
regulatory incentives - moreover, since natural gas vehicles have largely not qualified for these
incentives, it is reasonable to extend similar size incentives for natural gas technology at least for
a short-period of time to allow natural gas trucks to increase in market share. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1522-A1, p. 11]
Thus, in addition to proposing a mechanism for crediting biofuels based on their upstream
emissions, EPA must provide equal treatment with respect to any future incentives offered to
manufacturers to assist them in overcoming market hurdles, and, moreover, EPA should take
corrective action to address the harm that has been done by its past actions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1522-A1, p. 11]
68
-------
Organization: Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA)
EPA OVERREACH
The Phase 3 rule is simply another improper attempt by EPA to surpass the authority provided
by Congress in the Clean Air Act. As recently as June 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court has held
that EPA actions like the Phase 3 rule violate the major questions doctrine involving the
principles of separation of powers and understanding legislative intent because they clearly
exceed the power provided to the EPA by Congress in the Clean Air Act. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1632-A1, p. 6]
Like the EPA's previous efforts, the EPA lacks "clear congressional authorization" from
Congress to implement the Phase 3 rule. As in the cases before the Phase 3 rule, "there is every
reason to hesitate before concluding that Congress meant to confer on the EPA the authority it
claims." The U.S. Supreme Court has a recent and repeated history of finding similar EPA
actions unconstitutional. Today, there is no reason to believe that any different result would be
reached. The Phase 3 rule clearly does not fall within the power provided to the EPA by
Congress under the Clean Air Act. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1632-A1, p. 6]
This latest EPA emissions proposal once again discounts the contributions of our nation's
truckers. The agency must consider EPA must consider a more achievable implementation
timeline that would provide reliable and affordable heavy-duty vehicles for consumers,
particularly small trucking businesses and individual owner-operators. This can be accomplished
through an approach that protects consumer choice. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1632-A1, p. 6]
Organization: POET
The Proposed Rule is also deficient in another critical way that EPA could remedy by
crediting renewable fuels. EPA's proposed standards rely on optimistic projections showing a
rapid rollout of heavy-duty zero-emissions vehicle ('ZEV') technologies at scale. EPA's
standards assume that the market will adapt to EPA's standards and adopt those technologies at
the pace EPA predicts primarily because heavy-duty ZEVs are technologically feasible. While
EPA cites the incentive programs supporting those technologies, and industry commitments to
adding more ZEVs to their fleets, EPA's modeling omits any rigorous consideration of the
significant supply-chain and infrastructure developments that will be necessary to support the
hundreds of thousands of new heavy-duty ZEVs needed to meet EPA's proposed standards. EPA
is projecting that ZEVs will make up nearly 50 percent of new vocational vehicles by model year
('MY') 2032.2 EPA's modeling largely ignores the significant infrastructure needed to support
those ZEVs and provides no evidence that it will in fact be ready in time. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1528-A1, pp. 2-3]
2 See U.S. EPA, Proposed Rule, Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles—Phase 3,
88 Fed. Reg. 25926, 26001 (Apr. 27, 2023).
This analytical gap could doom the Proposed Rule. As EPA knows, courts will invalidate
rules if the agency has 'entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem' or 'offered
an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency.'3 Here, the
evidence suggests that the supply-chain and infrastructure needs threaten the technology
pathways EPA's proposal relies on. West Virginia v. EPA faulted EPA for exercising Clean Air
69
-------
Act authority to 'substantially restructure the American energy market' in a way that 'Congress
had conspicuously and repeatedly declined to enact itself.'4 By pressing for the rapid
deployment of heavy-duty ZEVs without thoroughly evaluating its feasibility and the
infrastructure issues, the Proposed Rule could fall prey to similar criticism. Yet by adding
renewable fuels, which have long been incentivized by the Clean Air Act to reduce and replace
fossil fuels, EPA's rule would build on historical carbon-reducing policies. It would not be, as
the West Virginia Court put it, a 'transformative expansion of the agency's 'regulatory
authority.'5 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1528-A1, p. 3]
3 Motor Vehicles Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983).
4 142 S. Ct. 2587, 2610 (2022) (quotation omitted).
5 Id. at 2595.
POET Generally Supports Aggressive Emissions Reduction Standards for Heavy-duty
Vehicles.
Heavy-duty vehicles are the second largest contributor to GHG emissions from the
transportation sector, behind light-duty vehicles.6 They account for 25 percent of all GHG
emissions from transportation, even though they represent only a tiny fraction of all vehicles on
the road.7 They are also essential for shipping goods across the country and keeping the
economy running. Those factors make heavy-duty vehicles an important target for cutting GHG
emissions. POET stands behind technology-neutral standards that will achieve this objective.
EPA should leverage all available technologies to begin reducing carbon emissions from the
heavy-duty sector as promptly as is technologically feasible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1528-
Al, p. 3]
6 See 88 Fed. Reg. at 25928.
7 Id.
EPA's rule purports to be technology neutral, but its standards rely mostly on just two
technologies: battery-electric vehicles ('BEVs') and hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles
('FCEVs'). EPA has focused on BEVs and FCEVs because they emit no carbon when operating.
The administration also considers BEVs to be a keystone in its climate policies. Yet as POET
will explain, EPA should not omit other technologies, such as renewable fuels, that avoid many
of the problems facing BEVs and FCEVs and can immediately begin reducing heavy-duty
vehicle emissions on a lifecycle basis. EV developers and others in the EV supply chain might
one day reduce the significant upstream emissions associated with EVs. But for the next several
years, and perhaps decades, BEVs and FCEVs will be running on electricity or hydrogen that is
produced, at least in significant part, using fossil fuels. At the same time, the greenhouse gas
impacts of renewable liquid fuels are also declining, meaning that renewable fuels may remain
superior or competitive with 'ZEV' technologies in terms of greenhouse gases for years to come.
For these reasons, EPA's standards should additionally credit renewable fuels along with other
carbon-reducing technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1528-A1, p. 4]
Organization: ROUSH CleanTech
PROPOSED EMISSIONS STANDARDS AND CREDITING
70
-------
• Roush does not support EPA's approach to include BEVs and FCEVs in the target setting
for SI and CI engines while also limiting the rule solely to tailpipe emissions. We believe
EPA should recognize that BEV and FCEV's represent new powertrain choices for
vehicles, and therefore should have specific standards applicable to their technology. We
believe that EPA first implemented the practice of separate vehicle targets based on the
powertrain targets in the Phase 1 rule for HD pickups and vans. This approach was
justified then as follows:
o To calculate a manufacturer's HD pickup and van fleet average standard, the
agencies are proposing that separate target curves be used for gasoline and diesel
vehicles.... These reductions are based on the agencies' assessment of the
feasibility of incorporating technologies (which differ significantly for gasoline
and diesel powertrains) in the 2014-2018 model years, and on the differences in
relative efficiency in the current gasoline and diesel vehicles. The resulting
reductions represent roughly equivalent stringency levels for gasoline and diesel
vehicles, which is important in ensuring our proposed program maintains product
choices available to vehicle buyersl. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1655-A1, p.2]
1 Federal Register Vol. 75, No. 229, 74194-74195
This approach of applying separate standards, driven by the technology, was carried into the
Phase 2 vocational vehicle standards, and has provided the desired effect of ensuring SI and CI
powered vehicles receive continuous efficiency improvements based on the technology adoption
feasible to that powertrain, while ensuring that there was no regulatory incentive for SI or CI
products to exit the market which would negatively impact fleets. The Phase 2 rule was largely
able to avoid the issue of electric and hydrogen fuel cell powered vehicles as they were assumed
to be insignificant to setting the standard, but the Phase 3 rule obviously cannot ignore BEV's
and probably should not ignore FCEV's. We believe that following EPA's established practice of
setting GHG objectives based on equivalent stringency and ensuring product choices remain
available to vehicle buyers remains the correct path, allowing commercial fleet buyers to
determine which vehicles meet their needs. The proposed approach will almost certainly lead to
backsliding on many of the vehicle efficiency gains seen in Phase 1 and Phase 2, as there is no
incentive to include these technologies on BEV/FCEV's, and reduced incentive to include them
on ICE vehicles (it is far cheaper to subsidize a few extra small-battery BEV sales knowing
they'll never be driven than it is to implement hybrid drivetrains). We recommend an alternate
approach consistent with the Phase 1 and Phase 2 programs:
• Continue to set vehicle standards for SI and CI powered vehicles which are reduced over
time, but only apply to vehicles with an SI or CI engine installed. Among other
technologies, urban vocational vehicles are ripe for hybridization, allowing recovery of
braking energy, downsizing of the ICE engine, use of lower carbon fuels, etc. ICE trucks
are not going away any time soon and will be in use well past 2050; we should be
ensuring we continue to improve them.
• Set new vehicle standards (based on kWhr/ton-mile or other energy efficiency metric) for
BEV's and FCEV's (kgH2/ton-mile or similar fuel efficiency standard). It may be that
this is implemented in the NHTSA program only if EPA does not have authority to
regulate efficiency for non-emitting vehicles, but that still accomplishes the goal. These
standards could initially be simple but would provide a basis for future efficiency
improvements to minimize electrical power usage as industry EV deployment increases.
71
-------
o Credits remain tradeable only within these categories as today, although a
carefully designed (or capped) cross trading program could also be useful. Main
goal is to ensure that higher or lower adoption of one technology does not
substantially impact the requirements for another technology.
• We recognize this approach does not result in EPA forcing BEV/FCEV adoption. This is
a positive, not a negative. We believe that EPA should not be forcing any specific
technology adoption, and the rule as proposed is clearly ripe for legal challenge and delay
on these grounds. This would be unfortunate as the Phase 3 rule is unnecessary to achieve
the BEV/FCEV adoption rates desired by the administration; as EPA's own forecasting
shows, this adoption will happen through normal market forces (supplemented by the
IRA/BIL, ACT/ACF, etc.) with no forcing action from EPA required. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1655-A1, pp.2-3]
Organization: South Carolina Trucking Association
[From Hearing Testimony, May 3, 2023] The trucking industry really is an eclectic mix of
industries, the wheels of the supply chain. And I'm not a commercial motor vehicle operator.
I'm charged with keeping a pulse on these essential and interconnected sectors as we together
and individually plot routes to successfully serve. Without comprehensive experience in our
diesel world, it's understandable how one might imagine a better way, but previous incremental
emissions improvement initiatives achieved their goals and fuel savings with real-world proven
technologies. This proposed regulation's different. It's more than just premature. It's ill-advised.
This one steps in and picks technology winners and losers. It's a de facto adoption mandate of
EV technology that's at early-stage development. There remain severe limitations facing
batteries and even more with hydrogen fuel cells. What could work the passenger cars will not
work for heavy-duty trucking. In setting standards, EPA must account for this diversity. What
works for last-mile package and delivery vans will vary greatly with on-highway tractor trailers,
and so it goes with every unique niche sector in between. Basic real-world fleet factors must be
accounted for, like it'll take more EV CMVs to do what fewer diesels can. Current parent
electric truck prices are 3 times higher than a clean diesel, and, if mandated, they will surely
stubbornly remain higher, especially for small businesses. True costs, ROI, for fleets, including
charging and owning that infrastructure, is unknown. Regardless, won't we need a dependable
diesel fleet and all that goes with it as a backup? That forces decisions and planning, like how to
deploy in response, how to house it, how to fuel it, how to maintain it, how to pay for it all. All
OEMs in all sectors are studying engineering and design possibilities while employing cost-
effective measures to date. At this initial phase, for successful adoption, charging and alternative
fueling infrastructure must be at the center. We urge no mandate but to allow this process, as it
should, as a partnership with free market forces. Thank you for this opportunity. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-2666, Public Hearing Testimony, Day 2]
Organization: South Dakota Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources (DANR)
Lack of Clear Authority
EPA's fact sheet states the proposed standards would contribute "toward the goal of holding
the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 degrees Celsius .... " The U.S.
Supreme Court has consistently told EPA it may not expand its federal regulatory reach beyond
72
-------
what Congress has given it authority to implement. The U.S. Congress has not established this 2
degrees Celsius goal under the requirements of Clean Air Act, and this goal is not found in a
promulgated regulation. Using this standard for justification for the proposed regulations falls
under the Supreme Court's major questions doctrine. It is evident that EPA lacks clear authority
from Congress to require a generation-shifting approach to reduce vehicle emissions. Therefore,
DANR does not think EPA has clear authority to implement these proposed emission standards
and views this effort as federal overreach. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1639-A2, p. 1]
Organization: Tesla, Inc. (Tesla)
Legal Authority
The Clean Air Act (CAA), and Section 202(a), is directed at protecting public health and
welfare. See 42 U.S.C. 7401 (identifying the Act's purpose as to 'protect and enhance the
quality of the Nation's air resources so as to promote the public health and welfare and the
productive capacity of its population.'); 42 U.S.C. 7521(a)(1) (providing that the Administrator
shall prescribe and from time to time revise 'standards applicable to the emission of any air
pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, which in
his judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to
endanger public health or welfare.'). The Proposed Rule recognizes that the purpose of adopting
standards under CAA section 202 is to address air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated
to endanger public health and welfare. Indeed, reducing air pollution has traditionally been the
focus of such heavy-duty standards.' 164 As courts have recognized, given the overriding goal of
the statute to protect public health and welfare, EPA may 'plac[e] primary significance on the
'greatest degree of emission reduction achievable," and consider other factors such as 'cost. . .
energy and safety factors as important but secondary factors.'165 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1505-A1, pp. 22-23]
164 88 Fed. Reg. at 25929.
165 Husqvarna AB v. EPA, 254 F.3d 195, 200 (D.C. Cir. 2001).
Further, there should be no doubt, in view of recent amendments to the Clean Air Act and
Congressional ratification accomplished by the IRA, 166 that EPA has ample authority to address
the regulation of greenhouse gas pollutants, from motor vehicles, through electrification, and in
the heavy- duty sector. 167 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1505-A1, p. 23]
166 Pub. L. No. 117-169, 136 Stat. 1818 (2022).
167 See Greg Dotson and Dustin J. Maghamfar, The Clean Air Act Amendments of 2022: Clean Air,
Climate Change, and the Inflation Reduction Act, 53 ELR 10017 at 10019, 10032 (2023) (discussing Clean
Air Act sec. 137 and other revisions) available at
https://papers.ssrn. com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4338903
Tesla Supports More Stringent GHG Emission Standards
However, even though the proposed rule asserts that 'in consideration of the environmental
impacts of HD vehicles' there is a need for 'significant emission reductions,' the proposal's level
of stringency is not sufficient to align with the protective nature of the Act and Section
202.168 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1505-A1, p. 23]
168 88 Fed. Reg at 26007.
73
-------
For the U.S. to meet its decarbonization goals and to mitigate the public health and welfare
impacts from climate change, EPA's proposal should be amended to meet increasingly more
stringent regulatory requirements that incentivize all vehicle manufacturers to rapidly scale up
delivery of high-quality BEVs. As previously described, BEV technology in the medium- and
heavy-duty vehicle classes is increasing at a rapid pace. 169 Further, Tesla agrees with
technology assessment that BEV technologies are feasible and suitable for most, if not all
applications in the trucking space, and asserts that it can be deployed at rates faster than EPA
indicates supports the proposed levels of emissions reduction. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1505-
Al, p. 23]
169 88 Fed. Reg. at 25940.
The Clean Air Act is designed to be 'technology-forcing' and heavy-duty manufacturers are
poised to meet significant new emission reduction performance standards. 170 The Clean Air Act
is 'intended to be a 'drastic remedy to ... a serious and otherwise uncheckable problem.' . . .
Subsequent legislative history confirms that the technology-forcing goals of the 1970
amendments are still paramount in today's Act.' 171 As courts have recognized in the specific
context of CAA section 202(a)(1) and as the preamble to the proposal appropriately
acknowledges, 'Congress intended the agency to project future advances in pollution control
capability. It was 'expected to press for the development and application of improved technology
rather than be limited by that which exists today." 172 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1505-A1,
p. 23]
170 Union Elec. Co. v. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 258 (1976); Train v. NRDC, 421 U.S. 60, 90 (1975).
171 Whitmanv. American Trucking Ass'n, 531 U.S. 457, 491-92, (Breyer, J. concurring), citing Union
Elec. 427 U.S. at 256.
172 NRDC v. EPA, 655 F.2d 318, 328 (D.C. Cir. 1981).
Consistent with this approach, EPA appropriately states 'While standards promulgated
pursuant to CAA section 202(a) are based on application of technology, the statute does not
specify a particular technology or technologies that must be used to set such standards; rather,
Congress has authorized and directed EPA to adapt its standards to emerging technologies.' 173
As previously noted, supra, Tesla anticipates production levels of a Class 8 Day Cab tractor at
50,000 per year with significant production volumes beginning in late-2024.174 Reaching the
50,000 annual production level would amount to 20% of all annual sales in MY 2027. This
means Tesla's production goal alone would far exceed the 5% BEV sales deployment EPA
anticipates in 2027 from its Class 8 short-haul tractor subcategory and the 0% long-haul tractors
in the long-haul sub-category. 175 As the Phase 3 regulations phase-in, Tesla will not be the only
manufacturer of BEV in this class. Indeed, as EPA notes other manufacturers are already
producing such vehicles. 176 In combination, this indicates that the proposed Class 8 standard are
not ambitious enough. As a result, Tesla strongly encourages the agency to align the MY 2027-
2032+ Tractor C02 emission standards at grams/ton-mile standard that are lower than proposed
and are consistent with reaching the BEV deployment levels found in ACT and evident in the
rulemaking record. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1505-A1, pp. 23-24]
173 88 Fed. Reg. at 25930 (emphasis added).
174 Wall Street Journal, Tesla Doesn't See Higher-Volume Production for Electric Semi Truck Until Late
2024 (June 13, 2023) available at https://www.wsj.com/articles/tesla-doesnt-see-higher-volume-production-
74
-------
for-electric-semi-truck-until-late-2024-
b49f639f?st=ajhtk9smx9hdm3t&reflink=mobilewebshare_permalink
175 88 Fed. Reg. at 25933 (Table ES-4).
176 Draft RIA at 45-51.
Organization: Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF)
Both Tailpipe Rules Are Likely Unconstitutional
In the recent landmark West Virginia v. EPA decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the EPA
did not have the power to 'substantially restructure the American energy market' by regulation
under the CAA. 142 S. Ct. 2587, 2610 (2022). That case dealt with the EPA's attempt to
establish carbon dioxide ('C02') emissions limits for new and existing coal-fired power plants
under the Clean Power Plan, through regulations requiring plant operators to shift energy
generation to cleaner sources. The EPA based the regulation on a misguided and overbroad
reading of 42 U.S.C.7411 ('Section 111'). The Supreme Court informed the EPA that a scheme
of regulations that restructures the national energy market to shift towards renewable energy did
not qualify as the 'best system of emission reduction' under Section 111, because Congress had
not clearly delegated the 'sweeping and consequential authority' to force vast energy market
change by EPA regulation. See id. at 2608. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1488-A1, p. 2]
Yet that is exactly what the EPA seeks to do with these Tailpipe Rules. As the EPA's own
press release states, the Tailpipe Rules are intended to 'accelerate the ongoing transition to a
clean vehicles future and tackle the climate crisis.' Biden- Harris Administration Proposes
Strongest-Ever Pollution Standards for Cars and Trucks to Accelerate Transition to a Clean-
Transportation Future, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (Apr. 12, 2023),
https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/biden-harrisadministration-proposes-strongest-ever-pollution-
standards-cars-and. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1488-A1, p. 2]
The EPA has no constitutional authority to make these regulatory changes. They have the
power, and indeed the duty, to promulgate 'standards which reflect the greatest degree of
emission reduction achievable through the application of technology which the Administrator
determines will be available for the model year to which such standards apply, giving
appropriate consideration to cost, energy, and safety factors associated with the application of
such technology.' 42 U.S.C. 7521(a)(3)(A)(i). Nothing in this grant of authority allows the EPA
to regulate in a way that pushes the use of electric vehicles over internal-combustion vehicles.
The EPA did the same thing when it tried to force power producers to adopt so-called
clean energy solutions through the Clean Power Plan, which the Supreme Court rightly
rejected. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1488-A1, pp. 2-3]
Furthermore, carbon dioxide, the most plentiful greenhouse gas, is a natural substance
essential to life on Earth. It is everywhere and in everything, yet EPA claims the power to
regulate it. Congress could not possibly have intended to grant the EPA such wide-ranging
regulatory power when it passed the Clean Air Act. Courts analyzing grants of authority to
executive agencies must consider 'whether Congress in fact meant to confer the power the
agency has asserted.' West Virginia v. EPA, 142 S. Ct. 2587, 2608 (2022). In West Virginia, the
Supreme Court affirmed that when 'the history and breadth of the authority that the agency has
asserted, and the economic and political significance of that assertion' are large and weighty,
75
-------
courts have 'reason to hesitate' before concluding Congress meant to delegate such power. Id.
(cleaned up). At the very least, the Court 'expect[s] Congress to speak clearly if it wishes to
assign to an agency decisions of vast economic and political significance.' Util. Air Regulatory
Grp. v. EPA, 573 U.S. 302, 324 (2014) (cleaned up). Because EPA's interpretation of the CAA
to regulate C02 'would bring about an enormous and transformative expansion in EPA's
regulatory authority without clear congressional authorization,' it is 'patently unreasonable' for
EPA to seize such authority. Id. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1488-A1, p. 3]
Organization: Transfer Flow, Inc.
If the EPA passes sensible, rational, and feasible regulations, those regulations will stand
regardless of administration changes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1534-A1, p. 2]
Despite the considerable opposition industry is expressing towards technology-forcing
regulations, there is a universal sentiment that the environmental consequences associated with
pollution prevention and mitigation are an important issue that must be dealt with as quickly and
efficiently as possible. Industry is offering real-world, proven solutions that the industry is
willing and ready to adopt. Hopefully, EPA staff does not ignore the well-thought-out solutions
coming from people who have been working in the field their entire careers. Failing to recognize
that ZEVs are not feasible in many applications and may never be feasible for some applications
only serves to undermine the goal the EPA is trying to achieve. A lack of a technology-neutral
approach to reducing emissions serves as a backstop to the continued use of fossil fuels while
waiting for a lengthy and expensive build-out of electric infrastructure which may not go as
smoothly as planned. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1534-A1, p. 3]
Technology-forcing regulations serve to stymie other clean technologies. One of the major
contributing factors to the devastating wildfires affecting California over the last several years is,
besides climate change, decades of forest mismanagement leading to unhealthy forests filled
with rotting biomass. A healthy forest is a carbon sink, and an unhealthy forest is a carbon
source. In 2022, UC Berkeley published a study that the best way to clean up these unhealthy
forests would be to convert that rotting biomass into renewable drop-in gasoline.20 If the EPA
were to focus on viable current technologies to meet emission goals instead of draconian
regulatory measures, industry, and public interests could be supported while working to reduce
vehicle emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1534-A1, p. 4]
20 https://bof.fire.ca.gov/media/mn5gzmxv/joint-institute-forest-biofuels_final_2022_ada.pdf
Organization: Valero Energy Corporation
IV. EPA lacks statutory authority—much less clear congressional authorization—to support
the proposed action.
As EPA acknowledges in the proposal, when EPA set C02 standards in the HD GHG Phase 2
rule, EPA did not premise the standards on ZEV technologies such as BEV and FCEVs because
EPA determined that the technologies were not yet available in the HD market. This proposal is
the first time EPA proposes standards for HDVs relying on the availability of ZEV
technologies.237 In fact, EPA's reliance on ZEV technologies for HDVs is a massive and
unprecedented shift in the transportation sector on which interstate commerce and the U.S.
economy depends. For this dramatic change, EPA must have clear congressional authority. Yet
76
-------
EPA has failed to identify clear authority for the standards and the electrification mandate.
Instead, EPA relies on general authority and congressional statements that do not provide clear
authority for the proposed action. To the contrary, EPA's references in the proposal demonstrate
that Congress had many opportunities to provide clear authority but declined to do so. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 52]
237 Because the adoption of ZEVs contemplated by EPA in the proposal consists primarily, if not
exclusively, of electric vehicles, these comments focus on the proposal's forced electrification of the
Nation's HDV fleet; however, it should be noted that EPA's definition of ZEVs also includes other
technologies, such as hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, which face even greater hurdles to widespread adoption
and, more importantly, are equally unauthorized by Congress.
A. The proposed action addresses a major question for which EPA must have clear
congressional authority.
Under the major-questions doctrine, a court may not construe a statute to "authoriz[e] an
agency to exercise powers of 'vast economic and political significance'" unless the statute does
so in "clea[r]" terms.238 Thus, an agency seeking to exercise such significant powers must
identify "something more than a merely plausible textual basis for the agency action."239 "The
agency instead must point to 'clear congressional authorization' for the power it claims."
Id. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 52]
238 Alabama Ass'n of Realtors v. HHS, 141 S. Ct. 2485, 2489 (2021) (quoting Utility Air Regulatory Grp.
v. EPA, 573 U.S. 302, 324 (2014)).
239 West Virginia v. EPA, 142 S. Ct. 2587, 2609 (2022) (quoting Utility Air, 573 U.S. at 324).
In assessing the economic and political significance of a rule, the Supreme Court has
considered both the rule's direct effects and the implications of the agency's underlying claim of
authority. For example, in West Virginia, although EPA's Clean Power Plan only incrementally
shifted power generation, EPA had asserted the "highly consequential power" to "announc[e]
what the market share of coal, natural gas, wind, and solar must be, and then requir[e] plants to
reduce operations or subsidize their competitors to get there."240 An agency cannot avoid the
need for clear backing from Congress by claiming an awesome power but exercising only a little
of it in the first instance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, pp. 52 - 53]
240 142 S. Ct. at 2609 & 2613 n.4; see Alabama Ass'n of Realtors, 141 S. Ct. at 2489 (considering the
"sheer scope of the [agency's] claimed authority" in addition to the rule's "economic impact").
If EPA were to finalize this proposal, just as in West Virginia, EPA would be claiming the
power to effect a wholesale shift in energy policy: moving the Nation's heavy duty vehicle
("HDV") fleet from vehicles powered by internal-combustion engines ("ICEs") that use liquid
fuels to vehicles powered by battery-operated electric motors. The only difference is that EPA is
waving its wand over motor vehicles instead of power plants. At a more specific level, the
Supreme Court in West Virginia identified several clues from the statutory and regulatory
scheme indicating that EPA needed clear congressional authorization for its Clean Power Plan.
Those same clues are present here in spades. The lesson should be unavoidable: EPA needs clear
support from Congress to redefine the source and replace the kind of vehicles America drives on
its roads and uses for work and delivery of goods that keep the economy running. In this
proposal, EPA claims power to radically change numerous sectors in the economy that depend
77
-------
on HDVs, including long-haul truck services that delivers goods, supplies and equipment
throughout the country.241 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 53]
241 Of course, the proposed rule electrifying HD vehicles is only part of the current administration's
broader plan to electrify the entire fleet of the nation's vehicles. See E.O. 14307, 88 Fed. Reg. 43,583 (Aug.
5, 2021) ("50 percent of all new passenger cars and light trucks sold in 2030 be zero-emission vehicles,
including battery electric, plug-in hybrid electric, or fuel cell electric vehicles.") ("Given the significant
expertise and historical leadership demonstrated by the State of California with respect to establishing
emissions standards for light-, medium-, and heavy-duty vehicles, the Administrator of the EPA shall
coordinate the agency's activities ... with the State of California as well as other States that are leading the
way in reducing vehicle emissions, including by adopting California's standards."); EPA Finalizes
Greenhouse Gas Standards for Passenger Vehicles, Paving Way for a Zero-Emissions Future (Dec. 20,
2021), https://bit.ly/3wJFsTD (EPA Administrator declaring the rule "a giant step forward" in "paving the
way toward an all-electric, zero-emission transportation future."); https://joebiden.eom/climate-plan/#
(promising to "use the full authority of the executive branch to make progress and significantly reduce
emissions" by "developing rigorous new fuel economy standards aimed at ensuring 100% of new sales for
light- and medium-duty vehicles will be electrified." EPA's claimed authority to mandate EVs in place of
ICE vehicles is the same for Light Duty, Medium Duty, and Heavy Duty vehicles; therefore, it is
appropriate to consider (for purposes of the major question issue) not just the effects of this proposed rule
but the effect of the entire "whole of government" approach to electrify all vehicles.
1. EPA claims a power of vast economic significance.
At the threshold, the rule's economic significance is staggering, in both its direct effects and
the implications of the authority EPA claims. Several considerations underscore the rule's
enormous economic cost. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 53]
Transformation of the HD Vehicle Market. EPA makes no secret of its approach to setting the
standards for HDVs - the standards require replacing ICE HDV with BEV or FCEVs. The result
of this transition has dramatic consequences, as described more fully in these comments and by
others, such as the American Truck Association.242 Such consequences for the long-haul truck
industry include increased trucks on America's highways, heavier trucks on the highway, long
charging times changing how trucks can deliver goods, reduced payloads per truck, increased tire
wear, and adverse consequences of the need to have more trucks. There are many other sectors
that rely on HDVs, each with transition issues of greater or lesser degree than the trucking
industry. But EPA has not acknowledged the obstacles and burdens that will be on the trucking
industry and others or considered whether those obstacles or burdens can be reasonably
overcome. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, pp. 53 - 54]
242 https://www.trucking.org/news-insights/heavy-dose-reality-electric-truck-mandates ("A new, clean-
diesel long-haul tractor typically costs in the range of $180,000 to $200,000. A comparable battery-electric
tractor costs upwards of $480,000. That $300,000 upcharge is cost-prohibitive for the overwhelming
majority of motor carriers. More than 95% of trucking companies are small businesses operating ten trucks
or fewer.") ("Weight factors are another inconvenient truth. Battery-electric trucks, which run on two
approx. 8,000-lb. lithium ion batteries, are far heavier than their clean-diesel counterparts. Since trucks are
subject to strict federal weight limits, mandating battery-electric will decrease the payload of each truck,
putting more trucks on the road and increasing both traffic congestion and tailpipe emissions.") ("After one
trucking company tried to electrify just 30 trucks at a terminal in Joliet, Illinois, local officials shut those
plans down, saying they would draw more electricity than is needed to power the entire city. A California
company tried to electrify 12 forklifts. Not trucks, but forklifts. Local power utilities told them that's not
possible.").
In West Virginia, the Court explained that EPA had sought to "substantially restructure the
American energy market." 142 S. Ct. at 2611. With this proposal, EPA seeks to "substantially
78
-------
restructure" the American HD vehicle market, and with it, many sectors and supply chains in the
U.S. economy. As discussed above, the overall cost and economic impact of this proposed
restructure is staggering—despite EPA's gross understatements to the contrary. And EPA's
failure to consider the full extent of this economic impact is indicative of its limited authority; if
Congress truly meant to grant such an awesome power to EPA, it would not have restricted
EPA's cost considerations to vehicle manufacturers only. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2,
p. 54]
Indeed, the effects of EPA's rule would extend well beyond the truck manufacturing industry.
As described previously in these comments, the rule will impact the trucking hauling industry,
how it operates, and how it delivers goods around the country. This will have ripple effects
throughout the economy, both with regard to increased transportation costs and, ultimately,
increased costs to consumers. Moreover, many industries dependent upon the refining sector,
such as the asphalt and sulfur industries, will see their supply chains reduced and prices
increased to the extent the proposal reduces liquid fuel demand and, consequently, impacts
refining. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 54]
By any relevant economic measure—"the amount of money involved for regulated and
affected parties, the overall impact on the economy, [or] the number of people affected," U.S.
Telecom Ass'n v. FCC, 855 F.3d 381, 422 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (Kavanaugh, J., dissenting from
denial of rehearing en banc)—EPA's asserted power to force a transition from diesel-powered
HD vehicles to electric ones represents "an enormous and transformative expansion in [its own]
regulatory authority," affecting "a significant portion of the American economy." Utility Air,
573 U.S. at 324. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 54]
2. EPA claims a power of vast political significance.
The rule's political significance is just as vast. In West Virginia, the Court identified several
considerations that are equally present here. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 54]
Ongoing Policy Debate. The target of EPA's rule—to say nothing of climate change more
generally243—is "the subject of an earnest and profound debate across the country." West
Virginia, 142 S. Ct. at 2614. While California is moving aggressively to accelerate electrification
by regulatory fiat,244 other States oppose efforts to shift energy-investment and generation from
petroleum to other sources, see, e.g., Act Relating to Financial Institutions Engaged in Boycotts
of Energy Companies, 2022 W. Va. Legis. Ch. 235. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, pp. 54
- 55]
243 See West Virginia, 142 S. Ct. at 2625 (Gorsuch, J., concurring) ("As the dissent observes, the agency's
challenged action before us concerns one of 'the greatest... challenge^] of our time.' If this case does not
implicate a 'question of deep economic and political significance,' King, 576 U.S. at 486, 135 S. Ct. 2480
(internal quotation marks omitted), it is unclear what might."
244 See, e.g., Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 13, § 1962.4 (Zero-Emission Vehicle Standards for 2026 and
Subsequent Model Year Passenger Cars and Light-Duty Trucks); California Air Resources Board Final
Regulation Order, "Advanced Clean Fleets Regulation: 2036 100 Percent Medium and Heavy Duty Zero
Emissions Vehicle Sales Requirements," https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/rulemaking/2022/acf2022.
Congress itself is debating this very issue, which makes EPA's claim to policymaking
authority "all the more suspect." West Virginia, 142 S. Ct. at 2614; see FDA v. Brown &
Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 155 (2000). Congress has yet to reach an answer and
79
-------
instead remains in factfinding mode as it considers the benefits and risks of electrification.
Congress enacted the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021, which requires several
agencies—notably not EPA—to prepare three separate reports for Congress on the implications
of electrifying the Nation's vehicle fleet. Pub. L. No. 117-58, §§ 25006, 40435, 40436, 135 Stat.
429, 845-49, 1050 (2021) (requiring reports on "the cradle to grave environmental impact of
electric vehicles" and "the impact of forced labor in China on the electric vehicle supply chain,"
among other things). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 55]
Balancing National Policy Considerations. In West Virginia, the Court found it significant
that EPA's rule would put the agency in the position of "balancing the many vital considerations
of national policy implicated in the basic regulation of how Americans get their energy." 142 S.
Ct. at 2612. The Court was concerned that the agency would decide "how much of a switch from
coal to gas" the grid could tolerate, and "how high energy prices [could] go" before becoming
"exorbitant." Id. Here, too, EPA's rule puts it in the position of deciding "how much of a switch"
to electrification the nation's power grids can tolerate, and how high vehicle and electricity
prices can climb without being "exorbitant." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 55]
Lack of Agency Expertise. To force electrification, EPA would need to understand and weigh
"many vital considerations of national policy." West Virginia, 142 S. Ct. at 2612. The policy
judgments here involve not only climate impacts but millions of jobs, the restructuring of entire
industries, the Nation's energy independence and relationship with hostile powers, and supply-
chain and electric-grid vulnerabilities. EPA does not have any expertise in those matters. The
judgments here are not ones "Congress presumably would" entrust to "an agency [with] no
comparative expertise," but are "ones Congress would likely have intended for itself." West
Virginia, 142 S. Ct. at 2612-13. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 56]
Prior Rejections by Congress of Similar Policies. As evidence that the judgments here belong
to Congress rather than the Executive, both Houses of Congress have previously "considered and
rejected" multiple bills with effects similar to EPA's rule. West Virginia, 142 S. Ct. at 2614
(quoting Brown & Williamson, 529 U.S. at 144). Congress even rejected one bill that would
have mandated a level of electric-vehicle penetration roughly equal to the 50%-by-2030 target
EPA embraces in the companion rule for light/medium-duty-vehicles. See, e.g., Zero-Emission
Vehicles Act of 2019, H.R. 2764, 116th Cong. (2019); Zero-Emission Vehicles Act of 2018, S.
3664, 115th Cong. (2018); see also 116 Cong. Rec. 19238-40 (1970) (proposed amendment to
Title II that would have banned internal-combustion vehicles by 1978). Congress's "consistent
judgment" against the very sorts of mandates imposed by EPA undercuts any claim of
congressional authorization. Brown & Williamson, 529 U.S. at 147-48, 160; accord West
Virginia, 142 S. Ct. at 2614. The fact that the current administration has been required to rely on
executive actions to force electrification of the vehicle fleets demonstrates the lack of
congressional authority. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 56]
Indeed, the U.S. House and Senate recently passed a joint resolution245 nullifying EPA's
companion rule on HDVs relating to air pollution, including ozone and particulate matter. The
resolution was subsequently vetoed by President Biden,246 which only further confirms that
EPA's recent attempts to alter the Nation's HDV fleet is unsupported by Congress and instead
driven by the current administration's agenda. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 56]
245 Heavy Duty Truck rule Congressional Review Act joint resolution (S.J. Res. 11)("A Joint resolution
providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted
80
-------
by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to "Control of Air Pollution From New Motor Vehicles:
Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards").
246 https://www.whitehouse.gOv/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/06/14/message-to-the-senate-on-
the-presidents-veto-of-s-j-res-11/
To be sure, with regard to this proposal on HDVs, as well as EPA's related proposal for LDVs
and MDVs, 151 members of the House submitted a letter247 to EPA urging the rescission of the
proposals, citing such concerns as the proposal being "unworkable," "impractical," a "deliberate
market manipulation to prop up EVs," a benefit to the Chinese Communist Party ("as China has
a stranglehold on the critical minerals supply chain and manufacturing of EV batteries"), "not
necessarily better for the environment in terms of emissions reductions," and "worst of all," a
burden on Americans and their families, forcing them to pay "an excessive amount for a car they
do not want and cannot afford." Similarly, 26 senators issued a letter248 to EPA requesting
withdrawal of the LDV, MDV, and HDV proposals, which "effectively mandate a costly
transition to electric cars and trucks in the absence of congressional direction." (emphasis
added). The Senate letter further cited the proposal's increased burden on the electric grid, the
lack of supporting charging infrastructure, safety risks associated with EVs, roadway lifespan
impacts and planning, consumer choice and affordability, domestic job losses, national security,
and questionable cost metrics as concerns with, and flaws under, the proposal and also
emphasized the application of the major questions doctrine and EPA's lack of clear authority:
If finalized, these proposals will effectively require a wholesale conversion from powering
vehicles with widely available liquid fuel to charging BEVs off our nation's electric grid. This is
a major, multi-billion dollar, policy-driven technology transition mandate to be imposed on
American consumers by your Agency, without any semblance of the clear and direct statutory
authority required by the ruling in West Virginia v. EPA. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2,
pp. 56 - 57]
247
https://dldth6e84htgma.cloudfront.net/DRAFT_05_22_23_EPA_Tailpipe_Letter_af5a5b04a5.pdf7updated
_at=2023-05-19T17:01:36.343Z; see also https://mccaul.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/mccaul-
mcmorris-rodgers-demand-epa-end-effort-dictate-cars-americans.
248 https://www.epw.senate.gOv/public/_cache/files/4/c/4c8alccf-a225-4e7b-b028"
f4674cl2bdaf/0EBFAF9F23EC0CCA86DDFCBBCF6044F8.05.25.2023-capito-letter-to-epa-on-tailpipe-
standards.pdf; see also https://www.capito.senate.gov/news/press-releases/capito-colleagues-urge-epa-to-
withdraw-recent-vehicle-emissions-rules-.
In short, Congress has rejected not only a mandatory shift to EVs in general, but also this
precise proposal. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 57]
Conflict with Congress's Broader Design. EPA's rule is also inconsistent with the broader
statutory scheme and Congress's plan for tackling climate change. See Utility Air, 573 U.S. at
321. When Congress has sought to address greenhouse-gas emissions from the transportation
sector, it has done so by promoting corn ethanol and other biofuels, which are used in
conventional vehicles and which—unlike electric-vehicle components—are in abundant
domestic supply. See, e.g., Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, Pub. L. No. 117-169. §§ 13202,
13404, 22003, 136 Stat 1818, 1932, 1966-69, 2020 (2022). Indeed, Congress has consistently
legislated against the background expectation that conventional vehicles powered by liquid fuels
81
-------
will remain on the market. The Renewable Fuel Standard program is designed to promote, not
diminish, renewable fuel demand. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 57]
For example, in Title II's Renewable Fuel Standard Program, Congress mandated year-over-
year increases in renewable fuel. EPA is thus working at cross-purposes with Congress, which
has required increases in liquid renewable fuels at the same time that EPA is seeking to eliminate
vehicles that use such fuels.249 The obvious reason for the mismatch is that Congress has not
decided to mandate electrification—nor has it placed that power in EPA's hands. See
West Virginia, 142 S. Ct. at 2633 (Kagan, J., dissenting) (noting that when the agency's "action,
if allowed, would have conflicted with, or even wreaked havoc on, Congress's broader design" it
should not be allowed based on normal statutory interpretation of a broad delegation of
authority). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, pp. 57 - 58]
249 87 Fed. Reg. 80582, "Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) Program: Standards for 2023-2025 and Other
Changes" (December 30, 2022).
3. EPA claims an unheralded power with staggering implications.
In asserting the sweeping power to mandate increasingly high levels of electrification, EPA
claims to have "discovered] in a long-extant statute an unheralded power to regulate 'a
significant portion of the American economy.'" Utility Air, 573 U.S. at 324 (quoting Brown &
Williamson, 529 U.S. at 159). The novelty and broad implications of the agency's approach are
powerful clues that Congress never authorized it. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 58]
Novel Assertion of Agency Authority. Skepticism is warranted when an agency asserts an
"unheralded power representing a transformative expansion in its regulatory authority." West
Virginia, 142 S. Ct. at 2610 (internal quotation marks omitted). In prior rules setting greenhouse-
gas emission standards, EPA has treated electric vehicles as a compliance "option" or
"flexibility." In fact, for the 2021 GHG standards for LDVs, EPA argues that electrification was
not mandated but was an option, that manufacturers could comply without using EVs. However,
for the proposed HDV rule, EPA does not claim that electrification is an option and EPA's
model clearly demonstrates that EPA expects BEVs and FCEVs to replace HD ICEs to comply
with the proposed standard. Indeed, forced electrification has never before even been on the table
for HDVs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 58]
Future Implications of the Agency's Claimed Power.
EPA has made no secret of the significance of the power it proposes to exercise here. In its
proposed rule, EPA asserts the authority to force electrification as an "emission control
technology" and notes that "[t]he proposed standards were developed based on a more in-depth
analysis of the potential for electrification of the heavy-duty sector...." 88 Fed. Reg. at 25954;
see id. at 26016 ("[T]he high-voltage battery and the powertrain components that depend on it
are emission control devices critical to the operation and emission performance of HD vehicles,
as they play a critical role in reducing the vehicles' emissions and allowing BEVs and FCEVs to
have zero tailpipe emissions.") And as described above, this proposal is only part of a greater
"whole of government" approach to mandate electrification at the Biden Administration's
direction. By claiming the power of mandating some electrification of the Nation's HDV fleet,
EPA is claiming the authority to mandate 100% electrification as well. As in West Virginia,
there is no reason to believe that EPA will stop here. "[0]n this view of EPA's authority, it could
82
-------
go further, perhaps forcing" HDV manufacturers to "cease making" internal-combustion vehicles
altogether. 142 S. Ct. at 2612. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 58]
In fact, this is exactly where EPA is headed. When EPA announced its proposal, it stated that
the standards would "accelerate the ongoing transition" to an all-electric future, "delivering on"
the Biden-Harris Administration's climate agenda.250 And in a related rulemaking, EPA
authorized California to adopt its own greenhouse-gas emission standards in its Advanced Clean
Trucks program—an authority California is already citing to ban new combustion-engine
vehicles and require 100-percent electrification of the HDV fleet by 2036 via its Advanced Clean
Fleets program. See 88 Fed. Reg. 20,688. Both parts of EPA's strategy reveal the agency's goal
to convert America to electric vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, pp. 58 - 59]
250 https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/biden-harris-administration-proposes-strongest-ever-pollution-
standards-cars-and. (emphasis added).
Given the vast economic and political significance of EPA's proposal, it "must point to 'clear
congressional authorization' for the power it claims." West Virginia, 142 S. Ct. at 2609. There is
not one word in the Clean Air Act about a nationwide agency-led transition from conventional
internal-combustion vehicles to electric vehicles, or any other so-called ZEV. To be sure, EPA
has the power to set emission standards for air pollutants from motor vehicles, just as EPA had
the power in West Virginia to set emission standards for air pollutants from power plants. But
what EPA claims here for the first time is the authority to set standards in such a way that
manufacturers can comply only by abandoning HD internal-combustion vehicles in favor of HD
electric vehicles. And nothing in the Clean Air Act authorizes that. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1566-A2, p. 59]
B. The Clean Air Act's general grants of authority and EPA's new interpretations of the same
do not authorize the proposal's mandatory shift in the Nation's HDV fleet.
Not only does EPA lack the clear congressional authorization necessary to support the
proposal's wholesale shift in energy policy pursuant to West Virginia, but the text, structure, and
legislative history of the Clean Air Act demonstrate that it also lacks general statutory authority
to force the electrification of HDVs. The proposed standards thus exceed EPA's statutory
authority, even absent application of the major-questions doctrine. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1566-A2, p. 59]
1. EPA has incorrectly interpreted the text of the Clean Air Act provisions cited as a general
authorization to mandate ZEVs.
EPA claims that Section 202(a) of the CAA authorizes it to force a change in technology. But
the cases EPA cites as authoritative are not based on Section 202(a), and Section 202(a) does not
provide EPA clear authority to force technology, especially not in this situation where it is
forcing a nascent and essentially non-existent technology intended to mandate a major transition
to HD ZEVs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 59]
EPA makes several additional critical errors in its interpretation of its authority to conclude
that the Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to set standards that mandate increasing percentages of
sales of HDV ZEVs. To set these standards, EPA first assumes that the standards can regulate
any "motor vehicles," including electric vehicles, even if it has deemed such vehicles to not emit
the relevant pollutant. Second, EPA characterizes electrification, more specifically BEVs and
83
-------
FCEVs, as a "pollution control device or system" that would apply to motor vehicles. Third,
EPA assumes authority to use fleetwide averaging rather than to set standards for individual
vehicles and engines. Fourth, EPA ignores other sections of the Clean Air Act, which are
inconsistent with the proposal's forced shift in energy. Finally, EPA relies on a novel and highly
revisionist spin on legislative history to support its authority to mandate electrification.
EPA errs with each of these steps. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 59]
a) The statutory text demonstrates that the vehicles covered by the standards must emit the
relevant pollutant.
Section 202(a)(1) provides that EPA shall prescribe "standards applicable to the emission of
any air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines,
which in [its] judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated
to endanger public health or welfare." 42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(1). The statute, of course, does not
expressly specify which vehicles are to be included in any average emission standard because, as
discussed below, it does not contemplate averaging in the first place. But to the extent averaging
is permissible, the text makes clear that the vehicles included in such averaging must, in EPA's
judgment, actually emit the relevant pollutant. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 60]
To begin with, EPA improperly relies on a broad definition of "motor vehicle," as the statute
focuses on standards for the "emission" of an air pollutant, which immediately indicates
Congress's focus on vehicles deemed to actually "emi[t]" the relevant pollutant. 42 U.S.C. §
7521(a)(1) (emphasis added). Here, EPA's proposal stipulates that electric vehicles are to be
treated for averaging purposes as if they emit no carbon dioxide (even when they pull electricity
from a grid that is powered by carbon-emitting sources and rely on batteries whose production,
disposal, and recycling emits carbon).251 EPA has thus decided that electric vehicles as a class
do not "emi[t]" the relevant pollutant. 42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(1). And given the textual focus on
harmful emissions, EPA cannot include vehicles it determines to be non-emitting in the standards
that EPA calculates and imposes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 60]
251 See, e.g., 88 Fed. Reg. 25,928.
Next, the statute is explicit that the things for which EPA sets standards must "in [EPA's]
judgment, cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger
public health or welfare." 42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(1). The key textual question is thus what exactly
EPA must "judg[e]" to "cause, or contribute to" potentially dangerous air pollution. The
grammatical structure of the provision offers only two plausible options. Because the verbs
"cause" and "contribute" are in the plural form, their subject must be plural as well. See Scalia &
Garner, supra, at 140 ("Judges rightly presume . . . that legislators understand subject-verb
agreement."). The only plural nouns that could plausibly "cause" or "contribute" to pollution are
either the "new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines," or the "class or classes" of those
vehicles or engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 60]
Under either reading, all of the covered vehicles must emit the relevant pollutant. If it is the
"vehicles" or "engines" that EPA must judge to "cause, or contribute to, air pollution," then
Section 202(a) authorizes EPA to set standards only for "new motor vehicles or new motor
vehicle engines which in [EPA's] judgment cause, or contribute to" potentially dangerous
pollution. In other words, EPA may set standards only for motor vehicles that in its judgment
actually emit the regulated pollutant—here, combustion-engine vehicles that emit carbon
84
-------
dioxide. The converse is equally true: Section 202(a) does not authorize EPA to set standards for
vehicles that it deems not to cause or contribute to harmful pollution. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1566-A2, p. 60]
That is the natural reading of the statute under the "grammatical 'rule of the last antecedent,'"
which provides that a "limiting clause or phrase ... should ordinarily be read as modifying only
the noun or phrase that it immediately follows." Barnhart v. Thomas, 540 U.S. 20, 26 (2003).
Here, the relevant limiting phrase is: "which in [EPA's] judgment cause, or contribute, to air
pollution." And the immediately antecedent phrase is "new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle
engines." The rule of the last antecedent thus indicates that it is the "vehicles" in the class that
must "cause, or contribute" to the pollution, and not the "class" as a whole. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1566-A2, pp. 60 - 61]
Courts have also adopted that natural reading. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, for
example, has observed that Section 202(a) "requires the EPA to set emissions standards for new
motor vehicles and their engines if they emit harmful air pollutants." Truck Trailers Mfrs. Ass'n
v. EPA, 17 F.4th 1198, 1201 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (emphasis added); see NRDC v. EPA, 954 F.3d
150, 152 (2d Cir. 2020) (Section 202(a) "requires EPA to regulate emissions from new motor
vehicles if EPA determines that the vehicles 'cause, or contribute to,' [potentially dangerous] air
pollution") (emphasis added). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 61]
Alternatively, if it is the "class or classes" of vehicles or engines that must "cause, or
contribute to, air pollution," the result is the same. When we refer to a class of objects that does
something, the ordinary and accurate meaning is that all the members of the class do that thing.
For example, when a doctor warns a patient about a "class of medications that cause
drowsiness," the class does not include non-drowsiness-inducing medicines. And that is the best
way to read the statute here: a class that causes pollution is most naturally defined to include
only those vehicles that cause pollution. EPA has broad leeway to group those pollution-emitting
vehicles into classes how it sees fit. See NRDC v. EPA, 655 F.2d 318, 338 (D.C. Cir. 1981). But
the vehicles must actually be pollution-emitting in EPA's judgment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1566-A2, p. 61]
In short, under either plausible reading of the statute, when EPA sets an emission standard for
a pollutant, it must consider only the vehicles that it judges to emit the relevant pollutant. Even if
fleetwide averaging were allowed as a general matter, averaging would be permissible only
among types of vehicles that "emi[t]" the harmful pollutant and that, "in [EPA's] judgment
cause, or contribute" to harmful air pollution. If EPA determines that a particular category of
vehicle is not "emi[tting]" the relevant pollutant or "caus[ing], or contributing] to" the resulting
pollution, it makes no sense to include that category in calculating the emission standard. That is
not really "averaging" at all, as it does not help EPA arrive at a technologically feasible threshold
for pollutant-emitting vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 61]
EPA has adopted such a faux "average" here. The agency proposes a carbon-dioxide emission
target for HDVs that "averages" in a category of vehicles that it deems not to emit carbon
dioxide. EPA treats electric vehicles as "zero-emission vehicles," and assumes they contribute
"zero (0) grams/mile" of carbon dioxide.252 Setting aside the flaws in that assumption, if EPA
chooses to treat electric vehicles as "zero emission," it must abide by the statutory consequences
of that decision: the electric-vehicle category cannot textually or logically be "averaged" into the
emission standards under Section 202(a). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 61]
85
-------
252 88 Fed. Reg. 25,993.
This error is not new. The Supreme Court recently rejected parallel reasoning in West
Virginia. There, a similar provision of the Clean Air Act authorized EPA to guide States in
"establishing] standards of performance for any existing [power plant] for any air pollutant." 42
U.S.C. § 7411(d)(1). The Court explained that authorization to "establish[] standards of
performance for existing source[s]" does not equate to the power "to direct existing sources to
effectively cease to exist." West Virginia, 142 S. Ct. at 2612 n.3 (quoting42 U.S.C. § 7411(d))
(second alteration in original). The same logic applies to Section 202(a): in empowering EPA to
set emission standards for "vehicles" or "classes" of "vehicles" that "cause, or contribute to,
air pollution," Congress did not permit EPA "to direct [conventional vehicles] to effectively
cease to exist." Id. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, pp. 61 - 62]
b) EVs and ZEVs do not constitute "emission control devices or systems," rather, they are
different technologies altogether.
EPA next claims that Congress gave it clear authority to require automotive manufacturers to
use ZEVs as "emission control devices or systems" to prevent or control the emission of
greenhouse gases from HDV tailpipes.253 EPA first asserted this novel argument in response to
litigation challenging its attempt to force electrification in its Revised 2023 and Later Model
Year Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards, 86 FR 74434. See EPA's
Answering Brief in Texas v. EPA (D.C. Cir. 22-1031), pp. 40-47. In that case, EPA claimed that
when 42 U.S.C. §7521(a)(l), which allows it to prescribe pollution-emission standards to
vehicles whether they are "designed as complete systems or incorporate devices to prevent or
control such pollution," is read in conjunction with subsection (a)(2), which prohibits EPA from
prescribing such standards until "the requisite technology" can be developed and applied in a
cost-efficient manner, Congress provided EPA "clear authorization" to mandate electric vehicles.
EPA's Answering Brief at pp. 40-41, 47. In other words, EPA reads the limiting language in
(a)(2) to somehow expand the authority granted in (a)(1), which as described above does not
apply to ZEVs deemed not to emit the relevant pollutant. But neither the plain language nor the
statutory history provides EPA with newfound authority to replace ICEVs with ZEVs. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 62]
253 88 Fed. Reg. at 26,016; id. at 25,949.
Not only does the statute not mention EVs or any other type of purported ZEVs, which one
would expect if Congress were providing EPA clear authority to force electrification of the
nation's vehicle fleet, but ZEVs are also not even "systems" or "devices" that "prevent or
control" pollution; they are just different kinds of vehicles that EPA states do not emit the
relevant pollutant in the first place. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 62]
ZEVs are not "designed as complete systems" to prevent or control harmful pollution,
because they do not have "built-in pollution control" or prevention. Truck Trailer Mfrs. Ass'n,
Inc. v. EPA, 17 F.4th 1198, 1202 (D.C. Cir. 2021). To "prevent" something means to "keep [it]
from happening" or "impede" it. American Heritage Dictionary 1038 (1st ed. 1969). To
"control" means to "hold in restraint" or "check." Id. at 290. Thus, a vehicle with "built-in
pollution control" or prevention is one that has a self-contained mechanism to block or capture
pollution that would otherwise be emitted. This is consistent with EPA's own definition of
"emission control system," as "a unique group of emission control devices, auxiliary emission
86
-------
control devices, engine modifications and strategies, and other elements of design designated by
the Administrator used to control emissions of vehicles." 40 C.F.R. §86.1803-01 (emphasis
added). ZEVs, on the other hand, are designed to run on an entirely different power system, not
to limit or control pollution from a carbon-dioxide-emitting engine. To draw an analogy, it would
not be natural to refer to an iPod as "a system that prevents or controls record skips." An iPod is
not a record player with some built-in method of impeding or reducing record skips; it is a
different technology altogether. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 62]
Nor do electric vehicles incorporate "add-in devices for pollution control" or prevention.
Truck Trailer Mfrs., 17 F.4th at 1202. The component parts of ZEVs, such as their batteries, are
not merely add-in devices that block the emission of pollution or minimize pollution that would
otherwise occur. They are integral to the basic functioning of the vehicle, which does not emit
the relevant pollutant in the first place. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 63]
EPA also notes that the statutory definition of "motor vehicles" is "broad" and includes the
phrase "any self-propelled vehicle." CITE. But the statutory history refutes any implication that
this definition was intended to cover EVs. The relevant "motor vehicle" definition was
introduced to the Clean Air Act in 1965 and has remained unchanged since. Pub. L. No. 89-272,
§ 101, 79 Stat. 992, 995 (1965). In 1965, the ordinary vehicle on the road had an internal-
combustion engine, so there was no need for Congress to specify that the term meant anything
else. By contrast, for example, Congress added the reference to "nonroad vehicles" in 1990,
when other types of power were being explored and it made sense to clarify which type of engine
was covered. See Pub. L. 101-549, § 223, 104 Stat. 2399, 2503 (1990); see also id. § 229, 104
Stat. 2511 (establishing pilot program for "clean fuel vehicles" including those powered by
"electricity"). There is nothing to read into Congress's omission of that qualifier 25 years
earlier. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 63]
2. The statutory structure of the Clean Air Act further confirms that EPA is not authorized to
mandate the sale of ZEVs.
i. The statutory structure confirms Congress' focus on technologically achievable emission
controls.
Several provisions of Section 202 of the Clean Air Act confirm that Congress focused on
technologically feasible standards for vehicles deemed to emit pollutants that actually cause or
contribute to pollution. Section 202(a)(2) requires EPA to provide manufacturers with lead time
to comply with the standards, in order "to permit the development and application of the
requisite technology." 42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(2). Similarly, Section 202(a)(3)(A)(i) provides that
EPA's HDV standards for certain criteria pollutants should reflect the "greatest degree of
emission reduction achievable through the application of technology which the [EPA]
determines will be available" during the relevant model year. Id. § 7521(a)(3)(A)(i). Those
provisions contemplate that technological feasibility will meaningfully constrain the emission
standards that EPA sets under Section 202(a). EPA cannot ignore technological feasibility and
simply decide to require production of fewer internal combustion vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 63]
Other provisions show the type of "technology" that Congress contemplated vehicle
manufacturers would develop to meet those standards. Section 202(m) requires EPA to
command manufacturers to install on "all" new light-duty vehicles and trucks "diagnostic
87
-------
systems" that identify "emission-related systems deterioration or malfunction ... which could ...
result in failure of the vehicles to comply with emission standards established under this
section." 42 U.S.C. § 7521(m)(l). The required diagnostic systems must monitor, "at a minimum,
the catalytic converter and oxygen sensor." Id. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 63]
In other words, to ensure compliance with emission standards under Section 202(a), Congress
required "emissions-related systems" and accompanying "diagnostic systems" on each vehicle—
again underscoring Congress's view that the vehicles subject to an emission standard actually
emit the relevant pollutant in EPA's judgment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 63]
As the statutory structure demonstrates, EPA may set standards that are "technology-forcing,"
because they require manufacturers to adopt nascent technology that may not yet be "adequately
demonstrated." NRDC, 805 F .2d at 419. EPA's rules thus have promoted the development of
"automotive technologies, such as on-board computers and fuel injection systems" that improve
emissions from combustion engines. 86 Fed. Reg. at 74,451. But the statute does not permit what
EPA proposes here: enacting "average" standards divorced from technologically achievable
limits on emitting vehicles, which instead force manufacturers to produce a different type of
supposedly non-emitting vehicle altogether. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 64]
i. Legislative History
Lacking in direct authority, EPA resorts to non-textual, legislative history, emphasizing that at
various times Congress has made clear it "expected the Clean Air Amendments to force the
industry to broaden the scope of its research—to study new types of engines and new control
systems." Under the major questions doctrine, however, only a clear textual statement is
sufficient to grant such sweeping and consequential authority as contemplated by the proposal.
Yet even in the absence of the major questions doctrine, each source of legislative history relied
on by EPA is irrelevant to the question of whether Congress authorized EPA to mandate
electrification of the Nation's HDV fleet. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 71]
First, EPA cites five days of public hearings regarding "electric vehicles and other alternatives
to the internal combustion engine" held by the Senate Committee on Commerce and Public
Works in 1967 as evidence that "ICE vehicles might be inadequate to achieve the country's air
quality goals." (emphasis added). These standalone statements regarding the potential benefits of
the electric car as an additional technology are not only wholly unrelated to the enactment of the
Clean Air Act and its amendments, but they also do not speak to EPA's emission
standards, much less indicate a grant of authority to EPA to mandate such vehicles nationwide
through such standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, pp. 71 - 72]
EPA's citation to a statement made by President Nixon in 1970 regarding a program to
develop "an unconventionally powered, virtually pollution free automobile" likewise fails to
support EPA's asserted authority to mandate vehicles that it purports are zero-emitting. Not only
is this statement made by the executive, rather than legislative, branch, but the mere
announcement of a research program is also a far cry from a delegation of authority to mandate
wholesale policy changes for the nation. For this same reason, EPA's claimed authority to "fund
the development" of low emission alternatives, to certify low emission vehicles and encourage
federal purchases of such vehicles, and to institute a clean fuel vehicles program are also
irrelevant to EPA's authority for the proposed rule; researching and incentivizing electric
88
-------
vehicles is simply not equivalent to mandating them—far from it. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1566-A2, p. 72]
EPA next states that, in 1970, when Congress amended the Clean Air Act to target criteria
pollutants, it considered "unconventional" technologies like steam and natural-gas piston. EPA
relies on a Senate Report that addressed emissions associated with those sources. See S. Rep. No.
91-1196, at 27 (1970). But again, the report nowhere suggested that EPA would have authority to
require automakers to shift to those technologies. Moreover, according to the report, all of those
technologies emitted some pollutants. Id. So EPA's resort to legislative history as a means to
replace ICE vehicles with vehicles it deems to have zero emissions proves nothing. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 72]
EPA's resurrection of 50-year-old dicta255 in International Harvester Co. v. Ruckelshaus,
478 F.2d 615 (D.C. Cir. 1973), as the basis for its authority to replace the combustion engine as
an emission-control technology also fails, as the court was discussing legislative history, not text
requiring electric vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 72]
255 EPA claims that International Harvester "held" that the legislative history indicates that Congress
authorized EPA to replace ICEVs. The only holding in International Harvester was that EPA erred when it
denied the automakers' request for a one-year suspension of the 1975 emissions standards prescribed by
Congress. Id. at 649-50.
As a final attempt to find Congressional authorization, EPA turns to more recent legislation,
which of course has nothing to do with any purported authority of EPA under the Clean Air Act.
The Inflation Reduction Act, like all appropriations bills which "have the limited and specific
purpose of providing funds," Tennessee Valley Auth. v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153, 190 (1978), cannot
be construed to provide any agency authority and, even then, merely incentivized rather than
mandated the use of electric vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 72]
Ultimately, Congress's limited approval of electric vehicles hurts EPA's position. Where
Congress has sought to increase the usage of electric vehicles, it has done so only through
incentives; as explained previously, each time a proposal to mandate the sale of electric vehicles
has been presented in Congress, it has failed to even make it out of committee. And when
Congress chose to set standards focused on electric vehicles, it did so on a regionally targeted,
pilot basis only. It did not bury a nationwide program in Section 202, at EPA's sole
discretion. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 72]
VI. The proposal may violate other constitutional provisions and principles.
Finally, EPA's proposal may violate other constitutional provisions and principles, which
EPA should consider in making its final rule. These include, but may not be limited to, the
Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which precludes the taking of private party (or the
elimination of entire industries) for public use without just compensation, as contemplated by the
proposal with regard to liquid fuels and related industries (e.g., asphalt, sulfur, etc.), as well as
the following to the extent the final rule relies on and/or incorporates state ZEV mandates: the
Dormant Commerce Clause, which prohibits state regulations that improperly discriminate
against out-of-state commercial interests or that unduly burden interstate commerce (such as by
increasing transportation and logistics costs, disrupting entire supply chains and industries, and
effectively requiring other states to adopt electric vehicles that would not otherwise be adopted);
the dormant foreign affairs preemption doctrine under the Supremacy Clause, which preempts
89
-------
state laws that intrude on the exclusive federal power to conduct foreign affairs (such as by
creating two separate HDV fleets on either side of the U.S.-Mexico border, thereby increasing
the cost of conducting international business and disrupting international trade and supply
chains); the equal sovereignty doctrine, which constrains the federal government from treating
States disparately (such as by allowing California alone to dictate national transportation policy);
the Import-Export Clause, which prohibits any State from imposing "any Imposts or Duties on
Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing" its "inspection
Laws," Art. I, § 10, cl. 2, seeNat'l Pork Producers Council v. Ross, 143 S.Ct. 1142, 1175 (2023)
(Kavanaugh, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) ("In other words, if one State
conditions sale of a good on the use of preferred farming, manufacturing, or production practices
in another State where the good was grown or made, serious questions may arise under the
Import-Export Clause."); the Privileges and Immunities Clause, which provides that the
"Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several
States," Art. IV, § 2, cl. 1, seeNat'l Pork Producers Council, 143 S.Ct. 1175 ("Under this
Court's precedents, one State's efforts to effectively regulate farming, manufacturing, or
production in other States could raise significant questions under that Clause."); and the Full
Faith and Credit Clause, which requires each State to afford "Full Faith and Credit" to the
"public Acts" of "Every other State," Art. IV, § 1, and prevents States from adopting any policy
of hostility to the public Acts of another State, see Nat'l Pork Producers Council, 143 S.Ct. 1175
("A State's efforts to regulate farming, manufacturing, and production practices in another State
(in a manner different from how that other State's laws regulate those practices) could in some
circumstances raise questions under that Clause"). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 75]
EPA Summary and Response:
General Summary:
Many commenters expressed support for EPA's longstanding technology-neutral approach in
setting new standards and indicated that they felt this proposal was a mandate for one technology
at the expense of others. Specifically:
• AVE noted that petroleum and natural gas will continue to be the main sources of
energy through 2050 and suggested EPA should include pathways that "incentivize the
increased use of renewable fuels, advanced emission control technologies, and new
internal combustion platforms" that are available today to provide emission
reductions.
• BorgWarner suggested EPA should "not give preferential treatment to a specific
technology." Specifically, BorgWarner encourages EPA to include H2-ICE in its
rulemaking strategy.
• MEMA commented that the final rule should consider a broader range of technologies
and "opposes a 100% ZEV mandate" that "would disallow technologies" that could
quickly decarbonize vocational vehicles.
• NAM encouraged EPA to remain technology neutral in the final rule and to let market
forces determine the best technologies for specific sectors.
• POET cautioned EPA against relying on BEVs and FCEVs for their upstream
emissions, and encouraged the agency to consider a more technology-neutral approach
that includes renewable fuels as a means to "reduce heavy-duty vehicle emissions on a
lifecycle basis."
90
-------
• ROUSH suggested EPA should set BEV and FCEV standards that are separate from
other powertrain standards, and referred to EPA's approach for setting HD pickup and
van standards using separate target curves for gasoline- and diesel-fueled under the
Phase 1 and 2 rules. ROUSH notes that, because BEV and FCEV are "non-emitting
vehicles", perhaps NHTSA would implement the BEV and FCEV program.
• Transfer Flow commented that industry understands the importance of pollution
prevention and is "offering real-world, proven solutions" that EPA should consider.
They also suggested EPA should recognize that ZEVs are "not feasible in many
applications and may never be feasible for some applications" and that technology-
forcing regulations "serve to stymie other clean technologies", including renewable
options, that could reduce vehicle emissions while the electric infrastructure develops.
• NGVAmerica stated that the 4.5 x multiplier Advanced Technology Credit for ZEVs
creates an unequal playing field unrelated to actual vehicular emissions.
Other commenters indicated that EPA's proposal was technology neutral, including:
• BGA that noted manufacturers have a "a range of fuel and engine efficiency
technologies" to meet the standards and the proposal will incentivize advanced
technologies for battery electric and fuel cell vehicles, as well as advanced fuel and
engine technologies. BGA also notes the potential for economic benefits such as
domestic job creation.
• CARB that commented in support of EPA's authority to project future technologies in
setting emission standards and that EPA's proposal included "a broad range of
compliance strategies and technologies" manufacturers can use to meet the standards.
Further comments to this effect, along with the Agency's responses, are found in RTC
2.4 concerning feasibility. Responses concerning ABT may be found in RTC 10.2.
AmFree et al, AFPM, API, Arizona State Legislature, Steven G. Bradbury, Delek, Lynden,
NACS, NATSCO, and SIGMA, Neste, TPPF, and Valero provided adverse comments on the
technology and fuel neutrality of the proposed rule citing legal concerns, which we summarize in
as follows:
Many commenters asserted that the proposed rule exceeds the authority delegated to EPA by
Congress in section 202 (a)(1) and (2), invoking the Major Question Doctrine. Commenters
maintained that the proposed rule had features of the Clean Power Plan, vacated by the Court in
West Virginia v. EPA, and therefore triggers the Major Question Doctrine. They assert that the
doctrine applies, and that there is no clear statement of Congressional intent authorizing the
proposed standard. One commenter (Valero) presented these same arguments as a matter of
statutory construction, arguing that the proposal is not authorized simply considering the
statutory text. These comments are summarized in detail and responded to below.
Summary of Comments Concerning the Major Questions Doctrine
Summary of Comments Claiming the Proposal Is a "ZEV Mandate"
A predicate for commenters' arguments on the Major Question doctrine is that EPA's
proposal amounts to (or is) a 'ZEV mandate" (or, "EV mandate'). Commenters made the
following assertions:
91
-------
• The proposal is based "solely" on ZEVs (API), that is its sole "focus" (POET), or the
mandate is "implicit" (Ariz. State Legislature);
• EPA has ignored other compliance pathways (ICCT, Blue Green Alliance);
• The proposal would increase ZEV penetration beyond what would occur in the market
without a rule (API, Am Free);
o The proposal would decree ZEV market share;
o By projecting an increase in ZEV market penetration from 0.2% to 57% in some
cases, EPA is effectively mandating their use (Amer Fed. of Petrol. Mfr's);
• Pronouncements of non-agency Administration figures indicate that the rule is intended
to be a ZEV mandate (Valero).
• The proposal reflects a novel and unprecedented use of a statutory provision (Valero)
Summary of Comments Claiming the Proposal is the Subject of "Intense " Political Debate
Commenters claim that the proposed rule is the subject of intense political debate, and reflects
a policy Congress has failed to enact (Valero; Nat'l Ass'n of Convenience Stores)
Summary of Comments Alleging the Proposal is Inconsistent with Structure of the CAA
Commenters noted that the proposed rule is inconsistent with the Act's structure. In
particular, a) it is inconsistent with the Renewable Fuel Standards provisions, whereby Congress
sought to encourage use of liquid fuels in internal combustion engines, while the proposed rule
would necessarily limit such use (Neste, Valero, API, AFPM); b) it is inconsistent with the Clean
Fuels provisions (CAA section 241-244), where Congress authorized only limited consideration
of electrification (e.g. Amer. Fed. of Petroleum Manufacturers, Valero, API (invoking the canon
of construction 'expressio unius est exclusio alterius'); (this comment is summarized again, and
responded to, inRTC 10.2.1.e).
Summary of Comments Alleging EPA Lacks Authority for Averaging. Banking, and Trading
Commenters similarly maintained that EPA lacks authority to include averaging, banking and
trading (ABT) in section 202 (a)(1) emission standards, reiterating many of the points above
regarding the provision's inapplicability to motor vehicles that do not emit air pollutants, and
further arguing that the Act does not explicitly authorize ABT, and that the statute contemplates
vehicle-by-vehicle standards, citing provisions dealing with vehicle certification, warranty,
remediation, and penalty, (e.g. Valero, API). Commenter AFPM maintained that ABT cannot
be authorized absent a specific authorization from Congress. Other commenters asserted that
EPA's historic use of ABT in its Title regulatory programs is well within its delegated authority,
and has been upheld multiple times by the D.C. Circuit. (EDF). These comments are
summarized in full, and responded to in full, in section 10.2 of this RTC.
Summary of Comments Claiming the Proposed Rule Would Restructure the Automotive and
Petroleum Industries
Commenters assert that the proposed rule would restructure the automotive and petroleum
industries. Specifically, commenters allege that the proposal:
• is transformational in that it fundamentally restructures both automotive and
petroleum industries (e.g. API, Am Free, Clean Fuels Dvl Coalition); some
commenters support this argument by maintaining that the proposal allocates market
share (Amer. Fed. of Petroleum Manufacturers; Arizona State legislature), or
92
-------
mandates a wholesale shift in energy policy (Valero); others note that the claimed
authority encompasses a rule requiring 100 % ZEVs (Valero, API)
• has vast economic significance, shown both by the cost of the rule but by collateral
effects throughout the economy, including job losses in petroleum production and
petroleum retail sales (e.g., AmFree, Amer. Federation of Petroleum Manufacturers,
Nat'l Ass'n of Convenience Stores). Clean Fuels Dvl. Corp. Maintains that
consideration of nationwide impact requires consideration of vehicle prices, insurance,
maintenance, cross-subsidies to purchasers, build out of factories to produce batteries
and vehicles, construction and maintenance costs for any electrical distribution support
network, cost of any public charging network, cost of federal subsidies and other
funding, and "the elimination of American jobs."
Commenters also speculated that the costs of the rule will dramatically increase the costs of
freight transportation. Commenters also mention potential losses for the petroleum industry but
fail to mention that is true for all of EPA's motor vehicle GHG rules, which have continually
been premised on reducing petroleum consumption.2 Indeed, as shown in Table 2 of this
response, the Phase 2 rule was anticipated to cause even greater reductions in petroleum
consumption. And commenters fail to grapple with the fact that increased demand for fossil fuels
is associated with adverse impacts to US energy security.
Summary of Comments Alleging the Proposal Implications Geopolitical and National Security
Concerns
Commenters maintained that the proposed rule implicates issues of policy, including
geopolitical policy in the form of forcing reliance on critical materials to unfriendly foreign
sources, which are outside EPA's core areas of expertise (e.g. AFPM, Nat'l Ass'n of
Convenience Stores)
Some commenters asserted that the proposed rule raises geopolitical issues of access to
critical materials in the hands of unfriendly foreign entities, as well as the energy security issues
associated with those geopolitical issues (Valero. AFPM, CFDC)
One commenter claims that EPA's asserted authority also implicates another key
"consideration^ of national policy": national security. NHTSA has acknowledged that the
United States "has very little capacity in mining and refining any of the key raw materials" for
electric vehicles. 86 Fed. Reg. 49,602, 49,797 (Sept. 3, 2021). And unlike biofuels and
petroleum, most of the supply of critical components of batteries and motors for electric vehicles
is controlled by hostile or unstable foreign powers, in particular China. Shifting to electric
vehicles would thus make the American automotive industry critically dependent on one of the
Nation's primary geopolitical rivals. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 55]
Summary of Comments Claiming EPA is Balancing National Policy Surrounding Energy
Commenters assert that the proposed rule puts EPA in the position of balancing national
policy considerations surrounding the electric grid and electricity prices. Specifically,
commenters assert that, "In West Virginia, the Court found it significant that EPA's rule would
2 Commenters also neglect to note that the vast majority of such reduced consumption (estimated by EPA as 94.8%)
would come from reduced net imports, with only the remaining small fraction linked to reduced domestic
production. See RTC 22.
93
-------
put the agency in the position of "balancing the many vital considerations of national policy
implicated in the basic regulation of how Americans get their energy." 142 S. Ct. at 2612. Here,
too, EPA's rule puts it in the position of deciding "how much of a switch" to electrification the
nation's power grids can tolerate, and how high vehicle and electricity prices can climb without
being "exorbitant." (Valero)
Some commenters asserted that the proposed rule implicates EPA in considerations of
national energy usage (how much energy increase the national grid can accommodate), and
geopolitical issues of access to critical materials in the hands of unfriendly foreign entities, as
well as the energy security issues associated with those geopolitical issues (Valero. AFPM,
CFDC)
Summary of Comments Claiming EPA Should Account for Lifecyle Emissions
Many commenters in this section 2.1 and RTC section 17.1 indicated EPA should account for
lifecycle emissions. AFPM specifically stated that "Clean Air Act Section 202(a)(4)(B) requires
that EPA calculate these lifecycle emissions impacts" and that EPA must account for more than
tailpipe emissions or ZEVs, which have no tailpipe emissions, cannot cause or contribute to air
pollution and the rule creates an "uneven playing field that substantially disadvantages ICEVs "
Summary of Specific Comments Related to Other Congressional Actions:
• The BIL and IRA cannot be invoked to convey substantive authority both because
they are reconciliation bills, and because they are post-enactment legislation (e.g.
Clean Fuels Coalition, API ). Commenter claims these bills show Congressional
intent to incentivize electrification, not to mandate it by rule (Valero). Other
commenters view provisions from these statutes, as well as their legislative history, as
supporting the proposed rule (CATF, EDF);
• The commenter disputes that references to electrification in 1967 legislative history,
the 1970 Senate Report, and dicta from the D.C. Circuit International Harvester
opinion support a claim of authority, or the requisite clear statement (Valero);
Response to Comments Concerning the Major Questions Doctrine
In Section 202(a), Congress directed EPA to regulate motor vehicle emissions based on its
consideration of available technologies, their costs, and lead-time. In the final Phase 3 rule,
consistent with its earlier rules, EPA considered updated data on pollution control technologies.
The agency found that a range of technologies—including certain zero-emissions vehicle (ZEV)
technologies which prevent motor vehicle emissions—could be produced at a reasonable cost
during the years affected by this rule, model years 2027-32. Based on the agency's evaluation of
all available technologies, EPA decided to strengthen the existing GHG standards.
Commenters asserted that EPA lacks authority to adopt the final standards because the
agency's approach raised a major question and the statute is not sufficiently clear in granting
EPA the necessary authority. Notwithstanding the plain statutory language in section 202(a) and
EPA's consideration of ZEV technologies since the beginning of the motor vehicle GHG
program in 2010, commenters newly contended that the statute limited the agency to considering
only technologies applicable to vehicles with specific types of engines—namely gasoline and
94
-------
diesel internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles—or only encouraging the adoption of ZEV
technologies at some lower level.
Commenters' arguments are misplaced. As we discuss in preamble I. A-B and part I below,
the statute provides clear Congressional authorization for EPA to consider updated data on all
types of pollution control technologies—including BEV and FCEV technologies—and to
determine the emission standards accordingly. In section 202(a), Congress made the major policy
decision to regulate air pollution from motor vehicles. Congress also prescribed that EPA should
accomplish this mandate through a technology-based approach, and it plainly entrusted to the
Administrator's judgment the evaluation of available pollution control technologies and the
consequent determination of the emission standards. In the final rule, the Administrator
determined that a wide variety of technologies exist to further control GHGs from HD vehicles—
including various ICE, hybrid, and ZEV technologies such as BEVs and FCEVs—and that such
technologies could be applied at a reasonable cost to achieve significant reductions of GHG
emissions that contribute to the ongoing climate crisis. These subsidiary technical and policy
judgments were clearly within the Administrator's delegated authority. Because the meaning of
the statutory text, read in its context, is unambiguous, there is no need to evaluate whether a
major question exists.
In any event, EPA does not agree that this rule implicates the major questions doctrine as
elucidated by the Court in West Virginia and related cases. The Court has made clear that the
doctrine is reserved for extraordinary cases involving assertions of highly consequential power
beyond what Congress could reasonably be understood to have granted.3 The Court considers
whether the agency's exercise of power is consistent with prior precedents or whether it claims
"to discover in a long-extant statute an unheralded power representing a transformative
expansion in [its] regulatory authority."4 This is not such an extraordinary case in which
congressional intent is unclear. Here, EPA is acting within the heartland of its statutory authority
and faithfully implementing Congress's precise direction and intent. As we explain in part II, the
final Phase 3 rule does not invoke a novel and transformative exercise of agency authority.
Rather, the agency is acting in its traditional area of expertise, as it has for decades, to
promulgate emission standards for motor vehicles. The rule maintains the fundamental
regulatory structure of the existing program and iteratively strengthens the GHG standards from
its predecessor Phase 2 rule. In part III, we assess the consequences of the rule. While the Phase
3 rule is a significant regulation of the motor vehicle industry, the nature and impacts of the rule
are similar in kind to prior rules. On some important metrics, its impacts are smaller than Phase
2. We also address commenters' reliance on alleged indirect impacts—on areas like national
security, grid reliability, and the viability of fossil fuel companies—to claim that this rule creates
extraordinary consequences. We do not agree that these indirect impacts are relevant to assessing
the consequential nature of this rule. The statute does not direct EPA to consider indirect
3 West Virginia, 142 S. Ct. at 2607-08 (cleaned up).
4 West Virginia, 142 S. Ct. at 2610 (citing Util. AirRegul. Grp. v. E.P.A., 573 U.S. 302, 324 (2014)) (alterations in
original); id. at 2596 ("This view of EPA's authority was not only unprecedented; it also effected a "fundamental
revision of the statute, changing it from [one sort of] scheme of... regulation' into an entirely different kind.");
Biden v. Nebraska, 143 S. Ct. 2355, 2372 (2023) (applying the doctrine upon noting that "past waivers and
modifications issued under the Act have been extremely modest and narrow in scope"). But see Biden v. Missouri,
595 U.S. 87, 94, 95 (2022) (declining to apply the major questions doctrine in light of the "longstanding practice of
Health and Human Services in implementing the relevant statutory authorities," even though "the vaccine mandate
goes further than what the Secretary has done in the past").
95
-------
impacts, the legislative history indicates that Congress intended for EPA to regulate despite
them, and they are the routine consequence of agency regulation and thus unsuitable for
identifying extraordinary exercises of power. Even if these indirect impacts were relevant, EPA
has comprehensively assessed these issues, often in consultation with other expert agencies, and
found that the final rule does not cause significant indirect harms as alleged by commenters and
on balance creates net benefits for society.
In part IV, we consider several additional factors, which we find also weigh against
application of the major questions framework: the agency's assertion of authority does not create
an unworkable conflict with any other statutory provision; the action does not significantly alter
the balance of Federal and state power or the power of government over private property; and
notwithstanding ongoing political interest in motor vehicle GHG regulation, the weight of
statutory and legislative evidence supports EPA's authority.
I. The Statute Provides Clear Congressional Authorization.
As we explain in great detail in preamble I.B, the statute clearly authorizes EPA to consider
ZEV technologies in setting emission standards under section 202(a). Section 202(a) requires the
Administrator to establish emission standards for classes of motor vehicles based on the
"development and application of the requisite technology, giving appropriate consideration to the
cost of compliance within such period."5 "Motor vehicles" are defined broadly to mean "any
self-propelled vehicle designed for transporting persons or property on a street or highway."6
Zero-emission vehicle technologies are "technologies" that reduce emissions and apply to
"motor vehicles." Thus, EPA may consider such technologies in determining the emissions
standards. The statutory context, purpose, and history, as well as administrative precedent,
support this conclusion. Indeed, the statute unambiguously mandates EPA to consider ZEVs on
this record, as they are highly effective pollution control technologies available during the
timeframe of this rule and at a reasonable cost.7 In preamble I.C. and RTC 2.1 and 10.2.1 .f, we
further address related statutory interpretation comments, including that ZEVs cannot belong to
the same "class" of vehicles as ICE vehicles and that ZEVs are not "complete systems" or
"devices" that "prevent or control" air pollution under section 202(a)(1).
We make three additional observations here in support of our argument that the statute
provides clear Congressional authorization: (1) in section 202(a), Congress made the major
policy decision to regulate air pollution from motor vehicles and appropriately delegated to EPA
the interstitial judgments of identifying available pollution control technologies—like ZEV
technologies—and the level of the standards; (2) the statutory language is clear, and does not rely
on modest or vague terms; and (3) the statutory provision is central to controlling motor vehicle
emissions, not some ancillary or backwater enactment.
First, in enacting Section 202(a), Congress itself made the relevant major policy decision: to
regulate dangerous air pollution from motor vehicles—a term which Congress broadly defined to
include "any self-propelled vehicle designed for transporting persons or property on a street or
5 CAA section 202(a)(1), (a)(2).
6 CAA section 216(2).
7 See Guedes v. ATF, 45 F.4th 306, 313 (D.C. Cir. 2022) (When "traditional tools of statutory interpretation" show
that the agency's interpretation is "the best one," the court can uphold the interpretation without resorting to
deference principles.).
96
-------
highway."8 Granting the Executive Branch such authority was a decision of enormous import.
To that point, Congress's prior forays into air pollution control had largely focused on research,
funding, and study. Motivated by recent environmental crises and a growing awareness of the
dangers of air pollution to public health and welfare, Congress in 1965 conferred upon the
agency authority to regulate motor vehicle emissions.9
Congress also made the key policy decision that motor vehicle emissions control would be
achieved through a technology-based approach: EPA is to identify the available control
technologies and establish emissions standards based on the performance of such technologies,
their costs, and the lead-time necessary for their development and application. It charged the
agency with technical determinations and policy judgments of an interstitial nature: what kind of
pollution is harmful to public health and welfare, which classes of motor vehicles cause or
contribute to such pollution, what technologies exist to mitigate such pollution, the rate and costs
at which such technologies can be adopted, the appropriate stringency of the emissions standards
in light of findings on technology and costs, and how such standards should be complied with
and enforced.10 Congress conferred on the Administrator the authority to make these subsidiary,
but also significant, judgments, recognizing both his expertise in this area, as well as the need to
confer "regulatory flexibility" absent which "changing circumstances and scientific
developments would soon render the Clean Air Act obsolete."11 These sorts of technical and
policy determinations were well within Congress's power to delegate, and such delegations are
ubiquitous throughout the Clean Air Act.12
In subsequent amendments to the Act, Congress made clear the reach of section 202(a): it
could be used to drive not merely modest reductions in motor vehicle emissions, but order-of-
magnitude reductions. For example, in the 1970 Clean Air Act Amendments, Congress mandated
that the Administrator issue regulations to reduce emissions of certain pollutants by 90% over a
five-year period.13 The 1990 Amendments required 100% phase-in of a new set of demanding
8 CAA section 216(2).
9 Motor Vehicle Air Pollution Control Act, Pub. L. 89-272 (1965). See generally Arthur C. Stern, History of Air
Pollution Legislation in the United States, 32 Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association 44 (1982), available at
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00022470.1982.10465369.
10 See CAA section 202(a)(1) (delegating authority to determine what "air pollution which may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger public health or welfare," which emissions of air pollutants from any class of motor vehicles
"cause, or contribute" to such air pollution, and to establish standards to control such emissions), CAA section
202(a)(2) (delegating authority to determine the "period ... necessary to permit the development and application of
the requisite technology" to control such emissions and the "cost of compliance," and to balance these factors in
determining the emissions standards), CAA sections 203-208 (delegating authority to determine the manners of
compliance and enforcement).
11 Massachusetts v. E.P.A., 549 U.S. 497, 532 (2007); see also Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. U.S. Env't Prot.
Agency, 655 F.2d 318, 322 (D.C. Cir. 1981).
12 See, e.g., CAA section 108, 109, 111, 112, 169A, 202.
13 See Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970, Pub. L. 91-604, at sec. 6, 84 Stat. 1676, 1690 (Dec. 31, 1970) (amending
section 202 of the CAA and directing EPA to issue regulations to reduce carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons from
LD vehicles and engines by 90 percent in MY 1975 compared to MY 1970 and directing EPA to issue regulations to
reduce NOx emissions from LD vehicles and engines by 90 percent in MY 1976 when compared with MY 1971).
Subsequent factual developments led to relaxation of the standards, see CAA section 202(b)(1); however, the 1970
statute nonetheless illustrates the breadth of EPA's statutory authority to mandate rapid emissions reductions. See
also generally preamble I.B (discussing the statutory numeric standards in section 202(b), (g)-(j), which required
dramatic and rapid reductions in emissions).
97
-------
standards over a six to seven model year period.14 Congress further clarified that EPA should not
view even such enormous reductions as the full extent of Congress's pollution-control intentions,
but expressly empowered the agency to go still further.15
Commenters do not seriously question that the final rule implements the major policy decision
Congress made: regulating air pollution from motor vehicles. Nor do commenters raise any
plausible argument against the fact that Section 202(a)(l)-(2) entrusts to the Administrator's
judgment the evaluation of pollution control technologies, their costs, and their rate of adoption.
Rather, commenters disagree with how the Administrator has considered specific pollution
control technologies (i.e., ZEV technologies such as BEV and FCEV technologies) in
determining the standards. But the evaluation of pollution control technologies is fundamentally
an interstitial decision well within EPA's authority.16
Commenters fail to seriously question this beyond suggesting that the final rule is unlawful
absent an explicit legislative command to consider ZEVs or (conversely) to only consider
technologies applicable to ICE vehicles.17 But Congress did not limit EPA's authority to ICE
vehicles. Instead, it made the major policy decision here to control motor vehicle pollution via a
technology-based approach and delegated to the Administrator the responsibility to implement
that policy. Were this not so, any time a significant new pollution control technology has come
along—and many have over the years—Congress would need to pass a new statute. While some
commenters may prefer this outcome, they articulate no good reason for why Congress must turn
into a perpetual monitor of new technological developments in the field of motor vehicle
emissions control, as opposed to delegating such technical matters to the expert agency.
Second, the statutory language is clear, and does not use modest words, vague terms, or subtle
devices.18 As explained above and in preamble I. A-B, the statute is replete with clear language.
Among other things, section 202(a) directs the Administrator to regulate emissions from "motor
vehicles," which the statute defines as "any self-propelled vehicle designed for transporting
persons or property on a street or highway."19 Unlike other statutory provisions, Congress
intentionally abstained from using limiting language such as "internal combustion engine"20 or
"gasoline" or "diesel" engine vehicles.21 Section 202(a)(2) then directs EPA to establish the
14 See CAA section 202(g).
15 See, e.g., CAA section 202(b)(1)(C) ("The Administrator may promulgate regulations under subsection (a)(1)
revising any standard prescribed or previously revised under this subsection.... Any revised standard shall require a
reduction of emissions from the standard that was previously applicable."), (i)(3)(B)(iii) ("Nothing in this paragraph
shall prohibit the Administrator from exercising the Administrator's authority under subsection (a) to promulgate
more stringent standards for light-duty vehicles and light-duty ... at any other time thereafter in accordance with
subsection (a).")
16 See West Virginia, 142 S. Ct. 2587, 2601, 2602, 2611 (2022) (under statutes that provide for a technology-based
approach to pollution control, noting with approval EPA's determination that "more traditional pollution control
measures" include "efficiency improvements, fuel-switching," and "add-on controls").
17 But see Nebraska, 143 S. Ct. 2355, 2378 (2023) (Barrett, J., concurring) (concluding that none of the Court's
cases "requires an unequivocal declaration from Congress authorizing the precise agency action under review").
18 West Virginia, 142 S. Ct. at 2609.
19 CAA section 216(2).
20 See CAA section 216(10) (definition of nonroad engine).
21 See generally preamble I.B. Compare also, e.g., CAA section 202(a)(l)-(2) (granting general power to the
Administrator to establish emission standards for "any class or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle
engines"), with section 202(a)(3)(B)(ii) (addressing regulations under section 202(a)(1) for certain "gasoline and
98
-------
standards based on the "development and application of the requisite technology, giving
appropriate consideration to the cost of compliance within such period," and does not confine the
agency to consider any specific technology, but rather contains explicitly expansive language on
the types of eligible technology.22 Again, Congress made the major policy decision to regulate
air pollution from motor vehicles and entrusted the means of achieving such regulation to the
Administrator's judgment. "The broad language of § 202(a)(1) reflects an intentional effort to
confer the flexibility necessary to forestall such obsolescence."23
Third, section 202(a) is not a mere "ancillary" or backwater provision,24 but rather has been
the cornerstone of motor vehicle emissions regulation since its enactment in 1965. Section
202(a)(1) confers on EPA the "general regulatory power" to regulate motor vehicle emissions.25
Additionally, over the course of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970, 1977, and 1990,
Congress directed EPA to exercise this authority to promulgate many specific and stringent
standards for controlling motor vehicle emissions.26 Congress also enacted numerous other
provisions providing for compliance with and enforcement of such standards.27 Since section
202(a)'s enactment, EPA has also regularly exercised this authority to promulgate highly
consequential motor vehicle emission standards, including numerous criteria pollutant and GHG
standards.28
II. The Final Rule Does Not Assert a Transformative Expansion in Agency Power.
A. The Phase 3 Standards Represent an Iterative Strengthening of the Existing Program.
The final Phase 3 rule is an iterative strengthening of the existing Phase 2 emission standards,
not "an unheralded power representing a transformative expansion in [the agency's] regulatory
authority" or a "fundamental revision of the statute, changing it from one sort of scheme of
regulation into an entirely different kind."29 The rule asserts the same authority as asserted in
earlier GHG rules, and it is premised on technical and policy judgments regarding motor vehicle
pollution control that lie in the heartland of EPA's expertise.
As a preliminary matter, we emphasize the real-world context antecedent to this rulemaking:
the industry is making a significant shift to ZEVs. EPA's determination of what emissions
diesel-fueled" vehicles), 202(h) tab. H (same), (i)(l) (same), (k) (addressing regulation of "all gasoline-fueled motor
vehicles").
22 See CAA section 202(a)(1) ("Such standards shall be applicable to such vehicles and engines for their useful life
... whether such vehicles and engines are designed as complete systems or incorporate devices to prevent or control
such pollution.").
23 Massachusetts, 549 U.S. 497, 532 (2007); see also Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. U.S. Env'tProt. Agency, 655
F.2d 318, 322 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (characterizing section 202(a)(1) as a "general regulatory power" to establish
"technology-based" standards for motor vehicles); S. Rep. No. 89-192, at 4 (1965) and H.R. Rep. No. 89-899, at 4
(1965) (House and Senate reports on 1965 legislation indicating the agency should adjust to changing technology in
setting standards).
24 West Virginia, 142 S. Ct. at 2610.
25 NRDC, 655 F.2d 318, 322 (D.C. Cir. 1981).
26 See, e.g., CAA section 202(b), (g)-(j), (1).
27 See, e.g., CAA section 202(d), 203-08; see also CAA sections 209(b)(1)(C) (imposing consistency with section
202(a) as a condition for granting a waiver of preemption), 213 (modeling nonroad provisions on section 202).
28 See preamble I.A; see also EPA, Emission Standards Reference Guide for On-road and Nonroad Vehicles and
Engines, https://www.epa.gov/emission-standards-reference-guide.
29 West Virginia, 597 U.S. 697, 724, 728 (2022)
99
-------
reductions are feasible and appropriate is based first on its assessment of the future market for
HD vehicles. EPA's assessment of the record—including technical information, manufacturer
plans, third-party projections, and other relevant data—indicates that advancements in
technology, together with the support provided by the BIL, IRA, and other government
programs, will lead to significantly greater adoption of ZEV technologies even absent new
standards. For example, EPA anticipates that, absent this rule, ZEVs will represent over 30% of
new light HD vehicles by MY 2032.30 Some commenters may anticipate somewhat higher or
lower figures than EPA's projection, but it is clear that increasing numbers of HD ZEVs will be
produced regardless of EPA rulemaking. This fact is understood by the regulated community; for
instance, the leading trade group representing HD vehicle manufacturers states: "EMA member
companies agree that [HD] ZEVs are and should be the future of the commercial trucking
industry."31 The final rule builds on these technological advancements, Congressional support,
and industry trends.
As discussed in preamble I.B-C, the final rule aligns with decades of the agency's exercise of
its CAA section 202(a) authority and enacts an iterative strengthening of the HD GHG standards
established in the earlier Phase 1 and Phase 2 rule.32'33 Since the 1970s, EPA has relied on its
CAA section 202(a) authority to set emissions standards for classes of new motor vehicles. EPA
first promulgated GHG standards for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles and engines in 2011,
which set standards for model years 2014 through 2018 and later, and which we commonly refer
to as the "Phase 1" standards.34 In 2016, EPA promulgated "Phase 2" GHG standards for
medium- and heavy-duty vehicles and engines, which set standards applicable to model years
2021 through 2027 and later.35 The final HD Phase 3 standards build upon these earlier
rulemakings to further reduce emissions of CO2 from heavy-duty vehicles. EPA has also
consistently set GHG emission standards applicable to light-duty vehicles pursuant to CAA
section 202(a).36
The Phase 3 final rule exercises the same basic authority as previously asserted. The HD
GHG rules are similar in six fundamental ways: they (1) are promulgated pursuant to the same
statutory authority, CAA section 202(a)(l)-(2), (2) address the same endangerment finding (the
2009 GHG endangerment finding for motor vehicles), and (3) impose the same basic regulatory
requirement to meet more protective, performance-based GHG standards to reduce GHG
30 See preamble table 11-34.
31 See, e.g., EMA comment 1 ("Importantly, EMA members are investing billions of dollars to develop, manufacture
and deploy HDOH zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs), and fully support the efforts of the federal (and state)
government to support and expand the market for ZEV trucks. EMA member companies agree that HDOH ZEVs
are and should be the future of the commercial trucking industry.").
32 See also Brief of Amici Curiae Margo Oge and John Hannon in Support of Respondents, Texas v. EPA (D.C. Cir.
No. 22-1031) (discussing the history of motor vehicle pollution control and EPA's emissions standards).
33 We note that no party sought judicial review of the Phase 2 GHG standards that EPA is strengthening today. Some
parties did seek review of other aspects of the Phase 2 rule, notably the regulation of trailers as well as a provision
relating to competitive racing. See Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association v. EPA, 17 F.4th 1198 (D.C. Cir. 2021);
Racing Enthusiasts & Suppliers Coal. v. Env't Prot. Agency, 45 F.4th 353 (D.C. Cir. 2022).
34 76 FR 57106, 57108 (Sept. 15, 2011).
35 81 FR 73478, 73500 (Oct. 25, 2016).
36 See 75 FR 25324 (May 7, 2010) (setting GHG standards applicable to model year 2012-2016 LD vehicles); 77 FR
62624 (Oct. 15, 2012) (setting GHG standards for model year 2017-2025 LD vehicles and "building on the success
of the first phase of the National program for these vehicles"); 86 FR 774434 (Dec. 30, 2021) (revising GHG
standards for model year 2023 and later light-duty vehicle).
100
-------
emissions from motor vehicles,37 on (4) the same parties (manufacturers of new HD vehicles);
are (5) based on the same basic kind of technical justification, as required by 202(a)(2), namely a
demonstration that the standards can be met, within the timeframe of the rule, through the
"development and application of the requisite technology, giving appropriate consideration to the
cost of compliance within such period"; and (6) consider the ability of a manufacturer to average
the emissions performance of different vehicles across its HD fleet, which enables manufacturers
to achieve emissions reductions more rapidly and for lower cost.38 Similar characteristics are
also shared by many other motor vehicle rules, including GHG rules regulating the light- and
medium-duty sectors and rules regulating criteria pollutants dating back to the 1980s.39
Not only is the nature of the power asserted the same as in earlier rules, but the final rule also
involves making the same kinds of technical and policy judgments that lie in the heartland of
EPA's traditionally delegated authority, matters in which the agency has clear expertise. As in
prior CAA section 202(a)(l)-(2) rulemakings, EPA assessed the availability of potential
technologies to reduce the pollutant at issue, lead time necessary for development and
deployment of those technologies, cost of compliance with the standards, cost to purchasers, and
broader societal and economic impacts. And as in those prior rules, EPA exercised its policy
judgment and technical expertise to determine the final standards giving due consideration to the
statutory and other relevant criteria. For example, in this rulemaking, EPA evaluated the HD
vehicles industry and the wide array of tasks that such vehicles perform; the control technologies
to further control GHGs from such vehicles, their feasibility, and effectiveness at controlling
GHGs; and the availability of infrastructure to support such technologies (RIA 1). EPA designed
and applied its state-of-the-art model, called Heavy-Duty Technology Resource Use Case
Scenario (HD TRUCS), for assessing the rate of technology adoption (RIA 2).40 EPA calculated
cost metrics, including costs of compliance to regulated entities, costs to purchasers, and social
costs (RIA 3), as well as other economic impacts (RIA 6). The agency analyzed emissions
impacts, including based on the agency's longstanding MOtor Vehicle Emission Simulator
(MOVES) (RIA 4),41 and evaluated the health and welfare impacts of the emission reductions
37 Commenters suggest in passing that the rule raises a major question because EPA failed to consider lifecycle
emissions impacts associated with ZEVs. EPA has considered certain lifecycle impacts, including GHG emissions
from both EGUs and oil refineries, in setting the standards. See preamble V. Further, to the extent that commenters
are concerned about the rule asserting a transformative and unprecedented exercise of power, EPA fails to see how
an expansive consideration of GHG impacts across the entire vehicle and fuels supply chain—e.g., farms, mines,
and factories, both domestic and foreign—would mitigate that concern. We further respond to comments about
lifecycle emissions impacts in RTC 17.
38 Averaging provides compliance flexibilities for manufacturers, allowing them to decide how and when to redesign
specific vehicles and to deploy new technologies, and to balance these considerations in the way that makes the most
sense for their individual vehicle fleets. This flexible structure is consistent with previous vehicle GHG rules and is
effectively designed to reflect the diverse nature of the heavy-duty vehicle industry. For further discussion of
averaging, as well as banking and trading, please see RTC 10.2.1, and sections I.C and III. A of the preamble.
39 For example, the 1985 HD criteria pollutant rule shares similar features, albeit with some differences, e.g., criteria
pollutant standards for heavy-duty vehicles are in response to different endangerment findings than the GHG
endangerment finding, and they are also subject to the additional requirements in CAA section 202(a)(3)(A)(i).
40 The HD TRUCS evaluates 101 representative vehicles cover the full range of weight classes within the scope of
the final standards (i.e., Class 2b through 8 vocational vehicles and tractors), considering manifold technical factors
such as the work performed by such vehicles and their energy and power demands, the additional weight and size
associated with pollution control technologies, the costs of technologies relative to the baseline vehicle, the need for
and costs of electric charging and hydrogen refueling infrastructure, the rate and costs of fuel consumption, the costs
of producing and operating such vehicles, and more.
41 The agency also conducted peer review for both MOVES and the inputs used for HD TRUCS.
101
-------
(RIA 5). EPA also monetized certain benefits associated with emissions reductions and energy
security (RIA 7) and performed a cost-benefits analysis (RIA 8). Finally, the agency exercised its
policy judgment to determine the emissions standards based on its assessment of technological
feasibility, lead-time, costs, and other factors (preamble II.G). Although the specific facts
surrounding each rule vary, these are all among the kinds of considerations that EPA regularly
evaluates in its motor vehicle rules, including in all of EPA's prior GHG rules: the nature of the
industry and the regulated vehicles, the availability of control technologies, costs, emissions
impacts, health and welfare impacts, economic and other impacts, cost-benefits analysis,42 and of
course the resulting emission standards.43
While the Phase 3 rule is more stringent than its predecessors, this difference is premised not
on any transformative assertion of agency power, but rather on changing circumstances, most
notably technological advances that permit greater GHG reductions, as well as BIL and IRA
funding that support ZEVs.44 As required by the statute, each rule incorporates an updated
technical analysis, including of feasibility, lead time, and costs, for HD technologies that control
emissions of GHGs. As we explain in preamble section I.B, there are more effective control
technologies—particularly ZEV technologies such as BEV and FCEV technologies—available at
a reasonable cost for the Phase 3 timeframe (MY 2027-32) than for the earlier years covered by
Phase 1 and Phase 2. The agency also considered updated data on ICE vehicle technologies that
are also available to reduce emissions.45 On balance, we determined that the potential for
increased adoption of control technologies, including ICE vehicle and ZEV technologies,
warranted strengthening the GHG standards.
Phase 3's iterative strengthening of the emission standards thus presents an ordinary exercise
of agency power and is in no way "a transformative expansion" of EPA's regulatory authority as
commenters would suggest. Instead, it is yet another action in a long list of EPA's exercises of
its standard-setting authority under CAA section 202. Considerable precedent holds that merely
strengthening an existing regulatory program does not amount to an extraordinary assertion of
46
power.
Commenters nonetheless claim that EPA's assertion of power here augurs a future where the
agency might require the complete elimination of tailpipe pollution from motor vehicles and is
therefore transformative. EPA agrees that the statute contemplates the possibility of completely
42 As discussed in RTC chapter 23, in addition to the statutory factors, EPA also evaluated additional factors,
including factors to comply with E.O. 12866. Our assessment of these additional factors lends further support to the
final rule.
43 See, e.g., the final rule preamble and RIA for the HD Phase 2 and Phase 1 rules, and the 2021, 2020, 2012, and
2010 LD GHG rules. As we explain in part IV.C below, the agency also consulted with numerous other expert
agencies in formulating its judgments.
44 There are some other differences between the rules which also do not rise to an extraordinary and novel assertion
of authority. See, e.g., preamble III.A (describing updated compliance provisions).
45 See preamble II.F.4.
46 See West Virginia, 142 S. Ct. 2587, 2610 (2022) (distinguishing EPA's Mercury Rule, 90 Fed. Reg. 28616 (2005),
from the Clean Power Plan and noting that "[t]he Mercury Rule ... is one more entry in an unbroken list of prior
[CAA] section 111 rules"); Missouri, 595 U.S. 87, 95 (2022) ("Of course the vaccine mandate goes further than
what the Secretary has done in the past to implement infection control. But he has never had to address an infection
problem of this scale and scope before. In any event, there can be no doubt that addressing infection problems in
Medicare and Medicaid facilities is what he does."); Utility Air, 573 U.S. 302, 332 (2014) (declining to apply the
major questions doctrine where the regulation "moderately increases] the demands EPA (or a state permitting
authority) can make of entities already subject to its regulation")
102
-------
preventing motor vehicle tailpipe pollution which contributes to endangerment, where that result
is supportable under the statutory criteria and the record.47 The natural outcome of Congress's
major policy decision to control air pollution from motor vehicles is that such pollution might
one day be eliminated. Nowhere does the statute afford a perpetual safe harbor for the production
of vehicles that emit pollutants that contribute to air pollution which is endangering public health
and welfare when pollution-free vehicles are available at a reasonable cost. This was Congress's,
not the Administrator's, decision. In any event, this rule does not require the elimination of
GHGs from HD vehicles; such a result is not justified on the current record.
The regulated community also supports EPA's authority to consider ZEVs in establishing the
standards, further confirming their unremarkable nature.48 One would expect that a
transformative exercise of agency power would be met by sharp opposition from the regulated
community, as typically is true in major-questions cases. But while regulated entities filed
comments regarding, for instance, the available lead-time and rate at which the emissions
standards should be strengthened, they support the agency's statutory authority to consider ZEVs
in establishing the standards. The Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA), the
major trade group representing entities regulated by the final rule, "is generally supportive of the
intent of the proposed rulemaking - to accelerate the deployment of zero-emission trucks"49 and
recognizes as "certainly true that EPA has the authority to set lower emission standards as
advancements in technology allow, even down to zero."50 Major HD vehicle manufacturers also
filed similarly supportive comments, demonstrating both their intention to produce ZEV products
and support for EPA's consideration of ZEVs in setting the standards.51
47 Indeed, an analogous result—of completely preventing a type of emissions—was achieved as early as 1966. The
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW), the agency then in charge of administering section 202,
determined that a different type of emissions—crankcase emissions—could be completely prevented from certain
motor vehicles. See 31 FR 5171 (Mar. 30, 1966) ("No crankcase emissions shall be discharged into the ambient
atmosphere from any new motor vehicle or new motor vehicle engine subject to this subpart.").
48 Missouri, 595 U.S. 87, 95 (2022) (regulated communities' "support suggests that a vaccination requirement under
these circumstances is a straightforward and predictable example of the health and safety regulations that Congress
has authorized the Secretary to impose").
49 EMA comment at 1.
50 EMA comment at 17.
51 See Volvo comment at 2 ("We have made major capital investments to equip our factories for growing electric
truck production volumes...."), 3 ("The Volvo Group supports EPA's proposed structure of performance-based
standards predicated solely on zero-emission Battery Electric and Fuel Cell Electric vehicle adoption ("BEV' and
"FCEV' respectively)."); DTNA comment at 2 ("DTNA supports EPA's general objective in the Proposed Rule to
encourage increased ZEV penetration in the HD sector. Specifically, the Company supports EPA's proposal to carry
over key components of the Phase 1/Phase 2 GHG standard structure, its determination to shift regulatory focus
away from conventional vehicle technologies in the next phase of HD GHG emission regulation ... and its
acknowledgment that compliance flexibilities—in particular emissions averaging, banking, and trading (ABT)—are
integral to manufacturer compliance plans."); PACCAR, comment at 2 ("The trucking industry is on the verge of a
major shift toward zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) notwithstanding a tremendous amount of uncertainty, which
underscores why EPA must ensure its ZEV analyses and GHG-related agency actions include complete, accurate,
and up-to-date information.... PACCAR is working diligently to develop ZEVs for the future"); Navistar comment
at 2 ("Navistar supports a cleaner, more sustainable future, and believes ZEVs are the future of commercial vehicle
transportation.... Navistar supports a uniform national framework for emission rules that will support early adoption
of zero-emission trucks in commercial applications best suited for longer charging periods as the infrastructure is
built out."); Ford comment at 1 ("Ford is all-in on electrification."), 2 ("Ford supports the 2032 endpoint in the main
proposal of the Phase 3 Proposal, including the numeric standards which may result in 50 percent of new heavy-duty
103
-------
B. Key Aspects of the Final Rule are Not Transformative.
Commenters' assertions that certain aspects of this rule—its regulation of GHGs, evaluation
of electric technologies, and consideration of the ABT compliance provisions—are nonetheless
so transformative as to implicate the major questions doctrine are misplaced. First, commenters
wrongly suggest that any significant regulation of the HD sector to address climate change
creates a major question. But Massachusetts considered and rejected a similar argument—"that
climate change was so important that unless Congress spoke with exacting specificity, it could
not have meant the Agency to address it" under section 202(a).52 While the Court had occasion
to revisit that conclusion in American Electric, Utility Air, and West Virginia, it did not. And
since Massachusetts, EPA has promulgated 6 motor vehicle GHG rules including 2 HD GHG
rules—there is nothing new here.53
Second, commenters erroneously claim that EPA's consideration of electric technologies as a
basis for the standards is novel. As we explain in preamble I.B, electric technologies are at the
heart of motor-vehicle pollution control. They are used by all new motor vehicles produced
today. Electric technologies are fundamental to key emissions control technologies currently in
use, including catalytic converters, selective catalytic reduction, particulate filters, and engine
and powertrain electrification. Without electric technologies, no motor vehicle would be able to
start, or operate, or control emissions. Congress also recognized "electronic emission control
units," a kind of electric technology, as a specified major emissions control device in CAA
section 207(i)(2). EPA has also repeatedly considered engine and powertrain electrification,
including ZEV, technologies in its prior rules, as shown in Table 1 of this response and discussed
in preamble I.B. and in greater detail below.
vocational vehicles being zero-emission vehicles."); Stellantis comment at 1 ("Stellantis is Committed to
Developing the Needed Electrified Products"), 2 ("Stellantis is committed to electrification and rulemakings
reflecting an industry transformation based on realistic market conditions."); see also Cummins comment at 2-3
("The launch of Accelera is a significant step forward in Cummins' efforts to achieve its Destination Zero
strategy, focused on evolving Cummins technologies to reach zero emissions across its product portfolio....
Accelera is now a global leader in zero-emissions technologies, providing battery electric and fuel cell electric
solutions across commercial and industrial applications....").
52Massachusetts, 549 U.S. 497, 512, 530-31 (2007) (distinguishing Brown & Williamson, 529 U.S. 120).
53 These rules are the 2010, 2012, 2020, and 2021 LD GHG rules, and the 2011 and 2016 HD GHG rules.
104
-------
Table 1. EPA's Prior GHG Rules and their Consideration of Averaging in Standard-Setting, ABT, and
Electrification Technologies
Rule
Averaging in
Standard-Setting
ABT
Considering
Electrification
Technologies
2010 LD
25328/3, 25456
(tbl. III.D.6-3)
(MY 2011 and later),
75 FR 25324 (May 7, 2010)
25405/1, 25412/1-3
25412/3
HD Phase 1
57204/3-05/2,
57220/1-21/2,
57224/3-25/1,
57246/1
(MY 2014 and later),
76 FR 57106 (Sept. 15,2011)
57119/1
57238/2-39/1
2012 LD
62705/1-06/1,
62852/2-61
(MY 2017 and later),
77 FR 62624 (Oct. 15, 2012)
62627/3-28/1
62628/1-2
HD Phase 2
(MY 2021 and later),
81 FR 73478 (Oct. 25, 2016)
73730/2-3, 73733/2-
34/1
73495/2-3,
73568/2-69/3
73751/1-3
2020 LD
(MY 2021 and later),
85 FR 24174 (Apr. 30, 2020)
24246/3-47/3
25206/3-07/1,
25275/1-76/2
24320/1, 24469/1-
524/3
2021 LD
74493/1-94/3,
74484/2-87/3
(MY 2023 and later),
86 FR 74434 (Dec. 30, 2021)
74446/3-51/1
74453/1-56/1
Within the HD GHG program, EPA has considered the role of electrification since the Phase
1 rule in 2011. In that rule, EPA stated that "[technologies such as hybrid drivetrains, advanced
bottoming cycle engines, and full electric vehicles [were] promoted in this first step through
incentive concepts . . . but we believe[d] that these advance technologies [would] not be
necessary to meet the final standards."54 However, we "expect[ed] these advanced technologies
to be an important part of the regulatory program and [would] consider them in setting the
stringency of any standards beyond the 2018 model year."55 In 2016, when EPA promulgated the
HD Phase 2 GHG standards, EPA considered and included certain electrified technologies,
including improved transmissions (including mild hybrid powertrains) as part of the technology
package supporting the feasibility of the HD vocational vehicles standards as well as non-hybrid
ICE vehicle electrified components (i.e., electrified accessories) as part of technology packages
supporting Phase 2 standards.56 In that same rule, EPA also continued to look toward further
electrification in the future because "we [had] found only one all-electric heavy-duty vehicle
manufacturer that [had] certified through 2016."57
54 76 FR 57106, 57133 (Sept. 15, 2011).
55 Id.
56 81 FR 73478 (Oct. 25, 2016). See also discussion regarding Phase 2 vocational vehicles technologies in preamble
II. C.
57 81 FR 73478, 73500 (Oct. 25, 2016).
105
-------
As electrified HD vehicles have become available in the market in the intervening years and
with more HD electric vehicles under development, EPA's most recent rulemaking for the HD
sector in 2023 again included consideration of HD electric vehicles.58 This rulemaking finalized
emission standards for NOx, PM, and other pollutants for model years 2027 and later HD
vehicles. EPA explained that we developed "performance-based final standards" that allow
"manufacturers [to] choose from any number of technology pathways to comply with the final
standards (e.g., alternative fuels, including biodiesel, renewable diesel, renewable natural gas,
renewable propane, or hydrogen in combination with relevant emissions aftertreatment
technologies, and electrification, including plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, battery-electric or
fuel cell electric vehicles)."59
EPA's history of considering electrification is even longer with regard to the light-duty fleet.
In 1998, EPA published regulations for the voluntary National Low Emission Vehicle (NLEV)
program that allowed LD motor-vehicle manufacturers to comply with tailpipe standards for cars
and light-duty trucks more stringent than that required by EPA in exchange for compliance
credits for such low emission and zero emission vehicles.60 In 2000, EPA built upon progress
made in the NLEV program in the light-duty Tier 2 criteria pollutant rule to set standards that
"help pave the way for greater and/or more cost effective emission reductions from future
vehicles . . . providing] a strong incentive for manufacturers to maximize their development and
introduction of the best available vehicle/engine emissions control technology, and . . .
providing] a stepping stone to the broader introduction of this technology soon thereafter."61
EPA stated that "we believe it is appropriate to provide inducements to manufacturers to certify
vehicles to very low levels and that these inducements may help pave the way for greater and/ or
more cost effective emission reductions from future vehicles."62 Accordingly, EPA adopted a
"multiplier" to allow BEVs to be counted more than once in compliance calculations for the
standards and allowed manufacturers to "propose HEV contribution factors for NOx to EPA . . .
[to] be used in the calculation of a manufacturer's fleet average NOx emissions and . . . provide a
mechanism to credit an HEV for operating with no emissions over some portion of its life.63
EPA built on this technological approach in 2010 when it first adopted standards controlling
emissions of GHG, stating we "expect[ed] that automobile manufacturers will meet these
standards by utilizing technologies that will reduce vehicle GHG emissions . . . [including]
increased use of hybrid and other advanced technologies, and the initial commercialization of
electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids."64 As technology advanced by the time of the 2012 LD
GHG Rule, EPA continued to expand its consideration of electrification technology, including
electric power steering/electro-hydraulic power steering, improved accessories (such as
electrically driven water pumps and cooling fans), 12-volt stop-start, higher voltage stop-
start/belt integrated starter generator, integrated motor assist/crank integrated starter generator,
P2 hybrid (transmission integrated electric motor placed between engine and a gearbox or
58 88 FR 4296, 4330-31 (Jan. 24, 2023).
59 88 FR 4296, 4330-31 (Jan. 24, 2023) (emphasis added).
60 63 FR 926 (Jan. 7, 1998).
61 65 FR 6698, 6698, 6746 (Feb. 10, 2000).
62 65 FR 6746.
63 65 FR 6793.
64 75 FR 25324, 25328 (May 7, 2010) ("Although many of these technologies are available today, the emissions
reductions . . . finalized in this notice will involve more widespread use of these technologies across the light-duty
vehicle fleet.").
106
-------
continuously variable transmission), 2-mode hybrid, power-split hybrid, plug-in hybrid electric
vehicles, and electric vehicles with all-electric drive.65 In 2014, EPA adopted the Tier 3 rule,
coordinating its criteria pollutant standards with the recently adopted GHG standards. EPA
projected that manufacturers would choose to meet the criteria pollutant standards with an
increase in electric vehicle sales.66
In 2020, EPA continued to consider the above technologies in the context of "electric paths
[which] include a large set of technologies that share the common element of using electrical
power for certain vehicle functions that were traditionally powered mechanically by engine
power. Electrification technologies thus can range from electrification of specific accessories . . .
to electrification of the entire powertrain."67 In the 2021 light duty vehicle rule, covering
vehicles from MY 2023 to 2026, EPA explained that "[t]he technological readiness of the auto
industry to meet the final standards ... is best understood in the context of the decade-long light-
duty vehicle GHG emission reduction program [Manufacturers have access to a wide
range of GHG-reducing technologies, many of which were in the early stages of development at
the beginning of EPA's program in 2012, and which still have potential to reach greater
penetration across all new vehicles."68 We noted that, "[i]n addition to the technologies that were
anticipated by EPA in the 2012 rule . . . recent technological advancements and successful
implementations of electrification have been particularly significant and have greatly increased
the available options for manufacturers to meet more stringent standards."69 As in prior rules,
EPA continued to consider electrified vehicles of all kinds alongside every other form of
propulsion available and anticipated in light-duty vehicles.
In sum, there is nothing novel about EPA's consideration of electric technologies, including
ZEVs, in promulgating the standards. To the contrary, were EPA to ignore ZEV technologies in
establishing the Phase 3 standards as these commenters suggest, that would be an unprecedented
and extraordinary break from the agency's consistent historical practice. The resulting standards
under such an approach would also bear little correlation with the regulated community's own
plans for reducing GHGs. For example, some commenters suggest that EPA—lacking authority
to consider the emissions performance of ZEV and ICE vehicles in the same class—could
instead adopt a more stringent GHG standard specifically for ICE vehicles alone, while ignoring
electrification technologies. Such an approach would likely lead to a significant loss in emissions
reductions, and by eliminating manufacturers' ability to use ABT, also increase the costs of
compliance. And given the enormous investments that the regulated community has made in
ZEVs and their support for the agency's consideration of ZEVs in setting the standards, such a
shift would create enormous regulatory uncertainty and undermine significant reliance
70
interests.
65 77 FR 62706 (Oct. 15, 2012).
66 Tier 3 RIA, Tables 2-42 and 2-43.
67 85 FR 24174, 24320 (Apr. 30, 2020).
68 86 FR 74434, 74493 (Dec. 30, 2021).
69 Id.
70 Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, 579 U.S. 211, 222 (2016) ("longstanding policies may have engendered
serious reliance interests that must be taken into account. In such cases ... a reasoned explanation is needed for
disregarding facts and circumstances that underlay or were engendered by the prior policy. It follows that an
unexplained inconsistency in agency policy is a reason for holding an interpretation to be an arbitrary and capricious
change from agency practice. An arbitrary and capricious regulation of this sort is itself unlawful ....").
107
-------
As we detail in preamble ES and II, and as the manufacturers themselves state in their
comments,71 manufacturers have already shifted their research and development programs and
selected ZEVs as a principal, and in some cases the exclusive, long-term GHG emissions
reduction strategy. To now prohibit manufacturers from complying through fleet-average
emissions reductions achieved through ZEVs and instead force them to deliver cleaner ICE
vehicles would upend the industry's plans. Indeed, it bears noting that many manufacturers
identified ZEVs as a key part of their GHG compliance strategy long before today's final rule: in
response to the 2016 Phase 2 rule.72
The agency appreciates that some commenters, especially those representing or supporting oil
and biofuel companies, do not favor ZEV technologies as ZEVs do not demand the liquid fuels
these companies produce. But the purpose of section 202(a) is to reduce air pollution from motor
vehicles, not to preserve the market share of any particular type of fuel or drivetrain. In light of
the statutory language as described in preamble I, ZEVs being highly effective technologies
available for controlling GHG emissions during MY 2027-32, the agency's longstanding practice
of considering such technologies, and the regulated community's reliance on such technologies
to achieve emissions goals, the agency can identify no reasoned justification for ignoring ZEV
technologies in establishing the standards. As we explain in preamble I.B, such an approach is
impermissible under the statute; it would also be arbitrary and capricious.
Commenters raise some sub-flavors of their argument that consideration of electric
technologies is novel. They claim, for example, that consideration of electrification technologies
that reduce or eliminate the use of liquid fossil fuels, or that prevent pollution from being
generated entirely as opposed to controlling it after the fact, are novel. However, to date, there
has been no commercially viable technology that blocks or controls carbon pollution in motor
vehicles after such pollution has been created. Rather, all motor vehicle GHG technologies,
including all technologies that can be applied to ICE vehicles, result in the reduction of liquid
fossil fuel consumption. All of these technologies also prevent pollution from being generated in
the first place, for example by increasing engine efficiency, improving aerodynamics, or relying
on fuel-switching (to electricity or hydrogen). These technologies, moreover, prevent not only
GHGs, but criteria pollution.73 We address this issue elsewhere in RTC 2.1 and further discuss
these technologies in RTC 4.1, 5-5.1, and 9.
71 See part II. A supra (summarizing comments from EMA, Volvo, DTNA, PACCAR, Navistar, Ford, and
Stellantis).
72 See, e.g., PACCAR comments at 9 ("Since [the Phase 2 rule], OEMs have designed their product portfolios and
compliance plans accordingly, including by increasing ZEVs...."); Navistar comments at 6 ("Navistar has relied on
the certainty of the [Phase 2] GHG standards in engineering and manufacturing ZEV trucks."); DTNA comments at
74 (indicating that "many manufacturers," including DTNA "have relied upon the availability of [ZEV] credit
multipliers to plan their compliance strategies" for Phase 2, and urging the Agency to not eliminate such credit
multipliers "out of concern that the incentives they provided to develop clean technologies may have led to the
introduction of more ZEVs than EPA intended").
73 Criteria pollutants have historically been controlled by both systems that treat pollution after it has been created
(such as catalytic converters) as well as by systems that prevent pollution from being created in the first place.
Examples of criteria pollution prevention technologies include exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) and other
combustion chamber improvements that lead to a cleaner combustion process. See, e.g., 66 FR 5002, 5035
(explaining that as of time of the 2001 HD rule, "the emission control development work for diesels has
concentrated on improvements to the engine itself to limit the emissions leaving the combustion chamber"), 5055
108
-------
Some commenters, recognizing EPA's authority to consider ZEVs, nonetheless claim that the
extent to which EPA is basing the standards on increased adoption of ZEVs, or increased
electrification generally, is novel. EPA agrees that ZEV technologies will be available in greater
quantities and at lower costs during the timeframe for this rulemaking relative to earlier years,
and that manufacturers will likely significantly increase their adoption of ZEV technologies.
These are new factual developments since our earlier rules, which we detail in preamble ES and
II, and these changing facts support more stringent standards. But regulation responsive to
changing facts is part and parcel of the normal course of agency administration, not the sort of
transformative action that gives rise to a major question.74 Just as questions about the appropriate
level of stringency of a standard are not extraordinary, so too questions about the penetration
rates of a given technology that may be expected to occur under different stringencies are not
extraordinary.
Commenters also wrongly claim that EPA's consideration of ABT is novel, whether in
isolation or specifically with respect to how EPA considers ABT and ZEVs in determining the
stringency of the standards. As shown in Table 1 of this response, ABT is not at all novel: EPA
has employed ABT throughout all its GHG rules, and the use of averaging, both as a compliance
provision and in standard-setting, dates back to 1985.75 EPA did not even reopen the ABT
program in this rule (excepting certain discrete changes discussed in preamble III. A). Regulated
entities also strongly support ABT and have come to rely on it as a cost-effective way to comply
with the standards. By contrast, it would be an extraordinary break from precedent to now cease
the GHG ABT program or considering the availability of averaging in determining the
stringency of the standards. We further address comments regarding ABT in RTC 10.2.1.
In sum, the final rule does not assert an unprecedented and transformative expansion of
agency power, but merely iterates on the existing Phase 2 program. The nature and scope of the
agency's authority is the same as in prior rules. The rule is premised on technical and policy
judgments that lie in the heartland of EPA's traditionally delegated authority. And the agency's
consideration of electrification and ABT in setting the standards follows decades of precedent.
("non-catalyst related improvements to gasoline emission control technology include higher speed computer
processors which enable more sophisticated engine control algorithms and improved fuel injectors providing better
fuel atomization thereby improving fuel combustion"), 5092 (expecting certain vehicles to meet the standards
through various technologies, including EGR and other combustion process improvements).
74 See, e.g., Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 42 (1983)
("[W]e fully recognize regulatory agencies do not establish rules of conduct to last forever and that an agency must
be given ample latitude to adapt their rules and policies to the demands of changing circumstances.... there is no
more reason to presume that changing circumstances require the rescission of prior action, instead of a revision in or
even the extension of current regulation."); Missouri, 595 U.S. 87, 94, 95 (2022) ("Of course the vaccine mandate
goes further than what the Secretary has done in the past to implement infection control. But he has never had to
address an infection problem of this scale and scope before. In any event, there can be no doubt that addressing
infection problems in Medicare and Medicaid facilities is what he does.").
75 See 50 FR 10606 (Mar. 15, 1985). The availability of averaging as a compliance flexibility has an even earlier
pedigree. See 48 FR 33456 (July 21, 1983) (EPA's first averaging program for mobile sources); 45 FR 79382 (Nov.
28, 1980) (advance notice of proposed rulemaking investigating averaging for mobile sources).
109
-------
III. The Final Rule Does Not Impose Unprecedented Consequences.
A. The Phase 3 Standards Impose Similar Regulatory Costs to Earlier Rules.
In evaluating whether a regulation is of vast economic and political significance, the Supreme
Court has typically compared the effects of the current rule with those of prior exercises of the
agency's authority.76 In particular, the Court has paid special attention to the number of directly
affected entities and the costs of complying with the regulation77—whether in the form of dollars
or other economic consequences such as forced plant closures or permitting delays.78 In some
cases, the Court has also considered the costs to customers of the regulated entity.79
Table 2 of this response presents a comparison of the impacts of the Phase 3 rule with the
Phase 2 and Phase 1 rules. We highlight some key observations here. First, the Phase 3 rule
regulates the same community of regulated entities as earlier rules: HD vehicle manufacturers.80
Congress provided explicit textual authorization for regulating these entities, which EPA has
been doing for five decades,81 and they comprise "a relative handful of large sources capable of
shouldering heavy substantive and procedural burdens" of section 202(a) regulation,82 and a far
cry from the millions of regulated entities that the Court found to give rise to major questions in
other cases.83
76 The Court has not viewed vast consequences, in isolation, as sufficient to warrant departure from the traditional
principles of statutory interpretation. See Brianne J. Gorod et al., "Major Questions Doctrine: An Extraordinary
Doctrine for 'Extraordinary' Cases," 19 Wake Forest L. Rev. (forthcoming) 19 ("in no case has economic
significance or political controversy alone been enough to trigger application of the MQD"), available at
https://papers.ssrn. com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4419602.
77 See, e.g., Nebraska, 143 S. Ct. 2355, 2372 (2023) ("43 million borrowers from their obligations to repay $430
billion in student loans"); West Virginia, 142 S. Ct. 2587, 2604 (2022); id at 2622 (Gorsuch, J., concurring);
Alabama Association, 141 S. Ct. 2485, 2489 (2021); Utility Air, 573 U.S. 302, 322 (2014).
78 West Virginia, 142 S. Ct. 2587, 2604 (2022) (closures of coal power plants); Utility Air, 573 U.S. 302, 322 (2014)
(permitting delays).
79 West Virginia, 142 S. Ct. 2587, 2604 (2022) (noting the impact of EPA's EGU regulation on "retail electricity
prices").
80 Specifically, all three rules regulate manufacturers of HD tractors and vocational vehicles. Both the Phase 1 and
Phase 2 rules also regulated manufacturers of HD pickups and vans. EPA is now regulating HD pickups and vans as
"medium-duty vehicles" through a separate rulemaking, Multi-Pollutant Emissions Standards for Model Years 2027
and Later Light-Duty and Medium-Duty Vehicles, 88 FR 29184 (proposed May 5, 2023). The Phase 2 rule also
regulated HD engines and trailers. EPA did not reopen the HD GHG engines regulations in this rulemaking, and
those regulations continue to apply. EPA is removing our regulations regarding trailers in this action in response to
the D.C. Circuit's mandate in Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association v. EPA, 17 F.4th 1198 (D.C. Cir. 2021).
81 See CAA sections 202, 203, 216.
82 As part of our compliance with Paperwork Reduction Act requirements, EPA estimates there are 77 heavy-duty
vehicle manufacturers regulated by the Phase 3 rule. See preamble X.B.
83 Utility Air, 573 U.S. 302, 322 (2014).
110
-------
Table 2. Comparison of the Impacts of the HD Phase 1, 2, and 3 Rules.
Rulemaking
Phase 1
Phase 2
Phase 3
Publication Date
August 2011
August 2016
March 2024
Regulated Entities
HD Vehicle
Manufacturers
HD Vehicle and Engine
Manufacturers
HD Vehicle
Manufacturers
Phase-In Schedule (MY)
2014-18
2021-2784
2027-32
Costs of Compliance for
Manufacturers, Total (PV 3%,
billion 2022$)a b
6385
vo
00
O
-3.287
Average Per-Vehicle Costs of
Compliance at Full Phase-In,
Tractors (2022$)" 0
3,165-11,10088
12,750-17,12589
3,200-10,80090
Average Per-Vehicle Costs of
Compliance at Full Phase-In,
Vocational Vehicles (2022$) d
289-50691
1,860-7,09092
-650 to -290093
Net GHG Reductions, Final Year
(million metric tons C02e)
10894
19995
61 96
Reduction in Oil Consumption
(million barrels)
26197
31498
15099
Net Benefits, Final Year
(billion 2022$)ad
56100
no101
32102
Net Benefits
(PV 3%, billion 2022$)a d
554103
781104
280105
84 The Phase 2 rule had a separate phase-in schedule for trailers, which is not relevant here.
85 76 FR 57346 ($47.4 billion (2009$)).
86 81 FR 73895 ($87.8 billion (2013$)).
87 Preamble Table VIII-8.
88 76 FR 57213 ($2364-$8,291 (2009$)). In the Phase 1 rule, EPA also calculated an average per-vehicle cost for all
tractors of $6,215 (2009$) ($8,321 when converted to 2022$).
89 81 FR 73621 ($10,235-13,749 (2013$)).
90 Preamble II.G.2.
91 76 FR 57127, 57237 ($216-378 (2009$)).
92 81 FR 73718 ($1,486-5670 (2013$)).
93 Preamble II.G.2.
94 76 FR 57294, 57324.
95 81 FR 73832.
96 Preamble Table V-l 1.
97 76 FR 57339 (calculated by multiplying 0.566 million barrels/day (mmbbl/day) by 365 to estimate annual
reductions). This is equivalent to 10.96 billion gallons (assuming 42 gallons/barrel).
98 81 FR 73888 (calculated by multiplying 0.861 mmbbl/day by 365 to estimate annual reductions). This is
equivalent to 12 billion gallons (assuming 42 gallons/barrel).
99 This is equivalent to 6.3 billion gallons (assuming 42 gallons/barrel).
100 76 FR 57346 ($42,100 million (2009$)).
Ill
-------
a Comparing Values: We present all dollar values in constant 2022$ to facilitate ease of comparison between the
rules. We adjusted values from prior rules for inflation. Where values have been adjusted, the original values are
noted in footnotes. For total costs of compliance and net benefits, we note there are differences in the methodologies
used to present and estimate these values across the rules, including updates in certain modeling and monetization
approaches (e.g., updates to MOVES and SC-GHG). Nonetheless, as EPA estimated these figures at the time of each
rule, they appropriately reflect the impacts of the agency's exercise of authority in each such rule. Thus, these figures
are suitable for evaluating the scope of the agency's exercise of authority in this rule compared to prior rules.
Specifically with respect to net benefits, for the Phase 1 and Phase 2 rules, we present net benefits using a 3%
average social cost of carbon (SC-GHG) figure, based on the social cost of carbon methodology developed and
recommended by the IWG on the SC-GHG, as described in the RIAs for those rules. For this rule, we present the
climate benefits associated with the SC-GHG estimates under the 2-percent near-term Ramsey discount rate. See
RIA 7.1 for a discussion of changes to the methodology for monetizing the social cost of carbon. Were EPA to apply
the methodology developed and recommended by the IWG on the SC-GHG for calculating the social cost of carbon,
the net benefits of this rule would appear smaller. See RIA Appendix C.
More generally, we note there are differences in how values are presented across the preambles for various rules.
For example, in some cases, we highlight the impacts of the program through 2050 or 2055, whereas in other cases
we highlight the impacts during the years of the phase-in. We compare like values to the fullest extent possible. For
example, with regard to total costs of compliance and net benefits, we compare the 3% net present value over the
full program (through 2050 or 2055). See also note d below on Final Year. Detailed discussion of the approach to
calculating costs and benefits for each rule may be found in that rule's RIA.
b Costs of Compliance: The costs of compliance for manufacturers represents the total vehicle technology costs for
the program relative to the regulatory baseline for each rule. We note that for this rule, the value presented is taken
from the summary table of costs and benefits and does not include the battery tax credit, which reduces the costs of
compliance to manufacturers below that stated in the table. As shown in RIA 8.2 Table 8-10, the value of the battery
tax credit is $1.3 billion (3% PV).
0 Average Per-Vehicle Costs of Compliance: This row refers to the average per-vehicle cost for tractors and
vocational vehicles for the year of full-phase in for the program, i.e., the last year shown on the phase-in schedule
row for each rule. The range of per vehicle costs for each rule reflects costs at the regulatory grouping level within
the vocational vehicle sector and within the tractor sector.
dFinal Year: For this table, the "Final Year" for prior rules refer to 2050, and for this rule refers to 2055. These
years approximate when most of the regulated fleet will consist of vehicles subject to the relevant standards due to
fleet turnover.
As for the costs of compliance, the costs of the Phase 3 rule are not so vast as to be
unprecedented or transformative relative to earlier rules. To the contrary, EPA determined that
the costs would overall be negative, i.e., result in a cost savings to manufacturers. This is due to
various factors, most notably the decreasing costs of producing ZEVs relative to ICE vehicles
that meet the prior Phase 2 standards, and also the tax incentives that Congress enacted in the
IRA.106 The costs of compliance are also smaller than those of the predecessor Phase 1 and 2
rules. In addition, when we assess the fleet average costs of compliance per HD vehicle during
the year in which the program is fully phased-in, we also find similar or lower costs compared to
both Phase 1 and Phase 2. Notably, costs for vocational vehicles are lower than for both Phase 1
101 81 FR 73482 ($87.6 billion (2013$)).
102 Preamble Table ES-8.
103 76 FR 57346 ($413,700 million (2009$)).
104 81 FR 73896 ($696.4 billion (2013$)).
105 Preamble Table ES-8.
106 We note that the value presented in the table does not include the battery tax credit, which further reduces the
costs of compliance to manufacturers. As shown in RIA 8.2 Table 8-10, the value of the battery tax credit is $1.3
billion (3% PV).
112
-------
and 2, while costs for tractors are similar to Phase 1 but lower than for Phase 2. The per vehicle
costs, moreover, are small relative to what Congress itself accepted in enacting section 202.107
Nor does the rule impose the kinds of other economic disruptions that the Supreme Court has
noted in prior cases. For example, the rule does not require, legally or practically, any HD
vehicle manufacturers to shut down or even to reduce their production. Nor does the rule create
excessive, or any, delays in their ability to continue to produce vehicles—we expect that the
certification process for HD GHG compliance will continue entirely uninterrupted.
As for purchaser costs, the statute does not require consideration of such costs.108 Congress,
of course, recognized that pollution control would entail costs, and the technologies used to meet
EPA's motor vehicle emission standards have historically increased costs for purchasers. There
are a subset of pollution control technologies, however, that "pay back" the increased upfront
costs to purchasers through operating savings. When such technologies are available, they will
obviously be of greater interest to purchasers, especially given that businesses that operate HD
vehicles are typically under competitive pressure to reduce costs. In the final rule, EPA
considered the upfront costs associated with purchasing cleaner vehicles, including the costs of
any charging infrastructure where applicable, as well as the costs of operating such vehicles over
their lifetime. EPA also evaluated whether the incremental upfront cost would "pay back" over
time through operating savings, which we find to be a particularly useful metric for ascertaining
willingness to purchase. We find that the standards, and specifically ZEV technologies, do pay
back within the usual period of first ownership of the vehicle, consistent with the technologies
we considered in the Phase 2 rule.109
We also carefully designed the final rule to avoid other kinds of disruptions to purchasers. For
example, we recognized that HD vehicles represent a very diverse array of vehicles (e.g., buses,
cement trucks, long-haul tractors, etc.), and that even within a single subcategory, there are a
diversity of use cases (e.g., some medium HD vocational vehicles may need to carry greater load
and operate for longer periods of time than others). We carefully tailored the standards to the
technologies available for each subcategory to preserve purchaser choice to purchase the types of
HD vehicles they need.110 Furthermore, we recognize that HD vehicles require supporting
infrastructure (e.g., fueling and charging stations) to operate, and we accounted for sufficient
107 Compare preamble II.G.2 ("Furthermore, the estimated MY 2032 costs to tractor manufacturers represent less
than about six percent of the average price of a new heavy-duty tractor today (conservatively estimated to be
$140,000 for day cab tractors and $190,000 for sleeper cab tractors in 2023). This is likewise within the margin that
EPA considered reasonable in Phase 2." (footnotes omitted)), with Motor & Equip. Mfrs. Ass'n, Inc. v. E.P.A., 627
F.2d 1095, 1118 (D.C. Cir. 1979) ("Congress wanted to avoid undue economic disruption in the automotive
manufacturing industry and also sought to avoid doubling or tripling the cost of motor vehicles to purchasers.").
108 See Motor & Equipment Mfrs. Ass'n Inc. v. EPA, 627 F. 2d 1095, 1118 (D.C. Cir. 1979) ("Section 202's cost of
compliance concern, juxtaposed as it is with the requirement that the Administrator provide the requisite lead time to
allow technological developments, refers to the economic costs of motor vehicle emission standards and
accompanying enforcement procedures. It relates to the timing of a particular emission control regulation rather than
to its social implications."); Int'l Harvester Co. v. Ruckelshaus, 478 F.2d 615, 640 (D.C. Cir. 1973) ("as long as
feasible technology permits the demand for new passenger automobiles to be generally met, the basic requirements
of the Act would be satisfied, even though this might occasion fewer models and a more limited choice of engine
types. The driving preferences of hot rodders are not to outweigh the goal of a clean environment.").
109 See preamble II.G.4.
110 See preamble II.G.4, II.F.l. As part of this, we also determined that certain specialized types of vehicles (e.g.,
emergency vehicles and concrete mixers) certified to certain optional custom chassis regulatory subcategories
should not be subject to more stringent standards than the corresponding Phase 2 optional custom chassis standards.
113
-------
lead-time for the development of that infrastructure, including private depot charging, public
charging, and hydrogen refueling infrastructure.111 We also identified numerous industry
standards and safety protocols to ensure the safety of HD vehicles, including BEVs and
FCEVs.112
EPA acknowledges that on some metrics, the Phase 3 rule is more impactful than earlier rules.
For example, the average costs per vehicle are higher for some regulatory groupings in Phase 3
than in Phase 1. These metrics must be considered in light of the overall context (e.g., Phase 3
overall creates cost savings for manufacturers), but even these metrics reflect an iterative
strengthening of the program, not the kind of unprecedented and transformative change that
gives rise to a major question. They are a far cry, for instance, from the multiple order-of-
magnitude increases in the number of regulated entities and in costs that the Court found in
Utility Air,113 The changes in Phase 3 reflect nothing more than an ordinary fluctuation in the
impacts of regulation in response to changed circumstances.114
Commenters generally failed to acknowledge the analog between the Phase 3 and prior rules.
In some cases, they focused on the absolute size of the rules' impacts. But as we explain above,
the major questions doctrine cases have evaluated the consequential nature of the regulation
relative to prior exercises of agency power. And many regulations with large absolute impact, by
virtue of their continuity with earlier assertions of authority, are not subject to major questions
scrutiny.115 The size of the impacts, moreover, is largely a product of the large size of the HD
market,116 as well as EPA's choice to assess impacts through 2055, which allows the agency to
consider the long-term impacts of the rule in light of the gradual turnover of the motor-vehicle
fleet.
B. The Final Rule Does Not Impose a ZEVMandate.
Commenters also claim that the final rule imposes vast economic and political consequences
because it effectively mandates specific pollution control technologies—namely ZEVs—and
effectively bans ICE vehicles. As an initial matter, commenters fail to explain why they believe
establishing standards based on particular pollution control technologies imposes vast economic
and political consequences inconsistent with congressional intent. More importantly, the rule
111 See preamble II.G.4, II.F.1-2; RIA 1.
112 See preamble II.G.4, II.D; RIA 1.
113 See, e.g., Utility Air, 573 U.S. 302, 322 (2014) ("Under the PSD program, annual permit applications would jump
from about 800 to nearly 82,000; annual administrative costs would swell from $12 million to over $1.5 billion....
The picture under Title V was equally bleak: The number of sources required to have permits would jump from
fewer than 15,000 to about 6.1 million; annual administrative costs would balloon from $62 million to $21 billion;
and collectively the newly covered sources would face permitting costs of $147 billion.")
114 See Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 42 (1983); Missouri,
595 U.S. 87, 94, 95 (2022); All. for Fair Bd. Recruitment v. Sec. &Exch. Comm'n, 85 F.4th226, 256-58 (5th Cir.
2023).
115 Compare, e.g., Missouri, 595 U.S. 87 (2022) (declining to apply the major questions doctrine), with id. at 104
(Thomas, J., dissenting) (arguing the rule should be applied because it "is undoubtedly significant—it requires
millions of healthcare workers to choose between losing their livelihoods and acquiescing to a vaccine they have
rejected for months"); see also, e.g., Becerra v. Empire Health Found., 142 S. Ct. 2354 (2022); EPA v. EME Homer
City Generation, L.P., 572 U.S. 489 (2014)).
116 The heavy-duty industry is rapidly expanding and expected to gross over $105 billion annually by 2032.
https://www.precedenceresearch.com/heavy-duty-trucks-market
114
-------
does not require manufacturers to follow a particular technology pathway.117 The rule is not a
ZEV mandate or ICE ban.
To begin with, commenters do not explain why emissions standards based on a specific
pollution control technology run afoul of EPA's authority. West Virginia v. EPA addressed an
analogous issue. In West Virginia, the Supreme Court reviewed the legality of EPA's Clean
Power Plan, which regulated GHGs from the power sector by requiring a shift from regulated
sources—coal fired plants—to completely different facilities—natural gas and renewable power
plants. The agency determined that a coal fired power plant operator could comply by reducing
its own production of electricity, building a new natural gas or renewable power facility,
investing in another entity's such facility, or buying allowances generated by such facilities.118
The Court applied the major questions doctrine to hold that this generation shifting scheme
exceeded the agency's statutory authority under CAA section 111(d) to establish standards based
on the "best system of emission reduction." By contrast, the Court noted a "technology-based"
approach to regulation traditionally "focuses upon the control technologies that are available to
industrial entities and requires the agency to ensure that regulatedfirms adopt the appropriate
cleanup technology ,"119 The Court observed that a wide range of technologies could fall under
this approach, including "more traditional air pollution control measures" such as "efficiency
improvements, fuel-switching," and "add-on controls."120
The final rule is unlike the generation shifting that the Court condemned, but rather a
prototypical example of the traditional technology-based approach. The statute authorizes EPA
to regulate pollutant emissions from motor vehicles. Unlike the Clean Power Plan, the final rule
does not require any manufacturer to reduce its production of motor vehicles; rather, as with all
prior section 202(a) rules, manufacturers can produce as many vehicles as they want, so long as
their fleet meets the GHG standards.121 The rule also does not require manufacturers to build,
invest in, or otherwise support any other forms of transportation, or any strategies to reduce
transportation-sector GHGs, besides producing cleaner motor vehicles—for example, we do not
require motor vehicle manufacturers to build or invest in railroads, public transportation,
bicycles, or smart zoning. The rule does not decree that "it would be best if [trucks] made up a
much smaller share of national [freight transportation]," 122 or prescribe that only X% of freight
transportation can be accomplished by truck, while Y% must occur via lower emitting modes
such as rail or boat..123 Nor does the final rule even require manufacturers to shift production
117 But see Engine Mfrs. Ass'n v. S. Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist., 541 U.S. 246, 252-53 (2004) (noting "the use of
'standard' throughout Title II of the CAA.. .to denote requirements such as numerical emission levels with which
vehicles or engines must comply... or emission-control technology with which they must be equipped.").
118 West Virginia, 142 S. Ct. at 2603.
119 West Virginia, 142 S. Ct. 2587, 2601 (2022) (emphasis added); see also id. at 2610 (describing that the Mercury
and Air Toxics Rule, which was "no precedent for the Clean Power Plan" but only "one more entry in an unbroken
list of prior Section 111 rules," as one where EPA "set the cap based on the application of particular controls, and
regulated sources could have complied by installing them.").
120 West Virginia, 142 S. Ct. 2587, 2611 (2022) (citing 80 Fed. Reg. 64784); see also id. at 2602 ("high-efficiency
production processes and carbon capture technology" (citing 80 Fed. Reg. 64512)).
121 Cf. West Virginia, 142 S. Ct. 2587, 2610 (2022) ( "[0]ur traditional interpretation ... has allowed regulated
entities to produce as much of a particular good as they desire provided that they do so through an appropriately
clean (or low-emitting) process." (citing 80 Fed. Reg. 64726, 64738)).
122 West Virginia, 142 S. Ct. 2587, 2612 (2022).
123 We offer these other forms of transportation for illustrative purposes only, not to suggest any finding regarding
their relative GHG emissions.
115
-------
within the HD vehicle category toward subcategories that can achieve greater emissions
reductions. Rather, EPA recognizes the diverse needs of consumers, and has set separate
standards for each regulatory subcategory,124 including in some cases leaving the Phase 2
standards in place.125 The final rule thus enacts no "sector-wide shift" in transportation.126 The
agency is not seeking to "improve the overall [transportation] system by lowering the carbon
intensity of [transportation]."127
Rather, EPA is requiring manufacturers who make motor vehicles to produce vehicles that
pollute less. The final standards are based on the application of pollution control technology to
such vehicles: "traditional air pollution control measures" such as "efficiency improvements"
that allow vehicles to consume less fuel and therefore produce fewer GHGs and "fuel-switching"
including from gasoline and diesel to fuels such as electricity and hydrogen.128 To be clear, the
final rule does require manufacturers to apply some additional control technology, but it does not
mandate any particular technology. As a legal matter, the rule imposes performance-based
standards, not a specific technology mandate. So although EPA accounted for ZEV technologies
along with other technologies in determining the level of the standards, there is no requirement
for any manufacturer to produce a certain number of ZEVs, ICEs, or any particular kind of
vehicle. This is in significant contrast to other programs that commenters refer to, such as
California's ACT program or the Zero-Emission Vehicles Act of 2019, H.R. 2764, 116th Cong.
(2019), both of which are ZEV sales mandates.
Commenters are correct that EPA considered available technologies, including ZEV
technologies, in assessing the feasibility of the standards; thus, the standards are based on our
assessment of various technologies. But this kind of technological assessment is what the statute
requires. Section 202(a)(1) commands EPA to set technology-based standards, considering
among other things the time "necessary to permit the development of the requisite technology"
and the "cost of compliance." To do so, EPA must necessarily identify potential control
technologies, evaluate the rate the technology could be introduced, and its cost.129 In setting the
Phase 3 standards, EPA has accordingly investigated potential compliance pathways, considering
technological feasibility, costs, and lead time. Having identified a means of compliance, EPA's
task is to "answer[] any theoretical objections" to that means of compliance, and to "offer[]
plausible reasons for believing that each of those steps can be completed in the time
124 For example, EPA determined that light HD vocational vehicles could adopt ZEV technology and achieve
emissions reductions more rapidly than heavy HD vocational vehicles. See preamble II.F. 1 table 11-24.
125 The Phase 3 rule does not establish more stringent optional custom chassis categories standards for coach buses,
concrete mixers, emergency vehicles, recreational vehicles, and mixed use vehicles. See preamble II.F. 1.
126 While the final rule does allow for credit trading, credits are generated solely by manufacturers of HD vehicles,
not by other kinds of sources, like railroad, bike, or fitness product manufacturers. In other words, as with the
MATS trading program that the Court recognized as falling within EPA's authority, "EPA set the cap based on the
application of particular controls, and regulated sources could have complied by installing them." West Virginia, 142
S. Ct. 2587, 2610 (2022). Below, we further explain why the ABT program does not implicate a major question.
127 West Virginia, 142 S. Ct. at 2611.
128 West Virginia, 142 S. Ct. 2587, 2611 (2022). Cf. also CAA section 241(2) (defining "clean alternative fuel" to
mean any fuel including specifically "hydrogen" and "electricity").
129 See NRDC v. EPA, 655 F. 2d 321, 328 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (noting that in order to provide a reasoned explanation
for its section 202(a)(1) standards, EPA must "include[] a defense of the methodology for arriving at numerical
estimates").
116
-------
available."130 That is what EPA has done here, and indeed, what it has done in all of the emission
standard rules implementing section 202(a) of the Act.131
EPA's technical assessment supports that the final standards are feasible without
manufacturers producing additional ZEVs for compliance. EPA's modeling of a potential
compliance pathway in preamble II.F. 1 does show an increasing penetration of ZEVs. But this is
just one possible path for manufacturers to comply. In preamble II.F.4, EPA presents several
additional example potential compliance pathways for attaining the standards, based on other
technologies, including improvements in aerodynamics and tire rolling resistance in ICE tractors,
to the use of lower carbon fuels like CNG and LNG, to hybrid powertrains (HEV and PHEV),
and hydrogen ICE technologies.132 In RIA Chapter 2.11 EPA further discusses the technical
feasibility, lead-time, costs of compliance, and purchaser costs and payback associated with the
additional example potential compliance pathways EPA assessed. Manufacturers have the
discretion to comply according to any of these vehicle mixes, or any other vehicle mix they
choose, so long as they meet the numerical standards.
Further, even under the modeled potential compliance pathway reflecting increased ZEV
penetration,133 the rate at which ZEVs enter the overall onroad HD fleet is gradual. This is
largely due to the lengthy operational lives of HD vehicles, which can remain in operation for
hundreds of thousands of miles and many years. Our modeling for this pathway shows that ZEVs
constitute 1% of the fleet in model year 2027 and 7% by 2032, when the program is fully
phased-in, an increase of just over 1% per year.134 In other words, in 2032, 93% of HD vehicles
on the road will remain ICE vehicles under the modeled potential compliance pathway. This is a
far cry from the commenters' claims of 100% electrification.135
Historical precedent shows that EPA's performance-based standards have provided real
choices to manufacturers. For example, for the HD Phase 2 rule, EPA projected compliance
pathways for each of the HD subcategories.136 To date, of the approximately 415,000 successful
130 NRDC v. EPA, 655 F. 2d at 332.
131 See, e.g., 77 FR 62624, 62777 (Oct. 15, 2012) (light duty vehicle GHG standards predicated on a mix of potential
technologies to improve engine and vehicle fuel economy); 66 FR 5002, 5035-36 (Jan. 18, 2001) (standards forPM
and NOx from heavy duty diesel engines predicated on use of catalysed diesel particulate traps and NOx adsorbers,
respectively)
132 Tables 11-47 through 11-49 shows a scenario where the reference case (i.e., no-action baseline absent this rule)
includes ZEVs that would be produced for other reasons, e.g., for economic reasons as the costs of ZEVs decline
and driven by the incentives in the IRA, and also in response to State-level ZEV standards. In this scenario, no
additional ZEVs beyond the baseline are produced.
133 Preamble II.F. 1.
134 See preamble II.F. 1. Even by 2040, ZEVs constitute just 22 percent of the fleet.
135 Commenters point to various aspirational statements about achieving 100% ZEVs, such as those made by the
White House press office and the Joe Biden Presidential campaign, often citing to dead hyperlinks. While the
President did direct EPA to initiate consideration of more stringent motor vehicle GHG standards, the Administrator
is promulgating this final rule under his own statutory authority in section 202(a) based on his policy judgment and
the voluminous technical record developed by EPA's technical experts. Aspirational statements made in White
House press releases and campaign promises are not the basis for the final rule, and in any event, cannot alter the
authority Congress granted in section 202(a).
136 See, e.g., 81 FR at 73620-21 (technology packages in support of numerical GHG standard for class 7 and 8
tractors).
117
-------
certifications showing compliance with the Phase 2 standards, not one has utilized the exact mix
of technologies that EPA analyzed in its potential compliance pathways.
Manufacturers may also adopt entirely different strategies than what EPA anticipated. For
example, in 1985, EPA set HD PM standards that were anticipated to require the use of
particulate filters.137 Manufacturers chose not to adopt such filters but rather to address the
combustion process instead.138 In 2001, EPA set HD NOx standards. We analyzed the feasibility
of selective catalyst reduction (SCR) and concluded that "there [were] significant barriers to" the
use of SCR,139 such that the NOx adsorber would "be the only likely broadly applicable
technology choice by the makers of engines and vehicles for the national fleet in this
timeframe."140 Manufacturers instead chose to implement SCR to achieve the standards.
To provide another example, in promulgating the 2010 LD GHG rule, EPA modeled a
technology pathway for compliance with the MY 2016 standards. In actuality, manufacturers
significantly diverged from EPA's projections across a wide range of technologies, instead
choosing their own technology pathways best suited for their fleets.141 For example, EPA
projected 62 percent dual clutch transmissions, but in practice less than 3 percent of the MY
2016 vehicles used them; by contrast, EPA projected 28 percent 6 speed automatic
transmissions, but in actuality 55 percent of vehicles used them. Looking specifically at
electrification technologies, start-stop systems were projected at 45 percent and were used in 10
percent of vehicles, while strong hybrids were projected to be 6.5 percent of the MY 2016 fleet
and were actually only 2 percent.142 Notwithstanding these differences between EPA's
projections and actual manufacturer decisions, the industry as a whole was not only able to
comply with the standards during the period of those standards (2012-2016), but to generate
substantial additional credits for overcompliance.143
In contrast, in other cases, manufacturers did uniformly choose to adopt a single technology—
for example, manufacturers have installed catalytic converters on all new ICE vehicles. But this
is not because EPA mandates catalytic converters, but rather because manufacturers have
themselves chosen that technology as the most effective way to comply with the performance-
based standards.
Commenters' subsidiary argument—that even if EPA could drive ZEV adoption, the agency
has done so at too rapid a rate—fails for similar reasons: EPA is not mandating any manufacturer
to adopt ZEVs at any rate. In addition, the rate at which EPA projects uptake of ZEV
technologies in its modeled potential compliance pathway is consistent with, and often
significantly smaller relative to uptake of new technologies projected in prior rules. Table 3 of
137 50 FR 10606, 10629-30 (Mar. 15, 1985).
138 See 66 FR 5002, 5035-36 (Jan. 18, 2001).
139 Id. at 5053.
140 Id. at 5036; see also id. at 5049.
141 See EPA Memorandum to the docket for this rulemaking, "Comparison of EPA C02 Reducing Technology
Projections between 2010 Light-duty Vehicle Rulemaking and Actual Technology Production for Model Year
2016".
142 Although in 2010, EPA overestimated technology penetrations for strong hybrids, in the 2012 LD GHG Rule, we
underestimated technology penetrations forPEVs, projecting only 1 percent penetration by MY 2021, while actual
sales exceeded 4 percent. Compare 2012 Rule RIA, table 3.5-22 with 2022 Automotive Trends Report, table 4.1.
143 See 2022 Automotive Trends Report, Fig. ES-8 (industry generated credits each year from 2012-2015 and
generated net credits for the years 2012-2016).
118
-------
this response presents projected technology adoption rates for the modeled potential compliance
pathway for Phase 3, Phase 2, and two prior HD criteria pollutant rules. For example, assuming
manufacturers rely exclusively on increasing ZEV adoption to meet the standards, EPA predicts
technology adoption rates of between 0-18% within 2 model years (by MY 2027) and 5-60%
within 7 model years (by MY 2032), depending on the regulatory subcategory.144 This is well
within the range of rate of increase in technology penetration rates evaluated in prior rules (e,g.,
Phase 2 advanced transmission predicting 55% adoption rate withing 4 model years (by MY
2021) and 90% adoption rate within 8 model years (by MY 2027)).
144 Preamble II.F.
119
-------
Table 3. Technology Penetration Rates for Phase 3 and Prior HD Rules
Rulemaking
(Year)145
Technology
Penetration Rate
Baseline
Technology
(MY)146
Projected
(First MY of
Phase-in)
Projected
(Final MY of
Phase-in)
Phase 3
(2024)
ZEV (BEV or FCEV)
0% (2027)147
0-18% (2027)148
5-60% (2032)149
Phase 2
(2016)
High Roof Sleeper Cab Tractors
(Advanced aerodynamic package (Bin
V)
0% (2017)150
10% (2021)151
50% (2027)152
Phase 2
(2016)
Sleeper and Day Cab Tractors
Advanced Transmissions (Automated
manual, automatic, and dual clutch
transmissions)
0% (2017)153
55% (2021)154
90% (2027)155
HD 2027
(2023)
Diesel Technology Package (Next gen
catalyst formulations in dual SCR
catalyst configuration & cylinder
deactivation)
0% (2018-
2022)156
100% (2027)157
-
HD 2027
(2023)
Diesel Technology Package (Closed
crankcase)
32.5% (2018-
2022)158
100% (2027)159
-
HD 2007-
2010 NOx
Standards
(2001)
Diesel Technology Package (Diesel
oxidation catalyst, Diesel particulate
filters, NOx adsorber catalysts)
0% (2000)160
50% (2007)161
100% (2010)162
HD 2007-
2010 PM
Standards
(2001)
Diesel Technology Package (Diesel
oxidation catalyst, Diesel particulate
filters)
0% (2000)163
100% (2007)164
-
145 The year indicated here is the date of publication of the rulemaking in the Federal Register.
146 The Baseline Technology column reflects the level of technology adoption projected by EPA for the MY
indicated, prior to the promulgation of the rulemaking at issue for that row. Generally, this is the "baseline
technology" or "baseline vehicle" in that rulemaking, which is the theoretical baseline engine or vehicle that meets
the existing standards for the indicated model year and which EPA uses to evaluate costs and effectiveness of
additional technologies and standards in the rulemaking at issue's technology packages. This column is provided to
give an indication of then-current baseline adoption of the technologies at the time of each rulemaking.
147 The baseline vehicle for the Phase 3 standards is the theoretical vehicles that match the Phase 2 MY 2027
technology packages, which does not include ZEV technologies (i.e., 0%). See RIA Chapters 2 and 3; see also 81
FR 73610-73611 (tractors) and 81 FR 73714-73715 (vocational vehicles). See also Section E.S. of the preamble,
explaining ZEV production volumes in MY 2022 based off of EPA certification data, which are approximately 0.6%
adoption rate for MY 2022.
148 Preamble II.F.
149 Preamble II.F. 1 presenting projected percentage of ZEVs by regulatory group. Note that this figure does not
include optional custom chassis standards.
150 See the Phase 2 rulemaking preamble, describing that the baseline tractor for the Phase 2 tractor standards was a
theoretical vehicle that met the MY 2017 existing standards and which for high roof sleeper cab tractors did not
include advanced aerodynamic package (Bin V). 81 FR 73588; see also Phase 1 MY 2017 high roof sleeper cab
tractors technology package (76 FR 57211).
151 81 FR 73608.
152 81 FR 73610.
120
-------
Indeed, premising protective emission standards on rapid technology adoption has been a
mainstay of section 202(a) regulation since the earliest days of the Act. In 1971, EPA finalized
standards for MY 1975, just three model years away, based on catalytic converter technology.165
At the time of the final rule, catalytic converters were not yet in widespread commercial
production.166 Faced with the ongoing air pollution crisis, EPA nonetheless established stringent
standards premised on a technology that the agency believed would become available in the lead-
time permitted. Many in the industry argued that the technology would not be ready in time and
sought extensions, including based on testing data showing that many vehicles were not expected
to meet the standards. The Administrator denied those requests.167 By MY 1975, automakers
began installing catalytic converters on their vehicles that achieved 85% reductions in
emissions.168 Over time, greater use of electrification technologies to control and monitor the
performance of catalytic converters further increased their efficacy. Today, the catalytic
153 See the Phase 2 rulemaking preamble, describing that the baseline tractor for the Phase 2 tractor standards was a
theoretical vehicle that met the MY 2017 existing standards and which for sleeper and day cab tractors did not
include advanced transmissions (automated manual, automatic, and dual clutch transmissions). 81 FR 73588; see
also 76 FR 57203, explaining that we did not include such technologies in our Phase 1 standards setting or
compliance model.
154 81 FR 73608.
155 81 FR 73611.
156 88 FR 4343-44 (describing that EPA's baseline technology assessment used data provided by manufacturers in
the heavy-duty in-use testing program, certification data, and testing of three then-modern engines); HD2027 RIA
Chapter 1.1.1 (describing then-current (MY 2018-2022) heavy-duty diesel exhaust aftertreatment systems).
157 88 FR 4333,4340.
158 88 FR 4339 (explaining approximately one-third of then-current highway heavy-duty diesel engines have closed
crankcases); HD2027 RIA Chapter 3.1.4.2 (describing that an estimated 32.5 percent of then-current (MY 2018-
2022) heavy-duty diesel engines already have closed crankcase systems).
159 88 FR 4333,4340.
160 See, e.g., 66 FR 5047-48, 5049.
161 66 FR 5036.
162 66 FR 5036.
163 See, e.g., 66 FR 5047-48.
164 66 FR 5036.
165 36 FR 12652 (1971); 36 FR 12657 (1971).
166 See Glenn Rifkin, John Mooney, a father of the catalytic converter, dies at 90, Washington Post (June 26, 2020),
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/obituaries/john-mooney-a-father-of-the-catalytic-converter-dies-at-
90/2020/06/26/afbd87da-b7b4-l lea-aca5-ebb63d27elff_story.html (describing "the development of the first wave
of production catalytic converters in 1973" in response to "new requirements for reduced auto emissions in the
Clean Air Act of 1970").
167 See generally Aaron Robinson, Fifty years ago, the government decided to clean up car exhaust. It's still at it.,
Hagerty (Oct. 7, 2020), https://www.hagerty.com/media/magazine-features/fifty-years-ago-the-government-
decided-to-clean-up-car-exhaust-its-still-at-it/ 7, 2020), https://www.hagerty.com/media/magazine-features/fifty-
years-ago-the-government-decided-to-clean-up-car-exhaust-its-still-at-it/; EPA, EPA: A Retrospective, 1970-1990
(Nov. 29, 1990), https://www.epa.gov/archive/epa/aboutepa/epa-retrospective-1970-1990.html ("The Agency's
strong stand led to strict enforcement of the Clean Air Act. Ruckelshaus refused to grant extensions requested by
automobile manufacturers to meet hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide standards. In effect, he forced the adoption of
the catalytic converter."); EPA, Hearings Set on Automobile Pollution Control (Mar. 4, 1971),
https://www.epa.gov/archive/epa/aboutepa/hearings-set-automobile-pollution-control.html;
168 Dennis C. Williams, The Guardian: EPA's Formative Years, 1970-1973 (Sept. 1993),
https://www.epa.gov/archive/epa/aboutepa/guardian-epas-formative-years-1970-1973.html ("By 1973, EPA and
auto manufacturers had agreed to adopt the catalytic converter as a means to reduce automobile emissions by 85% in
1975 year model cars.").
121
-------
converter "is considered to be one of the great environmental inventions of all time."169 This
history dating back to the very beginning of the Clean Air Act further reflects that the major
questions comments, notwithstanding their citation to recent court cases, reflect fairly ordinary
concerns. We emphasize, however, a critical difference between EPA's 1971 rules and this rule:
unlike the catalytic converter, which was unproven at the time of the 1971 rule, ZEV technology
has developed and been applied for over two decades. EPA's rule is supported by a modeled
potential compliance pathway that includes application of an existing commercialized
technology to new applications, and in that respect it is far less transformative than the agency's
earliest CAA section 202(a) rulemakings.
The size of emissions decreases also reflect a rule that is in line with its predecessors. For
example, Table 2 shows that the net GHG emissions reductions in the final year of the program
are smaller than the Phase 1 and 2 rules. The statute also contemplates steep emissions
reductions. As noted in Part I above, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970 required emissions
decreases of 90% over a five model year period, the 1990 Amendments required a 100% phase-
in of demanding standards over a six to seven year period, and Congress expressly preserved the
Administrator's authority to promulgate even more stringent standards.
C. The Final Rule's Indirect Impacts Do Not Give Rise to a Major Question.
Commenters claiming the existence of a major question generally did not grapple with the
considerable similarities between the Phase 3 rule and its predecessors. Rather, they focused on
the rule's alleged impacts on third parties beyond the regulated entities and their customers,
which we refer to here as "indirect impacts." They cite considerations as diverse as how demand
for critical minerals could implicate US-China geopolitics, increased consumption of electricity
to operate BEVs could destabilize the electric grid, decreased oil consumption could cause oil
companies to fail, and so on. They claim that the proposal's costs grossly underestimate the
rule's "true costs," based on their assertion that the proper metric is "aggregate cost" for the
rule's significance to the "national economy." But commenters fail to identify any precedent
holding that mere indirect impacts on unregulated entities give rise to a major question.170 To the
contrary, legal and technical reasons provide weighty reasons to hesitate before relying on
indirect impacts to ascertain the existence of a major question.
First, the statute here does not require consideration of such indirect impacts, suggesting that
their presence should not limit the agency's statutory authority. Section 202(a) mandates the
Administrator to regulate emissions from motor vehicles, upon making the endangerment
finding, subject to considerations of feasibility, lead-time, costs of compliance, and safety. While
EPA is authorized to consider other factors and has in this rulemaking considered certain indirect
impacts, as described in Part III.E below, consideration of other factors is not mandated by
169 EPA, Accomplishments and Successes of Reducing Air Pollution from Transportation in the United States (Jan.
3, 2024), https://www.epa.gov/transportation-air-pollution-and-climate-change/accomplishments-and-successes-
reducing-air
170 See, e.g., West Virginia, 142 S. Ct. 2587 (2022) (considering the consequential nature of a regulation of electric
generating units with regard to its direct burdens on that sector), 2613 (noting "an obvious difference between (1)
issuing a rule that may end up causing an incidental loss of coal's market share, and (2) simply announcing what the
market share of coal, natural gas, wind, and solar must be, and then requiring plants to reduce operations or
subsidize their competitors to get there").
122
-------
law.171 As such, while the agency's consideration of these additional impacts could be subject to
arbitrary and capricious review, they do not limit the agency's authority.
Second, the statutory context and legislative history supports not relying on indirect impacts
to gauge the limits of statutory authority. For example, with respect to employment, Congress in
enacting the 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments debated the employment impacts associated with
the addition of new control technology for motor vehicles, with some Members projecting job
increases of up to 180,000 new jobs and others projecting job losses in the tens of thousands.172
Nonetheless, Congress enacted stringent statutory standards for motor vehicle emissions control.
Congress in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments chose to further address labor dislocations
through funding and training. It added Clean Air Employment Transition Assistance provisions
to the Job Training Partnership Act. The added provisions provided funding for "training,
adjustment assistance, and employment services to [eligible dislocated workers] adversely
affected by compliance with the Clean Air Act" and for "needs-related payments to such
individuals."173 In short, Congress was well aware that impacts to employment were a
possibility and provided funding and training for affected workers; but it did not prohibit the
agency from further regulation on the basis of employment.
To take another example, in enacting the CAA Amendments of 1990, Congress recognized
the need for the critical mineral rhodium for the production of catalytic converters (a ubiquitous
motor vehicle pollution control technology) and that South Africa was home to the vast majority
of the world's then-known rhodium deposits.174 While Congress acknowledged concerns with
South Africa's human rights record, it nonetheless proceeded to significantly strengthen the
motor vehicle emissions standards, such that the production of the necessary technologies could
require dependence on South African rhodium supplies. Thus, Congress understood that the
nation may need to look to other countries for critical materials where necessary to improve
motor vehicle emissions control technology, but mandated emissions reductions regardless. At
the same time, Congress also mandated that EPA study the appropriateness of even stronger
standards and expressly reserved the agency's authority to promulgate such standards without
including critical minerals as a specific factor to consider.175
171 Motor & Equip. Mfrs. Ass'n, Inc. v. E.P.A., 627 F.2d 1095, 1118 (D.C. Cir. 1979); see also id. ("There is no
indication that Congress intended section 202's cost of compliance consideration to embody social costs of the type
petitioners advance," and holding that the statute does not require EPA to consider antitrust concerns); Coal, for
Responsible Regul., Inc. v. E.P.A., 684 F.3d 102, 128 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (holding that the statute "does not mandate
consideration of costs to other entities not directly subject to the proposed standards"); Massachusetts, 549 U.S. 497,
534 (2007) (impacts on "foreign affairs" are not sufficient reason for EPA to decline making an endangerment
finding under section 202(a)(1)).
172 1 23 Cong. Rec. 18182 (1977).
173 Pub. L. 101-549, at sec. 1101, amending the Job Training Partnership Act, 29 U.S.C. 1501 et seq. (since
repealed). See also 136 Cong. Reg. H12911-01 (Oct. 26, 1990) (statement of Representative William D. Ford)
("When a business closes or lays off workers as a consequence of this act, because demand for its products or
services is adversely affected, because a product is banned, or because its production processes have become
uneconomical, State government, substate grantees, employers, employer associations, and representatives of
employees may apply to the Secretary of Labor for funds to help laid off workers find new employment.").
174 See 136 Cong. Rec. 5102-04 (1990). The 1990 CAA Amendment are not the first time that Congress wrestled
with potential dependence on South Africa for rhodium. Congress also recognized this issue when developing the
1977 CAA Amendments. See 123 Cong. Rec. 18173-74 (1977).
175 See CAA section 202(i), (i)(3)(B).
123
-------
Third, indirect impacts are often subject to greater uncertainties, and in many cases are not
reasonably foreseeable, particularly when separated from the agency's action by a lengthy causal
chain. Thus for instance, while EPA has assessed indirect impacts in calculating the rule's costs
and benefits—and the presence of positive net benefits supports the rationality of the
Administrator's judgment—we do not rely on cost-benefit calculations, with their uncertainties
and limitations, in identifying the appropriate standards.176 Some other impacts are so tenuously
linked that they are not amenable to estimation at all, such as—to provide one example raised by
a commenter—how the final rule might impact child labor in Congo, a matter which the final
rule does not regulate and which, to the extent the United States has any influence, would
involve matters of trade and foreign policy outside the scope of the C AA.177
Finally, regulations routinely have wide-ranging indirect impacts, so such impacts cannot
practically be relied on to identify "extraordinary" cases. For example, EPA's motor vehicle
rules generally impose costs on industry, and as such may affect the economics of the regulated
entities as well as their employees, suppliers and customers; fuel producers, distributors, and
retailers; and generally the global supply chains to manufacture vehicles, parts, and raw
materials. The same can be said for every major regulation, such that relying on indirect effects
would offer no limiting principle in determining the existence of major questions.
As such commenters' assertions about the myriad indirect effects do not reflect the rule's
extraordinary nature, but rather the ordinary state of the global supply chain associated with
motor vehicles. For instance, although commenters criticize US motor vehicles manufacturers'
reliance on China for certain critical minerals used in manufacturing batteries, they fail to
acknowledge that reliance on foreign trade is not unique to ZEVs; rather manufacturers rely on
imports from China and other nations for a wide range of inputs used in production of ICE
vehicles,178 and such reliance is continuously adapting to changing market and regulatory
176 To provide a more specific example, the agency has modeled the impacts of the final rule on grid reliability and
found that grid reliability is not expected to be adversely affected by the modest increase in electricity demand
associated with increasing use of BEVs. Yet, as the agency explains in the Resource Adequacy and Grid Reliability
Technical Memo, any potential reliability impacts would not be a direct result of this rule but rather of the
compliance choices source owners, operators, ISOs and RTOs may pursue, none of which are directly regulated
under the final rule. This is a critical difference between this rule and the rule under review in West Virginia, where
EPA did directly regulate EGUs, and is why grid reliability impacts are of limited relevance to ascertaining the
existence of a major question here.
177 The commenter claims that EPA's final rule will increase demand for cobalt, the Democratic Republic of the
Congo controls large reserves of cobalt, and therefore the final rule will aggravate the human rights concerns
associated with Congolese child labor as well as geopolitical risks with China, which owns and refines a significant
portion of Congolese cobalt output. But the final rule does not regulate battery manufacturers, much less the labor
practices at Congolese critical minerals mines, or Chinese ownership of Congolese companies, rendering any such
associated impacts highly speculative. (The same, of course, can be said in relation to critical minerals used in ICE
vehicles emissions control technologies—e.g., the final rule does not regulate the labor practices of those mines
either.) We also note that future technological developments may diminish the use of cobalt in vehicle batteries,
which provides another reason not to place weight on the extended chain of hypothetical causation raised by the
commenter. See Chen et al., "A Layered Organic Cathode for High-Energy, Fast Charging, and Long-Lasting Li-Ion
Batteries" . ICS Cent. Sci. 2024 (demonstrating "the operational competitiveness of sustainable organic electrode
materials [derived from earth-abundant elements] in practical batteries"), available at
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/epdf/10.1021/acscentsci.3c01478.
178 See, e.g., David Coffin, China's Growing Role in U.S. Automotive Supply Chains, Office of Industries of the
U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) Working Paper ID-060 (Aug. 2019).
124
-------
forces.179 For example, a 2018 EPA case study of Ford found that Ford has "approximately
11,000 suppliers in over 60 countries."180 Such reliance is not unique to the motor vehicle
industry. Aluminium, for instance, is an important raw material used in motor vehicle
manufacturing and numerous other industrial applications. It is largely imported, and such
imports can have potential national security implications.181 To provide another example,
Apple's supply chain comprises "more than 400 facilities across 180 regions in nearly 30
countries."182 Overcoming supply chain vulnerabilities is a key component of managing any
significant manufacturing operation in today's global world.183
Turning to infrastructure, although commenters take aim at the need for new electric charging
and hydrogen refueling infrastructure to supply BEVs and FCEVs, they fail to mention that ICE
vehicles depend on extensive infrastructure for their operation too, and that infrastructure has
changed considerably over the decades in response to environmental regulation. Important
changes include the elimination of lead from gasoline, the provisioning of diesel exhaust fluid
(DEF) at truck stops to support selective catalytic reduction (SCR) technologies, and the
introduction of low sulfur diesel fuel to support diesel particulate filter (DPF) technologies.184
Each of these changes required establishment of new manufacturing and distribution systems to
ensure these fuels and DEF were available to drivers across the country.
Commenters also speculated that the costs of the rule will dramatically increase the costs of
freight transportation; but all pollution control technologies impose upfront costs. And
commenters neglected to mention that ZEV technologies are actually expected to save
purchasers money due to their lower operating expenses,185 such that the economic costs of
transporting goods are likely to decrease. Commenters also complain about the potential losses
for the petroleum industry but fail to mention that is true for all of EPA's motor vehicle GHG
179 For example, the US motor vehicle industry relies on the global supply chain for semiconductors. The recent
shortage in semiconductors caused significant impacts on the motor vehicle industry. See, e.g., Jeanne Whalen,
Semiconductor shortage that has hobbled manufacturing worldwide is getting worse,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2021/09/23/chip-shortage-forecast-automakers/. The shortage was due
to numerous factors, ranging from impacts of pandemic lockdowns on semiconductor production and international
trade; the impacts of the pandemic in increasing demand for automobiles and other electronics that use
semiconductors; natural disasters that shuttered production facilities; trade conflicts between the US, China, Korea,
and Japan; and the Russia-Ukraine conflict. See Russia-Ukraine war: Impact on the semiconductor industry,
https://kpmg.com/ua/en/home/insights/2022/05/russia-ukraine-war-impact-semiconductor-industry.html; Esther
Shein, Global Chip Shortage: Everything You Need to Know, https://www.techrepublic.com/article/global-chip-
shortage-cheat-sheet/.
180 https://www.epa.gov/climateleadership/success-stories-case-studies-supply-chain-engagement
181 See, e.g., A Proclamation on Adjusting Imports of Aluminum Into the United States (Feb. 24, 2023),
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2023/02/24/a-proclamation-on-adjusting-imports-
of-aluminum-into-the-united-states-4/.
182 https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2023-opinion-apple-supply-chain-climate-change/
183 See, e.g., Willy C. Shih, Global Supply Chains in a Post-Pandemic World, https://hbr.org/2020/09/global-supply-
chains-in-a-post-pandemic-world; KPMG, Vulnerable supply in Automotive,
https://kpmg.com/xx/en/home/insights/2022/05/vulnerable-supply-in-automotive.html
184 See, e.g., 88 FR 4376 (inducement requirements associated with SCR and DEF); 79 FR 23414 (low sulfur fuel
and advanced control technologies for gasoline vehicles); 66 FR 5002 (low sulfur fuel and diesel particulate filters);
CAA 218 (Prohibition on production of engines requiring leaded gasoline).
185 See preamble II.G.4.
125
-------
rules, which have continually been premised on reducing petroleum consumption.186 Indeed, as
shown in Table 2 of this response, the Phase 1 and 2 rules were anticipated to cause even greater
reductions in petroleum consumption. And commenters fail to grapple with the fact that
increased demand for fossil fuels is associated with adverse impacts to US energy security.
I). EPA Has Expertise in Assessing Indirect Impacts of Its Environmental Regulations.
To the extent indirect impacts are relevant, EPA has relevant expertise in assessing such
impacts, particularly in consultation with other expert agencies. In addition to the agency's
principal expertise in pollution control, EPA also has broad expertise in evaluating the indirect
impacts of its actions, both independently and in consultation with other expert agencies.
Congress itself recognized that EPA's CAA actions could have a wide range of non-
environmental impacts and entrusted the Administrator with regulating notwithstanding such
impacts.187 For example, in section 202(a)(3)(A), Congress directed EPA to establish motor
vehicle emission standards "giving appropriate consideration to cost, energy, and safety factors
associated with the application of such technology." Congress also authorized EPA, in
administering the motor vehicle emissions standards, to "exempt any new motor vehicle or new
motor vehicle engine" from certain statutory requirements "upon such terms and conditions as he
may find necessary ... for reasons of national security."188 Congress further directed EPA to
promulgate emissions standards not only for domestically produced vehicles, but also vehicles
imported into the United States from foreign nations.189 Thus, while we agree that EPA is not the
exclusive or principal Federal agency charged with regulating energy, safety, national security,
international trade, and so forth, Congress nonetheless vested EPA with authority, and EPA
possesses sufficient expertise, to evaluate concerns in these and other areas in relation to its
motor vehicle emissions control program. It bears mentioning, moreover, Congress directed EPA
alone—not in consultation with or subject to the agreement of any other agency—to evaluate the
above effects, indicating Congress's decision to entrust such judgments to EPA's expertise.
More generally, Congress has also recognized the agency's general expertise in considering
the "public health and welfare" implications of air pollution.190 In addition to EPA's authority to
act on its own, Congress further directed EPA, in consultation with other agencies, to conduct a
"comprehensive analysis of the impact of this chapter on the public health, economy, and
186 Commenters also neglect to note that the vast majority of such reduced consumption (estimated by EPA as
94.8%) would come from reduced net imports, with only the remaining small fraction linked to reduced domestic
production. See RTC 22.
187 See generally Am. Elec. Power Co. v. Connecticut, 564 U.S. 410, 427, 428 (2011) ("As with other questions of
national or international policy, informed assessment of competing interests is required. Along with the
environmental benefit potentially achievable, our Nation's energy needs and the possibility of economic disruption
must weigh in the balance. The Clean Air Act entrusts such complex balancing to EPA in the first instance, in
combination with state regulators.... Congress designated an expert agency, here, EPA, as best suited to serve as
primary regulator of greenhouse gas emissions.").
188 CAA section 203(b)(1).
189 CAA section 203(a)(1); see also, e.g., CAA section 216(1).
190 See, e.g., CAA section 202(a)(1) (requiring EPA to promulgate standards for emissions from motor vehicles
"which in his judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public
health or welfare"), 202(a)(4)(A) (precluding the use of any emissions control device that creates "unreasonable risk
to public health, welfare, or safety in its operation or function").
126
-------
environment of the United States."191 The statute also requires EPA to establish emission
standards for electric generating units, including based on consideration of "the energy. . .
impacts of compliance."192 These statutory provisions further indicate that Congress believed
EPA had sufficient expertise to evaluate manifold indirect impacts.193 Moreover, EPA has in
numerous prior rulemakings considered the indirect impacts of its motor vehicle regulations on
factors like employment, national security, and the electric grid.194
E. EPA Determined that the Final Rule Does Not Cause Significant Indirect Harms and Has
Large Net Benefits.
EPA carefully assessed the indirect impacts of the final rule, pursuant to its own expertise and
in consultation with many expert agencies. The agency projects that the final rule accrues
positive net benefits for society and will not cause significant indirect harms, such as to national
security, grid reliability, or employment. The rule also creates the potential for positive benefits
in these and other areas, including through mitigating climate change, reducing dependence on
foreign oil, and creating regulatory certainty for the manufacturing of advanced pollution control
technologies and the development of electric charging and hydrogen refueling infrastructure.
In promulgating the final rule, EPA applied its own considerable expertise in motor vehicle
pollution control as well as assessing related environmental and economic impacts. Further, the
agency engaged in extensive consultation both during the interagency review process pursuant to
Executive Order 12,866 and outside of that process.195 EPA consulted with numerous Federal
agencies and workgroups196 with a wide range of expertise, including in the availability of
critical minerals, battery and fuel-cell technologies, charging and hydrogen refueling
infrastructure, grid reliability, employment, safety, foreign trade, national security, and more.
191 CAA section 312(a) (directing EPA to conduct a "comprehensive analysis of the impact of this chapter on the
public health, economy, and environment of the United States").
192 See, e.g., CAA section 169A(b), (g)(2) (requiring EPA to determine best available retrofit technology for existing
"fossil-fuel fired generating powerplant[s]," giving consideration to factors including "the energy and nonair quality
environmental impacts of compliance").
193 See also, e.g., CAA section 202(1)(2) ("noise, energy, and safety factors"), 211(o)(2)(B)(ii)(II) ("energy
security"), (IV) ("the infrastructure of the United States, including deliverability of materials, goods, and products
other than renewable fuel, and the sufficiency of infrastructure to deliver and use renewable fuel"), (VI) ("job
creation, the price and supply of agricultural commodities, rural economic development, and food prices").
194 See, e.g., HD Phase 2 RIA, 8.8 (Petroleum, Energy and National Security Impacts), 8.10 (Employment Impacts);
HD Phase 1 RIA, 9.7 (Petroleum, Energy and National Security impact), 9.9 (Employment Impacts); 2021 LD RIA,
3.2 (energy security impacts); 8.2 (employment); 2021 LD RTC 12-83 (grid reliability), 19-18 (national security);
see also EPA, Power Sector Modeling, https://www.epa.gov/power-sector-modeling_(describing EPA's IPM model
of the power sector, which the agency applies in its rulemaking affecting that sector and listing numerous rules that
have applied the model).
195 See preamble ES.E.
196 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) at the Department of Transportation (DOT),
Department of Energy (DOE) including several national laboratories (Argonne National Laboratory (ANL),
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL), National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), and Oak Ridge
National Laboratory (ORNL)), United States Geological Survey (USGS) at the Department of Interior (DOI), Joint
Office of Energy and Transportation (JOET), Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), Department of
Commerce (DOC), Department of Defense (DOD), Department of State, Federal Consortium for Advanced
Batteries (FCAB), and Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
127
-------
The agency also consulted with State and regional agencies with relevant expertise.197 And EPA
conducted extensive engagement with a diverse range of stakeholders, including vehicle
manufacturers, labor unions, technology suppliers, dealers, utilities, charging providers,
environmental justice organizations, environmental organizations, public health experts, tribal
governments, and other organizations. EPA also carefully considered the input it received
through the public hearing and written comments, including 172,567 comments representing
diverse stakeholders.
EPA finds that this rule creates $13 billion in annualized net benefits (2022$ 2% AV). The
rule's positive net benefits support the rationality of the Administrator's judgment. But the
agency did not rely on the cost-benefit calculations, with their uncertainties and limitations, in
identifying the appropriate standards. We recognize that some commenters claimed this large net
benefits figure itself amounted to vast economic and political consequences. We do not agree for
the reasons stated above in Part III.C. It would also be particularly perverse, given Congress's
grant of authority in section 202(a) to control motor vehicle air pollution, to conclude that where
an agency action is accomplishing what Congress directed the agency to do and achieves large
benefits, for those benefits to somehow call into question EPA's authority for the action in the
first place. Even were the size of the net benefits to be relevant, as we show in Table 2 of this
response, the Phase 3 rule has smaller net benefits than its Phase 1 and 2 predecessors.
Throughout the preamble, RIA, and RTC, EPA further addresses specific impacts, including
those of particular concern to these commenters, including electric charging infrastructure and
grid reliability (e.g., preamble II.D.2.iii, RIA 1.6, 2.6, RTC 6-7); hydrogen refueling
infrastructure (e.g., preamble II.D.3.V, RIA 1.8, RTC 8); oil imports and energy security (e.g.,
preamble VI.F, RIA 6.5, 7.3, RTC 22); critical minerals (e.g., preamble II.D.2.ii.c, RIA 1.5.1,
RTC 17.2); and employment (e.g., preamble VI.E.4, RIA 6.4, RTC 19). We summarize some key
observations here.
Based on our review of the extensive evidence in the administrative record, we project that
there will be adequate electric charging and refueling infrastructure to support the standards, with
sufficient depot charging and supporting distribution grid buildout beginning in MY 2027 and
sufficient public charging and hydrogen refueling beginning in MY 2030; based on public
comments and our updated analysis, EPA also adjusted the stringency of the standards to account
for the greater lead time anticipated for the installation of charging and hydrogen refueling
infrastructure. Grid reliability is not expected to be adversely affected by the modest increase in
electricity demand associated with HD BEV charging, and managed charging strategies can be
applied to further decrease grid impacts.198 We expect sufficient supplies of critical minerals to
support battery production, given both global supplies as well the significant government efforts
through the BIL and IRA as well as private investments to develop domestic mining and
processing capacity. Furthermore, the rule is projected to significantly reduce the consumption of
petroleum, whether through increased adoption of ZEVs or other advanced ICE vehicle
technologies that reduce petroleum use; we expect the vast majority of this decrease (94.8%) to
197 California Air Resources Board (CARB), and other States, including members of the National Association of
Clean Air Agencies (NACAA), the Association of Air Pollution Control Agencies (AAPCA), the Northeast States
for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM), and the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC).
198 Specifically, EPA assessed the cumulative impacts of BEV charging in response to the combined impact of this
rule and the final light- and medium-duty multi-pollutant rule. Taken together, these rules are associated with a
modest and manageable increase in electricity demand, and are not expected to adversely impact grid reliability.
128
-------
reflect decreased net imports, which yields significant positive benefits for energy security, with
relatively limited impacts on domestic refining. We find the potential for employment shifts
between industries (e.g., from ICE and ICE vehicle manufacturing to ZEV, battery, and fuel cell
manufacturing); and while we do not have sufficient data to quantify employment impacts, there
is evidence that—assuming production of electric vehicles and their power supplies are done in
the US at the same rates as ICE vehicles—US employment is likely to increase in response to
increased ZEV adoption.
Moreover, as we explain in preamble II, EPA has also made various conservative assumptions
in making predictive judgments associated with increased ZEV adoption, such that there is a
realistic likelihood that the market moves even more quickly toward ZEV adoption and achieves
greater emissions reductions at a lower cost than we anticipate. At the same time, the standards
do not mandate a specific level of ZEV technologies—or any increased production of ZEVs to
meet the standards at all —such that in the event the barriers to ZEV adoption are greater than
we project, manufacturers have the flexibility to adopt other technologies and mitigate the need
for ZEV-related critical minerals, infrastructure, and so forth.
Furthermore, as discussed in preamble ES and throughout the RIA, many ongoing efforts help
ensure the smooth implementation of the final rule. Significant initiatives by the Federal
government (such as the BIL and IRA), State and local government, and private firms,
complement EPA's final rule, including initiatives to reduce the costs to purchase ZEVs; support
the development of domestic critical mineral, battery, and ZEV production; and accelerate the
establishment of charging and hydrogen refueling infrastructure. As discussed in RTC 2.9, EPA
is also monitoring industry's performance in complying with mobile source emission standards,
including the final rule, as well as the availability of supporting infrastructure. We commit to
actively engage with stakeholders and monitor both manufacturer compliance and the major
elements of the HD ZEV infrastructure. Based on these efforts, as appropriate and consistent
with CAA section 202(a) authority, EPA may decide to issue guidance documents, initiate a
future rulemaking to consider modifications to the Phase 3 rule, or make no changes to the Phase
3 rule program.
Moreover, commenters raising major questions concerns unduly focused on the potential for
negative indirect impacts associated with the final rule, while neglecting the negative impacts of
inaction. Put differently, they ignored the rule's potential to create positive impacts, which—as
many other stakeholders noted—are many and great. Foremost, the positive impacts include the
beneficial impacts of mitigating air pollution—the primary purpose of section 202(a)—here
carbon pollution, which poses catastrophic risks for human health and the environment, water
supply and quality, storm surge and flooding, electricity infrastructure, agricultural disruptions
and crop failures, human rights, international trade, and national security.199 Other positive
impacts include reduced dependence on foreign oil and increased energy security and
independence; increased regulatory certainty for encouraging domestic production of advanced
pollution control technologies and their components (including ZEVs, batteries, fuels cells,
battery components, and critical minerals) and for the development of electric charging and
hydrogen refueling infrastructure, with attendant benefits for employment and US global
199 See preamble II. A.
129
-------
competitiveness in these sectors; and increased use of electric charging and potential for vehicle-
to-grid technologies that can support electric resource adequacy and grid reliability.200
In sum, the final rule does not create vast economic and political consequences of an
unprecedented kind. The rule builds upon the market's transition to ZEVs—in response to
emerging technological developments, Congress's support in the IRA, and other factors—and
strengthens the GHG standards. Its direct impacts are analogous to, and in key respects less
impactful than, its predecessors. And contrary to what commenters claim, the final rule is not a
ZEV mandate as a manufacturer can comply with the standards without producing additional
ZEVs. As for indirect impacts, there is nothing different in kind about those impacts of the final
rule compared to the impacts of prior rules; the presence of such impacts merely reflects the
ordinary nature of the global supply chain for motor vehicles. Even were the agency to consider
indirect regulatory impacts, the final rule causes no significant indirect harms of the kinds that
commenters allege, has the potential for positive impacts, and on balance provides positive net
benefits to society.
IV. Additional factors counsel against application of the major questions doctrine.
Additional factors present further evidence that the major questions doctrine does not apply:
the agency's assertion of authority does not create an unworkable conflict with any other
statutory provision, the action does not significantly alter the balance of Federal and state power
or the power of government over private property, and notwithstanding political interest in motor
vehicle GHG regulation, the weight of statutory and legislative evidence supports EPA's
authority.
First, the final rule is not in conflict with other statutory provisions. As an initial matter,
commenters' attempts to wrap their many statutory interpretation challenges in the major
questions cloth are misplaced. Ordinary claims of statutory inconsistency, even when "multiple
Federal statutes" are allegedly in conflict, are governed by the "traditional rules of statutory
interpretation."201 For example, in Utility Air, the Court deferred to EPA's interpretation of the
statute notwithstanding petitioners' arguments that the agency's approach was "fundamentally
unsuited" given the statutory context, because such approach was not "so disastrously
unworkable, and need not result in such a dramatic expansion of agency authority."202 Here, the
commenters' allegations of inconsistency with other statutory provisions203 are basically run-of-
the-mill interpretive disputes that can be resolved under traditional principles of interpretation,
and in any event, lack merit. We generally respond to commenters' statutory interpretation
200 EPA did not rely on these other positive impacts, or the net benefits calculations, in identifying the level of the
standards. Nonetheless, the potential for such positive impacts as well as the presence of positive net benefits
support the rationality of the standards.
201 POM Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co., 134 S. Ct. 2228, 2236 (2014); cf. also Dep't of Agric. Rural Dev. Rural
Hous. Serv. v. Kirtz, No. 22-846, 2024 WL 478567, at *11 (U.S. Feb. 8, 2024) ("we approach federal statutes
touching on the same topic with a strong presumption they can coexist harmoniously.... Where two laws are merely
complementary—as is undisputedly the case here—our duty lies not in preferring one over another but in giving
effect to both.").
202 Utility Air, 573 U.S. 302, 332 (2014)
203 In some cases, commenters do not even identify an actual conflict, but base their argument primarily on the
expressio unius canon. We offer specific responses regarding the application of expressio unius in RTC 2 and
10.2.I.e.
130
-------
arguments throughout preamble section I.C and RTC 2 and 10. In this section, we summarize a
few of the responses specifically as they pertain to the major questions doctrine.
Commenters assert that EPA's averaging, banking, and trading (ABT) program is inconsistent
with various compliance and enforcement provisions in the statute, e.g., CAA sections 203-207,
and specifically criticize EPA's decision to assess the feasibility of the standards based on an
average of the emissions performance of ZEVs and ICE vehicles. We respond to the statutory
interpretation arguments against ABT in RTC 10.2.1. We also do not see how ABT gives rise to
a major question either as to its own validity or to EPA's use of averaging as part of the process
of determining stringency of the standards.
Congress has decided the major question here: EPA must control air pollution from motor
vehicles. ABT is a compliance mechanism to achieve that aim. ABT recognizes the practical
realities of the motor vehicle industry and its strategies for reducing GHGs: manufacturers do not
redesign every vehicle in every single year, any given manufacturer may find it cheaper to
reduce emissions on one kind of vehicle versus another, certain manufacturers may be more cost
effective at reducing emissions than other ones, and advanced pollution control technologies are
typically phased in over a period of time as opposed to all at once. ABT thus enables EPA to
ensure emissions reductions from the class of motor vehicles, while providing manufacturers
with greater flexibility in innovating new technologies, developing their products, and achieving
emissions reductions at lower cost. ABT also has a lengthy pedigree—beginning (with the
averaging component) in 1985 and being applied in every single motor vehicle GHG rule. It
would be extraordinary for an interstitial compliance mechanism that EPA has implemented for
nearly forty years to suddenly become a major question.204
Commenters claim there is a conflict between the final rule and the statute's Clean Fuel
Vehicles provisions.205 But the Clean Fuel Vehicle provisions, which are contained in a separate
Part of the statute, have little bearing on the scope of EPA's section 202(a) authority.206 That
program was a pilot project to advance alternative fuels and technologies.207 The program
prescribes more stringent criteria pollutant standards for certain years (e.g., MY 1998 and later
for HD vehicles)208 in some ozone nonattainment areas, relative to the standards applicable
nationwide.209 There is an obvious mismatch between these requirements and EPA's section
202(a) authority, under which we are setting GHG standards applicable to the entire nation for
204 West Virginia, moreover, suggests this is not a major question. In describing the cap-and-trade program for the
Mercury and Air Toxics Rule, the Court noted that there, "EPA set the cap based on the application of particular
controls, and regulated sources could have complied by installing them." West Virginia, 142 S. Ct. 2587, 2610
(2022). This case is analogous. EPA sets the final standards based on technical factors such as feasibility, leadtime,
and costs, see section 202(a)(l)-(2), comparable to the "scientific, objective criterion" the Court noted with favor,
not "wherever the Agency sees fit" based on vague notions of societal welfare.
205 See generally Guidance for Fulfilling the Clean Fuel Fleets Requirement of the Clean Air Act, EPA-420-B-22-
027 (June 2022).
206 As we explain in preamble I.B, however, we do think the Clean Fuel Vehicles program supports interpreting the
statutory term "motor vehicle" to include electric vehicles. CAA section 241(2).
207 See H. Rep. No. 101-490, pt. 1, at 283 (1990), 1990 WL 1222133, at *65-66 (Congress wanted "to encourage a
broad range of vehicles," including those using electricity, and break the "chicken and the egg" supply-and-demand
problem among automakers, consumers, and fuel producers).
208 CAA section 245(a).
209 Compare, e.g., clean fuel vehicle statutory numeric standards in CAA sections 243 and 245, with those applying
to conventional vehicles in CAA section 202(g)-(i).
131
-------
MY 2027-32. Moreover, the specific provision on which commenters place most weight, section
242(b), actually says that clean fuel vehicles and "conventional gasoline-fueled or diesel fueled
vehicles" may be part of the "same category" of vehicles.210 Finally, commenters erroneously
presume that the distinction between clean fuel and conventional vehicles is a distinction
between electric vehicles and gasoline and diesel vehicles. Clean fuel vehicles as a category
include all kinds of vehicles, including those fueled by diesel, reformulated gasoline, ethanol,
hydrogen, electricity, and so on.211
Commenters also allege a conflict between the final rule and the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act (EPCA). The Supreme Court has already rejected a similar argument as EPCA
and the CAA are two different statutes that impose independent duties.212 If anything, the fact
that EPCA precludes DOT from considering battery electric vehicles in exercising certain
regulatory powers, and the CAA contains no similar limitation, suggests that Congress knew
how to limit EPA's authority but intentionally declined to do so. Further, no practical
inconsistency exists as NHTSA is not at this time establishing new standards for HD vehicles,
and EPA has also consulted with NHTSA in establishing the final standards here. We address the
consistency of this rule with NHTSA's authority later in this section.
As for the Renewable Fuel Standards (RFS) program, the statute explicitly states that the RFS
provisions do not limit EPA's other authorities to regulate GHGs.213 Commenters, moreover,
erroneously claim that the increasing statutory biofuel volumes in the RFS program suggest that
any future GHG decreases from the transportation sector must come from renewable fuels; but
actually, the statute imposes no such requirement. Moreover, beginning in 2023, there are no
increasing statutory biofuel requirements, and the only statutory biofuel volume is a requirement
that biomass-based diesel not be less than the volume in 2012.214 We further address this
comment in RTC 10.2.1 .e and 22, finding among other things that the final rule is consistent with
EPA's recently promulgated RFS "Set" rule, under which EPA exercised its discretion to
mandate increased renewable fuel volumes.
Second, the final rule does not intrude upon areas traditionally reserved for State police
power. While Congress recognized the importance of cooperative Federalism in the Clean Air
Act, it intended for regulation of motor vehicle emissions to be principally the domain of the
Federal EPA. As such, section 209(a) preempts most State and local standards "relating to the
210 CAA section 242(b) says that clean fuel vehicles "shall comply with all requirements of this subchapter.. .which
are applicable in the case of conventional gasoline-fueled or diesel fueled vehicles of the same category and model
year" (emphasis added).
211 CAA section 241(2).
212Massachusetts, 549 U.S. 497, 532 (2007) ("that DOT sets mileage standards in no way licenses EPA to shirk its
environmental responsibilities. EPA has been charged with protecting the public's "health" and "welfare," 42 U.S.C.
§ 7521(a)(1), a statutory obligation wholly independent of DOT's mandate to promote energy efficiency. See Energy
Policy and Conservation Act, § 2(5), 89 Stat. 874, 42 U.S.C. § 6201(5). The two obligations may overlap, but there
is no reason to think the two agencies cannot both administer their obligations and yet avoid inconsistency").
213 CAA section 21 l(o)(12) ("Nothing in this subsection, or regulations issued pursuant to this subsection, shall
affect or be construed to affect the regulatory status of carbon dioxide or any other greenhouse gas, or to expand or
limit regulatory authority regarding carbon dioxide or any other greenhouse gas, for purposes of other provisions
(including section 7475) of this chapter....").
214 See CAA section 21 l(o)(2)(B)(ii), (v).
132
-------
control of emissions from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines."215 Moreover,
motor vehicles are instruments of interstate commerce, the air pollutants they emit readily travel
over state lines, and the same manufacturers produce motor vehicles for sale nationwide, such
that regulation of motor vehicle emissions is eminently suitable for the Federal government.
Third, the final rule does not "significantly alter the balance ... the power of the Government
over private property."216 Pursuant to section 202(a), EPA has imposed emissions standards on
the motor vehicle industry since the 1970s, and we have regulated GHG emissions from HD
vehicles since 2011. The final rule continues regulation of the same regulated community,
manufacturers of HD vehicles, by implementing iteratively more protective GHG standards.
Fourth and finally, commenters erroneously claim that the presence of earnest political debate
gives rise to a major question here. Notwithstanding ongoing political interest in motor vehicle
GHG regulation, the weight of statutory and legislative evidence strongly favors EPA's
authority. EPA summarizes in preamble I.B the considerable Federal statutory enactments and
legislative history that support the agency's consideration of ZEVs.217 Without restating that
history, we note that Congress has declared a policy of supporting electric vehicles. 15 USC
2501(b)(4) states that it is "the policy of Congress" to "support accelerated research into, and
development of, electric and hybrid vehicle technologies", to "facilitate, and remove barriers to,
the use of electric and hybrid vehicles in lieu of gasoline- and diesel-powered motor vehicles,
where practicable", and "promote the substitution of electric and hybrid vehicles for many
gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles... " IRA Section 60106 provides $5 million for EPA "to
provide grants to States to adopt and implement greenhouse gas and zero-emission standards for
mobile sources pursuant to section 177 of the [CAA]."218 The legislative history accompanying
the IRA states: "Congress recognizes EPA's longstanding authority under CAA Section 202 to
adopt standards that rely on zero emission technologies, and Congress expects that future EPA
regulations will increasingly rely on and incentivize zero-emission vehicles as appropriate."219
The statutory and legislative history unquestionably tilts in favor of Congress viewing electric
and ZEVs as important technologies for pollution control, supporting EPA's authority to
consider such technologies in establishing emissions standards.
In light of this substantial history in favor of ZEV technologies, we think the various
legislative history materials cited by commenters are of little relevance. Commenters point to a
few failed bills. But failed legislation "offers a particularly dangerous basis on which to rest an
215 Section 209(b) creates an exception for "any State which has adopted standards (other than crankcase emission
standards) for the control of emissions from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines prior to March 30,
1966." The only State to meet this requirement is California, which has developed its own motor vehicle emissions
program, subject to EPA's waivers of preemption. In addition, other States may adopt programs identical to the
California program under section 177, but they may not establish their own programs. We note that California
strongly supports EPA's further regulation of GHGs from motor vehicles.
216 Alabama Ass 'n of Realtors v. Dep't of Health and Human Servs., 141 S. Ct. 2485, 2489 (2021).
217 See also Greg Dotson, Comments to Multi-Pollutant Emissions Standards for Model Years 2027 and Later Light-
Duty and Medium-Duty Vehicles; Greg Dotson & Dustin Maghamfar, The Clean Air Act Amendments of2022:
Clean Air, Climate Change, and the Inflation Reduction Act, 53 Environmental Law Reporter 10017, 10030-32
(2023).
218 Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, P.L. 117-169 ,136 Stat. 2068-69 (2022).
219168 Cong. Rec. E879-02, at 880 (daily ed. Aug. 26, 2022) (statement of Rep. Pallone, Chairman of the House
Energy and Commerce Committee).
133
-------
interpretation of an existing law a different and earlier Congress" adopted.220 Especially where,
as here, Congress has passed laws regarding a topic, failed bills are of questionable relevance.
Moreover, the specific failed bills that commenters cite sought to impose different regulatory
outcomes than the Phase 3 final rule. For example, the Zero-Emission Vehicles Act of 2019,
H.R. 2764, 116th Cong. (2019), which applied to light-duty vehicles, "sets a schedule for
increasing the percentage of zero-emission vehicles a vehicle manufacturer delivers for sale,
culminating in a requirement to sell only zero-emission vehicles from 2040 on."221 The final
rule, however, does not apply to light-duty vehicles, require increasing sales of ZEVs, or require
manufacturers to only sell ZEVs from 2040 on.
Separately, the commenters claim Congress's support for research and incentives for ZEVs
undermines its Clean Air Act authority. But such efforts do not constitute a "distinct regulatory
scheme"222 that displaces the agency's authority. Rather, "[collaboration and research do not
conflict with any thoughtful regulatory effort; they complement it."223 And as we explain in
preamble II, the considerable incentives and other funding that Congress has provided for ZEVs
and their infrastructure support EPA's ability to establish strong emission standards accounting
for the availability of such technologies. Besides, Congress's recent enactment of ZEV
incentives in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act occurred not
"against a regulatory backdrop of disclaimers of regulatory authority,"224 but rather with
Congress's full knowledge that EPA was actively regulating motor vehicle GHG emissions;
indeed the legislative history to the IRA shows affirmative Congressional support for EPA's
efforts.225
Commenters also identify some letters from Congressional Members that criticized EPA's
proposed rule. Member letters obviously have no legal effect on the agency's statutory
authority.226 To the extent they are relevant, many other Members of Congress sent letters
supporting EPA's further regulation of GHGs from motor vehicles.227 Some commenters also
pointed to a Congressional Review Act resolution to rescind a different EPA rule regarding HD
220 Bostockv. Clayton County, 140 S.Ct. 1731, 1747 (2020) (internal quotation marks omitted).
221 https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/2764. The similarly named Zero-Emission Vehicles Act
of 2018, S. 3664, 115th Cong. (2018), is similar to the 2019 act and differs from this final rule for similar reasons.
See https://www.congress.gOv/bill/l 15th-congress/senate-bill/3664?s=l&r=59 The proposed amendment to the
1970 CAA at 116 Cong. Rec. 19238-40 (1970) sought to ban ICE vehicles by 1978, but this final rule does not ban
ICE vehicles and also regulates the industry nearly five decades later in the face of completely different facts.
222 Food & Drug Admin, v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 144 (2000)
223Massachusetts, 549 U.S. 497, 530 (2007).
224Massachusetts, 549 U.S. 497, 531 (2007).
225 168 Cong. Rec. E879-02, at 880 (daily ed. Aug. 26, 2022) (statement of Chairman of House Energy and
Commerce Committee Rep. Pallone).
226 See U.S. Const. Art. 1 § 7.
227 See, e.g., Padilla, Colleagues Lead Bicameral Letter Urging EPA to Impose Strong Emissions Standards for
Heavy-Duty Vehicles (letter from 75 Members urging the agency to finalize the strongest feasible greenhouse gas
emission standards for heavy-duty vehicles (HDVs) as part of their Phase 3 rule), available at
https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/padilla-colleagues-lead-bicameral-letter-urging-epa-to-
impose-strong-emissions-standards-for-heavy-duty-vehicles/; Lawmakers lead 91 colleagues in pushing for robust
light- and medium-duty vehicle emission standards to protect public health, benefit climate and economy (letter
from 91 members urging the EPA to finalize the strongest feasible multi-pollutant vehicle emission standards for
light- and medium-duty vehicles before the end of this year), available at https://matsui.house.gov/media/press-
releases/matsui-clarke-markey-padilla-urge-epa-finalize-strongest-possible-light-and
134
-------
criteria pollutant standards, although that resolution was ultimately vetoed by the President.228
Not only does a failed CRA resolution on a different rule offer no value to understanding the
statutory authority for this rule, the CRA expressly prohibits courts and agencies from inferring
"any intent of the Congress" with regard to a rule or related statute when Congress has failed to
enact a joint resolution.229
We also give little weight to the commenters' claims about State-level political debates. As
already explained, this rule relates to an area—control of emissions from new motor vehicles—
where Congress has placed primary authority in the Federal government. To the extent State
political action is relevant, the statute permits only certain State motor vehicle emissions
regulation that is more stringent than the Federal regulation. Such regulations, moreover, can
only be adopted in the first instance by California, and certain other States may then follow
suit.230 State regulation that is less stringent than the Federal program is expressly forbidden by
the statute. So even if a State thinks less stringent motor vehicle emission standards are better,
that State cannot legally require that result. And notwithstanding the diversity of perspectives on
ZEVs, all states are actively taking actions to support ZEVs. Among other things, all States are
actively implementing plans for vehicle electrification infrastructure through the National
Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) Program.231 And localities within all States have sought
and obtained funds to replace existing school buses with zero-emission and clean school buses
under EPA's Clean School Bus Program.232
V. Conclusion
There is clear Congressional authorization for the final rule. In section 202(a) Congress made
the major policy decision to control air pollution from motor vehicles and directed EPA to do so
228 S.J. Res. 11, 118 Cong. (2023); H. Res. H2523, 118 Cong. (2023).
229 5 U.S.C. 801(g) (emphasis added) ("If the Congress does not enact a joint resolution of disapproval under section
802 respecting a rule, no court or agency may infer any intent of the Congress from any action or inaction of the
Congress with regard to such rule, related statute, or joint resolution of disapproval.").
230 Section 209(b) allows the Administrator to waive preemption for the State of California where California's
"standards will be, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable Federal
standards," while section 177 allows certain other States to adopt a program identical to that of California.
231 https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/nevi/ev_deployment_plans/ See also, e.g., West Virginia National
Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) Deployment Plan (July 2023),
https://transportation.wv.gOv/highways/programplanning/NEVI/Documents/WV%20NEVI%20PLAN_9-28-
23%20Final.pdf; West Virginia Code § 17-30-1. Department of Transportation to develop electric vehicle plan,
available at https://code.wvlegislature.gov/17-30-l/; Team Kentucky Cabinet for Economic Development,
Kentucky: Leading the Way Toward an Electric Future, https://ced.ky.gov/LP/electric_vehicle (asserting that
"Kentucky is the premier location in the United States to manufacture electric vehicles and their parts," and there
have been "$22.9 billion announced in investments by automotive-related facilities since 2014"); Ohio First State in
Nation to Activate NEVI Chargers, https://governor.ohio.gov/media/news-and-media/ohio-first-state-in-activate-
nevi-chargers (statement from Ohio Governor) ("Electric vehicles are the future of transportation, and we want
drivers in Ohio to have access to this technology today."); Letter from Gov. Greg Abbott to Mr. Marc D. Williams
(directing Texas Department of Transportation to develop a plan to "ensure that every Texan can access the
infrastructure they need to charge anEV'), https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/get-
involved/statewide/EV%20Charging%20Plan/040422-
Letter%20from%20Governor%20on%20Electric%20Vehicle%20Charging.pdf.
232 https://www.epa.gov/cleanschoolbus/clean-school-bus-program-awards See also
https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/laws/ELEC (cataloguing additional state laws and incentives to support EV and EVSE
infrastructure); https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/laws/HY (hydrogen)
135
-------
through a technology-based approach. The determination of what technology is available for
achieving this policy is a subsidiary technical and policy judgment that Congress plainly
entrusted to the Administrator's expertise. The statutory text of section 202(a), read in its
context, is clear. And decades of legislative and administrative precedent specifically support the
Administrator's authority to consider ZEVs, a highly effective pollution control technology.
Even were the Court to apply the major questions framework, no major question exists. The
final Phase 3 rule represents an iterative strengthening of the HD GHG standards based on the
agency's evaluation of updated data within its technical expertise. The impacts of the Phase 3
rule are analogous to, and in many instances, less significant than its predecessor. And while the
indirect impacts of the rule are not a suitable basis for assessing a major question, the agency
performed a comprehensive assessment of such effects, finding that the final rule does not cause
significant indirect harms, has the potential for indirect benefits, and creates net benefits for
society. Additional factors considered by the courts also counsel against application of the major
questions doctrine.
In the final rule, the Administrator did what he has been doing for over fifty years: evaluate
updated data on pollution control technologies and set emissions standards accordingly. The
agency recognizes that some stakeholders are unhappy with the increasing availability of ZEV
technologies, and they would prefer weaker standards, while others prefer stronger standards.
But these are garden variety disputes amenable to arbitrary and capricious review. This rule is
not an extraordinary and unprecedented assertion of agency power that implicates the major
questions doctrine.
Summary of Comments Alleging that ZEVs are Not Systems or Devices to Prevent or Control
Pollution
Some commenters further suggest that ZEVs are beyond the scope of regulation under section
202(a) because the provision does not specifically mention ZEVs, and because they view the
clause at the end of section 202(a) which requires standards to be applicable for the useful life of
vehicles "whether such vehicles and engines are designed as complete systems or incorporate
devices to prevent or control pollution" as not describing ZEVs. Other commenters argue that
ZEVs are best considered a design feature related to the control of emissions which should be
considered in determining fleet average standards in order to achieve the goals and requirements
of the Clean Air Act, and that ZEVs constitute vehicles designed as a "system" within the
meaning of section 202.
Response to Comments Alleging that ZEVs are Not Systems or Devices to Prevent or Control
Pollution
EPA disagrees with these comments. First, section 202(a)(1) directs EPA to regulate
emissions from motor vehicles, and ZEVs are motor vehicles as defined in section 216(2) of the
Act. Second, in the 2009 Endangerment Finding, EPA identified the classes of motor vehicles
subject to GHG regulation as including HD vehicles, without any distinction as to whether or not
they emit or their powertrain. Once EPA made the endangerment finding for the class, EPA was
required to set emission standards for vehicles in that class to address the contribution to
endangerment. Third, the last clause in section 202(a)(1)—"whether such vehicles and engines
are designed as complete systems or incorporate devices to prevent or control pollution"— does
not alter the scope of vehicles subject to regulation under the Act. It does, however, confirm the
broad scope of Congressional intent of the kinds of technologies that EPA may consider in
136
-------
establishing the standards, including "complete systems" and technologies that "prevent"
pollution, which describe ZEVs. We reject the commenters' subsidiary arguments, including that
ZEVs are beyond the scope of regulation because they do not control pollution from a carbon-
dioxide emitting engine, they are not designed for emissions control, or they do not block or
capture pollution.
First, as we explain in preamble I.B, ZEVs unambiguously fall under the statutory definition
of motor vehicles in section 216(2), and the statute also unambiguously allows EPA to consider
electrified technologies, including ZEVs, in establishing section 202(a)(1) standards. Section
202(a)(1) applies to the "emission of any air pollutant from any class ... of new motor vehicles
.... which ... cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to
endanger public health or welfare." Vehicles with electric powertrains, including ZEVs, are
indisputably "motor vehicles," since they are "self-propelled" and are "designed for transporting
persons or property on a street or highway."233
Commenters wrongly suggest that despite the very broad statutory definition of motor
vehicles, which remained untouched through repeated revisions of Title II, Congress could not
have possibly intended to include ZEVs in that definition simply because most vehicles in 1965
were gasoline. It is worth noting that "[a]t the beginning of the 20th century, 40 percent of
American automobiles were powered by steam, 38 percent by electricity, and 22 percent by
gasoline,"234 and as noted in the preamble and by other commenters, by the 1960s Congress was
actively considering the potential role of EV technology is reducing motor vehicle pollution.235
In any case, as the Supreme Court has held, "the Congresses that drafted § 202(a)(1) ... did
understand that without regulatory flexibility, changing circumstances and scientific
developments would soon render the Clean Air Act obsolete. The broad language of § 202(a)(1)
reflects an intentional effort to confer the flexibility necessary to forestall such obsolescence."236
Just as greenhouse gases "fit well within the Clean Air Act's capacious definition of 'air
pollutant, '"237so too ZEVs fit well within the definition of motor vehicles. And as we explain in
the preamble, the Administrator appropriately considered ZEVs in establishing the standards as
they are a highly effective technology for reducing vehicle emissions and available at a
reasonable cost during the timeframe of the rulemaking.
Second, as we explain in RTC 10.2. l.f, EPA identified the classes of vehicles subject to GHG
regulation in the 2009 Endangerment Finding. The classes identified included "heavy-duty
trucks" without exception as to their level of emissions or powertrain. ZEVs are included in the
233 CAA section 216(2).
234 Britannica, Early Electric Vehicles, https://www.britannica.com/technology/automobile/Early-electric-
automobiles; see also Amicus Brief of Margo Oge and John Hannon in Texas v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 22-1031) at 9,
16-17.
235 For example, in 1967, Congress was working on research-and-development programs for vehicle electrification.
See S. Rep. No. 90-403, at 59-61 (1967). As part of that effort, Congress held hearings on "electric vehicles and
other alternatives to the internal combustion engine." Joint Hearings Before the Committees on Commerce and
Public Works for S. 451 and S. 453, 90th Cong. 297 (1967). Later that year, a Senate report approvingly noted that
electrified vehicles could comprise one third of the market by 1985. S. Rep. No. 90-403, at 60 (1967). A few years
later, Congress amended the Clean Air Act to create a research program for new vehicle technology, including "low
emission alternatives to the present internal combustion engine." CAA section 104 (a)(2).
236Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 532 (2007).
237 Id.
137
-------
class of vehicles. Once EPA made the endangerment finding for the class, EPA is required to set
emission standards for vehicles in that class to address the contribution to endangerment.
Third, contrary to what commenters argue, the final clause of section 202 (a)(1) does not
change the class of vehicles for which EPA must promulgate emission standards. That clause
states that the standards "shall be applicable to those vehicles for their useful life whether such
vehicles ... are designed as complete systems or incorporate devices to prevent or control such
pollution." This language requires that the standards apply to vehicles over their useful life, as
opposed to, for example, only at the certification stage. The final standards do this.
As we explain in preamble I.A-B, this statutory language also confirms the breadth of
Congress's intent with regard to the technologies that EPA may consider. We think it is clear
that ZEVs fall under this language as they are designed as complete systems. It is also reasonable
to view ZEVs as incorporating devices (e.g., batteries and e-motors) that prevent pollution from
being created. Either way, ZEVs clearly fall within the statutory text.
The commenters' arguments to the contrary are all misplaced. Commenters suggest that EPA
cannot consider ZEVs in establishing the standards because ZEVs are designed to run on an
entirely different power system, not to limit or control pollution from a carbon-dioxide-emitting
engine. The argument first of all ignores the statutory language in section 202(a)(1), which
speaks to EPA establishing emissions standards for classes of motor vehicles that contribute to
dangerous air pollution, not for classes of "carbon-dioxide emitting engines." Moreover, the
argument proves far too much. Many GHG and criteria pollution control technologies are
"designed" for or have other purposes beyond merely pollution control. For instance, many of
the technologies on which the GHG emissions standards are predicated - e.g. improved engines
and transmissions, low rolling resistance tires, aerodynamic improvements, lightweighting,
improved accessories, mild and strong hybrids238—also improve vehicle functionality (e.g.
turbocharging and engine downsizing, high efficiency automatic transmissions, electrified power
steering) and fuel economy. The same is true for criteria pollutant technologies that improve the
combustion process, such as exhaust gas recirculation, which beyond improving emissions
performance, also can improve knock resistance, reduce the need for high load fuel enrichment,
and so on.239
Commenters similarly maintain that ZEVs are not designed as complete systems because they
lack a self-contained mechanism to block or capture pollution that otherwise would be
emitted. This argument lacks a statutory basis and is premised on an incorrect understanding of
how pollution control technology works. The statute speaks to vehicles "designed as complete
systems or incorporate devices to prevent or control such pollution." 240 Preventing pollution
includes reducing or eliminating pollution at the source, as opposed to merely blocking or
238 81 FR at 73747-753.
239 See Hannu Jaaskelainen & Magdi K. Khair, Exhaust Gas Recirculation (May 2022),
https://dieselnet.com/tech/engine_egr.php.
240 EPA notes that some commenters, both those that read section 202(a) as authorizing consideration of
electrification technologies in setting vehicles standards and those that do not, appear to read the last
phrase of section 202(a)(1), "to prevent or control pollution," as modifying "designed as complete
systems." An alternate reading would be to construe "to prevent or control pollution" as solely modifying
"incorporate devices." EPA finds it is unnecessary to resolve this interpretive issue because either way
BEVs do prevent pollution.
138
-------
capturing the pollution after it has been emitted.241 Relatedly, controlling pollution could mean
blocking or capturing pollution that otherwise would be emitted, but could also mean using
chemical processes to transform air pollutants into harmless compounds. Technologies to address
GHG emissions work by preventing pollution, e.g., by making the vehicle lighter or more
aerodynamic or by increasing engine efficiency, so as to reduce fuel consumption and associated
emissions, or by relying on a different fuel (e.g., natural gas, hydrogen, or electricity) that
inherently creates and emits less pollution from the motor vehicle. To date, no motor vehicle
GHG add-on control or aftertreatment technologies have become widely available. Criteria
emissions technologies can also prevent pollution—for example by increasing the efficiency of
the fuel combustion process or by fuel-switching—or control it—for example by a catalyst
transforming pollutants into less harmful compounds.
The commenters' reading is implausible for another obvious reason. It reads the statute as
disallowing technologies which are best suited to "prevent" the emissions which contribute to
endangerment. Instead of preventing and controlling the emissions which contribute to
endangerment, the commenter's reading would preclude EPA from considering highly effective
technologies for reducing emissions, with the result of perpetuating emissions that contribute to
dangerous air pollution. This result is antithetical to the statutory goal of using emission
standards to prevent endangerment from "maturing into concrete harm."242
The commenters' reliance on Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association v. EPA, 17 F. 4th
1198, 1202 (D.C. Cir. 2021) is misplaced. The case involved whether trailers were "motor
vehicles," not which emissions control technologies are permissible under the statute. The
commenter seizes on language in the decision stating that section 202(a)(1) creates two
categories of complete motor vehicles: those with built-in pollution control, and those with add-
on devices for pollution control. Nothing in this language supports a reading that ZEVs are not
"complete systems" or "devices." Indeed, ZEVs can be regarded as "built-in pollution control,"
since the pollution control system is integral to the vehicle design, as opposed to being an add-
on. In this way, ZEVs are similar to many other of the pollution prevention technologies
described above. For example, improved vehicle aerodynamics, lightweighting, ICE engine and
transmission improvements, are integral aspects of the vehicle that can also be regarded as
"built-in pollution control." By contrast, for example, an aftertreatment system can be seen as an
"add-on device." Thus, to the extent Truck Trailer is relevant to the issue, we think it, like the
statutory language it glosses, confirms the breadth of technologies Congress intended for EPA to
consider and further supports our decision to consider ZEV technologies in setting the standards.
Further, as discussed in preamble section 1, EPA does not mandate which vehicles a
manufacturer may produce or how a manufacturer may choose to design individual vehicles or
their overall fleet composition to meet emission standards. Without technological controls,
including add-on devices and complete systems, all of the vehicles EPA regulates under section
202(a) have the potential to emit dangerous pollution.243 Therefore, EPA establishes standards
for the entire class of vehicles, based upon its consideration of all available technologies. Once
241 See CAA section 101(a)(3) ("air pollution prevention (that is, the reduction or elimination, through any measures,
of the amount of pollutants produced or created at the source)").
242 Coal, for Responsible Regulation, 684 F. 3d at 122.
243 As noted above, manufacturers in some cases choose to offer different models of the same vehicle with different
levels of electrification. And it is the manufacturer who decides whether a given vehicle will be manufactured to
produce no emissions, low emissions, or higher emissions controlled by add-on technology.
139
-------
EPA promulgates the emission standards, it is then incumbent upon manufacturers to determine
which technology or mix of technologies, whether that be add-on devices or complete systems,
to use to meet the standards for their individual fleets. Accordingly, and consistent with the text
of section 202(a), EPA has authority to set standards for an entire class of motor vehicles—and
must have this authority—irrespective of how manufacturers ultimately comply. It would be
absurd for EPA to set standards for a class of motor vehicles, in this case heavy-duty motor
vehicles, only for EPA to lose its authority to regulate those very same vehicles based on how
manufacturers ultimately choose to comply after EPA has issued its standards. And it is only
after EPA issues standards, and manufacturers begin to produce vehicles to meet those standards,
that the Agency can know with certainty what technologies manufacturers are using to meet the
standards, and it is only after the manufacturers have applied those technologies to vehicles in
actual production that the pollution is prevented or controlled.
Summary of Specific Comments Related to Section 202(e)
API commented that section 202(e) indicates that EPA may delay certification of vehicles
with new power or propulsion systems if EPA finds that such vehicles cause or contribute to air
pollution which endangers. Since ZEVs "clearly constitute a new power source or propulsion
system" and do not emit pollutants, "EPA cannot determine that emissions from ZEVs cause or
contribute to any endangerment caused by GHG emissions and, therefore, the Agency has no
need or authority to impose GHG emissions standards on ZEVs prior to certifying them."
Response to Specific Comments Related to Section 202(e)
One commenter points to section 202(e) as support for their view that ZEVs should not be
treated as part of the same class as other vehicles, and argues that any new propulsion system
must be evaluated by the Administrator under section 202(e) before being certified. However,
that provision is mostly notable for the specific circumstances under which it applies and is
entirely permissive as an optional additional source of authority for the Administrator regarding
certification.
Section 202(e) clarifies that if a vehicle or engine with a novel power source or propulsion
system would meet currently applicable emissions requirements but would emit air pollutants
which the Administrator judges are harmful but for which EPA has not yet established standards,
the Administrator may postpone certifying the vehicle for sale (notwithstanding the fact that the
vehicle nominally meets the currently applicable emissions standards) until standards to address
the novel pollutants are issued.
For example, in 1975 an inventor sought, and in 1977 was issued, a US Patent (No.
4,006,595) for a "refrigerant-powered engine."244 In explaining the need for such an engine, the
patent states, "[pjerhaps the most serious problem facing this generation is the creation of air
pollution as a result of the by-products of the automobile internal combustion engine," and thus
there "exists a need for a practical alternative to the internal combustion engine."245 The engine
in question would use Freon vapor to drive a turbine (the Freon would then be collected in a
sealed system and reused).
244 The patent also discloses a prior patent, filed in 1973, which likewise uses Freon in a piston-reciprocating engine.
245 Id. at 7
140
-------
Were a manufacturer to develop such an engine today (using Freon or a chemical with similar
characteristics), it would appear that no standards would apply to leaks of the chemical from the
powertrain of the vehicle. In the absence of section 202(e), the Administrator might be required
to issue a certificate of conformity allowing the vehicles to be sold, even if the leaks of the
chemical were expected to have serious, long-lasting adverse impacts on the environment.
Section 202(e) authorizes the Administrator to delay issuing certificates to such vehicles until
appropriate standards can be established to protect public health and the environment.
Thus, this provision simply confirms the breadth of EPA's authority to regulate any self-
propelled vehicles—regardless of their form of propulsion (be it internal combustion, external
combustion, electric, or a technology unknown to Congress in 1970 or the agency today).
Notably the provision has no potential application where a vehicle does not emit novel air
pollutants (i.e., those for which an endangerment finding has not been made), and the provision
certainly does not limit EPA to classifying vehicles according to their fuel or method of
propulsion. As a discretionary power regarding certification, the provision also does not limit
EPA's standard-setting authority in any way.
Summary of Comments Alleging Goal of Rule is to Limit Global Temperature Increases
Commenters allege that the rule is directed at the goal of limiting global temperature increase
to 2 degrees Celsius (South Dakota Dept. of Agriculture).
Response to Comments Alleging Goal of Rule is to Limit Global Temperature Increases
Regarding the comment that the rule is directed at the goal of limiting global temperature
increase to 2 degrees Celsius, the final rule is not predicated on any global temperature-specific
metric. EPA is acting consistent with our CAA statutory authority and the applicable statutory
factors in CAA sec. 202(a) to limit GHG emissions from heavy-duty motor vehicles which
contribute to air pollution that endangers public health and welfare. For further discussion of
EPA's statutory authority and the legal basis for this action, please see Response to Comments
Concerning the Major Questions Doctrine above and preamble section II.G.
Summary of Specific Comments Related to the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA)
AFPM, API, and NACS et al commented that EPA is acting inconsistently with the Energy
Independence and Security Act (EISA) which makes the Department of Transportation the
proper entity to regulate. At the least, EISA has lead time and stability requirements which
would make the 2028 model year the first year of standard applicability. In addition, DOT's
mandate to regulate fuel efficiency under EISA does not allow consideration of electrification
(49 USC section 32902 (k)).
AFPM and Arizona State Legislature commented that EPA has failed to issue a joint rule with
NHTSA as it did with the Phase 1 and 2 rules, and has even failed to consult with its sister
agency.
Response to Specific Comments Related to the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA)
EPA disagrees with the view that it is required to engage in joint rulemaking with NHTSA,
that its legal authority with respect to establishing section 202 standards changes in any way if it
does engage in joint rulemaking with NHTSA, or that EISA in any way constrains the scope of
EPA's authority to set standards under section 202.
141
-------
EPA issued its earlier HD GHG rules jointly with the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration. However, from the beginning the two agencies have recognized their standards
have different statutory mandates and that each agency must set its standards according to its
respective statute, which has always resulted in the agencies' standards being varied in certain
ways. In the very first joint HD GHG rule, EPA and NHTSA explained at length the distinct
statutory authority of each agency and the areas in which they were similar and in which they
were different, and the ways in which the agencies would coordinate their standard-setting and
the ways in which the standards would diverge.246 EPA thus has never viewed joint rulemaking
as altering the scope of its authority. As discussed in the Executive Summary of the preamble,
EPA has continued to coordinate closely with NHTSA in setting GHG standards even when not
proceeding through joint rulemaking.
EPA continues to believe that EPA and NHTSA can and should each implement their
respective statutory authorities while avoiding inconsistency. However, EPA does not believe
that in order to avoid inconsistency EPA must, or can, ignore technological developments that
enable significant advances towards necessary pollution reductions.
Specifically, we do not agree that the EISA provisions dealing with fuel efficiency serve as a
bar to EPA's exercise of its independent authority under the Clean Air Act to issue GHG
emission standards for heavy duty motor vehicles. As the D.C. Circuit has held with respect to
the analogous issue for fuel economy standards: "[t]he plain text of section 202 (a)(1)... negates
Industry Petitioners' contention that EPA had discretion to defer the Tailpipe Rule on the basis
of NHTSA's authority to regulate fuel economy. The Supreme Court dismissed a near-identical
argument in Massachusetts v. EPA, rejecting the suggestion that EPA could decline to regulate
carbon-dioxide emissions because the Department of Transportation ... had independent
authority to set fuel-efficiency (sic) standards." Coal, for Resp. Regulation, 684 F. 3d at 127. For
similar reasons, the EISA provisions on lead time do not restrict EPA's independent obligation to
assess needed lead time under section 202 (a)(1), and likewise do not compel EPA and NHTSA
to issue fuel efficiency and heavy-duty GHG emission standards simultaneously. Likewise,
although NHTSA is required to consult with EPA before issuing fuel efficiency standards (see 49
U.S.C. section 32902 (k)(2)), there is no reciprocal requirement for EPA. 88 FR at 25952.
Need for Standards to Adequately Protect Public Health and Welfare
Commenters claimed that the purpose of CAA section 202 is to reduce threats to public health
and welfare and supported standards more stringent than the final standards, with some
comments supporting zero emissions standards. Some commenters commented that stringent
emissions standards are needed to ensure state and local air agencies can meet their statutory
obligations to timely attain and maintain NAAQS. Other commenters pointed to the standard-
setting provisions of CAA section 202(a)(3), which apply to criteria pollutant standards for
heavy duty vehicles.
As discussed in section I and elsewhere in the preamble, EPA agrees with commenters that
the purpose of the Clean Air Act is to reduce emissions of air pollutants that have been judged to
contribute to dangerous air pollution, and Congress expected and directed that EPA would
consider a full range of available technologies (not only internal combustion engine
246 See 76 FR 57106.
142
-------
technologies) in carrying out that statutory purpose. As we explain in RTC 2.3, however, EPA is
promulgating the final standards under section 202(a)(l)-(2), not section 202(a)(3)(A), which
only applies to certain HD criteria pollutant standards.
EPA agrees with commenters who pointed out that federal mobile source standards are
critically necessary to reduce harmful air pollution. While the final GHG standards directly
control GHGs, they also will lead to decreases of non-GHG emissions, including criteria
pollutant emissions. As we explain in preamble II. G, EPA considers our analysis of the impact of
the final CO2 emission standards on vehicle and upstream emissions for non-GHG pollutants as
supportive of the final standards. We expect that these reductions in criteria pollution will assist
states to come into attainment with the NAAQS.
Some commenters supported standards even more stringent that the proposed (or final)
standards, including zero emission standards. Some commenters suggested that standards should
be set by determining what reductions are necessary to attain the NAAQS or achieve other public
health goals. EPA finds, for the reasons explained in section II.G of the preamble, that more
stringent standards would not be appropriate under section 202(a). In particular, EPA finds that
zero emissions standards (e.g., no emissions of GHGs from any HD vehicles) would not be
feasible or appropriate for these model years, taking into consideration cost and lead time.
Although EPA recognizes that emissions reductions are the primary focus and purpose of section
202, and has adopted standards to achieve significant reductions in emissions, EPA disagrees
that standards must be set by first identifying a specific amount of reductions needed, and then
setting the standards to achieve those reductions. Section 202(a) directs EPA to achieve
reductions in air pollutants, but does not suggest that the level of the standard must be tied to
achieving a particular amount of reductions. Rather, section 202(a) requires EPA to consider
technological feasibility, including cost of compliance. This approach enables EPA to achieve
significant reductions which are critical to achieving public health goals, but there is nothing in
section 202(a) that directs EPA to set standards based on achieving a specific quantity of
emissions reductions and EPA disagrees that such an approach is required under section 202(a).
Moreover, the final standards are GHG standards. Therefore, while EPA considered criteria
pollution benefits as supportive of the final standards, the standards do not directly control
criteria pollution, and it would not be appropriate to identify the level of the GHG standards
based on achieving NAAQS for criteria pollutants.
Role of Cost/Benefit Analyses
One commenter suggests that the standards are arbitrary and capricious because EPA gave
insufficient weight to the results of the benefit-cost analysis.
EPA did assess the costs and benefits of the final standards. Furthermore, as explained in
section II.G of the preamble, EPA did consider the costs and benefits of the standards. When
section 202(a) requires EPA to consider the cost of compliance, it is referring to costs to vehicle
manufacturers, not total social costs. However, EPA considered both costs to manufacturers and
total social costs before adopting the standards. The Administrator identified the standards that
he finds appropriate taking into account emissions reductions, costs to manufacturers, feasibility
and other required and discretionary factors. The fact that benefits of those standards exceeded
their costs (i.e., the net benefits are positive) reinforces EPA's conclusion that the standards were
reasonable and appropriate. However, as noted in the preamble, EPA did not rely on benefit-cost
143
-------
analysis to identify the appropriate standards. That is, EPA did not seek to select standards that
would maximize net benefits as calculated by the benefit-cost analysis. EPA finds that our
approach, of placing weight on judging the appropriate level of emissions reduction in light of
the costs of compliance and lead time, while still evaluating and considering total social costs
and benefits, is consistent with both the Supreme Court's decision in Michigan v. EPA, 576 US
743 (2015) and with section 202 of the CAA.
Comment Summary: Other Congressional References
(Valero) takes issue with EPA's references in the proposal to statutory text, legislative history,
and caselaw construing CAA Title II, where Congress or the court referred to technologies other
than internal combustion engines as a means of fulfilling the emission reduction goals of that
Title. Valero contends that "each source of legislative history relied on by EPA is irrelevant to
the question of whether Congress authorized EPA to mandate electrification of the Nation's
HDV fleet." (The commenter also maintains that the proposal invokes the Major Question
Doctrine, and that EPA does not cite to a clear delegation of authority for the proposal.
Responses to Major Question Doctrine comments are in RTC chapters 2.1 and 9.) Specifically,
Valero raises the following points: Valero asserts that EPA's citation to 1967 Congressional
hearings, where Chairman Magnuson stated "ICE vehicles might be inadequate to achieve the
country's air quality goals" are unrelated to the enactment of the Clean Air Act and its
amendments and do not speak to EPA's emission standards, much less indicate a grant of
authority to EPA to mandate such vehicles nationwide through such standards. Valero states that
EPA's citation to a statement made by President Nixon in 1970 regarding a program to develop
"an unconventionally powered, virtually pollution free automobile" is an executive statement,
not a legislative one, and announces a research program, not a delegation of authority.
Valero asserts that CAA section 104 (a)(2)(B) - under which EPA is to partially fund research
programs "to develop low emission alternatives to the present internal combustion engine" is
likewise not a grant of regulatory authority, but merely a grant program. Valero states that the
same is true of EPA's authority to certify low emission vehicles (CAA section 202(e)) and
encourage federal purchases of such vehicles, and to institute a clean fuel vehicles program
(CAA section 241 et seq.): "researching and incentivizing electric vehicles is simply not
equivalent to mandating them."
Valero points to EPA's citation of S. Rep. 91-1196 and claims that it is inapposite. Valero
asserts that while it states that EPA is authorized to control vehicular emissions of criteria
pollutants, the report does not state or suggest that EPA would have authority to require
manufacturers to shift to those technologies.
Valero points to language EPA cited in the proposal from the D.C. Circuit's opinion in
International Harvester v. EPA. 478 f. 2d 615 (D.C. Cir. 1973) where the court noted legislative
history to the 1970 amendments stating that "Congress expected the Clean Air Amendments to
force the industry to broaden the scope of its research—to study new types of engines and
control systems." 478 F. 2d at 634-35. The commenter characterizes this as 50-year old dicta
which is not pertinent since it is discussing legislative history.
Valero asserts that EPA's reference to various provisions of the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act
are also inapposite, because the IRA is appropriation legislation which "have the limited and
specific purpose of providing funds," Tennessee Valley Auth. v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153, 190 (1978),
144
-------
cannot be construed to provide any agency authority and, in any case, incentivized rather than
mandated the use of electric vehicles.
Valero indicates that all of these statements cut against EPA because whenever Congress
wanted consideration of electric vehicles, it either did so by incentivizing them, or authorizing a
discrete regional program, neither of which can serve as authorization for a program of
nationwide scope in section 202(a).
Response to Other Congressional References
Commenters articulated different views about the significance of legislative and statutory
history. For example, commenters disagree on the significance of Congressional action in the
IRA and BIL for EPA's legal authority, with some commenters stating that these statutes do not
add to EPA's regulatory authority, and other commenters stating that these statutes reinforce
EPA's authority and confirm Congress' commitment to reducing motor vehicle emissions
through electrification. Similarly, some commenters point to the fact that legislation passed
under Congressional budget reconciliation rules must be related to spending, revenue, or the
federal debt limit, as evidence that the legislation did not increase EPA's authority, while other
commenters point to the fact that Congress only incentivized ZEVs in the legislation and did not
mandate them as evidence that EPA's lacks authority to consider EVs in standard-setting under
section 202(a).
As EPA explains in preamble I, the basis for EPA's authority to establish the final standards is
section 202(a)(l)-(2). The text and context of the Act unambiguously mandate that the
Administrator consider available vehicle technologies to limit emissions of GHGs, which on this
record, includes ZEV technologies that are available at a reasonable cost during the timeframe of
the rule. EPA's additional historical citations only corroborate the clear congressional
authorization found in the statute itself. We also address specific points relating to the history in
preamble I and the major questions doctrine response in RTC 2.1. Below we specifically address
comments regarding the significance of the recently enacted IRA and BIL.
EPA agrees with those commenters who state that the IRA and BIL reinforce EPA's authority.
Although the BIL and IRA are not necessary to find that the statute plainly authorizes the final
rule, they confirm and extend Congress' longstanding interest (which, as discussed in section I of
the preamble and elsewhere in this RTC dates back to the 1960s) in encouraging the
development and deployment of ZEVs. EPA acknowledges that the IRA and BIL are not what
gives EPA authority to include consideration of electrification technologies in standard-setting,
but finds that this legislation, which is consistent with the long history of Congressional support
for cleaner alternative-fueled vehicles, provides further support for the conclusion that the
Congresses that enacted and amended section 202(a)(1) gave EPA the authority to take into
consideration the emissions performance of ZEVs when setting standards for motor vehicles.
Likewise, EPA does not find that it would be appropriate to infer from the massive incentives
of this legislation that Congress wanted EPA247 to change course and stop taking into
247 The IRA made amendments to the CAA affirming that Congress regards programs incorporating ZEV
technology as an important aspect of EPA's mission to reduce air pollution under the law. Those amendments
include adding a definition of "zero-emission vehicle" into the newly added CAA Section 132, which consists of a
145
-------
consideration the emissions performance of ZEVs in setting standards. This rulemaking does not
constitute an EV mandate, so the fact that Congress likewise did not adopt an EV mandate
provides no basis for suggesting that this rulemaking is beyond the scope of EPA's authority. In
fact, since EPA's 2021 LD GHG rule was adopted shortly after the BIL but shortly before the
IRA, Congress can be presumed to have acted in the IRA with knowledge of EPA's approach to
regulating motor vehicles for GHG emissions, and the fact that Congress increased incentives for
EVs and provided funding for states to adopt GHG standards, rather than objecting to EPA's
approach, confirms that the purpose of this legislation was not to displace EPA's authority (or to
correct EPA's views of its authority) but to support EPA's authority to set standards based on
ZEV emissions performance—to "combine[] new economic incentives to reduce climate
pollution with bolstered regulatory drivers that will allow EPA to drive further reduction under
its CAA authorities."248
While EPA's authority to promulgate the final rule arises from section 202(a) and does not
depend on the IRA, the IRA also reflects Congressional ratification of EPA's interpretation that
section 202(a)(1) encompasses standards for control of greenhouse gas emissions predicated on
performance of ZEVs. Section 60105(g) of the Inflation Reduction Act authorizes $5 million for
states "to adopt and implement greenhouse gas and zero emission standards for mobile sources
pursuant to section 177 of the Clean Air Act." Section 177 applies only to "standards relating to
the control of emission from new motor vehicles" for which Congress has granted a waiver from
federal preemption pursuant to CAA section 209(a). Consequently, the IRA indicates
Congress's intent that a "greenhouse gas and zero emission standar[d]" is a "standard for the
control of emissions from new motor vehicles."
Further, ratification is supported by the fact that Congress was aware of EPA's interpretation
that emission standards for new motor vehicles could be predicated on performance of zero
emission vehicles, and was equally aware that California was seeking a waiver for its GHG and
zero emissions vehicular standards. As the then-Chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee,
Representative Pallone stated, "Congress recognizes the reductions in GHG emissions from
motor vehicles and engines owing to increased engine efficiency, improved vehicle design, and
the transition to low- and zero-emission vehicles, including fuel-cell and battery-powered electric
vehicles. EPA's recent light-duty vehicle regulations establishing standards for motor vehicles
and engines for 2023 and later model years identify and incentivize these technological
developments.... Congress recognizes EPA's longstanding authority under CAA Section 202 to
adopt standards that rely on zero emission technologies, and Congress expects that future EPA
regulations will increasingly rely on and incentivize zero emission vehicles as appropriate."249
program of EPA grants and rebates towards the purchase of zero-emission heavy-duty vehicles, CAA 132(d)(5), and
creating a new CAA section 133 to provide grants for zero-emission port equipment or technology," which can
include zero emission drayage vehicles. Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, P.L. 117-1698, 136 Stat. 2064-65 (2022).
248 168 Cong. Rec. E868-02 (daily ed. Aug. 12, 2022) (statement of Rep. Pallone discussing the IRA); see also 168
Cong. Rec. at 880-02 (daily ed. Aug. 12, 2022) (statement of Rep. Pallone).
249 See 168 Cong. Rec. E879-02 at 880 (Aug. 26, 2022) (statement of Chairman of the House Energy and
Commerce Committee Rep. Pallone). Congress expressed equal awareness of the pending California waiver for its
zero emission GHG standards: "Section 60105(g) provides EPA $5 million to provide grants to states to adopt and
implement GHG and zero-emission standards for mobile sources pursuant to Section 177 of the CAA. Congress
supports states taking actions to address their air pollution and climate needs. An important tool that many states
have available is the ability to adopt California's GHG, zero-emissions vehicle, and criteria pollutant emissions
146
-------
The commenter overstates that ratification via appropriation is impossible. In fact, Congress
can confirm or ratify executive authority through an appropriation if "the appropriation ...
plainly show[s] a purpose to bestow the precise authority which is claimed."250 The ratification
must fund the specific action in question such that a ruling that the agency lacks authority to do
so would conflict with the specific language of the appropriation.251 That is the case here. If
standards predicated on ZEV performance were beyond EPA's authority, then this appropriation
for states to adopt the California GHG zero emission standards is negated, since such standards
could not be deemed "emission standards for new motor vehicles" requiring a waiver of
preemption.
Courts further require that the agency have an arguable basis for the action ostensibly being
ratified.252 EPA's assertions of authority here are at the very least arguable; indeed, as we
explain in preamble I, the statute provides clear Congressional authorization for the final
standards. Ratification by appropriation also "will not be accepted where prior knowledge of the
disputed action cannot be demonstrated clearly."253 As just documented, Congress was well
aware of both EPA's interpretation in its prior GHG rules, as well as the pending waiver request
from the State of California.
Summary of Specific Comments Related to Constitutional Provisions
The proposed rule may violate the Takings Clause of the Constitution and, to the extent that
the rule relies on any state's ZEV mandate, a number of other Constitutional provisions: the
Dormant Commerce Clause, the Import-Export Clause, the Privilege and Immunities Clause, and
the Full Faith and Credit Clause. (Valero)
Response Specific Comments Related to Constitutional Provisions
EPA disagrees with the commenter that the Takings Clause applies here. The Takings Clause
of the U.S. Constitution states that "private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without
just compensation." U.S. Const, amend. V. The purpose of the Takings Clause is to prevent
"Government from forcing some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and
justice, should be borne by the public as a whole." Penn Central Trans. Co. v. City of New York,
438 U.S. 104, 123 (1978). The protections of the Takings Clause apply to real property, see
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003, 1019 (1992), personal property, see
standards for mobile sources under Section 111, which they may submit to EPA afterwards as part of their state
measures. Funding available in Section 60105(g) is intended to support states wishing to use this tool. A necessary
predicate for states adopting California's standards under Section 177 is that EPA issue a waiver of preemption
pursuant to CAA Section 209. By making these funds available specifically for states to adopt and implement
California's GHG and zero emission mobile source standards, Congress indicates its approval of EPA's decision to
grant a waiver to California for such standards where the statutory criteria have been met." Id. (emphasis supplied).
250 Ex parte Endo, 323 U.S. 283, 3032 n. 24 (1944).
251 U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, PRICIPLES OF FEDERAL APPROPRIATIONS LAW
2-57 to 2-60, 2-72 to 2-76 (2016). See also Brooks v. Dewar, 313 U.S. 354, (1941) (Congress had ratified the
Secretary of Interior's construction of the Taylor Grazing Act by appropriating funds collected pursuant to the
Secretary's interpretation); Fleming v. Mohawk Wrecking & Lumber Co., 331 U.S. Ill, (1947) (finding Congress
had ratified a presidentially created temporary controls administrator by recognizing the office in an appropriation
bill).
252 D. C. Civic Action Ass'nsv.Airis, 391 F. 2d 478, 481 (D.C. Cir. 1968).
253 Id. at 482.
147
-------
Andrus v. Allard, 444 U.S. 51, 65 (1979), and intangible property, see Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto
Co., 467 U.S. 986, 1003-04 (1984)
Regulatory takings are treated more deferentially. Although a compensable taking can occur
by government regulations that unduly burden private property interests, see Pennsylvania Coal
Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393, 415 (1922), "[t]he mere regulation of the use of property, even if it
results in the diminution of its value and profitability does not constitute a taking within the
meaning of the fifth amendment." Nance v. EPA, 645 F.2d 701, 715 (9th Cir. 1981), cert, denied,
454 U.S. 1081 (1981). In considering whether a regulation constitutes a taking of private
property, '"the aggregate must be viewed in its entirety'" such that "for example, a regulation
that prohibited commercial transactions in eagle feathers, but did not bar other uses or impose
any physical invasion or restraint upon them, was not a taking." Tahoe-Sierra Preservation
Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg. Planning Agency, 535 U.S. 302, 328 (2002) (quoting Andrus, 444
U.S. at 66); see also Keystone Bituminous Coal Ass'n v. DeBenedictis, 480 U.S. 470, 498 (1987)
(holding that a requirement that coal pillars be left in place to prevent mine subsidence was not a
regulatory taking).
We do not believe the rule takes the property of any entity, let alone does it take the entirety
of any industry. The rule sets feasible emission standards, allowing industry to comply by the
means of its choosing. EPA's modeling of various pathways of compliance does not direct any
certain path, and even shows that no particular industry need be ceased to comply. To the extent
that a court could find a taking here, it cannot be viewed as barring all economic uses of such
property. This is true for all industries affected by this rule, from vehicle manufactures to fuels
and beyond.
Further, the injury that the commenter, who represents fuels interests, complains of is no more
than derivative economic injury not recognized by the courts as a Takings violation. A takings
claimant must, at minimum, assert that its property interest was actually taken by the government
action. See United States v. Gen. Motors Corps., 323 U.S. 373, 379 (1945); see also Yuba Nat.
Res., Inc. v. United States, 904 F.2d 1577, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (holding that "the measure of
just compensation is the fair value of what was taken, and not the consequential damages the
owner suffers as a result of the taking"); Klein v. United States, 375 F.2d 825, 829 (Ct. CI. 1967)
(holding that "compensation under the Fifth Amendment may be recovered only for property
taken and not for incidental or consequential losses, the rationale being that the sovereign need
only pay for what it actually takes rather than for all that the owner has lost"). But where, as
here, the regulation's indirect impact to the claimant flows only through its impact to another, the
claimant lacks a cognizable property interest. Air Pegasus of D C., Inc. v. United States, 424
F.3d 1206, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The rule addresses emissions from motor vehicles, without
directing the means of reduction. Although the affected vehicles may decrease fossil fuel
demand, that impact is incidental to the emissions controls required in the vehicles themselves.
As such, the commenter's warning of a takings violation through the rule's perceived economic
impact to fossil fuel demand is misplaced.
As for the remaining constitutional principles cited by commenter relating to state ZEV
mandates, EPA disagrees that any such principles apply. This action is a final rule issued by the
federal EPA, not an action issued by any State government. While EPA has carefully considered
and addressed comments on how the agency should account for state ZEV mandates in assessing
148
-------
factors like technology availability and costs, comments on the constitutionality of those state
ZEV mandates are beyond the scope of this rulemaking.
2.2 Applicability (specific applications)
2.2.1 Motorcoach
Comments by Organizations
Organization: American Bus Association (ABA)
Fleet Composition and Infrastructure
The Notice lays out several future fleet adoption rates for zero emissions vehicles (Table ES-3
and IF-3). While modestly aggressive estimates, the estimates significantly discount the current
and future state of the infrastructure. Based on the grant programs outlined and recently unveiled
under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA),
the technology suite being prioritized for adherence with these future goals appears to be electric
vehicles. However, the research has not yet been finalized in terms of what plug technology is
best suited for heavy-duty vehicle charging. In addition, according to the US Department of
Energy's Alternative Fuels Data Center
(https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/electricity_infrastructure.html), Direct Current (DC) Fast Charging
Stations would be needed to support heavy-duty vehicle charging given their current operational
models. There are currently less than 4800 of those type of DC charging stations in the United
States and very few in the midwestern and southern parts of the US. Based on projections in the
Notice that are looking to have roughly 2-3 vehicles supported at every charging station, the
current infrastructure is far below being able to support the current fleet offerings, even with
reasonable adoption rates of the new technologies. To go further, our current energy grid would
not be able to support a significant increase in electrical output to charging facilities. There are
already rolling blackouts in many parts of the country today
(https://www.americanexperiment.org/most-of-the-u-s-faces-elevated-risks-of-blackouts-during-
heatwaves-this-summer/). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1634-A1, p. 2]
We additionally have operational concerns about electric battery adoption for interstate
motorcoach operations, due to decreased baggage storage capacity in the luggage bay, plus
increased operating weight for the battery packs. If people are no longer able to travel as far, as
quickly or as comfortably as they are used to, will they continue to travel at all? Will motorcoach
vehicles even be able to operate without enduring costly overweight tickets, as mandated by our
current highway bridge formula which dictates vehicle size and weight? In just looking at the
specification sheets for new electric motorcoaches versus current diesel models currently
commercially available for sale, the below floor baggage storage capacity will be limited by at
least 75% (https://www.mcicoach.com/coach/electric-series/specs/ vs.
https://www.mcicoach.com/coach/j-series/specs/). While operational testing under fully loaded
passenger vehicles is somewhat incomplete, new research released by AAA points to range
decreases for electric vehicles approaching maximum load capacity
(https://www.ttnews.com/articles/AAA-evs-range-weight). Such unexpected and unplanned
range decreases could cripple long-range heavy-duty vehicle operations given the current status
149
-------
of the charging infrastructure. As noted in the specifications sheet for current and electric
motorcoaches, currently diesel motorcoaches can travel roughly 1200 miles on a full tank of fuel
and takes about 10-15 minutes to fill with diesel fuel. A fully loaded electric motorcoach
currently has a max range of 180-220 miles before needing a charge, which also takes a
minimum of 4 hours. This is a significant issue for motorcoach companies and passengers
needing to operate over long distances. Our passengers cannot afford to travel roughly 3 hours,
wait 4 hours for a full charge (assuming we can plug in upon arrival and no wait at a charging
station) and may unintentionally be left short of a charging station given the current
infrastructure, resulting in a safety hazard and increased operating costs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1634-A1, pp. 2-3]
We also share concerns with other commenters that even if the electric infrastructure expands
to meet the demand for expanded capacity and range, will charging speeds also advance to meet
operational requirements, to stay in phase with hours of service compliance requirements and
other safety concerns. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1634-A1, p. 3]
Technology Adoption
Many researchers believe hydrogen fuel cell technology may be a better fit for heavy-duty
vehicle operations and their increased need for longer range operations, and is something that is
briefly explored in this proposal. However, the concerns about the infrastructure for refueling for
hydrogen fuel technology are even more dire than they are currently for electric charging stations
compatible with heavy duty vehicles. There are currently less than 60 hydrogen fueling stations
in the United States and they are only in California. While there are a few grant incentives
currently available to motorcoach companies pursuing zero-emission technology, such as the
California HVIP program or the EPA DERA program, they focus on and prominently feature
battery electric vehicles on their approved vehicle lists (https://californiahvip.org/vehicle-
category/transit-bus/) or prioritize them on the verified technology list
(https://www.epa.gov/verified-diesel-tech/verified-technologies-list-clean-diesel). So even
though this proposal does explore alternate fuel technology alternatives, real world factors
assume and predict the assumed adoption of battery electric technology solutions. This makes
consideration of hydrogen fuel cell technology, unlikely and inconsequential. We also note from
the current unified agenda published by the Administration
(https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaMain), that standards are not yet fully formed for
safe hydrogen battery technology and are still under development (RIN 2127-AM40). Similarly,
safety standards are still being developed and adopted for heavy-duty electric batteries as well
(RIN 2127-AM43). Between a lack of safe or reliable technology development or operational
standards, a lack of existing infrastructure, unreliable projections for future infrastructure, it
seems prudent to delay a selection of any particular low or zero-emission technology strategy
and any fleet requirements or projections should be set aside. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1634-
Al, p. 3]
ABA and the motorcoach industry supports the exploration and investment in environmental
initiatives and the limiting of the expansion of greenhouse gas pollution, while we continue to
serve as a hallmark of sustainable and responsible environmental solutions. We hope that these
important contributions as well as the suggestion provided in comments from a multitude of
motorcoach operators, equipment manufacturers and on behalf of the traveling public will be
considered. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1634-A1, p. 5]
150
-------
Motorcoaches should be exempted from consideration under a phase 3 greenhouse gas
standard. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1634-A1, p. 5]
Organization: Bailey Coach - John Bailey
The Motorcoach industry is unique to the diesel engine industry and represents a very small
amount of the diesel engines on the road today [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1438-A1, p. 1]
We are not opposed to clean air technology; we have embraced it and provide a low-cost way
of travel. Costs of new motorcoaches are about $550,000.00 and with proposed electric over the
road coach models cost 1 million or more. With this type of cost, it will eliminate smaller
carriers and allow the survivors to charge higher rates to the public. The current electric coaches
have a short milage range, take too long to recharge and have no luggage capacity or place for
sports equipment. The infrastructure required to support the widespread adoption of charging of
EV Coaches is nonexistent. The motorcoach industry is already short on drivers and equipment
due the covid pandemic along with a 12 month wait time for ordering new equipment and now
we fear the engine manufacturers will not be able to meet the 2027 mandate due the size of our
industry. The lack of motorcoach parking in cities causes drivers driving through cities circling
blocks looking for a safe spot to park their 45-foot 50,000-pound vehicle. A coach operating 7-
10-day sightseeing tour would have to recharge every 300 or so miles and this would limit the
distance we could cover in a normal day; a normal travel day is about 450 miles on multi day
tours [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1438-A1, pp. 1-2]
I ask that you classify our industry differently from the trucking industry as we represent
about 1% of the diesel powered over the road vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1438-A1,
p. 2]
Organization: Black Tie Transportation Bus Charters
Currently, the Over-The-Road Motorcoach industry, specifically within the State of North
Carolina, and Black Tie Transportation Bus Charters is in a dilemma. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1602-A1, p. 1]
Black Tie Transportation Bus Charters and 99% of the over-the-road Motorcoach Companies
are primarily composed of small family run operations, which have always strived for excellence
and perfection. We are a service related industry that utilizes equipment from a handful of
motorcoach manufacturers. While the nationwide motorcoach manufacturers are less than 10,
there are only 3 major manufacturers of propulsion systems for this equipment (Cummins,
Mercedes Benz, and Volvo - * Detroit Diesel notified the industry in 2020, they will no longer
support the small motorcoach industry). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1602-A1, p. 1]
All these current propulsion systems manufacturers are diligently working to create
innovative and alternative sources of power while we, (the operators) are thrust into a quandary.
We must wait for technology to emerge, and we have no control over this or how quickly and
efficiently it will occur. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1602-A1, p. 1]
Along with the entire motorcoach industry, we eagerly anticipate the day we can be
considered a "zero-emissions" industry. Though today, we must standby and await the
technology to come to completion. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1602-A1, p. 1]
151
-------
A study by The University of Vermont Extension, conducted by David Kestenbaum, which
began in 2009 titled "Green Coach Certification program", helps to identify steps our industry
has taken to offset carbon emissions. Active participation in this program demonstrates our
commitment to improvement. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1602-A1, p. 1]
Further analysis by "the Union of Concerned Scientists"; "Motor Coaches Leave Carbon in
the Dust*
It's plain and simple: buses are the low-carbon travel champ. On a per-passenger basis, buses
emit less than one-sixth the carbon pollution of a typical car with one passenger. Put another
way, every person who chooses motor coach travel instead of driving alone reduces his or her
carbon dioxide emissions by an average of 85 percent. This couldn't be better news for climate
change. Even at today's average occupancy rates, your carbon footprint will be a mere 0.17
pound for every mile you travel on a motor coach—the smallest footprint of any mode for people
traveling alone or with a companion. *Getting There Greener, Union of Concerned
Scientists [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1602-A1, p. 1]
Total North American sales of motorcoaches is estimated at 2,500 per year. Medium and
heavy truck sales were almost 500,000 in 2022. The motorcoach industry is simply too small to
be a focus for powertrain manufacturers (as is evident by Detroit Diesel pulling away from the
Motorcoach industry) and we have to rely on advances on the truck side to be developed and
then applied to our industry, which significantly delays implementation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1602-A1, pp. 1 -2]
We ask that our industry be provided with a waiver / exemption until the technology is
invented and proven to assist our industry towards compliance while maintaining our ability to
service our clients, including emergency and military operations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1602-A1, p. 2]
The current "ICE" engine allows most of the vehicles (complying with FMCSA - Hours of
Service requirements, with a single driver) to travel up to 600 miles in one day, which assists in
accomplishing the tasks of the "emergency vehicle", as stated above. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1602-A1, p.2]
From a client perspective, this affords seamless travel for a wide range of uses. From an
emergency perspective, it makes our assistance possible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1602-A1,
p.2]
While the engine manufacturers advise they will meet the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency 2027 Model Year requirements for heavy-duty engines, they will not meet the MYs
2024, 2025, 2026. This places heavy-duty vehicle operators at a distinct disadvantage as
manufacturers will not be able to sell to "CARB" states (including North Carolina). Unable to
acquire newer updated engines with existing technology that reduces emissions, North Carolina
is unwittingly increasing emissions by compelling operators of heavy-duty vehicles to retain
older equipment instead of the next step in modernization. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1602-A1,
p.2]
Motorcoaches are designed and manufactured to carry 55+ passengers and their luggage on
long distance travel. The infrastructure for readily charging batteries in heavy duty vehicles
traveling long distances does not exist yet, although progress is being made. There are some
152
-------
indications hydrogen fuel cells may be the logical next step for zero emissions heavy duty
vehicles such as motorcoaches. While this technology is promising, the technology remains
under development as does the refueling infrastructure. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1602-A1,
pp. 2 - 3]
Challenges we identify:
We are "Green" - carrying 56 or more (up to 80) passengers at one time, significantly
reducing individual vehicles on the highway, while greenhouse gases and emissions being
emitted are significantly decreased. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1602-A1, p. 3]
Until technology can meet or exceed the current levels of operations, emergency operations
will be severely impacted if ICE engines are removed without an adequate alternative. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1602-A1, p. 3]
While there are a few alternative fuel vehicles being evaluated, there are no "over-the-road"
motorcoaches available to our industry, at present or being tested in actual use for the services
described above. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1602-A1, p. 3]
The vehicles which have been "tested" have identified various challenges, including but not
limited to: charging facilities which could accommodate a motorcoach, the weight of the vehicle
and handling characteristics while on the highway, significant loss of storage space within the
vehicle, maintenance challenges (mechanic knowledge and abilities), distance the vehicle could
travel, time the vehicle could remain active on the highway, time required to replenish the
batteries, plus others. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1602-A1, p. 3]
Currently there is not an alternative fuel - Sustainable - that has been brought forth and
regularly available for our industry. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1602-A1, p. 3]
At this time, consequences for non-compliance should be set aside, as "we" (the operators)
have no control over the innovative technological advancements required. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1602-A1, p. 3]
We are frequently called for emergency situations, which require the vehicles to be active and
ready to move 24 hours a day. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1602-A1, p. 3]
Our recommendation would be: The State should adopt the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency regulation for MY 2027 heavy-duty diesel engines so that North Carolina operators of
large heavy-duty vehicles can continue to upgrade their fleets for Mys 2024-2026. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1602-A1, p. 3]
Organization: Brown, David
The motorcoach industry is small in total with only about 2500 new over the road buses added
per year in North America, and it is comprised of some corporate, but mostly small family
owned and operated enterprises. Even with our small stature, and small organizations, we
succeed in carrying school groups on their field trips, senior groups on outings, military groups
needing relocation, emergency support for utility workers in times of disaster, and evacuation of
citizens in the aftermath of events like Katrina in New Orleans. We are a small, but essential,
part of the US transportation solution. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1970, p.l]
153
-------
Our small size has many benefits, but it also comes with limitations. While there are half a
million new trucks put on the road each year, there are only about 2500 over the road buses. For
this reason, new technology development is slow and really needs to be proven elsewhere for the
most part. For something as drastic as trying to move over the road buses to a non-diesel solution
will require massive R&D and will be fraught with trial and error. These iterations will go much
more quickly with trucking. If over the road buses are subjected to the same process, there will
be failures in troop movements, inabilities to respond in times of national disasters, and
disappointing field trips. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1970, p.l]
My request is that the bus industry be exempted from compliance until which time that the
technology can be proven to be reliable an effective. In our disaster relief efforts for Katrina, it
was necessary to have buses in operation for up to 36 hours straight. No current or planned
technology could be implemented to achieve the requirements of the motorcoach industry and
allowing us to meet the needs in front of us. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1970, p.l]
We are not against progress and the industry had participated in many green initiatives, most
notably by the University of Vermont. We are by our very nature 'green' in that we move large
numbers of people in a single vehicle. It is simply that we offer essential services that require
robust equipment. Let trucking work out the kinks, then give our three manufacturers, none of
which are US based, sufficient time to implement the technologies that work. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1970, p.l]
Organization: Compass Coach Inc.
Cost: The price for a new motorcoach currently is between 575,000-650k, this is a huge
expense for a small business, but we pay that to get new, clean coaches. We are already
financially strapped to keep our fleets modern due to the price tag. However, an all-electric
motorcoach is double that of a typical motorcoach with a price tag coming in around 1.1
million. This will lead to smaller companies being priced out of the market, which could reduce
competition and lead to higher prices for consumers. It will also discourage fleet owners from
purchasing new model year vehicles and will lead operators running older models for longer
periods. This is counterproductive, instead of operators migrating towards cleaner options with
advance technology, they will opt to keep their fleet with vehicles that produce higher Nox and
GHG. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1498-A1, p.2]
Range: Just to quick background of our industry and how we operate, or vehicles travel across
country for multiple days at a time. Many times, our trips will exceed 1000 miles in a
day. Taking a group of students from Michigan to our Nation's Capital in DC currently takes us
about 15 hours in a coach. The range of electric vehicles is extremely limited compared to a
traditional combustion engine. Currently, our vehicles can travel roughly 1200 miles on a full
tank, and takes about 10 minutes to fill with diesel. The technology for EV coaches as of now
has a max range of 180 miles before needing a charge, which also takes minimum of 4 hour. This
is a significant issue for motorcoach companies to operate over long distances. Our customer
cannot afford to travel roughly 3 hours, wait 4 hours for a full charge (assuming we can plug in
upon arrival and no wait at charging station). Our groups are on a time crunch and expect to be
at their destination in a timely manner. A 2 day trip would turn into a 6-7 day trip, which will
make motorcoach travel undesirable. Our customer will seek other means of
transportation. Even if time of travel was not a factor, it would make the cost of travel to
154
-------
expensive for customer. Having to pay for additional nights in hotel, meals, wages, etc... would
all add up to make travel unaffordable. More than likely, our industry would slowly diminish
and wither away as groups will seek alternative options, such as airline travel. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1498-A1, pp.2-3]
No luggage space: very simple, the EV's that are currently on the market have ZERO luggage
space because they have been converted to battery storage. Our industry depends on a large area
of luggage space to accommodate passenger bags, athletic equipment, band instruments, and
other items used while on a voyage. Eliminating luggage space for batteries, again, will lead to
customer seeking other means of transportation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1498-A1, p.3]
Safety: This is our main priority, getting 56 athletes/families/children/senior citizens to their
destination safely. While electric vehicles are generally considered safe, there are some concerns
about the safety of the lithium-ion batteries that power these vehicles. These batteries can catch
fire or explode in certain situations, such as during a crash. We do everything we possibly can to
prevent any accident, but if or when something does happen, its important that our passenger
have every chance at survival. An Explosion from a battery would significantly reduce the
chance of survival. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1498-A1, p.3]
Maintenance. All of our technicians are trained and educated in diesel technology. For them
to start from scratch and learn an entirely new type of system is unrealistic. Technicians are hard
to come by as is, and this will only further hinder our ability to maintain are safe/reliable
fleet. Smaller operators and operators in remote areas would struggle finding talented techs, and
will lead to more road side break downs with lack of proper maintenance. What we are hearing
from industry professionals is that we would be in need of a technical expert with a degree in
electrical engineering to maintain these vehicles. So many companies may find it unfeasible to
operate and close their doors permanently. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1498-A1, p.3]
Infrastructure: The infrastructure required to support widespread adoption of electric vehicles
is nowhere near what would be needed to supply the demand for charging if EV's are
mandated. Especially in remote areas where are groups travel regularly. This includes not only
charging stations, but also the electrical grid that will need to support increased demand for
electricity. Without adequate infrastructure in place, mandating electric vehicles could create
more problems than it solves. I have been told by electricity representatives, that if just 30% of
the car owning population goes to electric cars, that the grid will not support this use. And if it
does get to 30% and for some gift of god, the grid system can handle this... .that there would
need to be a new energy plant (Coal/nuclear/water/wind etc), built every 100 miles apart from
each other. Everybody wants clean electricity, but NOBODY wants a electricity plant in their
backyard! That is the simple truth. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1498-A1, p.3]
Cost of charging: To add charging stations at each motorcoach facility for every vehicle is
unrealistic. We have a fleet of 70 vehicles, which would require 70 charging stations at our
terminal home base. The cost to add these are very expensive and our local power supplier said
it would be impossible to do this on a widespread level. Even though the price is astronomical to
add in these charging stations, on top of that, we are still paying for energy through the electric
bill. Electricity does not magically appear; it is produced through other means and many times
that is through non renewable resources. An overwhelming majority of electricity is produced
by Coal powered plants and natural gas. Seeing train carts full of black dirty coal being
transported to the power plants is only going to get more and more prominent if we go in
155
-------
the direction EPA has proposed. There has to be a source of energy, 60% is supplied by fossil
fuels. So again, it is counterproductive assuming electric vehicles will replace all carbon
power. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1498-A1, pp.3-4]
Organization: Field trips 101, Inc.
I have several buses that run continuously 24 hours a day 7 days a week. We don't have any
logistics built in nor is it possible to accommodate a bus that ONLY does 200 miles before a
recharge is required. I have another route that is 240 miles one way. I would need two buses for a
single route. What about all those senior trips were the kids go to DC and we got a drive them
500 miles to get there. What about when we're moving the soldiers for the department of defense
and they need to get out for deployment and we can only go 200 miles? You need to leave the
Motorcoach industry, unscathed and unaffected and you could apply this to more shipping
because goods don't necessarily need to get to where they need to go and one fell swoop, but
people certainly do especially in the middle of the winter or going through death Valley. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1971, p.l]
Why is our Government pushing for a alternative energy source that is NOT practical. There
is so much talk of Hydrogen Energy and how this would provide better energy in my opinion
then electricity. Hydrogen fuel would be a lot more practicable in a motorcoach. Lets lean on
this technology and see if this can work for motorcoach/trucks and locomotives. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1498-A1, p.4]
Organization: Holiday Companies, Inc. - Jonathan Moody
I am writing to you today to implore you to consider the ramifications of this policy on the
most forgotten of industries - the Motorcoach Charter Industry. I know you have the capability
to do this, because on December 20, 2022, the EPA adopted a final rule called 'Control of Air
Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards.' That final rule
set aside a special set of rules for Motorcoach Operators because they recognized the rapid derate
schedule that would work for trucks harshly and dangerously affected the passengers we
transport every day. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1497-A1, p. 1]
That's right - these could be your kids, grandkids, parents, siblings... People of every age,
gender, and ethnicity rely on our transportation to make their travel easy and safe on a daily
basis. In every circumstance, if this rule comes down and does not exclude motorcoaches, these
situations will do one of two things: they will either cease to exist or they will dramatically
increase in costs. Why? A couple main reasons:
• Cost - Right now EV buses are around 2X the cost of a normal bus. For reference, a new
45' motorcoach costs $550,000-675,000.
• Range - Right now, our clean diesel motorcoaches have a 222 gallon diesel tank, capable
of going around 1,200 miles. To achieve that range legally today, would take more than 2
drivers full daily On- Duty Drive Time. An electric bus by comparison, will struggle to
make 250 miles. And then instead of a 10-15 minute fill-up, it's a 3-4 hour wait for your
batteries to charge. Long travel days that take 2 drivers and 16 hours today with no
overnight costs, will now take 3-4 days with multiple hotel stops.
156
-------
• Cargo space - Remember that group of Seniors we discussed on a 13-day Yellowstone
tour? That group will fill over 300 cubic feet of baggage space. On an Electric bus, there
is very little baggage space. This trip wo
• Infrastructure - The availability and ability of buses to charge over the road does not
exist today. It would take an insane amount of infrastructure, all to continue to face the
other problems discussed.
• Emissions - Motorcoaches are the lowest Carbon Dioxide Emission per passenger mile
form of transportation that exists today. Period, full stop, end of statement. A motorcoach
gets 240 passenger miles per gallon compared to commuter rail at 90, Transit buses at 70,
Hybrid cars at 50, and a gas passenger car at 28. We are a green industry. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1497-A1, p. 1]
I hope you see, taking motorcoaches off the road will, in the end, increase the number of
vehicles on the road, and increase the amount of carbon dioxide that is being spread in the
environment. I implore you today to recognize the significance of the motorcoach industry, and
to do so by separating us from the trucking companies this rule is aimed at. We know changes
are coming, and that they are needed, but I beg you to remember our industry and think about the
effects these rules will have on our groups. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1497-A1, p. 1]
Organization: United Motorcoach Association (UMA)
The proposed GHG standards for heavy-duty highway vehicles starting in model year (MY)
2028 through MY 2032 create uncertainty. Engine manufacturers have advised operating
companies that they will not be capable of meeting CARB MY 2024, 2025, and 2026 standards.
While we presume engine manufacturers will meet EPA requirements for MY 2027, new
standards for 2028-2032 create more uncertainty and fear that engine manufacturers may
eventually abandon research, development, and production of new heavy-duty diesel engines to
meet regulatory demands. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1627-A1, p. 2]
If unable to obtain new engines or zero emissions vehicles with some level of certainty,
motorcoach companies may simply hold on to older motorcoaches with less desirable
emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1627-A1, p. 2]
Concerns are compounded by the uncertainties surrounding heavy-duty vehicles transition to
zero emission vehicles. The proposal suggests motorcoaches will likely transition to fuel cell
electric vehicles, however, there is virtually no discussion within the industry of adopting this
technology. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1627-A1, p. 2]
While battery electric and hydrogen fuel cell technology look promising for heavy-duty
vehicle application, both remain in development stages for motorcoaches and are not currently
viable for the motorcoach service consumer. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1627-A1, p. 3]
Typical consumers of motorcoach services have baggage and often equipment (sports teams,
military, high school/college bands/orchestra, etc.). Early development of zero emission vehicles
reduces baggage capacity to the degree the motorcoach will not meet the needs of the consumer
and will require alternative or supplemental transportation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1627-
Al, p. 3]
157
-------
Along with 50+ passengers and baggage, motorcoaches must heat, cool, furnish passenger
compartment lighting, internet and USB/110 outlets. Until there are technical advances, battery
electric powered motorcoaches will have limited range before charging is required. While drivers
are recharging, they will likely be considered on duty/not driving for purposes of logging hours-
of-service. Depending on the length of the trip, additional drivers (already in short supply) may
be required, further adding to the cost that may not have been contemplated in EPA's
calculations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1627-A1, p. 3]
Compounding the limited range is the current lack of infrastructure for recharging batteries
that must include safe and comfortable locations to deboard the motorcoach passengers. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1627-A1, p. 3]
Motorcoach providers are routinely called upon to provide emergency service during
hurricanes and wildfire. Emergency planners often stage fuel tanker/trucks to assure ample diesel
to complete the trip as traditional outlets are frequently closed due to a loss of electricity. Before
the motorcoach industry transitions to battery electric or fuel cell electricity, this must be
addressed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1627-A1, p. 3]
The current cost of a motorcoach exceeds $500,000 and often exceeds $600,000. Early
estimates of battery electric equipped motorcoaches are over $1 million. We are unaware of any
fuel cell electric motors under development for motorcoaches, so we are unable to predict the
cost. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1627-A1, p. 3]
Motorcoach companies' capital costs are not subsidized by federal, state and/or local grants
and must amortize the cost of the capital investment in the cost of group charter fees and
individual fares. Many consumers of motorcoach services will find these monetary increases
challenging if not impossible to pay the cost of increased group charter prices and individual
fares. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1627-A1, p. 3]
Along with training drivers the nuances of a motorcoach powered by batteries or hydrogen
fuel cells, mechanics will require specialized training for maintenance, repair, and safety. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1627-A1, p. 3]
While the motorcoach industry appears to be accepting EPA standards for MY 2027, the
aggressive adoption of new regulations for MY 2028-2032 will require significant engine
manufacturer research and development, capital investments by motorcoach companies, the
burden of maintaining and repairing motorcoaches with a variety of technologies. The proposed
transition will also be burdened with additional driver cost. All increased costs will preclude
some charter groups and individuals from travelling. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1627-A1, p. 3]
We respectfully request EPA consider the condition and size of the motorcoach industry post
COVID and permit a slower adoption of heavy-duty diesel technology while zero emission
technology and the associated infrastructure matures. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1627-A1, p. 3]
UMA encourages comprehensive studies with definitive conclusions before pursuing further
rulemaking. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1627-A1, p. 3]
158
-------
Organization: Vandalia Bus Lines, Inc.
Cost: The price for a new motorcoach currently is between 500-600k, this is a huge expense
for us as is. We are already financially strapped to keep our fleets modern due to the price
tag. However, an all-electric motorcoach is double that of a typical motorcoach with a price tag
coming in around 1.1 million. This will lead to smaller companies being priced out of the
market, which could reduce competition and lead to higher prices for consumers. It will also
discourage fleet owners from purchasing new model year vehicles and will lead operators
running older models for longer periods. This is counterproductive, instead of operators
migrating towards cleaner options with advance technology, they will opt to keep their fleet with
vehicles that produce higher Nox and GHG. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1491-A1, p.2]
Range: Just to quick background of our industry and how we operate, or vehicles travel across
country for multiple days at a time. Many times, our trips will exceed 1000 miles in a
day. Taking a group of students from St. Louis to our Nation's Capital in DC currently takes us
about 15 hours in a coach. The range of electric vehicles is extremely limited compared to a
traditional combustion engine. Currently, our vehicles can travel roughly 1200 miles on a full
tank, and takes about 10 minutes to fill with diesel. The technology for EV coaches as of now
has a max range of 180 miles before needing a charge, which also takes minimum of 4 hour. This
is a significant issue for motorcoach companies to operate over long distances. Our customer
cannot afford to travel roughly 3 hours, wait 4 hours for a full charge (assuming we can plug in
upon arrival and no wait at charging station). Our groups are on a time crunch and expect to be
at their destination in a timely manner. A 2 day trip would turn into a 6-7 day trip, which
will make motorcoach travel undesirable. Our customer will seek other means of
transportation. Even if time of travel was not a factor, it would make the cost of travel to
expensive for customer. Having to pay for additional nights in hotel, meals, wages, etc... would
all add up to make travel unaffordable. More than likely, our industry would slowly diminish
and wither away as groups will seek alternative options, such as airline travel. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1491-Al,pp.2-3]
No luggage space: very simple, the EV's that are currently on the market have ZERO luggage
space because they have been converted to battery storage. Our industry depends on a large area
of luggage space to accommodate passenger bags, athletic equipment, band instruments, and
other items used while on a voyage. Eliminating luggage space for batteries, again, will lead to
customer seeking other means of transportation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1491-Al,p.3]
Safety: This is our main priority, getting 56 athletes/families/children/senior citizens to their
destination safely. While electric vehicles are generally considered safe, there are some concerns
about the safety of the lithium-ion batteries that power these vehicles. These batteries can catch
fire or explode in certain situations, such as during a crash. We do everything we possibly can to
prevent any accident, but if or when something does happen, its important that our passenger
have every chance at survival. An Explosion from a battery would significantly reduce the
chance of survival. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1491-A1, p.3]
Infrastructure: The infrastructure required to support widespread adoption of electric vehicles
is nowhere near what would be needed to supply the demand for charging if EV's are
mandated. Especially in remote areas where are groups travel regularly. This includes not only
charging stations, but also the electrical grid that will need to support increased demand for
159
-------
electricity. Without adequate infrastructure in place, mandating electric vehicles could create
more problems than it solves. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1491-Al,p.3]
Cost of charging: To add charging stations at each motorcoach facility for every vehicle is
unrealistic. We have a fleet of 70 vehicles, which would require 70 charging stations at our
terminal home base. The cost to add these are very expensive and our local power supplier said
it would be impossible to do this on a widespread level. Even though the price is astronomical to
add in these charging stations, on top of that, we are still paying for energy through the electric
bill. Electricity does not magically appear; it is produced through other means and many times
that is through non renewable resources. An overwhelming majority of electricity is produced
by Coal powered plants and natural gas. Seeing train carts full of black dirty coal being
transported to the power plants is only going to get more and more prominent if we go in the
direction EPA has proposed. There has to be a source of energy, 60% is supplied by fossil fuels.
So again, it is counterproductive assuming electric vehicles will replace all carbon power. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1491-A1, p.3]
Maintenance. All of our technicians are trained and educated in diesel technology. For them
to start from scratch and learn an entirely new type of system is unrealistic. Technicians are hard
to come by as is, and this will only further hinder our ability to maintain are safe/reliable
fleet. Smaller operators and operators in remote areas would struggle finding talented techs, and
will lead to more road side break downs with lack of proper maintenance. What we are hearing
from industry professionals is that we would be in need of a technical expert with a degree in
electrical engineering to maintain these vehicles. So many companies may find it unfeasible to
operate and close their doors permanently. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1491-A1, p.3]
EPA Summary and Response:
Summary:
ABA, Bailey Coach, Black Tie Transportation Bus Charters, Compass Coach, D. Brown,
Holiday Companies, Field Trips 101, United Motorcoach Association, and Vandalia Bus Lines
raised concerns related to the ability of motorcoaches to perform their mission (transporting
people and their cargo) using battery electric technology. Furthermore, commenters raised
concerns regarding the infrastructure needs for electrified motorcoaches because these vehicles
would need to rely on public enroute charging.
Response:
As described in Chapter 2.2.1.2, there are some existing BEV coach buses; however, these
buses include less underfloor storage volume than comparable coach buses in the market today.
Therefore, as discussed in preamble Section II.F.l and RIA Chapter 2.9.1.2, EPA re-analyzed the
packaging space available for batteries on motorcoaches and updated our analysis and approach
in the final rule for coach buses as further explained in those sections. Under the final rule,
EPA's optional custom chassis standards for Coach Buses will remain unchanged from the
existing Phase 2 MY 2027+ CO2 emission standards.
Please see Sections 3 and 4 of this RTC document for our responses relating to our analysis of
costs, range, infrastructure, maintenance and repairs, and safety with respect to the other heavy-
duty vehicle sectors for which the final rule will apply.
160
-------
2.2.2 Concrete Mixer/Concrete Pumper
Comments by Organizations
Organization: American Concrete Pumping Association (ACPA)
The majority of our member companies are small businesses, family-owned and operated.
Concrete pump companies operate in every state, in urban, suburban, and rural areas. Concrete
pumps use a single engine to propel themselves over the roads to and from job sites daily and to
operate their pumps in power take-off (PTO) mode. Concrete pumps need robust electric battery
technology to support their energy needs, as well as a geographically comprehensive charging
network to ensure operation reliability. Until such technology and infrastructure exist, ACPA
opposes the implementation of the proposed standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1593-A1,
p. 1]
As a relatively small, but highly impactful construction industry, the concrete pumpers have
some serious concerns about the implementation of this proposed Phase 3 rule. Concrete pump
companies purchase the truck chassis from major truck manufacturers and the pumps from pump
manufacturers. We are subject to what those markets provide. While we work closely with our
manufacturing partners, we do not develop new technology. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1593-
Al, p. 2]
First, we are concerned about access to the technology needed by the truck manufacturers to
meet the standards in the time allowed in the proposed rule. We understand from our truck
manufacturers that the electric vehicle (EV) technology required to build an electric concrete
pump does not exist now. While they are working on developing the EV technology, they do not
expect to complete all the work necessary to deliver compliant vehicles on the schedule
described in the proposed rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1593-A1, p. 2]
Second, replacing the diesel engines that now power concrete pumps to drive to and from jobs
sites, as well as to operate the pumps in power take off mode or PTO on the job sites, with
electric batteries will add significant weight to operating concrete pumps. Our operators are
concerned that a heavier electric-powered concrete pump would not be able to access all job sites
because it could exceed road and bridge weight limits. As stated above, concrete pumps are
mobile machinery; concrete pumps do not carry a load and cannot reduce their weight. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1593-A1, p. 2]
Third, as mobile machinery, concrete pumps travel to jobs sites daily. Our members are
concerned about access to charging stations where they will need them and the potential delay
caused by the need to recharge the batteries on the road and at job sites. This is a particular
concern for our operators that serve rural areas. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1593-A1, p. 2]
Fourth, liquid concrete is a perishable product. Ready-mixed concrete trucks deliver liquid
concrete to the hopper of the concrete pump set up at the job site. The concrete is pumped
through the boom (65 to 200 feet) and placed where it will cure into the final product. There is a
limited amount of time before the concrete begins to harden. Should an EV concrete pump run
out of battery supply while it is pumping, the damage to the pump would be catastrophic. One
may argue that a concrete pump operator should be able to plan to avoid such a situation.
However, concrete pump operators work around delays on construction job sites on a regular
161
-------
basis. Currently, the concrete pumps' fuel supply is sufficient to allow for significant delay
without risk of running out of fuel before the pumping is complete. Without EV charging stations
on job sites, the risk of a shutdown exists, and the damage caused by a shutdown while pumping
would be catastrophic - to the equipment and to construction workers and all near the
construction site. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1593-A1, p. 2]
Finally, threat to the power supply of the concrete pump presents serious risks on and around
job sites to construction workers and those around the construction site. If a concrete pump loses
all power supply, the hydraulics would fail, and the boom will fall. In addition, the outriggers
that support the truck chassis of the concrete pump while in PTO could fail as well, causing the
whole concrete pump to tip and fall. Such actions can cause fatalities. Alternatively, if a concrete
pump operator determines that it is possible to "clean" a boom filled with hardened concrete,
cleaning a concrete pump boom with compressed air is a very dangerous activity that could
cause fatal accidents. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1593-A1, pp. 2-3]
The bottom line is that the concrete pumpers see this proposed rule as a direct threat to their
ability to operate their businesses. Should EPA move forward with this proposal, ACPA requests
that EPA allow for exceptions or extensions to allow concrete pumps to operate while the truck
chassis manufacturers develop and implement the technology needed to produce EV concrete
pumps and the charging station infrastructure is adequate to support powering such EV concrete
pumps. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2022-0985-1593- A 1, p. 3]
Organization: American Trucking Associations (ATA)
For example, under the vocational category, 35 percent of concrete mixers would need to be
electrified by 2032 7. Requiring an electrified powertrain to mix and place concrete risks
catastrophic internal component failure when interruptions to the power unit occur. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1535-A1, p. 7] [See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1535-A1, page
7 for Figure 1],
7 U.S. Environmental and Protection Agency, Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Medium-Heavy
Duty Vehicles-Phase 3, Draft Impact Regulatory Analysis, pg. 242, April 27, 2023.
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
CARB staff note emergence of diverse highly specialized ZEV examples in the U.S. and
internationally many of which could fall into the custom chassis definition, highlighting how the
fast-growing nature of this sector directionally supports greater inclusion into the stronger
vocational standards instead of the weaker custom chassis standards. Multiple manufacturers and
upfitters already have ZEV examples that include concrete mixers,46 truck cranes,47 knuckle
boom cranes,48 bucket trucks,49 sewer cleaning trucks,50 armored trucks,51 stinger-steered auto
carrier transports,52 street sweepers,53 aviation fuel delivery,54 container roll off, hook loader
and skip loaders,55 school buses,56 double decker and motorcoaches,57 and refuse.58 This
specialized ZEV development activity is even reaching into emergency response vehicles
including BEV and ZE-capable plug-in fire trucks59 and BEV and FCEV ambulances.60 [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1591-A1, pp.21-26]
46 Concrete mixer examples.
https://www.electrive.com/2022/02/14/unicon-volvo-trucks-collaborate-on-electric-concrete-mixers/
162
-------
https://www.ft.com/content/750327ec-ab2f-4b62-8fc3-548ala71al93
https://www.electrive.com/2021/01/19/futuricum-delivers-three-electric-concrete-mixer-tracks-toholcim/
https://www.electrive.eom/2021/01/19/futuricum-delivers-three-electric-concrete-mixer-tracks-to-
holcim/#:~:text=Designwerk%20has%20delivered%20three%20electric,drums%20are%20fully%20electric
ally%20operated.
http://concreteproducts.eom/index.php/2018/05/15/national-cement-parent-drives-carbon-emissionsfree-
mixer-project/
https://www.liebherr.eom/en/deu/latest-news/news-press-releases/detail/first-fully-electric-10-and-12-m3-
track-mixers-from-liebherr-and-designwerk.html
https://www.liebherr.com/en/deu/latest-news/news-press-releases/detail/first-fully-electric-10-and-12-m3-
track-mixers-from-liebherr-and-designwerk.html
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/sany-battery-electric-track-mixers-when-traditionalconcrete-
mixing-goes-green-30113 8618. html
https://www.prnewswire.com/in/news-releases/sany-embraces-the-era-of-cleaner-fuel-with-hydrogenfuel-
cell-constraction-vehicles-873229355.html
https://www.driven.co.nz/news/new-zealand-set-to-get-first-electric-milk-tanker-after-governmentfunding-
boost/
https://mp.weixin.qq.eom/s/3_oDaY5fTTdMf-XSMUbvdA
https://www.electrive.eom/2022/06/30/tarmac-orders-electric-mixer-track-from-renault-tracks/
https://www.muldereurope.com/elektrisch-aangedreven-betonmixers/
https://lectura.press/en/article/putzmeister-launches-the-first-zero-emissions-track-mounted-
concretepump/59003
http://www.spanos-group.com/energya-k42e-new-battery-electric-driven-concrete-track-pump-cifa/
https://www.pveurope.eu/e-mobility/electric-utility-vehicles-paul-group-develops-battery-electricconcrete-
mixer
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America, LLC
DTNA recommends that EPA review energy consumption assumptions and battery sizing
characteristics for vocational truck categories. DTNA believes many HHD vocational categories
operate with energy-intensive duty cycles that are not well-predicted from daily VMT.
Vocational applications greatly differ from the tractor applications presented here (e.g. cement
mixers, dump trucks, etc.) and it is likely that vocational applications will require several more
years of research and development, necessarily delaying their implementation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 22]
Organization: MEMA
Section 3: Continuous, stationary use and occasional high-performance demands
Similarly, ready-mix concrete applications need to continuously turn the drum to avoid
concrete hardening leading to higher fuel burn in the range of 35-49% from PTO usage. This is
higher fuel burn from PTO usage than referenced NREL data from utility bucket trucks showing
<15% fuel burn from intermittent PTO usage. Likewise, concrete pumpers have extremely high-
performance needs for PTO that would require higher performance PTO than utility bucket
163
-------
trucks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1570-A1, p. 20.] [See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1570-A1, page. 20, for referenced figures.]
Organization: National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA)
EPA should, in its final rule, improve upon its proposal by adopting federal Phase 3 GHG
emission standards that, at a minimum, are based on values that reflect ACT ZEV sales
percentages through MY 2032 but with more rigorous standards for several types of heavy-duty
vehicles: 1) transit buses and school buses, for which federal funds for electrification are
specifically targeted and various states have laws and policies setting electric vehicle and ZEV
purchasing goals and requirements and 2) refuse and concrete trucks, for which EPA already
projects substantial ZEV market uptake. Also of note is that because of their vocation, emissions
from these vehicle types significantly impact overburdened communities. These vehicle
categories, with many existing ZEV technologies, should be removed from the weaker Custom
Chassis GHG standards and placed back in Vocational GHG standards with the flexibility option
to remain in the Custom Chassis GHG standards if they produce a minimum fraction of ZEVs to
offset the difference in standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1499-A1, p. 6]
Organization: Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
Vehicles such as Class 8 concrete mixers typically are "spec'd" to carry 10 to 11 yards of
concrete, which is equivalent to 40,000 to 44,000 pounds of concrete, fully three-times the
weight that GEM assessed in Phase 3 to determine the energy needed for a concrete mixer to
perform its work. That significant underestimation causes the battery size to be substantially
undersized and the associated cost to be well below what would actually be needed for this
application. That also significantly skews the payback and adoption rate analysis in HD TRUCS.
Thus, the concrete mixer application is one that needs a dramatically lower adoption rate, rather
than being lumped in with the other vocational trucks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1,
p. 51]
Organization: Volvo Group
Phase 3 Proposed Stringencies
EPA Stringency Setting Process
Assumptions and inputs covered in the EMA comments, specifically concerning to the Volvo
Group include:
• EPA's estimates of vehicle availability and application suitability in the 101 vehicle
categories do not agree with our internal timelines and knowledge. One example is
concrete mixers at an 18% penetration of BEVs in 2027. Concrete mixers are highly
weight and space constrained, so much so that some customers specify medium-heavy
duty engines in heavy-heavy duty vehicles in order to maximize payload. Concrete
mixers are not seen as a candidate for electrification given the current and expected
technologies in the Phase 3 timeframe. One telling fact, at the 2023 World of Concrete
show held in Las Vegas on January 17th through 19th of this year, there was zero
emphasis on zero-emission vehicle technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1606-A1,
p. 17]
164
-------
• Although a cement mixer is listed as a good opportunity for electrification in the EPA's
HD TRUCS analysis results, we have identified risks associated to Gross Axle Weight
Rating (GAWR) due to the power density required to ensure the vehicle can run its cycle
and power the mixing drum
EPA Summary and Response:
Summary:
Volvo, EMA, MEMA, ATA, and the American Concrete Pumping Association raise concerns
regarding the ability of concrete mixers and pumpers to electrify. They point to issues related to
higher PTO usage, traveling at loads higher than those used in EPA's HD TRUCS analysis, and
weight sensitivity. EMA maintains that energy used by concrete mixers is significantly higher
than what is represented in GEM, and suggests the underestimated load requirements (and
therefore energy requirements) result in smaller battery sizes and lower costs in HD TRUCS than
what EMA expects. As a result, EMA states that concrete mixers should have unique standards
from other vocational vehicles based on lower adoption rates. On the other hand, CARB
provided links to several electrified concrete mixer and pumpers where prototypes have been
supplied to customers in Europe. Additionally, NACAA stated that EPA should set more
stringent standards for concrete mixers based on their emissions impact on overburdened
communities.
Likewise, DTNA suggests that EPA review energy consumption for vocational trucks,
maintaining that these vehicles consume significant energy using their duty cycle that cannot be
predicted from using VMT. Cement mixers and dump trucks, for example, will require R&D
before they can be electrified. Volvo shares similar sentiment as EMA and DTNA in that the
suitability of cement mixers as BEV is limited because of the weight impact and space
constraints from batteries.
Response:
For the final rule, EPA obtained data based on information provided by one commenter which
shows significantly larger power demands. Therefore, for the final rule, EPA increased the PTO
loads required for concrete mixers and pumpers in our HD TRUCS analysis based on
consideration of information provided. These vehicles now have larger power demands and
battery sizes in the final rule HD TRUCS analysis than the vehicles had in the NPRM analysis.
As a result, EPA determined that EPA's optional custom chassis standards for Concrete
Mixers/Pumpers and Mixed-Use Vehicles will remain unchanged from the existing Phase 2 MY
2027+ CO2 emission standards.
However, some electrified concrete mixers and pumpers presently exist, at least as prototypes
in Europe. This suggests that these vehicles represented in HD TRUCS could be considered for
utilization of ZEV technologies in the HD TRUCS analysis for the HHD vocational vehicle
subcategory. EPA then investigated if there are payload constraints that would make such
inclusion inappropriate. For the final rule, as discussed in RIA Chapter 2.9.1.1, the concrete
mixer has a BEV powertrain that weighs approximately 2,100 pounds more than the comparable
ICE powertrain. This leads to an impact of 3.5% of the full payload (40,000 lbs). This payload
impact would not be a limiting factor for some applications and therefore we are continuing to
include this vehicle in the HD TRUCS analysis, and correspondingly the technology packages
used in the modeled potential compliance pathway for HHD vocational vehicles.
165
-------
2.2.3 Recreational Vehicles
Comments by Organizations
Organization: RVIndustry Association (RVIA)
RVIA has reviewed the April 27th NPRM and supports the EPA's decision to retain the
inclusion of motorhomes in the "custom vocational chassis" category and to establish the
allowable C02 standard for these vehicles at 226 grams/ton-mile. The EPA indicates in the
NPRM that it is not proposing new standards for motorhomes certified to the optional custom
chassis regulatory subcategory because of the projected impact of the weight of batteries in
battery electric vehicles in model years 2027-2032. In addition to the increased weight of the
batteries, RVIA would also note that requiring motorhomes to transition to battery power would
require extensive modifications to the vehicles, which will significantly and adversely impact the
features of these vehicles that make them attractive to consumers. These adverse impacts would
include loss of storage space, inability to carry luggage and furniture, and reduced appliance
capacity. If battery size and weight is such that typical features of a motorhome will need to be
deleted or appreciably altered, the powertrain transition to batteries and motors will be unpopular
with consumers. Such a transition would add further costs onto vehicles, to which purchasing
consumers are already extremely cost-sensitive. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1486-A1, pp. 1-2]
RVIA would also remind the EPA that, when the current Phase 2 regulation was promulgated,
the EPA properly recognized that motorhomes have unique characteristics which differentiate
them from all other vocational vehicles:
• Motorhomes are predominantly non-commercial vehicles - they are discretionary
purchases for the purpose of recreation and provide no source of revenue to the typical
owner;
• Motorhomes have extremely low annual vehicle miles traveled (about 4,000 miles per
year on average);
• Motorhome production volumes are extremely low; and
• Motorhome buyers are particularly sensitive to cost increases (as these vehicles are
discretionary purchases that generate no revenue for the operators). [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1486-A1, p. 2]
In the Phase 2 rule, EPA established the optional custom chassis program for a number of
reasons. These included:
• a recognition that there are manufacturers who produce specialized heavy-duty vocational
vehicles where some of the technologies EPA used for the primary program standards
would be unsuited for use;
• concern that the primary program drive cycles are either unrepresentative or unsuitable
for certain specialized heavy-duty vocational vehicles;
• concern that some manufacturers of these specialized vocational vehicles have limited
product offerings such that the primary program's emissions averaging is not of practical
value as a compliance flexibility;
166
-------
• some motorhome chassis manufacturers are not full-line heavy-duty vehicle
manufacturers and thus do not have the same flexibilities as other firms in the use of the
averaging, banking and trading program;
• concern regarding the appropriateness of the primary program's vocational vehicle
standards as applied to certain specialized/custom vocational vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1486-A1, p. 2]
The concerns listed above remain valid today and are likely to remain valid in the future with
respect to the setting of C02 standards for the post-2027 time period. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1486-A1, p. 3]
RVIA further notes that electrification will be disruptive and challenging to motorhome
operators while they are traveling, as the charging infrastructure needed to recharge these
vehicles is not yet available. This is especially true in the more rural areas where motorhome
owners prefer to travel and often camp in non-traditional campsites where utility functions such
as electric, water and sewage are not present. Additionally, recharging depleted motorhome
batteries will take significantly longer than the 20 minutes on average that it takes to recharge a
light-duty vehicle battery with DC fast charging. The resulting increases in motorhome travel
times will make the travel experience far less pleasurable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1486-A1,
p. 3]
For all the above reasons, the RV Industry Association supports the decision of the EPA in
this NPRM to keep motorhomes in the custom vocational chassis category and to set the
allowable emissions standard at 226 grams/ton-mile. We applaud EPA for not proposing new
standards for motorhomes certified to the optional custom chassis regulatory subcategory for
Model Years 2027-2032 and believe that this is the proper decision for these vehicles moving
forward. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1486-A1, p. 3]
Organization: Winnebago Industries, Inc.
Winnebago Industries supports the Proposed Rule's provisions allowing continued
certification of motor homes under the vocational vehicle optional custom chassis regulatory
subcategory in model years ('MY') 2027 through 2032 In EPA's 2016 HD GHGPhase 2 rule,
EPA offered optional custom chassis standards for several vocational vehicle regulatory
subcategories including motor homes. EPA established the optional custom chassis standards for
a number of reasons, including because it recognized that the primary vocational vehicle
standard would not be appropriate as applied to certain specialized/custom vocational vehicles.
81 Fed. Reg. 73531 (Oct. 25, 2016). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1612-A1, p. 2]
In the Proposed Rule, EPA proposes to maintain the eight existing Heavy-Duty GHG Phase 2
vocational vehicle regulatory subcategories, which include the motor homes subcategory. Given
the significant variability in types of vocational vehicle chassis, and the correspondingly unique
technical characteristics of the different applications, Winnebago Industries supports EPA's
proposal. Furthermore, the Proposed Rule proposes to maintain the C02 emissions standard for
motor homes certified to the optional custom chassis vocational vehicle standards at 226
g/tonmile as contained in the 2016 Phase 2 GHG rule. Winnebago Industries supports this
emission standard as technically feasible and reasonable, especially given the impact that heavy
167
-------
batteries would have on emissions standards, as provided further detail in the Proposed Rule and
EPA's Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1612-A1, pp. 2-3]
Winnebago Industries does not support further reductions to the proposed GHG standards for
motor homes under the custom chassis vocational vehicles provision. In the Proposed Rule, EPA
seeks comments regarding the potential for more stringent GHG standards for certain custom
chassis subcategories including motor homes for MY 2027 to 2032. Winnebago Industries urges
EPA not to lower or consider lowering the GHG standards for motor homes at this time based on
the technical challenges that Winnebago Industries and its chassis manufacturers would face in
meeting lower standards, and the deleterious affect any lower standards would have on
Winnebago Industries and the RV/motor home industry overall. We are also aware of and are
fully supportive of the comments filed by the RVIA specific to the Proposed Rule. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1612-A1, p. 3]
EPA Summary and Response:
Summary:
RVIA and Winnebago supported EPA's proposal to maintain the existing HD GHG Phase 2
MY 2027+ Optional Custom Chassis Recreational Vehicle CO2 emission standards for Phase 3.
Response:
EPA is finalizing its proposal to maintain the Phase 2 MY 2027+ Optional Custom Chassis
Recreational Vehicle CO2 emission standards. Our evaluation of RVs demonstrates that it is
unlikely that ZEV technology will pay back for RVs that typically travel low annual miles (as
they are modeled in HD TRUCS) and are expected to travel long distances in a day over a small
number of annual operational days, as shown in RIA Chapter 2.9.2.
2.2.4 Other
Comments by Organizations
Organization: ABF Freight System, Inc.
ABF Freight is an LTL transportation company comprised of over 4500 class 8 and class 6
vehicles with operations in all 50 states. In addition, ABF purchased 6 EVs in 2022 comprised
of both Class 8 and 6 models. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1442-A1, p.l]
Our industry and company have worked with EPA and other stakeholders during the drafting
of the federal Phase 1 and 2 Greenhouse Gas emissions regulations to achieve substantial
emissions improvements—regulations that we supported due its ability to achieve real-world fuel
savings with proven technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1442-A1, p.l]
EPA's currently proposed Greenhouse Gas Phase 3 regulation is not that. It picks winners and
losers for emissions technology and sets a de facto mandate on the adoption of electric vehicle
technology that is at an early stage of development in the trucking industry. Currently there is
very limited quantities for battery electric trucks on the road today and hydrogen fuel cell trucks
are an even smaller number. As you look to mandate technology for our industry, you must
consider the various unique applications of commercial vehicles and the specific use cases for
168
-------
electrification. What works for the passenger car industry will not work for the heavy-duty
trucking industry. What works for last-mile package and delivery vans will vary greatly with on-
highway tractor trailers. Your rule must account for this diversity as you set standards that
impact the reliability, cost parity and performance of our fleet. The industry continues to study
other technology options that can reduce GHG emissions, like biofuels, renewable diesel and
hydrogen combustion. All these technologies could potentially deliver cost-effective emissions
reductions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1442-A1, p.l]
As stated above, our company incorporated a total of 6 electric trucks into our fleet last year.
Our experience with these EVs is that our range and usable application is greatly diminished in
comparison with clean diesel technology. In addition, all locations have experienced both
financial and physical constraints regarding supporting infrastructure. In one location we are two
years into the waiting of added utility infrastructure that is needed to support our current vehicles
as well as anticipated growth in EV purchases. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1442-A1, p.l]
As you begin your work on the new GHG standards, charging and alternative fueling
infrastructure must be at the center of successful adoption. Long lead times and significant
investment are barriers that currently exist that have been unaddressed for commercial trucks.
We encourage you to account for what stage this technology is at given your aggressive market
penetration assumptions, guarantee a robust infrastructure charging or alternative fueling system
is built out to support deployment of zero-emission trucks and ensure cost parity with clean
diesel technology is maintained. Thank you. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1442-A1, p.l]
Organization: American Soybean Association (ASA)
As EPA considers new GHG standards for heavy-duty vehicles, it is critically important that
they also consider the emissions that will increase from additional wear and tear on roads.
Further, the likely man hours to complete additional trips or investment of additional fleet
vehicles could create a cost-prohibitive environment for farmers who already operate on thin
margins. As is, farmers have seen a significant cost increase of up to 20% in freight rail trucking
in recent years. The only way for the agricultural sector not to see significant economic impacts
to shipping from either of the EPA's GHG proposals would be to increase federal truck weights
to accommodate for heavier batteries. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1549-A1, p. 2]
Organization: American Trucking Associations (ATA)
EPA's adoption rate table includes levels of stringency that require fleets to adopt increasing
ZEV percentages in the vocational, short, and long-haul segments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1535-A1, p. 6]
While ATA appreciates EPA's addition of three broad market segmentations and 101
different vehicle types in the EPA HD TRUCS model, we note that the operational diversity and
complexity of the trucking industry are still too broad to be entirely inclusive of all three vehicle
categories. The vehicle weight distributions relative to the battery cell and axle weight impact
real-world payload, charge time, and maintainability in each vehicle configuration and category.
Each category and configuration require separate treatment as these factors—important variables
in the fleet purchase decision—affect the TCO calculation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1535-
Al, p. 6]
169
-------
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
B. Emissions Standards for HDVs
1. Vehicle Categories in Custom Chassis Provision
Affected pages: NPRM 25990-25991, 25993, 25996, and 26123 (1037.105 (h)); Draft
Regulatory Impact Analysis (DRIA) 245, 247, and 254-256
In the existing federal Phase 2 GHG regulation, manufacturers of motor homes, coach buses,
other buses (including transit/urban bus), school buses, refuse haulers, concrete mixers, mixed-
use vehicles, and emergency vehicles have an option to certify those vehicles with a less
stringent process called custom chassis. Custom chassis standards are significantly less stringent
than the primary vocational vehicle standards. U.S. EPA established these optional less-stringent
standards to provide flexibilities to the manufacturers who produce specialized vocational
vehicles. U.S. EPA believed that the manufacturers of these types of vehicles may have difficulty
meeting the primary standards due to the limited number of technologies that may be used on
these specialized vehicles to meet the standards and the limited number of product offerings,
which leads to an inability to take advantage of averaging. When developing the California
Phase 2 GHG regulation, CARB staff understood U.S. EPA's reasoning behind the creation of
the custom chassis certification option, and California Phase 2 GHG regulation includes the
custom chassis standards. However, CARB staff provided evidence during the rulemaking that
custom chassis standards were not necessary for transit buses because they already had on the
market many examples of the ultimate C02 reduction achievable via zero-emission bus (ZEB)
powertrains. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1591-A1, p.20]
Both battery and fuel-cell electric buses are commercially available for transit applications,
and CARB also adopted an Innovative Clean Transit (ICT) regulation in 2018 requiring all
public transit agencies to gradually transition to a 100 percent ZEB fleet by 2040.44 Hence,
CARB did not align with the custom chassis standards for transit buses. Instead, CARB staff
required transit bus manufacturers to meet the primary vocational standards (i.e., removed the
transit bus vehicle category from the custom chassis provision). Manufacturers elected to certify
in California Phase 2 also produced ZEBs which at that time further encouraged the
commercialization of ZEBs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1591-A1, pp.20-21]
44 The ICT regulation requires all public transit agencies to gradually transition to a 100 percent ZEB fleet.
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/innovative-clean-transit
CARB staff urges U.S. EPA to require transit bus manufacturers to comply with the primary
vocational vehicle standards in this Phase 3 rule. CARB staff also recommends U.S. EPA
incorporate the same provisions as in California's Phase 2 GHG transit bus requirements for the
following custom chassis vehicle categories: school bus, other bus, coach bus, refuse hauler, and
concrete mixer. As specified in the NPRM Table 11-24 - Projected ZEV Adoption Rates for
MYs 2027 to 2032 Technology Packages, these vehicle categories have high projected ZEV
adoption rates (45 percent ZE school bus in MY 2032, 34 percent ZE other bus in MY 2032, 25
percent ZE coach bus in MY 2032, 36 percent ZE refuse hauler in MY 2032, and 35 percent ZE
concrete mixer in MY 2032), reflecting the availability and cost-effectiveness of ZE vehicles in
this category. Additionally, a recent white paper released by ICCT predicts full electrification of
some vehicle categories within the next 15 years; ICCT's "National ACT" scenario shows the
170
-------
feasibility of 100 percent ZEV sales for transit buses by 2032, followed by shuttle and school
buses by 2035, and then, coach buses by 2037.45 These high projected ZEV adoption rates, both
in ICCT's work and in U.S. EPA's own NPRM, show manufacturers of these vehicle categories
do not need the weaker custom chassis standards and instead will be able to meet the primary
standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1591-A1, p.21]
45 ICCT's Potential Benefits of the U.S. Phase 3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Regulation for Heavy-Duty
Vehicles, White Paper, April 2023. https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/hdv-phase3-ghg-
standards-benefits-apr23 .pdf
CARB staff note emergence of diverse highly specialized ZEV examples in the U.S. and
internationally many of which could fall into the custom chassis definition, highlighting how the
fast-growing nature of this sector directionally supports greater inclusion into the stronger
vocational standards instead of the weaker custom chassis standards. Multiple manufacturers and
upfitters already have ZEV examples that include concrete mixers,46 truck cranes,47 knuckle
boom cranes,48 bucket trucks,49 sewer cleaning trucks,50 armored trucks,51 stinger-steered auto
carrier transports,52 street sweepers,53 aviation fuel delivery,54 container roll off, hook loader
and skip loaders,55 school buses,56 double decker and motorcoaches,57 and refuse.58 This
specialized ZEV development activity is even reaching into emergency response vehicles
including BEV and ZE-capable plug-in fire trucks59 and BEV and FCEV ambulances.60 [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1591-A1, pp.21-26]
46 Concrete mixer examples.
https://www.electrive.com/2022/02/14/unicon-volvo-trucks-collaborate-on-electric-concrete-mixers/
https://www.ft.com/content/750327ec-ab2f-4b62-8fc3-548ala71al93
https://www.electrive.com/2021/01/19/futuricum-delivers-three-electric-concrete-mixer-trucks-toholcim/
http://concreteproducts.eom/index.php/2018/05/15/national-cement-parent-drives-carbon-emissionsfree-
mixer-project/
https://www.liebherr.com/en/deu/latest-news/news-press-releases/detail/first-fully-electric-10-and-12-m3-
truck-mixers-from-liebherr-and-designwerk.html
https://www.liebherr.com/en/deu/latest-news/news-press-releases/detail/first-fully-electric-10-and-12-m3-
truck-mixers-from-liebherr-and-designwerk.html
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/sany-battery-electric-truck-mixers-when-traditionalconcrete-
mixing-goes-green-30113 8618.html
https://www.prnewswire.com/in/news-releases/sany-embraces-the-era-of-cleaner-fuel-with-hydrogenfuel-
cell-construction-vehicles-873229355.html
https://www.driven.co.nz/news/new-zealand-set-to-get-first-electric-milk-tanker-after-governmentfunding-
boost/
https://mp.weixin.qq.eom/s/3_oDaY5fTTdMf-XSMUbvdA
https://www.electrive.eom/2022/06/30/tarmac-orders-electric-mixer-truck-from-renault-trucks/
https://www.muldereurope.com/elektrisch-aangedreven-betonmixers/
https://lectura.press/en/article/putzmeister-launches-the-first-zero-emissions-truck-mounted-
concretepump/59003
http://www.spanos-group.com/energya-k42e-new-battery-electric-driven-concrete-truck-pump-cifa/
https://www.pveurope.eu/e-mobility/electric-utility-vehicles-paul-group-develops-battery-electricconcrete-
mixer
47 Truck cranes examples.
https://www.internationalcranes.media/news/New-fully-electric-Bocker-truck-crane-and-
workplatform/8023128.article
https://www.prnewswire.com/in/news-releases/zoomlion-produces-the-world-s-first-pure-electric-
truckcrane-takes-the-lead-in-environmental-protection-construction-in-machinery-industry-
838304210.html
https://www.plantandequipment.news/news/product-updates/the-worlds-first-licensable-electric-
171
-------
truckcrane-from-sany/
https://www.heavyliftnews.com/the-xct25_ev-plug-in-double-drive-hybrid-crane-from-xcmg/
https://www.scania.com/group/en/home/newsroom/news/2023/first_fully_electric_crane_truck_for_waste_
collection_in_denmark.html
48 Knuckle boom cranes examples.
https://www.internationalcranes.media/news/electric-volvo-truck-with-hiab-crane/8012590. article
https://www.volvotrucks.com/en-en/trucks/trucks/volvo-fmx/volvo-fmx-electric.html
49 Bucket trucks examples.
https://www.terex.com/utilities/en/about/news/terex-utilities-debuts-industry-s-first-all-electric-buckettruck
https://www.worktruckonline.com/10139523/electric-utility-bucket-truck-makes-clean-energybreakthrough
https://triblive.com/local/electric-bucket-truck-coming-to-pittsburgh-thanks-to-electric-vehicles-
grantmoney/
https://vertikal.net/en/news/story/40623/cte-to-unveil-all-electric-truck-mount
https://twitter.com/ZeusChassis/status/1645819257094287362?cxt=HHwWhMDR-Z75j9ctAAAA
https://www.ccjdigital.eom/alternative-power/battery-electric/article/15383970/production-to-start-
onfreightliners-em2-in-fall-2023
50 Sewer cleaning trucks examples.
https://www.designwerk.com/en/post/press/sales-launch-of-the-first-fully-electric-sewer-cleaningvehicle/
https://www.electrive.eom/2022/05/06/volvo-trucks-and-bucher-municipal-build-electric-trucks-forsewer-
cleaning/
https://bouwmachineweb.com/nieuws/718/elektrische-man-kolkenzuiger-scoort-bij-klanten
51 Armored trucks examples.
https://www.loomis.us/resources/press-releases-news/Loomis-orders-150-electric-armored-vehicles
52 Stinger-steered auto carrier transports examples.
https://www.scania.com/group/en/home/newsroom/news/2023/worlds_first_all_electric_scania_standard_c
ar_transporter_goes_into_service.html
https://www.electrive.eom/2022/ll/30/designwerk-electric-car-carrier-sports-1000-kwh-battery/
53 Street sweepers examples.
https://www.government-fleet.com/10194978/electric-sweeper-has-enough-power-for-a-full-workload
https://schwarze.com/en/electric/
https://www.glutton.com/en/categorie/your-electric-street-sweeper-zen-quiet-compact-
ergonomicconnected-economical-efficient-cleanliness.html
https://www.dulevo.com/us/products/power-supply-battery-powered-electric/
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/ideanomics-and-global-environmental-products-
expandpartnership-to-produce-zero-emission-street-sweepers-301621573.html
https://www.aebi-schmidt.com/en/products/schmidt/sweepers/eswingo-200/
https://ravo.fayat.com/en/references/fully-electric-ravo
https://madvac.com/models/mini-outdoor-street-sweeper-lsl75/
https://madvac.com/electric/electric-sweeper-lsl25/
https://www.buchermunicipal.com/us/en/products/sweepers/compact-sweepers/citycat-v20e
https://www.nyc.gov/assets/dsny/site/resources/press-releases/clean-streets-clean-air-new-york-
citydepartment-of-sanitation-unveils-first-of-its-kind-all-electric-street-sweeper
https://investors.ideanomics.eom/2023-03-09-Made-in-California-Ideanomics-subsidiary-US-Hybrid-and-
Global-Environmental-Products-begin-manufacturing-18-zero-emission-street-sweepers-for-Caltrans
https://investors.ideanomics.eom/2023-03-09-Made-in-California-Ideanomics-subsidiary-US-Hybrid-and-
Global-Environmental-Products-begin-manufacturing-18-zero-emission-street-sweepers-for-Caltrans
https://investors.ideanomics.eom/2023-03-09-Made-in-California-Ideanomics-subsidiary-US-Hybrid-and-
Global-Environmental-Products-begin-manufacturing-18-zero-emission-street-sweepers-for-Caltrans
https://investors.ideanomics.eom/2023-03-09-Made-in-California-Ideanomics-subsidiary-US-Hybrid-and-
Global-Environmental-Products-begin-manufacturing-18-zero-emission-street-sweepers-for-Caltrans
https://townsquarenoco.com/check-out-fort-collins-nifty-new-electric-street-sweeper/
https://townsquarenoco.com/check-out-fort-collins-nifty-new-electric-street-sweeper/
172
-------
https://www.denverpost.com/2018/ll/21/denver-bike-lane-street-sweeping/
https://www.eugene-or.gov/CivicAlerts.aspx? AID=5348&ARC=12741
https://www.aebi-schmidt.eom/en/about-us/blog/2019/07/08/aebi-schmidt-delivers-the-first-fullyelectric-
sweeper-to-the-city-of-thun-in-a-rather-unusual-way/
https://patch.com/massachusetts/medford/medford-gets-grant-replace-diesel-street-sweeper
https://twitter.com/BostonPWD/status/1553434229517721601
https://www.boston.gov/bid-listings/evOOO 11115
https://www.mlive.eom/news/saginaw-bay-city/2022/10/egle-gives-saginaw-grant-for-electric-
vehiclestreet-sweepers.html
https://documents.takomaparkmd.gov/government/city-council/ordinances/2021/ordinance-2021-38.pdf
https ://globalsweeper. com/electric-street-sweepers
https ://today. csuchico. edu/chico-state-all-electric-sweeper/
https://govlaunch.com/projects/the-city-of-edinburgh-council-gb-adds-uks-first-electric-street-sweeperto-
its-fleet
https ://dep. nj. gov/vw/spending-information/
https://www.cityofcapitola.org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/city_administration/page/18994/january_
waves_2022_issue_l .pdf
https ://city ofholland. civicweb .net/document/151791/
https://www.biztrib.com/news/newberg-will-get-a-big-truck-and-join-the-evrevolution/article_42c9e9c9-
32cc-5dl2-8aa9-260adfe59212.html
https://www.montereyherald.com/2022/08/01/carmel-to-consider-climate-adaptation-action-plans/
https://glendaleca.primegov.com/Public/CompiledDocument/48077
https://www.road-street-sweeper-blog.com/a-street-sweeper-for-over-l-million-euros-in-germany/
https://fleetvisionintl.com/2022/02/clean-green-machine-first-electric-street-sweeper-for-harrowcouncil/
https://www.nbcsandiego.com/videos/not-so-trashy-city-names-electric-street-sweeper/3110635/
https://www.boschung.com/s2-0-nottingham/et-sweeper-named-sweep-e
54 Aviation fuel delivery examples.
https://aviationweek.com/business-aviation/airports-fbos-suppliers/fbo-atlantic-aviation-takes-
deliveryelectric-refuelers
https://www.aviationpros.eom/gse/fueling-equipment-accessories/product/10024950/bossermanaviation-
equipment-inc-electric-rampcharger-isuzu-750-gallon-avgas-refueler
https://www.aviationpros.com/gse/gse-technology/green-alternative-energy-
gse/pressrelease/21218528/titan-aviation-titan-aviation-builds-worlds-first-100-electric-refueler
https://www.bp.com/en/global/air-bp/news-and-views/press-releases/Air-bp-introduces-new-
customdesigned-all-electric-refuelling-vehicle-at-brisbane-airport.html
https://insideevs.com/news/425595/world-first-electric-aircraft-refueller-transporter/
https://www.electrive.eom/2023/03/17/stuttgart-airport-acquires-30-heavy-duty-evs-for-manoeuvringarea/
https://ngtnews.com/world-fuel-provides-all-electric-refueling-truck-to-pump-sustainable-aviation-fuel
55 Container roll off, hook loader and skip loaders examples.
http://bouwmachineweb.com/nieuws/923/vrijbloed-transport-voorloper-in-duurzaam-transport-met-nutien-
elektrische-volvo-trucks
https://www.scania.com/group/en/home/newsroom/press-releases/press-release-detailpage.html/4278090-
https://www.ft.com/content/750327ec-ab2f-4b62-8fc3-548ala71al93
https://motortransport.co.uk/blog/2019/10/29/volvo-to-showcase-fe-electric-6x2-hook-lift-rigid-atfreight-
in-the -city -expo -on-6 -november/
https://www.meiller.eom/en/information-centre/news/detail/2020/ll/23/first-all-electric-truck-withmeiller-
hooklift/
https://www.palfinger.com/en-gb/news/smart-electric-prospects-for-hooklift_n_885597
https://media.daimlertruck.com/marsMediaSite/en/instance/ko/Robust-efficient-and-battery-electric-
Daimler-Truck-subsidiary-FUSO-presents-the-Next-Generation-eCanter-with-roll-off-tipper-for-
theconstruction-industry-at-bauma-2022.xhtml?oid=52079443
https://ajot.com/news/zf-and-mercedes-benz-trucks-showcase-silent-emission-free-eworx-power-takeoff-
for-electric-truckszf
https://ajot.com/news/zf-and-mercedes-benz-trucks-showcase-silent-emission-free-eworx-power-takeoff-
173
-------
for-electric-truckszf
https://www.recyclinglives.com/news/general/first-uk-electric-skip-truck
https://www.biztrib.com/news/newberg-will-get-a-big-truck-and-join-the-evrevolution/article_42c9e9c9-
32cc-5dl2-8aa9-260adfe59212.html
https://mp.weixin.qq.eom/s/3_oDaY5fTTdMf-XSMUbvdA
56 School bus examples.
https://californiahvip.org/vehicle-category/school-bus/
57 Double decker and motorcoaches examples.
https://californiahvip.org/vehicles/7searclFbus
58 Refuse examples.
https ://californiahvip. org/vehicles/?vcat= 10
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/republic-services-is-rolling-out-industrys-first-fullyintegrated-
electric-recycling-and-waste-trucks-301751057.html
https://www.scania.com/group/en/home/newsroom/news/2023/first_fully_electric_crane_truck_for_waste_
collection_in_denmark.html
59 BEV and ZE-capable plug-in fire trucks examples.
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/zeus-electric-chassis-redefines-the-fire-truck-with-new-
allelectric -design-301348659. html
https://www.oshkoshairport.com/innovations/striker-volterra
https://www.piercemfg.com/electric-fire-trucks/pierce-volterra
https://revgroup.com/blog-single/rev-fire-group-to-introduce-first-fully-electric-north-americanstyle-
fireapparatus
https://www.rosenbauer.com/en/int/rosenbauer-world/vehicles/municipal-vehicles/rt
https://www.electrive.com/2021/ll/01/basel-orders-4-electric-fire-trucks-from-rosenbauer/
https://www.thebigredguide.com/news/rosenbauer-showcases-panther-6x6-electric-driveline-co-614-
ga.1655699414.html
https ://e lgroup.co.uk/e 1-evo
https://www.newpowerprogress.com/news/scania-hybrid-engine-powers-airport-firetruck/8027600.article
https://www.fireapparatusmagazine.com/fire-apparatus/london-to-test-electric-fire-truck/
60 BEV and FCEV ambulances examples.
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/zeus-electric-chassis-redefines-the-fire-truck-with-new-
allelectric-de sign-301348659. html
https://www.oshkoshairport.com/innovations/striker-volterra
https://www.piercemfg.com/electric-fire-trucks/pierce-volterra
https://revgroup.com/blog-single/rev-fire-group-to-introduce-first-fully-electric-north-americanstyle-
fireapparatus
https://www.rosenbauer.com/en/int/rosenbauer-world/vehicles/municipal-vehicles/rt
https://www.electrive.com/2021/11/0 l/basel-orders-4-electric-fire-trucks-from-rosenbauer/
https://www.thebigredguide.com/news/rosenbauer-showcases-panther-6x6-electric-driveline-co-614-
ga. 1655699414.html
https://e lgroup.co.uk/e 1-evo
https://www.newpowerprogress.com/news/scania-hybrid-engine-powers-airport-firetruck/8027600.article
https://www.fireapparatusmagazine.com/fire-apparatus/london-to-test-electric-fire-truck/
https://electrek.co/2021/ll/02/uks-nhs-unveils-new-hydrogen-electric-ambulances-at-cop26/
https://wmas.nhs.uk/2020/10/01/wmas-launches-the-first-100-electric-ambulance-in-the-uk/
https://www.electrive.com/2021/02/13/zerro-londons-first-hydrogen-ambulance-with-fuel-cell-rex/
https://global.toyota/en/newsroom/corporate/3 5008661.html
https://businessbreathes.co.uk/case-studies-inner/yorkshire-ambulance-service-fleet-transition
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9874973/Transit-vans-turned-electric-ambulances-slash-
NHScarbon-footprint-fuel-bills.html
https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1128219_nissan-electric-ambulance-curbs-the-tailpipeemissions
https://www.sustainability-times.com/sustainable-business/a-new-ambulance-made-in-denmark-hasgone-
174
-------
all-electric/
https://electrek.co/2021/04/15/lightning-emotors-and-rev-to-produce-electric-ambulances/
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/demers-ambulances-and-lion-electric-launch-all-
electricpurpose-built-ambulance-301402381. html
https://www.automotiveworld.com/news-releases/mercedes-benz-vans-is-electrifying-ambulancevehicles/
https://www.vcs-limited.com/vcs-launches-uks-first-all-electric-front-line-ambulance/
https://www.firehouse.com/apparatus/press-release/21248621/rev-fire-group-amr-awards-
electricambulance-order-to-rev-group-company
https://www.fool.com/earnings/call-transcripts/2021/12/15/rev-group-inc-revg-q4-2021-earnings-
calltranscrip/nonprofit-1 qJgQ04 WPlR09i9Q/
https://www.emsl.com/ems-products/ambulances/articles/rev-announces-alternative-fuel-ambulancedeals-
with-amr-us-government-qatar-nonprofit-lqJgQO4WPlR09i9Q/
Organization: Daimler Truck North America LLC (DTNA)
EPA Request for Comment, Request #3: We also request comment, including supporting data
and analysis, if there are certain market segments, such as heavy-haul vocational trucks or long-
haul tractors which may require significant energy content for their intended use, for which it
may be appropriate to set standards less stringent than the alternative for the specific
corresponding regulatory subcategories in order to provide additional lead time to develop and
introduce ZEV or other low emissions technology for those specific vehicle applications.
• DTNA Response: EPA should revisit all assumptions underlying the proposed standard
stringency on a regular cadence to ensure Phase 3 standard feasibility for all HD
applications. Certain vehicle categories are not readily converted to BEV or FCEV
technologies. Specifically, EPA should not adopt any new, more stringent C02 standards
for long haul tractors and heavy duty vocational vehicles based upon projected zero-
emission vehicle (ZEV) penetration until at least 2033, and even then, EPA should not
impose new standards for long-haul applications until a nationwide network of refueling
infrastructure exists to support them.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, pp. 158-159]
EPA Request for Comment, Request #47: EPA requests comment on a standards structure for
Phase 3 which would establish unique, mandatory, application-specific standards for some subset
of heavy-duty vehicle applications. EPA requests comment on what data, what program
structure, what applications, and what criteria EPA should consider for designing application-
specific standards. EPA also requests comment on how the application-specific C02 standards
would interact with the broader Phase 3 program structure EPA has included in this proposal,
including the C02 emissions averaging, banking, and trading program. For example, if EPA
were to separate these applications and apply more stringent standards, EPA requests comment
on whether emission credits should be allowed to be averaged across the primary Phase 3
program and the application specific standards, and if yes, what limits if any should apply to
those standards.
• DTNA Response: As discussed in Section II.B.3 of these comments, the Proposed Rule
can only be successfully implemented if ZEV products are in demand and adopted by
fleets. DTNA is concerned that the emission standard stringency of Proposed Rule may
be unsupported if fleets do not adopt ZEV technologies at the rates predicted by EPA.
DTNA believes a beachhead type proposal could generate ZEV demand in specific
categories, if only ZEVs were permitted to be sold and do not compete with ICE payback
periods. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 166]
175
-------
EPA Request for Comment, Request #56: We request comment on specific considerations and
impacts the proposed standards would have on vehicles certified to these optional custom chassis
standards. We also request comment and data regarding the potential for more stringent GHG
standards for the motor homes, emergency vehicles, or mixed-use vehicles optional custom
chassis regulatory subcategories in this time frame.
• DTNA Response: DTNA supports EPA's proposal not project ZEV adoption for certain
custom chassis subcategories, as it is unlikely that customers will adopt ZEVs in those
categories at any significant rate. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 168]
Organization: Electrification Coalition (EC)
We are already seeing a significant uptake of EVs into the HD fleet, as the technology is
ready today and offers financial benefits for end users. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1558-A1,
p. 4]
As the EPA notes in the proposed rule with many examples, uptake of EVs in the HD sector is
occurring rapidly, with many fleet commitments announced for the transition to EVs. As the
EPA requests specific comment on the assessment of the HD ZEV market and any additional
data sources to consider, the EC overall agrees with the EPA on the market assessment and
offers the following additional examples and information.6 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1558-
Al, p. 4]
6 See page 25943 of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposed rule for Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles-Phase 3 in the Federal Register:
https://www.govinfo.gOv/content/pkg/FR-2023-04-27/pdf/2023-07955.pdf
The near-term interest from commercial vehicle operators in electrifying their fleets, such as
delivery and logistics companies, has grown in recent months, particularly since the passage of
the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and the 45W commercial clean vehicle tax credit. This
includes on-line retailer Amazon; shippers FedEx, UPS and DHL; and food and beverage
companies Nestle and PepsiCo, Inc, who collectively rely on hundreds of thousands of vehicles
to help transport products. To provide even further detail, FedEx has already committed to
achieve carbon-neutral operations by 2040 and will convert its entire parcel pickup and delivery
fleet to EVs.7 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1558-A1, p. 4]
7 https://newsroom.fedex.com/newsroom/global/fedex-continues-advancing-fleet-electrification-goals-
with-latest-150-electric-vehicle-delivery-from-brightdrop
Commercial fleets make purchasing decisions based on the total cost of ownership (TCO),
which increasingly favors EVs. Transitioning to EVs also provides companies with fuel price
certainty—as electricity is extremely stable in price relative to diesel—while lowering their
operating costs. These characteristics make commercial fleets more likely to value the broader
operational savings from electrification.8 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1558-A1, p. 4]
8 See diesel prices here: https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/prices.html, and NACFE's TCO calculator here:
https://www.atlasevhub.com/resource/medium-duty-battery-electric-vehicle-tco-calculator/
As noted above, the EC is specifically working to advance the HD EV sector to make it easier
for businesses to transition their fleets to be electric. The EC is piloting programs with
companies like Nestle and Meijer, for example, to support their freight electrification efforts,
176
-------
which include data analysis through our total cost of ownership calculator, working as an
intermediary with utility companies to help establish relationships, as well as identifying
challenges and best practices when electrifying freight to scale for large corporations. The EC is
continually conversing with shippers, carriers, OEMs, and businesses up and down the supply
chain in order to share knowledge and quickly advance the transition to electrified transport.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1558-A1, p. 4]
These examples and efforts show that the transition to HD EVs is happening now, and the
technology is ready today. Given that the standards will apply to vehicles in MY 27 and beyond,
many fleets will have already incorporated EVs into their fleet, with some completing a full
transition. By the time the standards will lead to even greater penetration levels of EV adoption,
fleets will understand the best practices for implementing EVs into the fleet. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1558-A1, pp. 4-5]
Due to the economics of certain HD EV classes, supportive federal and state level policies
and programs and current EV fleet adoption rates, we support a proposal from the EPA that
would accelerate the adoption of EVs with electric school buses (ESBs), last mile delivery
vehicles, drayage and terminal tractors. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1558-A1, p. 5]
The EPA is specifically requesting comment and data that would support more stringent
greenhouse gas standards than are proposed for MYs 2027 through 2032, including comment and
data on different technologies' penetration rates.9 The EC notes that different classes of vehicles
can achieve EV adoption rates quicker, as clarified below.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1558-Al,
p. 5]
9 See page 25929, 25933 of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposed rule for Greenhouse
Gas Emissions Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles-Phase 3 in the Federal Register:
https://www.govinfo.gOv/content/pkg/FR-2023-04-27/pdf/2023-07955.pdf
In terms of ESBs, as a fixed route, highly utilized transportation system, school buses have
been a good use case for medium- and heavy-duty vehicle electrification. As of December 2022,
the World Resources Institute (WRI) found there are 1,398 electric school buses (ESBs) either
ordered, delivered, or operating in the United States. 10 The number of ESBs committed doubled
between September and December 2022 to 5,612 ESBs, in large part due to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's Clean School Bus program - which awarded over $900
million for more than 2,400 buses to 389 school districts. With the popularity in ESBs growing,
manufacturers like Thomas Built Buses want to capitalize on the demand. In March 2022,
Highland Electric and Thomas Built Buses announced a signed letter of intent that enables
Highland to provide ESB subscriptions at prices that are at cost parity with diesel through
2025.11 Therefore, some manufacturers are already offering ESBs at cost parity to their diesel
counterparts. Outside of individual agreements with manufacturers, decreasing battery costs and
scaling of the components market, projected total-cost-of-ownership parity between ESBs and
diesel buses is expected by 2029 according to WRI.12 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1558-A1,
p. 5]
10 https://www.wri.org/insights/where-electric-school-buses-us
11 https://thomasbuiltbuses.com/resources/news/highland-electric-fleets-and-thomas-built-2022-03-17/
12 https://www.wri.org/technical-perspectives/which-electric-school-bus-business-model-right-your-
district
177
-------
Vans and steps vans for last-mile delivery are a great opportunity for early adoption of EVs
for the HD vehicle market as well. The North American Council for Freight Efficiency's
(NACFE) Electric Trucks Have Arrived: The Use Case for Vans and Step Vans report found that
electric vans and step vans are reaching total-cost-of-ownership parity with the diesel and
gasoline vehicles. Attributing to this is the fuel savings by transitioning to electric-
approximately $8,000 per vehicle annually in fuel savings, smaller battery packs that do not
impact cargo capacity or payload, and lower power requirements when charging. 13 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1558-A1, pp. 5-6]
13 https://nacfe.org/wp-content/uploads/edd/2022/04/Vans-and-Step-Vans-Report-FINAL.pdf
Drayage vehicles are also seeing accelerated adoption of electric technology. According to the
CALSTART Drayage Driver Study in 2013 at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach,
drayage drivers average 3 roundtrips a day with 81 percent of trips being less than 60 miles.
Given the shorter routes and the fact that the study found that 80 to 90 percent of the trucks
return to an operator yard near the ports, drayage presents a great use case for the electrification
of Class 7 and 8 vehicles. 14 Moreover, the Advanced Clean Fleet regulation recently adopted by
the California Air Resources Board will require drayage trucks to transition to zero-emission
technology starting in 2024. By 2035, all drayage trucks must be a zero-emission. 15 In addition,
a study conducted by NREL on the Port of New York and New Jersey on drayage electrification
found that partial fleet electrification of would be possible 'with minimal changes to operations.'
Additionally, while electricity costs would increase by operating electric trucks, the savings from
the reduction of diesel consumption would offset these costs. 16 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1558-A1, p. 6]
14 https ://calstart. org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/1-710-Proj ect_Key-Performance-Parameters-for-
Drayage-Trucks.pdf
15 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/fact-sheets/carb-fact-sheet-2023-advanced-clean-fleets-regulation-
dray age-truck
16 https://www.nrel.gov/docs/ly23osti/83400.pdf
Finally, terminal tractors are one of the best use cases for electrification, particularly for early
adopters of HD EVs, according to the North American Council for Freight Efficiency's
(NACFE) Electric Trucks Have Arrived: The Use Case for Terminal Tractors report. This is
primarily because terminal tractors average very few miles per day - 14 to 29 miles per day in
NACFE's 2021 Run on Less- Electric initiative - and are 'limited to a small area around the
facility,' allowing for opportunity charging. The report also found that electric terminal tractors
can be a 'direct replacement for virtually all diesel-powered terminal tractor use cases with very
few operational adjustments.' 17 Additionally, the study found that in most cases, the duty cycle
for terminal tractors can use charging stations at lower power levels compared to other heavy-
duty vehicle duty cycles, thereby reducing capital costs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1558-A1,
p. 6]
17 https://nacfe.org/wp-content/uploads/edd/2022/03/Terminal-Tractor-Report-FINAL.pdf
Organization: Hill Bros. Inc.
Subject: Battery powered trucks will not work for expedited team freight
178
-------
3.1 called Tesla and others and not one OEM has the power to run a 80,000 lbs. truck for
a daily production of 8 hours let alone the maximum 11 hrs by law. It cannot be done.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1461-A1, p. 1]
4.1 would support battery power for local urban transit such as garbage trucks, buses, etc.
but you need liquified fuel (diesel) for long haul and heavy duty work for and 8-11 hr day.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1461-A1, p. 1]
5. We need realistic leaders that understand the complex world of interstate trucking and
time constraints that will not work with electric powered trucks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1461-A1, p. 1]
Organization: MEMA
Section 3: Continuous, stationary use and occasional high-performance demands
Vehicles such as Fire Trucks, Utility trucks and Snowplows periodically have higher
performance demands than typical daily operation. Fire trucks need to pump water continuously
all night to quench a fire. Utility trucks must restore critical services like power or sanitation to
protect public health and the environment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1570-A1, p. 19]
Some vehicles that need to operate continuously are mostly stationary, so challenges of
electrifying are not well captured in EPA's Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis. Other
vehicles in the EPA models have mileage needs that vary widely on a day-today basis, so
average VMT analysis does not reflect the true need for asset flexibility and end-use
patterns. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1570-A1, p. 20]
Another example is that snowplows must operate continuously in adverse winter weather to
clear roads for public safety. Snowplows are often converted and used as dump trucks for
highway maintenance other times in the year. It will be very challenging for OEMs and end-
users to size batteries for this different seasonal usage, so H2ICE, Renewable Fuel or FCEV with
liquid fueling would provide better asset flexibility for this kind of seasonal dual-use
vehicle. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1570-A1, p. 20.] [See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1570-A1, page. 21, for referenced figures.]
EPA recognizes a special use case in the NPRM where an optional custom chassis
certification structure for Fire Trucks is proposed so that the regulation does not force BEV
technology to this category prematurely, even though the HD TRUCS model predicts 13% BEV
adoption in MY27 and 25% BEV adoption in MY2032 for Fire Trucks based on energy
requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1570-A1, p. 21]
Recommendation: EPA provide an optional custom chassis certification for other vehicles
used in emergency response (ex. snow emergency, utilities restoration) to provide needed
regulatory relief until there is more certainty in 1:1 replacement capability and productivity for
each conventional application to decarbonized vehicle conversion based on technology and
infrastructure readiness. This approach would mirror EPA's proposal for "Optional Customer
Chassis: Emergency Vehicle" with 0% ZEV adoption modeled through MY32. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1570-A1, p. 21]
179
-------
For vehicles not engaged in emergency response, but with wide variation of daily operating
needs, we recommend that EPA give thought to a productivity factor for each vehicle's mission,
apart from mileage analysis, to improve the HD TRUCS model's ability to forecast 1:1
replacement. Given sufficient time to gather data, industry can support EPA with daily fuel
consumption, when in heavy use, for these targeted applications to determine correct battery
sizing. A MEMA member has compiled available duty cycle data to provide real-world examples
of these kinds of vehicle's daily variation in miles traveled, shown in figure x-y below. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1570-A1, p. 21] [See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1570-
Al, page. 22, for referenced figure.]
OEMs prioritize resources towards deploying new GHG-saving technology on higher volume
vehicle configurations with end-users that value fuel savings first, and these features are released
for specialized vocational trucks later. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1570-A1, p. 17]
Vehicles that have higher volumes, less specialization, and operate in less harsh
environments, like step-vans, can be a better starting point for vocational segments, rather than
targeting ZEV adoption across all vocational segments before MY32. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1570-A1, p. 17]
Organization: Morales, Jorge
Below is a thorough letter my advocacy center advises us to send, but first I wanted to
personalize the letter in the off chance one of your staff members, or you, actually reads this
letter. These are my thoughts as a tax paying citizen concerned about the cost as well as
unintended consequences of the EPA and individual states passing requirements to ban new
gas/diesel vehicle sales and only allow newEVs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1691.html, p. 1]
Towing and Cold Weather and hot weather
Where will recharge stations be located? Will those be public or privately owned? The State
of Iowa is already charging tax on Privately Owned charging stations located at supermarkets.
Therefore eventually those private corporations will pass the tax down to consumers and charge
us to charge our EVs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1691.html, p. 1]
Where will funds for road infrastructure come from with a significant decrease in
gasoline/diesel sales - which is what State's tax to afford road repairs? Will the Federal Level
implement a tax on charging stations similar to the State of Iowa? Well, that will certainly be
passed on to consumers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1691.html, p. 1]
How are people supposed to be able to afford their increased utility bill from charging said
expensive EV in their home? Currently heating utility bills are astronomically high. Won't this
only increase even more? [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1691.html, p. 1]
Organization: Moving Forward Network (MFN) et al.
• Prioritize zero emissions for freight trucks, i.e., Class 7 and 8 (short-haul) drayage trucks.
These trucks have never been prioritized in heavy-duty truck regulations and are some of
the oldest and most-polluting vehicles in frontline and fence-line communities. The rule
must include a mandatory scrapping program to prevent a scenario in which: port-
adjacent communities are further burdened by the existing diesel truck fleet and new
180
-------
ZEVs. Establishing a scrapping program is critical to preventing the re-sale, migration,
and increased density of dirty diesel heavy-duty vehicles in already overburdened, largely
BIPOC and low-income communities where goods movement is concentrated. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 6]
One of the key MFN demands is that the rule should prioritize zero-emissions for freight
trucks, i.e., Class 7 and 8 (short-haul) drayage trucks. These trucks have never been prioritized in
heavy-duty truck regulations, and are some of the oldest and most-polluting vehicles in frontline
and fence-line communities . Electrifying our nation's fleet of tractor trucks is vital to addressing
pollution from medium- and heavy-duty vehicles. Although they are less than one-third of the
total fleet, they consume over 70 percent of fuel powering Class 4 through 8 trucks and buses on
our roads and highways. While Tesla's 500-mile range Semi gets much of the attention, several
legacy manufacturers, including Daimler and Volvo are producing and delivering zero-emission
Class 8 tractors. These vehicles are well-primed for use in day cab duty cycles such as drayage
runs and regional hauls. Focusing more strongly on Class 7 and 8 tractors will bring much-
needed relief to communities adjacent to and downwind from ports, railyards, warehouses, and
industrial corridors; tractor trucks emit at levels much greater than other MHDVs, and even more
so when traveling at lower speeds through neighborhoods. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1,
p. 72]
Organization: National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA)
EPA should, in its final rule, improve upon its proposal by adopting federal Phase 3 GHG
emission standards that, at a minimum, are based on values that reflect ACT ZEV sales
percentages through MY 2032 but with more rigorous standards for several types of heavy-duty
vehicles: 1) transit buses and school buses, for which federal funds for electrification are
specifically targeted and various states have laws and policies setting electric vehicle and ZEV
purchasing goals and requirements and 2) refuse and concrete trucks, for which EPA already
projects substantial ZEV market uptake. Also of note is that because of their vocation, emissions
from these vehicle types significantly impact overburdened communities. These vehicle
categories, with many existing ZEV technologies, should be removed from the weaker Custom
Chassis GHG standards and placed back in Vocational GHG standards with the flexibility option
to remain in the Custom Chassis GHG standards if they produce a minimum fraction of ZEVs to
offset the difference in standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1499-A1, p. 6]
Organization: National Tank Truck Carriers (NTTC)
NTTC recognizes that collaboration and cooperation between federal regulatory agencies and
America's tank truck industry will yield the mutual goal of enhancing the safety and efficiency
of bulk commodity transportation. An inherent yet beneficial byproduct of an efficient surface
transportation system is the reduction of air pollution that may endanger public health or
welfare. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1551-A1, p. 1]
NTTC supports the EPA intended objective of reducing air pollution from heavy-duty
highway vehicles utilized by the American tank truck industry. NTTC members seek to be good
custodians of the planet we all share, cherish, and preserve for future generations. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1551-A1, p. 1]
181
-------
NTTC is concerned regarding the EPA proposal for more stringent MY207 HD vehicle C02
emission standards beyond what was finalized in HD GHG Phase 2. The association,
representing over 230 trucking companies and subsidiaries with operational nuances that must be
considered by regulatory agencies, seeks to be a part of the dialogue between EPA and
companies that manufacture, sell, or import into the United States new heavy-duty vehicles and
engines as end-users. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1551-A1, p. 1]
1) Federal regulations limit gross vehicle weights to 80,000 pounds except where lower gross
vehicle weight is dictated by the bridge formula, according to 23 CFR 658.17(b). NTTC
members, like all commercial vehicle operators, must abide by this weight limit. To ensure a
state of good repair of America's roads and bridges, NTTC does not support an increase to this
80,000 pound gross vehicle weight limitation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1551-A1, p. 2]
Tank truck owners and operators, hauling very heavy bulk commodities daily, are therefore
mindful of this gross vehicle weight limitation. Generally, ZEVs add considerable tractor weight
due to their battery composition and size. An internal combustion engine tractor can weigh
approximately 15,600 pounds. An electric day cab may weigh approximately 22,000 pounds. If a
tank truck has a maximum gross vehicle weight of 80,000 pounds, approximately 6,400 pounds
of payload (an 8% reduction) may be lost based on a single shipment if an electric cab was used
versus atypical diesel cab of today. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1551-A1, p. 2]
This 6,400 pounds of lost payload due to the usage of ZEV tractors must therefore be made up
by equipment that has shorter range. A battery electric Class 8 Tractor may have a 230 mile
range, whereas a Diesel tractor of today may have a 1,000+ mile range. Therefore, the problems
of ZEV usage for the tank truck industry are compounded with increased truckloads
needed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1551-A1, p. 2]
Further, America has a tank truck driver shortage that cannot make up the difference for these
extra truckloads resulting from ZEV usage to meet updated EPA mandates. An NTTC study has
shown that from May 2019 to May 2021, there has been a 41.6% reduction in qualified tank
truck driver applicants resulting in an 11% reduction in loads hauled (capacity). The tank truck
driver workforce is also an aging workforce, with 80% of drivers over the age of 45 as of 2021.
NTTC is not confident that today's workforce can respond adequately to the increased number of
truckloads (due to increased tractor weight) needed to haul the same amount of
commodity. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1551-A1, p. 2]
2) Due to the weight issue identified in the previous section of this letter, NTTC is pleased
with EPA's position in Section II of the proposal that the proposed greenhouse gas standards do
not mandate ZEV technology, and that fleets would likely use a diverse range of technologies.
NTTC is also pleased that EPA is open to comments suggesting technology or implementation
alternatives that would provide a more gradual phase-in of proposed emissions standards. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1551-A1, p. 2]
The use of hydrogen as a viable energy source for commercial heavy-duty trucking does
appear to have many advantages over ZEVs, particularly in a tanker truck application, but NTTC
members are concerned with refueling capabilities and costs. By EPA's own admission,
"Hydrogen storage cost projections also vary widely in the literature. Sharpe and Basma reported
costs ranging from as high as $1,289 per kg to $375 per kg of usable hydrogen in 2025." The
mid and long-term cost projections for hydrogen usage to power trucking fleets raise a high
182
-------
degree of uncertainty for America's trucking industry. EPA also acknowledged that, . .this
market is still emerging and that hydrogen fuel providers will likely pursue a diverse range of
business models. For example, some businesses may sell hydrogen to fleets through a negotiated
contract rather than at a flat market rate on a given day. Others may offer to absorb the
infrastructure development risk for the consumer, in exchange for the ability to sell excess
hydrogen to other customers and more quickly amortize the cost of building a fueling station.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1551-A1, p. 2]
FCEV manufacturers may offer a 'turnkey' solution to fleets, where they provide a vehicle
with fuel as a package deal. These uncertainties are not reflected in our hydrogen price estimates
presented in the DRIA." Notably, EPA advised verbatim (with emphasis added) in its proposal,
"We also note that the hydrogen infrastructure is expected to need additional time to further
develop, as discussed in greater detail in DRIA Chapter 1.8, but we expect the refueling needs
can be met by MY 2030." This uncertainty will likely discourage trucking fleet owners and
independent owner-operators from investing in hydrogen as an energy solution for trucking.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1551-A1, p. 3]
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administrationl, there are about 48 hydrogen
vehicle fueling stations in the United States with nearly all of them within California. The lack of
widespread hydrogen fueling infrastructure raises concerns about hydrogen viability to meet
EPA's aggressive goals cited in its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles-Phase 3. Further, hydrogen's cost per mile can
exceed double the highest rate per mile than other fuels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1551-A1, p.
3]
1 https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/hydrogen/use-of-hydrogen.php
Many trucking companies have considered using natural gas as a potential solution to
decrease vehicle emissions. In fact, compressed natural gas (CNG) tractors saw an 80% increase
of new registrations in 2021, although it only made up 3% of total new tractor registrations. The
primary concern about widespread investment in natural gas (compressed or liquefied) tractors is
price. A January 2023 U.S. Department of Energy report2 cites that the National Average Retail
Fuel Prices for CNG increased from $2.88 per gasoline gallon equivalent (GGE) in October 2022
to $3.25 (GGE) in January 2023, an increase of $.37. Alarmingly, LNG prices skyrocketed in the
same period from $3.63 to $4.76 - a difference of $1.13. For context, CNG prices achieved
parity with Diesel in January 2023, but CNG and LNG prices have initiated a price climb in mid-
2021 with no signs of decelerating. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1551-A1, p. 3]
2 https://afdc.energy.gOv/files/u/publication/alternative_fuel_price_reportJanuary_2023.pdf
The U.S. Energy Information Administration website3 reports that in 2022 there were 98
LNG and 1,399 CNG refueling stations in the United States. Sparse availability of these fueling
stations nationwide is a concern for America's tank truck industry. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1551-A1, p. 3]
3 https://afdc.energy.gov/data/10332
4) America's tank truck industry is eager to protect and preserve the environment, but high
costs of Class 8 Tractor equipment pose an existential threat to businesses that would need to
183
-------
comply with the Proposed Rulemaking on Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Heavy-Duty
Vehicles-Phase 3. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1551-A1, p. 4]
The cost of a typical Diesel tractor of today, used by the tank truck industry, is approximately
$125,000. It is notable to compare this cost with similar tractors that use different fuel types such
as natural gas ($170,000), battery electric ($450,000), and hydrogen fuel cell ($800,000).
Considering these higher prices, equipment manufacturers are financially incentivized to push
these technologies on carriers and owner-operators. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1551-A1, p. 4]
Average net profit margins of trucking companies are low, sometimes between 2 and 6%.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles-Phase 3, as currently proposed
by EPA, will yield in carriers and owner-operators needing to make a choice: (a) purchase new
equipment at higher cost, with lower range, lower refueling availability, lower payload (if ZEV),
and lower confidence in their return on investment; or (b) purchase older equipment to
circumvent these issues, thus countering EPA intent, which poses maintenance and safety
concerns over time. NTTC does not accept either of these mutually exclusive choices for future
end-users. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1551-A1, p. 4]
Organization: Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) and the
Ozone Transport Commission (OTC)
The Phase 2 GHG program includes optional custom chassis standards for eight specific
vehicle types. Those vehicle types may either meet the primary vocational vehicle program
standards or, at the vehicle manufacturer's option, they may comply with these optional
standards. The existing custom chassis standards are numerically less stringent than the primary
GHG Phase 2 vocational vehicle standards. Manufacturers should not have the option to certify
urban buses, school buses, refuse hauling trucks, and concrete mixers to optional custom chassis
standards that are weaker than the vocational category. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1562-A1,
p. 12]
Organization: NTEA - The Association for the Work Truck Industry
Intermediate Steps
As it stands today, EV heavy duty trucks will not be available or capable of adequately
fulfilling the wide variety of applications for which vocational trucks are designed in the time
frames under consideration. Fleets need options that can significantly reduce emissions but don't
have some of the inherent limitations of EVs in specific applications. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1510-A1, p. 4]
Vocational trucks, as opposed to over-the-road trucks, often drive low miles and then spend
longer times on the jobsite. The driving component of fuel consumption is likely lower
than lighter duty pick-up and delivery trucks. Promoting technologies such as ePTOs and PHEVs
with parallel hybrid configurations may offer a good bridge to the future. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1510-A1, pp. 4-5]
Fleets need alternatives to EVs if they are not a fit for their applications. Diesel trucks with
ePTOs may be a very effective, clean and economical alternative for work truck
applications. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1510-A1, p. 5]
184
-------
NTEA also suggests that the EPA consider allowing for delegated assembly by intermediate
and final-stage manufacturers to provide credits that help incomplete vehicle manufacturers
(chassis OEMs) to meet whatever more stringent regulations that are promulgated. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1510-A1, p. 5]
Organization: TeraWatt Infrastructure, Inc.
National standards for MHD vehicles will be a critical component to address emissions from
the transportation sector. States are beginning to take action to address GHG emissions from
MHD vehicles, such as the recent adoption by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) of
the 'Advanced Clean Fleet Regulation' 1, which requires MHD vehicles to transition fully to
ZEVs by 2036. In addition to this, 15 states and the District of Columbia have signed a multi-
state MOU2 to enact regulations to reduce MHD truck emissions through 100% ZEV truck sales
by 2050. While these regulations take an enormous step towards tackling emissions from MHD
vehicles, these actions focus largely on vehicle sales and are only being considered in a third of
US states. The full transition to ZEV for MHD vehicles requires national standards. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1587-A1, pp. 1-2]
1 Advanced Clean Fleets Regulation, Final Regulation Order, California Air Resources Board. April 17,
2023. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2022/acf22/acffroa4.pdf
2 https://www.nescaum.org/documents/multistate-truck-zev-mou-media-release-20200714.pdf
National standards to accelerate the transition to MHD ZEVs will also be supported by
significant public and private sector investment in ZEV fueling infrastructure. The Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) and Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) represent billions in public
funding for ZEV charging infrastructure through grants, incentives and tax credits. This is
complemented by investments from electric utilities that have already committed to more than
$3.4 billion in funding to support charging infrastructures. TeraWatt announced in September
2022 that it had raised $1 billion for the purpose of building dedicated fleet charging
infrastructure. This investment was secured before the passage of CARB's ACF regulation, and
any proposed federal rules for MHD vehicles to transition to ZEV. Collectively, the public and
private sector investments in MHD ZEV charging infrastructure is already in the tens of billions,
and EPA's proposed rule can impact an exponential growth in both investment and deployment
of charging infrastructure over the next decade to meet the market needs of this transition. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1587-A1, p. 2]
3 Electric Vehicle Sales and the Charging Infrastructure Required Through 2030, EEI, June 2022.
https://www.eei.Org/-/media/Project/EEI/Documents/Issues-and-Policy/Electric-
Transportation/EVForecast--Infrastructure-Report.pdf
Organization: Transportation Departments of Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota and
Wyoming
As state DOTs we are also struck by the singular focus in the NPRM on EVs and inadequate
attention to low carbon liquid fuels and biofuels as means of addressing emissions
concerns. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1487-A1, p. 2]
Yet EVs are not well suited for all climates of our nation, especially in states that are rural, are
at high altitude, or both. In such areas long distance travel in often extreme temperature ranges
185
-------
significantly impact EV range and the ability of Americans to access healthcare, food, and other
necessities. The challenges faced by many states is exemplified through their winter operations
and snow removal. For example, in South Dakota this past winter, the DOT alone totaled 3.2
million miles, used about one million gallons of fuel, and clocked approximately 178,000 man-
hours to keep the state's roads safe. We are concerned the proposed emissions standards and
push to heavy-duty EV use could significantly limit states' ability to keep roads clear and safe
during winter conditions, which is necessary for travelers and freight to safely reach their
destination. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1487-A1, p. 2]
Organization: Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
Energy-Intense Vehicle Applications - There are vehicle types, as identified by EPA in the
preamble, such as heavy-haul vocational tractors trucks and long-haul tractors, that may require
significant energy content for their intended use. Those applications, especially the heavy
vocational trucks, are required to haul higher loads than are described and calculated within
GEM. EPA used GEM to determine the battery energy needed per-mile to move a vehicle.
Vocational trucks are loaded with 7.5 tons (15,000 pounds) in GEM for this assessment. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 51]
Dump trucks also haul significantly greater loads than are used by GEM and HD TRUCS to
assess feasibility as a ZEV and potential adoption rates. The Class 8 configurations typically
have additional axles added to allow the vehicle to carry more payload. The added axles also use
up the space that could otherwise be used for batteries. That yields a double negative - more
batteries are needed to move the higher vehicle weights, but less space is available due to the
added axles to carry the additional weight. Accordingly, dump trucks, especially Class 8
versions, clearly warrant much lower ZEV-truck adoption rates. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
2668-A1, p. 51]
Long-haul tractors are deemed to be FCEVs under the NPRM. The performance of FCEVs is
still in the development phase so it is uncertain if the systems will have the horsepower
capability to move representative freight loads on the timelines that are needed. There is no
question about the torque to get the vehicle moving, but there can be concerns about the
sustained horsepower necessary to allow the long-haul vehicle to maintain the needed speed
across the various terrains, especially for vehicles that exceed the 82,000 pound national weight
limit. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 51]
FCEVs that will go into production in 2025 are limited by the total combination weight that
can be hauled, the mileage range, and the performance power. Although FCEVs are specified by
EPA in the NPRM for heavy-haul tractors, it is unclear if the FCEVs can be rated with a power
capacity to handle combination weights that exceed 120,000 pounds. It is also uncertain whether
the technology can or will progress sufficiently, and if the needed hydrogen refueling
infrastructure will be developed nationally over the following five years to have it ready to
support long-haul tractor applications. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, pp. 51 - 52]
Organization: Truck Renting and Leasing Association (TRALA)
Rental Operations are Unlike Those of Traditional Trucking Companies
186
-------
Rental trucks are fundamentally temporary transportation assets that are utilized by multiple
customers throughout the year. Trucks owned by rental and leasing companies are typically
rented to a business for less than one year. Short-term rental trucks operate under the renter's
DOT number and the IRP and IFTA accounts of the rental and leasing company. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1577-A1, p. 3]
Rented and leased trucks frequently cross state borders and are vessels of interstate
commerce. TRALA members do not control truck movements, operations, route planning, or
fueling opportunities. This responsibility falls squarely on the renter or lessee. The potential also
exists for the movement or drop-off of ZEV assets at locations that may not have fueling
infrastructure or properly trained technicians available. These are the realities in the renting and
leasing space that TRALA members will have to cope with moving forward. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1577-A1, p. 3]
Flexible fleet access to rental vehicles also serves a critical economic role for small businesses
that do not specialize in transportation, enabling businesses to add extra capacity during peak
seasons, manage growth in an uncertain market, and replace trucks at a moment's notice. These
rental vehicles may be utilized by a single entity, but the vehicles have no single operator, no
designated single routes, and no single home facility. These variables are the reason why rental
vehicles are not the best candidates for near-term electrification or use of hydrogen. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1577-A1, p. 3]
Organization: Westport Fuel Systems
The EPA has asked for comments on adoption rates listed for ZEV long haul sleeper cabs
As mentioned in our response, the timelines for 2030 and 2032 are very ambitious given the
current rate of deployment. The adoption rate is also dependent on the rate of charging and
refuelling infrastructure development. There are numerous challenges to establishing
infrastructure. It can take years to create the infrastructure ecosystem which includes developing
the market and having commercially available vehicles for sale at scale. FCEVs which have the
greatest flexibility to perform in the highest weight vehicles are still in development or
demonstration phase in this segment and are not at full volume production, nor are price
competitive. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1567-A1, p. 10]
EPA Summary and Response:
Summary:
ABF claims the proposed rule is a "de facto mandate on the adoption of electric vehicle
technology that is at an early stage of development in the trucking industry." Their current
experience with BEVs has shown limited range and challenges associated with charging
infrastructure installation.
American Soybean Association is concerned about wear/tear on roads, extra time for more
trips for farmers, cost of additional vehicles for farmers, suggest a need to increase truck weight
limits on roads to avoid what would otherwise be payload losses due to increased battery weight
(and presumable, size). They also posit increased emissions from road wear due to heavier ZEV
vehicles.
187
-------
ATA highlights the operational diversity of the trucking industry that needs to consider the
weight impact, charging time, and maintainability in their TCO applications.
CARB staff urges U.S. EPA to require transit bus manufacturers to comply with the primary
vocational vehicle standards in this Phase 3 rule. CARB staff also recommends U.S. EPA
incorporate the same provisions as in California's Phase 2 GHG transit bus requirements for the
following custom chassis vehicle categories: school bus, other bus, coach bus, refuse hauler, and
concrete mixer. CARB's comment included examples of specialized ZEVs, many of which could
fall into the custom chassis definition and supports greater inclusion into the stronger vocational
standards instead of the weaker custom chassis standards. Similarly, NESCAUM/OTC
commented that, in general, there should not be an option for refuse trucks and cement mixers to
certify to the less stringent custom chassis standard.
ZEV examples cited in the comment include concrete mixers, truck cranes, knuckle boom
cranes, bucket trucks, sewer cleaning trucks, armored trucks, stinger-steered auto carrier
transports, street sweepers, aviation fuel delivery, container roll off, hook loader and skip
loaders, school buses, double decker and motorcoaches, refuse, . plug-in fire trucks, and BEV
and FCEV ambulances. EPA developed Table 2-1 to summarize the website links provided in
CARB's comments.
188
-------
Table 2-1: Electric Vehicles Included in CARB's Comments
Vehicle
Platform
Make
Model
OEM
Country
Type
Available
Date
Make
Model
Bocker
AK 48e
Germany
Crane
2022
Mercedes
eActros
Fass
F245
Denmark
Crane
2023
Scania
25L
Hiab
X-HiPro 122
Crane
2021
Volvo
FE Electric
CTE
MP 20 Ev
Italy
Crane
2022
Zeus
19
USA
Bucket
2023
Altec
USA
Bucket
2023
International
eM2
Sewer Cleaner
2022
MAN
eTGM
Loomis
Armored Vehicle
2022
Xos
Kassbohrer
Germany
Auto Carrier
2023
Scania
P 25
Kassbohrer
Germany
Auto Carrier
2022
Volvo
FM
Elgin Sweeper
USA
Street Sweeper
2023
Battle Motors
Schwarze
M6 Avalanche EV
USA
Street Sweeper
2024
Glutton
Zen
EU
Street Sweeper
2023
Dulevo
D.Zero2
Street Sweeper
2023
Dulevo
D.Zero2 Elydro
Street Sweeper
2023
aebi schmidt
eSwingo 200+
Street Sweeper
2023
RAVO
5 eSeries
Street Sweeper
2023
Madvac
LS175
Street Sweeper
2023
Madvac
LS125
Street Sweeper
2023
Bucher
CityCat V20e
Street Sweeper
2023
GEP
Street Sweeper
2023
US Hybrid
USA
Global
W4E
Street Sweeper
2021
Global
M3EV
Street Sweeper
2023
Battle Motors
LET 2
Street Sweeper
2023
Bosserman
Aviation Equipment
AVGAS Refueler
2007
Isuzu
Titan
eRR20
France
AVGAS Refueler
PVI
France
Titan
eHD150
France
Hydrant
Dispenser
Titan
eSPR35
France
AVGAS Refueler
2022
Palfinger
PHT 20 TEC 5
France
Hooklift
2022
Volvo
FE Electric
FUSO
eCanter
Roll-Off Tipper
2022
Renault
E-TechDZE
France
Roll-Off Tipper
Battle Motors
LET 2
Roll-Off Tipper
2022
Striker
Volterra
Fire Truck
2023
Oshkosh
Pierce
Volterra
Fire Truck
2023
Oshkosh
E-One
Vector
Fire Truck
2022
Rosenbauer
RT
Fire Truck
2023
Rosenbauer
Panther Electric
ARFF
2023
E-One
Evo
Fire Truck
2023
Titan
T-39
Germany
ARFF
2023
Scania
Titan
ZEPA1
UK
Fire Truck
2022
Mercedes
Hydrogen Vehicle Systems
UK
Ambulance
2021
WMAS
UK
Ambulance
2020
Ulemco
Zerro
UK
Ambulance
2021
Ford
Transit
UK
Ambulance
2021
Nissan
NV400
Japan
Ambulance
2020
Lightning eMotors
Leader
USA
Ambulance
2021
Ford
Transit
VCS
E-DCA
UK
Ambulance
2023
DTNA stated that EPA should not adopt any new CO2 standards for long-haul tractors and
heavy-duty vocational vehicles until at least 2033 and a nationwide network of refueling
infrastructure exists to support them. DTNA believes a beachhead type of proposal could
189
-------
generate ZEV demand in specific categories. DTNA supports EPA's proposal not projecting
ZEV adoption for certain custom chassis subcategories.
Electrification Coalition generally agrees with EPA's ZEV market assessment and supports
more stringent standards for school buses, drayage and terminal trucks, and step vans, providing
examples why each category should have quicker adoption than EPA proposed. MFN
commented that drayage trucks should be subject to a more stringent standard, given their
suitability for ZEV technologies (limited range, overnight charging in depots) plus the
environmental benefits of reducing emissions given their use in heavily polluted areas like ports
and railway yards.
MEMA stated that certain vehicles occasionally require higher demand than a typical day,
such as fire trucks, utility trucks and snowplows. They suggested that EPA add an additional
optional custom chassis category for vehicles used in emergency response, beyond fire trucks
and ambulances. MEMA provided duty cycle data for some applications.
Hill Bros, stated that BEVs will not work for expedited team freight due to their limited range
(assuming a depot charging model).
Jorge Morales raised concerns about the cost and the infrastructure growth related to EPA
requirements to ban ICE vehicle sales.
NACAA suggests that EPA adopt standards that reflect the ZEV percentages required by
ACT and even more stringent standards for transit buses, school buses, refuse haulers and
concrete mixers.
NTTC raised concerns related to the extra weight and cost of BEVs for tank truck applications
and H2 refueling availability and costs.
NTEA states that currently heavy-duty EVs are not available or capable of fulfilling the
variety of vocational vehicle applications. They suggest that ePTOs may be an effective
alternative and suggest that EPA allow delegated assemblers provide credits to incomplete
vehicle manufacturers.
TeraWatt stated that support from IIJA and IRA in addition to utility investments will support
the HD charging infrastructure. TeraWatt also highlighted that it raised $1 billion in 2022 for
building fleet charging infrastructure.
EMA maintains that energy used by certain HDV applications are significantly higher than
what is represented in GEM and HD TRUCS. Specifically, they suggest that dump trucks are an
example where load requirements (and therefore energy requirements) are significantly
underrepresented in HD TRUCS and that the added weight of batteries and potential impacts on
payload capability indicate that standards for dump trucks should be predicated on lower ZEV
adoption rates. EMA also raised concerns about the ability of FCEVs to meet the horsepower
requirements for freight delivery and heavy-haul applications. They also raise a concern related
to the availability of H2 refueling infrastructure needed in time to support long-haul applications.
TRALA stated that rental operations were not the best candidates for ZEVs due to the charging
infrastructure needs of the renter and the need for properly trained technicians.
Westport raised concerns related to the rate of the charging and hydrogen infrastructure
development needed to support the 2030 and 2032 timelines.
190
-------
Response:
EPA's proposed and final heavy-duty vehicle CO2 emission standards are performance-based
standards and are not a "de facto mandate on the adoption of electric vehicle technology." As
discussed in Section II.F.4 of the preamble, we have analyzed several additional example
potential compliance pathway's technology packages that support the final emission standards,
that do not include BEVs or FCEVs relative to the reference case.
We received mixed comments on the readiness of the infrastructure, including support from
TerraWatt for our assessment in the proposal. In response to several commenters raising
concerns related to the readiness of the infrastructure to support ZEVs, we have carefully
assessed infrastructure needed for the modeled potential compliance pathway as described in
Section II.D.2.iii of the preamble and RIA Chapter 1.6.2 that supports the feasibility of the final
standards, and as described in preamble Section II.G we conclude that the Phase 3 standards are
feasible and appropriate. EPA also commits in this final rule to actively engage with stakeholders
and monitor both manufacturer compliance and the major elements of heavy-duty ZEV
infrastructure, as discussed in preamble Section II.B.2.iii. Additional comments and responses to
comments related to charging and hydrogen refueling infrastructure readiness can be found in
RTC Sections 6.1, 6.2, and 8.
For the analysis to support the final rulemaking, EPA evaluated the weight impact of BEV
powertrains relative to a comparable ICE powertrain. As discussed in RIA Chapter 2.9.1.1, we
assess the weight difference for specific applications in HD TRUCS on an individual basis and
determine the suitability of each application for BEVs based on the payload difference between
comparable ICE vehicles and BEVs. Many applications show no weight increase for BEVs. See
also our response to comments in RTC Section 3. With respect to the comment suggesting an
increase in the allowable weight limits on roads, this is outside of the scope of this rulemaking
and EPA's authority.
As discussed in the preamble to this final rule, we are continuing to allow the option for
manufacturers to meet custom chassis standards for certain vehicle categories. We are retaining
the current eight vehicle categories finalized in the HD GHG Phase 2 program. After considering
comments, including CARB, NACAA, and NESCAUM/OTC and others, we are revising
standards for some, but not all, of the optional custom chassis subcategories. See section II.C.l
of the preamble for background on our custom chassis standards and section II.F. 1 for a
description of the optional custom chassis standards we are finalizing in this rule.
Some commenters raised concerns about electrifying specific applications, such as long-haul
tractors, trucks that use team drivers, rental trucks, snowplows, and utility trucks. As discussed in
preamble Section II.F.l, under the modeled potential compliance pathway the majority of sales
of new HD vehicles in MYs 2027 through 2032 are projected to be ICE vehicles with GHG-
reducing technologies. Furthermore, as discussed in preamble Section II.F.4, there are many
other possible compliance pathways for meeting the final standards that do not involve the
widespread adoption of BEV and FCEV technologies. In that section we describe and assess
additional example potential compliance pathways.
Electrification Coalition and MFN specifically commented about drayage tractors. As noted
in the proposal (88 FR 25991), a drayage tractor is not a unique application nor do these tractors
contain unique design features to differentiate them from other tractors - nearly any tractor can
be used for drayage operation. At this time, we do not have data and the commenters did not
191
-------
provide sufficient information to inform new standards for drayage applications. We are not
including new standards specifically for drayage tractors in this final rule and these tractors will
continue to be required to meet the applicable day cab or sleeper cab tractor emission standards.
For the final rule analysis, we made adjustments to our sizing of fuel cell stack, battery, and
motor components for FCEVs, as described in RIA Chapter 2.5.1. To avoid undersizing the fuel
cell system, we oversized the fuel cell stack by an additional 25 percent to allow for occasional
scenarios where the vehicle requires more power (e.g., to accelerate when the battery state of
charge is low, to meet unusually long grade requirements, or to meet other infrequent extended
high loads like a strong headwind) and so the fuel cell can operate within an efficient region.
With respect to the comment suggesting that ePTOs are an effective technology for reducing
GHG emissions, we note that ePTOs can be taken into account today under the existing
regulations 40 CFR 1037.520(k) and 40 CFR 1037.540 and those regulations remain for the
Phase 3 program (and were not reopened in this final rulemaking).
2.3 Structure of the Program
2.3.1 Modifying Phase 2
Comments by Organizations
Organization: American Trucking Associations (ATA)
ATA and other industry stakeholders worked with EPA in good faith to arrive at a final
regulation that was stringent but achievable and defended the final rule from external political
pressures. Changing GHG Phase 2 mid-stream will upend the lead-time, planning and resources
necessary for manufacturers to design and validate emissions reduction technologies and that
remains our concern with reopening the rule today. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1535-A1, p. 4]
Besides the policy implications, the Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 202(a)(3)(C) requires four-
year lead time and three-year stability periods for new or revised heavy-duty truck
emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1535-A1, p. 4]
EPA's proposed reopening of MY 2027 GHG Phase 2 standard fails to follow the CAA four-
year lead time requirement. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1535-A1, p. 5]
Organization: National Association of Chemical Distributors (NACD)
Revising Phase 2 Greenhouse Gas Standards
This proposal includes revising the EPA's previously finalized phase 2 GHG emission
standard, setting new targets for Model Year 2027. NACD strongly disagrees with this approach
as it would disincentivize manufacturers and others in the industry to plan farther into the future
when other rulemakings are finalized, as there would be no certainty that set EPA standards will
not be changed before they are eventually implemented. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1564-A1,
pp. 4 - 5]
192
-------
NACD strongly recommends that the EPA maintain the current phase 2 GHG standards to
maintain consistency for the trucking industry. Manufacturers and buyers have factored these
standards in their various business decisions over the years, and retroactively adjusting them
standards would severely harm the industry and the economy as a whole. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1564-A1, p. 5]
Organization: National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA)
III. Any reopening of the Phase 2 GHG mandates would undermine market stability.
ATD categorically opposes any increases to the stringency of the Phase 2 GHG standards
applicable through MY 2027 as they would undermine the regulatory certainty that is critical to
compliance and marketplace stability. The Phase 2 standards resulted from a carefully
coordinated joint rulemaking with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA), the agency primarily responsible for administering the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act (EPCA), as amended by the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA).9
Clean Air Act (CAA) section 202(a)(3)(C) states that four-year lead time and three-year stability
periods are required for HDV emission standards and a reopening of Phase 2 for MY 2027 would
not comport with this statutory mandate. Thus, it would be contrary to the CAA and the intent of
Congress for EPA to revise the Phase 2 GHG standards. Moreover, EPA's suggestion that the
Phase 2 GHG mandates should be tightened based on aspirational HDV manufacturer goals for
the potential rollout of ZEVHDVs is necessarily arbitrary and capricious. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1592-A1, p. 4]
9 Section 102 of EISA specifically mandated that NHTSA coordinate with EPA to establish fuel
economy/GHG standards for medium- and heavy-duty trucks. 49 U.S.C. §32902(b)(l)(C).
Organization: National Waste & Recycling Association (NWRA)
As the industry that facilitates and conducts recycling throughout the country, NWRA
members support EPA's goals to make the environment a better place and increase the
cleanliness and efficiency of the vehicles their companies produce and operate. NWRA does not
want to have a regulation that limits the strides our manufacturers and operating companies are
already taking to incorporate zero emission vehicles (ZEV) into our fleets. NWRA-member truck
manufacturers are already seeing an uptick in the request and ordering of ZEVs. NWRA requests
that EPA institute a technologically feasible rule and not change the current regulatory
environment as it relates to Phase 2. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1616-A1, p. 1]
Organization: NTEA - The Association for the Work Truck Industry
This NPRM effectively re-opens the Phase 2 rules. Re-opening the finalized GHG Phase 2
rules would undermine the regulatory stability manufacturers need in order to develop their
products. It would effectively penalize engine manufacturers for their ongoing efforts to assure
compliance with the existing 2024 and 2027 GHG standards. Additionally, changing the GHG
rules would put manufacturers in the position of trying to develop technologies to meet increased
GHG standards for existing and necessary ICE trucks while also trying to design and introduce
ZEVs to the market. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1510-A1, p. 2]
193
-------
Organization: PACCAR, Inc.
I. EPA SHOULD NOT RE-OPEN MY2027 STANDARDS
In the HD GHG Phase 2 rule, EPA promulgated MY2027 standards on which manufacturers
have relied in designing their product portfolios and compliance strategies. EPA now proposes to
make the MY2027 standards more stringent, relying on increased ZEV adoption rates as the
rationale for re-opening these standards. Increased ZEV adoption is precisely the policy goal
EPA sought to promote in setting the HD GHG Phase 2 standards, allowing vehicle
manufactures flexibility in choosing the best combination of technologies to meet the standards.
OEMs have chosen to invest in ZEVs - rather than other available compliance pathways - to
meet Phase 2 standards. OEMs advanced ZEV technologies, making this aspect of the HD GHG
Phase 2 successful. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1607-A1, p. 3]
Although ZEV adoption rates have exceeded EPA's HD GHG Phase 2 rule projections,
several other key technologies have lagged behind those projections. For example, EPA's GHG
Phase 2 stringency calculations assumed for MY2027: 30% of tractors would have automatic tire
inflation systems; 30% of tractors and 15% of vocational vehicles would have electric
accessories (power steering pump, water pump, etc.); more than 70% of vocational vehicles
would have tamper proof one minute idle shutdown timers; and 20% of vocational vehicles
would have stop-start, and up to 30% of vocational vehicles would have advanced shift strategies
confirmed by powertrain testing. PACCAR anticipates these technologies' MY2027 adoption
rates will be below these assumptions for a variety of reasons including technology availability
(e.g., engine stop-start), technology costs (e.g., auto tire inflation, electric accessories), customer
adoption willingness (e.g., one minute idle shutdown timers), and high compliance costs (e.g.,
powertrain testing). PACCAR respectfully requests that if EPA seeks to increase MY2027
stringencies in response to one specific technology - ZEVs - that is over performing predicted
adoption rates, the Agency should similarly account for technologies that are underperforming
predicted adoption rates. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1607-A1, pp. 3-4]
Organization: State of California et al.
A. Statutory and Regulatory Framework
Section 202(a) of the CAA requires EPA to set emission standards for air pollutants from new
motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines that the Administrator has found "cause, or
contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or
welfare." 127 Standards under section 202(a) shall take effect "after such period as the
Administrator finds necessary to permit the development and application of the
requisite technology, giving appropriate consideration to the cost of compliance within such
period." 128 Therefore, in establishing or revising emission standards promulgated under section
202(a), EPA must consider issues of technological feasibility, compliance cost, and lead
time. 129 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1588-A1, pp. 17-18]
127 42 U.S.C. § 7521(a).
128 Id. § 7521(a).
129 88 Fed. Reg. 25,926, 25,949 (Apr. 27, 2023) (citing 76 Fed. Reg. 57,129 (Sept. 15, 2011); 81 Fed. Reg.
73,478, 73,512 (Oct. 25, 2016)).
194
-------
EPA can and does consider the development and application of a range of technologies,
including zero-emission technologies. 130 Section 216(2) defines "motor vehicle" as "any self-
propelled vehicle designed for transporting persons or property on a street or highway," 131 an
expansive definition that reflects Congress's intent not to limit standards to vehicles running on
any particular fuel, power source, or system of propulsion. 132 Moreover, section 202(a)
authorizes EPA to set emission standards by reference to both "future advances" and "presently
available" technologies that could be applied more broadly, 133 and directs EPA to apply its
standards to vehicles that "are designed as complete systems," as well as those that "incorporate"
additional "devices" to "prevent or control pollution "134 Thus, the agency's section 202(a)
standards can be technology forcing. Indeed, the D.C. Circuit has long recognized that,
"Congress expected the Clean Air Amendments to force the industry to broaden the scope of its
research—to study new types of engines and new control systems." 135 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1588-A1, p. 18]
130 88 Fed. Reg. at 25,948-51.
13142 U.S.C. § 7550(2).
132 88 Fed. Reg. at 25,948.
133 NRDCv. EPA, 655 F.2d318, 328, 330 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (cleaned up); 42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(2).
134 42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(1).
135 Int'l Harvester Co. v. Ruckelshaus, 478 F.2d 615, 635 (D.C. Cir. 1973).
B. Existing Federal Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles and
Engines
EPA has regulated GHG emissions from the heavy-duty sector under CAA section 202(a)
since 2011, when EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration finalized their
respective parts of the Phase 1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency
Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles. Among other things, the Phase 1
GHG Standards regulated C02 emissions for highway heavy-duty vehicles and heavy-duty
vehicle engines for model years 2014 through 2018.136 The program "offered flexibility
allowing manufacturers to attain the standards through a mix of technologies and the option to
participate in an emissions credit averaging, banking, and trading program."137 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1588-A1, p.18]
136 76 Fed. Reg. 57,106 (Sept. 15, 2011).
137 87 Fed. Reg. 17,414, 17,432 (Mar. 28, 2022) (describing prior regulatory programs addressing heavy-
duty vehicles).
In 2016, EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration finalized their
respective parts of the Phase 2 GHG and fuel efficiency program for heavy-duty vehicles, which
again included performance-based standards for highway heavy-duty vehicles and heavy-duty
engines. 138 EPA's standards for most vehicles and engines commenced in model year 2021, will
increase in stringency in model year 2024, and will culminate in model year 2027.139 EPA
based its Phase 2 GHG standards on technologies currently available in 2016, as well as
technologies that were still under development or not yet widely available; however, EPA
specifically did not consider heavy-duty ZEV technologies as an available emission-reduction
strategy for the sector. 140 This failure to consider heavy-duty ZEV technologies was a departure
195
-------
from its practice of considering these technologies in other rulemakings under section 202(a). In
its "Tier 2" criteria pollutant standards for light-duty vehicles, for example, EPA incentivized
manufacturers to adopt ZEV technologies by including such vehicles in the fleet average. 141
And EPA continued this approach in its "Tier 3" standards for light-duty vehicles, 142 among
others. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1588-A1, p. 19]
138 81 Fed. Reg. 73,478 (Oct. 25, 2016).
139 Id.
140 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,432-433.
141 65 Fed. Reg. 6698, 6746 (Feb. 10, 2000).
142 79 Fed Reg. 23,414, 23,454, 23,471 (Apr. 28, 2014).
In March 2022, EPA proposed a rule titled "Control of Air Pollution From New Motor
Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards" (Heavy-Duty NOx Proposal). 143 While
the proposed rule primarily sought to strengthen criteria pollutant emission standards for heavy-
duty engines, the agency also sought comment on whether the Phase 2 GHG standards should be
strengthened for certain model year 2027 vehicles in the heavy-duty sector based on the better-
than-anticipated deployment of zero-emitting vehicles in certain heavy-duty vehicle classes such
as buses and delivery vans. Many of these States and Cities commented on the proposal—
supporting EPA's general methodology for updating the Phase 2 GHG standards, but
encouraging EPA to base its update on a more robust projection of ZEVs in the heavy-duty
sector that reflects multiple States' ZEV mandates and market conditions that increasingly favor
heavy-duty ZEVs. 144 The States and Cities further encouraged EPA to prioritize new GHG
standards for the heavy-duty sector as a whole, based on proven, cost-effective ZEV
technology. 145 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1588-A1, p.19]
143 87 Fed. Reg. 17,414 (Mar. 28, 2022).
144 Comments of California et al., Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055 (May 16, 2022).
145 Id.
I. EPA SHOULD STRENGTHEN THE PHASE 2 GHG STANDARDS FOR MODEL
YEAR 2027 VEHICLES
As discussed above, the States and Cities agree that heavy-duty ZEVs are rapidly becoming
an important presence within the heavy-duty vehicles sector, at rates far surpassing those
projected in 2016 when EPA adopted the Phase 2 standards. EPA's proposal to recognize this
and the availability of other technologies and tighten the MY2027 Phase 2 GHG standards
accordingly is sound. The proposed approach preserves the environmental integrity of
EPA's existing Phase 2 standards, in light of the expanding deployment of ZEV technologies,
because those standards were premised on other emission-reduction technologies.226 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1588-A1, pp.31-32]
226 footnote was not included in comment document
It is rational and consistent with the CAA to update the Phase 2 GHG standards to reflect
recent developments and to ensure the standards continue to demand technologically feasible and
cost-effective emission reductions. Indeed, it would be "patently unreasonable" for EPA to
196
-------
ignore the "dramatic[]" changes in the regulated industry. NRDC v. Herrington, 768 F.2d 1355,
1408 (D.C. Cir. 1985). The CAA, in particular, is designed so that EPA may respond to
"changing circumstances and scientific developments" and "forestall . . . obsolescence."
Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 532 (2007). The projections that heavy-duty ZEVs will
reach cost parity with, and then achieve cost advantage over, conventional heavy-duty engines
within the next one to eight years is surely one such change,227 as are the myriad developments
described in the Proposal and above. It is therefore appropriate for EPA to forestall obsolescence
here by adjusting the Phase 2 GHG standards to respond to technological developments, most
notably increasing ZEV deployment in the heavy-duty sector. To that end, as discussed in more
detail below, the States urge EPA to improve the accuracy of its update to the MY2027 Phase 2
GHG standards by ensuring the estimated heavy-duty ZEV penetration rate reflects other States'
adoption of California's ACT regulations and other favorable market conditions for HD ZEVs,
and increase the stringency of the final standards to provide protection levels, and thus
technological deployment levels, equivalent to that of ACT. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1588-
Al, p.32]
227 88 Fed. Reg. at 25,942; see also ICCT, Purchase costs of zero-emission trucks in the United States to
meet future Phase 3 GHG standards (March 2023), https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/cost-
zero-emission-trucks-us-phase-3 -mar23 .pdf.
Organization: Truck Renting and Leasing Association (TRALA)
Phase 2 Rule Should not be Reopened
TRALA does not support reopening the final EPA 2016 Phase 2 Greenhouse Gas (GHG) rule.
Reopening any final rule that was the culmination of years' worth of stakeholder discussions,
input, data sharing, and negotiation is simply not good public policy. Changing the final rule
mid-stream sets a bad precedent and upends the lead-time, planning, and resources necessary for
manufacturers to design technologies for the future. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1577-A1, p. 21]
Testimony presented by environmental advocacy groups during the April 12-14, 2022, EPA
public hearing on HD2027 encouraged the agency to not only tighten truck GHG standards in
2027, but also in years 2028 and 2029 as well. Many stakeholders also called for Phase 2
revisions to mandate zero-emission trucks as opposed to a phased-in approach. What became
abundantly clear during the hearing was that virtually none of the parties testifying in support of
accelerated decarbonization efforts purchased or operated trucks nor did they run trucking
companies. With the retail price of new Class 8 electric trucks costing over $400,000 per vehicle
and fuel cell vehicles estimated to cost even more, many trucking fleets will not be able to afford
the up-front costs to buy new trucks that are 3-4 times more expensive than their clean diesel
counterparts - even with the availability of federal incentives, [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1577-
Al, p. 21]
From a purely equitable standpoint, the agency should also change the implementation of any
mobile source final rule that adversely impacts fleet operations due to changes in circumstances
as well - such as pandemics, labor and technician shortages, excessive inflationary rates,
economic downturns, parts shortages, or technological inability to comply. Put another way,
good public policy necessitates the door swings both ways. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1577-
Al, p. 21]
197
-------
Organization: U.S. Chamber of Commerce
While we support a national standard that drives cutting edge technology deployment and
lowers emissions, we have serious concerns that, as proposed, EPA's preferred option fails to
adhere to these core principles, and as a result could lead to unintended negative consequences
for both the economy and the environment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1583-A1, p. 2]
While our concerns focus primarily on potential impacts to long haul freight trailers and the
traditional trucking sector, similar concerns exist with respect to potential impacts on all vehicle
classes covered by the rule, including transit buses, commercial delivery vehicles, and vehicles
designed for waste removal, construction, agriculture, and more. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1583-A1, p. 2]
Maintaining the Existing GHG Program will Promote Regulatory Durability
The proposed provisions that would modify the current Phase 2 GHG requirements that have
been in place since 2016 increases investment uncertainty and erodes confidence in private-
public partnerships that have helped successfully implement this program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1583-A1, p. 4]
While each business may view these proposed changes to the phase 2 GHG emissions
standards through different lenses, changing provisions that were agreed to years ago creates a
moving regulatory target and sends mixed signals to the market. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1583-A1, p. 4]
Although polarizing changes to regulatory programs have occurred across a range of EPA and
other federal agency programs during the last few administrations, the heavy-duty GHG
requirements have remained constant following the issuance of the 2016 final rulemaking.3 This
is in no large part due to the commitment by companies to invest and meet the 2016
standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1583-A1, p. 4]
3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and
Vehicles— Phase 2, 81 Fed. Reg. 73478, October 25, 2016.
Companies are continuing to innovate and bring GHG reducing technologies, fuels, and other
solutions to the heavy-duty marketplace. EPA may be able to achieve additional GHG emissions
reductions through incentives for advanced biofuels, such as biodiesel or renewable diesel, under
the Renewable Fuels Standards program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1583-A1, p. 4]
Conclusion
The Chamber supports EPA's efforts to further reduce emissions from the mobile source
sector. We strongly recommend, however, that the agency avoid potential counterproductive
economic and environmental consequences by considering the multitude of outside the vehicle
factors that could impede industry compliance with proposed standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1583-A1, pp. 4-5]
Organization: Volvo Group
Conventional Vehicle Stringency
198
-------
Volvo Group supports EPA's inclusion of only BEV and FCEV penetrations in the stringency
calculations. As traditional heavy-duty vehicle manufacturers transition to zero-emission
technologies, we must be able to focus our limited investments on developing and
commercializing zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs), while continuing to support our internal
combustion engine (ICE) technologies in order to meet the needs of the transportation industry
and, ultimately, all consumers during this technology transition. Additionally, the largest
greenhouse gas emission reductions will come from zero and near-zero-emission technologies
and greater utilization of sustainable liquid fuels, not from minor engine and vehicle
improvements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1606-A1, p. 15]
For these reasons we do not believe that conventional vehicle stringencies should be increased
beyond the current model year 2027 levels set in the Phase 2 rulemaking. Furthermore, if EPA
determines to re-evaluate either, or both of the 2027 engine and conventional vehicle levels, the
agency must take all of the factors noted above into consideration, especially the impact of NOx
and increased engine emissions useful life on engine fuel maps used in EPA's Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Model (GEM) to calculate a vehicle's Family Emission Limit (FEL). [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1606-A1, p. 15]
EPA Summary and Response:
Summary:
EPA proposed to commence the Phase 3 program in MY 2027 by amending the Phase 2
vehicle standards (for many but not all subcategories), but not amending the Phase 2 engine
standards. The State of California supported this proposal on the grounds advanced by EPA at
proposal: facts have changed from 2016 when the agency promulgated its Phase 2 rule and
EPA's GHG emission standards should account for those developments. Specifically, California
argued that ZEVs are being actively deployed, there are plans to increase their adoption rate, and
massive federal and State efforts underway to subsidize and otherwise encourage heavy duty
ZEV implementation. Given Congress's primary purpose of section 202 (a)(1) to further
reduction of emissions of pollutants contributing to endangerment through the application of
advanced technologies, California believes that EPA can and should amend the Phase 2
standards starting in MY 2027, as proposed.
A number of commenters opposed amendment of the Phase 2 MY 2027 standards. American
Trucking Ass'n argued that CAA section 202 (a)(3)(C) mandates four years of lead time and
three years of stability, and so bars both a MY 2027 start date and year-over-year stringency
increases thereafter.
Other commenters posed equitable arguments opposing amending the Phase 2 standards.
They note that the Phase 2 standards exhibited a rare consensus, reflecting a common
understanding that the standard would remain unaltered through its final model year of phase in
MY 2027. Manufacturers have relied on those standards in devising compliance strategies.
(U.S. Chamber of Commerce, TRALA). Moreover, early adoption of ZEVs is part of
companies' Phase 2 compliance strategies, not a valid harbinger for a Phase 3 rule. That is,
rather than adopt a number of technologies on which the Phase 2 rule was predicated (such as
high adoption rates for advanced aerodynamics, stop start, electric steering accessories and
others), some companies instead have introduced ZEVs. If the MY 2027 standards are amended,
these companies are effectively punished for their adoption of an innovative technology, because
199
-------
they will need to seek unanticipated reductions from other vehicles. (Paccar) If EPA is
considering changed circumstances as a basis for amending 2027 standards, there are changed
circumstances that cut in the other direction: under-utilization of ICE improvement technologies,
pandemic altered supply chains, inflationary prices, fewer qualified technicians, and parts
shortages. (Paccar, TRALA. DTNA, EMA)
Volvo stated that in any case, EPA should not amend the Phase 2 engine standards, and
should carefully consider the impact of the recent HD NOx standards: "if EPA determines to re-
evaluate either, or both of the 2027 engine and conventional vehicle levels, the agency must take
all of the factors noted above into consideration, especially the impact of NOx and increased
engine emissions useful life on engine fuel maps used in EPA's Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Model (GEM) to calculate a vehicle's Family Emission Limit (FEL)."
Response:
EPA is adopting standards for most of the HDV subcategories commencing in MY 2027, as
proposed. We are promulgating these standards pursuant to CAA section 202(a)(1) which does
not specify a minimum number of years of lead time, nor bar year-over-year stringency. Section
202 (a)(3)(C) does not apply for the reasons discussed in Section 2.3.3 of this RTC.
CAA section 202(a)(1) directs EPA to utilize technology-based standards to reduce emissions
of pollutants contributing to ongoing endangerment. See e.g. Coal, for Responsible Regulation,
684 F. 3d at 122. The projections that increasingly efficient emission reduction technologies are
available and already commercialized is thus a new development and a changed circumstance
that EPA can and should take into account for the purpose of setting more stringent GHG
emission standards (see further discussion regarding why EPA is setting Phase 3 standards,
including certain revised MY 2027 standards, in preamble Sections Executive Summary and II).
Indeed, were the circumstances reversed and it was apparent that the Phase 2 standards were
proving to be legitimately infeasible within the regulatory time frame, EPA would similarly react
to evaluating those changed circumstances and commence a rulemaking to consider amending
the standards.
Based on the record now before us, EPA finds that there are technically feasible means of
obtaining further significant emission reductions, at reasonable cost, and with sufficient lead
time; and that these reductions would make a meaningful contribution to mitigating the ongoing
climate crisis. Volvo's comment even recognizes this, noting that "the largest greenhouse gas
emission reductions will come from zero and near-zero-emission technologies and greater
utilization of sustainable liquid fuels, not from minor engine and vehicle improvements." See
Section II.F where we discuss the modeled and additional example potential compliance
pathways that meet and support the feasibility of the final standards. See NRDC v. EPA, 655 F.
2d at 328 (when setting standards under section 202(a) of the CAA, EPA must "press for the
development and application of improved technology rather than be limited by that which exists
today" ). In reaching this conclusion, EPA has considered, and analyzed other changed
circumstances, including inflation rate (costs are calculated in 2022 dollars), availability and cost
of critical minerals (see RTC Section 17.2), and considered potential effects on labor (see
Section 19 of this RTC). Regarding ICE vehicle technologies, see our assessment in RIA
Chapters 1 and 2 and preamble Section II.
200
-------
Regarding Volvo's comment that conventional vehicle stringencies should not be increased
beyond the current model year 2027 levels set in the Phase 2 rulemaking, EPA notes that the
vehicles with ICE in the modeled potential compliance pathway include a mix of technologies
that meet the Phase 2 MY 2027 standards. These technologies are feasible and available in the
timeframe of the Phase 3 program and at reasonable cost. However, manufacturers may use
whatever technology or mix of technologies they choose that meets the standards. In addition, as
part of the feasibility assessment of the HD2027 Rule, EPA demonstrated that the HD2027 NOx
standards could be met without increasing CO2 emissions.254
EPA addresses PACCAR's additional comment concerning relationship of the Phase 2 and
Phase 3 standards in RTC Section 2.3.3 below. However, we note that manufacturers may meet
the Phase 3 standards using whatever technology or mix of technologies they choose that meet
the final standards, including vehicle with ICE technologies; EPA's additional example potential
compliance pathways support the feasibility of meeting the standards through the use of non-
ZEV technologies.
2.3.2 Phase 3 Implementation Years
Comments by Organizations
Organization: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE)
EPA must set heavy duty standards that maximize GHG emissions reductions from
transportation
Transportation is the largest source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the United States,
accounting for 27% of total economy-wide emissions. 1 Medium- (MDV) and heavy-duty (HDV)
vehicles, despite being just 5% of the on-road fleet, are responsible for 26% of sector-wide
emissions.2 To stave off the worst impacts of climate change, the United States will need to
make rapid progress toward eliminating pollution from heavier vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1560-A1, p. 1]
1 https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fast-facts-transportation-greenhouse-gas-emissions
2 https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fast-facts-transportation-greenhouse-gas-emissions
EPA must issue Phase 3 standards that will put heavy-duty vehicles on a sustainable path and
help to meet nationwide climate goals. Upon taking office in 2021, President Biden set an
ambitious new target to reduce US GHG pollution by 50-52% by 2030 from 2005 levels.3 The
Phase 3 HDV standards must ensure that our transportation sector will contribute adequately to
meeting these goals and that future progress on vehicles will help to limit the warming of the
planet to no more than 1.5 degrees Celsius.4 Recent analysis finds, however, that for the heavy-
duty sector to support attainment of U.S. commitments under the Paris Agreement for 2030 and
2050, emissions reductions will need to occur substantially faster than they would under the
proposed Phase 3 standards, in combination with other policies now in place. 5 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1560-A1, pp. 1 - 2]
254 See 88 FR 4342
201
-------
3 https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/04/22/fact-sheet-president-biden-
sets-2030-greenhouse-gas-pollution-reduction-target-aimed-at-creating-good-paying-union-jobs-and-
securing-u-s-leadership-on-clean-energy-technologies/
4 https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/globalhvsZEV-hdzev-pace-transition-may22.pdf
5 https://theicct.org/publication/hdv-phase3-ghg-standards-benefits-apr23/
Heavy-duty vehicles also represent a substantial share of the transportation sector's criteria air
pollution such as nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur oxides (SOx), and particulate matter (PM).6
These emissions lead to localized air pollution and the associated health impacts, such as
increased rates of asthma, increased risk of heart attacks or strokes, and lung cancer, conditions
that are particularly bad in low-income communities and communities of color, which have
borne and continue to bear a disproportionate burden of transportation pollution. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1560-A1, p. 2]
If designed and implemented correctly, the next phase of EPA's GHG standards for heavy-
duty vehicles can help the United States meet its climate goals and improve the health outcomes
of historically disadvantaged communities, while also reducing fueling costs for truck and fleet
owners in the short run and total ownership costs in the long run; costs that reduce
competitiveness and are passed on to consumers. Rigorous updated standards that drive
efficiency and emissions improvements in both internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs) and
zero emission vehicles (ZEVs) are crucial to achieving the above goals, and EPA cannot miss the
opportunity to deliver such standards for model years 2027 to 2032. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1560-A1, p. 2]
Organization: American Petroleum Institute (API)
4. Compounding concern - resource focus will be on LD, on the same timeframe
EPA released the proposals for HD and for LD/MD simultaneously - and the programs will
be implemented on the same 2027-2032 timeframe as well. API has serious concerns about the
implications of this timing. Both proposed programs are significantly flawed in that they rely on
resources and infrastructure that are not yet ready. However, this would provide even greater
difficulty for the HD program, as HD ZEVs are not at the same level of readiness as LD vehicles
and the deployment of charging infrastructure is at an even greater disadvantage. Even with
EPA's projections regarding the use of BIL and IRA funding, the transportation industry will be
competing for the same resources to successfully stand up both programs. Furthermore, the
availability of and process for obtaining such funding is not certain. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1617-A1, p. 11]
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Part I. Proposed Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles
(HDVs)
A. United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) Must Take Strong Regulatory
Action to Further Reduce GHG Emissions
Affected pages: 1 25928-25930, 25933, 25947, and 26006
202
-------
I Affected page numbers are page numbers relating to the comment from the published NPRM and/or
DRIA.
CARB staff urges U.S. EPA to finalize C02 emission standards for HDVs with continued
increasing stringency in MYs 2027 through 2040, not only through MY 2032; stringency should
reflect the feasibility of greater HD ZEV penetrations than in CARB's ACT regulation. As stated
by CARB Executive Officer Dr. Steven Cliff at the federal public hearing for the Phase 3 GHG
standards on May 2, 2023, the Phase 3 GHG rulemaking provides a historic chance for U.S. EPA
to recognize the critical public health and welfare protections provided by HD ZEVs. As the
Biden administration has recognized in its longer-term commitments such as the 27th
Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and
the Blueprint for Transportation Decarbonization, built from the IRA, significant reductions in
GHGs are needed. And they are feasible from HD vehicles. U.S. EPA should finalize a Phase 3
GHG rulemaking with increasingly stringent standards, reflecting, among other things, the
increasing availability and cost-effectiveness of HD ZEVs, extending to 2040. U.S. EPA should
finalize Phase 3 standards that extend past 2032 to continue this progress until 100 percent
decarbonization is achieved, as well as to send a signal to fleets, landowners, power generators,
and utilities regarding the need to work together to enable greater deployment of HD ZEVs
because they not only reduce GHGs but other harmful emissions as well. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1591-A1, p.12]
As indicated in the Phase 3 NPRM, certain original equipment manufacturers (OEM) project
50 to 60 percent of HD trucks sold being electric by 2030, carbon-neutral trucks in the United
States (U.S.) by 2039, or 100 percent ZE by 2040.11 Staff has found similar OEM public
statements as specified in the NPRM, for example, Navistar's executives expect 50 percent new
HD ZEV sales by 2030 and 100 percent by 2040; 12 Daimler Truck has stated ZEVs will make
up 60 percent of its sales by 2030 and 100 percent of sales by 2039; 13 Volvo Trucks led by
Europe and North America set a higher target of 70 percent in 203014 and 100 percent by
2040; 15 and PACCAR predicts electric vehicles production in the U.S. will ramp up
exponentially in the coming years to 100 percent by 2040.16 CARB staff requests that the final
Phase 3 regulation reflect the vehicle manufacturer plans many major HD truck manufacturers
have themselves been publicly stating. CARB staff were unable to evaluate the proprietary ACT
Research model upon which U.S. EPA based its HD ZEV adoption rates. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1591-A1, pp.12-13]
II U.S. EPA's Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles—Phase 3, Proposed Rules,
88 Fed. Reg., April 27, 2023, page 25941. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2023-04-27/pdf/2023-
07955.pdf
12 Navistar, last accessed May 7, 2023. https://www.navistar.com/sustainability/environmental-footprint
13 Reuters: Daimler Truck 'all in' on green energy as it targets costs, May 20, 2021.
https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/daimler-truck-all-in-green-energy-shift-targetscosts-
2021-05-20/
14 Volvo New report - High pressure on the transport industry to shift to electric, September 21, 2022.
https://www.volvotrucks.com/en-en/news-stories/press-releases/2022/sep/New-report-high-pressureon-the-
transport-industry-to-shift-to-electric.html
15 The Hill: 2023 is afork in the road for bold action to accelerate clean transportation, January 30, 2023.
https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/3836537-2023-is-a-fork-in-the-road-for-bold-action-
toaccelerate-clean-transportation/
203
-------
16 FleetOwner: Kenworth's electric future, August 18, 2022. https://www.fleetowner.com/emissions-
efficiency/article/21248859/kenworths-electric-future
Additionally, the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) projects the IRA,
which followed the BIL, will result in an estimated HD ZEV sales share of 39 to 48 percent in
2030 and 44 to 52 percent in 2032, the final year of the IRA tax credits. These estimated HD
ZEV sales shares will increase to 47 to 56 percent in 2035.17 The referenced evidence points to
the feasibility of more deployment of HD ZEV technologies than anticipated in U.S. EPA's
proposed Phase 3 standards. Further discussion of HD ZEV technologies and how U.S. EPA's
findings regarding such technology may underestimate the status of the ZEV market is in Part I.
Section C.l. below. If U.S. EPA decides not to finalize greater stringencies as recommended,
staff urges U.S. EPA to at least anticipate ZEV deployment in alignment with CARB's ACT
regulationl8, i.e., at least 50 percent in 2030, 55 percent in 2031, 60 percent in 2032, 65 percent
in 2033, 70 percent in 2034, and 75 percent in MYs 2035 and subsequent for class 4 to 8
trucks. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2022-0985-1591 - A 1, pp. 13-14]
17 ICCT's Analyzing the Impact of the Inflation Reduction Act on Electric Vehicle Uptake in the United
States, White Paper, January 31, 2023. https://theicct.org/publication/ira-impact-evs-us-jan23/
18 Final Regulation Order, Advanced Clean Trucks Regulation Table A-l, page 5.
https://ww2.arb. ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2019/act2019/fro2 .pdf
Organization: Colorado Department of Transportation et al.
• EPA also requested comment on adopting a rule that continues to increase in stringency
for model years 2033-2035; we encourage EPA to adopt a rule which will continue to
increase in stringency in these model years, like the ACT rule, to encourage continued
progress towards transportation decarbonization. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1530-A1,
pp. 2-3]
Organization: Daimler Truck North America LLC (DTNA)
EPA Request for Comment, Request #2: We also request comment on promulgating
additional new standards with increasing stringency in MYs 2033 through 2035.
• DTNA Response: Given the uncertainty of the inputs to HD TRUCS and their significant
impacts on Phase 3 standard feasibility, DTNA does not recommend that EPA set C02
standards beyond MY 2032 without the inclusion of a periodic-and-adjustment review
process, as described in Section II.C of these comments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1555-A1, p. 158]
Organization: Ford Motor Company
Program Timing
Ford supports the proposed 2032 model year (MY) end date for this rule rather than the
extended 203 5MY end date. Heavy-duty vehicles and fleets will see significant change in the
coming years, and a re-assessment of vehicle technologies, capabilities, and environmental
impacts will be appropriate after six years, during which time EPA has projected the vocational
vehicle fleet to go from 20 percent ZEV sales volume to 50 percent ZEV sales volume. A
204
-------
2032MY end date also better aligns with the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (which provides
incentives for ZEVs through 2032) and other heavy-duty vehicle regulations (California's
Heavy-Duty Omnibus and EPA's Clean Trucks Plan HD2027) which regulate criteria emissions
for heavy-duty vehicles and will be fully phased in by 2031MY. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1565-A1, p. 4]
Extending Phase 3 to 203 5MY would create an approximately ten-year period from expected
finalization in 2024 to the next regulatory action that would take effect in 2036MY, and this
would increase the risk that EPA's assumptions would turn out to be inaccurate. Customer
acceptance, modes of operation of heavy-duty ZEVs, and the ability of heavy-duty ZEVs to meet
customer needs may diverge from EPA's assumptions in developing this proposed rule. Critical
materials or new charging infrastructure may be more expensive or less available than expected.
Effects of policy actions and other regulatory programs become much harder to predict. Due to
uncertainty around these and other key elements of the heavy-duty electrification transformation,
Ford supports a 2032MY end to the Phase 3 regulation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1565-A1,
p. 4]
Organization: Navistar, Inc.
Navistar supports EPA's gradual phase-in alternative, but would not modify the proposed
stringency of the standards in MY 2032.
In the proposed rule, EPA requested comment on whether to consider a slower phase-in
alternative with a more gradual phase-in of C02 emission standards for MY 2027 through MY
2031 and a less stringent final standard in MY 2032. Navistar supports the slower phase-in
alternative for MY 2027 through MY 2031. However, consistent with Navistar's ZEV goals, we
do not at this time believe that changes to the stringency of the MY 2032 standards are
warranted, as long as the necessary charging infrastructure is widely available. As discussed
below, we recommend that the feasibility of the rule, including the MY 2032 standards, be
reassessed by EPA during a mid-term evaluation. Such evaluation should include whether the
requisite ZEV infrastructure is likely to be in place prior to the compliance deadlines. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1527-A1, p. 5]
Organization: Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC)
We support the adoption of stronger standards for model year 2027 and the elimination of
credit multipliers for battery electric vehicles (BEVs) and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles
(PHEVs) in that model year. For model years 2028 and later, EPA should adopt standards that
are more stringent than the current proposal. The Phase 3 standards should result in ZEV
adoption rates that are at least as high as those required under California's Advanced Clean
Trucks program. We also support EPA's adoption of progressively more stringent standards
for model years 2033 through 2035, or until as many heavy-duty vehicles as feasible are ZEVs.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1554-A1, p. 1]
205
-------
Organization: State of California et al.
II. EPA SHOULD ADOPT GHG STANDARDS FOR MODEL YEAR 2028 THROUGH
2032 THAT PROVIDE PROTECTIONS COMMENSURATE WITH CALIFORNIA'S ACT
STANDARDS
While EPA's proposed standards would mark an important step in ensuring the heavy-duty
vehicle sector continues to reduce its GHG emissions, the States and Cities urge EPA to consider
more stringent standards, with values that would encourage at least the level of ZEV adoption as
in California's ACT standards.228 In light of the vast strides made and expected in the
deployment of heavy-duty battery-electric vehicles, the development and adoption of fuel-cell
electric vehicle technology, and increased adoption of existing and cost-effective emission
control technologies in conventional heavy-duty vehicles, more stringent final standards are
feasible and appropriate in the lead time provided. And, while further ZEV deployment is not the
only way manufacturers can and will comply with more stringent GHG standards, the increasing
use of ZEVs has numerous advantages, including the reduction of toxic and criteria pollution that
already overburdens environmental justice communities located near highways, railyards,
distribution centers, and other sites that experience large volumes of heavy-duty vehicle
traffic. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1588-A1, pp.32-33]
228 88 Fed. Reg. at 25,929.
It is, thus, important that EPA correct its underestimation of the baseline heavy-duty ZEV
penetration rates.229 EPA's baseline should account for ZEV adoption rates resulting from
compliance with the California ACT Rule, everywhere that Rule applies (including the eight
other States who have adopted the ACT Rule: Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon,
Washington, Maryland, Vermont, and Colorado). EPA should also include the additional nine
States and Districts that have signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to promote the
adoption of heavy-duty ZEVs (the District of Columbia, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada,
North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Virginia). At a minimum, EPA should adjust its
reference case to reflect these actions and commitments, and other data projecting strong ZEV
sales in the relevant time frame, including private sector actions and the BIL and IRA incentives
that are incentivizing adoption of heavy-duty ZEVs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1588-A1, p.33]
229 DRIA at 417 ("It is possible that EPA's reference case is underestimated, and adoption of ZEVs, and
other technologies, will occur more rapidly than EPA predicts in this proposal.").
The States and Cities urge EPA to then increase the stringency of the final standards to reflect
the additional progress that is clearly feasible and cost-effective. When setting standards under
section 202(a) of the CAA, EPA must "press for the development and application of improved
technology rather than be limited by that which exists today." Natural Resources Defense
Council v. EPA, 655 F.2d 318, 328 (D.C. Cir. 1981). Given the plans original equipment
manufacturers have announced for ZEV sales in this sector, the indications from customers
(including several very large ones) that they plan to buy those ZEVs in timeframes relevant here,
and the public incentives already available, adoption of ZEVs in the heavy-duty sector are
achievable at levels necessary to meet nationwide standards as protective as ACT. Indeed, the
fact that original equipment manufacturers in the sector have asserted plans for ZEV sales far
surpassing even ACT-required levels is instructive, as it demonstrates that the regulated industry
has concluded there is sufficient time to develop and apply the technologies needed to comply
206
-------
with robust GHG standards within the applicable timelines, and that doing so is cost effective for
their businesses. Moreover, EPA is now setting standards out to (at least) MY2032. That is more
than ample lead time for any other manufacturers to prepare to deploy substantially more ZEV
technologies, particularly since EPA forecasts 60 percent vocational and 40 percent tractor sales
would be ZEVs in MY2032 under the standards we urge EPA to adopt.230 In other words,
manufacturers would retain ample room for a gradual transition to ZEV and other emission-
reducing technologies, meaning, for example, that truck applications that are particularly hard to
transition would not be rushed to do so. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1588-A1, p.33]
230 88 Fed. Reg. at 25,933.
It is vital that EPA recognize the availability, feasibility, and cost-effectiveness of these
technologies and finalize more stringent standards, accordingly, in order to adequately respond
to the climate harms faced by our States and Cities, as discussed in detail above. "Elevated
concentrations of GHGs have been warming the planet, leading to changes in the Earth's climate
including changes in the frequency and intensity of heat waves, precipitation, and extreme
weather events, rising seas, and retreating snow and ice. The changes taking place in the
atmosphere as a result of the well-documented buildup of GHGs due to human activities are
changing the climate at a pace and in a way that threatens human health, society, and the natural
environment."231 As EPA recognizes, the transportation sector is now the largest U.S. source of
GHG emissions, with heavy-duty vehicles contributing 25 percent of the United States'
transportation emissions.232 Robust standards that maximize reductions in GHGs are a
necessary component of the United States' strategy to prevent the most catastrophic of these
climate harms. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1588-A1, pp.33-34]
231 Revised 2023 and Later Model Year Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards, 86
Fed. Reg. 74,434, 74,489 (Dec. 30, 2021); see also Summary for Policymakers, supra n.2 at 11 (surveying
medium-to-high confidence attributions of extreme weather, wildfires, heat-related deaths, and ecosystem
loss to greenhouse gas emissions from human activities).
232 88 Fed. Reg. at 25,952.
The States and Cities are already experiencing grievous effects from climate change, which,
as described above, are expected to significantly escalate without sharp reductions in GHG
emissions.233 Our residents have lost property, been displaced from homes, endured respiratory
illness and other health impacts, and even been killed as a result of severe weather events
exacerbated by climate change.234 Rising average temperatures, shrinking mountain snowpacks,
warmer and more severe storms, wildfires, and higher sea levels also harm our economies,
infrastructure, and public services.235 These impacts require long-term, resource-intensive
adaptation planning and costly disaster response by all levels of government and the private
sector. The U.S. Global Change Research Program's 2017-2018 Fourth National Climate
Assessment projects more extreme-weather impacts due to climate change for every region of
the United States, including major damage to agriculture, coastal industries, utility grids,
transportation networks, air quality, and human health, from coastal flooding, heat waves,
drought, and wildfires, as well as from the spread of tree-killing and disease-carrying
pests.236 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1588-A1, p.34]
233 Fourth National Climate Assessment, supra n.9 at 11-19 (summarizing ongoing and projected impacts
to United States from climate change); see also Summary for Policymakers, supra n.2 at 11-22 (describing
ongoing global climate change impacts and projecting near-, mid-, and long-term impacts, particularly from
unpredictable cascading and compounded disruptions); id. at SPM-7, SPM-14 to 19 (finding reductions of
207
-------
GHGs is occurring too slowly to limit global warming to even 2°C and such a goal requires unprecedented
accelerations in reductions).
234 Fourth National Climate Assessment, supra n.9 at 82-83, 98-103, 115-62 (surveying national losses of
coastal property and air quality deterioration and summarizing impacts to health, property, and ecosystems
by U.S. region).
235 Fourth National Climate Assessment, supra n.9 at 67-68, 70-72, 82-83, 85-91, 93-96.
236 Fourth National Climate Assessment, supra n.9 at 11-19; see also id. at 102 (by shifting from a high-
emissions scenario to a low-emissions scenario, "thousands of American lives could be saved and hundreds
of billions of dollars in health-related economic benefits gained each year").
Significant GHG emission reductions are also essential to begin to reduce the inequitable
burden disproportionately borne by communities with high poverty rates, communities of
color, and indigenous peoples.237 Under Executive Order 12,898, each federal agency has been
directed, "to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law" to "make achieving
environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing as appropriate,
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States
and its territories . . . ."238 Additionally, EPA recently committed to "make achieving
environmental justice part of [its] mission[] by developing programs, policies, and activities to
address the disproportionately high and adverse human health, environmental, climate-related
and other cumulative impacts on disadvantaged communities, as well as the accompanying
economic challenges of such impacts."239 Action to reduce GHGs from all major-emitting
sectors, including the heavy-duty vehicles sector, is imperative to tackling climate-change and
minimizing the effect of climate change on at-risk communities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1588-A1, pp.34-35]
237 See discussion supra at 11-17.
238 64 Fed. Reg. 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994).
239 Exec. Order 14,008, § 219.
III. EPA SHOULD ADOPT INCREASINGLY STRINGENT GHG STANDARDS FOR
MODEL YEARS 2033 THROUGH 2035
In addition to adopting more stringent standards for model years 2027 through 2032, our
States and Cities urge EPA to adopt standards in the final rule that continue out through model
year 2035, following the demonstration of feasible protection and technology-levels in
California's ACT Rule. That action is supported by the long-term commitments made by several
of the major manufacturers, which have projected production of 100 percent ZEV by 2040.
Moreover, the lead time for these years is substantial—more than adequate to further deploy key
emission-reduction technologies, including ZEVs. Section 202(a) of the CAA authorizes EPA to
rely on "future advances," in addition to "presently available" technologies.240 And, particularly
given the force of the climate crisis and the need to substantially reduce emissions as soon as
possible, EPA should exercise that authority here to set increasingly stringent standards that
drive technology development and deployment in feasible, but forceful, terms. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1588-A1, p.35]
240 NRDC, 655 F.2d at 328, 330 (cleaned up); 42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(2).
208
-------
Organization: Tesla, Inc. (Tesla)
Finally, Tesla notes it is reasonable for the agency to implement MY 2033-35 standards at a
later date and to set a long-term regulatory pathway that encourages industry confidence in
making transformative investments. Consistent with such an approach, EPA should not provide
any off ramps from compliance with the Phase 3 standard. 177 There is a sufficient record today
to support this standard setting. To accomplish the objective of Section 202(a)(3), manufacturers
need regulatory certainty and off ramps only serve to make markets tentative in embracing
technology and serve to delay and interrupt production plans. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1505-
Al, p. 24]
177 88 Fed. Reg. at 25934.
Organization: Truck Renting and Leasing Association (TRALA)
Pursuing Phase 3 Actions Beyond MY 2032 is Premature
Action by the EPA to set additional carbon standards and project adoption rates beyond MY
2032 is premature and speculative. TRALA requests EPA carefully assess data gathered during
the implementation of Phase 3 before considering expanding the current rule beyond 2032.
Assessments should include continued review of all concerns outlined in TRALAs comments
and include the progression of technology development and deployment, supply chain impacts,
associated emission impacts under the rule from both ZEVs and non-ZEV vehicles, the capacity
and performance of our energy grid, safety and infrastructure impacts, and updated cost and
payback estimates. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1577-A1, p. 22]
Organization: Volvo Group
With respect to the agency's request for comment on whether to extend the Phase 3 regulatory
period to include model years 2033 through 2035, we do not support setting stringencies that far
in advance in light of the uncertainty of the ZEV market. We have already faced marketplace and
supply chain complications that force us to significantly reduce projected sales as little as six
months before commencement of production for the following model year. As such, it is
extremely difficult to anticipate how the zero-emission transportation ecosystem will develop, let
alone predict the penetration of new technology products across a diversity of applications and
industries which have zero experience with these technologies today. Holding OEMs subject to
penalty for lack of compliance when there are so many factors outside our control is
unprecedented and unreasonable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1606-A1, p. 5]
Organization: Zero Emission Transportation Association (ZETA)
ZETA also encourages EPA to consider Phase 4 GHG emissions standards for MYs 2033-
2035 that are consistent with California's ACT regulation. In doing so, we urge the agency to
undertake a separate final rulemaking under a different OMB Regulatory Information Number to
ensure such standards are severable from these proposed GHG standards for MYs 2027-
2032.69 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 16]
69 RIN 2060-AV50
209
-------
EPA Summary and Response:
Summary:
EPA proposed that the Phase 3 standards apply commencing in MY 2027 with no further
increases in stringency after MYs 2032. EPA also solicited comment on including standards for
model years 2033-2035.
Most commenters opposed any extension of standard stringency after the 2032 model year.
See e.g. Comments of Ford, Navistar (both of whom voiced "suppor(t)" for the 2032 MY date),
DTNA, TRALA, Volvo. These commenters noted the inherent uncertainties in projecting that
many years out, compounded by further uncertainties regarding vehicle utility, customer
acceptance, electric infrastructure availability, critical material availability, plus the lapse of IRA
subsidies in 2032.
CARB and a group of states headed by California urged extension of the program, with
further increases in standard stringency, after the 2032 MY (CARB until 2040MY, and State of
California et al. Until at least MY 2035). These commenters pointed to manufacturers' public
statements as showing further emission reductions past MY 2032 were feasible. They also cited
the need for greater reductions in light of the on-going ravages of climate change, as well as
reductions in criteria pollutant emissions assuming standards are met using increasing
percentages of BEVs.
SELC requested EPA set standards for 2033-2035 "or until as many heavy-duty vehicles as
feasible are ZEVs." Tesla indicated that MY 2033-2035 standards could await a later date, but
urged that Phase 3 standards contain no off-ramp as suggested by some commenters.
ZETA suggested EPA adopt the California ACT program as a Phase 4 standard for heavy-
duty engines and vehicles for MYs 2033-35.
Response:
EPA is adopting MY 2032 as the last year of phase in for the Phase 3 program's standards,
meaning that the federal standards would remain at the level of the Phase 3 standards after MY
2032 unless and until amended by EPA. As EPA explains in section II of the preamble, our
feasibility assessment considers a wide array of data and analysis, including EPA's independent
assessment of technology availability, costs, lead-time, and infrastructure; as well as our
examination of the literature and expert analyst reports, and our coordination with the
Department of Energy and other expert organizations. Based on our holistic and comprehensive
review of these and other relevant materials, and recognizing the uncertainties of projecting
farther into the future, the agency does not believe it would be appropriate to now finalize more
stringent (than MY 2032) standards for MY 2033 and later years. Commenters' reliance on
aspirational goals of several of the OEMs does not provide sufficient assurance of feasibility to
warrant inclusion of increasing stringency beyond MY 2032 standards' stringency. Indeed, these
same entities (DTNA and Volvo) caution strongly against any further standard increases after
2032. EPA agrees that the Phase 3 program should not include increased stringency levels
beyond the levels of stringency we are finalizing for MY 2032 in order for the agency to
properly assess implementation of the Phase 3 program before considering setting different
standards than MY 2032's standards for MYs after 2032. If developments are as positive as
210
-------
certain commenters project, there is time to issue amended standards covering model years after
2032.
We did not propose or request comment on whether EPA should adopt Phase 4 GHG
standards that match the California ACT program for MYs 2033-35 and whether they should be
adopted in a separate rule to ensure they are severable from the proposed Phase 3 standards. The
adoption of Phase 4 GHG standards is speculative at this time, and would be the subject of a
separate rulemaking with associated analytic support.
SELC's comments on credit multipliers are addressed in preamble Section III.A and RTC
Section 10.
Comments concerning potential inclusion of an offramp for the Phase 3 standards are
addressed at RTC 2.9.
2.3.3 Lead time and stability (including year-over-year approach)
Comments by Organizations
Organization: American Highway Users Alliance
Overview — The Highway Users is a Broad-Based Coalition with Major Concerns with the
Proposed Rule
The Highway Users is deeply concerned that the proposed requirements for significant
reduction in GHG emissions from new heavy-duty vehicles are very possibly not achievable by
manufacturers in the limited time frame provided to achieve such significant reductions in
emissions. We are also concerned that the rule would have significant adverse impact on the
purchasers of these vehicles, notably truck and bus operators, as well as additional adverse
impacts. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1550-A1, p. 1]
More specifically, EPA's proposal appears to be premised on huge and rapid growth in the
portion of heavy-duty vehicles that are electric powered (EVs) as well as on rapid transformation
of the marketplace in a number of related areas that are not the subject of the proposed
regulation. EPA seems to have made favorable assumptions on many issues bearing on the
feasibility of the proposal, including as to the issues set forth below. The Highway Users, on the
other hand, drawing on the expertise of its members, questions that, within the MY 2027 - 2032
timeframe of the proposed rule, all or most of the following will occur, that —
• high-speed electric charging stations will be available to heavy-duty EVs in quantity and
locations sufficient to encourage customers to buy heavy-duty EVs,
• electric utilities can timely provide connections from the electric grid to those charging
stations - and provide the connections at reasonable cost,
• the electric grid will have the capacity to meet the demand for electricity that will follow
increased electrification of trucks, buses, and passenger cars, even if the connections can
be timely made to charging stations that do not yet exist,
• charging times can be reduced sufficiently to encourage customers to buy heavy-duty
EVs,
211
-------
• the range of heavy-duty EVs can be increased sufficiently to encourage customers to buy
heavy-duty EVs,
• potential customers will not be discouraged from making a purchase by the extent to
which the heavier than diesel power systems of commercial heavy-duty EVs, especially
battery-powered EVs, will limit the ability of the customer to use the new vehicles to
carry within weight limits cargoes that are carried by today's vehicles,
• major industries, including truck manufacturers and operators, can implement major
changes in vehicles as rapidly as the NPRM assumes (given the very limited current
market penetration of heavy-duty EVs, estimated by EPA as rounded to zero, the
assumption that 25% of new heavy-duty vehicles sold in model year 2032 will be EVsl
represents an astounding rate of change),2
• there will be an adequate supply of rare earth and other critical minerals, and the ability
to process them, including obtaining from and processing in the United States, with those
minerals being so essential to the manufacture of EVs and batteries, and
• potential customers of heavy-duty trucks will proceed to purchase the new heavy-duty
EVs in sufficient quantity, notwithstanding significantly higher up-front costs, uncertain
availability of charging facilities, and other concerns. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1550-
Al, pp. 1-2]
1 See NPRM at 25933, Table ES-4.
2 An April 14, 2023 Eno Transportation Weekly article referred to the estimate that EVs would constitute
25% of new heavy-duty vehicle sales in 2032, as set forth in Table ES-4, as a 'remarkable assumption.'
For reasons including those outlined above, the proposed rule should be revised to provide
more time for vehicles to achieve emission reductions (including deletion of the proposal to
revise in effect rules for MY 2027). We consider that it could well prove appropriate for a
revised proposal to provide not only more time to achieve emission reductions estimated by EPA
for MY 2032 but, while still calling for reductions, to call for fewer reductions. The need for
revision is so significant that EPA should not proceed directly to a final rule after considering
comments in this docket. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1550-A1, p. 3]
Instead, EPA should issue a revised NPRM so the public can have the opportunity to
comment on a more realistic approach to the effort to reduce GHG tailpipe emissions from
heavy-duty vehicles. Such a solution would reduce tailpipe emissions but more gradually, over a
longer period of time than the model years that are the subject of the proposed rule, and not
reduce them as much, at least not within the time frames of the currently proposed rule. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1550-A1, p. 4]
Organization: American Trucking Associations (ATA)
2. EPA's Phase 3 Rule Should Continue to Follow Three-year Stability
EPA's Phase 3 regulation sets new ZEV market adoption rates for model years 2027, 2028,
2029, 2030, 2031 and 2032, setting new heavy-duty emissions standards. By requiring new
emissions standards each year, EPA does not follow Section 202(a)(3)(C) under the CAA that
requires three-year stability for each new and revised heavy-duty truck emission standard.
EPA's previous GHG Phase 1 and 2 regulations adhered to the CAA following four-year lead
time and three-year stability for model years 2014, 2017, 2021, 2024 and 2027. Beyond these
212
-------
requirements, new ZEV technologies that are being mandated for compliance will not be given
time for evaluation and adjustment prior to increasing adoption levels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1535-A1, p. 5]
President Biden's August 2021 Executive Order requires the agency to complete its Phase 3
rule by the summer of 2024.5 This schedule allows EPA to continue working with stakeholders
to thoroughly assess the range of associated issues, including charging infrastructure, that will
play an important role in further tightening heavy-duty GHG standards in 2030 and beyond. The
trucking industry continues to support the pursuit of one nationwide emissions reduction plan
that is the most reasonable, technology neutral, logical, affordable, and least disruptive to the
nation's supply chains. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1535-A1, p. 5]
5 Biden, Joseph, Strengthening American Leadership in Clean Cars and Trucks, Executive Order 14037,
August 10, 2021.
3. ZEV Technology for Many Fleets is Unproven
Under the proposed Phase 3 regulation, EPA relies on technology that is at early-stage and
lacks the real-world demonstrated maturity compared to proven internal combustion engine
vehicle (ICEV) technologies. EPA's analysis assumes reductions in battery and vehicle costs,
performance, energy generation and transmission, and charging and refueling infrastructure.
Each of EPA's technical assumptions will need to align and come to fruition to hit the cost parity
targets that EPA believes will follow their projected adoption curves. Market dynamics affect the
availability of ZEV products, costs and performance capabilities. In some cases, the unproven
nature of ZEV technologies in the heavy-duty segment will slow their adoption rate as fleets look
to validate against their current total cost of ownership (TCO) schedule. Many fleets have lower
profit margins, especially small, undercapitalized, or independently owned and operated ones.
They are generally disinclined from experimental investments in new technologies that have yet
to demonstrate TCO or ROI for their fleet size, operation, or duty cycle. EPA has acknowledged
these challenges in the past, and in Phase 2 accommodated for them by giving the industry
enough lead time to test and validate equipment, explaining in the preamble:
"Another important consideration was the possibility of disrupting the market, which would
be a risk if compliance required application of new technologies too suddenly. Several of the
heavy-duty vehicle manufacturers, fleets, and commercial truck dealerships informed the
agencies that for fleet purchases that are planned more than a year in advance, expectations of
reduced reliability, increased operating costs, reduced residual value, or of large increases in
purchase prices can lead the fleets to pull-ahead by several months planned future vehicle
purchases by pre-buying vehicles without the newer technology. In the context of the Class 8
tractor market, where a relatively small number of large fleets typically purchase very large
volumes of tractors, such actions by a small number of firms can result in large swings in sales
volumes. Such market impacts would be followed by some period of reduced purchases that can
lead to temporary layoffs at the factories producing the engines and vehicles, as well as at
supplier factories, and disruptions at dealerships. Such market impacts also can reduce the
overall environmental and fuel consumption benefits of the standards by delaying the rate at
which the fleet turns over. See International Harvester v. EPA, 478 F. 2d 615, 634 (D.C. Cir.
1973) "6 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1535-A1, p. 5-6]
6 Ibid, pg. 73,494.
213
-------
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
In NRDC, the court upheld U.S. EPA's particulate matter (PM) standards for MY 2005 diesel
light-duty vehicles (LDV) that U.S. EPA had promulgated in 2000. The court stated:
"Given this time frame, we feel there is substantial room for deference to the U.S. EPA's
expertise in projecting the likely course of development. The essential question in this case is the
pace of that development, and absent a revolution in the study of industry, defense of such a
projection can never possess the inescapable logic of a mathematical deduction." NRDC at
331. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1591-A1, p.15]
In light of the extensive information discussed in this NPRM regarding the numerous control
technologies that manufacturers are anticipated to utilize to comply with the Proposed Standards,
their capability of reducing GHG emissions, current states of development, and identification of
the major steps needed to refine those technologies for implementation in vehicles for MYs 2027
and subsequent year, it is clear that the Proposed Standards provide ample lead time under
section 202(a)(2) of the CAA. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1591-A1, p. 15]
It is also clear that alternative, more stringent standards—under which U.S. EPA projects
rates of ZEV adoption that are consistent with the ZEV adoption rates in CARB's ACT
regulation—would also provide ample lead time and are, in fact, more consistent with the criteria
in CAA section 202(a)(2). In requesting a waiver for the ACT regulation, CARB staff noted the
nearly one hundred different HD ZEV models that are commercially available in
California.22 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1591-A1, p. 15]
22 CARB, Waiver Support Document for ACT, Zero Emission Airport Shuttle, and Zero- Emission
Powertrain Regulations (2021). EPA HQ-OAR-2022-00331-0003, pages 31-32.
Organization: China WTO/TBT National Notification & Enquiry Center
5. It is suggested to delay the implementation of regulations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1658-A2, p.4]
The Federal Register (FR) 25926 regulation stipulates that the emission limits of traditional
internal combustion engine vehicles have been reduced to a certain value year by year, but does
not provide specific calculation processes and various factors to be considered. In the future,
enterprises will invest a lot of effort and cost to improve their design to meet the emission limits
specified in this regulation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1658-A2, p.4]
Organization: Daimler Truck North America LLC (DTNA)
As noted in the Proposed Rule, it takes many years for manufacturers to develop new vehicles
to meet customer demand and to ensure compliance with increasingly stringent emission
regulations.6 This is particularly so where product development requires a shift to new
technologies and supporting infrastructure, as is the case here. Manufacturers make product
development and resource allocation decisions many years in advance, based upon an assessment
of future market demand and regulatory requirements. It is thus essential that the Phase 3
emission standards be established with appropriate lead time for manufacturers to plan compliant
product offerings, and that the standards have a built-in period of stability rather than be subject
to year-by-year changes. These criteria are important both for manufacturer compliance
214
-------
strategies and for ensuring minimal disruption to the commercial vehicle market. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 9]
6 See Proposed Rule, 88 Fed. Reg. at 25,999 (noting that as new vehicles are being designed and
developed, manufacturers need time to 'build new or modify existing manufacturing production lines to
assemble the new products that include ZEV powertrains,' 'source new components such as heavy-duty
battery packs, motors, fuel cell stacks, and other ZEV components, including the sourcing of critical
materials').
It is for these reasons that DTNA proposes that EPA maintain the current Phase 2 C02
standards for MY 2027+ (set forth in 40 C.F.R. 1037.105(b)(1), Table 1) as a three-year emission
standard tier that would apply to MY 2027-2029 vehicles, before it imposes a new increase in
standard stringency for MY 2030 and later vehicles, as discussed in more detail in Section II.C.l
of these comments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 9]
To Ensure That Its C02 Standards Are Achievable, EPA Should Maintain the Current Phase 2
MY 2027+ Standards for Three Years and Start Phase 3 in MY 2030 With More Reasonable
Stringency Levels That Are Periodically Reviewed and Adjusted to Reflect Actual ZEV
Adoption Rates. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 60]
The current MY 2027+ C02 standards should be maintained for three years.
As noted above in Section I.B.2, it is critically important that EPA's emission standards—in
particular new standards that depend upon rapid development and consumer uptake of new
technologies—observe the foundational principle of regulatory stability. This principle is integral
to a manufacturer's ability to plan compliant product offerings, which is the reason that EPA
emission standards have typically been set in three-year emission standard 'tiers.' [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 60]
The final tier of the current Phase 2 C02 standards, applicable to MY 2027+ HD vocational
vehicles, already represents an ambitious step-up in stringency from the MY 2024-2026
standards. Manufacturers are currently managing production plans to ensure that they can meet
these next two tiers of standards. This planning process is complex and requires many years of
strategic product development based upon an assessment of future market developments. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 61]
For these reasons, DTNA recommends that EPA maintain the current standards for MY
2027+ vocational vehicles for at least three years (MY 2027-2029) before phasing a new tier of
Phase 3 standards in 2030. Doing so would provide a period of stability leading up to MY 2030
to evaluate market conditions and to ensure that a significant step-up in C02 standard stringency
from the current MY 2027 standards is feasible. This period of stability would facilitate Phase 3
implementation by ensuring that manufacturers have sufficient time to prepare for the new
standards and that there is minimal market disruption. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1,
p. 61]
EPA Request for Comment, Request #4: We seek comment on these proposed Phase 3
standards starting in MYs 2027 through 2032.
• DTNA Response: In Section II of its comments on the Proposed Rule, DTNA provides
significant comment on EPA's proposed C02 standard stringency levels, as well as its
215
-------
alternative view of how EPA could set Phase 3 standard stringency levels to ensure
feasibility. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 159]
EPA Request for Comment, Request #57: As we propose standards for MYs 2027 through
2032, which are between four and nine years from now, we considered the lead time required for
manufacturers to design, develop, and produce the ZEV and ICE vehicle technologies in the
technology packages, in addition to lead time considerations for the charging and hydrogen
refueling infrastructure. We welcome comment on our assessment of lead time in these areas.
• DTNA Response: Based on the current state of technology, DTNA believes additional
lead time is required to bring FCEVs to market in significant volumes. Additionally,
heavy heavy-duty (HHD) vocational applications will require additional lead time for
body builders to produce electrify solutions in addition to the lead time required by
OEMs. As detailed in these comments, it does not appear that infrastructure
considerations are adequately factored in to EPA's proposed C02 standard stringency
levels. DTNA has had fleet customers that have been quoted 8-12 years for initial
deployments that require major distribution system upgrades. See Section II.B.3 of
DTNA's comments on the Proposed Rule for more detailed information on these issues.
Today, there is no data to predict the pace of hydrogen infrastructure expansion, as
discussed in Section II.B.3 of these comments. We thus recommend that EPA factor in
the pace of infrastructure buildout by using an infrastructure scalar in its standards
calculations, as discussed in Section II.C. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, pp. 168-
169]
EPA Request for Comment, Request #58: We welcome comment on the manufacturer lead
time requirements for HD ZEVs.
• DTNA Response: DTNA discusses manufacturer lead time requirements for HD ZEVs
throughout these comments, starting in Section I.A.2.
EPA Request for Comment, Request #62: We request comment on whether our assessment
that there is adequate lead time provided in the proposed standards is correct or if a more gradual
phase in like the one described in this alternative would be more appropriate
• DTNA Response: DTNA provides comments regarding adequate lead time, including the
requirements of the Clean Air Act, throughout its comments on the Proposed Rule,
starting in Section I.A.2. DTNA also provides alternative adoption rate projections and
standard-setting methodology in Section II. C of its comments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1555-A1, p. 170]
Organization: Ford Motor Company
Second, the Phase 3 Proposal includes GHG standards with a massive year-over-year decrease
in standards between 2026 and 2027, and relatively smaller decreases in subsequent years. With
the largest changes coming with the least lead time, manufacturers are at risk of becoming
noncompliant at the very beginning of the program. Ford proposes that steady, even, year-over-
year reductions across the term of the Proposal are critical to ensuring the success of the
program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1565-A1, p. 3]
216
-------
While Ford supports the 2032MY standards of the EPA's main proposal, the year-over-year
stringency increase is too large at the outset and inconsistent over the course of the whole
program. The initial assumption of 20 percent heavy-duty ZEVs in 2027MY and resulting
decrease in standards creates a very large year-over-year stringency change at the beginning of
the program, where manufacturers have the least amount of time to respond to regulatory
changes and are in fact already planning and developing engines and vehicles to existing
2027MY GHG standards. In the main proposal, year-over-year stringency changes are generally
much smaller after that first year, with the exception of 2032MY for light heavy-duty vocational
vehicles when ZEV adoption is projected to go from 45 percent in 2031MY to 57 percent in
2032MY (ref. Table 11-24 in the HD GHG Phase 3 NPRM). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1565-
Al, p. 5]
Using the light heavy-duty compression-ignition multipurpose standards as an example, the
2026MY standard is 344 g/ton-mi, while the proposed 2027MY standard is 257 g/ton-mi, a 25
percent decrease in the standard in one year. Subsequent year-over-year changes are smaller,
until 2032. This extremely large change in stringency in the first year of the program risks
placing manufacturers into a GHG credit deficit from which they are not able to recover for the
rest of the program. Table 1 illustrates this with the light and medium heavy-duty compression-
ignition standards (spark-ignition standards show a similar pattern). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1565-A1, p. 5] [Refer to Table 1 on page 5 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1565-
Al]
Ford requests that EPA consider an alternative rate of change to achieve the same final
2032MY standards that would both be more consistent year-over-year and avoid the extremely
large change in standards in the first year of the program. For example, Table 2 represents a
possible alternative schedule of emission standards, again illustrating with light- and medium-
heavy-duty compression-ignition standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1565-A1, p. 5] [Refer to
Table 2 on page 6 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1565-A1]
Organization: Lubrizol Corporation (Lubrizol)
Lubrizol commends EPA on a historic Proposal that will deliver critically-needed greenhouse
gas emissions reductions nationwide. We strongly encourage EPA to finalize its rule by the end
of this calendar year, which will ensure that industry has the certainty and lead time that it needs
to meet the requirement of the final Phase 3 rule ("Final Rule") as soon as MY 2027. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1651-A2, pp. 1 - 2]
Organization: MEMA
Timing of Regulations: EPA Cannot Begin HD GHG Phi Regulations with MY2027
The Clean Air Act, which is the primary source of authority for EPA to conduct this
rulemaking, provides for a four-year lead time for new standards. This is codified in 42 USC
7521(a)(3)(C) which states:4
(C) Lead time and stability.—
Any standard - promulgated or revised under this paragraph and applicable to classes or
categories of heavy-duty vehicles or engines - shall apply for a period of no less than 3 model
217
-------
years beginning no earlier than the model year commencing 4 years after such revised standard is
promulgated. [Emphasis added]5 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1570-A1, p. 6]
4 https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2021-title42/pdf/USCODE-2021-title42-chap85-
subchapII-partAsec7521 .pdf
5 42 USC § 7521(b)(3)(A) defines the term "model year" https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-
2010-title42/html/USCODE-2010-title42-chap85-subchapII-partA-sec7521.htm
Changing MY 2027 standards will result in millions of dollars of additional unnecessary
burden on manufacturers, due to the associated replanning of production timelines, production
contracts, and revision of capital expenditure plans already in place for MY2027 under the
current regulations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1570-A1, p. 6]
Similarly, EPA intends to finish this rulemaking near the end of 2023. By that time, MY2024
designs will be the "new" designs. Adding four years' lead time per 42 USCG 7521(a)(3)(C)
results, again, in 2028 implementation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1570-A1, p. 6]
Because of these two significant issues, Phase 3's proposed three-year lead time should be
extended to four years and new regulations should begin with MY 2028 trucks (if the regulation
is finished as intended, post-2028 if not). Respect for 4-year implementation timing will help
avoid unnecessary negative impacts on the industry and owners associated with revisions to
existing plans and allow for a more stable transition and improved regulatory certainty for the
medium- and heavy-duty vehicle (MHDV) industry. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1570-A1, p. 6]
The probability of achieving sustainable GHG reductions improves if EPA allows a 4-year
lead time for ZEV technology forcing regulations, even for vehicle applications that currently
have ZEV models available. A 4-year lead time more effectively fosters industry innovation and
continuous improvement for OEMs and supporting suppliers to release improved Gen 2+ ZEV
technology based on field experience and learning from Gen 1 ZEV releases launched for
CARB's ZEV mandates. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1570-A1, p. 7]
Recommendation: EPA continues to honor minimum 4-year lead time for GHG Phase 3
technology forcing regulations, even for the heavy-duty vehicle applications we suggest as more
ready to adopt ZEV technology. These vehicle applications that we project can adopt ZEV
earlier than others should not have technology-forcing regulations for ZEV applied earlier than
MY28, assuming the rule is finalized by the end of 2023. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1570-A1,
p. 7]
Note: If EPA chooses to stay with MY2028, the agency should add supplier, manufacturer
and owner facility, financial and schedule change burdens into the cost-benefit analyses. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1570-A1, p. 7]
Organization: National Tank Truck Carriers (NTTC)
3) NTTC believes EPA is incorrect in its assessment that there is adequate lead time provided
in the proposed standards, and that a more gradual phase in is essential to usher success.
Therefore, NTTC is grateful that EPA developed and considered an alternative that reflects a
more gradual phase-in of ZEV adoption rates to account for uncertainties as specified in Table
11-34. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1551-A1, p. 3]
218
-------
NTTC applauds EPA's efforts to engage traditional and non-traditional stakeholders
regarding the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards
for Heavy-Duty Vehicles-Phase 3. Many of these stakeholders were identified in Section I.F. of
the NPRM citing, . .labor unions, states, industry, environmental justice organizations and
public health experts. In addition, we (EPA) have engaged with environmental NGOs, vehicle
manufacturers, technology suppliers, dealers, utilities, charging providers, Tribal governments,
and other organizations." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1551-A1, p. 3]
It is both conspicuous and disappointing that equipment end-users, such as carriers and
independent owner-operators, have not been mentioned as groups targeted by EPA for
engagement on these proposals that will have drastic consequences not only for their businesses,
but the greater flow of last-mile bulk commodity transportation across the United States. Neither
NTTC nor its members have been contacted by EPA to provide input before publishing Docket
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985. NTTC, uniquely positioned as a representative of simultaneous
energy transporters and consumers, welcomes dialogue with EPA on practical solutions to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions utilizing realistic timelines and bridge technologies. NTTC
fears that the absence of communication between EPA and equipment end-users has resulted in a
falsely optimistic implementation timeline informed by equipment manufacturers eager to sell to
a market that is not mutually eager to buy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1551-A1, p. 4]
Organization: NTEA - The Association for the Work Truck Industry
The 'Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007' provides that, with regard to CAFE
standards, "The commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicle and work truck fuel
economy standard adopted pursuant to this subsection shall provide not less than "(A) 4 full
model years of regulatory lead-time; and "(B) 3 full model years of regulatory stability.". [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1510-A1, p. 2]
The regulatory stability requirements of the EISA as it applies to mileage standards provides
manufacturers with a minimum statutorily mandated period of time where the standards would
remain unchanged. While the mandatory 4-year lead time and 3-year stability period still creates
challenges it does provide some framework for resource planning purposes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1510-A1, p. 2]
While the regulatory stability requirements of EISA may not apply to this proposal the
intention is still valid. Vehicle manufacturers are being expected to comply, on very accelerated
schedules, with highly technical - and potentially not currently possible - standards. The
manufacturing community's time and resources are limited, as is the available technology
needed to attempt to meet these standards and distribution goals. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1510-A1, p. 2]
Organization: Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA)
About a year ago, we told EPA that the proposed implementation periods for the heavy-duty
nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions rulemaking would force drivers to stick with their older trucks
rather than buy new ones. We encouraged the agency to give manufacturers more time to
comprehensively test engines and better ensure performance and reliability. However, EPA
ignored the concerns of truckers along with other commenters and maintained the Model Year
219
-------
2027 timeline. It's a familiar refrain with the latest Phase 3 GHG proposal. We are once again
seeing higher than projected costs for these new vehicles along with insufficient lead-up time to
properly roll out the manufacturing standards. For example, EPA estimated that the GHG Phase
1 rule would increase the average cost of a combination tractor by $6,039 between 2014
and 2018. However, according to our Owner-Operator Member Profile (OOMP) Surveys, real
costs increased $28,541. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1632-A1, pp. 1 - 2]
Organization: Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
3. The Relevant Statutory Authority
i. Leadtime and stability issues
As an initial matter, it needs to be noted that EPA is relying on the wrong provision of the
federal Clean Air Act (CAA) in making the proposal at issue, presumably in an effort to avoid
providing HDOH truck manufacturers with the four-year lead-time and three-year stability
periods mandated under CAA section 202(a)(3)(C). In its NPRM, EPA cites its general
rulemaking authority to establish emission standards for mobile sources, including passenger
cars, as set forth in CAA section 202(a)(1) and (a)(2). On that basis, EPA claims that it only
needs to provide reasonably necessary lead-time (and no stability periods) for its revised Phase 2
and Phase 3 GHG standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 14]
But, that is not the directly applicable provision of the CAA in this instance. CAA section
202(a)(3)(B) applies directly to "revised standards for heavy duty trucks," which is what the
NPRM at issue all about - revised GHG standards for HDOH trucks. That is most significant
because CAA section 202(a)(3)(C) goes on to state: Any standard promulgated or revised under
this paragraph [(3)] and applicable to classes or categories of heavy-duty vehicles or engines
shall apply for a period of no less than 3 years [the stability period] commencing 4 years after
such revised standard is promulgated [the lead-time period], 42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(3)(C)
(emphasis added). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 14]
Thus, since the Agency is providing only three full years of lead-time for the revised 2027
MY standards (assuming the proposed rule is finalized later this year), that proposed revised
standard is violative of the CAA. Moreover, since EPA is providing no stability period
whatsoever between any of the proposed annually-decreasing GHG standards at issue, those
standards are inconsistent with the operative terms of the CAA as well. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-2668-A1, p. 14]
For a full appreciation of this critical issue, it is important to set forth the relevant statutory
provisions regarding EPA's mobile source standard-setting authority, and pertaining to the
regulatory lead-time and stability requirements under the CAA. Those provisions are spelled out
in CAA section 202(a), as follows:
§7521. Emission standards for new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines
(a) Authority of Administrator to prescribe by regulation
Except as otherwise provided in subsection (b) of this section—
(1) The Administrator shall by regulation prescribe (and from time to time revise) in
accordance with the provisions of this section, standards applicable to the emission of any air
220
-------
pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, which in
his judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to
endanger public health or welfare.
(2) Any regulation prescribed under paragraph (1) of this subsection (and any revision
thereof) shall take effect after such period as the Administrator finds necessary to permit the
development and application of the requisite technology, giving appropriate consideration to the
cost of compliance within such period.
(3)(A) In general.—(i) Unless the standard is changed as provided in subparagraph (B),
regulations under paragraph (1) of this subsection applicable to emissions of hydrocarbons,
carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen, and particulate matter from classes or categories of heavy-
duty vehicles or engines manufactured during or after model year 1983 shall contain standards
which reflect the greatest degree of emission reduction achievable through the application of
technology which the Administrator determines will be available for the model year to which
such standards apply, giving appropriate consideration to cost, energy, and safety factors
associated with the application of such technology.
(B) Revised standards for heavy duty trucks.—(i) On the basis of information available to the
Administrator concerning the effects of air pollutants emitted from heavy-duty vehicles or
engines and from other sources of mobile source related pollutants on the public health and
welfare, and taking costs into account, the Administrator may promulgate regulations under
paragraph (1) of this subsection revising any standard promulgated under, or before the date of,
the enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (or previously revised under this
subparagraph) and applicable to classes or categories of heavy-duty vehicles or engines.
(C) Lead time and stability.—Any standard promulgated or revised under this paragraph and
applicable to classes or categories of heavy-duty vehicles or engines shall apply for a period of
no less than 3 model years beginning no earlier than the model year commencing 4 years after
such revised standard is promulgated. (Emphasis added.) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1,
pp. 14-15]
As reflected above, the relevant portions of CAA section 202(a) are divided into three
paragraphs. Paragraph (1) describes EPA's general authority to set mobile source emission
standards, including for passenger cars. Paragraph (2) establishes the general requirement for
"necessary" regulatory leadtime. And paragraph (3) includes a number of more specific
provisions relating to emission standards for classes or categories of heavy-duty vehicles or
engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 15]
With respect to EPA's general authority under paragraph (a)(1), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled
in 2007 that GHGs are "air pollutants" under the CAA, and that, as a result, EPA has the
delegated authority to establish standards applicable to the emission of GHGs from new mobile
sources. (See Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007).) In addition, EPA has made the
threshold determination that GHG emissions contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger public health or welfare (the "endangerment determination"). (See 74
Fed. Reg. 66496, Dec. 15, 2009.) Thus, it has been established that the provisions of CAA
section 202(a) apply to EPA's adoption and revision of GHG standards for new HDOH vehicles
and engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, pp. 15 - 16]
221
-------
In what seems to be an effort to avoid having to provide the lead-time and stability periods
mandated under CAA section 202(a)(3)(C), EPA is taking the position in the NPRM that it is
adopting the Phase 3 GHG regulations under the more general standard-setting provisions of
paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 202(a), not under the more specific HDOH-related provisions
of paragraph (3). The crux of that claim apparently is that subparagraph (3)(A) only references
HDOH standards "applicable to emission of hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen,
and particulate matter." As a result, since the four-year lead-time and three-year stability
mandates in subparagraph (3)(C) apply to "any standard promulgated or revised under this
paragraph" (i.e., paragraph (a)(3)), EPA is positing that those more specific lead-time and
stability mandates similarly only apply to the criteria pollutant standards referenced in
subparagraph (3)(A), not to any GHG standards that may be adopted under paragraphs (1) and
(2) of section 202(a). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 16]
EPA's apparent position is too simplistic and fundamentally flawed. First, EPA's Phase 3
rulemaking is, in fact, more appropriately viewed as a rulemaking under subparagraph (3)(B),
which is captioned "Revised Standards for Heavy Duty Trucks," and which authorizes EPA to
promulgate regulations revising "any standard" (not just criteria pollutant standards) on the basis
of information "concerning the effects of air pollutants emitted from heavy-duty vehicles or
engines" on the public health and welfare. Given EPA's prior endangerment determination for
GHGs, subparagraph (3)(B) clearly provides EPA with the authority to revise the existing Phase
2 HDOH GHG standards through the adoption of more rigorous Phase 3 standards. Thus, unlike
subparagraph (3)(A), EPA's authority to revise HDOH emission standards under subparagraph
(3)(B) - the more directly applicable portion of section 202(a) in this case - is not constrained to
only emission standards for criteria pollutants. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 16]
Second, EPA's position seemingly overlooks the carve-out set forth in the first clause of
subparagraph (3)(A). That clause - which states that "unless the standard is changed as provided
in subparagraph (B)" - makes it clear that when revised standards for heavy-duty trucks are at
issue, the potential limitations of subparagraph (3)(A) - limitations that could constrain the
application of paragraph (a)(3) just to standards for criteria pollutants - do not apply. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 16]
That distinction is significant, since the 4-year lead-time and 3-year stability mandates spelled
out in subparagraph (3)(C) apply to "any standard promulgated or revised under this paragraph
[i.e., under paragraph (a)(3)] and applicable to classes or categories of heavy-duty vehicles or
engines." Accordingly, since the revised Phase 3 GHG standards should be deemed as
promulgated under the directly applicable provisions of subparagraph (3)(B), not under
subparagraph (3)(A) (or under the more general provisions of paragraphs (1) or (2)), the four-
year lead-time and three-year stability mandates do apply to the anticipated Phase 3 GHG
standards. In that regard, it is noteworthy that the language of subparagraph (3)(C) references
any standards revised under all of paragraph (3), not just subparagraph (3)(A), as EPA, in effect,
seems to assert. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 16]
The foregoing conclusion makes sense. Indeed, there is no sound policy justification to
elevate HDOH OEM's need for lead-time to design for and comply with criteria pollutant
standards above their need for lead-time to design for and comply with GHG standards. To the
contrary, designing engines and vehicles to comply with more stringent GHG standards -
including through the design, integration and manufacture of completely new ZEV powertrains -
222
-------
arguably requires more lead-time, not less. Thus, there is no rational basis for presuming that the
minimum lead-time and stability provisions that CAA section 202(a)(3)(C) expressly provides
for revised HDOH standards should not apply to revised HDOH GHG standards as well. Indeed,
EPA's prior HDOH GHG standards have provided for at least four years of lead-time and three
years of stability. (See final "Phase 2" rulemaking, where the Agency noted, "The standards
being adopted provide approximately ten years of lead time for manufacturers to meet the 2027
standards." 81 Fed. Reg. at 73493 (Oct. 25, 2016).) (See also 81 Fed. Reg. at 73570, "Section
202(a)(2), applicable to emissions of greenhouse gases, does not mandate a specific period of
lead time, but EPA sees no reason for a different compliance date here for GHGs and criteria
pollutants.") ("The agencies' final standards will phase in over a period of seven years,
beginning in the 2021 model year, consistent with the requirement in EISA [the Energy
Independence and Security Act] that NHTSA's standards provide four full model years of
regulatory lead time and three full model years of regulatory stability." Id. at 73682.) [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, pp. 16 - 17]
In this regard, EPA's prior reference to EISA is highly relevant. That statute, which was
enacted after the CAA, specifically requires 4-years of lead-time and 3-years of stability for any
C02-equivalent standards. (49 U.S.C. §32902(k)(3).) There is no reason to assume that EPA
somehow has the unilateral authority to undermine that additional Congressional
directive. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 17]
Accordingly, based on the foregoing, EPA's NPRM is fundamentally flawed since it fails to
provide no less than four years of lead-time and three years of stability for the revised Phase 3
GHG standards applicable to new HDOH vehicles and engines. The Agency will need to remedy
that defect before finalizing any Phase 3 rule, including by providing a three-year stability period
between each progressively lower C02 standard. EMA is raising this core legal issue not to
thwart the Phase 3 rulemaking. Rather, EMA only seeks to ensure that OEMs will have the
statutory lead-time and stability periods to which they are entitled (and that they urgently need),
which in turn will help to ensure the ultimate adoption of a fully implementable final Phase 3
rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 17]
To comply with the applicable leadtime and stability periods specified in the CAA for revised
HDOH emission standards, and to provide greater flexibilities for OEMs to attain the final
targeted ZEV-truck adoption rates, the Phase 3 standards should phase-in over three-year
increments, not on an annual basis, so that progressively more stringent (yet feasible) HDOH
GHG standards would take effect in model years 2030 and 2033. (If EPA improperly elects to
reopen and revise the Phase 2 standards unilaterally, it is possible that the phase-in could start
with an initial step in 2028, but that would push the Phase 3 standards out by an additional model
year.) A properly stabilized phase-in schedule will allow OEMs the larger increments of time
that are necessary for them to better manage their ZEV-truck design and production schedules, to
optimize sales into their most suitable ZEV-truck markets, and to strategically target their overall
ZEV-truck deployment strategies toward a reduced and more realistic number of regulatory
targets. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 58]
Organization: Volvo Group
Timing
223
-------
Given the uncertainty and volatility of the Heavy-Duty (HD) ZEV market, the Volvo Group
strongly believes the agency should maintain the previously finalized Phase 2 stringencies and
promulgate a Phase 3 rule that commences with the 2030 model year. This position is based not
only on the bad precedent it sets for trust between the agency and its regulated industry, but also
on the adoption of the EPA's Clean Trucks Plan (Control of Air Pollution from New Motor
Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards) which has impacted product plans to meet
tougher Phase 2 stringencies and indirectly undercut our anticipated four year lead time because
of the inherent inverse relationship between NOx and C02 emissions from a diesel engine. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1606-A1, p. 5]
Structure
Year-Over-Year versus 3-Year Stringency Steps
Currently we remain undecided on our preferred stringency cycle in light of perceived risks
and benefits to each approach. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1606-A1, p. 5]
In the transition to HD EVs, we can expect the annual EV sales share to rise on a year-over-
year basis. If the energy distribution systems and charging/fueling infrastructure develop in line
with the demand, and supply chain constraints improve (though we have significant doubts either
will occur), we could expect these year-over-year increases to generate annual greenhouse gas
reductions that would likely be significantly higher than the Phase 2 three-year stringency
increases at each step. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1606-A1, p. 5]
Consider a case where EPA expects the year-over-year stringencies in an averaging set to be
10%, 20%, and 30% over baseline for model years (MYs) 2027, 2028, and 2029 respectively.
The resultant 3-year stringency step would be the average of the three stringency increases,
requiring a 20% improvement each of the three years (this does assume total vehicle sales are the
same each of the three model years). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1606-A1, p. 5]
If an OEM started the 2027 model year with a zero credit balance, and met the year-over-year
stringency increases of 10%, 20%, and 30%, they would be negative overall for the first two
years if the 3-year stringency were used. In this scenario, the OEM would be at a 50% deficit for
model year 2027. The OEM would meet the average for model year 2028 but would need to take
50% of those credits to cover the previous year's deficit, leaving an overall deficit of 50% in
2028. The 2029 model year would produce a 50% positive credit balance that could offset the
2028 deficit, and result in this OEM meeting the 20% stringency over the 3-year stringency
period, but with several concerns. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1606-A1, p. 5-6]
First, the OEM would have a negative credit position for at least two years, which could give
the impression to customers that its vehicles are not as fuel- or energy-efficient as its'
competitors that may have had positive balances. Second, the OEM would need to expend more
resources and be at significantly higher risk of noncompliance if unforeseen market impacts were
to decrease EV sales, such as a severe economic downturn for multiple years. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1606-A1, p. 6]
Conversely, product development timelines have increased significantly in the past years. The
complexity of solutions required to meet the stringent standards increases development effort and
time to simulate, test and verify components and systems. In addition to long development
cycles, certification tests have increased in length, requiring all hardware and software
224
-------
development to be frozen 18 months in advance of targeted receipt of certification. If
incremental yearly improvements are required, manufacturers would be running four
development projects synchronously. Resources such as manpower, engine dynamometer test
facilities, chassis dynamometer test chambers and other critical areas do not exist to manage such
a demand. Yearly incremental improvements to product are not feasible in the context of
traditional vehicle technologies. In order to allow manufacturers to deliver robust products with
high quality, three-year cycle minimums would be needed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1606-
Al, p. 6] Volvo Group would like to continue to engage with the agency throughout the rule
making period as we further investigate potential unintended consequences of each
approach. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1606-A1, p. 6]
With Phase 2, EPA finalized model year 2027 stringency steps for both the engine and
vehicles powered by internal combustion engines (i.e., conventionally powered vehicles, or
conventional vehicles). For Phase 1 and Phase 2, the agency provided three-year stringency
steps, with a four-year lead time between the two. Since EPA seemed to publicly support the
belief that the Clean Air Act lead time and stability requirements were applicable to motor
vehicle greenhouse gas regulations when it published its final Phase 2 rule late in calendar year
2016, the stringency steps for model year 2027 engines and vehicles were expected to cover at
least the three-year period of model years 2027 through 2029. The Volvo Group has been
investing at record levels to meet the demands of the Phase 2 program. Spending to meet the MY
2027 Phase 2 stringency step will be close to ten times the level spent to meet the 2017
standards. As a result, further engine or conventional vehicle stringency increases are
infeasible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1606-A1, p. 11]
Additionally, if EPA were to open a stringency assessment for engines or conventional
vehicles to increase model year 2027 stringencies, we believe it would require a review of the
entire Phase 2 stringency development, since the Phase 2 2027 stringencies are intended to serve
as the baseline for the Phase 3 rule making. This review would need to consider the technology
packages used to set model year 2021, 2024, and 2027 stringencies, including assumptions on
technology availability, timing, benefit, penetration, and cost. Reopening the stringency
determination for engines and vehicles from model year 2027 could actually result in decreased
stringency for engines and conventional vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1606-A1, p. 12]
Firstly, we believe this to be true because items included in EPA's technology packages have
not reached the levels projected (e.g., 6x2 axle configurations in tractors and vocational
vehicles); are not expected to be commercialized in EPA's projected timeline (e.g., engine stop-
start and mild hybridization for HHD vocational vehicles); are no longer being developed for
commercialization (e.g., Rankine Cycle waste heat recovery); and face higher costs from recent
supply chain disruptions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1606-A1, p. 12]
Secondly, EPA's stringency would need to account for the impact of higher engine and
conventional vehicle costs due to decreasing volumes of conventional vehicles as a result of the
expected increasing shares of EVs. Not only would this create higher prices from reducing
economies of scale, but also because engine and conventional vehicle development,
industrialization, and commercialization costs will need to be spread over lower volumes. The
latter concern will already become an issue due to more stringent NOx standards and longer
useful life periods promulgated by both CARB and EPA. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1606-A1,
p. 12]
225
-------
Finally, EPA's engine and conventional vehicle stringencies would need to be re-evaluated
for the increased costs due to the development of the new NOx controls required by EPA's Clean
Trucks Plan NOx rule, spreading those unaccounted-for costs over lower volumes of
conventional vehicles, and, for the increased consumption of fuel and diesel exhaust fluid driven
by these new NOx standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1606-A1, p. 12]
EPA Summary and Response:
Summary:
A number of commenters challenged EPA's proposed commencement date for the Phase 3
standards on legal, factual and policy grounds. They argue that the standards must be adopted
pursuant to CAA section 202 (a)(3)(B) since they are revised standards for heavy-duty trucks,
and therefore, pursuant to 202(a)(3)(C), require 4-year lead time and 3-year stability. (Lubrizol,
ATA, EMA.) They argue that the parallel authority in the Energy Independence Security Act
provides for four years of lead time, and three of stability. (NTEA , EMA). Commenters also
noted that EPA had provided this measure of lead time and stability in both the Phase 1 and
Phase 2 standards, which they assert were less demanding than the proposed Phase 3 standards.
(ATA, Volvo.)
A number of commenters maintain that, as a factual matter, insufficiency of needed electric
distribution infrastructure necessitates additional lead time. (EMA) (This issue is addressed
primarily in responses in RTC Section 6 and 7.1.) Daimler went into further detail, maintaining
that there is no reliable way to assess availability of hydrogen infrastructure at present. Their
strong recommendation is to commence Phase 3 standards (at significantly reduced stringency)
in the 2030 model year. OOIDA asserted that EPA had likely underestimated vehicle purchase
price increases attributable to the proposed rule, which they claim EPA had done in prior HD
GHG rules, and maintain that further lead time is necessary.
Commenter EMA maintains that section 202(a)(3) must be read to allow 4 years lead time and
3 years of stability for the Phase 3 heavy-duty vehicle GHG standards. Their argument is that
although section 202 (a)(3)(A)(i) applies to standards for 'hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide,
oxides of nitrogen and particulate matter" - i.e., not the GHGs encompassed under the Phase 3
rule - the standard must be issued pursuant to section 202 (a)(3) (B) which applies to "revised
standards for heavy duty trucks." The commenter notes that subparagraph (A) itself directs us to
subparagraph (B) (the revision subparagraph) because it begins "[ujnless the standard is changed
as provided in subparagraph (B). Commenter then argues that because the Phase 3 rule is a
revision of a prior rule for heavy duty vehicles, it falls within 202(a)(3), including the lead time
and stability provisions of section 202(a)(3)(C). The commenter further maintains that this
reading represents sound policy because the lead time is needed, in addition, the parallel
provision regarding fuel efficiency in EISA, section 32902(k)(3) has a 4 year lead time and 3
year stability requirement, and the two statutes should be harmonized.
Ford maintained that the proposed increase in stringency between MYs 2026 and 2027 was
especially problematic. Their point is that at the time of maximum compliance difficulty (due to
uncertainties of product acceptance, availability, infrastructure support), EPA is proposing the
most significant increase in stringency - on the order of 25%. Ford also questioned the year-
over-year stringency proposed for the model years immediately succeeding 2027.
226
-------
Volvo was equivocal about commencing the Phase 3 standards in MY 2027, at least from the
standpoint of whether or not manufacturers could generate sufficient credits to have a surplus
coming into that year. However, Volvo further maintained (similarly to PACCAR, in Section
2.3.1 above), that a MY 2027 start date for the Phase 3 program has implications for Phase 2.
Specifically, EPA should either not consider the 2027 Phase 2 standards in its baseline, or
reassess the 2027 Phase 2 standards altogether. Specifically, Volvo contends that EPA should
either not consider the 2027 Phase 2 standards in its baseline, or reassess the 2027 Phase 2
standards altogether. They assert that users have not adopted many of the ICE engine and
vehicle technologies on which that standard was predicated, sometimes by choice (advance
aerodynamic improvements, stop start of HHDV), or outright lack of commercialization
(Rankine engines). They assert that, as a result, OEMs have introduced ZEVs into their
production mix as a compliance strategy, but produced fewer ICE vehicles. They state that the
result is that Phase 2 costs are being spread over fewer vehicles and are consequently higher than
EPA estimated in Phase 2. They state that, either way, EPA's cost estimates for Phase 2 require
reassessment if Phase 3 were to commence in MY 2027.
CARB asserted that the proposed lead time was adequate, and, as noted in Section 2.3.2,
urged extension of standards past model year 2032.
Response:
EPA disagrees with EMA that this rule is promulgated under section 202(a)(3) or that section
202(a)(3)(C)'s lead-time and stability requirements apply. Specifically, section 202(a)(3)(B)(i)
applies only in specific statutorily defined cases, none of which exist here; it does not, as the
commenter claims, govern the revision of these HD GHG standard. The below response
supplements the discussion in section I.C of the preamble.
We begin by noting that EPA has always established HD GHG standards under section
202(a)(l)-(2). We responded to comments on this issue in the Phase 1 Rule.255 By the time of the
Phase 2 Rule, this issue was settled, and we did not receive renewed adverse comments. In the
Phase 3 proposal, we simply maintained our longstanding position that HD GHG standards are
promulgated under section 202(a)(1). We did not reexamine this issue or otherwise reopen it for
renewed comment.
In any case, the comment lacks merit. As the commenter recognizes, the lead-time and
stabilty requirements in section 202(a)(3)(C) only apply to standards "promulgated or revised
under this paragraph," i.e., paragraph 3. We agree with the commenter that section 202(a)(3)(A)
is inapposite because it only applies to air pollutants other than the one at issue in the Phase 3
rule.256
We do not agree, however, that section 202(a)(3)(B)(i) applies here. That section provides in
full:
(B) Revised standards for heavy duty trucks. — (i) On the basis of information available
to the Administrator concerning the effects of air pollutants emitted from heavy-duty
255 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and
Vehicles EPA Response to Comments Document for Joint Rulemaking, at 5-19 ("Phase 1 RTC").
256 The commenter does not claim section 202(a)(3)(B)(ii), (D) or (E) apply here; we think those sections clearly do
not govern this rule.
227
-------
vehicles or engines and from other sources of mobile source related pollutants on the
public health and welfare, and taking costs into account, the Administrator may
promulgate regulations under paragraph (1) of this subsection revising any standard
promulgated under, or before the date of, the enactment of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990 (or previously revised under this subparagraph) and applicable to
classes or categories of heavy-duty vehicles or engines.
The crux of the commenter's argument is that this paragraph applies to the revision of all HD
motor vehicle standards. We think that reading is unambiguously precluded by the statute for
several reasons.
Most importantly, the text does not say it applies to all HD motor vehicle standards; rather, it
identifies a very specific set of applicable standards: "revisions to] any standard promulgated
under, or before the date of, the enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (or
previously revised under this subparagraph) and applicable to classes or categories of heavy-duty
vehicles or engines." We think it is important to give effect to this specific language. The
provision applies to revisions of standards "promulgated under" the 1990 Amendments. That
clearly includes section 202(a)(3)(A)(i)'s mandate to promulgate standards for listed pollutants
that "reflect the greatest degree of emission reduction achievable," given that section says it is
operative "[ujnless the standard is changed as provided in subparagraph (B)." It also is fairly
read to include certain statutory numeric standards Congress established in the 1990
Amendments, like those in section 202(a)(3)(B)(ii).257 In addition, the provision applies to
standards "promulgated ... before the date of, the enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments
of 1990," i.e., standards promulgated before November 15, 1990. Finally, the provision applies
to the revision of standards "previously revised under this subparagraph."
The Phase 3 Rule is plainly not subject to this statutory framework. The Phase 3 rule is
"revising" the Phase 2 standards for MY 2027, in addition to establishing new standards for MY
2028 and future years. The Phase 2 Rule does not fit any of the three categories identified in
section 202(a)(3)(B)(i): it is not a "standard promulgated under, or before the date of, the
enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (or previously revised under this
subparagraph)." It was not promulgated under authority of the 1990 Amendments, but under
section 202(a)(1), which was enacted in 1965 and amended in 1970. Phase 2 was also not
promulgated before the date of the 1990 Amendments, but in 2016. Nor was Phase 2 previously
revised under subparagraph (B). Thus, the text is clear that section 202(a)(3)(B)(i) does not
apply to the final rule. Rather, EPA is promulgating the final rule under section 202(a)(l)-(2).
Accordingly the lead-time and stability requirements in section 202(a)(3)(C)—which only apply
to standards promulgated or revised under section 202(a)(3)—also do not apply.
The commenter does not address section 202(a)(3)(B)(i)'s detailed statutory applicability
language at all. The comment emphasizes that the statute says "any standards"; but obviously
that phrase is qualified by the subsequent phrase "promulgated under, or before the date of, the
enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (or previously revised under this
subparagraph) " The commenter also invokes the title of section 202(a)(3)(B) ("Revised
257 The 1990 Amendments also set forth other provisions for HD standards, such as section 202(h) (establishing
certain standards for light-duty trucks of more than 6,000 lbs. GVWR; note that under the section 202(b)(3), HD
vehicles are those that exceeds 6,000 pounds gross vehicle weight) and 202(j)(2)(4) (cold temperature CO HD
standards).
228
-------
standards for heavy duty trucks"). But that title is also compatible with EPA's understanding of
the plain meaning of the statute, and in any event, the title cannot trump the unambiguous
statutory text.258
The commenter also fails to explain how its reading is consistent with the canon against
surplusage. Had Congress wanted section 202(a)(3)(B)(i) to apply to revisions of all HD
standards, it could have said that by omitting the phrase "promulgated under, or before the date
of, the enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (or previously revised under this
subparagraph)" and defining applicability to "revising any standard [] applicable to classes or
categories of heavy-duty vehicles or engines." But that is not what Congress did, and it is
important to give effect to the detailed language that Congress wrote.259
The commenter alleges that there is "no sound policy justification" for applying a statutory
lead-time and stability requirement to criteria pollutant standards subject to section
202(a)(3)(A)(i), but not to GHG standards. But a commenter's policy preferences cannot defeat
the unambiguous text of the statute. In any event, we think the statute effects a rational
distinction. Congress required EPA to promulgate stringent standards for HD vehicles, including
under section 202(a)(3)(A)(i)'s mandate to promulgate standards that "reflect the greatest degree
of emission reduction achievable," as well as other statutory numeric standards. Section
202(a)(3)(B)(i) functions as a safety valve, allowing the agency to modify those standards if it
determined appropriate based on specific statutory factors. Complementing the very specific
direction on standard-setting, Congress also provided specific direction on lead-time and stabilty
provisions in section 202(a)(3)(C). By contrast, standards promulgated under EPA's general
section 202(a)(l)-(2) authority are not subject to the same level of legislative specificity with
respect to either stringency or lead-time and stability; in these cases, Congress continued to
entrust such judgments to the Administrator.
The commenter's reliance on 42 USC 32902(k)(3) is misplaced. That provision is irrelevant.
It is contained in a different statute (EISA), applies to a different agency, and is directed at a
different policy issue. See Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 532 (2007) ("[T]hat DOT sets
mileage standards in no way licenses EPA to shirk its environmental responsibilities. EPA has
been charged with protecting the public's 'health' and 'welfare,' a statutory obligation wholly
independent of DOT's mandate to promote energy efficiency").
The commenter also claims the Phase 2 GHG rule provided more lead-time and stability.
While that may be true, it is irrelevant to the statutory interpretation issue. EPA found the lead-
time and stability provided in Phase 2 appropriate based on the record then before us and under
our section 202(a)(l)-(2) authority, not because we thought ourselves bound by section
202(a)(3)(C). We are taking the same basic approach in this rule, as we find on this record that
the lead-time and stability we have provided is sufficient and appropriate under section
258 See, e.g. Whitman v. Am. Trucking Associations, 531 U.S. 457, 483, 2001) ("This eliminates the interpretive role
of the title, which may only 'she[d] light on some ambiguous word or phrase in the statute itself") (internal citations
omitted) (alteration in original).
259 The same problem with surplusage exists for the commenter's reading of section 202(a)(3)(C). Had Congress
wanted that provision to apply to all HD standards, it could have said so. Instead, section 202(a)(3)(C) specifically
refers to "[a]ny standard promulgated or revised under this paragraph and applicable to classes or categories of
heavy-duty vehicles or engines," indicating that it applies only to the subset of HD standards "promulgated or
revised under this paragraph."
229
-------
202(a)(l)-(2). We note, moreover, that the Phase 1 Rule also provided less lead-time than the
Phase 2 Rule, as that rule was published in late 2011 and applied to vehicles beginning in MY
2014.
EPA notes again the purpose of section 202 (a)(1) standards is to utilize deployment of
technologies to prevent or control emissions that cause or contribute to dangerous pollution,
provided that costs of doing so are reasonable, and that there is sufficient lead time to do so. The
record for this rulemaking demonstrates that there is sufficient lead time to commence the
program in MY 2027, and that this can be done at reasonable cost.
We do agree with certain of the comments, including that the proposed increase in stringency
between MYs 2026 and 2027 was too great, and that more lead time was needed for certain HDV
subcategories. As further described in Section II of the preamble, the final Phase 3 GHG
standards include revised GHG standards for many MY 2027 HD vehicles and new GHG
standards for other subcategories of HD vehicles commencing in MYs 2028, 2029 and 2030,
with revisions through 2032. Compared to the proposed Phase 3 standards, in general, after
further consideration of the lead times necessary for the standards (including both the vehicle
development and the projected infrastructure needed to support the modeled potential
compliance pathway that demonstrates the feasibility of the standards), we are finalizing CO2
emission standards for heavy-duty vehicles that include a lower increase in stringency of
standards for many HD vehicle categories in MY 2027, a slower phase-in of standards through
MYs 2028 and 2029, and a phase-in of standards from MYs 2030 through 2032 that, for many of
the subcategories, achieves similar levels of stringency in MY 2032 as proposed . For the final
standards, the new standards for HHD vocational vehicles begin in MY 2029 and new standards
for day cab tractors begin in MY 2028 (i.e., we are not finalizing the proposed revisions to the
Phase 2 MY 2027 HHD vocational vehicles or day cab tractor standards) and include less
stringent standards than those proposed across the phase-in of Phase 3 standards for HHD
vocational vehicles.
With regard to stability, EPA does not believe that the longer (e.g., three-year) stability
periods requested by some commenters is necessary or appropriate for these Phase 3 standards.
EPA understands that manufacturers typically redesign vehicles on multi-year cycles. This is
consistent with the final standards' year-over-year increases in stringency, given that
manufacturers have access to averaging. As a result, manufacturers may choose to have some
vehicles fall short of the standards, while other vehicles exceed the standards, so long as the fleet
as a whole is in compliance. Thus, the final standards are entirely compatible with, for instance, a
manufacturer's decision to improve pollution control technology on any given model once every
three (or more) years. Averaging thus provides manufacturers with the benefits of three-year (or
other multi-year) standard stability; the difference is that averaging allows each manufacturer to
have even greater flexibility to determine the compliance pathway that best suits its business
model, as opposed to being locked into predetermined stability cycles with a fixed number of
years. Further, while EPA did not rely on banking and trading to determine the level of the
standards, manufacturers also have access to banking and trading flexibilities, which further
enhance their ability to comply in the way best suited to their business. At the same time, EPA
notes that were it set the same final standards for MY 2029 and 2032, for example, but exclude
the ramp-up in the other years, significant, achievable emissions reductions would be lost, along
with the consequent benefits for public health and welfare. Given that the final standards already
reflect a balanced and measured approach premised on many conservative technical assumptions,
230
-------
and the need to address GHG emissions that contribute to dangerous climate change, EPA finds
that giving up feasible emissions benefits would be inappropriate. EPA notes that it could
achieve the same emissions benefits by providing for three-year stability but also increasing the
stringency of the standards; however, commenters requesting stability generally also sought less
stringent standards.
EPA evaluated the MY 2021 and MY 2022 heavy-duty GHG certification results. In this
analysis, we found that there are vehicles being built that already meet the Phase 2 MY 2027
emission standards. While we agree with Volvo that manufacturers are not using the exact
technology package to meet the Phase 2 standards we projected in the Phase 2 rulemaking, we
did not expect that they would exactly follow the Phase 2 MY 2027 technology package since
the standards are performance-based and thereby provide manufacturers the flexibility to
determine the best technology or mix of technologies to deploy for their fleets to meet the
standards. Similarly, as described in preamble Section II.F, we developed several technology
pathways that manufacturers could use to meet the final Phase 3 standards, none of which we
expect manufacturers to exactly follow. Regarding our assessment of ICE vehicle technologies,
see preamble Section II and RIA Chapters 1 and 2.
Regarding OOIDA's assertion that EPA likely underestimated vehicle purchase price
increases attributable to the proposed rule because they claim EPA has done in prior HD GHG
rules, namely the Phase 1 rule, the commenter provides no basis for its statement that the costs of
combination tractors it cites are attributable to the Phase 1 rule (i.e., the commenter failed to
disaggregate costs of compliance with the Phase 1 standards from other factors that impact
purchaser prices). Furthermore, EPA finds this claim unlikely. The Phase 1 standards were
predicated on modest vehicle improvements relating to better tire rolling resistance, improved
vehicle body aerodynamics, extended idle reduction, downweighting, and use of a vehicle speed
limiter. 76 FR at 57148-155 (Sept. 15, 2011). EPA suspects that the survey cited in the
comment reflects various causes for price increases, not limited to those reflecting the cost of
Phase 1 regulatory compliance. See preamble Sections II and IV and RIA Chapters II and III, for
our thorough evaluation of manufacturer costs and purchaser costs for the Phase 3 standards.
2.4 Stringency and Feasibility
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Advanced Engine Systems Institute (AESI)
The clean mobility supplier industry, employing more than 300,000 workers, places enormous
value on long-term regulatory certainty to drive investment and job creation. AESI member
companies support uniform national GHG standards and remain committed to developing and
deploying highly advanced technologies to meet the goals of this rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1600-A1, p. 2]
Organization: Allergy & Asthma Network et al.
EPA Should Finalize Standards at Least as Strong as the Emissions Reductions in ACT
231
-------
The EPA proposed standards are an important step forward and would provide greater
emissions reductions than the less stringent alternative. However, in light of the urgency of the
climate crisis and the rapid deployment of heavy duty zero emission vehicles, EPA should
finalize standards at least as stringent as those reflecting the Advanced Clean Trucks policy, and
potentially as stringent as reflecting the announcements manufacturers have made about plans to
transition their fleets to zero-emission vehicles, as suggested in the proposal. EPA's analysis of
the standards as proposed shows that the benefits would outweigh the implementation costs five-
to-one, a strong start. However, while EPA did not provide a similar analysis of the more
stringent alternatives the agency asks for comment on, we note that our reports mentioned above
help show the enormous benefits for public health and health equity that could be achieved under
a more protective standard. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1532-A1, p. 3]
The Advanced Clean Trucks program is an increasing success story, with six states having
adopted the rule and 16 states plus Washington, DC having signed the Multi-State Memorandum
of Understanding to achieve 20 percent zero-emission truck sales by 2030 and 100 percent by
2050. Work is underway in additional states to adopt ACT. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1532-
Al, p. 4]
While the structure of the standards is different, and EPA is not proposing to directly require
increasing shares of zero-emission trucks sales as ACT does, we urge the agency to finalize
heavy-duty greenhouse gas standards that reflect at least the same emissions stringency as ACT.
These emissions standards would ensure health benefits in states beyond those that have already
adopted ACT and drive a significant transition toward zero-emission trucks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1532-A1, p. 4]
Organization: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE)
EPA must set stringency based on ambitious EV market penetration rates
EPA's proposed Phase 3 standards would constitute a major step toward the electrification of
heavy-duty vehicles. Yet the market for heavy-duty electric vehicles is changing radically and
rapidly, and ACEEE believes that higher adoption rates are achievable and should be included in
the final standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1560-A1, p. 2]
Manufacturers now offer market-ready electric options in a wide variety of vehicle categories
including semis and delivery vans.7 Large corporations such as Amazon, Fedex, and Walmart
have all set targets for fleet electrification and have placed substantial orders with EV
manufacturers for the coming years.8 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1560-A1, p. 2]
7 https://www.aceee.org/blog-post/2023/02/ev-sales-soar-electrifying-big-rigs-remains-challenge
8 https://www.aceee.org/blog-post/2023/02/ev-sales-soar-electrifying-big-rigs-remains-challenge
Additionally, recent landmark legislation has energized the market for heavy-duty EVs
through major investments in EV deployment and charging infrastructure. The Inflation
Reduction Act (IRA) and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) combined have
set aside up to $100 billion of funding for which EVs are eligible.9 A recent report by the
International Council for Clean Transportation found that the tax credits in IRA alone could
encourage rapid EV uptake in the heavy-duty sector, reaching 44%-52% sales share by
2032.10 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1560-A1, pp. 2 - 3]
232
-------
9 https://www.atlasevhub.com/data_story/3-billion-in-federal-funding-for-evs-to-date/
10 https://theicct.Org/wp-content/uploads/2023/0l/ira-impact-evs-us-jan23.pdf
Nevertheless, additional research has found that the recent landscape of electrification policies
-the Phase 2 GHG standards, state adoption of California's Advanced Clean Truck rule, and IRA
incentives - and manufacturer commitments will not go far enough to align with our nation-wide
climate goals. 11 It is crucial that EPA take the opportunity of the Phase 3 standards to push for
the highest feasible level of EV adoption and contribute adequately to the achievement of
national climate goals. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1560-A1, p. 3]
11 https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/hdv-phase3-ghg-standards-benefits-apr23.pdf
The collaboration of other stakeholders will be essential to large-scale EV deployment. In
particular, utilities must step up to the plate and commit to EV charging and grid improvement
investments for EV adoption in both the light- and heavy-duty sectors. Vehicle electrification
presents a major business opportunity for these companies, and as a result, utilities have a big
role to play in driving transportation decarbonization. EPA cannot wait for other stakeholders to
lead the way, however, and must set a pace for EV adoption that meets the needs and capabilities
of the nation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1560-A1, p. 3]
Phase 3 targets should account for actions taken to date by manufacturers and federal and
state governments to drive vehicle electrification. In light of the rapid push to zero emissions
vehicles globally, standards based on aggressive electrification are essential for the economic
wellbeing of the country and the success of HDV manufacturers (OEMs) in the U.S. All major
global vehicle markets have adopted or are working on requirements to electrify heavy-duty
vehicles. Setting a pace that keeps U.S. manufacturers at the forefront of this transition will boost
their position, help them maintain or grow share as buying patterns shift, and prevent laggards
from gaining near-term advantages by postponing investment in ZEV technology. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1560-A1, p. 3]
To be effective, the standards should be ambitious enough to drive the industry beyond what
the market alone will deliver. The proposed standards reflect EPA's projected ZEV adoption
rates based on ZEVs' ability to meet buyers' payback requirements and perform the same work
as an ICEV in each vehicle application. A well-functioning market should deliver these levels of
ZEV adoption, but market barriers such as fleets' lack of familiarity with the technology may
prevent this. In that case, the role of standards is precisely to address those barriers and close the
gap between market-driven and economically feasible levels of adoption. Indeed, this view
underlies the approach that NHTSA and EPA have taken to vehicle standards for years and is
appropriate for these heavy-duty standards as well. However, EPA's analysis of ZEV adoption
rates does not adequately account for other factors driving ZEV adoption, including state actions,
discussed next. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1560-A1, pp. 3 - 4]
EPA should adjust its ZEV adoption projections to fully reflect state actions
EPA's analysis of MY 2032 EV sales shares for the Phase 3 standards should fully reflect
states' adoption of the ACT to date, as well as further actions through the Advanced Clean Fleet
(ACF) program. Both regulations will have significant impact on the market for heavy-duty
vehicles nationally. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1560-A1, p. 4]
233
-------
In March of 2023, EPA granted California's request for a waiver to set vehicle emissions
standards related to heavy-duty vehicles. 12 The waiver gives California the authority to move
forward with its Advanced Clean Truck (ACT) rule, which requires that manufacturers sell
increasing numbers of MDV and HDV zero-emission vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1560-A1, p. 4]
12 https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-grants-waivers-californias-highway-heavy-duty-vehicle-and-
engine-emission
The approval of the waiver means that California and other states that have committed to
adopting ACT can implement their regulations. As of April 2023, seven states, representing 23%
of total relevant vehicles sales (including California,) 13 had adopted ACT: Massachusetts,
Vermont, New York, New Jersey, Washington, Oregon, and Colorado. On top of that, Maryland
and Connecticut have passed ACT legislation and will soon embark on the rulemaking process.
Six other states and the District of Columbia were signatories to a memorandum of
understanding signed in 2020, committing to ACT adoption. 14 These 17 states represented 34%
of the total medium- and heavy-duty vehicle market in 2021.15 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1560-A1, p. 4]
13 https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2021/mv 1 .cfm
14 https://www.nescaum.org/documents/mhdv-zev-mou-20220329.pdf
15 https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2021/mv 1 .cfm
While EPA's proposal reflects heavy-duty ZEV sales shares in a subset of these states in the
reference case, it does not reflect the full extent of state ACT adoption. Moreover, the ZEV
adoption rates EPA projects in the control case do not account for ACT-driven sales shares at all.
This does not comport with EPA's stated goal of maximizing emissions reductions to the greatest
feasible extent (FR 26005). EPA appropriately includes ACT state ZEV sales in the reference
case, and these vehicles will still be sold under the control scenarios. The adoption rates EPA
found to be feasible in its HD TRUCS analysis are below the rates required under ACT, so the
ACT levels would prevail in ACT states, while the adoption rates found in the HD TRUCS
analysis would remain feasible in the rest of the nation. The final rule should reflect this. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1560-A1, p. 4]
ACT requires that ZEV penetration rates for vocational vehicles will reach 60% and that 40%
of tractors be ZEVs by MY 2032. EPA's proposed scenario assumes that ZEV penetration
of vocational vehicles reaches 50% in 2032 (FR25933, Table ES-4) while short-haul tractors and
long-haul tractors reach EV penetration levels of 35% and 25% respectively in 2032 and beyond.
Given that the states that have already adopted ACT rules or legislation make up 23% of the
heavy-duty vehicle market, EPA should, at a minimum, increase its assumed MY 2032 ZEV
adoption levels by 23% of the difference between the proposed rule and ACT levels for each of
those vehicle types. Table 1 highlights what this would mean for the targets for vocational
vehicles and tractors in MY 2032. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1560-A1, pp. 4-5.] [See Table 1,
Comparison of MY 2032 ZEV Shares under EPA Proposal and with ACT Regulation Shares, on
page 5 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1560-A1.]
For the final MY 2027-2032 final rule, EPA should apply ACT-projected ZEV market shares
to any state that adopts ACT between now and the completion of the final rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1560-A1, p. 5]
234
-------
EPA should consider matching or exceeding ACF's level of ambition for ZEV adoption in the
final rule
To further push ZEV adoption to the highest feasible levels, EPA should consider including
the market effects of California's new Advanced Clean Fleets (ACF) targets in the final MY
2027-2032 standards. Having determined that ACT will not move the EV market fast enough to
meet Governor Newsom's goal that 100% of MDV and HDV vehicles be zero-emissions by
2045 where feasible, California recently adopted the ACF rule. 17 ACF goes beyond ACT to set
out an ambitious trajectory for ZEV penetration, requiring that all medium- and heavy-duty
vehicles that are sold by manufacturers in California be electric starting in 2036. To the extent
that other states adopt the more ambitious targets laid out in the ACF rule, EPA's final standards
should take into account these higher ZEV market shares for those states. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1560-A1, p. 6]
17 https://www.gov.ca.gOv/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/9.23.20-EO-N-79-20-Climate.pdf
To demonstrate that ACF is realistically achievable, California uses findings from their one-
time fleet reporting requirement for ACT to highlight that most fleets of MDVs and HDVs can
be serviced by ZEV models on the market today. 18 The Initial Statement of Reasons (ISOR)
issued by the Air Resources Board for the ACF regulation finds that the majority of trucks
operating in California drive, on average, less than 100 miles a day and most of the ZEVs
available today have batteries and energy storage systems big enough to satisfy those driving
requirements. 19 Additionally, California's TCO assessment of six different vehicle types shows
that, even before accounting for cost reductions that will likely come from the ZEV sales
requirements in the states that have adopted ACT, BEVs and FCEVs will be cost-competitive
with ICEVs as soon as 2025 thanks to the declining cost of batteries and fuel cell components.20
ACEEE supports EPA's consideration of ACF levels of ZEV penetration nation-wide to set
appropriate targets in the final rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1560-A1, pp. 6-7]
18 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-02/Large_Entity_Reporting_Aggregated_Data_ADA.pdf
19 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2022/acf22/isor2.pdf
20 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2022/acf22/appg.pdf
Phase 3 stringency should reflect remaining potential for efficiency improvements to ICEVs
EPA bases the proposed increases in stringency of HDV standards for MY 2027-2032 entirely
on projected ZEV sales shares. The remaining sales are assumed to be ICEVs achieving the
current MY 2027 standards (FR 25996). The resulting standards would fail to take advantage of
the considerable remaining potential for improvement in ICEV efficiency and, furthermore,
would not be consistent with EPA's stated goal of maximizing emissions reductions to the
greatest feasible extent (FR 26005). This is a major failing, especially given that under the
compliance pathway presented in the proposal ICEVs would be the great majority of vehicles
sold in MY 2027-2032. These ICEVs should continue to improve from one model year to the
next over the time frame of the Phase 3 standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1560-A1, p. 7]
It is essential that EPA include ICEV improvements in setting the level of the final targets to
maximize the emissions reduction benefits of the standards and chart a course for minimizing
cumulative heavy-duty GHG emissions out to 2050. According to a recent ICCT paper, the
heavy-duty sector will fall short of meeting its share of the transportation GHG reductions
235
-------
needed to reach the U.S. nationally determined contribution under the Paris Agreement in 2030
and beyond unless ICE vehicle fuel efficiency continues to improve under Phase 3 and ambitious
ZEV adoption targets are achieved.21 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1560-A1, p. 7]
21 https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/hdv-phase3-ghg-standards-benefits-apr23.pdf.
Continued improvement in ICEV efficiency cannot be treated simply as an option that
provides compliance flexibility to manufacturers
In the past, EPA has frequently and appropriately demonstrated the achievability of proposed
vehicle standards by presenting a single compliance pathway, knowing that manufacturers will
use different technology pathways based on considerations specific to them. In that spirit, EPA
might argue that there is no need to include remaining conventional efficiency technologies in
the compliance pathway presented for the Phase 3 standards, and that justifying the proposed
stringency increase through increasing ZEV adoption alone is a simple and satisfactory
approach. In this view, any available ICEV efficiency improvements constitute flexibility for
manufacturers to meet the standards with a different technology mix. However, we object
strongly to this notion, which underpins a proposal that leaves substantial, cost-effective GHG
reduction opportunities on the table. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1560-A1, pp. 7-8]
In the proposal, EPA has demonstrated the feasibility of the projected ZEV adoption rates
based on vehicle cost and availability, infrastructure development and federal tax incentives.
Those adoption rates are far below 100%, however. To the extent that there are cost-effective
technologies available to improve the efficiency of the ICEVs that comprise the remainder of
sales, EPA's approach is best described not as flexibility for manufacturers but rather as a missed
opportunity to reach higher levels of cost-effective emissions reduction. This is inconsistent with
EPA's stated goal "to maximize emissions reductions given our assessment of technological
feasibility and accounting for cost of compliance, lead time, and impacts on purchasers and
willingness to purchase" (FR 26005). Manufacturer flexibility would be retained under a
standard based on broadly feasible improvements in both ICEVs and ZEV adoption;
manufacturers that were in a position to achieve still higher levels of ZEV adoption would be
able to comply with lower levels of ICEV efficiency improvement. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1560-A1, p. 8]
Sleeper cab tractors constitute a particularly important demonstration of the importance of
continuing ICEV emissions rate reductions. These trucks, which make up 12.8% of MDV and
HDV sales (per HD TRUCS) and a larger share of MDV and HDV emissions, are projected to
reach only 25% ZEV adoption (all FCEV) by 2032. Using the HD TRUCS assumption of
constant sales of sleeper cabs across model years and the adoption rates in proposal Table 11-24
(FR 25992), 92% of sleeper sales (as well as 78% of sales of other tractors) will be ICEVs in MY
2027-2032. It would be unacceptable for these trucks to emit at the level of the current MY 2027
standard. The industry can and must do better to ensure HDVs contribute adequately to
transportation GHG emissions reductions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1560-A1, p. 8]
Failing to assume such conventional technology improvements in setting the standards also
opens up the possibility of a manufacturer using these technologies to slacken its pace on ZEV
production. For ICE sleeper cab tractors, for example, a recent ICCT report identifies readily
available, cost-effective technology to achieve 23%-24% emissions reduction below the levels of
the current MY 2027 standard.22 Adopting these technologies would allow manufacturers to
236
-------
comply with sleeper cab standards throughout Phase 3 without any of the ZEV sales the
proposed standard assumes (25% FCEVs in MY 2032). While this alternative pathway may
demonstrate the flexibility and non-prescriptive nature of the standards, it would represent a total
and unnecessary failure to drive ZEV adoption at a rate that is both feasible and necessary to
achieve national commitments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1560-A1, pp. 8-9]
22 https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/hdv-phase3-ghg-standards-benefits-apr23.pdf
There are multiple ICE vehicle technologies that could support more stringent standards than
those proposed, and the final standards should be strengthened accordingly
The rapid electrification of heavy-duty vehicles will present many challenges to truck
manufacturers and dealers. Public policies such as those in IIJA and IRA have a key role in
ensuring that the industry has the resources to make this transition successfully. Given the
millions of heavy-duty ICEVs that will be produced and sold in the coming years, however,
allowing these vehicles to stagnate technologically should not be an option. There are cost-
effective technologies already available that have yet to achieve high penetration, but face no
market obstacles to doing so, as discussed further below. These technologies do not require
substantial additional investment on the part of manufacturers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1560-A1, p. 9]
Furthermore, for market segments in which ICEVs will remain a substantial share of sales
through the next few product cycles, continued investment in emerging efficiency technologies is
warranted. This is especially the case of for tractors, which EPA projects will reach only 25%-
35% ZEV sales shares by MY 2032. But EPA also assumes that no segment will achieve over
80%) ZEVs (FR 25992), seeming to hedge its bets on a full phase-out of ICEVs. This perspective
on the part of the agency makes it all the more important that the rule ensures continued progress
on ICEV efficiency.23 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1560-A1, p. 9]
23 EPA's exclusion of 20% of vehicles is based on the argument that the highest-VMT vehicles would
have battery requirements exceeding those of the great majority of vehicles and hence should be excluded
from the calculation of EV specs in HD TRUCS, and that other vehicles might face special charging
challenges making electrification especially difficult (FR 25992). While not unreasonable so far as is goes,
this approach should not be taken to preclude electrification of high-VMT vehicles or vehicles with special
charging needs in perpetuity.
Moreover, vehicle efficiency improvements such as aerodynamic drag reduction, reductions
in tire rolling resistance, and mass reduction can contribute to the efficiency, and hence cost-
effectiveness and/or range, of BEVs and FCEVs. As EPA notes: "By reducing the energy
required to move a truck down the road, aerodynamic improvements can extend the range of
BEV/FCEV/hybrid for a given battery size"(DRIA p.27). Hence continued investment in these
areas will also be worthwhile. The need to promote the advancement of such technologies only
increases in view of EPA's proposal to continue excluding upstream vehicle emissions from
certification values (FR 25994). This policy, which we urge EPA below to discontinue,
eliminates an important manufacturer incentive to make their ZEVs as efficient as possible.
Failure to incentivize development of these broadly applicable "no-regrets" technologies by
allowing ICEV efficiency to stagnate as well would compound the error. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1560-A1, p. 9]
EPA provides only a cursory discussion of specific ICEV technologies that could reduce
conventional vehicle emissions in Phase 3 but requests comments on such technologies (FR
237
-------
25993). Sources of relevant information include DOE's SuperTruck Program, ICCT reports, and
NACFE's Annual Fleet Fuel Study. These sources identify multiple technologies available in the
market today that remain underutilized, as well as emerging technologies that can provide
substantial additional benefits. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1560-A1, p. 10]
The above-mentioned 2023 ICCT white paper on the emissions benefits of the Phase 3
standards identifies technology packages for each heavy-duty class and regulatory type that
would substantially and cost-effectively (with 2-year payback) improve efficiency beyond
current MY 2027 requirements.24 They found additional savings potential ranging from 22% to
31%, depending upon vehicle type. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1560-A1, p. 10]
24 https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/hdv-phase3-ghg-standards-benefits-apr23.pdf.
Many technologies in the ICCT packages were also part of EPA's Phase 2 compliance
packages but have not been fully adopted in the market, including improvements to tires,
aerodynamics and accessories, as well as waste heat recovery. Other technologies, including
engines achieving 55% brake thermal efficiency, mild hybridization, and additional aerodynamic
improvements were tested extensively in DOE's SuperTruck 2 program for long-haul tractors, a
segment expected to remain less than fully electrified well into the future. EPA should consider
all of these ICE technology improvements in setting the stringency of the Phase 3 standards.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1560-A1, p. 10]
The cumulative GHG benefit of maintaining the emissions reduction trajectory of ICEVs is
substantial
The potential to reduce ICEV carbon dioxide (C02) emissions below the level of current MY
2027 standards, together with the expectation that ICEV sales will continue to MY 2039 (based
on the US National Blueprint for Transportation Decarbonization,25) imply that EPA could
substantially increase emissions reductions out to 2050 by steadily increasing ICEV efficiency
through the Phase 3 standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1560-A1, p. 10]
25 https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2023-01/the-us-national-blueprint-for-transportation-
decarbonization.pdf
For long-haul tractors, for example, the potential for 23% cost-effective efficiency
improvements, as estimated by ICCT, could translate to an annual reduction in long-haul ICEV
emissions of more than 5% per year in MY 2028-2032. Using Argonne National Laboratory's
VISION model, we estimated that this would reduce cumulative emissions out to 2050 from MY
2027 and beyond sleeper cab tractors by 154 million metric tons (MMT) of C02. This would add
11% to the emissions reductions achieved through an electrification-only strategy in which BEV
share reached 100% in 2040 per the National Blueprint. If sleeper cab BEV market share were
instead to max out at 80% in 2040 or alternatively to reach 100% only in 2050, the ICEV
efficiency improvements would add 18% or 24%, respectively, to cumulative emissions
reductions from electrification alone. (See Figure 1.) Otherwise viewed, these results show that
raising ICEV efficiency by 5% per year in MY 2028-2032 would nearly (97%) make up for the
shortfall in cumulative emissions reduction resulting from a maximum BEV sales share for
sleepers of 80%, instead of 100%, in 2040. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1560-A1, pp. 10 - 11.]
[See Figure 1, Cumulative emission reductions from electrification of long-haul tractors, 2027-
2050, on page 11 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1560-A1.]
238
-------
Phase 3 standards should promote BEV and FCEV efficiency
The energy efficiency of ZEVs is an important determinant of their economics and
environmental impacts. While BEVs, and to a lesser extent FCEVs, already have a sizable
energy efficiency advantage over ICEVs, continuing efficiency gains will be key to overcoming
the remaining barriers to these vehicles' achieving dominance in the market and minimizing their
environmental and societal impacts, including mineral resource requirements and demands on
the electric grid. Given the cost savings and range increases that greater efficiency can provide,
the heavy-duty vehicle market will drive efficiency gains over time, but the standards should be
used to accelerate these gains at this critical juncture. However, the standards cannot promote
BEV and FCEV efficiency if they consider these vehicles to have zero GHG emissions and,
therefore, cannot distinguish among them. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1560-A1, pp. 15 - 16]
Gains in ZEV efficiency could increase feasible adoption rates, which should be reflected in
EPA's analysis. Increasing efficiency would be captured in HD TRUCS' adoption rate
projections through at least two mechanisms. First, HD TRUCS rules out BEVs if battery
size/weight exceeds 30% of vehicle payload. Increased efficiency could allow some vehicles to
avoid that constraint by reducing the size and weight of the battery. Second, even for vehicles
unaffected by the constraint, greater efficiency would reduce battery and fuel cell system costs
and thus payback period, increasing ZEV adoption rates. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1560-A1,
p. 16]
Organization: American Free Enterprise Chamber of Commerce (AmFree) et al.
II. The Proposed Rule Is Arbitrary And Capricious
Beyond exceeding EPA's statutory authority, the proposed Heavy-Duty rule also violates the
Clean Air Act's mandate (echoing the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.,
701 et seq.) that agency action be the product of reasoned decision-making. 42 U.S.C. §
7607(d)(9)(A) (reviewing "court may reverse" EPA action "found to be . . . arbitrary, capricious,
an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law"); cf. 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). The
proposed rule's feasibility, net emissions, compliance, and cost-benefit analyses all ignore the
facts on the ground and are plagued with unrealistic assumptions and arbitrary modeling
decisions. And the rule does not address potential alternatives to achieve EPA's stated goals.
Even if EPA's interpretation of the Clean Air Act were otherwise permissible, its proposed rule
is still arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1660-A1, p. 18]
A. Compliance With The Proposed Emissions Standards Is Not Feasible
Section 202(a) requires EPA to consider whether compliance with the proposed emissions
standards is feasible, giving appropriate consideration to the cost of compliance. 42 U.S.C. §
7521(a)(2) ("Any regulation prescribed . . . shall take effect after such period as the
Administrator finds necessary to permit the development and application of the requisite
technology, giving appropriate consideration to the cost of compliance within such period.").
While the agency may take future advances into account, it may not promulgate rules on the
basis of "crystal ball" prognostications. NRDC v. EPA, 655 F.2d 318, 328 (D.C. Cir. 1981)
(internal quotation marks omitted). Instead, the agency must explain why its projections are
"reasonable]" and defend "its methodology for arriving at numerical estimates." Id. Here, that
includes answering theoretical objections to widespread electrification, identifying the major
239
-------
steps necessary to achieve that objective, and offering plausible reasons for believing that each of
those steps can be completed in the time available. Id. at 331-32. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1660-A1, p. 18]
EPA's proposed rule is not feasible for multiple independent reasons. Overall, EPA's
conclusion that compliance with its proposed standards is possible assumes a drastic increase in
the adoption of heavy-duty electric vehicles that is implausible and unrealistic within the
proposed rule's constrained timetable. In addition, EPA has failed to confront several specific
impediments to the expanded availability and adoption of heavy-duty electric vehicles, including
serious threats to the supply of minerals critical to manufacturing batteries; the Nation's
inadequate charging infrastructure and limitations of its electricity grid; safety concerns with
electric vehicles that will deter uptake by users and may prompt intervention by other regulators;
and the significant costs that manufacturers will face in attempting to electrify their fleets. EPA
cannot rationally conclude that compliance with its proposed emission standards is feasible
without demonstrating how these obstacles will be overcome. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1660-
Al, pp. 18-19]
1. EPA's Projections Of El ectric-Vehicle Adoption Are Unrealistic And Flawed On Their
Own Terms
The agency's conclusion that compliance with the proposed rule is feasible critically depends
on the electric-vehicle adoption rates it projects for model years 2027 through 2032. EPA
expects that by 2032, 50 percent of vocational vehicles, 35 percent of day-cab tractors, and 25
percent of sleeper-cab tractors will be battery-electric or fuel-cell vehicles. 88 Fed. Reg. at
25,933; Draft RIA at 245. Those numbers are staggering. Current adoption rates are essentially
nonexistent, and the method EPA uses to conclude that they will increase exponentially is flawed
in many respects. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1660-A1, p. 19]
b. Future Adoption Of Electric Vehicles
To reach EPA's projected rates of adoption, the manufacture and sale of electric heavy-duty
vehicles would have to experience rampant growth. The agency expects that in model year
2032—less than a decade from now—there will be more than 418,000 battery-electric and nearly
40,000 fuel-cell vehicles sold. See Draft RIA at 243-44. Even a snapshot of these market
projections demonstrate their implausibility. Battery-electric bus sales would have to jump 12
times above their current levels. See IEA, Electric Bus Registrations and Sales Share by Region,
2015-2022 (Apr. 26, 2023), https://tinyurl.com/yckwdj3e; Draft RIA at 243-44. Fuel-cell bus
sales would have to increase by a factor of 26. See IEA, Trends in Electric Light-Duty Vehicles
(2023), https://tinyurl.com/mpwrhuev; Draft RIA at 244. And even though there are currently no
available fuel-cell models for model year 2023, sales for box trucks, step vans, and utility trucks
would have to reach more than 3,000 units; sales for port-drayage tractors, day-cab tractors, and
yard tractors will have to reach more than 15,000 units; and sales for sleeper-cab tractors would
have to reach almost 14,000 units. See Draft RIA at 243-44. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1660-
Al, pp. 20-21]
EPA has identified no evidence to demonstrate that these staggering increases are even
possible, let alone likely or a good idea. Even the agency acknowledges that "[t]here is limited
existing data to support estimations of adoption rates" for either of these heavy-duty
technologies. Draft RIA at 231; see also id. at 420 ("Purchaser acceptance of BEVs and FCEVs
240
-------
is difficult to estimate. The data and research needed to definitively discuss what affects whether
HD buyers will adopt BEVs or FCEVs is limited."); 88 Fed. Reg. at 25,941 ("The projected rate
of growth in electrification of the HD vehicle sector currently varies widely."). And with respect
to fuel-cell vehicles, studies report that "there is currently no consensus on this technology's
eventual market share." Gideon Katsh et al., Electric Highways: Accelerating and Optimizing
Fast- Charging Deployment for Carbon-Free Transportation, Nat'l Grid, at 8 (2022) ("Electric
Highways"). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1660-A1, p. 21]
In the face of this uncertainty, EPA should proceed with great caution. The proposed rule does
the opposite. It relies on speculation and faulty modeling to project unrealistic increases in the
rates at which electric vehicles can be produced and are likely to be purchased and used. Those
projections are unsound for multiple reasons. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1660-A1, p. 21]
i. Electric-Vehicle Production
EPA concludes that manufacturers are already on track to transform fundamentally the
composition of their heavy-duty fleets toward electric vehicles. That conclusion is
unsupported. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1660-A1, p. 21]
EPA relies principally on a handful of announcements in which manufacturers have outlined
plans to increase the number of "zero-emission" sales in the coming decades. See, e.g., 88 Fed.
Reg. at 25,930. These announcements, which are forward-looking and conditional, do not prove
how many models will actually be available by the time of the compliance period. Shifting from
internal-combustion-engine designs to electric ones presents many new challenges that
manufacturers will have to navigate. For example, "[t]he manufacture of electric trucks and
buses represents a huge change in industrial practices . . . because a different kind of automation
is required." Beia Spiller et al., Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicle Electrification: Challenges,
Policy Solutions, and Open Research Questions, Res. for the Future, at 13 (May 2023)
("Medium- and Heavy- Duty Vehicle Electrification"). Manufacturers cannot "just drop a big
battery into the shell of a diesel vehicle." Id. Instead, manufacturers will need to make
"significant investment in manufacturing equipment, tools, and processes." Id. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1660-A1, pp. 21 - 22]
For these reasons and others, manufacturers may significantly revise their plans or fail to meet
their targets—as has happened many times before. Tesla, for example, introduced a prototype for
an electric semitruck in 2017 and set a production date for December 2019. But following the
exit of an executive and "a series of supply chain issues," the company pushed the production
date back nearly three years (to 2022). Nora Naughton, Another Tesla Semi Was Spotted
Apparently Broken Down on the Side of the Road, Bus. Insider (Jan. 20, 2023),
https://tinyurl.com/38x8xkvc. Similarly, General Motors "dialed back" an electric-vehicle sales
target by more than two years, "citing startup issues with a new battery plant in Ohio." Bart
Ziegler, Electric Vehicles Require Lots of Scarce Parts. Is the Supply Chain Up to It?, Wall St. J.
(Nov. 12, 2022), https://tinyurl.com/ynkuw9bd. Stellantis "previously had a stated 2025 target
but scrapped it in favor of a new 2030 target." BloombergNEF, Zero-Emission Vehicles
Factbook: A BloombergNEF Special Report Prepared for COP27, at 48 (Nov. 2022),
https://tinyurl.com/2dyrxn66 ("Zero-Emission Vehicles Factbook"). Lordstown Motors
suspended production and deliveries of its electric pickup truck in February 2023 to address
performance and quality issues with certain components. See Michael Wayland, Lordstown
Halts Production, Shipments of Endurance Electric Trucks to Address Quality Issues, CNBC
241
-------
(Feb. 23, 2023), https://tinyurl.com/ykjwtz39. And Ford has fallen far behind on filling purchase
orders for the F-150 Lightning pickup truck. See Luc Olinga, Ford Suffers Another Setback,
TheStreet (Mar. 11, 2023), https://tinyurl.com/ymuuy5nv. These real-world examples
demonstrate that far-in-advance announcements (often in the face of significant political
pressure) do not reliably indicate whether electric vehicles will get to the market on time, in the
amounts promised, or even at all. Model year 2032 could come and go with far fewer electric
models than EPA assumes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1660-A1, p. 22]
EPA also overreads the manufacturer statements it cites. Volvo Group North America, for
example, participated in the public hearing for the proposed rule to clarify that, although "[t]he
NPRM cited Volvo Trucks' goal of having 50 percent of trucks sold being electric by 2030," that
is "a global goal for only one Volvo Group brand." Volvo Grp. N. Am. Oral Statement, Dkt. No.
EPAHQ- OAR-2022-0985 (May 2, 2023). Even then, Volvo does not expect to achieve more
than "35% global zero emission product sales by 2030." Id. And although the company has
"been actively working with stakeholders to accelerate market penetration of battery-electric
trucks since 2019" and considers itself "the North American heavy-duty zero-emission truck
market leader," it has only "251 trucks delivered to date"—a far cry from the number EPA
expects the manufacturer to provide over the coming years. Id. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1660-A1, p. 23]
Moreover, manufacturers in the heavy-duty industry often specialize "in only one use case"—
e.g., school buses, tractors, etc. Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicle Electrification at 14. As a
result, pointing to a small group of manufacturer announcements is insufficient to show that
production will increase for each of the many different vehicle categories the agency models in
purporting to project future adoption rates. See Draft RIA at 111-14, 243-44. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1660-A1, p. 23]
EPA additionally assumes that manufacturers will begin transitioning to electric models
because "there have been multiple actions by states to accelerate the adoption of HD ZEVs." 88
Fed. Reg. at 25,930; see also id. at 25,939. Specifically, the agency observes that California and
other States have adopted the Advanced Clean Trucks ("ACT") program, which "would require
that manufacturers who certify Class 2b-8 chassis or complete vehicles with combustion engines
to sell zero-emission trucks as an increasing percentage of their annual [state] sales from 2024 to
2035." Id. at 25,930-31 (brackets in original; internal quotation marks omitted). Those "other
states," however, are only a handful: Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, New Jersey,
Washington, and Vermont. See id. at 25,930, 25,939, 26,040 n.657. Their policies are not
representative of the whole country, and there is no reason to suppose that manufacturers will
respond to those States' measures by fundamentally changing the nature of their entire fleets. If
EPA did have a valid basis to expect such a wholesale nationwide shift in response to those
particular States' policies, it would have no justification for adopting the Heavy-Duty rule it has
proposed to achieve the same objective. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1660-A1, p. 23]
Similarly, EPA points out that 17 States—including those that have adopted California's ACT
program—have signed a "Memorandum of Understanding" that sets targets "to make all sales of
new medium- and heavy-duty vehicles [within their jurisdictions] zero emission vehicles by no
later than 2050," with an "interim goal of 30 percent of all sales of new medium- and heavy-duty
vehicles being zero emission vehicles no later than 2030." 88 Fed. Reg. at 25,947 (internal
quotation marks omitted). But EPA does not specify what any of these States have actually done
242
-------
to implement this "understanding"—which the signatories have made clear is a "voluntary
initiative" that they are "free to withdraw" from at any time. Ne. States for Coordinated Air Use
Mgmt., Multi- State Medium- and Heavy-Duty Zero Emission Vehicle Memorandum of
Understanding, at 4. Moreover, a State's policy preferences tomorrow may not match its
preferences today, especially in an area subject to vigorous debate and disagreement like climate
policy. EPA has no "special expertise" in predicting political winds, and it is arbitrary and
capricious to rest a rule of this significance on unqualified assumptions. Ass'n of Private Sectors
Colls. & Univs. v. Duncan, 70 F. Supp. 3d 446, 452-53 (D.D.C. 2014) (citation omitted); cf.
New York v. DHS, 969 F.3d 42, 83 (2d Cir. 2020) (agencies may not rely on "unsupported
speculation" that "run[s] counter to the realities" of the situation); N.M. Farm & Livestock
Bureau v. U.S. Dep't of Interior, 952 F.3d 1216, 1227 (10th Cir. 2020) (reliance on "speculative"
finding was arbitrary and capricious). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1660-A1, p. 24]
ii. Electric-Vehicle Sales
Beyond barriers to increased production, EPA's projected increase in electric- vehicle
adoption rests on unrealistic estimates of future sales. EPA's projections are not based on an
analysis of historical sales data. Instead, EPA concludes that future sales can be estimated based
on the "payback period" associated with each heavy-duty vehicle type—that is, the number of
years EPA estimates that it will take for operational savings from using an electric vehicle to
offset the higher upfront costs of acquiring one. 88 Fed. Reg. at 25,973-74; Draft RIA at 110.
That methodology is ill suited for this context, and in any event, the agency makes critical errors
in applying it. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1660-A1, p. 24]
Methodology. The agency assumes—without any supporting data—that commercial fleet
owners make purchasing decisions based primarily on which vehicles have the shortest payback
period. See Draft RIA at 232 ("Based on our experience, payback is the most relevant metric to
the HD vehicle industry."). That unfounded assumption is refuted by real-world experience. If
payback period were the principal driver of purchasing decisions, electric vehicles would already
have high adoption rates in the heavy-duty industry. As explained above, they do not. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1660-A1, pp. 24 - 25]
Instead, as various commercial-fleet owners who participated in the public hearings or
submitted comments on the proposed rule have made clear, the pace of cost recoupment is
merely one factor, but far from the only factor, that they take into account when deciding what
type of vehicle to purchase. To take just a few examples:
• "In addition to price, the greater obstacles to adoption are range and weight. Trucking is a
for-profit business, and commercial viability is crucial for acceptance. At Kenworth of
Louisiana, we have a Class 8 electric truck in stock. The dealer cost was nearly half a
million dollars as compared to 180,000 for diesel power. The range is about 150 miles.
This is compared to the current range of most Class 8 trucks at up to 1,000-1,500 miles
between refueling stops. While customers are curious about the technology, the price, and
range are usually met with everything from disbelief to laughter. . . . We have had no
customer interest despite our zealous attempts to push this very costly truck." Am. Truck
Dealers Div., Dkt. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985 (May 3, 2023).
• "Our experience with these EVs is that our range and usable application is greatly
diminished in comparison with clean diesel technology. In addition, all locations have
experienced both financial and physical constraints regarding supporting infrastructure.
243
-------
In one location we are two years into the waiting of added utility infrastructure that is
needed to support current vehicles as well as anticipated growth in EV purchases." ABF
Freight Sys., Dkt. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985 (May 2023).
• "Surface transportation truck lanes that require team operations due to time constraints
cannot wait for battery charging. ... I called Tesla and others and not one OEM has the
power to run a 80,000 lbs. truck for a daily production of 8 hours let alone the maximum
11 hrs by law. It cannot be done." Hill Bros. Inc., Dkt. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985
(Apr. 26, 2023).
• "The current electric coaches have a short mil[e]age range, take too long to recharge and
have no luggage capacity or place for sports equipment. The infrastructure required to
support the widespread adoption of charging of EV Coaches is nonexistent. ... A coach
operating a 7-10- day sightseeing tour would have to recharge every 300 or so miles and
this would limit the distance we could cover in a normal day." John Bailey, President of
Bailey Coach, Dkt. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985 (May 2, 2023). [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1660-A1, pp. 25 - 26]
The American Trucking Associations reiterated some of these concerns at a recent hearing the
Senate Environment and Public Works Subcommittee held on the future of clean vehicles. See A
Heavy Dose of Reality for Electric-Truck Mandates, Am. Trucking Ass'ns (Apr. 19, 2023),
https://tinyurl.com/e562mjjx ("A Heavy Dose of Reality"). And even EPA acknowledges that
such issues are "barriers that fleet managers prioritize[] for fleet electrification." 88 Fed. Reg. at
25,943 n.146. EPA itself identifies at least ten non-payback-period-related considerations that
"could lead to lower ZEV adoption rates than [it is] estimating in this proposal":
(1) "unavailability of vehicles";
(2) "concerns related to functional unsuitability of electric options";
(3) "perceptions of the comparisons of quality and durability of the different HD
powertrains";
(4) "uncertainty about the technology, both with respect to ZEVs, as well as with new
technology applied to ICE vehicles";
(5) "concern that infrastructure might not be ready to support electric or hydrogen adoption";
(6) "uncertainty about future fuel and electricity prices";
(7) "uncompetitive upfront costs of hydrogen";
(8) concern "that there is an uncertain return on investment";
(9) principal-agent problems causing split incentives between purchasers and operators; and
(10) "unpromising support from state government."
Draft RIA at 418-20; see also 88 Fed. Reg. at 26,071-72. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1660-
Al, p. 26]
Instead of attempting to estimate the particular effect that each of those considerations will
have on projected adoption rates, however, EPA declined to analyze them. The agency asserts
that it would be too "difficult" to assess any of "these problems" empirically, Draft RIA at 421,
244
-------
and it relegates them to afterthoughts following its payback-period analysis, see 88 Fed. Reg. at
26 fill. For example, the agency assumes that many of the uncertainties plaguing the electric-
vehicle industry will resolve on their own once purchasers are "educate[ d]" about the "benefits
of HD ZEVs" and electric vehicles "become more affordable and ubiquitous on the roadways."
Draft RIA at 418-19. It purports to account for "some" others by adjusting the battery sizes used
in its modeling. Id. at 420. And it proposes to account for the rest by capping the adoption rate
for each vehicle type to be "no more than 80 percent"—a number which it does not explain and
which the agency appears to apply only to those vehicle types that have an immediate payback.
Id. at 232-33, 420. None of these backdoor fixes is sufficient. To estimate future sales
accurately, EPA must use a methodology that properly accounts for these well-documented
concerns. See Int'l Harvester Co. v. Ruckelshaus, 478 F.2d 615, 644 (D.C. Cir. 1973). It has not
done so. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1660-A1, pp. 26 - 27]
Even if payback period were an appropriate benchmark for estimating future sales, however,
EPA has made several errors in evaluating both the operational savings and upfront costs that
form the basis for that calculation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1660-A1, p. 27] Operational
Savings. When estimating the overall operational savings associated with electric vehicles, EPA
relies on unwarranted assumptions and omits critical costs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1660-
Al, p. 27]
First, EPA concludes that electric vehicles come with substantial savings in maintenance and
repair. See Draft RIA at 185. That conclusion is based on a 2022 study finding that the
maintenance and repair costs for battery-electric vehicles will be 29 percent lower than those for
internal-combustion-engine vehicles. Id. (citing Guihua Wang et al., Estimating Maintenance and
Repair Costs for Battery Electric and Fuel Cell Heavy Duty Trucks, Univ. of Cal., Davis, at 10
(Feb. 2022)). But the authors of that study emphasize the uncertainty underlying that finding: To
sum up, currently there are very limited data on [maintenance and repair] costs for battery
electric and fuel cell trucks. Even for the transit bus segment which has the most experience in
advanced HD technology applications, there is no consensus on the maintenance cost
comparison among diesel, battery, and fuel cell buses. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1660-A1,
p. 27]
Wang et al., Estimating Maintenance and Repair Costs at 10 (emphases added). Although the
study notes a consensus in existing research that maintenance and repair costs for electric
vehicles, in the future, will be smaller than for conventional vehicles generally, see id., the
degree of difference is critical to EPA's estimate of future sales: If the maintenance and repair
costs for electric and conventional vehicles are not as far apart as EPA assumes, the payback
period could be longer—and, in turn, the adoption rates of electric vehicles could be much lower.
According to EPA's own analysis, the adoption rate could drop by 10 percent if the payback
period is off by even one month. See Draft RIA at 232-33. The existing data, however, are
inadequate to make reliable calculations of the degree of difference. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1660-A1, p. 28]
Second, EPA estimates operational savings without considering "midlife overhaul costs,"
which include "the cost resulting from an engine rebuild for a conventional diesel vehicle, a
battery replacement for a battery electric vehicle, or a fuel cell stack refurbishment for a
hydrogen fuel cell vehicle." Wang et al., Estimating Maintenance and Repair Costs at 10-11.
EPA disregarded these costs on the ground that its "payback analysis typically covers a shorter
245
-------
period of time than the expected life of these components." Draft RIA at 185. That reasoning is
illogical. Assuming (as EPA does) that net costs drive purchasing decisions, commercial-fleet
owners are unlikely to buy an electric model if they anticipate that such vehicles will require
costly midlife repairs that would erase any initial savings. Some evidence suggests that this will
occur. For example, one report (performed by the California Air Resources Board) cited in the
Wang study noted above posits that electric trucks will require battery replacement every
300,000 to 500,000 miles—much sooner than a comparable conventional vehicle is likely to
require an engine rebuild. See Draft Advanced Clean Fleets Total Cost of Ownership Discussion
Document, Cal. Air Res. Bd., at 26 (Sept. 9, 2021) (indicating that a Class 8 heavy-duty diesel
truck is likely to require an engine rebuild after 800,000 miles). The cost of major midlife repairs
for electric vehicles also may be substantially greater. Compare, e.g., Certified Diesel Sols.,
When to Overhaul a Diesel Engine, https://tinyurl.com/2dch6xv3 (estimating cost of a diesel-
engine rebuild between $20,000 and $40,000), with EPA, Heavy- Duty Technology Resources
Use Case Scenario, at 2_BEV Tech (Apr. 10, 2023), https://www.epa.gov/system/files/other-
files/2023-04/hd-tech-trucs-tool-2023-04.xlsm (Columns AJ & AK) (EPA's modeling suggesting
that the cost of manufacturing batteries may be several multiples higher). The Senior Vice
President of the American Transportation Research Institute cautions that heavy duty-vehicle
operators are "going to be switching out the batteries on a Class 8 truck every four to seven
years" and "pay between $85,000 and $120,000 for a replacement set." Cristina Commendatore,
Report Pinpoints Top Challenges for Widespread Battery-Electric Vehicle Adoption, FleetOwner
(Dec. 7, 2022), https://tinyurl.com/243euzxr. Thus, owners of electric heavy-duty vehicles could
find themselves saddled with new and substantial midlife overhaul costs that cut into their
operational savings. EPA should assess—not ignore—this issue before calculating the payback
period. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1660-A1, pp. 28 - 29]
Third, the agency considers the electricity needed to charge electric vehicles as part of
operational costs. See Draft RIA at 182. But in doing so, it assumes that the price of electricity
will be the same regardless of whether the vehicle is plugged into a private depot charging
station or a public charging station. Id. at 185. That assumption is unwarranted. The agency itself
notes that "[t]he price to charge at public stations may be higher than for depot charging, . . .
since the public charging price may incorporate the profit margin of the third-party charging
provider along with operating expenses, and costs associated with charging equipment
deprecation." Id. at 68; see 88 Fed. Reg. at 25,998. And available information, primarily from
studies examining light-duty charging, indicates that "[e]lectricity purchased at a public charger
can cost five to ten times more than electricity at a private one." Philipp Kampshoff et al.,
Building the Electric-Vehicle Charging Infrastructure America Needs, McKinsey & Co. (Apr.
18, 2022), https://tinyurl.com/bdh74knn. And as the agency recognizes, many fleet owners—
such as those with long-haul trucks and transit buses—will rely on public charging in lieu of, or
in combination with, private depot charging. See Draft RIA at 195. The increased cost associated
with public charging stations is yet another highly relevant, yet disregarded, operational
cost. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1660-A1, p. 29]
Fourth, EPA explains that the operating costs for a battery-electric vehicle include
"insurance" and "labor." Draft RIA at 182. Nevertheless, the agency does not evaluate either of
these costs because it assumes that they will not "differ significantly" for owners of electric and
internal-combustion-engine vehicles. Id. Available evidence suggests otherwise. According to a
recent study, fleets considering electric-vehicles "are facing higher insurance costs," which "may
246
-------
be due to new and unfamiliar technology, overall higher purchase costs, and higher costs of
repair after accidents." Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicle Electrification at 10. And although the
labor costs associated with electric and internal- combustion-engine vehicles may eventually
even out, owners will incur additional costs when they first begin incorporating electric vehicles
into their fleets. Managers and maintenance staff will need to be retrained in the new technology
or replaced by workers who are already up to speed. Id. at 11. These costs should likewise be
factored into the agency's calculation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1660-A1, pp. 29 - 30]
Upfront Costs. EPA also relies on unwarranted assumptions and omissions when evaluating
the upfront costs that purchasers will face in electrifying their fleets. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1660-A1, p. 30]
First, in calculating the upfront purchase price for electric vehicles, EPA incorrectly assumes
that manufacturers and purchasers will benefit from two tax credits provided in the Inflation
Reduction Act ("IRA"). See 88 Fed. Reg. at 25,937, 25,946-47, 25,985, 25,989, 25,997-98,
26,003, 26,035; Draft RIA at 109, 259. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1660-A1, p. 30]
The first credit, provided in Section 13502, is referred to as the "Advanced Manufacturing
Production Credit" or "battery tax credit." Among other things, it provides manufacturers with a
credit of up to $35 per kilowatt-hour for producing battery cells, 26 U.S.C. § 45X(b)(l)(K), and a
credit of up to $10 per kilowatt-hour for producing battery modules, id. § 45X(b)(l)(L). These
credits begin in 2023, start phasing down in 2030, and end after 2032. See 88 Fed. Reg. at
25,944. EPA assumes that manufacturers will eventually earn 100 percent of these tax credits
and, in turn, pass those savings to the purchaser in the form of lower prices. See id. at 25,985
("[W]e model this tax credit. . . such that HD BEV and FCEV manufacturers fully utilize the
battery module tax credit and gradually increase their utilization of the cell tax credit for MY
2027-2029 until MY 2030 and beyond, when they earn 100 percent of the available cell and
module tax credits."); Draft RIA at 173 ("To estimate the price of the battery packs to the
purchaser, we projected that the full value of the tax credit earned by the manufacturer is passed
through to the purchaser because market competition would drive manufacturers to minimize
their prices"). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1660-A1, p. 30]
This assumption defies reality. According to the tax code, manufacturers will receive these
credits only if the battery cells and modules are produced within the United States. 26 U.S.C. §
45X(d)(2). But, as EPA acknowledges, "there are few manufacturing plants for HD vehicle
batteries in the United States, which means that few batteries would qualify for the tax credit
now." 88 Fed. Reg. at 25,945; see also id. at 25,985; Draft RIA at 172. The agency attempts to
sidestep this problem by noting that it "expect[s] that the industry will respond to this tax credit
incentive by building more domestic battery manufacturing capacity in the coming years,"
highlighting the plans a few companies have announced to enter or increase their presence within
that segment of the market, and noting that the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law provides funding to
support those and similar operations. Draft RIA at 172. But none of those points establish that all
manufacturers will produce battery cells or modules within the United States, which is necessary
to support its assumption that all manufacturers will eventually receive the credit and pass the
savings to purchasers in the form of lower prices. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1660-A1, pp. 30 -
31]
The second credit, provided in Section 13403, is referred to as the "Qualified Commercial
Clean Vehicles Credit" or "vehicle tax credit." It provides purchasers with a maximum credit of
247
-------
up to $7,500 when they buy a Class 2b or Class 3 vehicle and a credit of up to $40,000 if they
buy a Class 4 through Class 8 vehicle. 26 U.S.C. § 45W(b)(l)-(4). This credit is available from
2023 through 2032, and EPA assumes that purchasers will receive the credit for each of those
years whenever the purchase price for an electric vehicle is higher than that of its conventional
counterpart. 88 Fed. Reg. at 25,945, 25,986. That assumption is likewise unfounded for several
reasons. First, a recent study points out that small fleets—which "represent the large majority of
trucking companies" in the United States—may not receive the benefits of the tax credit because
they "lack the staffing [needed] to take advantage of incentive programs" and, in any event, are
"likely" to purchase commercial vehicles "in the secondary market" rather than buying them
new. Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicle Electrification at 2, 35. Second, there is no guarantee
that manufacturers will not raise the price of electric vehicles in response to the tax credit and
thereby erase any potential benefit for the purchaser. "[SJimilar to how colleges raise tuition
costs when the government offers more grants and student loans, subsidies to purchase electric
vehicles act as an incentive for manufacturers to raise their prices and capture the subsidies for
themselves. That's basic economics." Jonathan Lesser, The EPA's Mileage Standards Are a
Stealth Electric-Vehicle Mandate, Wall St. J. (Dec. 28, 2021), https://tinyurl.com/7dhwbrcx. As
a result, it is far from clear that the vehicle tax credit will affect purchase prices in the way EPA
expects. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1660-A1, p. 31]
Second, in estimating the other upfront costs associated with electric-vehicle ownership, EPA
accounts for "the hardware and installation costs" of depot charging stations. Draft RIA at 109,
201. But as the agency acknowledges, "additional upfront costs associated with depot
charging"—such as necessary upgrades to the electricity-distribution system—"could be
incurred." Id. at 201. As discussed in detail below, those costs are likely to arise given the
capacity needed to charge heavy-duty electric vehicles. Even EPA notes that "loads of just 200
kW or higher could trigger the need for an onsite distribution transformer, at an estimated cost
between $12,000 and $175,000," and that "[n]ew charging loads of 5 MW or higher . . . could
require more significant and costly distribution system upgrades such as those to feeder circuits
or breakers." Id. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1660-A1, pp. 31 - 32]
Despite recognizing the need for these system upgrades, EPA declined to consider them in its
analysis for two reasons, but both are unsound. First, the agency states that there are a "variety of
approaches" that fleet owners can take to reduce the need or scale of these upgrades, including
factoring distribution system capacity into station-siting decisions, using mobile charging units
or standalone charging canopies with integrated solar generation, or managing charging load to
limit peak demand. Draft RIA at 201. But each of these alternatives costs money in its own right.
EPA can include in its analysis either the cost of the upgrade or the cost of the alternative, but it
cannot exclude both altogether. Second, EPA notes that "costs for some distribution system
upgrades may be borne by utilities" rather than fleet owners. Id. The agency does not explain
which distribution upgrades it believes utilities would cover or why they would do so. Excluding
the costs of all upgrades to the electricity distribution system on this basis is unreasonable. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1660-A1, p. 32]
For these reasons, the agency falls fall short of showing that the estimated sales it predicts are
reliable even under its preferred (but invalid) methodology. Electric vehicles are, and will likely
remain, the exception in the heavy-duty market. Compliance with a final rule that assumes
otherwise is infeasible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1660-A1, p. 32]
248
-------
Organization: American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)
EPA's Proposal is Infeasible within the proposed Timeline and Arbitrary and Capricious
Even if EPA had Congressional authority to promulgate the Proposed Rule, EPA's proposal is
infeasible and arbitrary and capricious. The EPA is forcing a rapid transition to ZEVs when it is
unclear whether (1) vehicle manufacturers could produce and sell an adequate number of ZEVs
beyond the West Coast,(2) there will be adequate charging infrastructure, (3) our nation's
already strained electrical generation and transmission companies will be able to acquire land,
permit, construct, and connect the necessary infrastructure to deliver energy throughout the
country, and (4) fails to properly evaluate the lifecycle impacts of its proposal. Discussions of
these concerns are factually inadequate and lack a proper cost-benefit analysis. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1659-A2, p. 4]
First, the United States lacks the critical minerals needed for BEV production. Despite the
IRA's objective of creating U.S. manufacturing capacity and granting tax credits for largely
domestically produced BEV batteries, EPA's proposal would be reliant on China for more than
50 percent of imports for approximately 19 critical minerals needed for BEV production. 10
Thus, regulations making the United States less energy independent violates the EISA and IRA.
Even assuming adequate battery and HD ZEV production, EPA ignores market penetration data.
Cost, limited range for HD BEVs, weather, and reduced freight capacity are barriers to HD BEV
deployment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1659-A2, p. 4]
10 Combatting Child Labor in the Democratic Republic of the Congo's Cobalt Industry, US Dept. of
Labor, note 14.
Second, EPA assumes that creating a pot of money to build the necessary charging
infrastructure will translate into timely land acquisition and permitting, and adequate supplies of
copper and other scarce resources needed for construction and grid connection. EPA's discussion
of charging infrastructure fails to address the unique charging requirements of HD BEVs, such as
significantly more expensive conduits and transformers and vastly more electricity than charging
light- and medium-duty vehicles. Developing and building the necessary charging technology for
heavy-duty vehicles will take many more years to develop and deploy if it is even economically
feasible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1659-A2, p. 4]
Third, EPA is mandating a transition to electric vehicles when relevant stakeholders express
serious concern that our nation's electric grid cannot meet current demand, let alone the
increasing electrical demand if EPA's proposal is adopted. PJM Interconnection released a report
highlighting that "retirements [of older power units] are at risk of outpacing the construction of
new resources." 11 The recently announced emissions standard for electric generating units
exacerbates this concern. EPA's expectation of adequate electricity and transmission
infrastructure is unrealistic given chronic delays and uncertainty associated with acquiring land,
federal and state permitting of new electrical generation and transmission lines, and new
regulatory requirements leading to retirement of baseload units. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1659-A2, p. 4]
11 See Energy Transition in PJM: Resource Retirements, Replacements & Risks (Feb. 24, 2023).
Finally, EPA's environmental impact analysis is completely skewed by comparing HD BEV
and ICEV tailpipe emissions. EPA disregards that an HD BEV's fuel source—a battery
249
-------
composed of carbon intensive minerals and the electricity generated to power the battery—
produces upstream emissions, but no tailpipe emissions. Moreover, the GHG emissions and
environmental impact associated with mineral resource extraction and increased power
generation have largely been ignored. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1659-A2, pp. 4-5]
IV. The Proposed Rule Relies on Incomplete Facts, Employs Mistaken Assumptions, and Is
Not Based on Reasoned Decision-Making.
Even if EPA had Congressional authority to promulgate the Proposed Rule, which it does not,
the proposal is substantively deficient and based on unrealistic assumptions, illogical reasoning,
and incomplete analysis. Therefore, it constitutes arbitrary and capricious decision-
making. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1659-A2, p. 15]
A. The Proposed Rule is Infeasible.
1. EPA's Proposed Rule Ignores the Reality of Current ZEV Production and Commands
Impractical Adoption Rates.
In describing the need for this regulatory action, EPA suggests that the rapid electrification
resulting from the Proposed Rule either is already in progress or aligned with major trucking
fleets, heavy-duty vehicle and engine manufacturers and U.S. states. In support, EPA cites the
existing ambitions of the automotive industry and publicly-stated original engine manufacturer
("OEM") ZEV adoption rates of 50-60% by 2030.59 But this circular reasoning cannot support
EPA's Proposed Rule here—like the chicken and the egg, EPA and other federal regulators cite
auto manufacturers' statements about ZEV adoption projections to justify the feasibility of
enormous increases in a federal ZEV mandate, while automakers, in turn, cite EPA's and other
federal agency regulations to support their statements about ZEV adoption projections. The
underlying reality is that without federal regulation requiring vastly increased EV penetration,
providing automakers certainty for long-term planning, automakers could not financially justify
long-term investment in a technology with tepid consumer demand. And it is only cross-
subsidization that is causing increasing consumer demand for ZEVs—cross-subsidization that
depends entirely on federal regulations, since any rational company would not subsidize a losing
product line without an ancillary benefit, such as avoiding Clean Air Act penalties. Automakers
may be publicly acquiescing to government demands, but this does not demonstrate that the
technology and infrastructure will be available in the stated timeframe and, most critically, that
consumers are ready and willing to adopt electric vehicles. And these government demands can
vanish in an instant, through changes in administrations or judicial challenge. 60 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1659-A2, pp. 15 - 16]
59 Proposed Rule at 25,929.
60 Notably, the Proposed Rule heavily relies on California programs serving to spur ZEV development, but
the underlying Clean Air Act preemption waivers necessary for California to promulgate its own
regulations are currently being challenged in Federal court.
In reality, as EPA acknowledges, the facts show that in model year 2021, only 0.2% of all
heavy-duty vehicles certified by the Agency were electric.61 Thus, the ambitions of even the
most aggressive engine manufacturers from a ZEV adoption rate perspective would require over
100%) growth over the next seven years.62 And, of the 0.2%, nearly all were purchased by
government and private entities using taxpayer dollars, primarily for things like school and city
250
-------
buses that were also subsidized through other federal and state taxpayer-funded
programs.63,64,65 EPA makes no attempt to account for a substantial percentage, and often the
majority, of heavy-duty ZEV costs being covered by taxpayers. There is no support for
concluding there will be substantial private consumer adoption of heavy-duty (HD) ZEVs. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1659-A2, p. 16]
61 Proposed Rule at 25,940.
62 VOLVO GROUP, "Report on the first quarter 2023," available at
https://www.volvogroup.eom/content/dam/volvo-group/markets/master/news/2023/apr/4519530-volvo-
group-ql-2023.pdf; TUBES AND LUBES DAILY, "Volvo launches electric truck with longer range in N.
America" (Jan. 2021) available at https://www.fuelsandlubes.com/volvo-launches-electric-truck-with-
Ionger-range-in-n-america/?mc_cid=bl24969b23&mc_eid=4a00dc8f80 (Volvo Trucks set target that half
of all trucks sold are electric by 2030); VOLVO GROUP, "Geared for Growth - Annual Report 2022,"
available at https://www.volvogroup.com/content/dam/volvo-group/markets/master/investors/reports-and-
presentations/annual-reports/AB-Volvo-Annual-Report-2022.pdf.
63 Utility Dive. "Volvo wins $21.7M in grants to deploy electric trucks in California" October 21, 2020.
https://www.utilitydive.com/news/Volvo-Trucks-VNR-Electric-EV-California-grants-emissions/587451/.
64 California Air Resources Board. "CARB and DERA School Bus Funding." https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-
work/programs/school-buses/carb-and-dera-school-bus-funding.
65 California Air Resources Board. "Funding for Clean School Buses." https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-
work/programs/school-buses/funding-clean-school-buses.
Moreover, the HD BEV and FCEV technologies, industries, and markets are not mature
enough to support EPA's regulatory impact analysis or proposed standards. Of the estimated
850,000 new heavy-duty vehicle sales per year in the U.S.,66 EPA projects that 142,000 (16.8%)
will be ZEVs in MY 2027 and 390,000 (46.0%) will be ZEVs in MY 2032.67 By contrast, in
2021, only 543 new HD ZEVs were sold in the U.S.68 EPA's projections and ambitions in the
Proposed Rule would represent a staggering 63,000% growth in HD BEV adoption over 2021 to
2032 and 1,250,000%) growth in HD FCEV adoption over the same period.69 These growth rates
are an unrealistic assumption that highlight the infeasibility of the proposal. EPA cannot justify
imposing billions of dollars in costs on adoption rates at the scale of a pilot-level program. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1659-A2, pp. 16 - 17]
66 Proposed Rule Docket at EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-0830, Heavy Duty Technology Resources Use
Case Scenario (HD TRUCS) at Tab l_Veh Prop, Column T.
67 Id. at Tab 4_Adoption Rates, Cells T7 and U7. (In MY 2027, EPA projects that all of the HD ZEV will
be BEVs. In MY 2032, EPA projects that the 46.0% ZEV sales will break down as 40.1% BEVs and 5.9%
FCEVs).
68 Claire Buysse, THE INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION, "Zero-
emission bus and truck market in the United States and Canada: A 2021 update" (Sept. 2022), at Fig. 1,
available at https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/update-ze-truck-bus-market-us-can-sept22.pdf
(The 75 medium truck and van sales are excluded from the sum, as EPA is proposing in separate
rulemaking to categorize these as Medium-Duty Vehicles, see Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0829).
69 Id., Figures 3 and 4 (In 2021, FCEV sales accounted for 7% (Figure 4) of the 51 heavy truck sales
(Figure 3)—or 4 vehicles—with the remainder being BEV).
Thus, should EPA continue with promulgating a final rule for future HD GHG standards,
EPA must account for the reality of today's ZEV market and not the ambitions of the vehicle
251
-------
manufacturing industry and unsupported estimates of future market growth.70 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1659-A2, p. 17]
70 EPA also cannot mandate electric HDVs across all classes of HDVs, in attempt to spread the costs of
electrification across a larger buyer pool. EPA has failed to conduct any substantive analysis of the
incremental costs of electric HDVs, by weight class. This is unreasonable because as the weight of HDVs
increase, the marginal costs of electrification increase even more. Analyzing costs by vehicle class could
show that even assuming that electrifying lower weight class HDVs were justifiable (it is not), it would not
be justifiable for heavier weight class HDVs. EPA's ignoring of this essential aspect of the problem is
arbitrary and capricious.
Organization: American Highway Users Alliance
The American Highway Users Alliance (the 'Highway Users' or 'we' or 'our') respectfully
submits these comments opposing the proposed rule in this docket issued by the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). That proposal, among other actions, would set standards that are
overly aggressive in attempting to reduce the permissible level of emissions of various
substances, including but not limited to C02 and other greenhouse gases (GHGs), from newly
manufactured heavy-duty vehicles (principally trucks but also buses and other vehicles). [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1550-A1, p. 1]
Feasibility of the proposal is highly questionable and benefits are likely overestimated
The proposed rule is estimated by EPA to have major downward impact on GHG emissions, a
reduction of 18 percent of national overall C02 equivalent emissions before any adjustment to
add emissions from new electric generating units necessitated by massive electrification of
heavy-duty trucks and equipment. See NPRM at 88 Fed. Reg. 25935, Table ES-5 and related
text. Notwithstanding such a major change, and much higher up-front costs for electric trucks,
EPA finds the new standards feasible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1550-A1, p. 4]
We are skeptical that the estimated GHG reduction can be realized in that timeframe. Many
truckers, especially those configured as small business, can be expected to keep and maintain
older vehicles rather than pay for new, much more expensive electric vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1550-A1, p. 5]
Organization: American Petroleum Institute (API)
v. EPA's limits are not set on a realistic scientific based approach
EPA's proposed standards are based on projected ZEV penetration rates based on OEM stated
ambitions and on California ZEV targets such as the Advanced Clean Trucks rule. These
ambitions are stretch goals that OEMs likely will not be able to comply with. For instance, one
study found that multi-year queues for service, uncertainty, and growing costs are delaying grid
upgrade and increasing power production costs, which will translate into inability to meet the
targets set by the California rules. 12 EPA's targets are also based on using the 2027 model year
as a baseline, which has not materialized yet. This approach misses the mark as it is not
grounded on application fit, total cost of ownership (TCO), or necessary infrastructure
considerations. EPA should revisit its methodology for setting the standards by holistically
evaluating technology adoption rates based on feasibility of all technologies per specific
application requirements, and consider a more realistic baseline. Further, EPA should consider a
252
-------
lifecycle approach that would accurately capture all the emissions associated with the life of a
vehicle and capture the efficiency differences of different technologies in different
applications. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1617-A1, pp. 9 - 10]
12 Gladstein, Neandross & Associates (GNA), "State of Sustainable Fleets 2023 Market Brief', May 2023,
Santa Monica, CA. Available at: https://www.stateofsustainablefleets.com/.
Organization: American Soybean Association (ASA)
Considering Agricultural Sector Costs
ASA appreciates that EPA has not proposed a zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) sales mandate in
the proposed rule but remains concerned about the ambitious scale-up of GHG emissions
regulations. American soybean growers support efforts to lower emissions and improve fuel
efficiency, but this proposal must consider manufacturing and energy costs that will ultimately
be passed down to end users, including soybean farmers. ASA believes in harnessing diversified
engine and fuel types to achieve positive climate outcomes while also focusing on efficiencies in
hauling that remove trucks from the road and remain economically and environmentally
efficient. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1549-A1, p. 2]
Soybeans and all agricultural commodities rely on a multi-modal network that includes rail,
truck, and inland waterways to move their harvest to domestic and international markets. The
largest advantage for American soybean farmers over competitors abroad has always been an
economically efficient transportation system. Given that over half of U.S. soybean movement is
by truck, reliable and cost-effective trucking is critically important. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1549-A1, p. 2]
The proposed rule projects a ZEV adoption rate of 35% for short-haul tractors by 2032, with
the gradual alternative proposal projecting ZEV adoption of the same vehicle at 25%. While both
proposals raise concerns in terms of additional costs to growers, the alternative proposal provides
a longer implementation period to improve technology, build out appropriate infrastructure, and
provide customers with the ability to appropriately budget. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1549-A1,
p. 2]
Organization: American Thoracic Society (ATS)
The ATS strongly supports EPA's efforts to seek further reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions from heavy duty vehicles and urges EPA to swiftly finalize and implement a final rule
that significantly reduces GHG and criteria pollutant emissions from heavy duty vehicles. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1517-A1, p. 1]
ATS urges EPA to finalize a standard no less protective than emissions standards in the
Advanced Clean Truck (ACT) policy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1517-A1, p.3]
EPA has proposed a range of policy alternatives for setting and enforcing GHG emissions
from heavy-duty vehicles, including modeling EPA standards on the Advanced Clean Truck
standards established by California and adopted by 6 other states. Under the Advanced Clean
Truck rules, vehicle manufacturers who certify 2b-8 chassis or complete vehicles with
combustion engines would be required to sell zero-emissions trucks as an increasing percentage
of their annual California and other participating states sales from 2024 to 2035. By 2035, zero-
253
-------
emission truck/chassis sales would need to be 55% of class 2b-3 truck sales, 75% of Class 4-8
straight truck sales, and 40% of truck tractor sales.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1517-Al, pp. 3-4]
Further, large companies, including manufacturers, brokers and others are required to report
information on shipments and shuttle services. Fleet owners, with 50 or more trucks, are required
to report on existing fleet operations to provide data to inform future policy about heavy duty
vehicle emissions and how best further implement zero-emissions vehicle policy. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1517-A1, p. 4]
As noted, seven states are already implementing the Advanced Clean Truck policies. While
the regulatory format is somewhat different than what EPA has proposed, the agency should
finalize a rule that realizes the same GHG heavy-duty truck emissions achieved by ACT. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1517-A1, p. 4]
In summary, the ATS appreciates the opportunity to comment on this important rule to
address climate change. The ATS urges EPA to swiftly finalize and implement a strong rule to
yield achievable GHG emissions from heavy-duty vehicles. The health of our patients, including
those historically marginalized and excluded, and our planet depends on it. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1517-A1, p. 5]
Organization: American Trucking Associations (ATA)
post rule implementation actions issue
EPA requests comments on adopting a national GHG 3 standard that follows California's
Advance Clean Trucks Rule adoption timeline, followed by other opt-in states. 11,12 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1535-A1, p. 9]
11 California Air Resources Board, Advanced Clean Truck Rule, March 15, 2021.
12 www.electrictrucksnow.com/states
ATA does not support EPA adopting California's Advanced Clean Truck percentages as
national Phase 3 stringency requirements. The percentages proposed in Table 3 will lead to
market disruptions and economic distortions. Fleets are experiencing product availability issues
today in California. The state's Advanced Clean Trucks rule, which requires manufacturers to
sell an increasing percentage of electric trucks, and its Omnibus NOx regulation have created
uncertainty in the heavy-duty market. The regulatory impact of these requirements is reflected in
purchase volumes and expected price increases. Fleets will find alternative solutions
to purchasing a truck that can provide service, such as holding trucks longer, purchasing from the
used truck market, limiting their California operations, or reconfiguring their business. ATA
expects that California will need to amend their sales percentages during the life of the regulation
to recognize lack of available products and infrastructure capacity. EPA has limited regulatory
capability to revise emissions standards in response to California amending their ZEV sales
mandates. [See Table 3 on p. 9] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1535-A1, p. 9-10]
7. ATA Recommendations
Trucking companies are in the early stages of testing ZEVs, primarily BEVs. For instance,
Volvo was one of the first companies to introduce a Class 8 BEV day cab as part of its $91
million Volvo Lights project in December 2020, less than 3 years ago. While the 23 heavy-duty
BEV trucks deployed as part of this project have provided valuable information on the operation
254
-------
of these vehicles, more deployment-scale demonstrations are needed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1535-A1, p. 21]
Data compiled by the CPUC helps illustrate the uncertainty associated with vehicle
operations.31 A study by researchers at the University of California-Davis examined 10 recent
studies on the heavy-duty BEV TCO. The findings revealed that variations in TCO are directly
linked to differences in assumptions, parameters, and other factors across the studies. For
instance, the average distance traveled by truck varied by a factor of two to four times, as
depicted in Figure 4. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1535-A1, p. 21] [See Docket Number: EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1535-A1, p. 22, for Figure 4]
31 California Public Utilities Commission, Freight Infrastructure Planning (5/22/2023). Available at:
https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/industries-and-topics/electrical-energy/infrastructure/transportation-
electrification/freight-infrastructure-planning.
Like the average VMT estimates, other BEV-related TCO components, such as vehicle,
battery and maintenance costs, battery sizing and efficiency, etc., tended to have similar levels of
variability. As the authors note, "Overall, TCO estimates across the studies, for a given truck
type, can vary dramatically, though often several studies cluster together." This level of
uncertainty across several research organizations raises concerns over the EPA and others'
understanding of the performance and cost of ZEV technology. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1535-A1, p. 22]
Given the uncertainties outlined in these comments, ATA makes the following
recommendations:
• More research and testing of ZEVs are needed to prove that the technology can scale to
meet the trucking industry's various duty cycles and operating environments. EPA should
conduct a supplemental analysis incorporating these factors.
• EPA should not reopen GHG Phase 2 2027 standards.
• GHG Phase 3 stringency targets should not begin until model year 2030 at the earliest to
allow EPA time to evaluate the technology, fleets and OEMs to gather more real-world
data, and accelerate charging and refueling infrastructure build out.
• EPA should work with the Department of Energy (DOE) and Department of
Transportation (DOE) to determine metrics and regulatory authority to require the robust
buildout of heavy-duty charging infrastructure.
• EPA and DOE jointly determine policy initiatives to streamline the patchwork regulatory
system for energy transmission.
• Adopt a fuel and technology-neutral approach that incorporates established low-emission
fuels alongside ZEVs. Including more mature and available fuels like renewable diesel,
biofuels, compressed natural gas, and clean diesel can effectively reduce emissions today
and align with the operational profile of our industry. Fuel diversity is a critical
component to achieve a zero-emission future. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1535-A1,
p. 22]
• Consistent with the operational complexity of the trucking industry, ATA views the
transition to ZEVs as a sequence based on technological maturity and readiness. Some
fleets will figure out how to electrify portions of their operation, given predictable routes,
limited geographical range, and operationally compatible dwell times for charging.
Others have discovered that ZEVs are not working in their operations because of the high
255
-------
purchase price, unavailability of infrastructure, or payload and performance concerns.
Some fleets running certain battery-electric vocational trucks can appropriately scale the
infrastructure required for their operation and duty cycle. Most long-haul operators,
however, tell us that the challenges are too significant to do so affordably and at scale.
EPA should sequence its focus on the infrastructure to support ZEVs and segments of the
industry that prove the technology works for the duty cycle. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1535-A1, p. 22-23]
Organization: Arizona State Legislature
In a Clean Air Act case involving power plant regulation, the Supreme Court held that EPA
'must consider cost—including, most importantly, cost of compliance—before deciding whether
regulation is appropriate and necessary.' Michigan v. E.P.A., 576 U.S. 743, 759 (2015). EPA had
determined that the statute conferring authority to regulate if EPA found that 'such regulation is
appropriate and necessary' did not require EPA to consider costs. Id. at 750-51 (citing 42
U.S.C. 7412(n)(l)(A)). The Supreme Court found EPA's interpretation unreasonable. Id. at
760. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2022-0985-1621 - A 1, p. 8]
The law applicable to EPA's proposed rule here even more expressly requires consideration
of costs than the law before the Court in Michigan v. EPA. Section 202(a) requires 'appropriate
consideration to the cost of compliance within such period.' 42 U.S.C. 7521(a)(2) (emphasis
added). And when revising standards for heavy-duty trucks, Congress specifically directed EPA
to consider costs: 'On the basis of information available to the Administrator concerning the
effects of air pollutants emitted from heavy-duty vehicles or engines and from other sources of
mobile source related pollutants on the public health and welfare, and taking costs into account,
the Administrator may promulgate regulations under paragraph (1) of this subsection . . . .' Id. at
7521(a)(3)(B)(i) (emphasis added). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1621-A1, p. 8]
Despite this clear direction, EPA openly admits that it did not rely on a cost-benefit analysis
to set the standards in the proposed rule. According to EPA, 'EPA's consistent practice has been
to set standards to achieve improved air quality consistent with CAA section 202, and not to rely
on cost-benefit calculations, with their uncertainties and limitations, in identifying the
appropriate standards.' 88 Fed. Reg. 26,003; see also id. at 26,005 ('[T]here are additional
considerations that support, but were not used to select, the proposed standards. . . . [T]he
Administrator has not relied on these estimates in identifying the appropriate standards under
CAA section 202.'). EPA provides no citation of statutory authority to support its 'consistent
practice,' and the applicable statutes instruct EPA to do the opposite. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1621-A1, p. 8]
The proposed rule is arbitrary and capricious because it fails to rely on a cost-benefit
analysis. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1621-A1, p. 8]
The proposed rule also is arbitrary and capricious. An agency rule is arbitrary and capricious
if 'the agency has relied on factors which Congress has not intended it to consider, entirely failed
to consider an important aspect of the problem, offered an explanation for its decision that runs
counter to the evidence before the agency, or is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a
difference in view or the product of agency expertise.' Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n of U.S., Inc.
256
-------
v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1621-
Al, p. 8]
By openly admitting that it did not rely on a cost-benefit analysis to set the standards in the
proposed rule, EPA runs afoul of the clear statutory requirements in Section 202(a) and the
reasoning in Michigan v. EPA requiring it to consider costs. EPA's failure to consider cost-
benefit analysis to set the requirements in the proposed rule is thus arbitrary and
capricious. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1621-A1, p. 8]
EPA's Calculation of the 'Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases' Is Unlawful, Unconstitutional,
Arbitrary and Capricious. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1621-A1, p. 9]
The Interim Estimates are substantively arbitrary and capricious.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1621-A1, p. 15]
The proposed rule is arbitrary and capricious because it relies on erroneous assumptions about
vehicle costs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1621-A1, p. 22]
EPA's failure to include accurate estimates for vehicle costs and the resulting impact on
customer demand is arbitrary and capricious. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1621-A1, p. 23]
The proposed rule is arbitrary and capricious because it relies on speculative and erroneous
estimates for repair and maintenance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1621-A1, p. 23]
EPA's failure to adequately consider repair and maintenance costs is arbitrary and
capricious. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1621-A1, p. 24]
The proposed rule is arbitrary and capricious because of erroneous estimates about charging
availability. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1621-A1, p. 27]
EPA's erroneous estimates about resource availability are arbitrary and capricious. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1621-A1, p. 28]
The proposed rule is arbitrary and capricious because of erroneous estimates about grid
reliability. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1621-A1, p. 28]
EPA has failed to consider the significant grid reliability issues caused by its interconnected
proposals that increase electricity demand while decreasing electricity supply.[EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1621-A1, p. 31]
The proposed rule is arbitrary and capricious because it fails to model its climate change
impacts. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1621-A1, p. 9]
EPA admits that it took no steps to quantify or assess this supposed 'contribution].' EPA's
failure to consider the actual climate benefits of the proposed rule is arbitrary and capricious.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1621-A1, p. 9]
Organization: Bradbury, Steven G.
EPA fails to consider the negative societal consequences and second-order cost effects of its
proposals.
257
-------
In putting forward regulatory proposals designed to force upon the American people a vast
and rapid industrial transformation, EPA has an obligation to go further than just considering the
direct cost effects of its proposals (which are themselves woefully underestimated, as highlighted
above); it must also consider the broader indirect economic consequences and negative societal
costs that would follow if these rules are finalized as proposed. So far in these rulemakings, the
Agency has either ignored or deliberately downplayed these second-order effects. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-2427-A2, p. 15]
On each of these points, EPA blithely asserts that the current problems, challenges, supply
constraints, security risks, and limitations will all miraculously resolve themselves as the United
States collectively marches forward into a happy future of EVs. Taken together, the EPA's long
string of sunny assumptions, each one designed to minimize the costs and challenges of the new
rules, adds up to a wholly arbitrary set of regulatory analyses. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2427-
A2, p. 21]
If U.S. consumers do not embrace EVs as quickly and enthusiastically as the EPA assumes
they will, or if even one of the EPA's other overly optimistic assumptions comes a cropper, the
consequences of these rules will be catastrophic—for America's industrial base, our nation's
workforce, and the safety and wellbeing of Americans, particularly medium- and lower-income
Americans. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2427-A2, p. 21]
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
1. U.S. EPA's Statutory Authority Requires It to Adopt More Stringent Standards
Affected pages: 25948-25951
As explained above, CARB staff believes that U.S. EPA's Proposed Standards do not
adequately reduce GHG emissions from HDVs, and therefore urges U.S. EPA to adopt more
stringent standards that reflect the feasibility of ZEV adoption rates that are at least consistent
with the ZEV adoption rates specified in CARB's ACT regulation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1591-A1, p.14]
CAA section 202(a)(2) also requires U.S. EPA to consider the cost of compliance of
regulations promulgated pursuant to the authority of CAA section 202(a). "Any regulation
prescribed under paragraph (1) of this subsection (and any revision thereof) shall take effect after
such period as the Administrator finds necessary to permit the development and application of
the requisite technology, giving appropriate consideration to the cost of compliance within such
period." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1591-A1, p. 16]
In Motor and Equip. Mfrs Assoc. v. EPA, 627 F.2d 1095 (D.C. Cir. 1979), (MEMA I), the
court wrote:
Section 202's "cost of compliance" concern, juxtaposed as it is with the requirement that the
Administrator provide the requisite lead time to allow technological developments, refers to the
economic costs of motor vehicle emission standards and accompanying enforcement. See S. Rep.
No. 1922, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. 5-8 (1965); H.R. Rep. No. 728 90th Cong., 1st Sess. 23 (1967),
U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News 1967, p. 1938. It relates to the timing of a particular emission
control regulation rather than to its social implications. Congress wanted to avoid undue
economic disruption in the automotive manufacturing industry and also sought to avoid doubling
258
-------
or tripling the cost of motor vehicles to purchasers. It therefore requires that emission control
regulations be technologically feasible within economic parameters. Therein lies the intent of the
"cost of compliance" requirement. (MEMA I, 627 F.2d at 1118.] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1591-A1, p.16]
U.S. EPA extensively discussed in the NPRM the projected costs of compliance for the
Proposed Standards and determined that those costs are reasonable within the proposed time
frame, even after considering elements including battery manufacturing capacity and critical
materials availability.25 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1591-A1, p. 17]
25 U.S. EPA's Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles—Phase 3, Proposed Rules,
88 Fed. Reg., April 27, 2023, page 26004. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2023-04-27/pdf/2023-
07955.pdf
CARB staff agrees that the costs of compliance for the Proposed Standards are reasonable, but
also agrees with U.S. EPA that the costs of compliance associated with the more stringent
alternative standards are entirely consistent with the criteria in CAA section 202(a)(2). [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1591-A1, p. 17]
2. HDVs with ICE Technologies
Affected pages: 25928, 25958-25961, 25972, 25991-25993, and 26027
The proposed Phase 3 standards were not based on any additional C02-reducing technologies
to HDVs with ICE technologies beyond those assumed when developing the existing Phase 2
GHG regulation for MY 2027. However, U.S. EPA acknowledged that projected ICE
technologies to meet the existing Phase 2 GHG MY 2027 standards may continue to evolve to
further improve the efficiency of the engine, transmission, drivetrain, aerodynamics, and tire
rolling resistance in HDVs, thus, potentially resulting in lower C02 emission through MY 2032.
The NPRM requests comment on including additional ICE technologies to reduce GHG
emissions from ICE HDVs and/or higher levels of penetration rates of existing ICE technologies
when developing the standards for the final rulemaking. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1591-A1,
p.42]
CARB staff suggests that U.S. EPA include additional C02-reducing ICE technologies as
well as higher penetrations rates beyond the existing Phase 2 GHG regulation as a basis for more
stringent standards for MYs 2027 and later. It is important that remaining combustion sources
continue to improve alongside the rollout of ZEVs. As indicated in the DRIA Chapter 1.4.2,139
the aerodynamics for tractors as part of the United States Department of Energy SuperTruck 2
program are further improved than those used in the existing Phase 2 GHG MY 2027 standards.
On page 27 of the DRIA, "Aerodynamic improvements on Class 8 sleeper cab were noted in
SuperTruck 2 updates from Daimler (10 percent (tested tractor)), Volvo (15 percent (some was
due to trailer)), and PACCAR (-30 percent (63 percent split with tractor/trailer)). C02 emission
reductions are typically about half that of the aerodynamic improvement." Additionally, hybrid
HDVs is another pathway to meet the C02 standards, its C02 emissions reductions ranges from
ten to 30 percent compared to ICE HDVs as shown in Table 1-14 of DRIA. ICCT is also
forecasting additional ICE technologies and higher levels of penetration rates compared to the
existing Phase 2 GHG regulation for MY 2027. Cost-effective (i.e., payback within two years)
and advanced ICE HDVs (e.g., predictive cruise control, reduced accessory loads, improve
aerodynamics, tire low rolling resistance coefficient, etc.) is assumed to improve up to 25 percent
259
-------
beyond 2027 for tractors, and up to 31 percent for vocational trucks. 140 Certain technologies
forecast as the basis for the Phase 2 GHG standards have not in actuality been required to meet
those standards and remain candidates for further GHG reductions as well. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1591-A1, pp.42-43]
139 U.S. EPA's Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles: Phase 3 Draft Regulatory
Impact Analysis, April 2023. https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P10178RN.pdf
140 ICCT's Potential Benefits of the U.S. Phase 3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Regulation for Heavy-Duty
Vehicles, White Paper, April 2023. Tables 3 and 4. https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/hdv-
phase3 -ghg-standards-benefits-apr23 .pdf
Overall, CARB staff urges U.S. EPA to evaluate each potential improved ICE technology and
reflect estimated penetration rate in each vehicle subcategory per MY, as was done when
developing the Phase 2 GHG regulation. Given the urgent need to address climate change, more
stringent C02 emission standards are needed, and the addition of ICE technologies lowering the
ICE contributions using known technology as part of the Phase 3 final rulemaking would enable
further GHG reductions from the overall Phase 3 program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1591-A1,
p.43]
Organization: California Air Resources Board et al.
As Section 177 States, we are writing to urge the EPA to adopt the ACT-aligned option that is
currently offered in the proposed heavy-duty vehicle Phase III Greenhouse Gas (GHG)
standards. 1 We believe that the Phase 3 Rulemaking has the clear potential to be the most
impactful rule the EPA has considered in years. As states that have already adopted or are
anticipating the adoption of California's Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT) regulation2, we believe
a federal equivalent is not only possible, but essential. If designed to build on actions by states as
well as federal funding incentives, the rule will protect countless communities, reduce our use of
petroleum, save consumers money, and address climate change for decades to come. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1594-A1, p. 1]
1 https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/proposed-rule-greenhouse-gas-
emissions-standards-heavy
2 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/advanced-clean-trucks
Nationwide standards that match the ACT penetration rates will provide a critical market
signal to both vehicle manufacturers and infrastructure providers on the scale and timing needed
for deploying vehicles, charging infrastructure, and providing interconnection. Zero emission
vehicles have now reached technology readiness in all key applications, with hundreds of models
already in early production globally, including the first longer haul Class 8 trucks.3 Positive total
cost of ownership (TCO) is emerging in several applications by 2025 and in most by 2030.4 We
believe sending strong market signals for the longest period possible is critical to reduce
investment risk and we support the rulemaking proposal's coverage between now and 2032; but
further encourage EPA to consider sending a strong signal of the path beyond 2032. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1594-A1, p. 1]
3 https ://globaldrivetozero. org/tools/zeti-data-explorer/
4 https://rmi.org/inflation-reduction-act-will-help-electrify-heavy-duty-trucking/
260
-------
We urge EPA to finalize a strong Phase 3 heavy-duty GHG rule that includes requirements to
produce zero emission trucks at levels at least as ambitious as the ACT rule. Doing so will send a
clear signal to the market, support our states' efforts, and recognize the unique opportunity to
significantly improve air quality in our most overburdened communities and respond to the
climate challenge. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1594-A1, p. 2]
Organization: CALSTART
The EPA Phase 3 regulation represents a critical and seminal point to mitigate the worse
impacts from the climate crisis and requires a clear and strong signal of the nation's needed
direction and pace. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1656-A1, p. 3]
It is vital that the finalized standards:
• Are adopted by the end of 2023.
• Meet the emissions reduction levels and timeline required to address critical climate
change and public health protections and put us on a path toward climate stability and
public health improvement, especially in vulnerable communities.
• Acknowledge the pivotal role vehicle electrification plays to meet the challenges to reach
carbon neutrality by 2050. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1656-A1, p. 3]
We want to recognize the solid foundational assessment EPA staff has done in this NPRM to
build the reality of zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) technology and adoption as a central element of
the proposed rule's stringency. Our primary observation is that we believe EPA's projections do
not adequately reflect the potential and realistic adoption rates of the electric vehicle market.
EPA relies primarily on ZEVs being required by states who have adopted the Advanced Clean
Trucks (ACT) regulation, and on expected economically driven market adoption elsewhere, to
establish stringency without any technology-forcing requirements of its own. We believe EPA
can and should go beyond this baseline assumption. Indeed, under the Clean Air Act's
requirements regarding mobile sources and EPA's own endangerment findings for GHGs, we
believe EPA is obligated not just to regulate but to be technology forcing. CALSTART will
provide specific examples of feasible and faster adoption rates and therefore the greater
stringency that is possible, as well as the accelerated co-benefits these rates can provide. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1656-A1, p. 3]
First, based on CALSTART's extensive field experience and technical analysis, we believe
Phase 3 stringency can and should be more aggressive than EPA's preferred option. It should be
based on a deeper penetration of ZE-MHDVs than is currently assumed in the NPRM. Indeed,
we believe EPA's model evaluating zero-emission penetration artificially limits or caps the
assumptions of what can be achieved. That, combined with setting no requirement for internal
combustion engines (ICEs) to further reduce GHG emissions, sets stringency too low. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1656-A1, p. 3]
Finally, the United States can attract companies and investment from around the world, but
we are competing with Europe and Asia for those dollars. Europe has enacted its "Green New
Deal" investments and is in the midst of setting strong GHG regulations on MHDVs that
currently exceed EPA's proposed standards in stringency and timeline. Investors and companies
are looking for certainty of market, commitment, and support. Private capital is poised for
261
-------
massive infrastructure investments but faces risk without clear regulatory signals on the need for
and the timing of the market. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1656-A1, p. 5]
One last takeaway from this data is that while the industry technology shift to electrification is
unambiguous, the bulk of sales to date are occurring in those markets where ACT regulations are
in place. Therefore, the signal of a strong regulation, coupled with supportive policies and
incentives, are driving most U.S. sales. There are conditions that would support faster zero-
emission penetration in non-ACT states, but they will need a strong regulatory signal, like a
national ACT regulation, to meet the GHG reductions needed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1656-
Al, p. 11]Stringency and Penetration Rate Considerations
CALSTART believes that EPA staff has generally taken a thoughtful and serious approach to
set assumptions about ZE-MHDV sales penetration rates. The HD TRUCS tool is a solid
framework, and we do not believe EPA needs to make wholesale changes to its basic model.
That said, we do believe there are some important modifications and adjustments to the
assumptions that would better support the rule and set the penetration rate based on additional
researched sources, given how important this rate is to set the ultimate stringency in the
rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1656-A1, pp. 11 - 12]
We start with our understanding of the Phase 3 framework. In our observations and
discussions with multiple stakeholders, we believe EPA has set stringency based on:
• No additional improvements in ICE technology;
• Incorporating ZE-MHDV sales in ACT states as part of compliance with EPA stringency;
and
• Setting assumptions based on expected market-driven ZE-MHDV sales in the remaining
states as the limit of GHG stringency. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1656-A1, p. 12]
We do not believe this basic framework is adequate for several reasons. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1656-A1, p. 12]
First, the stringency level is not based on making use of readily available and implementable
ICE technology that is highly likely to be used during the period of the rule. An ICCT analysis
shows there is a suite of low-cost, short-payback ICE technologies, from aerodynamics and low
rolling resistance tires to powertrain and engine efficiencies, that could achieve 20 percent or
more in efficiency gains but have yet to be implemented.27 By not accounting for this ready
technology in the stringency level, EPA in essence will dilute the ZE-MHDV penetration
assumptions because a meaningful amount of GHG compliance can occur without any ZEV
sales. Essentially, ZE-MHDV sales will be offset with low-cost ICE compliance. We do not
object to the use of these GHG-reducing technologies, but they must be accounted for and add to
the regulation's stringency. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1656-A1, p. 12]
27 https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/hdv-phase3-ghg-standards-benefits-apr23.pdf
Second, the stringency levels are based almost exclusively on two factors: 1) ZE-MHDV
expected penetration rates in ACT states added to 2) an expected market-based ZE-MHDV
adoption rate in non-ACT states—in other words, what the market is already expected to do.
This is a key issue as the market alone—even with incentive assistance from BIL and IRA—is
not on pace to meet climate reduction requirements.28 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1656-A1,
p. 12]
262
-------
28 https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/hdv-phase3-ghg-standards-benefits-apr23.pdf
We believe that following this approach to set its stringency levels does not fulfill EPA's
critical leadership role on protecting public health nor does it meet the intent of EPA's role under
the Clean Air Act (CAA). EPA's authority to regulate is documented clearly in the preamble
section of the NPRM. However, given EPA's endangerment finding for GHGs and the global
climate emergency the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has documented,29
CAA provides ample authority for setting regulatory standards that are technology-forcing, not
just market-following. As early as 1973, the courts rejected arguments that EPA was limited to
standards requiring "technology in being as of the time of the application."30 EPA instead is
"expected to press for the development and application of improved technology rather than be
limited by what exists today."31 EPA's proposed stringency relies on the leadership of a few
states and allows the market to set the pace elsewhere. At this critical juncture EPA is obligated
to lead the market, not defer to it. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1656-A1, pp. 12 - 13]
29 https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_SYR_SPM.pdf
30 U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, 1973
31 Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 655 F.2d 318, 328 (D.C. Cir. 1981)
Third, EPA's zero-emission penetration rate is based largely on a single source and simply
derived technology adoption rate formula that is not based on empirical data. The 2021 report it
is derived from, Charging Forward, remains mostly proprietary. The technology adoption rate it
uses, now adopted by EPA (equation 2-61) was based solely on the experience of the report
authors. This equation drives the technology adoption outputs of the regulation, yet the rate
assumption was also applied equally to all vehicle categories, which neglects differential
business case, finance, and operational considerations in different applications. Penetration rate
based on TCO is not one-size-fits-all. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1656-A1, p. 13]
While industry experience can be a powerful and informative tool in the realm of new
technologies, ideally any such single source would be synthesized and assessed with other
inputs. We strongly believe the Phase 3 rulemaking would be made stronger if EPA synthesized
multiple penetration rate curves rather than use a single assumption. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1656-A1, p. 13]
Fourth, we believe EPA's penetration rate assumption is artificially constrained. It caps
maximum penetration at 80 percent for reasons not completely clear. This is even a reduction
from the ACT Research cap of 86 percent, which we also believe is too limited. EPA argues that
some of this constraint reflects concerns that infrastructure will not be available to some fleets.
However, we believe the EPA infrastructure assumptions also need revision as they do not match
industry practices already underway, which we will address in the next section of these
comments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1656-A1, p. 13]
There are several categories of vehicles, such as terminal tractors and transit buses, already
showing the potential to achieve 100 percent penetration—though for reasons that go beyond
pure TCO assessments. Penetration rate assumptions can be useful to set the floor for stringency
levels. However, this rate has set the ceiling for Phase 3 stringency. We strongly encourage EPA
to revise its penetration rate assumptions based on more than TCO payback curves alone. These
curves are backward-looking and limited to techno-economics in a neutral context. Climate
263
-------
change and generational federal investments are not a neutral context. EPA should incorporate
assessments that more adequately project what is economically viable, even if it is faster than
traditional adoption in the absence of other important drivers. These other considerations impact
a fleet's willingness to act, which CALSTART has long observed with incentive and
development work for the past 30 years. Some of these considerations include:
• Accelerated regulatory timelines and requirements: If a regulation signals a change in
technology, a larger percentage of purchasers adopt early for preparation than would in a
neutral climate.
• Corporate sustainability; climate; and environmental, social, and governance
(ESG)commitments:32 If a technology solution matches internal company or customer
climate reduction metrics and will be required, it accelerates adoption.
• Availability of funding for a limited time period: If funding to ease a required technology
is available during a limited timeframe, adoption rates can increase to take advantage of
the opportunity. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1656-A1, pp. 13 - 14]
32 https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/automotive-and-assembly/our-insights/getting-to-carbon-free-
commercial-fleets
Drive to Zero penetration rate assessment: EPA did cite the CALSTART Global Drive to
Zero Global Sales Targets for ZE-MHDVs33 report and its penetration rates as one of the
examples it considered but did not incorporate. The Drive to Zero assessment developed a
market projection model that does incorporate issues such as fleets' willingness to act—
measured by a fleet innovation profile and fleet bias—together with technology readiness (which
incorporates TCO and payback considerations), supply scalability, and infrastructure
availability. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1656-A1, p. 14.] [See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1656-A1, page 14, for Figure 5]
33 https://globaldrivetozero.org/publication/global-sales-targets-zemhdvs/
This multi-variable model analyzing the reality of ZE-MHDV market penetration established
that a weighted average of at least 45 percent zero-emission sales by 2030 across all Class 2b-8
vehicles—and higher in key segments that align with EPA segmentation bins—is realistic and
viable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1656-A1, p. 14]
As previously mentioned, there are several segments that show the ability to adopt at a much
higher rate than EPA's penetration assumptions. Besides transit and shuttle buses (including
school buses) and urban/regional vocational vehicles, these are Class 7/8 regional tractors and a
faster adoption of a percentage of Class 8 long haul that can take advantage of emerging BEV
capabilities along the first corridors, which we will highlight in our infrastructure section of these
comments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1656-A1, p. 14.] [See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1656-A1, page 15, for Figure 6]
We recommend EPA use these ZEV penetration projections by segment to better inform the
GHG stringency level (combined with further reductions in ICE emissions). Comparing and
synthesizing researched penetration curves will provide a sounder baseline from which to
establish stringency. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1656-A1, p. 15]
An alternative adoption curve: CALSTART recommends that EPA blends or synthesizes
multiple researched curves to generate its technology adoption forecasts or considers using or
264
-------
incorporating an alternative adoption curve that is based on empirical data. One such curve,
which could still be used with EPA's existing forecasting structure, can be developed from
NREL data derived from its Transportation Energy and Mobility Pathway Options Model
(TEMPO). The "TEMPO Curve" draws from historical data to generate an adoption rate
(Figure 7).34 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1656-A1, p. 15.] [See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1656-A1, page 16, for Figure 7]
34 ICCT describes the technology adoption curve in the appendix to their comments to the proposed rule,
in a table describing the estimate of ZEV adoption at each payback period. The method of fitting a
technology adoption function to the data points in the table was developed by the Environmental Defense
Fund and is described in their comments on the proposed rule.
This data was cited by EPA, but its use as a curve was established in collaboration with
multiple stakeholders. We consider it a constructive alternative approach that provides EPA with
a strong and analytically based framework for establishing one part of its stringency. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1656-A1, p. 16]
Given that 17 states representing roughly 36 percent of the nation's trucks have now signed
the State MOU endorsing ACT regulation goals, seven states have fully adopted the ACT
regulation, and the United States has signed the Global MOU for ZE-MHDVs, industry is
already preparing for sales requirements. This contributes to the ability to support a faster
adoption rate. The regional clustering of first interest and capability also leads to a more focused
infrastructure build out that can accommodate this rate, as we illustrate in the next section. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1656-A1, p. 16]
Economic Co-Benefits
It can strongly be argued that any regulations involving ZEVs is not so much technology
forcing as it is technology focusing and accelerating. Domestic and global vehicle manufacturers
have already shown their pathway to full electrification (cited earlier in these comments). What
EPA's Phase 3 regulation can do is set a pace for this transition that not only meets the urgent
public health needs for GHG reductions but generates significant economic co-benefits and
keeps American industry on track to lead a technology transition which matches their
investments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1656-A1, p. 26]
Organization: Ceres BICEP (Business for Innovative Climate and Energy Policy)
The BICEP Network urges the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to adopt
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions standards for heavy-duty vehicles aligned with the 2030 and
2050 U.S. climate commitments. Specifically, the BICEP Network urges EPA to adopt:
• Heavy-Duty Vehicle (HDV) Phase 3 GHG standards that are stronger than those
proposed, and that support zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) adoption at least consistent with
California's Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT) rule, which requires 60% zero-emission
vehicle (ZEV) sales share for Class 4-8 vehicles and 40% ZEV sales share for Class 7-8
tractors by model year (MY) 2032.1 Given the adoption of the ACT rule by California
and other states; manufacturer, fleet, and shipper ZEV commitments; and the significant
incentives provided by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) and the Inflation
Reduction Act (IRA) for vehicle and battery manufacturers, purchasers, and charging
infrastructure, standards supporting greater ZEV sales shares are justified. Stronger
265
-------
standards can be met by incorporating additional GHG emission reductions from internal
combustion engine (ICE) vehicles as well as from greater ZEV sales shares. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1581-A1, p. 1]
1 https ://ww2. arb .ca. gov/sites/default/files/2023 -06/ACT -1963 .pdf (p. 5)
BICEP Network companies see climate change as a significant business risk, and reducing
GHGs as a major economic opportunity. In its most recent March 2023 report,2 the International
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) emphasized the necessity to 'massively fast-track climate
efforts by every country and every sector and on every timeframe,' underscoring the urgency of
drastically reducing GHG emissions by 2030.3 Given that the transportation sector is the largest
source of U.S. GHG emissions,4 and heavy-duty vehicles represent an outsized portion of those
emissions, strong truck standards are critical to meeting U.S. climate goals of limiting warming
to well-below 2° Celsius.5 BloombergNEF's June 2023 EV Outlook concludes that the heavy
truck sector in particular is 'far behind the net-zero trajectory and should be a priority focus for
policymakers.'6 Recent analysis from the International Council of Clean Transportation (ICCT)
concludes that fully aligning the U.S. medium- and heavy-duty vehicle sector with climate goals
would require a 55% ZEV sales share for MHDVs in 2030, including a 40% ZEV sales share for
long-haul tractors.7 Although ICCT projects that IRA incentives could stimulate up to 44%
heavy-duty ZEV sales in 2030, EPA's current proposal falls short of even this level of ZEV sales
share, let alone what is needed to meet climate goals.8 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1581-A1,
pp.1-2]
2 https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/
3
https://www.unmultimedia.org/avlibrary /asset/3022/3022200/#:~:text=UN%20Secretary%2DGeneral%20
Ant%C3%B3nio%20Guterres%20said%20that%20the%20new%20IPCC,on%20all%20fronts%20%2D%2
D%20everything%2C
4 https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions
5 https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fast-facts-transportation-greenhouse-gas-emissions
6 https://about.bnef.com/electric-vehicle-outlook/
7 https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/hdv-phase3-ghg-standards-benefits-apr23.pdf
8 https://theicct.org/publication/ira-impact-evs-us-jan23/
BICEP members' abilities to meet their own climate commitments are also contingent on
strong standards that will ensure the availability of clean trucks across the U.S. and drive the
necessary shift to electrification. Vehicle manufacturers like Ford, Daimler, Volvo, and Navistar
have committed to 50% or higher zero-emission truck sales by 2030.9 Unfortunately, truck
manufacturers have generally set more ambitious goals and are providing greater ZEV
availability in the European Union. Strong U.S. standards are necessary to spur greater
availability and sales of ZEVs in the U.S. BICEP members also recognize that stronger HDV
emissions standards will mitigate the economic risks of volatile fuel prices, and reduce
transportation costs given that they will ensure the availability of more efficient internal
combustion engine (ICE) vehicles in addition to driving greater deployment of ZEVs, which will
be increasingly cost effective given advances in technology and economies of scale, in addition
to offering operational cost savings. 10 Electric heavy truck sales are increasing, 11 and a growing
266
-------
number of companies, including Amazon, FedEx, and WalMart,12 have committed to
electrifying their fleets in addition to setting transportation GHG reduction goals and advancing
EV charging. 13 While there is the growing momentum toward electric trucks represented by
manufacturer and fleet commitments, it is critical that EPA provide a strong market signal to
support those commitments by adopting stringent standards. Further, strong standards will ensure
billions of dollars in savings from health and climate costs. 14 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1581-
Al, pp. 2-3]
9 https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/hdv-phase3-ghg-standards-benefits-apr23.pdf
10 https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/cost-zero-emission-trucks-us-phase-3-mar23.pdf
11 https://www.iea.org/reports/global-ev-outlook-2022/trends-in-electric-heavy-duty-vehicles
12 https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/hdv-phase3-ghg-standards-benefits-apr23.pdf (p.4)
13 https://www.dgardiner.com/corporate-transportation-decarbonization-initiatives/
14 https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/hdv-phase3-ghg-standards-benefits-apr23.pdf
Finally, heavy-duty vehicles are largely responsible for the harmful pollutant emissions that
disproportionally impact historically low-income and BIPOC15 communities located near fleet
depots, major transportation corridors, distribution centers, and ports. 41% of Americans live in
communities with unhealthy air pollution, and a person of color is 61% more likely than a white
person to live in such a community. Further, the American Lung Association predicts that the
U.S. could see $735 billion in public health benefits from cleaner air by 2050 as the nation shifts
to zero-emission trucks and power. 16EPA must finalize strong HDV emission standards as soon
as possible to protect the health of those in these vulnerable communities and realize these
significant economic benefits. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1581-A1, p. 3]
15 Black, Indigenous, People of Color.
16 https://www.lung.org/getmedia/elff935b-a935-4f49-91e5-151fle643124/zero-emission-truck-report.pdf
Thus, on behalf of the companies in the BICEP network, I urge EPA to adopt Phase 3 heavy-
duty vehicle standards that will support ZEV adoption rates that are at least consistent with those
required by California's ACT rule as well as ensure greater reductions from ICE vehicles. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1581-A1, p. 3]
Organization: CleanAirNow
As it stands, all of the options in EPA's Phase 3 proposed rule will not relieve the daily
burdens caused by the freight transportation system, in particular heavy-duty trucks.
CleanAirNow, along with our partner environmental justice organizations nationwide, only have
one goal and that is to eliminate emissions from freight transportation, prioritize environmental
justice communities and address the cumulative impacts caused by the freight sector in
industrialized inland ports putting communities at risk on a daily basis because of the current
lack of regulation and standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1579-A1, p. 1]
EPA must finalize standards stronger than its preferred proposal. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1579-A1, p. 2]
267
-------
The agency should set a strong standard paired with a sales mandate, that would ensure a
clear pathway to 100% new heavy-duty vehicles being zero emissions by 2035. Additionally,
this mandate for zero-emission vehicles would include a scrapping program so that cumulative
impacts from the increased number of trucks do not further burden environmental justice
communities. A whole-of-government approach is needed to ensure these investments advance
equity and support large-scale deployment of zero-emission trucks on the road. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1579-A1, p. 2]
The EPA must strengthen the proposed Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Heavy-Duty
Vehicles - Phase 3. Protective standards must ensure that emissions are reduced in
environmental justice communities. Stringent standards should use state regulations like the
Advanced Clean Truck Rule as a baseline, and adopt more stringent controls. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1579-A1, p. 4]
Advances in electric vehicle technology are outpacing even the best estimates from just a few
years ago—cost and technology assessments of battery-electric trucks from 2018 are already
becoming obsolete. The barriers that once relegated ZEVs to a niche solution are shrinking,
allowing zero-emission trucks to become a real solution in our battle against air and climate
pollution. EPA must include policies that center environmental justice solutions and rapidly
advance ZEVs to accelerate the shift and achieve zero emissions as soon as possible. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1579-A1, p. 4]
Once more, we want to reiterate that EPA can and should strengthen the proposed rule for a
target of zero emissions to protect our health and our climate. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1579-
Al, p. 4]
Organization: Clean Air Task Force et al.
Circumstances have changed dramatically since EPA published its final Phase 2 Heavy-Duty
Vehicle Rule in 2016. Congress affirmed its commitment to achieving ambitious reductions in
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from motor vehicles in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law
(BIL)l and the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA),2 which provide unprecedented financial support
for zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) technology and infrastructure. Separate from these laws, the
public and private sectors have demonstrated record commitments to reducing GHG emissions
from heavy-duty vehicles. And ZEVs, as well as numerous emission control technologies for
combustion vehicles, have reached technological maturation and are market-ready for heavy-
duty vehicles (HDVs). These developments come alongside a growing threat to public health and
welfare posed by the intensifying climate crisis. While the market is heading in the right
direction, greater GHG emissions reductions in the heavy-duty vehicle sector are both
technically and economically feasible. EPA's standards should facilitate even greater
deployment of zero-emission and internal combustion engine technologies to help protect the
public from the destructive effects of climate change. To this end, we urge EPA to finalize the
strongest possible emission standards. Standards at least as protective of public health and
welfare as the Advanced Clean Truck (ACT) Rule, implemented nationwide, are feasible and
would better serve EPA's statutory mandate to address the environmental and health impacts of
GHG emissions from heavy-duty vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 6]
1 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021, Pub. L. No. 117-58, 135 Stat. 429 (2021),
www.congress.gov/bill/117thcongress/house-bill/3684/text.
268
-------
2 Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, Pub. L. No. 117-169, 136 Stat. 1818 (2022),
https://www.congress.gOv/l 17/bills/hr5376/BILLS-l 17hr5376enr.pdf
II. EPA Must Establish Strong Emission Standards to Meet its Obligations Under the Clean
Air Act.
A. Clean Air Act Section 202(a) requires EPA to set emission standards for heavy-duty
vehicles that prioritize public health and welfare.
To carry out its statutory mandate, EPA must promulgate emission standards that protect
public health and welfare by harnessing advancements in emissions reduction technology. EPA's
primary duty under the Clean Air Act is to protect public health and welfare by minimizing
harmful air pollution. In passing the Clean Air Act, Congress found that "the growth in the
amount and complexity of air pollution brought about by urbanization, industrial development,
and the increasing use of motor vehicles, has resulted in mounting dangers to the public health
and welfare." 42 U.S.C. § 7401(a)(2). Congress thus declared that the express purpose of the
Clean Air Act is to "protect and enhance the quality of the Nation's air resources so as to
promote the public health and welfare." 42 U.S.C. § 7401(b)(1).3 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1640-A1, p. 8]
3 Congress affirmed this goal in the 1977 amendments to the Clean Air Act, which "emphasize[d] the
preventive or precautionary nature of the act, i.e., to assure that regulatory action can effectively prevent
harm before it occurs; [and] emphasize[d] the predominant value of protection of public health." Lead
Industries Ass'nv. EPA, 647 F.2d 1130, 1152 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 95-294, 95th Cong.,
1st Sess. 49 (1977)); see also 74 Fed. Reg. 66496, 66507 (Dec. 15, 2009).
1. Section 202 requires EPA to set standards that protect public health and welfare.
Section 202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act directs EPA to promulgate motor vehicle standards
that "prevent or control" emissions of air pollutants that "cause, or contribute to, air pollution
which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare." 42 U.S.C. §
7521(a)(1). The Supreme Court held in Massachusetts v. EPA that Congress clearly
provided EPA with "the statutory authority to regulate the emission of [greenhouse] gasses from
new motor vehicles" pursuant to section 202(a)(l)-(2). 549 U.S. 497, 532 (2007). In response to
this decision, in 2009 EPA found that GHG emissions from motor vehicles—including from
heavy-duty vehicles— "contribute to the total greenhouse gas air pollution, and thus to the
climate change problem, which is reasonably anticipated to endanger public health and welfare."
74 Fed. Reg. at 66499. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, pp. 8 - 9]
Once EPA makes an endangerment finding, it must set standards that are commensurate to the
magnitude of the danger to public health and welfare posed by the covered emissions. See
Massachusetts, 549 U.S. at 532 (noting that section 202(a) "charge[s] [EPA] with protecting the
public's 'health' and 'welfare'"); Coal, for Responsible Regulation v. EPA, 684 F.3d 102, 117,
122 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (stating that EPA must carry out "the job Congress gave it in § 202(a)—
utilizing emission standards to prevent reasonably anticipated endangerment from maturing into
concrete harm").4 The Clean Air Act defines "effects on welfare" broadly, including "effects on
. . . weather . . . and climate." 42 U.S.C. § 7602(h). The dangers to public health and welfare
originally cited in the 2009 Endangerment Finding— "risks associated with changes in air
quality, increases in temperatures, changes in extreme weather events, increases in food- and
water-borne pathogens, and changes in aeroallergens," 74 Fed. Reg. at 66497, to name a few—
have only worsened. EPA recognized that this was likely to happen in the Endangerment Finding
269
-------
itself, finding that these "risk[s] and the severity of adverse impacts on public welfare are
expected to increase over time." 74 Fed. Reg. at 66498-66499. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1640-A1, p. 9]
4 See also S. Rep. No. 91-1196, at 24 (1970), reprinted in A Legislative History of the Clean Air
Amendments of 1970, at 424 (1974) (Section 202(a) requires EPA to "make a judgment on the contribution
of moving sources to deterioration of air quality and establish emission standards which would provide the
required degree of control."). Cf. 74 Fed. Reg. at 66505 ("the Administrator is required to protect public
health and welfare, but she is not asked to wait until harm has occurred. EPA must be ready to take
regulatory action to prevent harm before it occurs.").
It is not enough for EPA to promulgate regulations that maintain the status quo or adopt
projected market conditions—especially given that the danger to public health and welfare from
GHG emissions continues to intensify. Section 202(a)(2) provides that standards promulgated
pursuant to section 202(a)(1) "shall take effect after such period as the Administrator finds
necessary to permit the development and application of the requisite technology." 42 U.S.C. §
7521(a)(2). As the D.C. Circuit has recognized, this language embodies Congress's intent that
EPA "press for the development and application of improved technology rather than be limited
by that which exists today." NRDC v. EPA, 655 F.2d 318, 328 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (quoting S. Rep.
No. 91-1196 (1970)). Here, adopting more stringent standards would not require EPA to press
for the development of new technologies; zero-emission and internal combustion engine
technologies have reached technological maturation and are already market-ready for HDVs. But
EPA's standards should facilitate greater deployment of those technologies within the
fleet. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 9]
EPA should not propose standards that merely track what the market will achieve independent
of any regulation, which would not be consistent with its statutory duty to address public health
and welfare harms wrought by GHG emissions from HDVs. A rule that could readily go further
to address the dangers to public health and welfare posed by GHG emissions from heavy-duty
vehicles would not align with Congress's instruction in section 202(a).5 As discussed in the
following section, greenhouse gas emissions from heavy-duty vehicles contribute massively to
the worsening climate crisis. EPA should therefore choose a regulatory response that will do
more to address the pollution responsible for the "endanger[ment]" that heavy-duty vehicles pose
to public health and welfare. See Massachusetts, 549 U.S. at 532; 74 Fed. Reg. at 66525-
26. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, pp. 9 - 10]
5 Granted, section 202(a) provides discretion to EPA as to the exact manner of "prevent[ing] or
controlling]" emissions of dangerous air pollutants. And section 202 places certain limitations on EPA in
setting standards. EPA's standards pursuant to section 202(a) must allow lead time for technical feasibility
and must give "appropriate consideration to the cost of compliance." 42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(2). Accounting
for these requirements, EPA must promulgate standards that adequately address the danger to public health
and welfare caused by the pollutant at issue.
B. EPA should use its authority under Clean Air Act Section 202(a) to achieve greater and
faster deployment of emission control technologies within the heavy-duty vehicle fleet.
We agree with EPA's assessment of its statutory authority to set vehicle emission standards
that rely on the full spectrum of technologies to prevent and control tailpipe pollution, including
both zero-emission and combustion vehicle technologies. See 88 Fed. Reg. at 25948-51. We also
agree that there is no reason for EPA to reopen its longstanding, and correct, view that the Clean
Air Act authorizes it to incorporate ABT into its standards, and that EPA may include zero-
270
-------
emission vehicles in the "classes" of vehicles subject to fleetwide average standards. See id. at
25950. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 13]
As detailed throughout this comment letter, however, EPA must use this clear statutory
authority to meet its mandate to protect public health and welfare by finalizing standards more
stringent than it proposed. Far from enshrining the status quo or protecting the market share of
polluting technologies, Congress intended that EPA set standards that go beyond what the market
would achieve on its own.30 See Int'l Harvester Co. v. Ruckelshaus, 478 F.2d 615, 640 (D.C.
Cir. 1973) (recognizing that Congress's choices in the 1970 Clean Air Act Amendments may
lead to "fewer models and a more limited choice of engine types"). The proposed standards fall
short of that guiding principle. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 13]
30 As EPA explained in its brief in Texas v. EPA, section 202(a), "by design, seeks innovation and
change." EPA's Final Answering Br., Texas v. EPA, Case No. 22-1031 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 27, 2023), ECF No.
1996730, at 43-44 [hereinafter "EPA Br."]. Indeed, over the decades, EPA's emission standards have led to
significant technological innovation and advancements in the auto industry. See id. at 7; Br. of Amici
Curiae Margo Oge & John Hannon in Support of Respondents, Texas v. EPA, Case No. 22-1031 (D.C. Cir.
Mar. 8, 2023), ECF No. 1989149, 7-8, 21-22, 26-27 [hereinafter "Oge & Hannon Amicus Br."].
C. Phase 3 standards at levels stronger than EPA proposed are technically and economically
feasible.
As explained in detail below, more stringent Phase 3 standards are technically and
economically feasible for a wide variety of reasons. In particular, EPA underestimates the
feasibility of ZEVs, and its ZEV adoption rate schedule warrants revision. 88 Fed. Reg. at 25992.
Specifically, EPA includes an 80 percent cap on ZEV adoption for all vehicle types in the HD
TRUCS model. Id. EPA should not include this arbitrary cap on all vehicle types, as there may
be categories of vehicles that move to complete ZEV adoption. And EPA's projected 0 percent
ZEV adoption rate for sleeper cab and heavy haul tractors in model years 2027-2029, id., is not
reasonable, as both BEVs and FCEVs will be well-integrated into those vehicle categories by
that time. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, pp. 40 - 41]
The regulatory history shows that EPA's projections of ZEV technology advancements and
overall ZEV deployment within the fleet routinely prove too conservative. EPA should not repeat
those same mistakes in this rulemaking. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 41]
In the 2016 Phase 2 Final Rule, for example, EPA projected very small levels of HD ZEV
penetration through MY 2027. In that rule, EPA projected "limited adoption of all-electric
vehicles into the market," and stated that the Agency "do[es] not project fully electric vocational
vehicles to be widely commercially available in the time frame of the final rules." 81 Fed. Reg.
at 73500, 73704.161 By the time EPA proposed a new rule in 2022, however, the Agency
recognized that its 2016 projections were underestimates. See, e.g., 87 Fed. Reg. at 17595
("Several factors have changed our outlook for heavy-duty electric vehicles since 2016. First, the
heavy-duty market has evolved such that in 2021, there are a number of manufacturers producing
fully electric heavy-duty vehicles in several applications."). Despite having predicted very
limited HD ZEV penetration through MY 2027 in 2016, EPA noted that by 2019, there were
already approximately 60 makes and models of HD BEVs available for purchase, "with
additional product lines in prototype or other early development stages." Id. EPA explained that
"manufacturers and U.S. states have announced plans to shift the heavy-duty fleet toward zero-
emissions technology beyond levels we accounted for in setting the existing HD GHG Phase 2
271
-------
standards in 2016," and recognized the need "[t]o update the MY 2027 vehicle C02 standards
from the HD GHG Phase 2 rulemaking to reflect the recent and projected trends in the
electrification of the HD market." Id. at 17598. EPA acknowledged its 2016 under-projections
again in the current proposal, stating that the Agency has "considered new data and recent policy
changes," and is "now projecting that ZEV technologies will be readily available and
technologically feasible much sooner than we had projected." 88 Fed. Reg. at 25939. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 41]
161 See also 81 Fed. Reg. at 73818 ("As we look to the future, we are not projecting the adoption of
electric HD pickups and vans into the heavy duty market.. .we believe there is no need to a cap for HD
pickups and vans because of the infrequent projected use of EV technologies in the Phase 2 timeframe.").
The light-duty sector—which currently has a higher percentage of the fleet employing zero-
emission technologies—also provides a useful illustration of EPA's historical pattern of
underestimating future levels of vehicle electrification. For example, EPA's light-duty GHG rule
finalized in 2012 set standards for MYs 2017-2025 and projected "very small" numbers of
electric vehicles in the light-duty fleet through MY 2025. 77 Fed. Reg. at 62917. In the 2012
rule, EPA projected combined PHEV and BEV penetration of only 1 percent for the MY 2021
car fleet. Id. at 62872. Yet BEV sales alone accounted for at least 3.2 percent of all vehicle
sales in MY 2021.162 In the 2012 rule, EPA did not even project combined BEV and PHEV
sales that high by MY 2025. For the combined car and truck fleet, EPA projected BEV and
PHEV penetration of only 2 percent by MY 2025, and for the car fleet alone, BEV and PHEV
penetration of only 3 percent by MY 2025. Id. at 62874, 62875 Tbl. 111-52. EPA re-evaluated
those projections in 2016 and 2017, again projecting MY 2025 technology penetrations of
around 3 percent or less for BEVs. 163 And EPA's 2020 rule still projected only 3.4 percent
BEVs by MY 2025. 85 Fed. Reg. at 24936 Tbl. VII-29. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1,
pp. 41-42]
162 Cox Automotive, In a Down Market, EV Sales Soar to New Record (Jan. 13, 2023),
https://www.coxautoinc.com/market-insights/in-a-down-market-ev-sales-soar-to-new-record/; EPA, The
2022 Automotive Trends Report, at 74. See also lima Fadhil et al., ICCT, Electric Vehicles Market Monitor
for Light-Duty Vehicles: China, Europe, United States, and India, 2020 and 2021, at 6 (2023),
https://theicct.org/publication/ev-ldv-major-markets-monitor-jan23/ (estimating nearly 5 percent total U.S.
BEV and PHEV sales in MY 2021).
163 See EPA, Draft Technical Assessment Report: Midterm Evaluation of Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse
Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards for Model Years 2022-2025, at
ES-10 (2016) https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/draft-tar-final.pdf; EPA, Final Determination on
the Appropriateness of the Model Year 2022-2025 Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Standards under the Midterm Evaluation, at 4-5, 21 (2017),
https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P100QQ91.pdf.
In the 2012 rulemaking, EPA also considered a more stringent alternative projecting a 5
percent combined BEV and PHEV penetration for MY 2025 for the car fleet, but it rejected this
alternative based on "serious concerns about the ability and likelihood manufacturers can
smoothly implement [that level of] increased technology penetration." 77 Fed. Reg. at 62877.
Yet automakers ultimately surpassed that "serious[ly] concerning]" electrification penetration
level in MY 2022 with BEVs alone. In MY 2022, BEV sales reached at least 5.8 percent of total
light-duty vehicle sales, 164 and this growth has continued, with the United States on track to
vastly outpace EPA's previous projections of MY 2025 light-duty vehicle electrification. In Q1
of 2023, for example, U.S. light-duty BEV sales alone reached 7.2 percent of total vehicle
272
-------
sales. 165 In both the light- and heavy-duty sectors, then, EPA's previous projections of ZEV
deployment have proven far too conservative, and automakers have repeatedly shown they can
deploy zero-emission technologies on a scale and at a pace far greater than EPA originally
predicted. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 42]
164 Cox Automotive. See also EPA, The 2022 Automotive Trends Report, at 74 (preliminary report that
electric vehicle sales, including both BEVs and PHEVs, were 7.2 percent of total sales in 2022).
165 Cox Automotive, Another Record Broken: Q1 Electric Vehicle Sales Surpass 250,000, as EV Market
Share in the U.S. Jumps to 7.2% of Total Sales (Apr. 12, 2023), https://www.coxautoinc.com/market-
insights/ql-2023-ev-sales/.
2. The availability of FCEVs also supports stronger standards.
The feasibility of fuel cell technologies also supports stronger Phase 3 standards. FCEV
technology for heavy-duty trucks is a budding market, still at the pre-commercialization stage
but expected to grow rapidly as the technology matures, vehicle and hydrogen fuel costs
continue to decrease, and regulations like the ACT are adopted in more states around the
country. That regulation, which requires an increasing number of zero-emission trucks to be sold,
counts both BEVs and FCEVs as ZEVs, allowing hydrogen to play a key role in heavy-duty
vehicle decarbonization. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 61]
For specific trucking operations, particularly long-haul (but potentially also regional delivery
and drayage), FCEVs are an appealing zero-emission vehicle technology. Relative to diesel,
these vehicles can complete long-haul routes without a substantial number of additional refueling
stops, can be refueled in approximately the same amount of time, and their powertrains are only
slightly heavier—such that FCEVs can carry up to 98 percent of the cargo that diesel trucks can
carry when fully loaded.271 This makes FCEVs an excellent diesel replacement on long-haul
routes, thus increasing the percentage of a given truck fleet that can be decarbonized, improving
operational flexibility, and optimizing timelines as hours do not need to be budgeted for
charging. The option of hydrogen FCEVs, alongside BEVs, acts to increase the efficiency of
transportation decarbonization, allowing EPA to strengthen the proposed standards. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 62]
271 Thomas Walker, CATF, Zero Emission Long-Haul Heavy-Duty Trucking 15, fig. 4 (2023),
https://www.catf.us/resource/zero-emission-long-haul-heavy-duty-trucking/
D. Additional evidence supports purchaser acceptance of HD ZEVs.
1. EPA has discretion in considering purchaser acceptance when promulgating emission
standards but should not give undue weight to that factor.
As explained in EPA's proposal and Section II of these comments, when promulgating new
emission standards under Clean Air Act section 202(a), EPA must consider the statutory criteria
of technical feasibility, cost of compliance, and lead time. See 42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(2). EPA may
consider other factors, and in the past has considered various impacts of standards on HDV
purchasers. But, as EPA notes, "demand and purchaser acceptance are only two of the factors
[EPA] considers] when evaluating the feasibility of HD ZEV technologies in the MY 2027
through MY 2032 timeframe." 88 Fed. Reg. at 25998. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1,
p. 68]
273
-------
Unqualified purchaser acceptance is not an appropriate consideration under Clean Air Act
section 202(a), and the Agency therefore should not let the unique preferences of each and every
purchaser dictate its consideration of the appropriateness or feasibility of emission standards. In
International Harvester Company v. Ruckelshaus, 478 F.2d 615, 640 (D.C. Cir. 1973), the D.C.
Circuit Court of Appeals concluded: We are inclined to agree with the Administrator that as long
as feasible technology permits the demand for new passenger automobiles to be generally met,
the basic requirements of the Act would be satisfied, even though this might occasion fewer
models and a more limited choice of engine types. The driving preferences of hot rodders are not
to outweigh the goal of a clean environment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 68]
While International Harvester involved emission requirements for light-duty vehicles under a
provision of the 1970 Amendments, the principles the court expressed apply just as well to
heavy-duty vehicle standards under section 202(a)(l)-(2). As detailed in Section II, Congress
intended EPA's standards to push the industry toward greater emission reductions and did not
expect them to preserve the market dominance of any particular type of powertrain or
power source. EPA should not give oversized weight to arguments questioning purchaser
preferences, which is not a factor Congress identified in section 202(a)(l)-(2). [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1640-A1, pp. 68 - 69]
While EPA has discretion whether to consider and how much weight to give purchaser
acceptance in setting emission standards, that discretion is limited by EPA's primary statutory
duty to set standards that adequately protect public health and welfare. An understanding of
purchasers' willingness to purchase and drive HD ZEVs could of course inform the feasibility
and effectiveness of EPA's regulations. EPA's attention to consumer preferences, however,
cannot compromise its overall Clean Air Act mandate to mitigate the vehicles' "devastating
impact on the American environment," International Harvester, 478 F.2d at 622, or the Agency's
primary duty to protect public health and welfare by minimizing harmful air pollution. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985- 1640-A1, p. 69]
E. EPA's standards should reflect greater deployment of existing and cost-effective emission
control technologies for combustion vehicles.
More stringent final standards would also be feasible and appropriate if EPA accounts for
greater deployment of proven and cost-effective emission control technologies in the millions of
HD combustion vehicles that will be produced in the coming decade. While the need to achieve
zero emissions within the nation's truck fleets is urgent, it is also true that many combustion
vehicles will be manufactured, sold, and driven before full ZEV adoption is reached. (Indeed,
EPA capped ZEV adoption at a maximum of 80 percent in its modeling.) Yet in composing the
technology packages for the proposed Phase 3 standards, EPA elected not to apply combustion
vehicle technologies or adoption rates beyond what would be required to meet the existing Phase
2 standards, which were finalized seven years ago. 88 Fed. Reg. at 25991. As the Agency
acknowledges, there is an "opportunity for further adoption of these Phase 2 combustion vehicle
technologies beyond the adoption rates used in the HD GHG Phase 2 rule." Id. EPA should not
underestimate the deep emission cuts that will result if manufacturers implement existing, cost-
effective combustion vehicle technologies that already have a track record of success in the
industry. EPA should thus strengthen its final standards to help ensure that these technologies are
deployed in new HD combustion vehicles to minimize overall emissions in the coming years.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 75]
274
-------
1. Combustion vehicle technologies can yield more immediate emission reductions for long-
haul vehicles.
EPA requested comment on whether to include additional GHG-reducing technologies and/or
higher levels of adoption rates of existing technologies for combustion vehicles in the technology
assessment on which its final rule will be based. 88 Fed. Reg. at 25961. EPA did not assume that
additional combustion vehicle technologies would be adopted beyond what OEMs would use to
meet the Phase 2 standards, nor did the Agency change its assumed adoption rates from Phase 2.
EPA's baseline combustion vehicle technology package for MY 2027 tractors includes
"technologies such as improved aerodynamics; low rolling resistance tires; tire inflation systems;
efficient engines, transmissions, and drivetrains, and accessories; and extended idle reduction for
sleeper cabs." Id. at 25958. Yet there are more technologies EPA leaves on the table that yield
even greater emissions reductions when considered cumulatively. As Cummins CEO Jennifer
Rumsey said, "Cummins estimates that the 100,000 internal combustion engines that are each
10% more efficient are equivalent to the improvement gained by putting 10,000 zero emission
vehicles on the road."344 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 75]
344 N. Am. Council for Freight Efficiency, 2022 Annual Fuel Fleet Summary, at Exec. Summary p. 6
(2022), https://nacfe.org/wp-content/uploads/edd/2022/12/AFFS-2022-Report-FINAL-l.pdf (quoting
Jennifer Rumsey).
Several additional manufacturers agree that greater deployment of emission control
technologies is feasible for HD combustion vehicle fleets. For example, Eaton recently
commented to EPA that "the Omnibus 2027 NOx levels are achievable with margins in excess of
40%, while contributing to lower C02 emissions, at reasonable cost increments that are offset by
fuel savings, and with robust technologies designed for the life of the truck."345 Eaton pointed
to several examples, including Cylinder Deactivation as an active thermal management
technology, and alternative active heating, implemented through either electrical heaters or fuel
burners.346 And other organizations submitting comments on this proposal have identified
numerous options EPA should consider, such as advanced tires and aerodynamic
improvements—some of which would also improve efficiency if utilized in BEVs. See, e.g.,
Comments of ICCT, to be filed in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985 on June 16, 2023. EPA's
decision not to include the full suite of available combustion vehicle technologies in its
technology packages, and at greater adoption rates than required to meet the Phase 2 standards,
was unreasonable. Correcting this approach would support stronger final standards that better
serve EPA's statutory mandate to protect public health and welfare. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1640-A1, pp. 75 - 76]
345 Eaton Comments on the Notice for Proposed Rule Making for Control of Air Pollution from New
Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055, at
2 (May 16, 2022).
346 Id. The North American Council for Freight Efficiency's 2022 Annual Fleet Fuel Study confirms that
multiple options exist to control emissions from HD combustion vehicles. See N. Am. Council for Freight
Efficiency, at 28-34.
2. EPA should at least perform sensitivity analyses with technology packages that assign
additional GHG reductions to combustion vehicles.
Given the proven and cost-effective combustion vehicle technologies cited above, EPA
should at least perform sensitivity analyses that map the GHG reductions that would result from
275
-------
their adoption. The Agency should also model the deployment of several of the combustion
vehicle technologies described in this comment, either together as a package or individually, for
the portion of the fleet that will remain combustion vehicles. Additionally, EPA should analyze
the costs and benefits of alternative compliance pathways that have greater reliance on
combustion vehicle technologies and less reliance on ZEVs, which would provide a better
illustration of the various technology pathways that will be available to manufacturers under the
Phase 3 standards. These analyses will likely reveal that EPA has greater latitude to seek
emissions reductions from HD combustion vehicles if these technologies are adopted at higher
rates than the Agency initially modeled. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 76]
Organization: Clean Fuels Alliance America
E. Technology, Charging Infrastructure, and Operating Costs
As EPA looks to the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) as a policy to support charging
infrastructure in conjunction with the Proposed Rule, it is important for EPA to consider the
timeframe of such investments along with the timeframe of growing an electric heavy-duty fleet.
Congress demonstrated when passing IRA the need to continue to support biofuels infrastructure
growth to supply low carbon biofuels remains a priority. The U.S. Department of Agriculture's
Higher Blends Infrastructure Incentive program (HBIIP) increases the sales and use of higher
blends of biodiesel by expanding the infrastructure for renewable fuels derived from U.S.
agricultural products. The program by design encourages a more comprehensive approach to
market higher blends by sharing the costs related to building out biofuel-related infrastructure.
The expansion of biofuel infrastructure, as facilitated by HBIIP, broadens the availability of
renewable fuels like B20 and higher blends while reducing carbon emissions and harmful
tailpipe pollution today. Under HBIIP, the grants support fueling stations, convenience stores,
hypermarket fueling stations, and fleet and fuel distribution facilities, including terminal
operations and home heating oil distribution centers throughout the country. Federal matching
grants have helped and continue to help the industry build or retrofit terminals, storage, and rail
capacity to enable broader consumer access to these clean fuels and in turn clean air. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1614-A1, p. 3]
This infrastructure complements existing fueling infrastructure throughout the country and
does not require investment in new vehicles and an infrastructure overhaul to realize GHG
benefits. EPA must reevaluate this rule to better reflect that the adoption of ZEV in the heavy-
duty market is dependent on the timing and availability of infrastructure. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1614-A1, p. 3]
VII. Benefits of the Proposed Program
A. Social Cost of GHGs
When looking at greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions today, biodiesel is a solution that reduces
carbon dioxide now. Specifically, when compared to electric vehicles (EVs), utilizing biomass-
based diesel now will allow the United States to meet our carbon reduction goals earlier than if
we were to rely on EVs alone. It has been shown that the immediate investment in a mature,
currently commercialized biomass-based diesel fuel yields higher annual greenhouse gas
emissions reductions than waiting for a technology that is still considered immature, such as
heavy-duty EVs. 6 The benefits of using and increasing the use of biomass-based diesel now will
276
-------
not only provide immediate greenhouse gas reductions, but also will have a positive impact on
health in disadvantaged communities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1614-A1, p. 3.]
6 Frank, Jenny & Brown, Tristan & Haverly, Martin & Slade, Dave & Malmsheimer, Robert. (2020).
Quantifying the comparative value of carbon abatement scenarios over different investment timing
scenarios.
When considering options to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles and
equipment, there are two essential elements to consider: the amount of the reduction and when it
happens. This is because carbon emissions are persistent and accumulate. The resulting increased
levels of GHGs in the atmosphere contribute to global warming now and for decades to come. A
reduction in GHG emissions now can avoid decades of associated heating, thus having
significantly more value than carbon reductions made in the future. The time value of carbon is
key, and the next decade is critical.7 The importance of reducing carbon today cannot be
understated as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) clearly reaffirmed in their
Sixth Assessment Report: Carbon reductions today are more important than carbon reductions in
the future.8 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1614-A1, pp. 3 - 4.]
7 National Biodiesel Board. Biodiesel.org. (2021). Cutting Carbon: Comparing Biomass-Based Diesel &
Electrification for Commercial Fleet Use.
8 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2021). Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis.
Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change.
The immediate reductions achieved by biodiesel and renewable diesel are crucial to reach our
near- and long-term carbon reduction goals. Importantly, biofuels are already reducing GHG
emissions. The biodiesel and renewable diesel industry is on a path to sustainably double the
market size to 6 billion gallons annually by 2030 if not earlier and eliminating over 35 million
metric tons of C02 equivalent greenhouse gas emissions annually. Removing this important
mechanism will be detrimental to meeting our nation's clear air and energy goals. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1614-A1, p. 4.]
The immediate and compounding benefits that biodiesel and renewable diesel provide cannot
be underscored enough. We ask that EPA adjust the performance-based standards to reflect a
more appropriate and feasible mix of technologies available in the time frame proposed to meet
the revised standards as we work together to decarbonize the heavy-duty sector today and, in the
years to come. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1614-A1, p. 5]
Organization: Clean Fuels Development Coalition et al.
VI. The Proposed Rule is Not Feasible.
Section 202(a) requires that standards under that provision cannot take effect until "after such
period as [EPA] finds necessary to permit the development and application of the requisite
technology, giving appropriate consideration to the cost of compliance within such period," 42
U.S.C. § 7521(a)(2)—commonly known as the Act's "feasibility" requirement. The proposal
acknowledges that its standards, "must be premised on a finding of technological feasibility." 88
Fed. Reg. 25,948. And the primary reason the proposal gives for believing that the proposed
standards are feasible is because it believes "significant [heavy-duty] ZEV adoption rates can be
277
-------
achieved over the next decade." Id. at 25,929. This is an unreasonable assumption. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1585-A1, pp. 19 - 20]
Electric vehicles make up such a small fraction of new heavy-duty vehicles sold as to be
virtually zero. This shouldn't be surprising. While there are downsides to electric vehicles across
all market segments, battery-electric technology is particularly unsuitable for heavy-duty
applications. These vehicles are heavy and need to travel long distances. This means electric
heavy-duty vehicles require enormous batteries, driving up costs, driving down range, restricting
cargo space, and raising uncertainties about reliability that are unacceptable for most commercial
applications. See generally The American Truck Dealers Division, Dkt. No. EPA-HQOAR-
2022-0985-1445 (May 3, 2023).9 The very few heavy-duty electric vehicles that have been sold
have almost all gone to municipalities and were not purchased because they were cost effective
but in an attempt to fulfil idealistic climate goals. See 88 Fed. Reg. 25,940 (explaining that
school and transit buses made up 87 percent of these sales). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1585-
Al, p. 20]
9 The proposal also arbitrarily ignores the underdeveloped industry standards and safety protocols that exist
today for heavy-duty BEVs and FCEVs that it must consider under Section 202(a)(4)(A) that specifically
prohibits the use of an emission control device, system or element of design that will cause or contribute to
an unreasonable risk to public health, welfare, or safety.
In the cities where electric heavy-duty vehicles have been adopted, many are regretting their
purchases and have already put the vehicles out of service. See, e.g., Collin Anderson, Biden
Spent $1 Billion to Get Schools Electric Buses. This Michigan District Says Theirs Hardly
Work, Washington Free Beacon (May 24, 2023), https://freebeacon.com/biden-
administration/biden-spent-l-billion-to-get-schoolselectric-buses-this-michigan-di strict-says-
theirs-hardly-work/ (The electric busses have '"a lot of downtime and performance issues' and
aren't 'fully on the road,' despite the fact that they are 'approximately five times more expensive
than regular buses.' The infrastructure upgrades required to use the buses, meanwhile, were
'originally estimated to be only about $50,000' but 'ended up being more like $200,000,'
according to [Ann Arbor Public Schools Board of Education Environmental Sustainability
Director, Emile] Lauzzana. 'I have a number of colleagues in different states who are facing
similar challenges,' the district official lamented."); Jordan Pascale, Metro's First Electric Bus
Delivery Delayed Due To Battery Fire Recall; DASH Buses Also Affected, DCist (Mar. 10,
2023), https://dcist.com/story/23/03/10/metros-first-electricbus-delivery-delayed-due-to-battery-
fire-recall-dash-buses-also-affected/; Jason Clayworth, Des Moines' Electric Buses Are Off the
Road for Fixes, Axios Des Moines (Nov. 18, 2022), ("The vehicles were purchased using a
nearly $1.5 million federal grant" "two years" ago. The "seven electric buses have been pulled
off the road due to maintenance issues" and "transit officials are unsure when they will return.");
Patrick Skahill, CTtransit fleet of electric buses remains out of service after summer battery fire,
Connecticut Public Radio (Nov. 2, 2022), https://www.ctpublic.org/news/2022-ll-02/cttransit-
fleet-of-electric-buses-remainsout-of-service-following-summer-battery-fire ("The state
Department of Transportation says its fleet of 11 electric buses remains out of service after a
battery fire in July that triggered a federal investigation. ... The incident sent two maintenance
workers to an area hospital."); John Aguilar, RTD's electric 16th Street Mall buses cost nearly
60% more to operate than diesel coaches, The Denver Post (May 14, 2019),
https://www.denverpost.com/2019/05/14/rtd-mallride-shuttle-electricdiesel/. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1585-A1, pp. 20 - 21]
278
-------
The proposal entirely ignores these widespread problems—lack of reliability, cost of recalls,
maintenance, downtime, and vehicle replacements—and claims that heavy-duty electrification is
not only feasible but will happen at a staggeringly rapid pace. Though less than 1000 heavy-duty
electric vehicles were sold in all of North America in 2020, the proposal projects that hundreds
of thousands will be sold annually by the end of the decade. The proposal only comes to this
conclusion by consistently making the rosiest possible assumptions about what needs to go right,
while ignoring all information to the contrary. The proposal projects geometric growth with no
support; relies on non-binding company commitments and California's illegal Advanced Clean
Trucks rule; makes utterly unrealistic projections of battery cost, mineral availability, charging
infrastructure, and the availability of tax credits; and ignores the impact of other pending
regulations that would make achieving each of these pre-requisites more difficult. Relying on
any one of these assumptions in the final rule would render it arbitrary and capricious. When
taken together, they demonstrate that the proposed rule is completely infeasible and thus
unlawful. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1585-A1, p. 21]
A. The projections for battery electric vehicle adoption are based on very few—and very
small—real-world data points.
The proposal explains that its projections for zero-emissions vehicle sales growth are
reasonable because "the HD ZEV market is growing rapidly, and ZEV technologies are expected
to expand to many applications across the HD sector." 88 Fed. Reg. at 25,943. Even if true, this
does not support EPA's projections. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1585-A1, p. 21]
As EPA notes, "[c]urrent production volumes of HD BEVs originally started increasing in the
transit bus market, where electric bus sales grew from 300 to 650 in the United States between
2018 to 2019," 88 Fed. Reg. 25,940, and that "[i]n 2020, the market continued to expand beyond
transit, with approximately 900 HD BEVs sold in the United States and Canada combined." Id.
(emphasis added). But "[t]otal heavy-duty sales in 2021 were over 750,000 units, with 36.1
percent belonging to Class 3 vehicles (including complete and incomplete), 25.9 percent
belonging to Class 4-6 vehicles, and 38.1 percent belonging to Class 7-8 vehicles." DRIA at 11.
In other words, these 900 units represent about 0.1 percent of all sales. From this data, EPA
boldly projects that 22 percent of some types of heavy-duty vehicles will be electric by model
year 2027—effectively three years from now—and 57 percent by 2032. 88 Fed. Reg. 25,932,
Table ES-3. This is unreasonable. Projecting hundreds of thousands of sales based on just
hundreds of sales a few years earlier makes sense in no economic model. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1585-A1, pp. 21 -22]
And even the sales EPA points to are not of the type of vehicles EPA expects to be widely
adopted in just a few years. First, nearly every one of those sales was made to a government
entity and the costs were paid by taxpayers. 88 Fed. Reg. 25,940 (the 900 units consisted "of
transit buses (54 percent), school buses (33 percent)"). In other words, EPA is citing mandated
sales to justify mandating more sales. Second, EPA also projects that heavy-duty vehicles will
operate for 8 hours per day. DRIA at 115. But the proposal does not identify a single extant
model capable of operating that long under current market conditions. See Comment of Hill
Bros. Inc., EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1461. It is unreasonable for EPA to project that
technology with no commercial market penetration will come to dominate the market in just a
few years. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1585-A1, p. 22]
279
-------
B. The non-binding company commitments and projections EPA cites do not prove
feasibility.
EPA also tries to justify its projections of rapid heavy-duty electric vehicle growth by relying
on other entities' projections. The proposal states that it expects heavy duty vehicle sales to rise
to "54,000 by 2025 based on an [Environmental Defense Fund] analysis of formal statements
and announcements by auto manufacturers." 88 Fed. Reg. 25,940. But the auto manufacturers'
statements are not binding, and these companies could change their mind at any time. 10 Further,
many of these statements were made with the expectation that EPA would continue to provide
various compliance flexibilities—like multipliers—that reduce the real-world stringency of the
standards. As noted, the proposed rule would cut these avoidance strategies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1585-A1, pp. 22 - 23]
10 Indeed, some already have. For example, just a few weeks before the close of this comment period,
Amazon, one of the companies whose pledges EPA references multiple times, abandoned its 2030
decarbonization goal. See, Adele Peters, Amazon quietly ditched its plan to make half of all shipments
carbon neutral by 2030, Fast Company (May 30, 2023), https://www.fastcompany.com/90902541/amazon-
quietly-ditched-its-plan-to-make-half-of-allshipments-carbon-neutral-by-2030.
More importantly, it is unclear that the 54,000 number EPA points to has any "analysis"
behind it. The Environmental Defense Fund report does not say that this number is the product of
some analysis but instead states that "[a]cross the industry, the number of electric trucks in use
could skyrocket in the near future from 1,215 in 2021 to 54,000 by 2025." Electric Vehicle
Market Update: Manufacturer Commitments and Public Policy Initiatives Supporting Electric
Mobility in the U.S. and Worldwide, Environmental Defense Fund 33 (Apr. 2022) (emphasis
added),
https://blogs.edf.org/climate411/files/2022/04/electric_vehicle_market_report_v6_april2022.pdf.
To support this speculation, the Environmental Defense Fund does not perform any internal
analysis but supports its statement with a citation to a Wood McKenzie case study from August
2020. And that case study doesn't perform any analysis either, but instead examines "vehicle and
charging profile data from the project's 23 regional haul e-trucks" and purports only to
"highlight[] electric fleet energy and cost management tactics, utility strategies that encourage
heavy-duty electrification while minimizing impacts to the grid, and how to use long-term
incentives and market mechanisms to improve e-truck economics." Wood Mackenzie, Electric
heavyduty trucks and charging infrastructure: A grid edge case study, (Aug. 4, 2020),
https://www.woodmac.com/reports/power-markets-electric-heavy-duty-trucks-andcharging-
infrastructure-a-grid-edge-case-study-428638/. No systematic projection of electric vehicle sales
was undertaken, and it is unreasonable for EPA to rely on these projections. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1585-A1, p. 23]
The rest of the Environmental Defense Fund report doesn't justify the 54,000 sales either. In
the section mentioned, the report points to California's Advanced Clean Trucks regulation,
which will require "about 300,000 zero-emission M/HD trucks across the state by 2035."
Electric Vehicle Market Update: Manufacturer Commitments and Public Policy Initiatives
Supporting Electric Mobility in the U.S. and Worldwide, Environmental Defense Fund 33 (Apr.
2022),
https://blogs.edf.org/climate411/files/2022/04/electric_vehicle_market_report_v6_april2022.pdf.
But a second mandate does nothing to demonstrate the feasibility of the first. The report also
suggests that heavy-duty vehicle sales will grow because companies are "making commitments
280
-------
to electrify their light duty fleets." Id. It seems to find particularly significant that "Hertz struck a
deal to buy 100,000 [Tesla] Model 3 vehicles by the end of 2022. This investment could be
worth over $4 billion." Id. But (1) these are light-duty vehicles, not heavy-duty vehicles, and (2)
Hertz only took delivery of a little less than half of its order. See Fred Lambert, Hertz Took
Delivery of Half Its Massive Tesla Order of 100,000 Electric Cars, Electrek (Feb. 8, 2023),
https://electrek.co/2023/02/08/hertz-half-massive-tesla-order-100000-electric-cars/ ("Hertz's
disclosed through its annual filings for 2022 that it ended the year with about 48,344 Tesla
electric vehicles"). This is too thin a reed to support such a transformational projection. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1585-A1, pp. 23 - 24]
C. EPA cannot rely on California's Advanced Clean Trucks to justify feasibility.
Like the aforementioned Environmental Defense Fund report, EPA itself points to the
adoption of California's Advanced Clean Trucks program as supporting the proposition that
"BEVs and FCEVs with no tailpipe emissions (and 0 g C02 /ton-mile certification values) are
capable of supporting rates of annual stringency increases that are much greater than were typical
in earlier GHG rulemakings." 88 Fed. Reg. 26,001. But this is unreasonable. The aggressive
heavy-duty electric vehicle adoption that would be required by Advanced Clean Trucks is just as
infeasible when proposed by California as it is when proposed by EPA. The presence of a second
regulation cannot make the first more feasible any more than a second gun to the head can make
the first less coercive. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1585-A1, p. 24]
The proposal's reliance on this rule is made worse by the flagrantly illegal nature of these
rules. Advanced Clean Trucks—and its companion program for light-duty vehicles, Advanced
Clean Cars—are both facing legal challenge. California's standards are allegedly permitted under
Section 209 of the Clean Air Act. Section 209(a) preempts states from setting emission standards
for new cars and new engines. 42 U.S.C. §7543(a). There are two exceptions. First, §209(b)
allows the EPA to give California—and only California—a waiver allowing it to set emission
standards more stringent than the federal standards. §7543(b)(l). Second, the Act allows states,
in some circumstances, to adopt emission standards "identical to the California standards." Id.
§7507(1). In other words, "the 49 other states" may depart from the federal standard if and only
if they adopt "a standard identical to an existing California standard." Am. Auto. Mfrs. Ass'n v.
Cahill, 152 F.3d 196, 201 (2d Cir. 1998). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1585-A1, p. 24]
As petitioners in those lawsuits make clear, California's standards violate equal sovereignty,
are forbidden by the plain text of the Clean Air Act, are preempted by EPCA, and fail to properly
account for costs and technology limitations. 11 EPA cannot rely on these illegal rules to justify
its own rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1585-A1, p. 24]
11 For the same reasons, the proposed rule would be contrary to law if finalized in anything resembling its
current form.
Organization: Colorado Department of Transportation et al.
Our agencies strongly support EPA's development of robust national Phase 3 heavy-duty
vehicle (HDV) greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions standards. The proposed standards, when
implemented, have the potential to substantially reduce heavy-duty vehicle GHG, NOx, VOC,
fine particulate matter (PM2.5), and air toxics. Our agencies are highly supportive of a national
281
-------
standard that is as robust as possible to ensure strong progress nationwide on air pollution and
equity. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1530-A1, p. 2]
A strong national heavy-duty vehicle standard is important to Colorado for at least three
reasons. First, a significant percentage of Colorado's heavy-duty truck traffic comes from
vehicles that are registered in other states. While Colorado can influence change for trucks
registered in our state, strong national GHG emissions standards which also reduce other air
pollutants helps us to improve air quality. Cleaner trucks on the roads are especially important
for our residents who live in close proximity to freight routes and bear a disproportionate impact
from truck emissions. These communities cannot be left behind in the transition to clean
transportation. Second, a national heavy-duty standard helps ensure parity for Colorado
companies that rely on heavy-duty vehicles versus those in neighboring states. Finally, Colorado
is already experiencing the impacts of climate change, including increased wildfires, floods, and
drought. Climate change is a global issue that is impacted by all GHG emissions regardless of
geographic source, and the reductions in GHG emissions from the proposed national rule will
help reduce the long-term risks of climate change in Colorado. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1530-A1, p. 2]
• EPA requested comment on what level of stringency to pursue for different types of
heavy-duty vehicles. Given the need for strong national standards to achieve the
significant benefits estimated from the proposed rule, we urge EPA to pursue GHG
emissions standards reflective of the level of ZEV adoption in California's ACT program,
accounting for the implementation needs of Section 177 states. This will ensure a uniform
standard that will simplify compliance, ensure emissions reductions from the
transportation sector, and improve health outcomes nationwide. In particular, we urge
EPA to adopt rules for tractors and vocational vehicles that align with the ACT rule,
which are supported by industry commitments for zero emission vehicles and numerous
state, federal, and utility funding sources.
Organization: Corporate Electric Vehicle Alliance (CEVA)
Heavy-duty vehicle phase 3 GHG emissions standards that are at least as strong as those
proposed, but ideally are stronger to ensure at least 50% zero-emissions vehicle (ZEV) sales
across all market segments by 2032. California's Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT) rule,4
manufacturer commitments,5 and the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) funding are all consistent
with such agoal.6 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-2674]
4 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2023-06/ACT-1963.pdf (p.5)
5 https ://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/hdv-phase3 -ghg-standards-benefits-apr23 .pdf
6 https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/ira-impact-evs-us-jan23-2.pdf
Similarly, strong heavy-duty vehicle standards that lead to 50% ZEV sales across all market
segments by 2032 will drive the electrification of the heavy-duty sector by building on the
momentum created by state regulations, manufacturers' commitments, and IRA and
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act funding. Taken together (in concert with modal shifts)
these actions will spur rapid decarbonization of the sector and ensure a diverse supply of ZEVs
that meets the needs of commercial fleets and carriers. 8 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-2674]
282
-------
8 https://www.atlasevhub.com/data_story/210-billion-of-announced-investments-in-electric-vehicle-
manufacturing-headed- for-the-u-
s/#:~:text=Vehicle%20manufacturers%20and%20battery%20makers,than%20in%20any%20other%20coun
try.
While medium- and heavy-duty trucks represent only 5% of vehicles on the road, their GHG
emissions represent 23% of the transportation sector's carbon footprint, which grew 75% over
the last three decades. 9 They are also largely responsible for the harmful pollutant emissions
that disproportionally impact historically low-income and BIPOC communities located near fleet
depots, major transportation corridors, distribution centers, and ports. 10 In fact, the American
Lung Association found that one in three Americans live in places with unhealthy air pollution,
largely due to transportation sector emissions. As such, vehicle emissions standards serve as a
crucial mechanism to protect public health and advance environmentaljustice.il Further, with
many major companies aiming to deploy 50-100%) zero-emission trucks by 2030, EPA's
proposed standards fail to stimulate the rate of commercial electric truck production that
commercial fleet operators seek. 12 By strengthening the proposed Phase 3 standards to ensure at
least 50%o ZEV sales across all market segments by 2032, EPA will accelerate the industry's
necessary investments in heavy-duty ZEV manufacturing and the accompanying investments in
charging infrastructure. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-2674]
9 https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-04/US-GHG-Inventory-2023-Main-Text.pdf (p.2-35,
3-25).
10 BIPOC: Black, Indigenous, People of Color
11 https://www.lung.org/getmedia/338b0c3c-6bf8-480f-9e6e-b93868c6c476/SOTA-2023.pdf
12 https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/hdv-phase3-ghg-standards-benefits-apr23.pdf (p.i-19).
Organization: Daimler Truck North America LLC (DTNA)
The proposed C02 emission standards rely heavily upon EPA projections of HD ZEV
adoption rates.
The C02 emission standard stringency levels in the Proposed Rule rely almost entirely on
EPA's projections of HD ZEV adoption rates. For the proposed tractor and custom chassis
standards, C02 standard stringency was derived from a simple equation whereby EPA—after
determining projected ZEV and ICE vehicle adoption rates for each regulatory subcategory—
multiplied the fraction of ICE vehicles projected to make up each technology package in a given
MY by the applicable existing MY 2027 C02 standards.24 The proposed C02 emission standard
stringency levels for vocational vehicles depend upon a similar equation where the determining
factor is EPA's projected ZEV/ICE vehicle adoption rates for each regulatory subcategory of
vehicles per MY.25 Because the proposed C02 standard stringency is a function of EPA's
projected adoption rates for each regulated vehicle subcategory in each MY, it is absolutely
critical that these projections turn out to be accurate. Indeed, as the Agency acknowledges, these
projections (and associated numerical stringency calculations) form the basis for EPA's
determination that the proposed standards are achievable.26 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-
Al, p. 18]
24 See id. at 25,993.
25 See id. at 25,995; Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis (DRIA) at Section 2.9.2.2.
283
-------
26 See DRIA at 244 (noting that the achievability of EPA's proposed emission standards are supported by
the Agency's technology pathway projections and calculation methodology).
HD ZEV adoption depends upon a number of future developments that are difficult to predict.
As a leading HD manufacturer, DTNA appreciates first-hand the difficulty of predicting
future market developments in the commercial transportation industry. This is especially the case
when it comes to predicting market acceptance of new technologies such as BEVs, FCEVs, and
H2-ICE vehicles, as such products have not been widely adopted across all HDV applications. In
addition, proliferation of these technologies depends on a number of developments largely
outside of the control of truck manufacturers, such as the pace of development and geographic
concentration of supporting infrastructure, government policies to mandate or incentivize HD
ZEV adoption and to reduce ownership costs, and the relative costs of comparable ICE vehicles.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 18]
The Company has studied this issue extensively and models its projections of HD ZEV
market uptake based upon a 'transformation equation' that is a function of three main factors: (1)
vehicle technology development, (2) cost parity between ZEVs and conventional vehicles, and
(3) infrastructure development. The Proposed Rule addresses only the transition in vehicle
technology, and it does nothing to address the other two factors, as they are outside of EPA's
regulatory authority. It is important for EPA to recognize, however, that without these other two
important factors, HD ZEV demand may never materialize—at least at the rates that EPA
projects. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 18]
Another important criteria for projecting future HD BEV adoptions rates is the readiness of
electric power generation sources, utilities, and the electric grid to adapt to new demands from
increased use of electric vehicles. Similarly, hydrogen infrastructure must be available for FCEV
or H2-ICE uptake. This is yet another component of the market uptake equation over which EPA
has no regulatory control and is thus difficult to predict or incorporate into the Agency's future
projections. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 19]
Flaws in the key assumptions underlying EPA's market uptake projections cast doubt on
achievability of the Phase 3 C02 standards as proposed.27
DTNA is concerned that the C02 stringency levels in the Proposed Rule—and the market
projections on which they are based—are not supported by available data and rely on underlying
assumptions and projections about the future state of technology, infrastructure, and market
conditions that may not be true. As EPA notes, 'there is limited existing data to support [the
Agency's] estimations of adoption rates of HD ZEV technologies.'28 Lacking supporting data,
EPA should start with more conservative stringency levels and reevaluate the underlying
assumptions that inform these levels as new information becomes available. DTNA notes in this
subsection a number of specific flaws in EPA's rationale that counsel more conservative
stringency levels in the final rule with a mechanism for conducting regular reviews. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 19]
27 A number of these flaws—and related issues—are set forth in the comments submitted by the Truck and
Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA) on the Proposed Rule. DTNA endorses and adopts EMA's
comments by reference, to the extent that they are consistent with the points made herein.
28 DRIA at 231.
284
-------
The Proposed Rule reflects incorrect assumptions about purchaser behavior, leading to
unrealistic adoption rate projections.
EPA excludes a number of other operational, convenience, and other considerations that
influence fleet purchase decisions.
In the Proposed Rule, EPA excludes a number of considerations that are integral to the fleet
purchase decision, and which exist independent of calculated payback periods: [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 25]
• Infrastructure Challenges. There is little to no MHD/HHD-accessible public charging
available, limiting ZEVs to return-to-base operations and effectively requiring fleet
owners to own and operate EVSE.41 Even where fleets are willing to become EVSE
owners, not all fleets have the capital and facilities required to install on-site charging
infrastructure, and their charging capacity may be limited by grid capacity. In some cases,
fleets will need to project their charging needs years in advance, before ordering trucks,
to secure future infrastructure when ZEV trucks are needed and meet minimum electricity
utilization rates. EPA should separately account for these infrastructure limitations
outside of its projected adoption rate schedule, as discussed in Section II.C. Accordingly,
the alternative adoption rate schedule proposed by DTNA in Table 1 of these comments
does not encompass consideration of nationwide infrastructure availability, as this is
factored in as a separate infrastructure scalar to ensure adequate consideration of actual
installed EVSE capacity in setting Phase 3 C02 standard stringency, as described in more
detail in Section II.C. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 25]
41 Indeed, this issue may be exacerbated with the proliferation of North American Charging Standard
(NACS) chargers primarily designed for passenger cars. General Motors and Ford Motor Company
recently announced that they will be partnering with Tesla to deploy NACS charging technology, instead of
the current industry-standard combined charging systems (CCS), and that they will equip new vehicles with
NACS charging ports starting in 2025. See, e.g., 'Ford EV Customers To Gain Access To 12,000 Tesla
Superchargers; Company To Add North American Charging Standard Port In Future EVs' (May 25, 2023),
https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2023/05/25/ford-ev-customers-to-gain-access-to-
12-000-tesla-superchargers.html. Currently deployed NACS chargers are ill-suited for HDV charging, thus
the light-duty sector shift in focus to NACS charging could further impede development of HD-accessible
charging stations.
• Reluctance to Adopt New Technology. Fleets are often reluctant to adopt new
technology, due to perceived risks to durability, reliability, resale values, and other
factors. While some early adopters have already introduced limited ZEVs into their
operations to begin to gain experience, many fleets are likely to wait for projected cost
and technology improvements to materialize before introducing BEVs into the fleet.
FCEV experience is lagging even further behind. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1,
p. 25]
Uncertainty about the residual/resale values of new technology also deters customers from
purchasing ZEVs, even if the calculated payback period falls within their vehicle trade cycle.
Resale values are largely dictated by market preferences. Despite fuel economy gains, some
options like the wheel fairing discussed above, are unpopular in the resale market and bring
lower residual values. Weight and route limitations associated with ZEVs further narrow the pool
of potential buyers in the resale market. ZEV adoption is likely to remain slow until fleets have
confidence in residual values for resale. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, pp. 25-26]
285
-------
Fleets may choose not to adopt new technology if that technology could have a worse
payback period in the future. As IRA incentives expire and electricity prices rise, fleets may wait
to see if the TCO case will remain positive in the long run without subsidies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 26]
• Vehicle Suitability to Fleet Operations. As EPA acknowledges, commercial vehicles are
purchased to perform a variety of operations. Before a calculated payback period is
considered, the fleet must decide whether the ZEV will meet required drive cycle and
operational requirements. In the HD TRUCS model, EPA sizes BEV and FCEV
components to meet 90th percentile VMT needs, stating that the Agency expects
manufacturers to design to this condition, as opposed to operational extremes. Unless
fleets have exceptionally high confidence their vehicle will see a predictable route and
weight that falls within the 90th percentile of operation, they will not purchase a ZEV
that can fulfill only the 90th percentile of daily use cases. Furthermore, as discussed
above, EPA significantly underestimates the 90th percentile daily VMT for the tractor
categories. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 26]
Likewise, EPA asserts that most vehicles 'cube out' (fill up with goods or passengers before
reaching the maximum vehicle weight) before they 'gross out' (reach maximum vehicle weight
before filling up with goods or passengers) and estimates that battery technology is suitable for
applications up to a 30% weight penalty.45 EPA references a report prepared by the North
American Council for Freight Efficiency (NACFE) in support of this weight penalty threshold.46
The referenced NACFE report explains that vehicle weight distribution data is often
misinterpreted, due to the fact that data reflecting vehicle loads 'per run' is often misunderstood
as vehicle loads 'per truck,' leading many to conclude that a significant percentage of trucks on
the road operate well below their maximum weight capacity.47 As NACFE explains, however,
the relevant metric for understanding weight distribution data 'is loads, not trucks.'48 'Because
many loads are unpredictable, one day a truck may cube out and the next it might weigh out.'49
Fleets are thus unlikely to purchase vehicles with a weight penalty outside of very specific
applications that have predictable loads, as they cannot be used as flexibly as a diesel-powered
alternative. For these reasons, EPA's HD TRUCS tool does not adequately consider application
suitability with respect to weight. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, pp. 26-27]
45 See DRIA at 234.
46 See id. at 271 (citing NACFE, 'Electric Trucks Have Arrived: The Use Case for Heavy-Duty Regional
Haul Tractors—Run on Less Electric Report' (May 5, 2022). Figure 16 (NACFE Report)).
47 See NACFE Report at 38.
48 Id.
49 Id.
Considering the factors discussed above, we propose that EPA incorporate into its HD
TRUCS analysis the alternative adoption rate schedule set forth in Table 6 below, to ensure that
actual customer purchasing behavior is more accurately reflected in the standards adopted in the
final rule. In the Company's experience, even customer willingness to adopt a new technology
and to install infrastructure to support this new technology may not positively impact actual
infrastructure availability, so DTNA does not include infrastructure considerations here; rather,
we propose that an additional infrastructure scalar be applied to the adoption rate percentages
286
-------
that are ultimately adopted in the Phase 3 final rule, as discussed in Section II.C. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 27] [Refer to Table 6 on p.27 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1555-A1]
As EPA rightly acknowledges, 'there is limited existing data to support estimations of
adoption rates of HD ZEV technologies.'52 Given the lack of data and importance of customer
adoption rates to successful implementation of EPA's Phase 3 GHG standards, it is only
appropriate that the Agency consider a more conservative adoption rate schedule, such as the one
presented above in Table 6, as a starting point and periodically re-evaluate based on actual future
market developments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 28]
52 DRIA at 231.
The Proposed Rule overlooks the fact that manufacturers have no control over customer
demand and cannot force ZEV adoption.
Vehicle manufacturers control only one part of the ZEV 'transformation equation,' namely
the development of technologies and high-quality products designed to meet the needs of an
array of applications in the commercial vehicle market. Manufacturers can influence and
promote, but do not control, the pace of development of ZEV refueling infrastructure. Further,
manufacturers have only limited influence over demand for ZEVs in the HDV market relative to
ICE vehicles. Without supporting policies and government-created incentives, it is unreasonable
to expect that HD ZEV penetration will happen on its own and within the timeframes that EPA
predicts. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 39]
Demand remains a barrier for ZEV adoption, despite available supply.
In previous EPA GHG rulemakings, manufacturers had the flexibility to offer customers a
variety of technology options that provided incremental improvements in C02 efficiency. Under
the Proposed Rule, by contrast, because ZEVs will make such a significant difference in the
GEM score used to certify vehicle families, manufacturers can likely only comply with the
proposed C02 standards by producing, certifying, and selling significant numbers of ZEVs, as
EPA acknowledges. 80 Manufacturers can, and have, developed products that could enable
compliance with the proposed C02 stringency levels, but are unable to force customers to adopt
ZEVs. The technology adoption rates DTNA highlights in Section II.B.3.a of these comments
show fleets are more sensitive to indirect TCO and convenience factors than EPA accounts for,
and it is unlikely fleets will adopt significant volumes of ZEVs until these issues are resolved.
Even if cost parity with conventional vehicles is achieved or prices are subsidized as EPA
suggests, fleets will consider a variety of other factors outside of the manufacturer's control
when making purchasing decisions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 40]
80 See, e.g., Proposed Rule, 86 Fed. Reg. 26,001.
The statistics included in the DRIA highlight that despite available supply, demand remains a
barrier for ZEV adoption. As EPA notes, the EIA's 2022 AEO estimated that BEV and FCEV
sales made up less than 1 percent of Class 4-6 sales and less than 0.1 percent of Class 7-8 sales in
2021,81 despite manufacturers offering over 150 heavy-duty BEV models in the same
year.82 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 40]
81 See DRIA at 11 (citing EIA, AEO 2022, Table 49).
287
-------
82 See id. at 44, Figure 1-8 (indicating HD electric trucks available in the U.S. by model year).
ZEV sales mandates alone will not drive transformation of the HD transportation sector.
ZEV sales mandates on their own will not drive transformation of the HD transportation
sector. Rather, as CARB staff recognized in promulgating the ACT final rule, regulatory ZEV
sales requirements can only be successfully implemented when balanced by regulatory policies
to drive fleet demand.83 This is why CARB promulgated the ACF regulation in tandem with
ACT: to require fleets to buy the ZEVs that ACT requires manufacturers to sell.84 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 40]
83 See CARB, Final Statement of Reasons, Advanced Clean Trucks Regulation (March 2021) at 246,
available at https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/regact/2019/act2019/fsor.pdf ('Staff recognizes that ZE fleet rules will
be a key factor in ensuring fleet uptake of ZEVs to meet the targets established in the Resolution. Staff has
begun the regulatory process for developing the ZE fleet rules with a goal of returning to the Board with a
recommendation by the end of 2021.').
84 Even CARB's ACF fleet purchase mandates may not fully solve the problem of ensuring that ZEV
technologies are adopted at rates consistent with the ZEV volumes that manufacturers are required to
produce and sell under ACT. Indeed, it seems likely that the ACF-mandated phase-out of ICE vehicles in
drayage applications in California will drive the majority of Class 8 ZEV demand in the earlier years of
ACF implementation, as 'high priority' and government fleets utilizing the Milestone Path compliance
options will have continued flexibility to use ICE vehicles and may not purchase significant volumes of
heavier ZEVs early in the program.
In addition to ACF, a number of other California programs serve to require fleets to purchase
commercial ZEV products. As examples, CARB's Innovative Clean Transit regulation requires
transit agencies to purchase ZEVs beginning this year and ramps to 100% ZE purchases in
2029.85 CARB's Zero-Emission Airport Shuttle Bus regulation requires public and private
airport shuttle bus operators transition to fully ZEV fleets by 2035.86 California AB 739
requires state-owned fleets to purchase 15% ZEVs at or over 19,000 pounds (lbs.) gross vehicle
weight rating (GVWR) starting in 2026, increasing to 30% by 2030.87 The SCAQMD
Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions (WAIRE) Program requires
warehouses to offset emissions from truck trips to and from their facilities, including through
ZEV purchases and/or ZEV infrastructure installation.88 California has in place a number of
other incentive programs for ZEV adoption, including the crediting provisions of the Low
Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS)89 and the San Pedro Bay Ports 2017 Clean Air Action plan,
which phases in a requirement that trucks entering the ports be ZEVs or compliant with the
CARB low-NOx Omnibus Rule or pay a fee.90 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, pp. 40-41]
85 See 13 CCR 2023 et seq.
86 See 17 CCR 95690.1 et seq.
87 Cal. Pub. Res. Code 25722.11.
88 See SCAQMD Rule 2305.
89 See 17 CCR 95483(c) (allowing credits to be generated by providers of electricity with a low carbon-
intensity that is used as a transportation fuel). See also 17 CCR 95481(150) (defining 'transportation fuel'
as any fuel used or intended for use as a motor vehicle fuel or for transportation purposes in a non-vehicular
source) (emphasis added).
90 See San Pedro Bay Ports, Clean Air Action Plan 2017 (November 2017) at 38, available at
https://cleanairactionplan.org/download/205/2017-caap-documents/4984/final-2017-caap-update.pdf.
288
-------
Without similar supporting policies and sufficient drivers to spur fleet uptake, EPA cannot
expect to achieve the ZEV adoption rates projected in the Proposed Rule and certainly cannot
approach the ZEV penetration rates that CARB expects under ACT, which rely on a suite of
fleet-facing policies to drive demand. Simply stated, ZEV mandates placed on manufacturers
will not by themselves influence demand, thus it would be inaccurate for EPA to assume that the
imposition of its regulatory requirements based on projected sales will necessarily promote HD
ZEV market uptake. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 41]
Manufacturers' aspirations should not be used by EPA as a basis for projecting future
consumer uptake.
As EPA notes in the Proposed Rule, DTNA has set its own ZEV sales goals and benchmark
dates, evincing the Company's strong support for the ZEV transformation.91 It is common for
companies to state such aspirational goals to guide their commitments to sustainable product
development. However, it is important that these statements are understood in their full context
and not used for purposes that were unintended. Use of the Company's statements as the basis
for Agency projections of future uptake of certain products by customers in the commercial
vehicle market, which DTNA cannot accurately predict or control, is one such unintended
purpose. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 41]
91 See, e.g., Proposed Rule, 88 Fed. Reg. at 25,941, notes 115, 116.
With regard to the specific goals misattributed to DTNA in the Proposed Rule, the ambition to
reach 60% ZEV sales by 2030 was stated by Martin Daum, Board Chair and CEO of DTNA's
parent company Daimler Truck Holding (DTG) AG's Board Chair and CEO, during the 2022
IAA Transportation Trade Fair in Hanover, Germany and referred to a target for sales in
Europe.92 In these remarks (as well as in many others that preceded and followed), Mr. Daum
advocated for the complementary and necessary infrastructure for both battery electric and
hydrogen-powered vehicles, to be established concurrent with the growing portfolio of
alternative-powered vehicles offered by the Company and its peer manufacturers. Specifically,
he called on 'all stakeholders [to] join together to work on it on all levels at the same time—on
energy generation, energy distribution and even the physical points where the vehicles
recharge.'93 This dynamic must be present in the United States, and on both continents, DTG is
making considerable investment to hasten the infrastructure buildout and provide the necessary
conditions for ZEV operability and, ultimately, market success. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1555-A1, pp. 41-42]
92 See DTNA, 'Our vision of leading sustainable transportation' (Sept. 18, 2022), available at
https://www.daimlertruck.com/newsroom/ceo-news/our-vision-of-leading-
sustainabletransportation#:~:text=At%20Daimler%20Truck%2C%20we%20are,demanding%201ong%2Dh
aul%20use%20cases ('By 2030 we expect our zero-emission vehicles to account for up to 60 percent of our
total sales in Europe.').
93 Id.
But manufacturers cannot force this transition on their own. In addition to the necessities of
ample support infrastructure and a full portfolio of HD ZEV product offerings, ZEV operating
costs must provide an advantageous business model for customers. Business profitability is a key
consideration for fleets when procuring HDVs for their commercial transportation needs. If the
costs of operation greatly exceed profitability, customers will be disincentivized to purchase
these vehicles. The so-called 'transformation equation' of available ZEVs, ubiquitous
289
-------
infrastructure for refueling and/or recharging, and a positive TCO, is one that Mr. Daum and
other senior executives of both DTG and DTNA have routinely pointed to as being necessary to
achieve the shared goal of HD ZEV market acceptance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1,
p. 42]
While DTG and DTNA aim to achieve their stated goals, success is ultimately determined by
myriad market forces greater than manufacturers alone can control. It is misleading for the
Agency to extrapolate from a stated goal the forgone conclusion that such a goal will be
achieved, particularly where, as here, it is taken out of context. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1555-A1, p. 42]
Varying levels of state policy support will reduce ZEV adoption rates in some states.
The Proposed Rule focuses only on state policies that support ZEV market penetration but fails
to account for the growing number of state policies that do the opposite, which invariably will
reduce ZEV adoption rates in certain areas of the country and could also inhibit the nationwide
build-out of necessary ZEV infrastructure. As examples: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1,
p. 43]
• Wyoming. Earlier this year, a resolution was introduced in the Wyoming Senate to
express support for phasing out the sale of new electric vehicles in Wyoming by 2035.99
According to the resolution, widespread use of EV's is 'impracticable' in Wyoming, due
to 'vast stretches of highway' and 'a lack of electric vehicle charging infrastructure.' 100
The resolution also cites critical mineral scarcity and battery end-of-life issues, as well as
deleterious impacts on Wyoming's oil and gas industry from widespread EV deployment.
The resolution 'encourages Wyoming's industries and citizens to limit the sale and
purchase of new electric vehicles in Wyoming, with a goal of phasing out the sale of new
electric vehicles in Wyoming by 2035.' 101 While the bill did not make it past committee
review, and has been widely characterized as a political messaging bill, it is an example
of anti-ZEV advocacy in some states that should be taken into account by EPA. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, pp. 43-44]
99 See Wyoming Senate Joint Resolution No. SJ0004 (introduced January 12, 2023).
100 Id.
101 Id.
• North Carolina. As an additional example of state-level political opposition to C02
emission-reduction initiatives (in the transportation and utility sectors), an appropriations
bill was recently passed in the North Carolina Senate that would prohibit State adoption
of cap-and-trade requirements for utility-sector C02 emissions, as well as any state-
specific new motor vehicle emission standards, including ZEV sale or purchase mandates
(notwithstanding the fact that North Carolina was a signatory to the HD ZEV MOU,
committing it to certain measures to promote HD ZEV through regulatory and other
actions). 102 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 44]
102 See North Carolina House Bill 259 (passed and engrossed for consideration by the State's House of
Representatives on May 18, 2023), available at https://www.ncleg.gov/BillLookUp/2023/hb259.
• Alternative Fuel Vehicle Fees and Per-Mile Taxes. A number of states seek to recoup
gasoline tax revenues that are declining with increased uptake of alternative-fuel vehicles
290
-------
by imposing extra registration fees or per-mile taxes on drivers of alternative fuel
vehicles. 103 Examples include: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 44]
103 See National Conference of State Legislatures, 'Special Fees on Plug-In Hybrid and Electric Vehicles'
(March 27, 2023), available at https://www.ncsl.org/energy/special-fees-on-plug-in-hybrid-and-electric-
vehicles.
• Georgia. Repealed its EV tax credit and enacted a new 'Alternative Fuel Vehicle Fee,'
which is $316.54 for commercial vehicle registrations that begin or have a renewal date
between July 1, 2022 and June 30, 2023.104 These fees, which apply to all electric
vehicles registered in the state and all plug-in hybrid-electric or flex-fuel vehicles that
elect an alternative fuel vehicle license plate, are not charged for registrations of
comparable conventional vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 44]
• Oklahoma. Recently enacted a weight-based electric vehicle fee that requires vehicle
owners seeking to register EVs in the State to pay—in addition to normal registration
fees—a weight-based fee. This fee is $1,687 for Class 7 and 8 vehicles. 105 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 44]
105 68 OK Stat 6511 (2022).
• Oregon. Oregon (another signatory to the Multi-State HD ZEV MOU), like Oklahoma
and a number of other states, charges additional registration fees for electric vehicle
registration in the State. As of January 1, 2023, electric vehicles are subject to a $115
registration fee in Oregon, several times higher than the fees charged for conventional
fuel vehicles. 106 In addition, earlier this year a measure was introduced in the Oregon
legislature to charge a mileage tax on electric vehicle use in the state roughly comparable
to the gasoline tax charged to consumers of conventional fuels. 107 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1555-A1, pp. 44-45]
106 See O.R.S. 803.422(3)(d)
107 See Oregon Senate Bill 945 (2023 Regular Session), available at
https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2023Rl/Measures/Overview/SB945.
These state-level initiatives undermine the notion that there is widespread or uniform state
political support for ZEV proliferation, even among states that joined the multi-state HD ZEV
MOU such as North Carolina and Oregon. To account for these types of initiatives and their
potential to impede ZEV uptake across the United States, EPA should project more conservative
technology adoption rates than it has in the Proposed Rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-
Al, p. 45]
DTNA proposes more reasonable adoption rate projections and a revised standard-setting
methodology to account for infrastructure availability. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1,
p. 61]
After the three-year stability period discussed above (for MY 2027-2029), DTNA proposes
that EPA adopt more conservative Phase 3 C02 standards starting in MY 2030 based upon more
reasonable ZEV adoption rate projections and a revised standard-setting methodology, as
described below:
• More Realistic ZEV Adoption Rate Projections. The Truck and Engine Manufacturers
Association (EMA) undertook a detailed analysis of the HD TRUCS methodology and
291
-------
revised the tool to include some costs that EPA overlooked, including FET, state sales
tax, and the insurance cost differential. Furthermore, EMA revised some costs DTNA
believes EPA is inaccurately projecting, including battery cost, fuel cell stack cost, the
learning curve, EVSE costs, and the cost of electricity including grid updates. The results
of this analysis are in EMA's comments submitted to this rulemaking docket. In some
cases, DTNA believes EMA's HD TRUCS inputs are conservative, but nonetheless, this
analysis highlights the vulnerability of EPA's projection-based stringency setting
methodology. Using EPA's adoption rate schedule based on payback period (not
modified to more realistically reflect purchaser behavior as DTNA recommends), EMA
found the resulting stringency to be reduced by more than 50% in some categories,
simply by adjusting eight inputs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 61]
o Because of the uncertainties, inaccuracies, and demonstrated sensitivity informing
EPA's proposed ZEV adoption rates—including TCO calculations, application
suitability, customer adoption rates, and availability of infrastructure—DTNA
submits that the more realistic technology adoption rates in Table 1 below more
accurately reflect the current state of the commercial ZEV market and should be
used to calculate Phase 3 C02 standard stringency levels starting in MY 2030 in
lieu of the rates presented in Tables ES-3 and 11-24 of the Proposed Rule. Even
though DTNA believes that EPA should not increase C02 standard stringency
until 2030, as discussed above, the Company provides its projected ZEV adoption
rates for these years to provide a more realistic picture of anticipated market
developments over the timeframe covered by the Proposed Rule. This adoption
rate schedule reflects the Company's analysis of the ZEV market, including that:
¦ ZEV adoption for the HHD vocational vehicle category will not occur
until 2033. The HHD vocational category includes diverse applications
and vehicle configurations that will require additional research and
development time for body builders to produce electrified solutions, in
addition to manufacturers' ZEV product development.
¦ ZEV adoption for the HHD vocational vehicle category will not scale
faster than in the MHD vocational vehicle category starting in MY
2030, contrary to EPA's Table ES-3, as HHD vocational applications
are more challenging to electrify than MHD vocational applications..
¦ ZEV adoption for Long-Haul Sleeper Cab Tractors will likely not begin
until 2033 at the earliest, when FCEV or hydrogen combustion may be
viable product solutions. A nationwide network of HD-accessible
infrastructure must exist in order to enable long-haul applications. It
will likely be a minimum of ten years before this infrastructure exists,
with substantial federal support required. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1555-A1, pp. 61-62] [Refer to Table 1 on p. 62 of docket number EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1]
132 * Given the Company's position that no new Phase 3 C02 standards should apply until MY 2030,
DTNA projects ZEV adoption rates for MY 2027-2029 for purposes of completeness and to provide a more
realistic picture of anticipated market developments over the timeframe covered by the Proposed Rule—
and not as a basis for suggesting that new emission standards should be established for these MYs.
292
-------
• C02 Standard Tiers. EPA should set the Phase 3 C02 emission standards, starting with
MY 2030, in three-year tiers to reflect the product cycles manufacturers use to release
products, rather than making annual incremental changes to their product lines. A three-
year tier structure would also be consistent with the structure of EPA's Phase 2 C02
standards and the principle of regulatory stability in CAA Section 202, making it more
likely that the Phase 3 standards can be successfully implemented. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1555-A1, p. 62]
• Infrastructure Scalar. As EPA acknowledges in the Proposed Rule, significant ZEV
penetration will be necessary to ensure that compliance with the proposed C02
standard stringency levels is feasible. 133 Because ZEV adoption rates depend upon the
availability of charging and fueling infrastructure, 134 the rate of infrastructure
development—which is entirely outside of the Agency's regulatory purview—will
directly impact whether the Phase 3 C02 standards are achievable. To address this issue,
EPA should incorporate into its stringency calculation a scaling factor (or 'scalar'), which
would be set as a ratio of the total installed HD-accessible ZEV charging and fueling
capacity in the United States to the total amount needed to support EPA's project vehicle
adoption rates for Phase 3 standard implementation. This scalar should be applied to the
output of the adoption rate schedule derived from the HD TRUCS analysis, as explained
in more detail below. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, pp. 62-63]
133 See Proposed Rule, 88 Fed. Reg. at 26,014 ('EPA . . . anticipates most if not all manufacturers would
include the averaging of credits generated by BEVs and FCEVs as part of their compliance strategies for
the proposed standards.').
134 Indeed, EPA should recognize that payback periods and vehicle suitability alone are not sufficient to
predict purchasing behaviors. If customers are unable to charge or fuel their trucks, they will not buy them.
• Charging Capacity Scalar. Installed charging capacity is a more accurate measure of the
sufficiency of EV infrastructure than the number of chargers alone (and thus should be
used as the basis for the proposed infrastructure scalar), as charging needs will vary
depending on operational characteristics including dwell time and energy usage, as well
as the fact that multiple vehicles can share charging equipment, where charging speeds
and operations allow. For each vehicle proposed in HD TRUCS, an average power can be
assumed and needed installed capacity extrapolated. As explained above, DTNA
estimates that the total installed charging capacity that will be required for EPA's
projected BEV volumes for 2027 - 2032 to be approximately 45 gigawatts, which should
be used throughout the Phase 3 rule implementation period as the denominator for
determining the charging capacity scalar. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 63]
• The numerator for this scalar should correspond to total currently installed HD-accessible
charging capacity in the United States. There is no centralized data source for
determining this number, but our research reveals that it is a very small number. Thus,
DTNAs estimates that an appropriate charging infrastructure scalar is currently in the 0 -
0.05 range, as very little public and private HD-accessible infrastructure exists today. As
discussed below, this scalar would have to be regularly reviewed and updated as charging
infrastructure develops. With substantial policy support for HD BEV infrastructure
buildout, this scalar could reach a value of 1 during the Phase 3 program, which would
reflect that installed charging capacity is at 100% of that needed to support the adoption
rates upon which Phase 3 standards are based. Without the coordinated regulatory,
293
-------
legislative, and private sector efforts described in these comments, however, this scaling
factor is likely to remain significantly lower. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 63]
• Hydrogen Fueling Capacity Scalar. EPA should base the hydrogen fueling infrastructure
scalar on the build out of HD-accessible hydrogen fueling stations along the National
Highway Freight Network (NHFN). Using an average distance of 100 miles between
each station, consistent with FHWA's AFC designation criteria, approximately 601
hydrogen stations must be available to have sufficient buildout along the 60,110 miles of
the NHFN. 135 EPA states there are currently approximately 130 public and private
hydrogen fueling stations nationwide based on data from the DOE Alternative Fuels Data
Center (AFDC), suggesting a maximum hydrogen infrastructure scaling factor of 0.22
(the ratio of the 130 current hydrogen fueling stations to the 601 stations needed). [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, pp. 63-64]
135 See FHWA, National Highway Freight Network,
https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/Freight/infrastructure/nfn/index.htm.
• This scaling factor may even be overly generous, given that AFDC data does not indicate
1) whether or not the station is HD-accessible with pull through lanes and wide ingress
and egress, or 2) whether the hydrogen is in gaseous or liquid form. Most hydrogen
stations today provide gaseous hydrogen, but HDVs are likely to require liquid hydrogen,
requiring these stations to undergo upfitting to accommodate both fuels. Based on these
two critical criteria, the current hydrogen infrastructure scalar is more likely in the 0 -.05
range. DTNA recommends EPA work with DOE to capture these criteria in the AFDC
data for purposes of this infrastructure scalar, and to make fleets aware of where HD-
accessible ZEV infrastructure can be located. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1,
p. 64]
• Revised Standard-Setting Methodology. To account for the considerations set forth above
and throughout these comments, DTNA proposes a revised methodology for calculating
appropriate Phase 3 C02 standards starting with MY 2030, which is illustrated in Figure
9 below. Using this methodology, EPA would determine payback period and
corresponding adoption rates using the schedules set forth in Section II.3.a of these
comments and Table 1, above. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 64] [Refer to
Figure 9 on p. 64 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1]
• EPA would then multiply the output of its 'ideal' ZEV adoption rates by an infrastructure
scalar, discussed above, to generate infrastructure-adjusted ZEV penetration rates, which
would form the basis for the Phase 3 C02 emission standards. This calculation
methodology is designed to more accurately represent what fleets consider when
purchasing a ZEV, namely whether: 1) a ZEV is suitable for the fleet's application; 2) the
ZEV TCO is better than the ICE TCO within the fleet's trade cycle; 3) there is
infrastructure available to use the ZEV. All three of these must be affirmative for fleets to
adopt HDZEVs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 64]
The Proposed Alternative Standards Are Unrealistic.
As explained elsewhere in these comments, ZEV sales mandates alone will not drive the ZEV
transformation in the medium- and heavy-duty commercial transportation market. For this
reason, and the other discrepancies and uncertainties discussed, DTNA believes EPA's Alternate
Proposal is unrealistic and unachievable. Furthermore, DTNA believes EPA cannot expect ZEV
294
-------
penetration rates that approach California's ACT ZEV penetration rates without a holistic
regulatory approach that addresses infrastructure, TCO, and fleet demand. Similarly,
manufacturers' aspirational ZEV goals should not be used as a basis for Agency projections of
future uptake of certain products, as manufacturers are unable to force market transformation
simply by offering ZEV products for sale. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 66]
Timeframe for Remedying End-of-Year C02 Credit Deficits.
DTNA requests that EPA consider extending the timeframe for manufacturers to remedy end-
of-year C02 credit deficits in 40 C.F.R. 1037.745(a) from 3 to 5 MYs for all regulatory
subcategories of vehicles. As noted in these comments, there is substantial uncertainty with
respect to near- and long-term development of the HD ZEV market and the pace at which HD-
accessible fueling infrastructure will proliferate in the coming years. By extending the timeframe
for manufacturers to balance out credit deficits, EPA could alleviate some of the impacts of this
uncertainty on manufacturer compliance plans—allowing manufacturers extra time to balance
credits and deficits if ZEV uptake is slower than anticipated. The Agency would have assurance
that this additional flexibility would not cause emission increases, as it would still have oversight
of manufacturer plans to eliminate credit deficits within a specified timeframe under Section
1037.745(d). [EPA-HQ-0AR-2022-0985-1555- A 1, p. 76]
EPA Request for Comment, Request #1: We are requesting comment on an alternative set of
C02 standards that would more gradually increase in stringency than the proposed standards for
the same MYs. EPA also requests comment on setting GHG standards starting in MYs 2027
through 2032 that would reflect: values less stringent than the lower stringency alternative for
certain market segments, values in between the proposed standards and the alternative standards,
values in between the proposed standards and those that would reflect ZEV adoption levels (i.e.,
percent of ZEVs in production volumes) used in California's ACT, values that would reflect the
level of ZEV adoption in the ACT program, and values beyond those that would reflect ZEV
adoption levels in ACT such as the 50- to 60-percent ZEV adoption range represented by the
publicly stated goals of several major original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) for 2030.
• DTNA Response: In Section II of its comments on the Proposed Rule, DTNA provides
significant comment on EPA's proposed C02 standard stringency levels, as well as its
alternative view of how EPA could set Phase 3 standard stringency levels to ensure
feasibility. DTNA also explains why the proposed alternative C02 standards are
unrealistic. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 158]
EPA Request for Comment, Request #46: We welcome comment on how to consider this
ACT in our proposed approach or in other approaches.
• DTNA Response: EPA's approach in the Proposed Rule, which does not specifically
account for increased ZEV penetration based on the ACT requirements, is the most
appropriate approach when setting Phase 3 C02 emission standard stringency levels.
Ultimately, EPA's proposed Phase 3 and California's ACT rulemaking processes both
intend to model customer purchasing behavior, but regulate manufacturer sales.
California's ACT regulation cannot force customers to buy Zero Emission MHDVs, and
customers will not buy products which do not meet their operational needs, cannot
reliably be refueled, or do not lead to a positive return on investment. Additionally, while
other states have opted into California's ACT provisions, not all other states have the
295
-------
same complete ecosystem of supporting regulations, and it is not clear how many ZEVs
will be sold in each state. Since the ACT cannot force customer sales of ZEVs, and it is
unclear how many nationwide ZEVs will be sold as a result of the ACT, EPA should not
increase the proposed emission standard stringency levels to account for ACT
requirements. Even without considering any impact from the ACT, the ZEV uptake
projections in the Proposed Rule are overly optimistic, as discussed in Section II.B.3 of
these comments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, pp. 165-166]
EPA Request for Comment, Request #78: We request comment on this analysis for the
alternative set of C02 standards.
• DTNA Response: See DTNA Response to Request # 1, above. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1555-A1, p. 173]
EPA Request for Comment, Request #79: We also are seeking comment on a more stringent
set of emission standards that would be based on higher ZEV adoption rates on a national level
around the same levels as the adoption rates included in the California ACT rule.
• DTNA Response: See DTNA Response to Request # 1, above. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1555-A1, p. 173]
Organization: Delek US Holdings, Inc.
I. EPA's Proposed Rule is Based on Flawed Market Projections.
EPA's proposed standards are based on ZEV adoption rates that are unrealistic and
unsupported by any concrete evidence. Because higher rates of ZEV adoption are essentially
required for engine manufacturers to even come close to meeting the proposed standards, EPA
projects adoption rates for model year ("MY") 2027 through MY2032 will be: 22-57% for light
HD vocational vehicles, 19-35% for medium HD vocational vehicles, 16-40%) for heavy HD
vocational vehicles, and 0-25%> for sleeper cab tractors.3 These MY27 estimates are essentially
required, despite the reality of the current ZEV market: for MY21, only 0.2%> of all HD vehicles
certified by the Agency were electric.4 But EPA does little to acknowledge this reality, much
less account for the true feasibility of ZEV penetration into the HD vehicle market. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1561-A1, p. 2]
3 Proposed Rule at 25,932 (Table ES-3).
4 Proposed Rule at 25,940.
Rather, EPA's Proposed Rule is based on the flawed notion that vague corporate goals are
sufficient to prop up the incredulously stringent standards. EPA relies, in part, on the "50- to 60-
percent ZEV adoption range represented by the publicly stated goals of several major
[manufacturers] for 2030,"5 but these broad and general statements are just that—goals. In
reality, the U.S. Department of Energy forecasts ICE-power cars will continue to dominate U.S.
sales through 2050.6 And truck fleets take approximately 25 years to turn over.7 Thus the
transition to ZEVs will be, and must be, gradual—regardless of regulatory mandates—and much
more gradual than EPA's anticipated growth from 0.2%> to upwards of 50%> in a mere seven
years. EPA's proposed standards must better account for these real market conditions and, at the
296
-------
very least, propose more feasible and realistic GHG emissions standards reflective of actual,
practicable ZEV adoption rates. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1561-A1, p. 3]
5 Proposed Rule at 25,929.
6 Notably, adoption rates of light duty electric vehicles are higher than HD electric vehicles and the U.S.
Energy Information Administration ("EIA") predicts that the global light-duty electric vehicle fleet will
grow to only 31% by 2050, indicating ICE vehicles will continue to dominate global sales through at least
that time. EIA, "EIA projects global conventional vehicle fleet will peak in 2038" (Oct. 26, 2021) available
at https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=50096.
7 Virginia McConnel and Benjamin Leard, RESOURCES FOR THE FUTURE, "Progress and Potential for
Electric Vehicles to Reduce Carbon Emissions" (Dec. 8, 2020) available at
https://www.rff.org/publications/reports/potential-role-and-impact-evs-us-decarbonization-
strategies/#:~:text=Passenger%20vehicle%20fleets%20take%20approximately,important%20in%20the%20
following%20decades.
Organization: District of Columbia Department of Energy and the Environment (DOEE)
National Heavy-duty Greenhouse Gas Standards
DOEE is a signatory of the Medium- Heavy-duty Zero Emission Vehicle Memorandum of
Understanding (MHD ZEV MOU) and is therefore committed to the goals outlined in the MHD
ZEV MOU. Following the MHD ZEV MOU agreed to by the signatories, Northeast States For
Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM), in collaboration with the signatories,
developed an action plan to show a path forward for states to achieve the goals of the MHD ZEV
MOU. The plan detailed, "Regulatory programs requiring manufacturers to sell increasing
percentages of zero-emission trucks and buses, such as California's Advanced Clean Trucks
(ACT) regulation, are one of the most effective tools available to rapidly advance the market for
MHDZEVs." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1620-A1, p. 1]
The simplest path forward to meeting the goals of the MHD ZEV MOU would be if EPA
were to implement a national equivalent rule, which would avoid the problems of having 18
separate agencies managing their own ACT implementations and the problems of vehicle
registrations being moved to non-MHD ZEV MOU states. Of course, we understand EPA may
not adopt the ACT regulations exactly. EPA's final rule should set both tractor and vocational
standards that mirror the ZEV penetration rate expected due to ACT rule for model years 2027
through 2032. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1620-A1, p. 2]
While some states are pursuing the adoption of ACT rule through their own rulemaking
process. Not all states are following California's lead. The lack of national adoption of the CA
ACT rule presents a challenge for the District as many heavy-duty vehicles on District roads are
registered out of state. To develop a rough estimate of the percentage of heavy-duty vehicles that
travel in the District, while not being registered in the District we looked data from the
International Registration Plan (IRP).l The District has a large number of private, out of state,
heavy-duty vehicles operating in the District on a daily basis. Even if not registered in the
District, there are a large number of heavy-duty vehicles registered in our neighboring
jurisdictions that travel to the District for deliveries, bus tours, etc. This is a clear example of the
importance of a motor vehicle solution to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in line with the needs
dictated by climate science through federal action. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1620-A1, p. 2]
297
-------
1 The International Registration Plan facilitates registration reciprocity to provide each member jurisdiction
a share of the revenue from vehicle registration fees based on distance traveled.
To achieve the necessary levels of greenhouse gas reductions in the District, DOEE finds that
EPA should set its heavy-duty greenhouse gas standards at "values that would reflect the level of
ZEV adoption used in California's ACT program" from model years 2027 to 2032. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1620-A1, p. 2]
Organization: Eaton
1. Implementing one national standard is critical for the transportation industry.
The EPA has an opportunity to set nation-wide GHG emissions regulations. For these to be
effective, it is critically important that they satisfy needs across the nation to avoid fragmentation
in the market due to more stringent local or state restrictions. A successful example is the recent
low-NOx rule that achieve a balance of all stakeholders' needs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1556-A1, p. 1]
The absence of a single national standard carries serious risks and introduces uncertainties and
confusion in the market, ultimately stifling innovation, long-term investment, and the potential
for economies-of-scale. This possibility is realistic, as a similar situation happened over the past
five years in the light-duty space. In that situation, part of the market decided to adopt more
stringent GHG standards, while another part followed less stringent federal standards,
introducing significant uncertainty in investment strategies of suppliers like Eaton. Thankfully,
the EPA addressed these disparities in its 2022 LD rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1556-A1,
pp.1-2]
Besides the uncertainty in the supplier base investments, different emissions levels in some
parts of the nation creates the risk of a patchwork of local rules that in effect will lead to
disruption in freight with unpredictable effects on the economy. Therefore, it is critically
important to ensure congruence through negotiations and limit-setting between the national
standard and other state-level actions such as the Advanced Clean Truck and Advanced Clean
Fleets. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1556-A1, p. 2]
2. Long term regulatory certainty allows the transportation industry to continue to invest in
innovation and product development, and deploy needed capital, while ensuring continued US
global technology leadership, with the associated economic and jobs benefits
Emissions levels must be set such that societal needs for air quality, including GHG and
future non-attainment, are in fact achieved without the need of additional local restrictions or
short-term changes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1556-A1, p. 2]
The transportation industry needs long term regulatory certainty to enable investments in both
Low GHG/low NOx and Zero Emissions technologies and allocate capital to bring these to the
market. A standard that does not resolve the long-term emissions needs would insert uncertainty
and thus inhibit the bold investments that are needed. For example, the current GHG set of rules,
in effect from 2014, drove significant benefits, technology and product cost-out, all possible
because these were setting long term and societal-acceptable stringencies. We recommend the
Agency apply the same approach to the proposed rule, and fully support its long-term
horizon. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1556-A1, p. 2]
298
-------
Organization: Edison Electric Institute (EEI)
EPA's Proposed Rule is of critical importance to EEI members as they continue to lead this
clean energy transformation. A HDV Phase 3 rule that supports the continued electrification of
the transportation sector and leverages the existing investment in the electric system and the
electric sector's ongoing clean energy transformation will provide both environmental benefits
and send appropriate signals to support the continued buildout of infrastructure to support
increased electrification. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1509-A2, p. 6]
Organization: Energy Innovation
I. THE U.S. HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLE (HDV) SECTOR MUST ADOPT ZERO-
EMISSION VEHICLES QUICKLY TO REDUCE THE SECTOR'S OUTSIZED
CONTRIBUTION TO CLIMATE CHANGE AND AIR POLLUTION. STRINGENT
TAILPIPE STANDARDS FOR NEW VEHICLES ARE THE MOST EFFECTIVE TOOL TO
ACHIEVE THIS GOAL.
We appreciate and agree with the EPA's thorough articulation of the sizable impact HDVs
have on climate and public health. The transportation sector is the largest U.S. source of GHG
emissions as of 2021,1 and HDVs are the second-largest contributor within the sector at 25
percent.2 HDVs also generate 59 percent of ozone- and particle-forming NOx emissions and 55
percent of particle pollution (including brake and tire particles).3 Yet HDVs make up less than
10 percent of on-road vehicles.4 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1604-A1, p. 3]
1 "Fast Facts on Transportation Greenhouse Gas Emissions," United States Environmental Protection
Agency (U.S. EPA), Green Vehicle Guide, 2021, https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fast-facts-
transportation-greenhouse-gas-emissions.
2 U.S. EPA, "Proposed Rules: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles, Phase 3
(EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985; FRL-8952-01- OAR)," Federal Register 88, no. 81 (April 27, 2023),
https://www.govinfo.gOv/content/pkg/FR-2023-04-27/pdf/2023-07955.pdf. 25952.
3 "Delivering Clean Air: Health Benefits of Zero-Emission Trucks and Electricity" (American Lung
Association, 2022), https://www.lung.org/getmedia/elff935b-a935-4f49-91e5-151fle643124/zero-
emission-truck-report.pdf.
4 Peter Johnson, "From EV School Buses to Tractors, US Seeks Zero-Emission Heavy-Duty Transport by
2040," Electrek, November 18, 2022, https://electrek.co/2022/ll/18/us-seeks-zero-emission-heavy-duty-
transport-by-2040/.
The inherently slow stock turnover challenge in the HDV sector means that new vehicles—
and the standards they are built to in the coming years—will have long-lasting effects on the
vehicle fleet 10 and even 20 years from now. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1604-A1, p. 3]
Other research from the University of California, Berkeley, Grid Lab, and Energy Innovation,
2035 2.0: Plummeting Costs and Dramatic Improvements in Batteries Can Accelerate Our Clean
Transportation Future (April 2021) evaluated the technical and economic feasibility (and
associated impacts and benefits) of achieving a future scenario where electric vehicles make up
100 percent of new sales of all vehicles by 2035, combined with a 90 percent clean grid (called
the DRIVE Clean Scenario).ii Compared with the No New Policy scenario (which was pre-IRA
and BIL), the total transportation sector pollutant iii and carbon dioxide emissions reductions in
the DRIVE Clean Scenario would reduce ground transportation sector C02 emissions by 60
299
-------
percent in 2035 and by 93 percent in 2050, relative to 2020 levels.7 See Figure 3. The DRIVE
Clean Scenario would also avoid approximately 150,000 premature deaths and generate nearly
$1.3 trillion in health and environmental savings through 2050.8 Figure [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1604-A1, p. 5.] [See Figure 3, C02 Emissions in the Transportation Sector, on page 5 of
docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1604-A1.]
ii In the Drive Rapid Innovation in Vehicle Electrification (DRIVE Clean) Scenario, EVs constitute 100
percent of new U.S. light-duty vehicle sales by 2030 as well as 100 percent of medium-duty vehicle and
heavy-duty truck sales by 2035. The grid reaches 90 percent clean electricity by 2035. More details and full
study findings are available at https://www.2035report.com/transportation/.
iii Namely, fine particulate matter, nitrous oxides, and sulfur oxides.
7 Amol Phadke et al., "2035 2.0: Plummeting Costs and Dramatic Improvements in Batteries Can
Accelerate Our Clean Transportation Future" (Goldman School of Public Policy, University of California,
Berkeley, GridLab, April 2021), https://www.2035report.com/transportation/downloads/, iv.
8 Phadke et al., iii.
The EPA notes that its proposed rule will help reduce GHG emissions up to 30 percent in
2055 and provide a cumulative emissions reduction of 18 percent between 2027 and 2055.9 See
tables V-4 and V-5 from the proposed rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1604-A1, p. 5.]
[See Tables V-4 and V-5 (from the Proposed rule), on page 6 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1604-A1.]
9 U.S. EPA, "Proposed Rules," 26042-3.
While the proposed rule is an improvement over the status quo, greater emissions reductions
via higher rates of electrification in the HDV sector are needed for climate stability. To be
technology-forcing and deliver substantial climate benefits above the baseline, federal standards
would need to drive HDV electrification rates higher than 40 percent by 2030 to be compatible
with a warming scenario of 2 degrees Celsius.10 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1604-A1, p. 6]
10 Peter Slowik et al., "Analyzing the Impact of the Inflation Reduction Act on Electric Vehicle Uptake in
the United States" (International Council on Clean Transportation and Energy Innovation, January 2023),
https://energyinnovation.org/wpcontent/uploads/2023/01/Analyzing-the-Impact-of-the-Inflation-Reduction-
Act-on-EV-Uptake-in-the-U.S..pdf. 16: "Buysse, Kelly, and Minjares (2022) find that a heavy-duty ZEV
sales share of 46% by 2030 would be needed to be compatible with a scenario of 2 degrees Celsius".
We recognize the EPA must balance many factors in its determination of these standards,
including those that currently limit the uptake of ZEVs across different vehicle classes.
Nonetheless, the climate crisis requires actions that push the HDV industry to go faster to
achieve more meaningful reductions in GHGs through the adoption of all ZEVs, but primarily
BEVs. The International Energy Agency also points to BEV sales as the key transportation
metric for reaching net zero by 2050.11 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1604-A1, p. 6]
11 "Net Zero by 2050: A Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector," May 2021,
https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/7ebafc81-74ed-412b-9c60-5cc32c8396e4/NetZeroby2050-
ARoadmapfortheGlobalEnergy Sector-SummaryforPolicyMakers_CORR.pdf, 4.
Beyond their climate benefits, ZEVs eliminate harmful tailpipe pollutants that contribute to
air pollution, diminish public health, and disproportionately adversely impact frontline
communities, communities of color, and low-income communities. 12 HDV tailpipe rules that
allow compliance through the continued use of internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles for
300
-------
another two decades will only further harm communities that already bear the burden of bad air
quality from tailpipe emissions, and will only further delay the emissions reductions needed for
climate stability. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1604-A1, p. 6]
12 "Disparities in the Impact of Air Pollution," American Lung Association, April 20, 2020,
https://www.lung.org/clean-air/outdoors/who-isat-risk/disparities.
The final rules adopted through this rulemaking will have an outsized impact on climate
stability, human health, society, and future generations. The standards set forth in the final rule
must be sufficiently stringent to expedite the shift away from polluting ICE vehicles, not just
from a climate standpoint but also from a public health and equity standpoint. As noted
throughout the proposed rule, the EPA is the agency with the statutory authority to promulgate
the most stringent standards feasible. 13 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1604-A1, p. 6]
13 U.S. EPA, "Proposed Rules," 25948-51.
Organization: Environmental Defense Fund (EPF)
Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) respectfully submits the following comments in support
of Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Proposed Rule, Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles, 88 Fed. Reg. 25926 (April 27, 2023) ("Proposal" or
"Proposed Standards"). These comments highlight the importance and urgency of finalizing
health protective standards by the end of the year that ensure deep reductions in pollution by
leveraging rapid deployment of zero-emission technologies. Near-term emissions reductions are
vital to mitigating the effects of climate change and to protecting public health, especially the
health of low-income communities and communities of color, which are disproportionately
impacted by transportation air pollution. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 1]
EPA's proposal is a vital step forward toward addressing the largest source of greenhouse gas
emissions in the United States. EDF urges EPA to finalize protective heavy-duty standards,
consistent with and building from the proposals the agency has put forward, that account for the
progress already underway thanks to manufacturer and fleet investments and commitments,
federal spending, and state policies like the Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT) rule. These standards
must help to ensure we are on a path to zero tailpipe emissions from new vehicles by
2035. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 1-2]
EPA's primary proposal is eminently feasible, and in fact, reflects a conservative assessment
of zero-emitting vehicle (ZEV) deployment in the coming years. The historic investments in the
Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) have rapidly accelerated
an American electric vehicle manufacturing renaissance, dramatically advanced purchase price
parity for heavy-duty ZEVs, and accelerated already declining costs for vehicles at the same
time. Leveraging these trends, some manufacturers and fleets have already made commitments
exceeding the levels of ZEV deployment EPA projects in this rule and leading states have
continued to adopt California's ACT rule. We believe all of these factors support even stronger
standards that help deliver nationwide levels of ZEVs consistent with the ACT. 1 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 2]
1 See, e.g., 88 Fed. Reg. 26,007 (seeking comment on standards that help ensure ZEV levels consistent
with the ACT).
301
-------
a) Feasibility, Cost, and Lead Time Support Final Standards Consistent with ACT Levels of
ZEV Deployment Nationwide
Emission standards at a level that will deliver ZEVs nationwide comparable to the ACT
standards are consistent with EPA's obligations under Section 202 of the Clean Air Act to
consider the cost of compliance and to provide adequate lead time to permit the development of
requisite technology. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 15]
i. Independent Analyses support the feasibility and declining costs of ZEVs
The feasibility and cost-effectiveness of final standards consistent with the ACT rule is clearly
evidenced by a large and growing body of analyses that show the declining upfront costs of
electrification and the significant cost savings over time. A February 2022 study conducted by
Roush Industries for EDF evaluated both the upfront and ongoing costs of electrifying several
types of medium and heavy-duty vehicles that are commonly used in urban areas (including
Class 8 transit buses, Class 7 school buses, Class 3-7 shuttles and delivery vehicles, and Class 8
refuse haulers).31 These vehicles tend to be concentrated in urban areas where average trip
distances are shorter and health and pollution impacts are of most concern, making them
particularly important opportunities for deeper electrification. This rigorous, ground-up
study found that, when considering up front purchase price alone, by 2027 electric freight trucks
and buses will be less expensive than their combustion engine counterparts in nearly all
categories. All of these electric vehicle categories will also be less expensive on a total cost of
ownership basis producing substantial savings in the same timeframe. Importantly, the study was
conducted prior to the passage of the IRA and so does not consider the important impacts those
investments will have in further lowering costs (described in the next section). [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 15-16]
31 Vishnu Nair, Sawyer Stone, Gary Rogers, Sajit Pillai. 2022. Medium and Heavy-Duty Electrification
Costs for MY 2027- 2030, Roush Industries for Environmental Defense Fund. See
http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/files/2022/02/EDF-MDHD-Electrification-vl.6_20220209.pdf.
(Attachment H).
The 2022 Roush study developed projections for upfront costs and total cost of ownership for
electric vehicles in the 2027 to 2030 timeframe and compared the costs of equivalent internal
combustion vehicles that meet EPA Greenhouse Gas Phase 1 and 2 rules, as well as California
LowNOx regulations.32 The study determined the total cost of ownership for all financial
aspects of ownership, including vehicle purchase cost of either an internal combustion engine or
electric freight truck or bus, fuel or energy costs, charging or fueling infrastructure costs,
maintenance costs, and vehicle mid-life refresh if applicable. It focused exclusively on the direct
financial costs and savings related to vehicle ownership and did not include the substantial health
and welfare benefits associated with switching to electric trucks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1644-A1, p. 16]
32 76 Fed. Reg. 57106 (Sept. 15, 2011); 81 Fed. Reg. 73478 (Oct. 25, 2016); California's Heavy-Duty
Engine and Vehicle Omnibus Regulation (Dec. 22, 2021).
The study found decreasing upfront costs for electric freight trucks and buses, driven largely
by steeply decreasing battery costs. As shown in Table 1, the analysis also concluded that for
vehicles purchased in 2027, electric vehicle costs will be less than internal combustion vehicle
costs over the life of the vehicle, largely because maintenance and energy costs will be lower.
302
-------
Total cost of ownership parity will occur immediately for some segments evaluated and very
quickly for the rest. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 16] [See Table 1 on p. 17 of Docket
Number EP A-HQ-0 AR-2022-0985-1644-A1 ]
National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) looked at all classes and segments of medium- and
heavy-duty vehicles and concluded that with continued improvements in vehicle and fuel
technologies, ZEVs can reach TCO parity with diesel vehicles as early as 2026 for some
applications and no later than 2035 for all segments, including long-haul trucks.33 NREL also
concluded that if economics drive adoption, 42 percent of all medium- and heavy-duty truck
sales will be ZEVs by 2030. NREL also concluded that if economics drive adoption, 42 percent
of all medium- and heavy-duty truck sales will be ZEVs by 2030. These findings also occurred
prior to the passage of the IRA. Without economic incentives, their modeling projects all heavy-
duty vehicle segments can reach total cost of driving parity with diesel vehicles by 2035. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985- 1644-A1, p. 17]
33 Muratori, Matteo et al. 2022. Decarbonizing Medium- and Heavy-Duty On-Road Vehicles: Zero-
Emission Vehicles Cost Analysis. NREL Transforming Energy.
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy22osti/82081.pdf. (Attachment I)
A study published by Argonne National Laboratory's Energy System Division in April 2021
estimated that electric Class 4 delivery trucks will reach life-cycle cost parity with diesel trucks
in model year 2025, while day-cab tractors will reach cost parity in model year 2027, and
sleeper-cab tractors will reach cost parity in model year 2032.34 The analysis included all costs
of vehicle ownership including vehicle purchase, fuel, and maintenance costs as well as
insurance, financing costs, and depreciation. It did not account for the impacts of the IRA or the
BIL. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 17]
34 A. Burnham et al. 2021. Comprehensive Total Cost of Ownership Quantification for Vehicles with
Different Size Classesnd Powertrains, Argonne National Laboratory, Energy Systems Division, ANL/ESD-
21/4. (Attachment J)
A study published by Argonne National Laboratory's Energy System Division in April 2021
estimated that electric Class 4 delivery trucks will reach life-cycle cost parity with diesel trucks
in model year 2025, while day-cab tractors will reach cost parity in model year 2027, and
sleeper-cab tractors will reach cost parity in model year 2032.35 The analysis included all costs
of vehicle ownership including vehicle purchase, fuel, and maintenance costs as well as
insurance, financing costs, and depreciation. It did not account for the Impacts of the IRA or the
BIL. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 18]
35 A. Burnham et al. 2021. Comprehensive Total Cost of Ownership Quantification for Vehicles with
Different Size Classesnd Powertrains, Argonne National Laboratory, Energy Systems Division, ANL/ESD-
21/4.
Another report developed by M.J. Bradley & Associates for EDF in 2021 showed a large and
growing opportunity to expand America's zero-emission freight trucks and buses.36 The report
evaluated four factors in assessing the readiness of zero-emitting medium and heavy-duty
vehicles in different applications - the availability of electric models from manufacturers, the
requirements for charging, the ability of electric models to meet operating requirements, and the
business case for zero-emitting vehicles. It found that a large number of market segments have
favorable ratings across at least three of the categories, which indicates strong potential for near-
term zero-emitting vehicle deployment. These market segments, which represent about 66% of
303
-------
the current in-use fleet, include heavy-duty pickups and vans, local delivery and service trucks
and vans, transit and school buses, class 3 to 5 box trucks, class 3 to 7 stake trucks, dump trucks
and garbage trucks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 18]
36 Dana Lowell and Jane Culkin. 2021. Medium- and Heavy-duty Vehicles: Market Structure,
Environmental Impact, and EV Readiness, MJ Bradley & Assoc. for EDF. A. Burnham et al. 2021.
Comprehensive Total Cost of Ownership Quantification for Vehicles with Different Size Classesnd
Powertrains, Argonne National Laboratory, Energy Systems Division
http://blogs.edf.org/climate41 l/files/2021/08/EDFMHDVEVFeasibilityReport22jul21.pf (Attachment K).
These analyses demonstrate in a compelling way the feasibility of EPA's proposed standards
even before the introduction of recent federal and state incentives, discussed below. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 18]
iii. Manufacturers and fleets have committed to electrification
Market developments, including manufacturer investments and commitments are consistent
with and reinforce the conclusions of the above-described analyses and likewise support the
feasibility of protective EPA standards. For instance, Daimler Trucks, the market leader in the
U.S. for Class 7 and 8 truck sales, has a goal of selling only C02-neutral vehicles in Europe,
Japan, and North America by 2039.44 Daimler Trucks' North America Freightliner division has
developed electric versions of its Cascadia Class 8 tractor, M2 Class 6 medium-duty chassis, and
MT50 medium-duty step van45 and has the capacity to produce around 2,000 eCascadia trucks
annually.46 Both Traton SE, the parent company of Navistar, and Volvo Trucks set a global
target that 50 percent of all truck sales will be electric by 2030.47 Volvo set a higher target in
North America and Europe to reach 70 percent electric trucks sales by 2030. Volvo and Navistar
are also market leaders in sales of Class 7 and 8 trucks, school buses, transit buses and coach
buses in the U.S.48 In 2021 Volvo Trucks took orders, including letters of intent to buy, for more
than 1,100 electric trucks in over 20 countries and in September 2022 started producing electric
version of its heavy-duty Volvo FH, FM, and FMX trucks.49 Volvo Trucks also plans to start
production in 2023 for electric versions of the Volvo FH, FM, and FMX trucks. 50 General
Motors launched BrightDrop in 2021, a new business unit that focuses on electric first-to-last-
mile products, software and services. It has secured more than 30 commercial customers across
industries like retail, rental, parcel delivery and service-based utilities, including FedEx,44
Walmart, Hertz, DHL Express and Purolator.51 Demand for BrightDrop commercial EVs
continues to grow, resulting in its 2023 Zevo 600 already sold out. With all its momentum, the
company anticipates accelerating production of its electric delivery vans to reach a 50,000 unit
annual volume capacity by 2025.52 Tesla Semi Class 8 electric trucks annually starting 2024,
after a year of production ramp-up, with the first units (36 electric trucks) delivered to Pepsi in
December 2022. to Pepsi in December 2022 and has plans for greater production. These and
many other commitments are summarized in ERM's April 2023 EV Market Update.53 [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 22-24]
44 David Cullen, Daimler to Offer Carbon Neutral Trucks by 2039, Truckinginfo (Oct. 25, 2019),
https://www.truckinginfo.eom/343243/daimler-aims-to-offer-only-co2-neutral-trucks-by-2039-in-key-
markets.
45 Daimler North America, Daimler Truck Electric Commercial Vehicles,
https ://northamerica. daimlertruck.com/emobility.
304
-------
46 Alan Adler, Daimler built excess electric truck capacity in '22, Freight Waves (Jan. 31, 2023).
https://www.freightwaves.com/news/daimler-built-more-electric-truck-capacity-in-22-than-chargers-could-
support.
47 De Lombaerde, Geert, Traton boosting its trucking electrification investments, Fleet Owner (16 Mar
2022). https://www.fleetowner.com/emissions-efficiency/article/21236316/traton-adding-to-electrification-
investments. Volvo Trucks,Record order from Maersk for Volvo electric trucks, Volvo Trucks. 29 March
2022. https://www.volvotrucks.com/en-en/news-stories/press-releases/2022/mar/volvo-trucks-receives-
record-order-for-electric-trucks-from-maersk.html.
48 Ben Sharpe et. al. 2020. Race to Zero: How manufacturers are positioned for zero emission commercial
trucks and buses in North America, ICCT, EDF and Propulsion Quebec.
49 Volvo Trucks, Sales start for Volvo's heavy-duty electric trucks, Volvo Trucks, (2 May 2022).
https://www.volvotrucks.com/en-en/news-stories/press-releases/2022/may/sales-start-for-volvos-heavy-
duty-electric-trucks.html. Volvo Trucks, Break-through: Volvo Trucks starts series production of heavy
electric trucks, Volvo Trucks (14 Sep 2022). https://www.volvotrucks.com/en-en/news-stories/press-
releases/2022/sep/volvo-trucks-starts-series-production-of-heavy-electric-trucks.html.
50 "Volvo launches more electric trucks. Volvo Trucks. 12 Dec 2022. https://www.volvotrucks.com/en-
en/news-stories/press-releases/2022/dec/volvo-launches-more-electric-trucks.html.
51 Roberts, Daniel and Maria Violette, Order Update: Your BrightDrop EV is on the Way." Brightdrop. (3
April 2023.) https://www.gobrightdrop.com/newsroom/first-canadian-built-zevos-shipped.
52 Id.
53 Electric Vehicle Market Update: Manufacturing and Commercial Fleet Electrification Commitments
Supporting Electric Mobility in the United States. April 2023. ERM for EDF. (Attachment N)
Manufacturer and company commitments to electrification have accelerated the number of
medium- and heavy-duty ZEV models available for purchase. ERM's EV Market Update lists all
current medium- and heavy-duty model announcements and availability. The report shows that
there are currently 17 Class 2b and 3 ZEV models, more than 40 Class 4-6 ZEV models, nearly
35 Class 7-8 ZEV models and more than 45 ZEV buses available by the end of 2024, with many
already available for purchase today (Figure 2).54 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 24]
[See Figure 2, p. 24 of Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1]
54 Id., Appendix C.
Manufacturer commitments have translated into a growing number of ZEV sales and
deployments. According to a May 2023 market update from CALSTART, since January 2017,
annual zero-emission truck (ZET) deployments increased year-over-year by 104% in 2018, 23%
in 2019, 60% in 2020, 397% in 2021, and 163% in 2022.55 Cumulative U.S. medium- and
heavy-duty ZET deployments from January 2017 to December 2022 totaled 5,483 vehicles. In
2022 alone, 3,510 MHD ZETs were deployed across the country, surpassing deployments of the
previous five years (2017-2021) combined. Of the ZETs with known locations, 59 percent were
deployed in states that have adopted the Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT) rule as of December
2022. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 25]
55 Calstart. 2023. Zeroing In On ZETs, May 2023 Market Update, https://calstart.org/zio-zets-may-2023-
market-update/ (Attachment O).
iv. Fleet deployment of ZEVs is on the rise
305
-------
As manufacturers continue to expand model availability, fleets have made public
commitments to electrification and deployments are growing every year. The April 2023 EV
Market Update report published by ERM for EDF summarizes the status of the commercial fleet
EV market showing fleet commitments to electrification as well as purchase commitments.56 It
finds that the demand from commercial fleet operators for EV options has grown dramatically in
the last few years. The report highlights some of the most recent commitments including Zeeba,
a California-based fleet leasing and management provider, which signed an agreement to
purchase 5,450 EVs from Canoo, with an initial binding commitment of 3,000 units through
2024.57 And Kingbee, a Utah-based work-ready van rental provider, which placed a binding
order for 9,300 all-electric last-mile delivery vehicles from Canoo, with an option to increase to
18,600 vehicles.58 EDF maintains an electric fleet tracker that reflects publicly available
information about zero-emission truck deployments and commitments. 59 As of May 2023, the
tracker identified nearly 270 fleets that are deploying or have placed orders for an estimated
244,000 zero-emission medium- and heavy-duty vehicles. The tracker shows widespread and
growing interest in electric trucks across nearly every application, including tractors, yard trucks,
dump trucks, emergency vehicles, utility trucks, and refuse trucks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1644-A1, p. 25-26]
56 Electric Vehicle Market Update: Manufacturing and Commercial Fleet Electrification Commitments
Supporting Electric Mobility in the United States, ERM for EDF, (April 2023).
57 Canoo. "Zeeba Signs Binding Agreement to Purchase 3,000 Canoo Electric Vehicles." Canoo. 11 Oct
2022. https://www.press.canoo.com/press-release/zeeba.
58 Canoo. "Kingbee Places Binding Order for 9,300 Canoo Electric Vehicles." Canoo. 17 Oct 2022.
https://www.press.canoo.com/press-release/kingbee.
59 See EDF Tracker at:
https://docs.google.eom/spreadsheets/d/110m2DolmjSemrb_DT40YNGou4o2m2Ee-KLSvH C-
5vAc/edit#gid=6806803 98
CALSTART tracks the availability and deployment of zero-emission buses (ZEBs). They find
that transit ZEBs have grown nationally to 5,480 on the road, awarded or on order in the
beginning of 2023, an increase of 66 percent since the beginning of 2021.60 As of December
2022, CALSTART estimates there were 3,043 electric school buses (ESBs) funded, ordered,
delivered and deployed across the U.S.61 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 26]
60 Rachel Chard, Mike Hynes, Bryan Lee and Jared Schnader, Zeroing in on ZEBs, The Advanced
Technology Transit Bus Index: A ZEB Inventory Report for the United States and Canada, CALSTART
(February 2023). https://calstart.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Zeroing-in-on-ZEBs-February-
2023_Final.pdf).
61 Rachel Chard, Juan Espinoza, Ian Fried, Liza Walsh, Zeroing in on Electric School Buses, The
Advanced Technology School Bus Index: A U.S. Electric School Bus Inventory Report, CALSTART (May
2023). https://calstart.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/ZIO-ESBs-final-with-May-cover-4.28.23.pdf.
(Attachment P)
EDF's tracker also shows fleet announcements and commitments, which indicate an even
greater demand for electric trucks and buses. For example, Republic Services is the 5th largest
private truck fleet in the U.S. with over 17,000 trucks. Our tracker lists the three electric vehicles
it has currently announced: one acquired in 2020 and two that are to be in service this fall.
However, the company has also announced that it "expects EVs to represent half of its new truck
306
-------
purchases in the next five years," which would represent thousands of new EV units. 62 [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985- 1644-A1, p. 27]
62 Republic Services, News Release: Republic Services is Rolling Out Industry's First Fully Integrated
Electric Recycling and Waste Trucks, https://investor.republicservices.com/news-releases/news-release-
details/republic-services-rolling-out-industrys-first-fully-integrated.
Similarly, FedEx currently has about 2,600 EVs deployed or ordered, but announced in 2021
that it plans for its entire parcel pickup and delivery fleet to be zero-emission electric vehicles by
2040. In its phased approach to this goal, it committed to have 50% of new vehicle purchases be
ZEVs by 2025 and 100% by 2030, which likely translates into many thousands of new units of
demand annually by 2025.63 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 27]
63 FedEx, Press Release: FedEx Commits to Carbon-Neutral Operations by 2040,
https://investors.fedex.com/news-and-events/investor-news/investor-news-details/2021/FedEx-Commits-to-
Carbon-Neutral-Operations-by-2040/default.aspx.
Other leading fleets are making clear commitments to reduce emissions and adopt zero-
emission solutions. For example, each of the four largest private tractor fleets in the nation are
making major investments in electric trucks. PepsiCo has a goal to "reduce absolute greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions across our value chain by more than 40% by 2030, including a 75%
reduction in emissions from our direct operations. Achieve net-zero emissions by 2040."64 It has
been a leader in deploying electric vehicles for years and is currently deploying 36 Tesla Semis
in its operations in California.65 Walmart has committed to have a zero-emission fleet by 2040
and has already acquired thousands of electric cargo vans and recently acquired its first
eCascadia truck.66 Sysco has a goal of electrifying 35 percent of its U.S. fleet by 2030 and
received its first electric truck in November 2022.67 Finally, US Foods just received its first
battery-electric powered Freightliner eCascadia trucks at its La Mirada, California distribution
center.68 The company previously announced plans to add 30 electric trucks to its La Mirada
fleet in 2023.69 Collectively, these four fleets have nearly 35,000 electric trucks on the road in
the U.S. Their collective demand alone will account for thousands of annual orders for zero-
emission trucks. For-hire fleets are also making major investments in zero-emission trucks. UPS
just received its first 10 electric tractors,70 Schneider just opened a large-scale electric charging
depot in California that will support up to 100 Class 8 BEV trucks at one time71 and JB Hunt
has set a goal to reduce its emissions by 34% within the decade and is piloting several electric
trucks.72 The EV tracker also shows demand for electric trucks from smaller fleets. ENAT
Transportation and Logistics, a last mile delivery services company in New Jersey, has been
growing its fleet of electric vans and trucks,73 while Sunburst Truck Lines, a Texas-based
drayage fleet, is operating an electric tractor in Houston74 and Valley Malt, a Massachusetts-
based malt house and one-vehicle fleet, has purchased a Ford E-Transit.75 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 27-29]
64 PepsiCo, 2021 ESG Performance Metrics, https://www.pepsico.com/our-impact/sustainability/esg-
summary /goals-progress.
65 CNBC, PepsiCo is Using 36 Tesla Semis in its Fleet and is Upgrading Facilities for More in 2023 (Dec.
16, 2022), https://www.cnbc.com/2022/12/16/pepsico-is-using-36-tesla-semis-in-its-fleet-and-is-upgrading-
facilities-for-more-in-2023-exec-says.html.
66 Jason Mathers, Walmart Commits to 100% Zero-Emission Trucks by 2040, Signaling Electric is the
Future, EDF (Sep. 22, 2020) https://blogs.edf.org/energyexchange/2020/09/22/walmart-commits-to-100-
zero-emission-trucks-by-2040-signaling-electric-is-the-future/.
307
-------
67 Daimler Truck North America, Transforming the Future of Foodservice Delivery: Sysco Receives First
Battery Electric Freightliner eCascadia (Nov. 11, 2022), https://www.prnewswire.com/news-
releases/transforming-the-future-of-foodservice-delivery-sysco-receives-first-battery-electric-freightliner-
ecascadia-301675939.html.
68 US Foods Supports Emissions Reduction Efforts with Initial Delivery of Battery-Electric Trucks (Feb.
14, 2023), https://ir.usfoods.com/investors/stock-information-news/press-release-details/2023/US-Foods-
Supports-Emissions-Reduction-Efforts-With-Initial-Delivery-of-Battery-Electric-Trucks/default.aspx.
69 US Foods Supports Emissions Reduction Efforts with Initial Delivery of Battery-Electric Trucks (Feb.
14, 2023), https://ir.usfoods.com/investors/stock-information-news/press-release-details/2023/US-Foods-
Supports-Emissions-Reduction-Efforts-With-Initial-Delivery-of-Battery-Electric-Trucks/default.aspx.
70 Rich DeMuro, I Took a Ride in UPS's First All Electric Semi Truck, KTLA 5 (Feb. 6, 2023),
https://ktla.com/morning-news/i-took-a-ride-in-upss-first-all-electric-semi-truck/.
71 Schneider says California site can charge 32 battery-powered trucks at once, DC Velocity (June 9,
2023). https://www.dcvelocity.com/articles/57730-schneider-says-california-site-can-charge-32-battery-
powered-trucks-at-once.
72 J.B. Hunt, J.B. Hunt Announces Ambitious Goal to Reduce Carbon Emission Intensity 32% by 2034,
https://www.jbhunt.com/our-company/newsroom/2022/ll/j-b-hunt-ambitious-goal-reduce-carbon-
emission-intensity.
73 ENAT Transportation & Logistics, homepage, https://www.enattl.com/.
74 American Journal of Transportation, Port Houston Welcomes First Zero-Emissions Drayage Truck
(June 9, 2022), https://ajot.com/news/port-houston-welcomes-first-zero-emissions-drayage-truck.
75 Valley Malt, Facebook Post on Mar. 27, 2022,
https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=5311291732223050&set=a. 1907173599301564.
For-hire fleets are also making major investments in zero-emission trucks. UPS just received
its first 10 electric tractors,76 Schneider just opened a large-scale electric charging depot in
California that will support up to 100 Class 8 BEV trucks at one time77 and JB Hunt has set a
goal to reduce its emissions by 34% within the decade and is piloting several electric trucks.78
The EV tracker also shows demand for electric trucks from smaller fleets. ENAT Transportation
and Logistics, a last mile delivery services company in New Jersey, has been growing its fleet of
electric vans and trucks,79 while Sunburst Truck Lines, a Texas-based drayage fleet, is operating
an electric tractor in Houston80 and Valley Malt, a Massachusetts-based malt house and one-
vehicle fleet, has purchased a Ford E-Transit.81 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 29]
76 Rich DeMuro, I Took a Ride in UPS's First All Electric Semi Truck, KTLA 5 (Feb. 6, 2023),
https://ktla.com/morning-news/i-took-a-ride-in-upss-first-all-electric-semi-truck/.
77 Schneider says California site can charge 32 battery-powered trucks at once, DC Velocity (June 9,
2023). https://www.dcvelocity.com/articles/57730-schneider-says-california-site-can-charge-32-battery-
powered-trucks-at-once.
78 J.B. Hunt, J.B. Hunt Announces Ambitious Goal to Reduce Carbon Emission Intensity 32% by 2034,
https://www.jbhunt.com/our-company/newsroom/2022/ll/j-b-hunt-ambitious-goal-reduce-carbon-
emission-intensity.
79 ENAT Transportation & Logistics, homepage, https://www.enattl.com/.
80 American Journal of Transportation, Port Houston Welcomes First Zero-Emissions Drayage Truck
(June 9, 2022), https://ajot.com/news/port-houston-welcomes-first-zero-emissions-drayage-truck.
308
-------
81 Valley Malt, Facebook Post on Mar. 27, 2022,
https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=5311291732223050&set=a. 1907173599301564.
v. State leadership further supports the feasibility of protective standards
States have also been leading the way with protective standards. California adopted the
Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT) rule in 2021, which requires truck manufacturers to produce an
increasing percentage of new zero-emission trucks and buses beginning with model year
2024.82 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 29]
82 California Air Resources Board, Final Regulation Order: Advanced Clean Trucks Regulation,
https://ww2.arb. ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2019/act2019/fro2 .pdf.
By 2035, zero-emission truck/chassis sales in the state will need to be 55% of Class 2b - 3
truck sales, 75% of Class 4-8 straight truck sales, and 40% of truck tractor sales. The ACT
regulation helps ensure that manufacturers offer affordable zero emission choices to fleets, while
delivering air quality benefits to communities across the state. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-
Al, p. 30]
The ACT rule has garnered widespread support from major business interests across the
nation, including more than 85 companies that signed a letter urging governors across the
country to adopt the policy.83 On April 21, 2023, Colorado became the eighth state to adopt the
ACT regulation, joining California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Vermont
and Washington.84 Maryland will soon become the ninth state, having recently passed a law
requiring the Maryland Department of Environment to adopt the rule by the end of 2023.8586
With the recent additions of Colorado and Maryland, ACT states now account for 24% of
national truck sales based on data from MOVES3. The ACT rule will help ensure sufficient
supply for zero-emission trucks and vans to meet the growing demand from businesses. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985- 1644-A1, p. 30]
83 Ceres, 85 Businessses Call for the Advanced Clean Trucks Rule,
https://www.ceres.org/policy/state/ACT
84 Environmental Defense Fund, Colorado Adopts Proactive New Standards for Zero-Emission Trucks
(Apr. 21, 2023), https://www.edf.org/media/colorado-adopts-protective-new-standards-zero-emission-
trucks.
85 Maryland Passes Clean Trucks Act With Key Caveats, Transport Trucking (April 13, 2023).
https://www.ttnews.com/articles/md-clean-trucks-act.
86 Maryland Passes Clean Trucks Act With Key Caveats, Transport Trucking (April 13, 2023).
https://www.ttnews.com/articles/md-clean-trucks-act.
As a complement to the ACT rule, California recently adopted the Advanced Clean Fleets
(ACF) regulation, a requirement for medium- and heavy-duty fleets to purchase an increasing
percentage of zero-emission trucks. The rule sets a 100% ZEV truck sales target for 2036, with
an on ramp for fleets to meet that goal. The ACF regulation is expected to save $26.5 billion in
statewide health benefits from criteria pollutant emissions and provide fleets with net cost
savings of $48 billion.87 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 30]
87 California Air Resources Board, Advanced Clean Fleets Regulation Summary (May 17, 2023),
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/fact-sheets/advanced-clean-fleets-regulation-summary.
309
-------
States are also providing billions of dollars in grants and incentives to produce and sell
electric vehicles, batteries and components. According to EDF and WSP, the more than $120
billion in private EV ecosystem investments over the last 8 years have been spurred by the nearly
$14 billion in state and local incentives. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 31]
In addition to state rulemakings, a diverse collection of seventeen states and the District of
Columbia joined a multi-state initiative to advance and accelerate the market for electric
medium- and heavy-duty vehicles.88 Together, the signatories account for 35 percent of the
medium- and heavy-duty fleet in the U.S..89 The voluntary initiative set a target of 30 percent of
new truck and bus sales being ZEV by 2030 and 100 percent ZEV sales by 2050 with an
emphasis on the need to accelerate and prioritize deployment in disadvantaged
communities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 31]
88 The current signatories are California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts,
New Jersey, New York, Nevada, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont,
Washington, the District of Columbia, and Quebec, Canada. "Multi-State Medium- and Heavy-Duty Zero
Emission Vehicle Memorandum of Understanding," (July 14, 2020),
https://www.nescaum.org/documents/mhdv-zev-mou-20220329.pdf/.
89 Arijit Sen, Ray Minjares, Josh Miller, and Caleb Braun. April 2022. "Benefits of the 2020 Multi-State
Medium- and Heavy-Duty Zero-Emission Vehicle Memorandum of Understanding," ICCT Briefing.
https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/md-hd-mou-benefits-apr22.pdf.
Together, these state programs and incentives further support the feasibility of strong Phase 3
emissions standards consistent with the ACT that drive the deployment of ZEVs. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 31]
b) New Analyses Support More Protective Standards for Tractor Trailers and Buses
In addition to the array of studies, analyses, and market and policy developments discussed in
section a) that broadly support more protective standards consistent with the ACT, EDF
undertook specific additional analytical work to demonstrate the feasibility and cost-
effectiveness of stronger standards for two key HD segments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-
Al, p. 31]
i. New Research Supports the Feasibility and Need for Protective Tractor Trailer Standards
Tractor trailers are the largest source of climate destabilizing and health harming pollution
from the heavy-duty vehicle sector and so protective pollution safeguards that help to ensure
ZEV deployment levels beyond EPA's proposal are vital and urgently needed. The analysis
below supports our recommendation that EPA finalize standards consistent with at least 50% of
all new tractor sales in the U.S. being ZEVs by 2032. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1,
p. 32]
EDF undertook new work submitted as part of our comments on this rulemaking with Roush
Industries to conduct a robust, bottom up evaluation of both the upfront and total costs of a range
of BEV tractors including two battery ranges for each Class 7 day cab, Class 8 day cab, and
Class 8 sleeper cab.90 The focus of the study was to better understand the set of tractors that are
best suited to be converted to BEVs in the time frame of the EPA proposed rule. Roush modeled
the 6 tractor configurations for MYs 2030 and 2032 in GT-Suite, an industry-leading, physics-
based simulation tool. They used the tool to calculate energy consumption, battery capacity,
motor power, and inverter power. Roush used their internal battery price and physics projections
310
-------
to establish the cost, weight, and volume of the battery packs needed for each of the tractors. The
main analysis assumed all depot charging, consistent with the assumption EPA makes in their
modeling. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 32]
90 Vishnu Nair, Himanshu Saxena, Sajit Pillai. 2023. Class 7 and Class 8 Tractor-Trailer Electrification for
MYs 2030 and 2032, Roush Industries for Environmental Defense Fund. (Attachment Q).
With the IRA credits, most BEVs' effective powertrain retail price is the same or less than
diesel vehicles.
Roush based their diesel powertrain costs on EPA's modeling. BEV powertrain costs were
sourced from teardown studies, the current body of literature, and their expert evaluations. When
IRA tax credits including the Commercial Clean Vehicle Credit as well as the production tax
credit for domestically made batteries are included, all of the BEVs considered by Roush except
the long range Class 8 sleeper cab in MY 2032 were the same price or cheaper than
their counterpart ICE vehicles and BEV long rang Class 8 sleeper cab in MY 2032 is projected to
be less than a $10,000 increase in cost relative to the diesel ICE vehicle. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1644-A1, p. 32-33]
TCO of BEVs is significantly lower than diesel ICE across all segments in 2030-32
The TCO per mile for BEVs is between 17 and 35% lower than the corresponding ICE
vehicle. Roush used the U.S. Energy Information Administration's Annual Energy Outlook 2023
reference case values for electricity and diesel prices. To be conservative they removed the fuel
tax from the diesel price to better compare equal fuel costs. Roush calculated maintenance costs
for BEVs as 30% lower than ICE vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 32-33] [See
Figure 3 on p. 34 of Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1]
All of the BEV tractors have a payback period of less than 3 years.
All tractors included in this analysis have attractive payback periods of less than three years.
Due to the high annual mileage and the corresponding high fuel and maintenance savings, BEV
tractors quickly payback any increased upfront costs associated with their powertrains or EVSE
equipment and save fleet owners money for the majority of the vehicles' lifetimes. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 35] [See Table 4 on p. 35 of Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1644-A1]
Substantial lifetime net savings from BEV adoption over ICEV demonstrate the potential for
sustained benefits for fleet owners
The vehicles considered in Roush's study also demonstrate that BEV tractors provide
impressive lifetime savings. Figure 4 shows the extent of savings possible over the life of the
vehicle. A Class 8 long-range sleeper cab purchased in 2030 could see up to $153,000 in savings
over its life. The lifetime savings estimates also demonstrate the limitations in using a pure
payback period metric for assessing adoption likelihood. For vehicles with high mileage over
their lifetime, BEVs provide an even more significant cost savings opportunity. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 36] [See Figure 4 on p. 36 of Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1644-A1]
Higher annual operational VMTs lead to an even shorter payback period for BEVs.
311
-------
The annual VMT used in the Roush study matches EPA and is the 10 year average annual
VMT This represents a conservative estimate of the potential benefits BEVs can provide. For the
long range Class 8 day cab, the study assumes the vehicle travels just under 48,000 miles per
year which, using EPA's 250 driving days per year, this corresponds with 190 miles per day even
though the battery is sized to travel around 400 miles per day. If the vehicle drove 20% more
annually, or 57,000 miles per year, it would reduce the payback period by a third - to less than 2
years. Currently, tractors drive the most miles in the first few years and then are transitioned to
operations such as drayage with fewer miles.91 This is partly due to the higher maintenance
costs of vehicles as they age. BEVs have significantly fewer moving parts and reduced
maintenance costs and as a result owners may decide to leave BEVs in higher annual mileage
operations increasing their potential savings relative to ICEVs. [EP A-HQ-0 AR-2022-0985-
1644-A1, p. 37]
91 Population and Activity of Onroad Vehicles in MOVES3. 2021. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Assessments and Standards Division.
https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P101 lTF8.pdf
BEVs have a lower TCO per mile even with significant enroute charging.
The report includes a scenario that investigates the impact on TCO and payback period if
vehicles were assumed to use enroute charging for part of the time. The scenario assumes
vehicles charge 70% at a depot and 30% enroute using a highspeed, 3 MW charger. Roush used
an enroute charging electricity price of $0.23/kWh based on a December 2022 NREL study
entitled "Estimating the Breakeven Cost of Delivered Electricity to Charge Class 8 Electric
Tractors."92 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 38] [See Figure 6 on p. 38 of Docket
Number EP A-HQ-0 AR-2022-0985-1644-A1 ]
92 Jesse Bennett et al. Estimating the Breakeven Cost of Delivered Electricity To Charge Class 8 Electric
Tractors. 2022. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy23osti/82092.pdf
(Attachment FF)
Even with higher electricity prices, BEV tractors still showed significant savings relative to
ICEVs with TCOs 9% to 20% lower. The payback periods remain attractive in the mixed
charging scenarios. All tractors have a payback period less than 5 years. [EP A-HQ-0 AR-2022-
0985-1644-A1, p. 38] [See Table 5 on p. 39 of Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-
Al]
BEV tractors will have comparable cargo capacity to conventional vehicles.
The advancements in battery chemistry and pack construction are highly likely to
significantly improve the energy density of the battery pack between 2023 and 2030. Lighter
batteries combined with the 2,000 lb gross vehicle weight exemption for BEVs, will minimally
affect the cargo capacity of BEVs. As is shown in Figure 7, even the vehicle with the largest
battery in the study, the long-range Class 8 sleeper cab, will see a 1,200 lb reduction in payload.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 39] [See Figure 7 on p. 39 of Docket Number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1]
A number of other studies support the findings in Roush's analysis. A 2021 study from NREL
looked at all classes and segments of medium- and heavy-duty vehicles and estimated that
tractors could reach TCO parity with their diesel counterparts by 2025.93 Another study by the
North American Council for Freight Efficiency (NACFE) concluded that a BEV short haul
312
-------
tractor purchased in 2022 would save more than $9,000 annually on fuel costs compared to a
diesel truck.94 Both of these studies occurred before the passage of the IRA. A 2023 study by
ICCT, which included the economic benefits of the IRA, found that by 2030, the TCO of BEV
long-haul trucks will likely be lower than that of their diesel counterparts in all representative
states considered in the analysis.95 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 40-41]
93 Chad Hunter, Michael Penev, Evan Reznicek, Jason Lustbader, Alicia Birky, and Chen Zhang. 2021.
Spatial and Temporal Analysis of the Total Cost of Ownership for Class 8 Tractors and Class 4 Parcel
Delivery Trucks, Nation Renewable Energy Lab, Technical Report.
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/71796.pdf (Attachment R)
94 North American Council for Freight Efficiency. 2022. Electric Trucks Have Arrived: The Use Case for
Heavy-Duty Regional Haul Tractors, https://nacfe.org/heavy-duty-regional-haul-tractors/
95 Basma, H., Buysse, C., Zhou, Y., Rodriguez, F., Total Cost of Ownership of Alternative Powertrain
Technologies for Class 8 Long-Haul Trucks in the United States, ICCT, April 2023,
https://theicct.org/publication/tco-alt-powertrain-long-haul-trucks-us-apr23/ (Attachment S).
The majority of tractors drive daily distances that allow for their transition to BEV in the
timeframe of the proposed rule
Tractor use is not homogenous; daily mileage can range from less than 50 miles a day to over
500 miles a day. Understanding this distribution is vital to setting standards given the impact
battery range has on vehicle price. EDF used the U.S. Department of Transportation's 2002
Vehicle Inventory and Use Survey (VIUS) and the California Air Resources Board's Large
Entity Fleet Reporting to better understand the maximum distances that vehicles travel in a day
and calculate the percentage of the fleet that is electrifiable based on VMT and battery range
from Roush.96 97 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 41]
96 Vehicle Inventory and Use Survey 2002. U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation
Statistics, 2004, https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/42632
97 California Air Resources Board. 2022. Large Entity Fleet Reporting: Statewide Aggregated Data.
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-02/Large_Entity_Reporting_Aggregated_Data_ADA.pdf
VIUS asked vehicle owners to assign percentage of trips that vehicle stook over the year to a
set of trip lengths (less than 50 miles, 51 to 100 miles, 101 to 200 miles, 201 to 500 miles, and
more than 500 miles). We divided the tractors into day and sleeper cabs. To take into
consideration the higher mileage vehicles drive at the beginning of their life compared to the end,
we only included vehicles in the first 5 years of their use. This left the dataset with 7,840 tractors
- 58% sleeper cab and 42% day cab. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 41]
We calculated the 90th percentile of daily trip distances for vehicles allowing for 10% of daily
trip lengths to be in the category one above. For example, if a vehicle reported 95% of its trips
were between 51 to 100 miles and 5% were 101 to 200 miles, then that vehicle's 90th
percentile trip length was 51 to 100 miles. However, if instead the 5% was in 201 to 500 miles,
the 90th percentile trip length was 101 to 200 miles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 41-
42]
The analysis found that a significant share of tractors, particularly day cab tractors, travel
daily distances that are easily electrifiable - 42% of day cabs traveled less than 100 miles a day
and 63% traveled less than 200 miles a day. For sleeper cabs, 10% traveled less than 200 miles a
313
-------
day and roughly one third (34%) traveled less than 500 miles a day. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1644-A1, p. 42]
While the VIUS represents the most comprehensive source, it is reporting data that is more
than 20 years old. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) collected data operational
practices from 2019 in 2021 via an online portal. This report included 61,782 tractors. They
asked the fleets responding to estimate the daily mileage for their vehicles. CARB found 31% of
day cabs traveled less than 100 miles a day, 49% traveled less than 150 miles a day, 62%
traveled less than 200 miles a day, and 78% traveled less than 300 miles a day. Additionally,
their results found that 14% of sleeper cabs traveled less than 200 miles a day and 28% traveled
less than 300 miles a day. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 42]
The lines in Figure 8 shows the relationship between percent of trips for VIUS and CARB day
and sleeper cabs with daily mileage. There is fairly large agreement between the two datasets and
in particular the shape of the curves, day cabs as concave and sleeper cabs as convex, is the same
between the two datasets. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 42] [See Figure 8 on p. 43 of
Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1]
The Roush report includes two battery sizes for each of the three types of tractors considered:
Class 7, Class 8 day cabs, and Class 8 sleeper cabs. Since Roush does not include temperature
considerations in their analysis, we have reduced the battery range by 10% to be conservative.
We used two datasets discussed above, VIUS and CARB, to calculate the % of each tractor and
battery size combination could cover based on their daily mileages. Table 6 below, includes the
ranges from the Roush report, the conservative battery range, and the % of vehicles each tractor
could cover. The VIUS dataset allows for differentiation between Class 7 and Class 8 vehicles,
however the % of trips covered by each mileage category is virtual identical between Class 7 and
Class 8 vehicles so the combined category of day cabs was plotted in Figure 8. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 43]
As shown in Figure 8 and in Table 6, a significant share of tractors, both day and sleeper, are
readily electrifiable by 2030. The longer range battery for Class 7 tractors, 225 miles,
corresponds with covering 66% of daily mileages day cabs. For Class 8 day cabs, a battery with
a range of 405 miles would accommodate 87% of all day cab tractors and their daily mileage
requirements. For Class 8 sleeper cabs, 38% of vehicles drive less than 495 miles per day.
Combined, this accounts for 57% of all tractors using EPA's sales estimates for the 12 tractor
types included in HD TRUCS. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 44] [See Table 6 on p.
44 and Figure 8 on p. 43 of Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1]
iii. EPA should set the vocational vehicle standard at a level that reflects the feasibility of
greater deployment of school buses and transit buses
There is also a critical opportunity for EPA to strengthen the standards for transit and school
buses to ensure that 80% of new school and transit buses are ZEV by 2029 and 90% by 2032.
The technology is available today and substantial federal, state and local funding opportunities
will make the transition entirely feasible and cost-effective over the timeframe of the rule. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 47]
2. Significant federal and state funding supports more protective standards for buses
314
-------
There are already thousands of zero-emitting school buses on our roads and across our school
districts today, in large part because of significant federal and state funding opportunities.
According to WRI, there are more than 5,600 electric school buses in the U.S either on
order, delivered or operating. Ill Many of these commitments and orders have come in the last
year and much of the growth is due to EPA's Clean School Bus Program. With funding from the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, EPA's Clean School Bus Program provides $5 billion over five
years (FY 2022-2026) to replace existing school buses with zero-emission and low-emission
models. 112 The program has already awarded over $900 million for more than 2,400 electric
school buses across 389 school districts. 113 As a result of federal, state and local funding and
incentives, there are now electric school bus commitments in all 50 states, Washington, D.C.,
American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico the U.S. Virgin Islands and four tribal nations including
the Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, Lower Brule Sioux
Tribe and the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 48-49]
111 Lydia Freehafer and Leah Lazer. The State of Electric School Bus Adoption in the US, World
Resources Institute, (April 26, 2023). https://www.wri.org/insights/where-electric-school-buses-us
112 EPA, Clean School Bus Program, https://www.epa.gov/cleanschoolbus.
113 Electric School Bus Initiative, All About the Clean School Bus Program,
https://electricschoolbusinitiative.org/all-about-clean-school-bus-program.
States municipalities are also helping create momentum toward electrification of the bus
sector. California's Innovative Clean Transportation (ICT) regulation was adopted in December
2018 and requires all public transit agencies to gradually transition to a 100 percent zero
emission bus (ZEB) fleet. 114 Beginning in 2029, 100% of new purchases by transit agencies
must be ZEBs, with a goal for full transition by 2040. Through the deployment of zero-emission
technologies, the ICT regulation will provide significant benefits across the state, including
reducing NOx and GHG emissions, especially in transit-dependent and disadvantaged
communities. California is also helping to fund the transition to ZEBs. The 2022-23 State Budget
included a total of $150 million for incentives for the procurement of zero-emission school buses
and associated infrastructure, $135 million of which will be administered through CARB's Clean
Truck and Bus Voucher Incentive Project (HVIP), and $15 million of which will be administered
through the California Energy Commission's Energy Infrastructure Incentives for Zero-Emission
Commercial Vehicles (EnerglIZE) Project. 115 WRI estimates that HVIP has funded 1,032 zero-
emitting school buses to date.116 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 49-50]
114 California Air Resources Board, Innovative Clean Transit Regulation Fact Sheet (My 16, 2019),
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/fact-sheets/innovative-clean-transit-ict-regulation-fact-sheet.
115 California Energy Commission, Work Group Meeting #2 to Discuss the FY-22-23 Incentives for
ZeroOEmission Public School Buses and Supporting Infrastructure,
https://www.energy.ca.gOv/event/workshop/2023-05/work-group-meeting-2-discuss-fy-22-23-incentives-
zero-emission-public-school.
116 Lydia Freehafer and Leah Lazer. The State of Electric School Bus Adoption in the US, World
Resources Institute, (April 26, 2023). https://www.wri.org/insights/where-electric-school-buses-us
New York has also set commitments and invested significantly in electrifying buses. In their
2022-2023 budget, New York State established a commitment of purchasing only zero emission
school buses starting in 2027 with the intention of transition their entire fleet by 2035. New York
State currently has 42,000 school buses and transports 2.3 million students annually. 117 Transit
315
-------
authorities across the U.S. have set 100% zero-emission bus fleet commitments. The transit
agencies for New York City (MTA), Chicago (CTA), and Philadelphia (SEPTA) have all
committed to transitioning their entire bus fleets to zero-emission vehicles by 2040.118 119 120
In Washington, D.C., WMATA has set a target of a fully zero-emission fleet by 2045 with only
zero-emission bus purchases starting in 2030.121 King County Metro which serves Seattle and
CapMetro which serves Austin plan to have 100% zero-emission fleets by 2035.122 123 A
strong final rule must leverage this momentum and ensure that 90% of new school and transit
buses are zero-emitting by 2032. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 50]
117 New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, Electric School Buses,
https://www.nyserda.ny.gov/All-Programs/Electric-School-
Buses# :~:text=New%20 Y ork%20 State' s%20fiscal%20y ear,to%20be%20electric%20by%20203 5.
118 Metropolitan Transportation Authority, MTA Zero-Emission Bus Transition Plan,
https: //new. mta. info/document/91336.
119 Chicago Transit Authority, Electric Buses: We're Electrifying Our Bus Fleet,
https://www.transitchicago.com/electricbus/.
120 Tom MacDonald, SEPTA Gets $24 Million for Adapting Bus Depots for Electric and Hybrid Vehicles,
WHYY (Sep. 6, 2022), https://whyy.org/articles/philadelphia-septa-bus-depot-upgrades-electric-hybrid-
vehicles/#:~:text=SEPTA%20General%20Manager%20Leslie%20Richards,by%202040%2C%E2%80%9
D%20Richards%20said.
121 Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, Zero-Emission Buses,
https://www.wmata.com/initiatives/plans/zero-emission-buses.cfm
122 King County Metro, Transitioning to a Zeo-Emissions Fleet,
https://kingcounty.gov/depts/transportation/metro/programs-projects/innovation-technology/zero-emission-
fleet.aspx.
123 City of Austin, Transportation Electrification Goals,
https://data.austintexas.gOv/stories/s/Transportation-Electrification-Goal-l/99ez-x3te/.
3. When likely lower battery costs relative to EPA's modeling are taken into consideration, a
more protective school and transit bus standard is reasonable and readily justified.
In the medium- and heavy-duty electrification study performed for EDF in early 2022,124
Roush projected that by 2027, battery electric (BE) school buses and transit buses would have
lower up-front costs than their diesel counterparts. 125 This was prior to the IRA tax credits for
battery production and vehicle purchase. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 51]
124 Vishnu Nair, Sawyer Stone, Gary Rogers, Sajit Pillai. 2022. Medium and Heavy-Duty Electrification
Costs for MY 2027- 2030, Roush Industries for Environmental Defense Fund. See
http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/files/2022/02/EDF-MDHD-Electrification-vl.6_20220209.pdf.
125 Vishnu Nair, Sawyer Stone, Gary Rogers, Sajit Pillai. 2022. Medium and Heavy-Duty Electrification
Costs for MY 2027- 2030, Roush for Environmental Defense Fund.
The BE school bus examined by Roush had a relatively small 60 kWh battery. This was
deemed sufficient for many applications that involve the local transport of students. EPA's
methodology assumes school bus segments have larger batteries, 102-166 kWh.126 Using
Roush's battery cost estimates, and accounting for these larger batteries, BE school buses would
still have lower up-front costs than diesel school buses again without any tax credits. Even
accounting for the cost of the charger and installation leaves the BE school bus cheaper for the
316
-------
102 kWh battery and only $1000 more expensive with a 166 kWh battery. The IRA vehicle tax
credit would not apply in these cases, but the battery production and charging infrastructure
credits could, making it highly likely that the BE school bus would have an immediate
payback. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 51]
126 See supra pg. 55.
The BE transit bus examined by Roush had a smaller battery (400 kWh) than those evaluated
by EPA in this proposal (605-649 kWh).127 Again, using Roush's cost estimates and accounting
for these larger batteries, Roush's BE transit bus would only cost $8,000-$ 11,000 more than a
diesel transit bus, again without any tax credits. The IRA vehicle tax credit brings the BE transit
bus to price parity with the diesel. The cost of the charger and installation is more substantial for
a BE transit bus, $130,000 per bus without the IRA tax credit and $90,000 with the tax credit.
However, the annual fuel and maintenance savings are substantial, resulting in a 1-2 year
payback period with either battery size. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 51-52]
127 Vishnu Nair, Sawyer Stone, Gary Rogers, Sajit Pillai. 2022. Medium and Heavy-Duty Electrification
Costs for MY 2027- 2030, Roush for Environmental Defense Fund.
When these significant cost reductions relative to EPA's current modeling are taken into
consideration, a more protective school and transit bus standard is reasonable and easily
justified. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 52]
Organization: Environmental Protection Network (EPN)
EPN strongly supports EPA's proposal but believes that it could go substantially further. The
revision of the greenhouse gas standards for HDV is a unique opportunity to closely align
emission reductions in the sector with President Biden's stated goal of reducing emissions 50-
52% below 2005 levels by 2030. A recent study by the International Council on Clean
Transportation (ICCT) presented several possible scenarios for the standards, estimates each
scenario's potential to align with U.S. climate goals, and quantifies the associated air quality and
health benefits through 2050.3 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1523-A1, p. 1]
3 'Potential Benefits Of The U.S. Phase 3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Regulation For Heavy-Duty
Vehicles,' Pierre-Louis Ragon et al. (April 14, 2023)
The analysis finds that fully aligning the sector with climate goals would require a 55% ZEV
sales share in 2030, including a 40% ZEV sales share for long-haul tractors. More stringent
greenhouse gas emission reduction targets can be met by a combination of ZEV uptake and
internal combustion engine efficiency improvements. The analysis finds that cost-effective
internal combustion engine vehicle improvements of up to 25% for tractors and 31% for
vocational trucks can be achieved beyond 2027. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1523-A1, p. 1]
The proposed heavy-duty truck proposal will reduce carbon pollution by 1.8 billion metric
tons, roughly equivalent to the annual emissions of 480 coal-burning power plants, achieving
$180-$320 billion in benefits. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1523-A1, p. 2]
Strong State Support
The ambitious EPA standards are well supported by state-based policy pillars already in
place. For example, for commercial trucks and buses, a group of states representing 36% of the
317
-------
U.S. heavy-duty vehicle market signed a coordinated agreement to achieve 30% electric sales of
commercial trucks and buses by 2030 and 100% by 2050 with an emphasis on the need to
accelerate deployment in disadvantaged communities.5 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1523-A1,
p. 2]
5 'Multi-State Medium- and Heavy-Duty Zero Emission Vehicle - Memorandum of Understanding,'
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-07/Multistate-Truck-ZEV-Governors-MOU-20200714.pdf
California now requires 68% of new car sales and 45% of new truck sales to be zero
emissions by 2030. California's new clean car and truck emissions rules have been adopted by
Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon and Washington, amplifying their impact for
tens of millions of additional drivers and their vehicles. Just recently, Colorado joined the group.
This means the California standards requiring much more stringent greenhouse gas standards
will cover around 40% of the light-duty and 36% of the heavy-duty vehicle (Class 2b-8?)
markets. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1523-A1, p. 2]
Battery Electric Trucks and Buses Will Save Money The Environmental Defense Fund
recently commissioned an analysis6 by Roush Industries to evaluate the cost of electrifying
vehicles in several medium and HDV market segments, specifically those concentrated in urban
areas, in the 2027-2030 timeframe. These included transit buses, school buses, shuttle buses,
delivery vans, delivery trucks, and refuse haulers. The analysis concluded that electric vehicles
are cost competitive with diesel vehicles in all vehicle segments examined, and in most cases at
the time of purchase in 2027. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1523-A1, p. 3]
6 'Technical Review of Medium and Heavy Duty Electrification Costs for MY 2027-2030, Final Report',
Vishnu Nair et al. Roushlndustries, Inc., (February 2, 2022)
Another recent analysis by ICCT finds that by 2030, the Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) of
battery electric long-haul trucks will likely be lower than that of their diesel counterparts. 7
Despite their higher upfront price, battery electric trucks have substantially lower operational
expenses than the other trucks studied due to their higher energy efficiency and lower
maintenance costs. For very high daily mileages, battery electric trucks can still achieve a better
total cost of ownership than their diesel counterparts despite the larger battery size
required. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1523-A1, p. 3]
7 'Total Cost Of Ownership Of Alternative Powertrain Technologies For Class 8 Long-Haul Trucks In The
United States', Hussein Basma et al. (April 27, 2023).
Among heavy-duty commercial vehicles, electric trucks and buses will be cheaper TCOs than
their diesel counterparts between 2024 and 2030 depending on the vehicle segment. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1523-A1, p. 3]
Major Truck Manufacturers Compete Globally, Must Meet Tightest Standards The largest
truck manufacturers, including Navistar, Volvo, and Daimler, compete globally and therefore are
working to meet the world's toughest standards. Today, those include the European Union (EU)
and California, both of which are more stringent than the EPA proposal. The EU will require
100% zero emissions HDV by 2040 and California by 2036. [See the Overall HDV sales in the
EU and the US graphic on p. 3 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1523-A1] [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1523-A1, p. 3]
318
-------
Ambitious EPA Standards Helped By Converging Pillars The bipartisan Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) adds $100 billion for EV and clean energy policy. The Inflation
Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA) includes about $370 billion in climate investments to decarbonize
the power and transportation sectors. The law offers up to $7,500 to buy new EVs and up to
$4,000 for used EVs, along with tax credits of up to $40,000 for commercial ZEVs and $100,000
for truck charging stations. An additional $1 billion provides funding for zero-emission school
buses, heavy-duty trucks and public transit buses. Finally, billions of dollars will be invested in
manufacturing loans and investment in EVs and domestic fuel cell production. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1523-A1, p. 5]
A new study by ICCT and Energy Innovation (EI) modeled how the IRA will drive new EV
sales, finding that IRA incentives mean sales of new heavier commercial EVs, like tractor
trailers, school buses, and delivery vans, could likewise rise dramatically to represent 38% to
48% of new vehicle sales. 10 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1523-A1, p. 5]
10 'Analyzing The Impact Of The Inflation Reduction Act On Electric Vehicle Uptake In The United
States', Peter Slowik et al. (January 31, 2023).
For HDV, it considers states that have adopted California's ACT rule and ZEV targets. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1523-A1, p. 5]
For both the light- and heavy-duty sectors, the analysis shows rapid electric vehicle uptake
when considering both expected manufacturing cost reductions and the IRA incentives, as well
as state policies. By 2030, for heavy-duty, ZEV sales shares are estimated to range from 39% to
48% by 2030 and from 44% to 52% by 2032. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1523-A1, p. 5]
The impact of the IRA and IIJA provide strong support for EPA setting more stringent Phase
3 heavy-duty vehicle greenhouse gas standards than would have been possible otherwise, at
lower cost and higher benefit to consumers and manufacturers. To meet climate goals, federal
standards would need to drive electrification rates above 40% by 2030 for HDV. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1523-A1, p. 5]
Heavy Duty Electric Trucks Are Already Entering the Market Global model availability for
medium and heavy-duty EVs rose from 609 models to 808 models available for purchase
between 2021 until the end of 2022. Additionally, CALSTART estimates that the U.S. and
Canada will experience steady growth from 166 models to 213 models available for purchase
between 2021 and 2023.11 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1523-A1, p. 6]
11 'Electric Vehicle Market Update:, April 2023.
Pride Group, the second largest refuse fleet in the U.S., ordered 200 Freightliner eCascadia
Class 8 electric trucks and 50 Freightliner eM2 Class 6-7 electric trucks starting in mid-2023,
with the intention of switching its local delivery fleet to 100% EVs within the next one to two
years. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1523-A1, p. 6]
Volvo Trucks has received a record order for up to 1,000 electric trucks including 130 heavy-
duty electric trucks to be delivered by the end of the decade. 12 The order, the largest commercial
order to date for Volvo electric trucks, was placed by Swiss-based Holcim, a global manufacturer
of building solutions. The first 130 electric trucks to be delivered by the end of 2024 will be the
heavy-duty electric Volvo FH and Volvo FM trucks, which boast an electric range of up to 300
kilometers depending on what is being carried. Both trucks can move up to 44 tonnes of gross
319
-------
combination weight (GCW). It is expected that by replacing 1,000 of Holcim's existing Volvo
FH diesel trucks with Volvo FH electric trucks using green electricity along a typical route, up to
50,000 tonnes of C02 could be saved each year. Jan Jenisch, the chairman and CEO of Holcim,
said the company aims to reach a share of 30% of zero-emission heavy-duty trucks by
2030. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1523-A1, p. 6]
12 'Volvo secures record order for 1,000 electric trucks', Joshua S. Hill, The Driven (May 23, 2023).
Volvo trucks set a global target of 50% of total sales by 2030 with higher targets of 70% in
North America and Europe. Navistar has set a goal of 50 percent heavy-duty ZEV sales by 2030
and 100%) EV or fossil free by 2040. Daimler, the leading manufacturer of heavy-duty class 8
trucks in the U.S., has committed to offering only carbon-neutral trucks and buses in the U.S. by
2039 and has allocated $85 billion toward this goal. Tesla plans to produce 50,000 units annually
of its semi Class 8 electric truck starting in 2024 after a one-year ramp up, with 36 delivered to
Pepsi in December 2022. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1523-A1, p. 6]
Organization: Evergreen Action
As you know, emissions from the freight system as a whole including heavy-duty vehicles,
but extending to locomotives, off-road equipment, and marine vessels, is a pressing
environmental justice and climate risk. The EPA has not yet articulated plans for emissions
standards for the other elements of the system, fully approved all relevant California waivers for
the California Air Resources Board's rules for many of these sectors, or articulated incentive
programs under the Inflation Reduction Act that can comprehensively address pollution burden.
As a result, emissions have, for years, continued to rise - leaving regions from the Inland Empire
to California's Central Valley, to Colorado's Front Range, to Wisconsin's southeast warehouse
belt, to New York City's Hunts Point market, either out of attainment with federal health
standards, or perilously close to health violations. This proposed rule needs to be strengthened
and finalized, as part of a comprehensive approach to freight emissions, as communities
burdened by pollution have, for years, demanded. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1595-A1, p. 1]
Accordingly, as a down payment on this urgent larger effort, we believe the final rule should
drive greater emissions reductions than currently proposed, and chart a path to zero emission
vehicles for all vehicle classes. Given the current state of zero emissions vehicle technology and
the billions of dollars available through recent federal investments to help truck manufacturers
and fleet managers transition to clean vehicles, there is ample opportunity to compel greater
emissions reductions. Major engine manufacturers and fleet owners have come forward with
their own commitments to transition to zero emissions fleets by the end of the next decade,
which means greater emissions reductions than proposed in this rule can be achieved now. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1595-A1, pp. 1-2]
Trucks continue to be the main vehicle for goods movement across the country, and truck
emissions continue to impede progress on national ambient air quality standards, which could be
overcome with stronger regulations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1595-A1, p. 2]
We urge the administration to strengthen this rule to better align with commitments from
multiple states to achieve a dramatic reduction in heavy duty vehicle emissions over the next
decade. In particular, this rule does not go far enough to address emissions from long haul
tractors, which state-based policies do. While EPA's proposal only requires that 10%> of long
320
-------
haul tractors become electric by model year 2030, California's Advanced Clean Truck (ACT)
rule, recently granted a waiver for enforcement by EPA, requires that 30% of long haul tractors
be electrified by 2030. California is not alone in amining to curb truck pollution far ahead of
EPA's schedule, as 7 other states have signed on to the ACT rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1595-A1, p. 2]
California also continues to set the pace and prove that heavy duty vehicles can be electrified,
as the Advanced Clean Fleets (ACF) rule was approved in April, mandating 100 percent new
vehicle electrification for all on-road heavy duty vehicle classes by 2036, and a full transition to
zero emissions trucks (new and existing) across approximately half the state's fleets by 2045.
This set of standards, rooted in extensive evidence and analysis, must inform EPA's own
stringency considerations as it finalizes this rule. Although we recognize that the full national
market is somewhat behind California's, the adoption of the ACT rule in many states, the likely
adoption of the ACF rule in the same places, parallel rules and efforts globally, and the resulting
massive pivot to electrification among manufacturers all argue for a rule far more ambitious than
EPA's proposal, which projects limited electrification into the early 2030s and then stops with no
final electrification target. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1595-A1, pp. 2-3]
Indeed, beyond commitments from coastal states, there is national interest in transitioning
away from heavily polluting trucks and adopting the latest zero emissions technology,
demonstrated in 2020 by the 15 states along with Puerto Rico and Washington DC that signed on
to the medium and heavy duty vehicle MOU. This multi-state MOU sets a goal to transition to 30
percent of medium and heavy duty vehicles being electric by 2030, and accounts for nearly a
quarter of the national truck market. Given these clear signals of interest to adopt zero emissions
trucks by both states and industry actors, EPA should increase the stringency of this rule to
match the pace of electric vehicle adoption [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1595-A1, p. 3]
Organization: Ford Motor Company
Ford believes the Phase 3 GHG standards will facilitate the transition to electrified and zero-
emission vehicles (ZEVs) across the industry, reduce GHG emissions from heavy-duty vehicles,
and reduce criteria emissions even beyond the recently finalized heavy-duty criteria emissions
standards. Ford supports the 2032 endpoint in the main proposal of the Phase 3 Proposal,
including the numeric standards which may result in 50 percent of new heavy-duty vocational
vehicles being zero-emission vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1565-A1, p. 2]
Finally, beyond the regulation proposed here, we encourage EPA, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, and California to harmonize their GHG standards, fuel economy
standards, and ZEV requirements. Each of these requirements are ultimately regulating the same
aspects of the same vehicles and fleets, at the same time. During this extraordinary period of
transition, automakers need harmonization between these programs. We are concerned that well-
intentioned but technically contradictory rules from different agencies—especially those
designed to continue to eke out improvements on internal combustion vehicles—will divert
resources from electrification and slow down the development, manufacture, and sale of heavy-
duty ZEVs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1565-A1, p. 3]
Program Target ZEV Percentage
321
-------
Ford supports the 2032MY GHG emission standards in EPA's main proposal and the
associated 50 percent vocational vehicle ZEV sales target in 2032MY. This target is ambitious
but likely feasible given current knowledge and projections about heavy-duty ZEV adoption and
the lead time that will be required to develop, launch, and scale new technologies and heavy-duty
vehicle programs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1565-A1, p. 4]
However, Ford does not believe that a 60 percent vocational vehicle ZEV sales target is
feasible nationwide in 2032MY. While this is the sales requirement in California's ACT
regulation, California has already invested and continues to invest significantly in medium-duty
and heavy-duty ZEV charging and fueling infrastructure and incentives for customers to more
rapidly adopt heavy-duty ZEVs (for recent examples, see California Energy Commission's $1.7
billion for medium- and heavy-duty ZEV infrastructure in 2022 - 2026, or California Air
Resources Board's $2.6 billion for clean transportation including a Zero-Emission Truck Loan
Pilot, building on the existing Truck Loan Assistance Program). California's recently finalized
Advanced Clean Fleets (ACF) regulation will also drive fleets to purchase more heavy-duty
ZEVs, further supporting the feasibility of the manufacturer sales requirements in ACT. A
handful of other states have adopted ACT and may adopt ACF, but in general other individual
states have not made investments to support heavy-duty ZEVs at the same level as California.
Other parts of the US may also have colder climates or different industry composition that are
less conducive to heavy-duty ZEVs. Without these supporting factors, customer acceptance of
heavy-duty ZEVs nationally is likely to lag that of California, and a 60 percent vocational
vehicle sales target is much less feasible for the US as a whole by 2032MY. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1565-A1, p. 4-5]
Organization: GreenLatinos et al.
For Greenhouse gas (GHG) Phase 3 HDV standards, we urge the U.S. EPA to finalize the
strongest possible cleaner trucks standards. The standards must require tighter limits on diesel
vehicles, so that we're making diesel trucks increasingly cleaner as manufacturers transition to
zero pollution vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2665-A1, p. 1]
The strongest possible HDV and L/MDV standards will help reach the urgent goal to cut
greenhouse gas emissions by 60% by 2030 and will put American cars and trucks on a clear path
towards achieving 100% zero emission electric vehicle (EV) sales by 2035 or earlier. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-2665-A1, p. 2]
Organization: International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT)
IMPROVEMENTS IN ICE EFFICIENCY BEYOND PHASE 2 REQUIREMENTS EPA
proposes Phase 3 greenhouse gas standards that do not reflect the adoption of new efficiency
technologies for internal combustion engines and vehicles beyond those required to meet existing
Phase 2 standards. EPA identified a range of technology packages with payback periods no
greater than two-years when it finalized its Phase 2 standards in 2016. We find that
manufacturers have been able to meet the standards without utilizing all technologies identified
in the Phase 2 rule. Our research suggests that utilizing these and other technologies provide a
potential additional improvement in ICE vehicle efficiency up to 23% in the high-roof sleeper
cab vehicle category or up to 13% if we exclude engine efficiency improvements. Our research
also suggests a potential ICE vehicle efficiency improvement of up to 31% for a diesel-fueled
322
-------
Class 6 multi-purpose vocational vehicle or up to a 20% improvement excluding engine
efficiency gains. Certain strategies - including aerodynamic and tire efficiency improvements -
are even more likely to be adopted because they can cost-effectively reduce the cost and increase
the range of zero-emission vehicles. We conservatively estimate that incorporating such
additional technologies in the stringency of the proposed rule - not including engine technology
improvements - would generate an additional 537 million tonnes of cumulative C02 emissions
avoided between 2020 and 2050. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1553-A1, pp. 3-4]
We consider the market forecast of ZEV sales that informs this rule to be an upper limit on
ZEV deployment in light of the fact EPA has not accounted for any deployment of vehicle
efficiency technologies. For every 1% efficiency improvement due to technologies like
aerodynamic drag reduction, for example, we estimate the projected ZEV sales share would
decline by 0.8% for Class 8 high roof sleeper-cab tractors. EPA can provider greater certainty its
ZEV market forecast will be met by adjusting the stringency of its rule to reflect cost-effective
ICE efficiency improvements beyond those required to meet Phase 2 standards. Our analysis
suggests that a more stringent standard is feasible based on the well-established technology
potential we and the agency have previously identified. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1553-A1, p.
4]
Organization: International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America (UAW)
II. Barriers to Compliance
The EPA's proposed GHG emissions standards for heavy-duty vehicles set out an ambitious
target for ZEV adoption. While the proposed standards are performance-based and do not
mandate the use of a specific technology, compliance all but requires the increased adoption of
ZEV technologies. The EPA projects that one potential pathway for the industry to meet the
proposed standards would be through the following mix of ZEV and ICE vehicles: [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1596-A1, p. 5] [See Table about ZEV Share Projection on p. 5 of Docket
Number EP A-HQ-0 AR-2022-0985-1596-A1 ]
14 Supra note 1 at 25932.
While GHG emissions standards seek to hold manufacturers accountable, many of the factors
that make compliance feasible are outside of the control of manufacturers. These factors include
consumer demand for EVs (market penetration), reliable charging infrastructure, grid capacity,
energy costs, or the costs of key inputs, such as batteries or critical minerals. Together, under the
proposed standards, these variables will serve as substantial obstacles to OEM compliance. The
UAW supports using regulation to bring new technology to heavy-duty fleets, so long as the
technology is proven and cost effective; regulatory timelines are feasible; and manufacturers
have flexibility to meet stringency requirements through multiple technology pathways. Through
balanced rules, it is possible to take feasibility into account while still making substantial
reductions in GHG emissions and meeting key long-term targets. As the EPA highlights,
manufacturers have declared their commitment to long-term emissions reductions
and electrification targets, but the pathway to those targets must be feasible and strengthen
domestic manufacturing. Therefore, we encourage the EPA to calibrate the standards so that the
projected adoption of ZEVs reflects more feasible alternatives, increases more gradually, and
occurs over a greater period of time. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1596-A1, p. 5-6]
323
-------
A. EV Market Penetration
The proposed standards' anticipated adoption of ZEVs is incongruent with the current and
projected heavy-duty vehicle market. According to the U.S. Energy Information
Administration's (EIA) Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) sales estimates from the 2022 AEO
report, the battery electric vehicle (BEV), fuel cell electric vehicle (FCEV), hybrid, and alternate
fuel vehicle share of class 3-8 vehicle sales is significantly below the proposed standards'
projections. The 2022 AEO report estimated that the 2021 sale of these vehicles did not exceed
1% in any vehicle class. 15 This suggests the current heavy-duty vehicle market is not at all
prepared for or demanding of the EPA's plan for expedited ZEV adoption. What's more, the
report projected ZEV adoption in 2050 that is significantly below the proposed standards'
projections in 2032. This suggests that the increased stringency of the proposed standards over a
short period of time is ill suited to comport with the expected demand of the heavy-duty vehicle
market. The proposed standards, therefore, pose a risk to the short- and long-term stability of the
heavy-duty vehicle market. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1596-A1, p. 6] [See Figure on p. 6 of
Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1596-A1]
15 See EPA, Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles: Phase 3 Draft Regulatory
Impact Analysis at 11 (April 2023), https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P10178RN.pdf
16 Id. at 12.
In light of these projections, we urge the EPA to continue to draw upon technical feedback
from the industry responsible for implementing this transition and calibrate the standards as
explained above. We also encourage the EPA to factor the cost of a disruption to the heavy-duty
vehicle market caused by the proposed standards into its economic impact analysis. This
contingency planning is necessary because heavy-duty vehicles are integral to the functioning of
the U.S. economy as they carry 70% of all freight moved in the country and are "expected to
move freight at an even greater rate in the future." 17 The domestic economy and heavy-duty
vehicle market depend on a reliable supply chain. The proposed standards should be better
aligned with these concerns. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1596-A1, p. 6-7]
17 Id. at 1.
Organization: Lion Electric, Co. USA
This rule will accelerate the adoption of zero-emission heavy-duty vehicles and help to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions across the United States, especially if the EPA finalizes these
standards before 2024. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1506-A1, p. 1]
U.S. Manufacturing and Acceptance of Heavy-Duty Electric Vehicles:
• The demand for battery-electric vehicles is here. Currently, Lion has a total of 2,000+
MHD BEVs on order. This number can be broken down further to 2,270 battery-electric
school buses and 295 trucks. As a result of recent policies and market trends, the U.S. is
already seeing green manufacturing facilities being created and fleets committing to
electrification in the U.S. In fact, 90 percent of the country's largest fleets committed to
fully transition to ZETs. Getting to carbon-free commercial transport | McKinsey
• The proposed Phase 3 GHG standard will encourage a quicker adoption of electric heavy-
duty vehicles in the U.S. and establish the nation as a leader in this technology. Class 6
324
-------
to Class 8 trucks are being designed and built and Lion has successfully put some of these
models on the road so customers can begin their zero-emission journey. Our vehicles are
purpose-built for electric with battery experience, design and assembly done 100 %
inhouse, and we also build our own chassis, truck cabin and bus body. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1506-A1, p. 1-2]
We believe that accelerating the adoption of MHDVs, including trucks and clean, zero-
emission school buses help address the critical climate crisis facing the U.S., create a healthier
environment, and provide financial benefits for organizations that invest in electric
vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1506-A1, p. 2]
Organization: Lynden Incorporated
We are the leading bulk milk hauler in the Pacific Northwest, responsible for picking up 2
million gallons of milk per day on rural roads for dairy farms. Any disruption in reliability of
service would be catastrophic to dairy farmers and the milk supply chain and any increase in
operating costs will quite literally raise the price of a gallon of milk and other necessities for
American families. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1470-A1, p. 3]
Similarly, we provide transportation for most of the food, medicine, and other essential goods
that reach Alaskan communities, including rural and Native Alaskan communities. This will
exacerbate the inflationary impact on food prices that we have seen in the last few years for the
people who can afford it least. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1470-A1, p. 3]
Organization: Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association (MECA)
MECA supports stringent GHG standards founded on technologically feasible and cost-
effective solutions that allow the attainment of carbon reduction goals. We concur that the
introduction, transition and widespread adoption of battery electric and fuel cell vehicles
represents a vital advancement in the decarbonization of heavy-duty vehicles. Further, we
believe an important opportunity exists to continue to reduce GHG emissions from heavy-duty
vehicles due to the evolution of engine and vehicle efficiency technologies in the 7 years since
the Phase 2 standards were last set. It is critically important for clean mobility suppliers that EPA
finalizes this rule by the end of 2023 and implements it by 2027 to align with the truck criteria
pollutant rule. This will allow for the simultaneous optimization of engine calibration and
aftertreatment designs to minimize the emissions of NOx and GHGs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1521-A1, p. 1]
MECA supports the need to reduce C02 emissions from heavy-duty vehicles by setting
technology neutral, performance standards that continue to improve the efficiency of today's
vehicles while accelerating the introduction of battery and fuel cell electric powertrains across
applications where they yield significantly lower GHG emissions as well as meet the needs of
end users. We believe the rate of electrification estimated for compliance in EPA's proposed
pathway to be ambitious and we deem that the final rule would be more robust with
consideration of additional engine and vehicle technologies in those vehicle applications that
may take longer to electrify. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1521-A1, p. 2]
325
-------
Organization: Mayor Becky Daggett, City of Flagstaff, Arizona et al
EPA should finalize the most stringent standards possible for the Multi-Pollutant Emissions
Standards for Model Years 2027 and Later Light-Duty and Medium-Duty Vehicles (LDV) and
the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles Phase 3 (HDV).
We recommend these car and truck standards:
• Be aligned on rulemaking timelines;
• Account for technological advances and cost-savings in zero-emission technologies,
including those made possible by recent legislation;
• Achieve critically necessary reductions in greenhouse gases (GHGs) and other pollutants;
and
• Be developed with thorough stakeholder involvement that ensures all affected
communities can engage in the rulemaking process. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2007]
Ambitious federal standards, coupled with actions we are taking in our cities and towns to
accelerate the use of clean vehicles, will enable our localities to more quickly cut transportation
pollution and help ensure our residents and businesses have access to zero-emission
technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2007]
Timelines — The sooner that long-term LDV and HDV standards are in place, the sooner that
vehicle manufacturers and related companies will have the regulatory certainty needed to plan
their decision-making, product development, and rollout. We urge the EPA to finalize both
standards by the end of 2023. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2007]
Technological advances and cost savings — EPA should ensure the LDV and HDV standards
reflect major advancements in zero-emission technologies. Globally, there are more than 839
different models of zero-emission vans, trucks and buses commercially available with new
models being introduced at an unprecedented rate. 1 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2007]
1 https://globaldrivetozero.org/tools/zeti-data-explorer (Accessed March 15, 2023).
Throughout the rulemaking process, EPA should also recognize and consider investments
from the recently enacted Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) and Inflation Reduction
Act (IRA). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2007]
Together, these two laws are expected to reduce adoption costs for ZEVs by providing at least
$245 billion in federal funds—through tax credits, loans, and grants—to support ZEV charging
infrastructure, manufacturing, and purchasing. Long-term regulatory certainty will push domestic
manufacturers to take full advantage of these investments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2007]
Critical pollution reductions — In 2020, the transportation sector contributed 27 percent of
total GHG emissions in the United States—more than any other single sector. Transport also
contributes over 55 percent of our nation's total nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions. NOx and
particulate matter pollution pose serious health risks, leading to devastating human health
impacts including asthma, other respiratory issues, and even premature death. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-2007]
Fast-tracking robust car and truck standards is critical for the United States to meet its GHG
targets over the coming decade, meet Clean Air Act requirements and provide long-overdue
protections for environmental justice communities. We believe that such standards would be
326
-------
consistent with the U.S. nationally determined contribution to the Paris Agreement, under which
the United States committed to cut economy-wide GHG emissions by 50 to 52 percent in 2030,
compared to 2005 levels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2007]
Outcomes — The final standards should:
• Ensure the LDV and HDV standards support greater zero-emission vehicle adoption by
considering market growth expected from IRA and IIJA investments (which will surpass
existing commitments outlined in Executive Order 14037);
• Put the nation on a trajectory to ensure 100 percent of all LDVs and HDVs sold in 2035
are zero-emission vehicles including pathway milestones assuring continuous progress;
and
• Reflect recently adopted state LDV and HDV emissions standards, consistent with state
authority under the Clean Air Act. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2007]
By implementing these recommendations, we believe that the resultant standards will not only
meet the Clean Air Act's statutory command to protect public health, but will also help lower
fuel costs for consumers, create good, green jobs, and reduce burden on frontline communities.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2007]
Organization: Missouri Farm Bureau (MOFB)
EPA's proposed rule on heavy-duty (HD) vehicle emissions usurps the marketplace's role in
developing the most efficient and lowest-cost technologies that can both protect the environment
and keep our nation's economy running at full speed. While EPA stated it has 'historically not
required the use of any particular technology, but have allowed manufacturers to use any
technology that demonstrates a vehicle meets the standards over applicable procedures,'1 this
proposed rule picks winners and losers through its heavy emphasis on battery electric vehicles
(BEVs) and fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs). The proposed rule doubles-down on electric
vehicle (EV) technology that is not ready for wide-scale adoption, especially in regard to the HD
truck sector. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1584-A1, p. 1]
1 EPA Greenhouse Gas Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles - Phase 3, Vol. 88, Fed. Reg. 25926, p. 25949
(Apr. 27, 2023) (to be codified at 40 C.F.R. pts. 1036, 1037, 1054, 1065 & 1074).
As we stated previously, the proposed rule is not ready for wide-scale adoption. EPA readily
admits: 'At present there are few manufacturing plants for heavy-duty vehicle batteries in the
U.S... .but this will take several years to come to fruition.'5 The proposed rule also states:
'commenters provided specific recommendations for ZEV adoption rates to include in our
analysis, and these adoption rates are on the order of 40 percent or more electrification by MY
2029.'6 However, this is a very questionable estimate. The proposed rule states: 'an increasing
number of vehicles are powered by zero emission vehicle (ZEV) technologies such as battery
electric vehicle (BEV) technology.. .EPA certified 380 HD BEVs in MY 2020 but that number
jumped to 1,163 HD BEVs in MY 2021,' 7 which EPA declares is: 'representing 0.2 percent of
the HD vehicles.'8 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1584-A1, p. 2]
5 Ibid., 25945.
6 Ibid., 25933.
7 Ibid., 25938.
327
-------
8 Ibid., 25940.
We are all too familiar with the supply-chain and logistics problems that resulted from the
COVID-19 pandemic. In MOFB's estimation, the proposed rule's mandates on the transportation
sector risk turning back the clock to those days because of its unrealistic assumption that long-
haul trucks can efficiently transition to EVs without causing major shipping disruptions for the
majority of Americans. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1584-A1, p. 2]
Organization: Moving Forward Network (MFN) et al.
Our organization's deep commitment to advancing environmental justice, equity, economic
justice, and a just transition is core to MFN's values. Following MFN's core values, it urges the
EPA to strengthen the proposed Phase 3 GHG Rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 2]
The EPA must strengthen the proposed Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Heavy-Duty
Vehicles - Phase 3. Protective standards must ensure that emissions are reduced in
environmental justice communities. Stringent standards should use state regulations like the
Advanced Clean Truck Rule as a baseline, and adopt more stringent controls. This
Administration's commitment to environmental justice cannot end with words, a meeting, a press
event, or money; policy and regulations are needed to ensure that frontline/fenceline
communities are protected and thrive. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 3]
"We need to address the environmental racism now. My community is filled with thousands
of trucks that spew toxic pollution and affects our residents on a daily basis. We recently did a
truck count across the street from where over 800 senior citizens live and recreate. Our teams
counted over 1,000 trucks per hour. Our community does not deserve to be forgotten and
polluted. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 3]
The Phase 3 Greenhouse Gas Rule must guarantee reductions from heavy-duty trucks,
especially in communities of color. When it comes to zero-emission trucks, we have the
technology, we have the ability, but we need the regulations to make sure that these solutions are
being implemented. Stop choking our residents on rhetoric, and show that you care about our
lives. That our lives matter more, too. " -Asada Rashidi, South Ward Environmental Alliance
4 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 3]
4 Asada Rashidi. South Ward Environmental Alliance. (June 2, 2023). http://www.southwardea.com/.
On March 15, 2023, thirty-seven members from the Moving Forward Network met with the
EPA Administrator and staff to reiterate what must be included in the GHG draft rule to uphold
the Administration's commitments to environmental justice and reach the intended goals from
the GHG rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 4]
The outcome of that meeting was a stated commitment from the Administration to continued
engagement with MFN and our members. For MFN, we are committed to this continued
engagement but also must reinforce our commitment to our proposed solutions and the urgency
that the Administration move beyond rhetoric and into action. In summary, unless and until
EPA's proposal is strengthened significantly, this rule would perpetuate an already dangerous
and deadly status quo and squander a critical opportunity to address the impacts from medium
and heavy-duty trucks and buses that are killing people. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1,
p. 5]
328
-------
Even though the evidence for a transition to ZEVs is clear, the standing draft Phase 3 GHG
Rule made considerable conservative assumptions, resulting in an indefensibly weak proposal.
Throughout its proposal, the EPA acknowledges that its assumptions are "conservative"—it did
not consider the full impacts of the Inflation Reduction Act, nor did the agency consider how
state standards would already provide a robust platform for growth for zero-emission vehicles.
Eight states have already adopted California's Advanced Clean Truck rule that provides the
platform for growth, making the assumptions taken by EPA unjustifiable. And, there is an
unprecedented level of federal funding available to invest in infrastructure that will support the
prioritization and deployment of zero-emission vehicles in the most impacted EJ communities.
MFN calls for the final rule to include zero-emission targets stronger than the proposal and better
reflect zero-emission heavy-duty technology's technical feasibility and availability. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 5]
The following comments set forth a detailed, comprehensive proposal, on behalf of the MFN
membership, to align EPA's heavy-duty emission standards with the Administration's stated
commitment to environmental justice communities. In addition to strengthening the proposed
rule, we urge the Administration to adopt a comprehensive policy and programmatic agenda that
aims to eliminate the toxic emissions and cumulative impacts that are a direct result of the
heavily-polluting freight system. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 5]
• Address the gaps from the 2022 Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards Rule (NOx).
This rule did not address the critical demands set forth by MFN members to ensure that
there will be meaningful emission reductions within environmental justice communities
from heavy-duty trucks and create a clear pathway for zero-emission vehicles. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 5]
• Ensure a clear pathway to zero emissions by mandating all new vehicles be zero
emissions by 2035, including a sales mandate. This mandate for zero-emission vehicles
must include a scrapping program so that cumulative impacts from the increased number
of trucks do not further burden environmental justice communities. There is a critical
opportunity right now to leverage federal funding, such as funds committed under the
Inflation Reduction Act, to deploy zero-emission infrastructure in overburdened EJ
communities. A whole-of-government approach is needed to ensure these investments
advance equity and to begin planning today in order to support large-scale deployment of
zero-emission trucks on the road. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 5]
• Include environmental justice and public health analyses to ensure a sufficiently stringent
rule and its implementation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 6]
• Even though EPA did not add it, MFN still maintains that the rule must include a multi-
pollutant standard that regulates greenhouse gas emissions and additional pollutants,
including nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate matter (PM), to prevent dangerous
combustion-based fuel source alternatives and false solutions like natural gas from being
considered as part of "zero-emission". [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 6]
• As it stands, all of the options in EPA's Phase 3 proposed rule will not relieve the daily
burdens caused by the freight transportation system, in particular heavy-duty trucks. Our
demands detailed throughout the letter center on a goal to eliminate emissions from
freight transportation, prioritize environmental justice communities and address the
cumulative impacts caused by the freight sector. EPA must finalize standards stronger
than its preferred proposal. The agency should set a strong standard paired with a sales
329
-------
mandate, that would ensure a clear pathway to 100% new heavy-duty vehicles being zero
emissions by 2035. Additionally, this mandate for zero-emission vehicles would include
a scrapping program so that cumulative impacts from the increased number of trucks do
not further burden environmental justice communities. A whole-of-government approach
is needed to ensure these investments advance equity and to begin planning today to
support large-scale deployment of zero-emission trucks on the road. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 9]
• Our comments also touch on several key points: Firstly, EPA has the authority to adopt a
strong standard as provided by Clean Air Act (Act) section 202(a). While the Clean Air
Act contemplates that EPA might limit the stringency of standards based on its
assessment of what is feasible, in the case of the Phase 3 rule, the agency's refusal to
adopt the strongest standard is not based on the identification of any technological or
engineering barriers. In fact, EPA's proposal even undercuts state action underway
through the Advance Clean Trucks rule (which has been adopted by approximately 20
percent of the medium- and heavy-duty trucks market) and manufacturer commitments to
sell only zero-emission trucks, offering no reasons for why those predictions are not
achievable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 9]
• Secondly, given the weak stringency of standards in EPA's Main Proposal and that the
proposed standards do not require or mandate the use of a specific technology for
compliance, EPA leaves room for scenarios where the industry can comply with fewer
ZEVs than those projected under its preferred approach ("EPA's Main Proposal").
Additionally, EPA fails to analyze the impacts of non-zero emission vehicle trucks
properly. The proposal is structured in a manner that does not provide certainty that truly
clean technologies will be used to comply with the standard. To strengthen its proposal,
EPA must not allow "false solutions" like alternative combustion fuels (e.g., hydrogen
combustion and natural gas) to be included in its zero-emission definition and should
explore incorporating other structural additions to the rule that will provide certainty
that truly clean, zero-emission vehicles will be deployed at the rate needed to provide
relief to our communities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 9-10]
• Thirdly, our comments provide analytical justifications for why a strong standard is
feasible and challenges the agency's flawed assumptions around feasibility. We show that
the technology exists, that there will be enough materials and battery supply chain
production to electrify these vehicles, and that significant public and private investments
are being made for this transition to occur. Additionally, we show that adopting a strong
standard is economical, provides cost savings, and we urge EPA to account for more than
just the effects of emissions standards on job growth and ensure that its policies consider
the importance of a just transition with high quality jobs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1608-A1, p. 10]
• Lastly, we show that the potential benefits the agency associates with the various
policy scenarios are more likely to be realized under a policy scenario that reflects the
MFN recommended approach (where 100 percent of all new vehicle sales are zero
emissions by 2035) —which would also satisfy the law, meet moral obligations, and
allow the agency to live up to its promise to provide relief to environmental justice
communities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 10]
5. EPA Must Finalize Stronger Standards than its Preferred Proposal
330
-------
EPA's authority for adopting these Phase 3 standards is provided by Clean Air Act (Act)
section 202(a). Section 202(a)(1) directs EPA to "prescribe (and from time to time revise)...
standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor
vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, which in his judgment cause or contribute to, air
pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare." 42 U.S.C.
§ 7521(a)(1). The Supreme Court in Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 529 (2007), ruled that
greenhouse gases are "unambiguously" air pollutants that may be regulated under section 202.
EPA has found that the emissions of these pollutants from motor vehicles, including medium and
heavy-duty trucks, contribute to pollution that is anticipated to endanger public health and
welfare. 74 Fed. Reg. 66496, 66499 (Dec. 15, 2009). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p.
22]
As courts have recognized, the task assigned in section 202(a) is to "utilize[e] emission
standards to prevent reasonably anticipated endangerment from maturing into concrete harm."
Coal. For Responsible Regulations, Inc. v. EPA, 684 F.3d 102, 122 (D.C. Cir. 2012).
Regulations prescribed under section 202(a)(1) must "take effect after such period as the
Administrator finds necessary to permit the development of the requisite technology, giving
appropriate consideration to the cost of compliance within such period." 42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(2).
Congress' expectation was that EPA would "press for the development and application of
improved technology rather than be limited by that which exists today." NRDC v. EPA, 665 F.2d
318, 328 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (quoting S.Rep.No. 1196, 91 st Cong., 2d. Sess. 24 (1970)). [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 22]
The exercise envisioned by the statute is to assess the need for emission reductions from
vehicles and determine what reductions are feasible. In the feasibility analysis, "[i]n the absence
of theoretical objections to the technology," EPA's task is "to identify the major steps necessary
for the development of the technology], and give plausible reasons for its belief that the industry
will be able to solve those problems in the time remaining." NRDC, 655 F.2d at 333. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 22-23]
EPA's Phase 3 proposal appears wholly disconnected from the exercise anticipated by the
statute and described by the courts. EPA's proposed standards are not tied to any assessment of
what emission reductions are needed to address the endangerment posed by greenhouse gas
emissions from medium- and heavy-duty trucks. As part of the U.N. Framework Convention on
Climate Change, President Biden committed the United States to reach net-zero emissions
economy-wide by no later than 2050. The President's National Climate Task Force, in turn,
established a 2030 emissions target of 50 to 52 percent reductions in U.S. greenhouse gas
pollution from 2005 levels ("nationally determined contribution" or "NDC"). Given the average
useful life of a heavy-duty truck is around 15 years, to reach net-zero by 2050 means ending the
sale of new combustion trucks in the 2035 timeframe. A 2023 ICCT report modeled a NDC-
consistent scenario for the Phase 3 standards. 44 EPA's proposal neither aligns with a NDC-
consistent scenario nor puts the U.S. on a trajectory consistent with requiring all zero-emission
trucks beginning in 2035. EPA must offer some rationale for not adopting standards
commensurate with addressing the endangerment it has identified, or the commitments made to
reduce economy-wide GHG emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 23]
44 Pierre-Louis Ragon, Claire Buysse, Arijit Sen, Michelle Meyer, Jonathan Benoit, Josh Miller, Felipe
Rodriguez. Potential Benefits of the U.S. Phase 3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Regulation for Heavy-Duty
Vehicles. The International Council on Clean Transportation. (April 2023).
331
-------
The Act contemplates that EPA might limit the stringency of standards based on its
assessment of what is feasible, but EPA's refusal to adopt the standards necessary to address the
identified problem is not based on the identification of any technological or engineering barriers.
Zero-emission technology already exists and is commercially available for virtually every
category of medium and heavy-duty truck. 45 As the proposal notes, manufacturers have
announced commitments to sell only zero-emission trucks, and EPA has offered no reasons why
those predictions are not achievable. Cf. NRDC, 655 F.2d at 335 ("[T]he industry's own
predictions, while not determinative, support the view that success in this kind of research can
realistically be expected within the proposed time frame."). As outlined below, there is every
reason to believe that zero-emission technologies will advance to the point that deployment
levels well above EPA's proposed standards are feasible and cost-beneficial. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 23]
45 See CARB, Advanced Clean Fleets Regulation, Initial Statement of Reasons, App. J (Aug. 30, 2022)
(available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2022/acf22/appj.xlsm).
Instead of looking at what is needed and possible, EPA equates technological "feasibility"
with a projection of the voluntary "adoption rate" of zero-emission technologies and sets the
proposed standard based on its assessment of the number of zero-emission trucks consumers will
be willing to purchase. 88 Fed. Reg. at 25958; id. at 26003 ("In this proposal, we considered
willingness to purchase (such as practicability, payback, and costs for vehicle purchasers
including EVSE) in determining the appropriate levels of the proposed standards."). There is no
statutory basis for this approach, and it has no rational connection to the standard-setting exercise
outlined by Congress. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 23-24]
At a superficial level, one might claim that it is not feasible for manufacturers to sell cleaner
trucks if purchasers are unwilling to buy them, but that is not a rational measure of what is
technologically feasible because such a superficial claim ignores the ability of manufacturers to
influence those purchaser decisions. The Act cannot be read to allow consumer preferences—
especially "edge-case" outlier preferences—to trump the adoption of feasible controls necessary
to protect public health and welfare. In Int'l Harvester Co. v. Ruckelshaus, 478 F.2d. 615, 640
(D.C. Cir. 1973), the Court agreed with EPA's position that "as long as feasible technology
permits the demand for new [vehicles] to be generally met, the basic requirements of the Act
would be satisfied, even though this might occasion fewer models and a more limited choice of
engine types," and concluded, "[t]he driving preferences of hot rodders are not to outweigh the
goal of a clean environment." Even in the worst-case scenario, i.e., that zero-emission
technology could not meet the needs of every single purchaser - a scenario that has no actual
record basis and is inconsistent with the manufacturers' own views on where the market is
headed - there is no indication that Congress intended EPA to use such assertions to reject
feasible and necessary emission standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 24]
EPA's statutory task is not to ensure all future trucks can operate in the same manner that they
currently do, nor should that be EPA's task—that is the manufacturers' task. As they have since
EPA started adopting vehicle standards, manufacturers can decide how to make vehicles that
purchasers want and that comply with the emission standards required to protect public health
and welfare. This may involve marketing, pricing adjustments, financing incentives, adding other
features or functionality that are more desirable, or innovating technology to meet those
consumer demands. See, e.g., RMI, "Reality Check: Electric Trucks are Viable Today," at (May
332
-------
25, 2022) (available at: https://rmi.org/reality-check-electric-trucks-are-viable-today/) (noting
that driver retention is a problem in the industry and drivers love electric trucks because they
offer multiple advantages over combustion trucks). Today's trucks, even as they meet the EPA
standards that have been adopted over the years, are more technologically advanced and capable
of doing much more than the trucks that consumers demanded before EPA's standards. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 24]
EPA's elevation of consumer willingness to purchase as the key indication of feasibility is
undermined by EPA's own statements noting the manufacturers' ability to influence purchaser
decisions. For example, EPA notes that "manufacturers typically price certain products higher
than average and others lower than average (i.e., they cross-subsidize)" to influence purchase
decisions. 88 Fed. Reg. at 26027; see also id. at 26029. EPA also notes that putting more zero-
emission trucks on the road will increase purchaser exposure and comfort with these new
technologies and that manufacturers can also influence adoption by educating purchasers on the
benefits of zero-emission trucks (i.e., marketing). Id. at 26069; see also Draft Regulatory Impact
Analysis, at 417 (April 2023). EPA's projected adoption rate includes no analysis of how that
rate might be influenced by the very tools EPA highlights in its own proposal. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 24]
EPA cannot simply propose any standard that it finds is feasible and claim that Congress'
directive has been met. The statutory language in section 202(a) is broad but not without criteria.
Congress cabins the standard-setting process by highlighting the need to address endangerment
to the degree technologically feasible. EPA's refusal to propose standards based either on what is
necessary to address the endangerment posed by truck GHG emissions or on the limits of what is
technologically feasible unmoors the standards from any statutory criteria and is arbitrary and
capricious. EPA must finalize the strong, feasible standards that are necessary to address the
impacts posed by these emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 25]
Given the urgency of the climate crisis and the impact that heavy-duty vehicle pollution has
on our climate and the air we breathe, EPA should adopt the strongest and most protective rule
that puts us on a trajectory to all new vehicle sales being 100 percent zero-emission vehicles
(ZEVs) by 2035. The most stringent option posed by the EPA results in the deployment of 42
percent of new vehicles 46 sold being ZEVs in 2032 and a 10 percent reduction of greenhouse
gas emissions by 2032 (relative to 2026). The finalized rule must go further than even the
strongest of the two scenarios that the EPA requested comment on in the draft rule. Any final
version of this rule that does not accomplish this will be insufficient to address the public health
and environmental harms caused by diesel heavy-duty vehicle pollution, especially when not
paired with requirements for non-combustion-based, zero-emission solutions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 25]
46 Specific to heavy-duty vehicles as defined by the rule.
EPA projects that its preferred approach would only achieve 50 percent of ZEV sales by 2032
for vocational vehicles, 35 percent for short-haul tractors, and 25 percent for long-haul tractors,
but the Agency's preferred proposal fails even to match publicly committed goals from
prominent industry figures, such as Daimler, Ford, Navistar, and Volvo, who have made a range
of commitments to increase their share of ZEV sales. These commitments range from 50 percent
to 67 percent of sales by 2030, to 100 percent of sales as soon as 2035. Most, if not all, of the
Agency's justifications for the EPA Main Proposal are equally, if not more, applicable to
333
-------
Industry Commitments Alternative Proposal. While the Industry Commitments
Alternative Proposal ultimately falls short of what is needed for achieving 100 percent zero
emissions by 2035, this proposal includes the stringency levels that are the least inappropriate of
all the variations of the proposal offered up for comment by the EPA, and these stringency levels
are also feasible to meet for all model years of the program. Additionally, the necessary benefits
to the climate and for public health and welfare will only be realized by a rule that ensures all
new vehicles sold are zero emissions by 2035, and certainly not likely with any scenarios weaker
than the Industry Commitments Alternative Proposal. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1,
p. 25]
Phase 3 follows a trend in which solutions to address the deadly harms of diesel pollution are
looking to include unproven, potentially dangerous "alternatives" to diesel by allowing for
alternative fuel sources such as natural gas and, in the case of this policy, hydrogen. These
"bridge" fuels only further the environmental injustices caused by freight, and risk exchanging
one source of pollution for another, arguably increasing the impacts because of pollution from
pipelines and production to stacks and waste. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 25]
States across the country are leading the transition to zero-emission trucks, and EPA's
proposal fails to match state ambition or account for the ZEV adoption rates that would result
from compliance with the Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT) program. The ACT has already been
adopted by 8 states—representing about 20 percent of the medium- and heavy-duty trucks
market —and more states are considering following suit. 47 In fact, in May of 2023, Rhode
Island announced its intention to adopt the ACT rule. EPA projects that if it set a national
standard that aligns with the ZEV adoption levels under the ACT rule, this would result in 60
percent ZEV sales for vocational vehicles and 40 percent ZEV sales for tractors - ZEV
deployment levels that exceed those expected under EPA's Main Proposal . This, too, serves as
another justification for why EPA's Main Proposal is insufficient (as well as any proposals
weaker than the Industry Commitments Alternative Proposal and the MFN recommended
approach). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 26]
47 Larissa Koehler. Nearly Two Dozen U.S. and Canadian States Endorse Roadmap to 100% Zero-
Emission Trucks by 2050. Environmental Defense Fund. (July 27,
2022). https://www.edf.org/media/nearly-two-dozen-us-and-canadian-states-endorse-roadmap-100-zero-
emission-trucks-
2050#:~:text=The%20Advanced%20Clean%20Trucks%20(ACT,and%20heavy%2Dduty%20vehicle%20m
arketplace.
6.4. EPA's Analysis Fails to Properly Analyze Impacts of Non-ZEV Trucks
Phase 3 follows a trend in which solutions to address the deadly harms of diesel pollution are
looking to include unproven, potentially dangerous "alternatives" to diesel by allowing for
alternative fuel sources such as natural gas and, in the case of this policy, hydrogen combustion
technologies. These "bridge" fuels and technologies only further the environmental injustices
caused by the freight, and exchange one source of pollution for another, arguably increasing the
impacts because of pollution from pipelines and production to stacks and waste. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 37]
Given the weak stringency of EPA's Main Proposal and that the proposed standards do not
require or mandate the use of a specific technology for compliance, EPA leaves room for
334
-------
scenarios where the industry can comply with fewer ZEVs than those projected under the
Agency's preferred approach. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 37-38]
8. Even Using EPA's Flawed Impact Assumptions, MFN's 100% by 2035 Recommendation
Would Deliver Over Three Times the GHG Emission Reductions, Greater Public Health Benefits
and Economic Benefits Compared to EPA's Main Proposal
Environmental Resources Management, Inc (ERM), one of the largest sustainability
consultancies globally, was commissioned by NRDC as part of the Moving Forward Network
to provide independent, third-party analysis of the Agency's proposed Phase 3 HDV standards
and alternative proposals, as well as the MFN recommended alternative proposal. The
methodology, assumptions, and results are described throughout this section. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 50]
8.1. EPA's Proposal Does Not Actually Project ZEVs
This analysis uses EPA's assumptions about the grid, which does not reflect the grid being
cleaned up to the degree necessary for truly zero-emissions technologies to be used for
compliance. Accordingly, no ZEVs as defined by MFN are actually deployed under any aspect
of the policy scenarios explored in this section. Also, for the purpose of this data, the
MFN approach focuses on only the electric truck market share and thus only a portion of our
100% ZEV by 2035 recommendation, neglecting both the focus on EJ deployment and
prioritization and the deployment of complementary policies to ensure that electric trucks are
truly zero-emission vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 50]
8.2. EPA's "No Action Baseline"
ERM's analysis employed a modeling framework that leveraged EPA's tools to inform and
develop inputs to ERM's Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA) framework. It is important to note that
while this analysis is based on EPA's "baseline" scenario, we believe this "baseline" is
ultimately not an accurate reflection of a "No Action" scenario and is erroneous and overly
conservative. For example, EPA's "Baseline" fails to reflect the Advanced Clean Trucks rule and
related EV adoption expectations, commitments from industry, key critical and historic public
and private investments, and other actions underway that will lead to a higher EV sales share
than what EPA's analysis is assuming (see Sections 9.2 and 9.3). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1608-A1, p. 50]
As a result, all the projected benefits from EPA's Main Proposal and all projected benefits
associated with the various alternative policy scenarios modeled in this section are overinflated
and should only be viewed in comparison to each other or viewed in comparison to a more
accurate business as usual baseline, which EPA's Main Proposal more accurately reflects. Even
still, as noted above, the benefits associated with each policy scenario will be overinflated since
the rule structure doesn't account for upstream emissions, leaving room in each policy scenario
for technologies that are not truly clean (like hydrogen combustion technology). [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 50-51]
8.3. Methodology
ERM adopted EPA's methodology to keep the approach to this analysis and resultant
comparisons consistent with EPA's approach in the proposed rule and to allow for an apples-to-
335
-------
apples comparison. MFN believes that EPA's analytical approach is inherently incorrect and
flawed, especially since it involves overly conservative assumptions and does not reflect the grid
being cleaned up to the degree necessary for truly zero-emissions technologies to be used for
compliance, among other concerns. In other words, this fleetwide analysis should be considered
independently of the technology-focused analysis of Section 7, as it was completed with different
assumptions and for a different purpose. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 51]
EPA's updated MOVES model (MOVES3.R3) was utilized to model EV adoption rates
(sales and in-use), vehicle miles traveled (VMT), and pollutant emissions by vehicle type.
Although EPA's HD TRUCS tool was not explicitly used to generate EV adoption scenarios,
cost assumptions (battery costs, incremental vehicle costs, EVSE costs, etc.) and vehicle
classification/identification information and sales shares were incorporated into both
ERM's BCA framework and its modification and application of MOVES3.R3 data outputs.
ERM's BCA framework was applied to compare and evaluate the impacts across several
scenarios, including:
• EPA's Baseline: EPA's "no action" scenario that, as explained above, MFN believes is
erroneous and overly conservative. This involves EV adoption rates defined in
MOVES3.R3 associated with EPA's No Action scenario, as provided by EPA.
• EPA's Main Proposal (EPA's Preferred Scenario): EPA's preferred scenario that MFN
believes is a more accurate reflection of a "no action" baseline. This includes EV
adoption rates developed in HD TRUCS and MOVES3.R3 outputs associated with EPA's
Proposal scenario, as provided by EPA.
• Industry Commitments (Alternative Proposal): Represents an alternative set of
assumptions to incorporate stated OEM goals of 50-67% EV sales share by 2030. This
scenario assumed 50% EV sales share by 2030 for combination trucks and 55% EV sales
for all other HDVs by 2030, with all HDV sales increasing to 90% EV sales share by
2040 (to align with longer-term carbon-neutral and/or net zero targets of manufacturers).
• MFN Recommendation (100% by 2035) : Consistent with MFN's recommended scenario
of achieving 100% ZEV sales share by 2035. 108 Vehicle-specific adoption rates are
informed by an HDV EV adoption scenario recommended by the International Council
on Clean Transportation (ICCT). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, pp. 51-52]
108 As noted elsewhere, because the grid is not being cleaned up, this is not identical to MFN's
recommendation but merely the most consistent given constraints related to a comparison to EPA's
modeling.
ERM utilized EPA's CO-Benefits Risk Assessment (COBRA) Health Impacts Screening and
Mapping Tool to assess the public health benefits of the scenarios versus what EPA views as the
baseline if no action occurs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 52]
ERM's BCA model looks at five interconnected analyses:
• Fuel Use and Emissions: Specifically, it looks at changes in fuel consumption (for diesel,
gasoline, and electricity) and the tailpipe and upstream emissions associated with each
fuel change for GHGs (CO 2, CH 4, N 2 O) and criteria pollutants (NOx and PM) for the
various policy scenarios. Reductions in emissions are then monetized using EPA's
COBRA model and IPCC's Social Cost of GHGs. Because EPA's analysis, which this is
meant to mirror, does not reflect any policies to clean up the grid nor a future grid
336
-------
consistent with the administration's climate goals, this likely understates disparities
between scenarios with differing electric truck deployment.
• Health Impacts: This analysis takes reductions in NOx and PM under the various policy
scenarios to understand the resulting public health implications associated with reducing
these emissions and calculates changes in premature deaths, hospital visits, and lost
workdays. The analysis also monetizes these net health benefits. As above, these impacts
are inherently understated in an effort to mirror EPA's work.
• Economic Analysis: This analysis looks at changes in vehicle purchasing behaviors and
costs, fuel costs, and maintenance practices and how that could change from a more
electrified fleet. This analysis also examines capital expenditures for charging
infrastructure investments (i.e., purchase, installation, and maintenance).
• Utility Impacts Analysis: This analysis looks at impacts on utilities and their customers,
including an analysis of electricity used to charge vehicles and the incremental load to the
grid. The analysis also calculates utility net revenue (revenue minus costs) and potential
reduction in electric bills for all utility customers that results from this net revenue. The
gap analysis shows the infrastructure needs and associated costs under the different
policy scenarios. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 52]
8.5. ERM Sales Share, In-Use Fleet Share, and In-Use Fleet Population
The EV adoption sale shares assumed over time for the various scenarios are shown below
in Figure 8 and 9; the corresponding in-use fleet EV share and populations are also shown in
Figure 10 and 11 respectively. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 55] [Refer to Figure 8,
Comparison of EV Adoption Rate Scenarios on p. 55 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-202-
1608-A1.]
112 Note that motor home sales were not included in EV count or share calculations (Figures 8, 9, 10, and
11).
Figure 9 depicts the distribution of different vehicle types that make up the unused vehicles in
the new data sets. This figure shows that the EV sales share will be 80 percent in 2032 to ensure
that we are on a path to 100 percent zero emissions from all new heavy-duty trucks by 2035. The
EV penetration projections in EPA's Main Proposal (Market BAU) (the Agency's preferred
approach) are projected to only reach 48 percent 113 by 2032, leaving necessary emissions
benefits on the table compared to the MFN recommended approach. This is worsened by the fact
that all of these projections are overstated since there is no certainty that electric trucks will be
used as a form of compliance. Additionally, even if EPA finalized the Industry Commitments
Alternative Proposal version of the rule, there would still be a delay in life-saving reductions, but
less of a delay (5 years) compared to the delay that would be experienced through EPA's Main
Proposal (Market BAU) when compared to the MFN recommended approach. This, too, is
unacceptable, and EPA should work to finalize a version of the rule that sets us on a path to
achieving 100 percent zero emissions by 2035. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 56]
[Refer to Figure 9, Comparison of EV Adoption Rate Scenarios (by Technology Type) on p. 56
of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-202-1608-A1.]
113 42 percent if motorhomes included in calculation.
Figure 10 shows how the in-use fleet is impacted by the different EV adoption scenarios.
Compared with EPA's erroneous no action baseline, EPA's Main Proposal (Market BAU) results
337
-------
in a 6-percentage point increase in EV sales by 2032, while the Industry Commitments
Alternative Proposal sees greater penetration of EVs and reaches 12 percent by 2032. These
scenarios are compared to the levels achieved if EPA were to take a stronger and more impactful
approach and finalize a rule that reflects the MFN recommended approach for 100 percent new
vehicles sales being zero emissions by 2035, which results in 17 percent EV in-use share by
2032 and 46 percent in-use vehicles by 2040, twice as much as projected under EPA's Main
Proposal (Market BAU). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 57] [Refer to Figure 10, EV
Share of In-Use Fleet, by Scenario on p. 57 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-202-1608-A1.]
114 Note that motorhome sales were not included in ZEV share calculations.
The graphs in Figure 11 provide the actual number of EVs in use broken down by vehicle
type, rather than just the percentage of the in-use EV fleet (as shown in Figure 10). [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 58] [Refer reader to Figure 11, In-Use EVs by Vehicle Type on p.
58 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-202-1608-A1.]
2.1 million EVs are expected to be on the road by 2032 under MFN's recommended approach
(which gets the nation to 100 percent of new heavy-duty vehicles sold being zero emissions by
2035). This is approximately 640,000 more EVs than would be possible under the Industry
Commitments Alternative Proposal and over 1.05 million more EVs than is projected to occur
under EPA's Main Proposal (Market BAU) within the same timeframe. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1608-A1, p. 58]
8.6. Emissions and Public Health Impacts
The ERM modeling results on GHG tailpipe and upstream emissions, shown below in
Figure 12, show the emissions reductions possible from achieving 100 percent of new HDV sales
being EVs by 2035 from 2026-2040, consistent with MFN's recommended, as well as the
cumulative reductions from the other policy scenarios and the monetized value of these
reductions. These benefits are compared to the EPA baseline and do not reflect actual net
benefits, since EPA's baseline is not actually reflective of what market conditions are expected
to be in a no action scenario. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 58] [Refer to Figure 12,
Comparison of Possible Climate Benefits on p. 59 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-202-1608-
Al.]
115 Note: The grid mix was modeled using the light-duty and medium-duty draft regulatory impact
analysis (DRIA), since the DRIA for this Phase 3 rule did not include the identified grid factors. This
analysis assumes that EPA is using consistent heavy-duty analyses (since the agency did not provide the
heavy-duty IMP modeling data). Again, this ERM analysis makes use of the very conservative EPA
numbers, assumptions, and baseline, which differs from other analyses explored in this comment letter (in
particular the analysis on the relative benefits of different truck technologies) and do not actually reflect
fully MFN's recommendations.
A final rule aligned with MFN's recommendation would be expected to achieve over a
50 percent reduction in emissions of CO 2 by 2040 compared to 2026 and result in nearly
$115 billion in climate benefits by 2040 - approximately $81 billion more than would be
possible from EPA's Main Proposal (Market BAU) during the same timeframe. In comparison,
EPA's Main Proposal (Market BAU) would only result in approximately a 20 percent reduction
in emissions of CO 2 by 2040 compared to 2026. Additionally, the Industry Commitments
Alternative Proposal, while not as strong as the targets called for by MFN, would certainly be
more impactful than EPA's Main Proposal (Market BAU) and would be expected to achieve just
338
-------
under a 40 percent reduction in emissions in 2040 compared to 2026 and over $53 billion more
in climate benefits than EPA expects from its preferred approach. Accordingly, EPA's failure to
finalize a rule that aligns with our recommended approach would be unnecessarily leaving
significant climate benefits on the table. Again, all of these projections are overstated since EPA
uses an erroneously conservative baseline and since EPA has failed to do a comprehensive
analysis on how this regulation would impact frontline and fence-line communities. Accordingly,
even under the strongest action taken of the proposed options, EPA has failed to predict what
benefits could occur for these impacted communities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1,
p. 59] [Refer to Table 2, Possible Cumulative Reduction and Monetized Value (per Policy
Scenario) on p. 60 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-202-1608-A1.]
8.7. Comparison of Criteria Emissions and Possible Health Benefits
As touched on earlier in this section, ERM adopted EPA's methodology to keep the approach
to this analysis consistent with EPA's approach and allow for an apples-to-apples comparison.
MFN believes that this approach is inherently incorrect and flawed and does not reflect the grid
being cleaned up to the degree necessary for truly ZEV technologies to be used for compliance,
among other concerns. In particular, ERM utilized EPA's COBRA model to estimate the public
health benefits associated with all the scenarios. ERM's analysis shows that with stricter
standards and increased deployment of battery electric trucks, there are greater gains in terms of
consumer savings and avoided public health impacts (such as premature death, hospital
admissions and emergency room visits, respiratory symptoms, and reduced activity and lost
workdays). The scenario aligned with MFN's recommendations achieves the most reductions,
followed by the [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 60]
8.8. Industry Commitments Alternative Proposal
ERM's analysis incorporates EPA's assumed changes in tailpipe emission reductions, EPA's
upstream assumptions that rely upon the Integrated Planning Model (IPM) for electricity
generated units, and ERM assumptions on changes from reduced demand on refining of finished
products for diesel (and gasoline) based on the use of Argonne National Laboratory's
Greenhouse gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy use in Technologies (GREET) model.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 60]
Table 3 shows the various scenario criteria emissions (NOx and PM) aggregated from 2026-
2040 for each of the policy scenarios, possible reduced health incidences, and the monetized
value of these reductions (if realized) compared to EPA's erroneous "no action" baseline. To
assess more realistic net benefits of these proposals, they would be compared to a scenario
closely reflecting EPA's Main Proposal (Market BAU). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1,
p. 60] [Refer to Table 3, Comparison of Possible Health Benefits on p. 61 of docket number
EPA-HQ-OAR-202-1608-A1]
If electric trucks were deployed according to the market levels consistent with EPA's
HD TRUCS model, EPA's Main Proposal (Market BAU) could result in about a 64 percent
NOx reduction and a 60 percent reduction in PM relative to the agency's erroneous baseline. The
possible reductions associated with the Industry Commitment Alternative Proposal scenario
could be just under an 80 percent NOx reduction and a 58 percent reduction in PM 2.5, while
wholly electrifying new vehicle sales by 2035, consistent with MFN's recommendations, would
result in the highest reductions achieved of the policy scenarios offered for comment, especially
339
-------
if EPA combined that policy approach with policies to provide certainty that only truly clean,
EVs were used for compliance (not modeled). EPA must not hesitate to finalize MFN's
recommended approach for the rule if the agency and the Biden Administration truly wants to
live up to its commitment to provide relief to frontline and fence-line communities. [EP A-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 60-61]
8.9. Comparison of Utility Impacts
ERM's results also point to the potential for utilities to receive net revenue from the
electrification of heavy-duty trucks (see Figure 12). Specifically, this analysis looks at all of the
costs associated with providing and distributing electricity, as well as any revenue based on the
identified utility rate from HD TRUCS (which is approximately 10.5 cents per kilowatt hour).
The portion of the figure focused on peak load is based on peak energy charging demand for
each of the vehicles summed up for each of the policy scenarios. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1608-A1, p. 61]
As required by public utility commissions, additional revenues in excess of authorized
revenue requirements generally must be returned to all utility customers, so this would help put
downward pressure on rates. Accordingly, electrifying heavy-duty trucks could lead to up to
$2.2 billion in net utility revenue under the MFN recommended approach and a slight reduction
in the electricity bills of the average U.S. household, below what the bills would otherwise be
without truck electrification, by up to $12 per year and up to $86 per year for the average
commercial customer. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 61] [Refer reader to Figure 13,
Incremental Utility Net Revenue and Peak Load from M/HDV ZEV Charging on p. 62 of docket
number EPA-HQ-OAR-202-1608-A1.]
8.10. Comparison of Incremental Fleet Costs and Savings
The analysis depicted in Figure 14 incorporates several different cost categories (including
purchasing chargers, charger maintenance, incremental purchase price between ICE and BEVs,
vehicle maintenance savings associated with EVs, and the difference in fuel costs between
purchasing gasoline and diesel fuel versus electricity). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1,
p. 62]
We note that numerous manufacturers have raised concerns about the costs associated with
shifting to zero-emission trucks, however, the ERM analysis overall shows that the average ZEV
reaches life-cycle cost parity with diesel and gasoline vehicles before model year 2027.
Additionally, from a cost and savings perspective for fleets, purchasing an average MY2032 EV
would save its owner nearly $86,000 over the life of the vehicle. The results are shown in
Figure 14. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 62] [Refer reader to Figure 14, Possible net
lifecycle costs of a battery electric truck (EV) versus the comparable diesel or gasoline
alternative on p. 63 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-202-1608-A1.]
8.11. Comparison of Overall Societal Benefits
Due to EPA's failure to ensure that truly clean, zero emissions trucks will be used by
manufacturers for compliance, the market share projected for EPA's rule is likely overstated.
The only way EPA can truly prove that the rule will be beneficial to frontline and fence-line
communities (as well as society at large) would be to have structured the rule to account for
340
-------
upstream emissions and to provide certainty that projected levels of ZEVs will actually occur as
a part of industry compliance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 63]
The results from ERM's analysis (depicted in Figure 15) show that on a net societal basis -
inclusive of the benefits and costs to fleets, air quality benefits, climate benefits, net utility
revenues that would be returned back to all utility customers in the form of lower bills - the
MFN recommended alternative would achieve two-and-a-half times the benefits of EPA's Main
Proposal (Market BAU) by 2040. The Industry Commitments Alternative Proposal would
achieve nearly twice as many benefits as EPA's Main Proposal (Market BAU) in 2040. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 63] [Refer to Figure 15, Possible Annual Net Societal Benefits
for Various Scenarios on p. 64 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-202-1608-A1.]
Over the entire period of the analysis (2026 - 2040), the cumulative net societal benefits
discounted at a 3% rate could achieve $225 billion under MFN's recommended approach
compared to $166 billion with the Industry Commitments Alternative Proposal, and only
$87 billion with EPA's Main Proposal if compliance was done through EVs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 63-64]
9. EPA's Weak Proposal is Built On Flawed Assumptions Around Feasibility
The discussion above demonstrates that EPA's preferred alternative is not a rational choice
based on the need for emission reductions to address identified impacts. Stronger standards are
necessary to meet emission reduction goals and would be cost-beneficial. The following sections
demonstrate that EPA's weak preferred alternative also cannot be justified based on claims that
these necessary more protective standards are not feasible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-
Al, p.64]
9.1. EPA's Analysis Fails to Account for Feasible Improvements in Combustion
Technologies
EPA notes that "in developing the Phase 2 CO 2 emission standards, we developed
technology packages that were premised on technology adoption rates of less than 100 percent.
There may be an opportunity for further improvements and increased adoption through MY 2032
for many of these technologies included in the HD GHG Phase 2 technology package used to set
the existing MY 2027 standards." 88 Fed. Reg. at 25960. Yet despite identifying technologies for
internal combustion engine powered trucks that could exceed the Phase 2 standards, it did not
base its Phase 3 standards on any such additional deployment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-
Al, p.64-65]
Below we walk through a number of the technologies that the EPA should assume will be
deployed by truck manufacturers in the timeframe of the Phase 3 proposal. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1608-A1, p.65]
9.2. State Actions Support the Feasibility of More Protective Standards
For Class 4-8 vehicles, EPA estimates their proposed rule would increase ZEV sales by about
44% nationally by 2032. This falls short of the Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT) rule, which will
result in 60% ZEVs as a portion of new vehicle sales by 2032. States have demonstrated that
more stringent truck standards are feasible and better prepared to safeguard public health. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 70]
341
-------
One of the fundamental benefits of the ACT rule, that EPA's regulation lacks, is the fact that
the rule mandates an increasing percentage of zero-emission trucks and buses be sold within a
state, which creates a market and consistent supply of zero-emission trucks and buses, ensuring
that states can meet their climate and air quality goals over the next two decades. This important
ZEV sales component is incredibly effective because while alternative combustion technologies
may reduce greenhouse emissions, they are not nearly as effective as ZEVs at reducing
emissions. These technologies can still emit air pollution that threatens public health. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 70]
The eight states that have adopted the Advanced Clean Trucks rule have done so to
significantly improve air quality and health, while doing their part to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. Collectively, these states represent over 20% of the medium and heavy-duty trucks
market, and more states are joining this share of the overall M/HDV market. In fact, Rhode
Island announced that the state will pursue ACT adoption on May 10, 2023. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 70]
A stronger EPA rule is technologically, legally, and economically feasible, and zero-emission
trucks and buses are the fastest way to curb greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation
sector. Additionally, truck manufacturers have shown they are capable of bringing ZEVs to the
market. As of October 2020, there were 20 zero-emission models commercially available across
all bus types and Class 2b-8 trucks. By the end of 2022, 544 total models were available across
those vehicle classes. Based on manufacturer announcements, there will be multiple companies
selling EVs in virtually all medium- and heavy-duty market segments by 2025, including 58
percent of the major OEMs. 128 Significant advancements in range and efficiency in the
upcoming years can be expected, expanding suitability for a wider spectrum of zero-emission
vehicle uses and classes. Combined with the historic federal investments under the Inflation
Reduction Act and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, more stringent Phase 3 greenhouse
standards for heavy-duty vehicles would accelerate this ongoing ZEV transition. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 70]
128 MJ Bradley & Associates, Medium- And Heavy-Duty Vehicles: Market Structure, Environmental
Impact & EV Readiness at 22, Figure 10, (July 2021), available at
http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/files/2021/08/EDFMHDVEVFeasibilityReport22jul21.pdf
9.3. The Zero-Emission Heavy-Duty Vehicle Market Supports the Feasibility of Stronger
Standards
9.3.1. Zero-Emission Heavy Duty Vehicle Market and Availability
EPA's proposal is inconsistent with its own comprehensive review of the current markets and
technologies, OEM electrification commitments, related state regulations, and significant federal
investments. Despite the vast literature and ample industry data on the subject, EPA chose to
base the proposal on an original "physics-based tool" that was largely uninformed by the
specifications of vehicles available on the market today. 129 We urge EPA to reconsider this
decision and to review and emulate the methodologies in the current literature. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 71]
129 U.S. EPA. Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis: RFS Standards for 2023-2025 and Other Changes.
(November 2022). p. 204. https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-12/420d22003.pdf
9.3.2. Zero-Emission Trucks are Available Today
342
-------
In the US and Canada, over 180 models of zero-emission medium- and heavy-duty vehicles
(ZE MHDVs) - including trucks and coach, school, and shuttle buses - are available on the
market, according to CALSTART's Zero-Emission Technology Inventory (ZETI). 130 This
represents significant growth in availability over the past few years, up around 30 percent from
2021 to 2023. EPA's review of the ZE MHDV market relied on data from MY2021, which may
have limited the Agency's ability to capture a realistic review of the current market and outlook
for future development. 131 Given the consistent and significant year-over-year growth in the
market, we recommend that this analysis be revisited with more recent information. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 71]
130 Global Drive to Zero. Zero-Emission Technology Inventory, https://globaldrivetozero.org/tools/zeti/
(last accessed: May 2023).
131 U.S. EPA. Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis: RFS Standards for 2023-2025 and Other Changes.
(November 2022). p. 5. https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-12/420d22003.pdf
Other nations are adopting ZE MHDVs at rates much higher than in the US. Model
availability in China far outpaces that in the US, where over 260 models are available.
Furthermore, the growth in availability in the Chinese market is more than double that in the US
market over the past two years. The wide and growing availability of zero-emission trucks in
China has affected a concentration of adoption there, where over 90 percent of the world's zero-
emission trucks and buses were sold in 2021. 132 A more stringent Phase 3 regulation will help
to accelerate the market for ZE MHDVs in the US. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 71]
132 Mao, S. et al. Zero-emission bus and truck market in China: A 2021 update. The International Council
on Clean Transportation. (January 2023). https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/china-hvs-ze-bus-
truck-market-2021 -j an23 .pdf
While buses make up the lion's share of currently deployed ZE MHDVs in the US, the
vehicle types with the most significant growth in availability are tractor trucks and cargo vans,
which had a 75 percent and 230 percent increase, respectively from 2021 to 2023. 133 This is
noteworthy given the significant and disproportionate amount of pollution created by tractor
trucks and the strong ability for cargo vans to electrify today given their typical duty cycle.
134 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, pp. 71 - 72]
133 Global Drive to Zero. Zero-Emission Technology Inventory, https://globaldrivetozero.org/tools/zeti/.
(Last accessed: May 2023).
134 Union of Concerned Scientists. Ready for Work. (2019).
https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/2019-12/ReadyforWorkFullReport.pdf
Truck manufacturers are taking note of this trend, and several of the largest players have
committed to fully transitioning to electric trucks. Daimler, the largest Class 7 and 8 truck
manufacturer in the US, committed to 100-percent zero-emission sales by 2040; two other major
players - Volvo Trucks and Navistar - have similar goals set for 2040. 135, 136, 137 Today, 62
OEMs are producing ZE MHDVs for the US and Canadian markets, and more are joining each
year. Since 2021, the number of OEMs producing ZE MHDVs has increased by over 40 percent.
138 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 72]
135 Nick Carey. Daimler Truck 'all in' on green energy as it targets costs. Reuters. (May 2021).
https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/daimler-truck-all-in-green-energy-shift-targets-
costs-2021-05-20
343
-------
136 Global Drive to Zero. Volvo Group Pledges to 'Drive to Zero' Program. (February 2022).
https://globaldrivetozero.org/2022/02/15/volvo-group-pledges-to-drive-to-zero-program-2-15-22/
137 Jason McDaniel. Navistar launches new truck with its 'last' internal combustion engine. Bulk
Transporter. (August 2022). https://www.bulktransporter.com/equipment/trucks/article/21248846/navistar-
launches-new-truck-last-ice-powertrain
138 Global Drive to Zero. Zero-Emission Technology Inventory, https://globaldrivetozero.org/tools/zeti/.
(last accessed: May 2023).
While the growing availability and adoption of ZE trucks along with these OEM
commitments are noteworthy, the current pace of the market falls far short of what is needed to
address historic and ongoing inequities in access to healthy air and protection from the climate
crisis. EPA has an opportunity through the Phase 3 standards to accelerate the transition towards
zero-emission trucks and buses. A stronger Phase 3 rule that exceeds, rather than trails, current
market projections would help to put us on a path towards addressing the most dire
environmental crises our nation faces today. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, pp. 72 - 73]
9.3.3. ZEMHDV Adoption
EPA suggests that the proposal is expected to accelerate model availability and adoption. 139
However, a Phase 3 standard that trails current market expectations will do little to stimulate
either (see Section 8.8). The Phase 3 GHG standard must recognize both the consistent and
significant market growth for ZE MHDVs and the dire need to address climate change and air
quality inequities - the current proposal accomplishes neither. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-
Al, p. 73]
139 U.S. EPA. Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis: RFS Standards for 2023-2025 and Other Changes.
(November 2022). p. 417. https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-12/420d22003.pdf
Chapter V of the proposal references several prominent studies on the projected adoption rates
of ZE MHDVs, including those from ICCT, NREL, and EDF, and suggests that these studies did
not include "several important real-world factors which would, in general, be expected to slow
down or reduce ZEV sales" without further explanation. 140, 141, 142, 143 Instead of relying on
existing literature and previously used methods, EPA estimates the reference case ZEV adoption
rate using novel methods. EPA correctly notes that this resulted in highly conservative results
that do not align with the results of the existing literature. 144 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-
Al, p. 73]
140 Claire Buysee, et al. Racing to Zero: The Ambition We Need for Zero-Emission Heavy-Duty Vehicles
in the United States. (April 2022). https://theicct.org/racing-to-zero-hdv-us-apr22/ICCT
141 Catherine Ledna, et al. Decarbonizing Medium- & Heavy-Duty On-Road Vehicles: Zero-Emission
Vehicles Cost Analysis. (March 2022). https://www.nrel.gov/docs/Iy22osti/82081.pdf
142 Ellen Robo and Dave Seamonds. Technical Memo to Environmental Defense Fund: Investment
Reduction Act Supplemental Assessment: Analysis of Alternative Medium- and Heavy-Duty Zero-
Emission Vehicle Business-As-Usual Scenarios. ERM. (August 2022).
https://www.erm.com/contentassets/154d08e0d0674752925cd82c66b3e2bl/edf-zev-baseline-technical-
memoaddendum.pdf.
143 U.S. EPA. Proposed Rule: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles - Phase 3.
88 Fed. Reg. 25926, 26074 (Apr. 27, 2023). p. 360 https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-
and-engines/proposed-rule-greenhouse-gas-emissions-standards-heavy
344
-------
144 Id. p. 361
While we agree it was appropriate for EPA to consider the market and adoption influence of
the ACT as well as the incentives and investments provided by the IRA and BIL, EPA's
reference case is significantly out of alignment with the larger body of existing research. 145
This is particularly meaningful given that a highly conservative reference case overinflates the
environmental, human health, and economic benefits of the proposal. EPA notes the possibility
of the reference case being "underestimated, and adoption of ZEVs, and other technologies will
occur more rapidly than EPA predicts." 146 However, if the adoption moves faster than the
proposed standards, as estimated by current literature, the standard will do little to accelerate the
market as EPA predicts. 147 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, pp. 73 - 74]
145 Id. p. 358
146 U.S. EPA. Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis: RFS Standards for 2023-2025 and Other Changes.
(November 2022). p. 417. https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-12/420d22003.pdf
147 Id. p. 418
In nearly every case, EPA's projected ZEV Adoption Rates trail ZE MHDV market
assumptions in the scientific literature. This is particularly true in the near-term. Where the
proposal is estimated to affect the adoption of 10 percent ZE day cab tractors for MY2027, a
recent study by ICCT suggests adoption at 27 percent. 148 Similarly, the proposal estimates
medium-heavy-duty vocational adoption rates of 27 percent in 2030, but ICCT's study estimates
55 percent adoption. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 74]
148 Slowik, P. et al. Analyzing the Impact of the Inflation Reduction Act on Electric Vehicle Update in the
United States. The International Council on Clean Transportation. (January 2023).
https://theicct.org/publication/ira-impact-evs-us-jan23/
Adopting a standard that trails current market projections for ZEV adoption is unacceptable
and could actually allow combustion trucks to get dirtier over time. EPA must review the current
and updated literature, revisit its reference case, and adopt a rule that pushes the market forward
meaningfully. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 74]
9.3.4. Zero-Emission Trucks are Affordable
At several points in the proposal and DRIA, EPA notes the significant total-cost savings
offered by ZEVs, due in large part to reduced fuel, maintenance, and repair costs. Specifically,
the DRIA states:
For the vehicle types for which we propose new C02 emission standards, we expect that the
ZEV will have a lower total cost of ownership when compared to a comparable ICE vehicle
(even after considering the upfront cost of purchasing the associated EVSE for a BEV), due to
the expected cost savings in fuel, maintenance, and repair over the life of the HD ZEV when
compared to a comparable ICE vehicle. 149 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 74]
149 U.S. EPA. Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis: RFS Standards for 2023-2025 and Other Changes.
(November 2022). p. 417. https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-12/420d22003.pdf
EPA recognizes the positive economics of ZE MHDVs, but does not alter the stringency of
the proposed standards accordingly. While clean air and climate change regulations are often
viewed as inherently increasing the cost of doing business for regulated entities, this is not
345
-------
necessarily the case for commercial vehicle electrification. In fact, the opposite can be true.
Although the current upfront costs associated with ZE MHDVs can be higher than their
comparable ICE models, several types of zero-emission trucks show preferable sticker prices
today when considering IRA incentives. 150 What's more, multiple studies estimate that
virtually all battery-electric MHDV models will have a preferred total cost of ownership by the
end of the decade. 151, 152 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, pp. 74 - 75]
15. Conclusion
"If we are talking about ending diesel, then we are talking about ending the shipment of
diesel, then we're talking about ending the production of diesel, ending the piping of diesel, and
ending the extraction of diesel, right? All of that comes to an end. So, it's not just about 1 truck,
or that we want a 5% reduction of [diesel-using] trucks. We want to end the system [entirely]." -
mark! Lopez, East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice 279 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1608-A1, p. 124]
279 mark! Lopez. East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice. (May 2021). https://eycej.org/
The above critical recommendations on how EPA needs to strengthen this rule and move in an
intentional and significant way to zero-emission vehicles for ending a deadly diesel
pollution system. MFNs position and demands will ensure public health benefits, and are
economically feasible given that zero-emission trucks are commercially available, economically
compelling, and the single most effective solution for reducing freight emissions. EPA must:
• Address the gaps from the 2022 Heavy Duty Engine and Vehicles Standards Rule (NOx).
This rule did not address the critical demands set forth by MFN members to ensure that
there will be meaningful emission reductions within environmental justice communities
from heavy-duty trucks and create a clear pathway for zero-emission vehicles.
• Ensure a clear pathway to zero emission by mandating all new vehicles be zero emissions
by 2035, including a sales mandate. This mandate for zero-emission vehicles must
include a scrapping program so that cumulative impacts from the increased number of
trucks do not further burden environmental justice communities.
• Prioritize zero emissions for freight trucks, i.e., Class 7 and 8 (short-haul) drayage trucks.
These trucks have never been prioritized in heavy-duty truck regulations, and are some of
the oldest and most-polluting vehicles in frontline and fence-line communities.
• Include environmental justice and public health analyses to ensure a sufficiently stringent
rule and its implementation.
• Include a multi-pollutant standard that regulates greenhouse gas emissions and additional
pollutants, including nitrogen oxides (NOx), and particulate matter (PM), to prevent
dangerous combustion-based fuel source alternatives and false solutions like natural gas
from being considered as part of "zero-emission" [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1,
pp. 124 - 125]
The current two options for emission standards fall dangerously short and leave
environmental justice communities and the millions of people who live in them at great risk for
many years to come. MFN is committed to working with EPA to ensure that the regulations
around freight impacts does actually meet the intended call to action that these comments set
forth. We need EPA to act as the leaders the President is referencing and prioritize solutions that
protect and prioritize overburdened and underserved communities. This Rule in its current draft
346
-------
does not meet this call to action. We cannot wait for future rules or proposals to address these
impacts. We need every rule, program, and incentive that comes from EPA to prioritize
addressing environmental racism and promote environmental justice now. The lives of our
communities are at stake. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 125]
Organization: National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA)
NACAA has supported EPA's 2011 adoption of the Phase 1 greenhouse gas (GHG) emission
standards for heavy-duty vehicles and engines, which took effect with model year (MY) 2014,2
and the agency's 2016 adoption of the Phase 2 GHG standards, which took effect with MY
2021.3,4 We now welcome EPA's Phase 3 proposal and the opportunity it presents to enhance
this important program in a way that optimally reflects the rapidly growing heavy-duty zero-
emission vehicle (ZEV) market, the unprecedented financial incentives provided under the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and Inflation Reduction Act and the impacts of state leadership, to
best protect human health and our planet and lay the path for a future rule that will establish
additional standards to begin with MY 2033. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1499-A1, p. 1]
2
https://www.4cleanair.org/wpcontent/uploads/2021/01/NACAAFinalCommentsonEPANHTSAProposedH
DGHGStds013111_0.pdf
3 https://www.4cleanair.org/wp-content/uploads/EPANHTSAJointPhase2Prop-09292015.pdf
4 https://www.4cleanair.org/wp-content/uploads/GHG-CAFE-Phase2FuelEcon-03182015.pdf
Today's proposal would establish regulations designed to transition the market for new
commercial vehicles to zero-emissions. We fully support that goal - demonstrated by the billions
of dollars already invested by EMA members to develop and bring to market zero-emission
powertrains and vehicles. In that regard, EPA's historic goal - forcing new technology to lower
emissions - already is being met. Unlike previous technology forcing rules, the challenge is not
in forcing the development of zero-emission vehicles and powertrains, the challenge is forcing
the development of the infrastructures needed to recharge and refuel them.'9 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1499-A1, p. 4]
9
https://staticl.squarespace.eom/static/624ddf53a2360b6600755b47/t/64513blfc8c66c7771fdc539/1683045
152019/2023+05+02+EMA+Testimony+on+GHG+Phase+3+NPRM+FINAL.pdf
Given the factors we outline at the beginning of this section on NACAA's comments and
recommendations - the evolution of heavy-duty ZEVs, investments and commitments by fleets
and manufacturers, historic monetary incentives provided under BIL and IRA and state
leadership in accelerating electrification -EPA should, in its final rule, improve upon its proposal
by adopting federal Phase 3 GHG emission standards that, at a minimum, are based on values
that reflect ACT ZEV sales percentages through MY 2032 but with more rigorous standards for
several types of heavy-duty vehicles: 1) transit buses and school buses, for which federal funds
for electrification are specifically targeted and various states have laws and policies setting
electric vehicle and ZEV purchasing goals and requirements and 2) refuse and concrete trucks,
for which EPA already projects substantial ZEV market uptake. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1499-A1, p. 6]
347
-------
In addition to federal action, states and local areas are demonstrating leadership by
undertaking their own infrastructure initiatives. These are helping to drive private investment to
capitalize on these opportunities. The following a few examples. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1499-A1, p. 7]
Maryland fully supports and recommends that EPA begin moving toward electrification in the
medium- and heavy-duty (MHD) truck sector. Over the past few years Maryland has
implemented several programs and projects to aid in this transition to electric trucks. As part of
this support, the Maryland General Assembly passed legislation requiring the Maryland
Department of the Environment (MDE) to adopt ACT by the end of 2023. In addition, the
legislation requires MDE to perform a needs assessment study for MHD electrification. The
needs assessment study seeks to identify barriers and issues that will need to be addressed for
Maryland to successfully transition the MHD sector to electric. The study will be completed by
the end of calendar year 2024. Maryland will use this information to aid in the implementation of
MHD ZEVs in the state. Additionally, legislation introduced by Governor Moore passed this
year and will provide at least $10 million dollars annually for incentives for both MHD vehicles
and charging infrastructure. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1499-A1, p. 7]
The Oregon Zero Emission Fueling Infrastructure Grant is a one-time $15-million pilot grant
program to support private and public fueling infrastructure for zero-emission medium- and
heavy-duty vehicles. The goal of the grant program is to accelerate Oregon's transition from
older, more polluting vehicles and equipment to new zero-emission trucks, buses and equipment.
In addition, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality seeks to facilitate development of
a robust infrastructure to support a diverse range of Oregon fleets and fueling locations. The
rolling application period began in January 2023. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1499-A1, p. 7]
The District of Columbia enacted the Clean Energy DC Omnibus Amendment Act of 2018,
which required the development of a "comprehensive clean vehicle transition plan." The District
of Columbia Transportation Electrification Roadmap was finalized in September 2022 and lays
out concrete plans to meet charging needs, transition District government fleets, work with
stakeholders, educate the public and ensure equity. Regarding the charging network, the plan
includes steps to 1) conduct a charging gap analysis, 2) expand the level 2 charging network to
meet a ratio of 2 percent of registered electric vehicles by 2025 with a focus on historically
overburdened communities, 3) build out level 2 charging in workplaces, 4) provide more public
charging at District-owned facilities, with a focus on historically overburdened communities, 5)
pursue grants to electrify existing gas stations and 6) work with federal agencies to expand
charging stations at their facilities, specifically parks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1499-A1, p. 7]
Through a Memorandum of Understanding administered by the Midcontinent Regional
Electric Vehicle Partnership (Mid REV) Minnesota, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan and Washington
collaborate to accelerate medium- and heavy-duty fleet electrification and ensure consistency for
creating an interconnected electric vehicle charging network within the region. Also in
Minnesota, the state Department of Transportation is completing a research project with the
University of Minnesota on medium- and heavy duty electric vehicle charging corridor
feasibility. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1499-A1, p. 7]
Annually, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) in San Francisco has
approximately $100 million in incentive funding available for the replacement of eligible
medium- and heavy-duty vehicles and equipment. Applications for mobile source projects are
348
-------
typically reviewed on a first-come-first-served basis and evaluated for eligibility under the
respective governing policies and guidelines established by each funding source; the Carl Moyer
Program guidelines established by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) are used to
review most projects. In 2022, BAAQMD awarded funding to 21 projects including two
standalone zero-emission infrastructure projects and 19 projects that will deploy supporting
refueling infrastructure in combination with medium- and heavy duty zero-emission vehicles.
Thirty-eight percent of these projects will be in disadvantaged communities. Of the 21 projects,
20 are electric-fueled equipment (10 electric yard truck projects, four electric school bus
projects, two electric heavy-duty truck projects and one project each for electric transit buses,
electric construction equipment, electric forklifts and electric shore power for ocean-going
vessels) and one is a hydrogen-fueled tank for a station that serves transit buses. More detailed
information on BAAQMD's initiatives to develop charging infrastructure for medium- and
heavy-duty vehicles and address related issues is provided in this white paper prepared by Bay
Area staff. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1499-A1, p. 8]
New Jersey adopted ACT in November 2021 and CARB's Omnibus heavy-duty NOx
standards for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles and inspection requirements for medium-duty
vehicles in April 2023. New and used electric medium- and heavy-duty vehicles are exempt from
state sales tax. In 2022, New Jersey passed a law establishing a $45-million grant program for
electric school buses, to be administered by the state's Department of Environmental Protection.
Since 2019, New Jersey has used Volkswagen settlement funds and proceeds from the Regional
Greenhouse Gas Initiative to fund the purchase of electric medium- and heavy-duty vehicles and
associated charging infrastructure, including 286 electric trucks and cargo vans, 242 electric
buses and shuttle buses and 162 electric airport and port vehicles and equipment. The state's
Board of Public Utilities published a draft framework under which all electric utilities are
required to provide grants for the Make-Ready portion of medium- and heavy-duty charging
stations. In addition, the state has passed a law to ensure that all municipalities permit/approve
electric vehicle charging stations in a streamlined, consistent manner. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1499-A1, p. 8]
New York State has established state-specific goals for purchases of zero-emission transit
buses serving major urban centers, school buses and medium- and heavy-duty vehicles overall. A
state executive order requires applicable state fleets of medium- and heavy-duty vehicles to be
100 percent ZEV by 2040. The Joint Utilities of New York Make-Ready program supports the
development of electric infrastructure and equipment necessary to accommodate an increased
deployment of electric vehicles within New York State by reducing the upfront costs of building
charging stations for electric vehicles while also providing fleet assessment services. To assist
with ZEV outgrowth, New York has leveraged funds from the Volkswagen settlement to provide
incentives for new medium- and heavy-duty ZEV purchases through the New York Truck
Voucher Incentive Program and New York City Clean Trucks Program. A municipal ZEV rebate
program provides incentives to encourage medium-duty ZEV adoption. Finally, New York's
Public Service Commission is working to mitigate demand charges through a relief program to
further improve the economics of ZEV use (Case 22-E-0236) and has commenced a proceeding
to address barriers to medium- and heavy-duty electric vehicle charging infrastructure (Case 23-
E-0070). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1499-A1, p. 8]
California has taken a multi-faceted approach to address infrastructure needs for medium- and
heavy-duty vehicles, as described in the California Energy Commission's Zero-Emission Vehicle
349
-------
Infrastructure Plan. This plan summarizes the state's electrical grid planning, assessment of
needed infrastructure and planning for deployment as well as the state's substantial funding
programs. Additionally, in April, eight California state agencies signed a Zero-Emission
Infrastructure Joint Agency Statement of Intent outlining the state's commitment to coordination
across energy, transportation, business development, state operations and air quality programs to
share data, plan jointly, engage stakeholders together and link vehicle and infrastructure funding
programs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1499-A1, pp. 8-9]
In Washington, the Department of Ecology is providing $14 million for scrapping and
replacing diesel school buses with new zero-emission school buses. Funding is also available for
charging or fueling infrastructure for the new school buses. Eligible entities are school bus
owners that transport students to K-12 schools identified by the Washington Office of
Superintendent of Public Instruction or private K-12 schools approved by the Washington State
Board of Education for the 2022-2023 school year. Approximately $1 million of additional grant
funding will be made available for one or more of the following projects, including charging or
fueling infrastructure: 1) scrapping and replacing diesel yard trucks with zero-emission yard
trucks, 2) scrapping and replacing diesel transit buses with zero-emission transit buses and 3)
replacing the oldest diesel marine engines with all-electric or hybrid-electric systems. The
Washington Department of Ecology is also providing approximately $16 million in competitive
grants to support public and Tribal governments in replacing, with zero-emission models, diesel
street sweepers, refuse vehicles, freight switcher locomotives and port cargo handling equipment.
Eligible vehicle replacements include class 4-8 zero-emission vehicles. Grants will also support
the purchase and installation of associated charging or fueling infrastructure. The application
period will be open from July 26, 2023 to October 26, 2023. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1499-
Al, p. 9]
NACAA urges EPA to set Phase 3 C02 standards that, at a minimum, reflect ACT ZEV sales
percentages through MY 2032, but with more stringent standards for transit and school buses and
refuse and concrete trucks; eliminate the advanced technology multipliers after MY 2026; and
end the Phase 2 credit exchange between vocational vehicles and tractors. A third phase of
federal emission standards for heavy-duty trucks will yield important reductions in GHG
emissions. By increasing the performance of heavy-duty ZEVs to meet C02 emissions standards
the rule will also deliver co-benefits in terms of reductions of criteria and toxic air pollutants.
Reductions in all of these pollutants will benefit every area of the country, assisting them in
achieving their air quality, climate protection and environmental justice goals. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1499-A1, p. 13]
Organization: National Association of Convenience Stores (NACS), NATSO, and SIGMA
While we support the development of electric vehicle ('EV') technologies2 and the associated
refueling network, we are opposed to the approach taken by EPA in the Proposed Rule. Broadly,
our commercial experience and communications with others in the value chain—including
electric utilities, trucking fleets, and truck manufacturers—lead us to believe that (1) the current
state of HD EV charging technology render the electrification timeline proposed under this
rulemaking unachievable; and (2) EPA is exacerbating the adverse emissions impact of this
reality by stacking the deck in favor of one technology rather than harnessing the near-term
decarbonization potential of other low-carbon options like renewable liquid fuels, in addition to
350
-------
incentivizing more aspirational longer-term technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1603-A1,
p. 1]
2 This includes zero emissions vehicles ('ZEV') as used in the Proposed Rule, such as battery electric
vehicles ('BEVs') and fuel cells ('FCV'). For simplicity, 'EV' is used throughout these comments.
The Associations believe that a technology-neutral approach to transportation decarbonization
will help to mitigate costs, promote innovation, and address the practical challenges associated
with heavy-duty electrification. With the right alignment of policy incentives, our industry is best
equipped to facilitate a faster, more widespread, cost-effective transition to petroleum
alternatives - including electricity - in the coming years. To shepherd that transition without
sacrificing near-to-medium-term emissions, EPA should revise the Proposal to lower carbon
emissions in a market-oriented, technology-neutral, and consumer-focused manner. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1603-A1, pp. 1-2]
All fuels and technologies should be treated equally within the context of emissions standards.
The Proposed Rule's focus solely on tailpipe emissions, however—rather than lifecycle
emissions—artificially tilts the scale towards EVs. This means that rather than measuring overall
emissions reductions, the Proposal will account only for emissions in one segment of the value
chain: vehicle tailpipes. This approach ignores—and thus threatens to exacerbate—technological
and market challenges. It also exceeds EPA's statutory authority. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1603-A1, p. 2]
The enormous practical and logistical challenges associated with electrifying trucks
necessitate that the Agency not rely entirely on a prodigious pace of HD electrification to
decarbonize the trucking sector. Instead of depending on one technology to act as a silver bullet,
the Agency should adopt an agnostic approach to low-carbon technologies that can deliver
substantial emissions savings in the HD sector without compromising the market's ability to
gravitate toward electrification as it becomes commercially viable and practical at scale. The best
way to address practical impediments to electrification is to inject flexibility into the Proposed
Rule while simultaneously promoting near-term emissions reductions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1603-A1, p. 2]
EPA should continue its collaborative efforts with the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration ('NHTSA') to incrementally decrease GHG emissions.3 This approach will
allow vehicle manufacturers to decrease GHG emissions in new HD vehicles (including electric
vehicles) while also reducing emissions in the current fleet. A flexible, workable timeline will
allow the market to reduce both tailpipe emissions and lifecycle emissions in the most cost-
effective and efficient way, ultimately benefiting consumers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1603-
Al, p. 2]
3 The Associations note that nothing in these comments takes a position regarding the legality of EPA's
approach in previous HD vehicle emissions rules.
Organization: National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA)
EPA has a Statutory Mandate to Develop Strong Rules to Reduce Climate Pollution from
Heavy-Duty Vehicles.
351
-------
The Clean Air Act (CAA) explicitly calls on EPA to promulgate emission standards for motor
vehicles that 'cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to
endanger public health or welfare.' 1. As held by the Supreme Court in Massachusetts vs. EPA,
GHGs qualify as air pollutants that endanger public welfare under § 202(a)(1), and EPA has
statutory authority to regulate those emissions from sources like HD vehicles.2 Subsequently,
EPA in their 2009 endangerment finding held that GHG emissions from motor vehicles,
including HD vehicles, 'contribute to the total greenhouse gas air pollution, and thus to the
climate change problem, which is reasonably anticipated to endanger public health and
welfare.'3 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1613-A1, p. 1]
1 42 U.S.C. 7521(a)(1).
2 See generally, 549 U.S. 497, 531 (2007).
3 74 Fed. Reg. at 66499.
EPA, thus, has an affirmative duty to develop GHG standards for HD vehicles that reflect the
'greatest degree of emission reduction achievable through the application of technology which
the Administrator determines will be available for the model year to which such standards
apply.'4 While the CAA provides some room for considerations of cost, energy, and safety,5 'it
must place primary importance on achieving the greatest degree of emissions reduction.'6 It is
through this mandate that we urge EPA to both finalize these heavy-duty vehicle regulations as
quickly as possible, as well as to strengthen its proposal to achieve the greatest degree of
reductions that protect public health and welfare. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1613-A1, p. 2]
4 42 U.S.C. 7521(a)(3)(A)(i).
5 Id.
6 See Husqvarna AB v. EPA, 254 F.3d 195, at 200 (D.C. Cir. 2001).
EPA Must Strengthen the Proposal to Achieve Greater GHG Emission Reductions
Following the historic passage of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and Inflation Reduction
Act, NPCA is pleased with EPA's decision to improve upon its initial proposal to address HD
vehicle GHGs. Moving ahead with this separate Phase III HD vehicle GHG rulemaking will
better control one of the largest remaining sources of climate pollution in the US. While this
proposal is a significant step in the right direction, NPCA believes that numerous improvements
must be made to ensure the final rule is in line with the CAA's mandate that the agency enact the
greatest level of emission reductions achievable to protect public health and welfare. 15 [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1613-A1, p. 3]
15 See Supra note 1, 3, and 5.
Firstly, NPCA urges EPA to promulgate a nationwide standard that is at least as stringent as
the Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT) rule that has already been adopted in numerous states. Such a
high level of stringency is necessary to reach the widely recognized goal of putting the U.S. on a
path to achieve 100% zero emission vehicle (ZEV) HD sales by no later than 2045. The level of
GHG emission reductions outlined in the preferred alternative is drastically inadequate compared
to what many experts believe is needed to limit global temperatures below 2° C, which it itself is
.5° C above the IPCC's stated goal of limiting warming to 1.5° C. For example, an analysis
conducted by the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) found that new heavy-
352
-------
duty ZEV sales of 46% or higher by 2030 are necessary to avoid a greater than 2° C increase in
warming. 16 With such high levels of HD ZEV penetration needed in the near term to keep us
within the 2° C threshold, ensuring additional stringency at or even above nationwide ACT
levels should be the highest priority for this rulemaking. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1613-A1,
p. 4]
16 C. Buysse et al., Racing to Zero: The Ambition We Need for Zero-Emission Heavy-Duty Vehicles in
the United States, International Council on Clean Transportation (Apr. 8, 2022), https://theicct.org/racing-
to-zero-hdv-us-apr22/.
NPCA also believes that more stringent Phase III GHG standards for HD vehicles in line with
national ACT adoption are technically and economically feasible, as demonstrated in the
growing number of states that have already finalized or are in the process of adopting ACT
requirements. The technology exists today, and as EPA outlines in the proposal, battery prices
are projected to continue to drop significantly into the future while simultaneous improvements
are expected in battery and fuel cell technology and grid infrastructure. 17 Such advancements
coupled with recent and expected public and private funding for HD ZEV technology should
continue to accelerate the HD ZEV market transition. Stringent rules will provide the certainty
needed for companies and the wider public to invest in HD ZEV technology long term. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1613-A1, p. 4]
17 88 Fed. Reg. at 25930.
Organization: Navistar, Inc.
2. Navistar supports EPA's gradual phase-in alternative, but would not modify the proposed
stringency of the standards in MY 2032.
In the proposed rule, EPA requested comment on whether to consider a slower phase in
alternative with a more gradual phase-in of C02 emission standards for MY 2027 through MY
2031 and a less stringent final standard in MY 2032. Navistar supports the slower phase-in
alternative for MY 2027 through MY 2031. However, consistent with Navistar's ZEV goals, we
do not at this time believe that changes to the stringency of the MY 2032 standards are
warranted, as long as the necessary charging infrastructure is widely available. As discussed
below, we recommend that the feasibility of the rule, including the MY 2032 standards, be
reassessed by EPA during a mid-term evaluation. Such evaluation should include whether the
requisite ZEV infrastructure is likely to be in place prior to the compliance deadlines.
6. Navistar supports EMA's comments and echoes its concerns regarding EPA's underlying
assumptions in support of the proposed rule.
Navistar is a member of the Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association ('EMA'). Navistar
supports the comments submitted by the EMA on EPA's proposed rule, and incorporates them
into these comments as though they were fully set forth in this document. In particular, Navistar
shares EMA's concerns that many of EPA's underlying assumptions are overly optimistic. For
example, EPA's cost assessments fail to account for any potential necessary upgrades to the
national electrical grid or distribution system. Draft RIA, p. 201. Nor does EPA account for the
upfront capital costs and time required to plan for, obtain permitting for and build-out the
necessary infrastructure. Navistar agrees with EMA's critique of EPA's version of HD TRUCS
model. In particular, EPA's failure to consider public battery-recharging stations for medium and
353
-------
heavy-duty ('MHD') ZEVs in its model is a significant and fundamental flaw. As we noted
above, public charging infrastructure is critical and must come first to provide fleets that operate
over long-distance routes the confidence to electrify their fleets. Due to their size and power
demands, MHD ZEVs cannot utilize the charging infrastructure that is being developed for
passenger ZEVs. EPA should revise its assumptions and data inputs in its version of HD TRUCS
to take into account that public battery-recharging stations for MHD ZEVs are necessary and
critical infrastructure components in support of a successful rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1527-A1, p. 6]
Organization: Neste US
II. THE PROPOSED RULE MISSES OPPORTUNITIES FOR FASTER
DEC ARB ONIZ ATION
Neste agrees with the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Report:
"There is a rapidly closing window of opportunity to secure a liveable and sustainable future
for all... The choices and actions implemented in this decade will have impacts now and for
thousands of years." 3 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1615-A1, p. 2]
3 IPCC, 2023: Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. A Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, H. Lee and J. Romero (eds.)]. IPCC,
Geneva, Switzerland, (in press)
So while Neste supports more stringent GHG standards for heavy-duty vehicles, there is
concern the proposed rule's singular focus on EVs and hydrogen fuel cells crucially ignores
other, more widely available and lower cost GHG reduction options. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1615-A1, p. 2]
The majority of heavy-duty vehicles run on diesel fuel, with Class 8 vehicles as high as 97%.
Renewable diesel, because it has the same chemical composition of fossil diesel, can be used as a
one-to-one replacement in vehicles already built to run on diesel. Renewable diesel is
significantly cleaner than fossil fuel and can reduce GHG emissions by up to 75% over the fuel's
life cycle today, with the potential to improve as producers reduce GHG emissions from their
own operations and additional lower carbon intensity feedstock are developed. In fact, in
California, the use of renewable diesel in the transportation sector has accounted for more than
30% of the state's total GHG emissions reductions.4 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1615-A1, p. 2]
4 California Energy Commission. 2020. Low Carbon Fuel Standard Dashboard.
https://www.dieselforum.org/images/dmImage/StandardImage/biofuel-co2-reductions-2021.png
Those emissions reductions came at a far lower cost - and faster - than they would have from
electrifying the same fleets. Research conducted by Stillwater Associates for the Diesel
Technology Forum in July 2022 evaluated options for reducing GHG emissions from
commercial vehicles over a 10-year period (2022-2032) in Connecticut, Delaware,
Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and
Vermont. That study found that, "[o]n a cumulative fleet conversion cost basis, turning over a
medium and heavy-duty fleet of 10,000 vehicles in the aforementioned 10 state region to EV
carries a price tag more than three times higher than the equivalent cost for new technology
diesel vehicles "5 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1615-A1, p. 2]
354
-------
Fueling those vehicles with 100% renewable diesel offers three times larger cumulative GHG
reductions by 2032 than electrification according to the research. Unfortunately, the proposed
rule makes just one reference to renewable fuels that are available today. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1615-A1, p. 2]
Organization: Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) and the
Ozone Transport Commission (OTC)
Finalize GHG Standards that Align with the Requirements of the ARB ACT Regulation
We encourage EPA to finalize HD GHG standards that align with the requirements of the
ARB ACT regulation for tractors and vocational vehicles through MY 2035. In developing final
HDV C02 standards, we encourage EPA to re-evaluate its reference case for the status of the
MHD ZEV market. Eight MOU signatory states - California, Colorado, Massachusetts, New
Jersey, New York, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington - have already adopted the ACT
regulation. These states comprise 25% of heavy-duty vehicle registrations in the U.S. Additional
states are planning to adopt the ACT regulation in 2023, which if finalized, will bring the ACT
state registrations to over 30% of the nation's total HDV registrations. Other states may follow
suit. As more states adopt ACT, the requirement will represent an even greater share of the
national HDV market. To fully capture current ACT adoptions, EPA's reference case should be
updated to include Vermont and Colorado. ARB's adoption of the Advanced Clean Fleets (ACF)
regulation should also be incorporated. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1562-A1, p. 9]
In addition, the substantial initiatives outlined above to spur the market for HD ZEVs should
be taken into consideration in stringency setting. As was shown from the above examples, state
energy, transportation and environmental departments, utilities, private industry, counties, and
municipalities are planning for public and private infrastructure to support the transition to 100%
zero emission heavy-duty vehicles. Moreover, the ACT requirements that eight MHD ZEV
MOU states have adopted are aligned with industry announcements. Major original equipment
manufacturers (OEMs) and fleets have made public commitments to phase out internal
combustion engine vehicles by 2040.25 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1562-A1, p. 9]
25 See, e.g., Cary, N., Reuters, "Daimler Truck 'All In' On Green Energy as it Targets Costs," May 2021,
https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/daimler-truck-all-in-green-energy-shift-targets-
costs-2021-05-20/; NPR, "From Amazon to FedEx The Delivery Truck is Going Electric," March 17, 2021,
https://www.npr.org/2021/03/17/976152350/from-amazon-to-fedex-the-delivery-truck-is-going-electric;
Navistar, "Environmental Footprint," Environmental Footprint | Navistar®.
Finally, as EPA notes in its NPRM, many technologies and powertrains have been
demonstrated and are considered technically feasible for HD vehicles. EPA's Draft Regulatory
Impact Analysis (DRIA) states a diverse range of technologies may be used to comply with the
proposed standards to reduce GHG emissions, including internal combustion engine (ICE),
hybrid, and plug-in hybrid powertrains, hydrogen ICEs, battery electric vehicles (BEVs), and
fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1562-A1, p. 9-10]
Given the diverse range of technologies available to reduce HDV GHGs, and the rapidly
advancing HD ZEV market, we urge EPA to increase stringency of the standards in the final
rule. We encourage EPA to incorporate recent actions to spur the market for HD ZEVs into its
reference case for HD ZEV adoption and more fully evaluate the potential for ICE vehicle C02
improvements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1562-A1, p. 10]
355
-------
Tractor C02 Standards
Tractor trailers are responsible for 60% of total heavy-duty truck fuel consumption even
though they represent only 13% of the total U.S. heavy-duty fleet.26 Given the outsized
importance of tractor-related fuel consumption and GHG emissions to overall heavy-duty vehicle
GHGs, it is important that EPA establish the most stringent technically feasible standards for this
category of vehicles. As shown in Figure 1, freight truck ton-miles are projected to increase in
future years. Projected growth in freight ton-miles will increase the associated emissions from
these vehicles. Absent the most stringent regulation of tractors, GHG emission standards will be
eclipsed by tractor vehicle miles travelled (VMT) increases over time. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1562-A1, p. 10]
26 81 Fed. Reg. 73478 (October 25, 2016).
NESCAUM and OTC respectfully request that EPA finalize tractor C02 emission standards
that are aligned with the ACT requirements for tractors. ARB has established an ACT tractor
ZEV sales requirement by 2032 of 40%. This sales mandate exceeds the ZEV adoption rate that
would be required to meet the EPA proposed standards of 48.2 grams C02/ton-mile (g C02/ton-
mile) to 68.2 g/ton-mile C02 for class 7 and 8 low, mid, and high roof tractors in 2032. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1562-A1, p. 10]
EPA's proposed stringencies for MY 2032 tractors assume a 25% zero emission vehicle
penetration rate as shown in Table IX-6 of the NPRM. The table provides ZEV technology
adoption rates for short-haul and long-haul tractors in the technology packages considered for the
proposed standards. The assumed ZEV adoption rates for tractors are significantly lower than the
40% tractor ZEV requirement in the ACT regulation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1562-A1,
p. 10]
ZEV tractor introduction could advance more quickly than EPA estimates in its NPRM. EPA
states in the NPRM that technology adoption rates were selected based on the payback period
calculated for tractors.27 Battery sizing is an important factor in overall battery electric vehicle
BEV cost, and, according to EPA, "battery sizes we used in our assessment are conservative
because they could meet 100 percent of the daily operating requirement using the 90th percentile
VMT at the battery end of life."28 EPA's analysis assumes tractor batteries would be sized to
meet an entire day's travel with no opportunity charging.29 As a result, EPA estimates a
battery size of 1.5 megawatt-hours (MWh) or greater is needed for some tractors, a significantly
larger battery than would be needed if these tractors are charged during the day. EPA requested
comment on this approach. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1562-A1, p. 10-11]
27 88 Fed. Reg. 25926 (April 27, 2023), p. 25974.
28 Ibid., p. 25977.
29 U.S. EPA, "Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles - Phase 3 Draft Regulatory
Impact Analysis," April 27, 2023, https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P10178RN.pdf.
We note that a recent ICCT study found that with opportunity charging, a battery size of 1
MWh or smaller would be sufficient to support the duty cycles of long-haul tractors.30 We
believe the substantial investments states, utilities, and industry are making to develop MHD
ZEV charging infrastructure will provide opportunity charging for tractors. Opportunity charging
can extend the daily range of tractor trailers, in turn facilitating deployment of heavy-duty zero
356
-------
emission vehicles with smaller batteries and thus lower overall upfront costs than those assumed
by EPA in its modeling for the NPRM. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1562-A1, p. 11]
30 Hussein B. et al., The International Council on Clean Transportation, "Total Cost of Ownership of
Alternative Powertrain Technologies For Class 8 Long-Haul Trucks In The United States," April 2023.
We request that EPA evaluate recent analyses such as the ICCT study as well as state, utility,
county, and municipality efforts to establish infrastructure and adjust assumptions about tractor
battery sizing, costs, and ZEV penetration rates in the final rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1562-A1, p. 11]
Establish More Stringent Standards for a Subset of Vocational Vehicles
EPA requested comment on a standards structure for Phase 3 that would establish unique,
mandatory, application-specific standards for some subset of heavy-duty vehicle applications.
We encourage EPA to finalize more stringent application-specific g C02/ton-mile emission
standards for urban buses, school buses, refuse haulers, and cement mixers.
• State, county, transit authority, and municipality actions are speeding the transition to
electric urban buses in the U.S. Most of the largest transit fleets in the country have
committed to transition to zero emission buses. New York's Metropolitan Transportation
Authority (MTA) will require all new urban bus purchases to be ZEVs by 2029, with a
commitment to replace its entire fleet of 5,800 buses with zero-emissions buses by
2040.31 Five additional New York transit agencies have the goal to transition their fleets
of 1,300 buses to 100% zero-emissions buses by 2035, with an interim goal of 25% zero-
emission buses by 2025.32 New Jersey requires that all new urban bus purchases be
ZEVs by 2032, and Maryland requires that all new urban bus purchases be ZEV by 2023.
California, Washington, Colorado, Connecticut, and Massachusetts also have
requirements that urban bus fleets transition to 100% ZEVs by a specific calendar year.
The District of Columbia and Chicago's transit bus fleets are transitioning to zero
emissions. These jurisdictions taken together have 9 of the top 10 transit agencies by bus
fleet size in the nation.33 Additional states will likely put in place requirements for zero-
emitting urban buses. Given the high percentage of the nation's urban buses that are
already required to transition to zero emissions, we believe more stringent g C02/ton-
mile standards for urban buses should be finalized. We encourage EPA to evaluate the
state of the urban bus market in more detail and finalize more stringent C02 g/ton-mile
standards for this category. For many years, urban buses were held to more stringent
emission standards than other heavy-duty vehicles given they are operated in densely
populated urban areas and in communities overburdened by pollution.
• Likewise, New York, California, and Michigan all have adopted mandates, and/or
funding programs to convert school bus fleets to zero emissions.34 Massachusetts,
Illinois, Washington, and Hawaii all have proposed electric school bus legislation. In
New York, no later than July 1, 2027, school districts and school bus contractors shall
operate and maintain only zero-emissions school buses.35 New York State's
Environmental Bond Act (2022) includes $500 million for school bus electrification to
help reduce zero emission school bus purchase and charger costs.36 New Jersey in 2022
established a $45 million grant program for electric school buses to be administered by
the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. Other states also have
incentives to aid in the transition to zero emission school buses. Furthermore, EPA's
357
-------
Clean School Bus Program will provide $5 billion in funding between 2022 and 2026 for
school buses.
• Other vehicles currently in the custom chassis category, such as refuse haulers and
concrete mixers, should be required to meet significantly more stringent C02 standards,
based on the projections for ZEV penetration for these categories of vehicles. As noted
by EPA on page 240 of its RIA, ZEV sales of refuse truck and concrete mixers will reach
35% by 2032. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1562-A1, p. 11-12]
31 MTA, "Transitioning to a zero-emissions bus fleet," updated July 25, 2022,
https://new.mta.info/project/zero-emission-bus-fleet.
32 NYSERDA, Governor Cuomo Announces Initiatives to Electrify Transit Buses, Boosting Access to
Clean Transportation and Building Healthier Communities, December 29, 2020,
https://www.nyserda.ny.gOv/About/Newsroom/2020-Announcements/2020-12-29-Governor-Cuomo-
Announces-Initiatives-to-Electrify-Transit-Buses-Boosting-Access-to-Clean-Transportation-and-Building-
Healthier-Communities.
33 Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, "Transit Profiles: 2020 Top 50
Reporters," September 2021, https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/2021-
ll/2020%20Top%2050%20Profiles%20Report_0.pdf.
34 CALSTART, "Zeroing in on Zero Emission School Buses," ZIO-ESBs-final-with-May-cover-
4.28.23.pdf (calstart.org).
35 NYS (Chapter 56 of the Laws of 2022).
36 The New York State Senate, Section 3638, "Zero Emission School Buses,"
https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/EDN/3638.
The Administration's Inflation Reduction Act (IRA)37 and the bipartisan Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA)38 will further accelerate the transition to a zero-emission future
by supporting zero emission vehicles and charging infrastructure. Recent analysis of electric
vehicle sales trends coupled with the anticipated impact of the IRA indicate the 2030
U.S. National Blueprint for Transportation Decarbonization39 targets will be exceeded in 2030
without any additional regulatory actions by EPA.40 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1562-A1,
p. 12-13]
37 Public Law 117-169 "Inflation Reduction Act of 2022," August 16, 2022,
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/housebill/5376/all-info.
38 Public Law 117-58 "Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act," November 15, 2021,
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW 117publ58/pdf/PLAW-l 17publ58.pdf.
39 Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy (EERE), "U.S. National Blueprint for Transportation
Decarbonization: A Joint Strategy to Transform Transportation," January 2023,
https://www.energy.gov/eere/us-national-blueprint-transportation-decarbonization-joint-strategy-transform-
transportation.
40 Slowik, P., et al., Analyzing the Impact of the Inflation Reduction Act on Electric Vehicle Uptake in the
United States, White Paper, International Council on Clean Transportation, January 31, 2023,
https://theicct.org/publication/ira-impact-evs-us-jan23/.
In summary, based on the ongoing collective state efforts, the rapid advance of electric
vehicle technologies, falling costs, and significant federal funding for ZEVs and infrastructure,
we believe tractor and vocational vehicle GHG standards can be and should be more ambitious.
Furthermore, urban buses, school buses, refuse trucks, and concrete mixers should be required to
358
-------
meet more stringent, application-specific emission standards. NESCAUM and OTC are ready
upon request to provide additional information to EPA on state requirements and
incentives. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1562-A1, p. 13]
Organization: Nuvve Holding Corporation
Given that the transportation sector is the largest source of domestic greenhouse gas ("GHG")
emissions, Nuvve strongly supports this NPRM and encourages the EPA to consider moving
forward with adopting the strongest policies, or targets, that will reduce GHG emissions from
heavy-duty ("HD") vehicles, while continuing to expedite the Nation's transition to net-zero
emissions and a more electrified transportation future, consistent with this Administration's
overall clean energy, climate, and sustainability goals. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1572-A1,
p. 1]
EVs emit substantially fewer GHG emissions and other harmful air pollutants than internal
combustion engine ("ICE") vehicles, while also being less expensive to "fuel" and maintain over
their lifetimes. Thus, the EPA's NPRM presents an opportunity to decarbonize the largest source
of emissions in the U.S. economy, while supporting the continued acceleration of an emerging
domestic EV market for HD vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1572-A1, p. 2]
Organization: Our Children's Trust
As the Nation's only law firm dedicated to representing youth whose constitutional rights are
being infringed by their government's conduct that causes climate change, we write to advise
EPA to strengthen the federal emission standards for heavy-duty highway vehicles so that they
meet the urgency of the climate crisis and align with the deep emission reductions scientists say
are needed to protect the climate system and the constitutional rights of youth. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1633-A1, p. 1]
• Specifically, EPA should at minimum align the rule with California, which has recently
adopted a regulation that requires all truck sales by zero emission vehicles by 2036,
illustrating the economic and technical feasibility of stronger rules that ensure internal
combustion engines are phased out for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles in a manner that
comports with the Administration's goals to decarbonize transportation. The National
Renewable Energy Laboratory reports that "with continued improvements in vehicle and
fuel technologies (in line with U.S. Department of Energy targets and vetted with
industry), zero emission vehicles (ZEVs) can reach total-cost-of-driving parity with
conventional diesel vehicles by 2035 for all medium- and heavy-duty (MD/HD) vehicle
classes (without incentives)." 1 ZEV sales of medium- and heavy-duty vehicles could
reach 42% by 2030 and >99% of the market by 2045, assuming charging and refueling
infrastructure is deployed to accommodate these levels of ZEV adoption.2 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1633-A1, p. 1]
1 Catherine Ledna et al., NREL, Decarbonizing Medium- & Heavy-Duty On-Road Vehicles: Zero-
Emission Vehicles Cost Analysis 2 (Mar. 2022), https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy22osti/82081.pdf (emphasis
in original).
2 Id.
359
-------
• EPA must increase the stringency of its standards for heavy-duty trucks, and other
combustion engines, that tracks with and signals the end of production and sales of the
internal combustion engine at minimum by 2036. It is EPA's job to do as much as it can
to push the transition to zero emissions to protect the air and climate for children and
future generations. These standards need to go further faster so that the entire
transportation sector, and supporting industrial sectors, can plan and respond as quickly
as feasible. The technology is there to expedite the transition away from the internal
combustion engine and eliminate their sales at minimum by 2036 for heavy-duty
vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1633-A1, p. 2]
Decarbonization of the transportation sector and other combustion engines is critical to
achieving greenhouse gas emission reduction goals. Experts have opined that "[transportation
electrification is the most critical sector to achieve these electrification goals in due to the
volume of liquid fuels it currently consumes."3 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1633-A1, p. 2]
3 Ben Haley et al., Evolved Energy Research, 350 PPM Pathways for the United States 38 (2019).
To learn more about how young people are being harmed, please watch the award-winning,
independent feature-length documentary film now streaming on Netflix, YOUTH v GOV. These
stories constitute just a small sample of what American children are experiencing due to the
climate crisis the federal government continues to exacerbate by and through its national energy
system. We request that the EPA incorporates the protection of children's fundamental rights to a
safe climate system, defined by the best available science, into future rulemaking, policies, and
initiatives. Human laws must respect the laws of nature; our government ignores the natural laws
of energy imbalance and climate destabilization at the peril of our children. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1633-A1, p. 5]
Organization: Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA)
The Phase 3 rule also attempts to rush production of battery electric vehicles (BEVs) while a
national charging infrastructure network remains absent for heavy-duty trucks. Professional
drivers are skeptical of BEV costs, mileage range, battery weight and safety, charging time, and
availability. Yet, EPA estimates that adoptions rates for Class 8 BEVs will jump from zero
percent in 2029 to 25 percent just three years later. This is another example of EPA overreach as
it effectively forces sales of BEVs and zero emission vehicles (ZEVs). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1632-A1, p. 2]
EPA must consider a more feasible implementation timeline that would provide reliable and
affordable heavy-duty vehicles for consumers, particularly small trucking businesses and
individual owner-operators. This can be accomplished through a diverse vehicle approach that
protects consumer choice and values the input from the men and women of the trucking
industry. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1632-A1, p. 2]
OOIDA has supported the administration's emphasis on improving driver recruitment and
retention. Instead of taking actions to benefit those who make their living behind the wheel, such
as expanding truck parking capacity, increasing driver compensation, and improving working
conditions, this proposed rule would make small-business truckers' jobs more difficult and push
some out of the industry. The final rulemaking should reflect more practical timelines and
360
-------
vehicle considerations that do not force drivers out of business or make it more challenging for
new drivers to enter the industry. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1632-A1, p. 4]
Organization: POET
EPA's Projections for Zero-Emissions Vehicles are Overly Optimistic and Largely Ignore the
Significant Infrastructure that Must Be Built to Support the Switch to a Heavy-Duty ZEV
Fleet. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1528-A1, p. 13]
The Proposed rule is deficient in other significant ways. It relies on overly optimistic
projections for heavy-duty ZEV adoption that fail to account for several key factors that will be
essential to meeting the projected targets. POET engaged Jim Lyons of Trinity Consultants
('Trinity'), an international consulting firm specializing in, among other things, environmental
sustainability, to review EPA's technology assessments. In his report, Attachment A to this
letter, Mr. Lyons explains: (1) the 'payback' analysis EPA used to estimate ZEV adoption rates
is inadequate and likely significant overstates adoption rates and the ability of manufacturers to
comply with the Proposed Rule; (2) there are a number of concerns with EPA's estimates
regarding GHG emissions reductions resulting from the Proposed Rule, suggesting those
reductions are overestimated; and (3) EPA failed to incorporate provisions into the Proposed
Rule that recognize ethanol and other renewable fuels' ability to create GHG emission
reductions.45. The Proposed Rule's technology assessment also fails to account for the major
infrastructure overhaul that will be necessary to accommodate the many new heavy-duty ZEVs
EPA is projecting will need to be on the road to comply with its proposed standards. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1528-A1, p. 13] [Refer to Attachment A on pp. 22-41 of docket number EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1528-A1],
45 Attachment A at 1.
EPA's Predictions Regarding the Volume of EVs Far Exceed Current Adoption Rates without
Providing Sufficient Analysis. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1528-A1, p. 13]
The Proposed Rule relies on aggressive adoption rates for heavy-duty ZEVs. As the Trinity
Report explains, EPA is assuming those adoption rates or sales fractions will jump to 10 to 30
percent for vehicles other than tractors and certain buses by MY 2027—that is, in just three
years.46 Those adoption rates then double for most vehicles by MY 2032, or 'increase by greater
rates such that they range from 15 to 57%.'47 Those rates far exceed the data shown by the U.S.
Energy Information Agency ('EIA') in its 2022 Annual Energy Outlook, which EPA displays in
its Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis.48 Those projected adoption rates—current (2022) and
future (2050) heavy-duty ZEV sales fractions—range from 0.10% (current) to 0.15% (future).49
EPA's projections thus exceed EIA's current rate by 150 to 570 times.50 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1528-A1, pp. 13-14]
46 Id. at 2.
47 Id.
48 Id.
49 Id.
50 Id.
361
-------
EPA's analysis in the Proposed Rule fails to demonstrate why it believes that the heavy-duty
vehicle industry will grow this quickly. As the Trinity report explains, EPA has failed to address
'key factors including realistic lead time requirements that accurately account for research and
development, prototyping, development of production and assembly facilities, availability of
tooling and parts including batteries and fuel cells in sufficient quantities, and existing supplier
agreements among others.'51 Omitting those factors seriously undermines EPA's projections.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1528-A1, p. 14]
EPA's 'Payback' Analysis is Flawed
The Trinity report also identifies deficiencies in EPA's 'payback' analysis supporting its
heavy-duty ZEV predictions. That analysis proceeds in two steps: (1) it compares the cost of
conventional vehicles and ZEVs over the first ten years of those vehicles lives; and (2) it
calculates a 'payback period' required 'to amortize the incremental cost of ZEV[s].'52 The
analysis assumes that, if the 'HD ZEV costs less to purchase than a conventional vehicle (even
by $1),' 80 percent 'of operators using that vehicle type will immediately purchase the ZEV.'53
That is unrealistic. The payback analysis assumes that supply will match demand but ignores the
significant hurdles to maintaining and growing the supply of ZEVs. The mismatch between
supply and demand also affects the price comparison. EPA assumes that the price comparison
remains constant, even as supply and demand fluctuate. EPA does not provide support for this
assumption. It is more likely that prices will fluctuate with supply and demand. As the Trinity
report explains:
• Greater demand for HD ZEVs will lead to greater demand for components such as
batteries and fuel cells which are also likely to be in demand for light-duty vehicle
applications both in the U.S. and around the world. Greater demand will lead to higher
prices for HD ZEVs regardless of the cost of production and, following the logic of U.S.
EPA's payback analysis, lower adoption rates.54 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1528-A1,
p. 14]
52 Id. at 4.
53 Id. at 5 (emphasis added).
54 Id. at 4.
Additionally, as the Trinity report observes, EPA simply assumes that heavy-duty vehicle
operators will buy ZEVs instead of conventional vehicles if the operators believe 'they will save
money in the near term.'55 Yet EPA's Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis - Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles: Phase 3 ('DRIA') contradicts that assumption
when it discusses the 'energy efficiency gap,' wherein 'available technologies that would reduce
the total cost of ownership for the vehicle . . . have not been widely adopted or the adoption is
relatively slow despite their potential to repay buyers' initial investments rapidly.' 56 EPA
acknowledges the many factors that contribute to this gap: 'constraints on access to capital for
investment, imperfect or asymmetrical information about the new technology (for example, real-
world operational cost savings, durability, or performance), uncertainty about supporting
infrastructure (for example, ease of charging a BEV), uncertainty about the resale market, and
first-mover disadvantages for manufacturers.'57 EPA has done little to account for these factors
in its analysis. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1528-A1, p. 15]
362
-------
55 Id. at 3.
56 Id. at 3-4 (quoting DRIA at 417).
57 Id. at 4 (quoting DRIA at 417-18).
EPA also relied on the ACT Research method for its payback period and adoption rate
estimates. However, EPA states that it applied an adoption rate that exceeded 'the ACT schedule
in each payback period range that is greater than 4 years, due to the assumed impact of this
proposed regulation.'58 Other than this circular reasoning, EPA provides no justification for
adopting faster rates. The reasoning cannot readily be discerned from the ACT Research method
itself because it is not publicly available and must be purchased. 59 The publicly available
information suggests that EPA has grossly inflated heavy-duty ZEV adoption rates. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1528-A1, p. 15]
58 Id. at 5 (quoting DRIA at 232).
59 Id. at 5.
EPA's Adoption Rate Analysis Is Also Flawed Because It Fails to Accurately Consider the
Costs Of ZEVs and the Significant Infrastructure that Will Be Needed to Support a Massive
Rollout of New Heavy-Duty ZEVs.
EPA's technology assessment largely ignores another critical factor: the necessary
infrastructure that must be built to support ZEVs at scale. This omission threatens the rule's
aggressive GHG reduction goals and exposes the rule to legal challenges for failure to consider a
key aspect of the problem the rule is meant to address. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1528-A1,
p. 15]
EPA's ZEV projections rely on three factors:
• Changes in the market in which some ZEV models are in use now and expected to
expand given falling costs and manufacturer commitments to invest more heavily in
ZEVs. 60
• The BIL and IRA, which include significant ZEV incentives.61
• California's announcement that new heavy-duty duty vehicles must be ZEVs by 2035,
and other states commitments to supporting electrification of the heavy-duty fleet. 62
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1528-A1, p. 16]
60 88 Fed. Reg. at 25930.
61 Id.
62 Id. at 25930-31.
Those factors, and EPA's modeling, focus mainly on whether it is technologically feasible to
build individual heavy-duty ZEVs that can meet the standard. EPA largely ignores whether the
supply-chain and infrastructure needed to support ZEVs at the scale EPA is predicting. In short,
the proposal completely fails to demonstrate that 'the development and application of the
requisite technology' of ZEVs would be feasible over the lifetime of the Proposed
Rule.63 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1528-A1, p. 16]
63 42 U.S.C. 7521(a)(2).
363
-------
EPA relies on the 'HD TRUCS model' to 'evaluate the design features needed to meet the
energy and power demands of various HD vehicle types when using ZEV technologies.'64 'The
overarching design and functionality of HD TRUCS is premised on ensuring each of the 101
ZEV types could perform the same work as a comparable ICE vehicle counterpart.'65 Yet this
modeling largely ignores many critical factors. It does not predict how charging and other
refueling infrastructure will grow to meet the demands for ZEVs. It does not assess whether the
funds appropriated for that infrastructure in either the BIL or IRA are enough or will result in the
buildout of that infrastructure in time to accommodate the proposed standards, or whether
corporate commitments to building supporting infrastructure will be enough to meet the need for
ZEVs. Nor does it address the significant need for support services and personnel to maintain the
growing ZEV fleet. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1528-A1, p. 16]
64 88 Fed. Reg. at 25974.
65 Id.
To the extent EPA analyzes charging and refueling infrastructure, its assessment focuses
myopically on costs. That cost assessment purports to include 'labor and supplies, permitting,
taxes, and any upgrades or modifications to the on-site electrical service.'66 For one, this
analysis is incomplete. As EPA acknowledges, 'there may be additional infrastructure needs and
costs beyond those associated with charging equipment itself.'67 EPA recognizes that 'the
buildout of public and private charging stations (particularly those with multiple high-powered
DC fast charging units) could in some cases require upgrades to local distribution systems.'68
Yet EPA largely shrugs off the need for those upgrades, while acknowledging the 'considerable
uncertainty associated with future distribution upgrade needs,' and noting, in conclusory fashion,
that 'in many cases, some costs may be borne by utilities rather than directly incurred by BEV or
fleet owners.'69 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1528-A1, pp. 16-17]
66 Id. at 25982.
67 Id.
68 Id.
69 Id. at 25983.
This observation is flawed in several ways. First, it fails to address considerable uncertainty
surrounding electric system upgrades—a critical aspect to the success of implementing charging
infrastructure for BEVs at scale. Second, EPA focuses primarily on whether new charging
infrastructure will compromise grid reliability. The agency ignores that reliability is only one
consideration that affects whether new electric infrastructure is built. Many other factors play a
role in the decision to build new electric infrastructure, even if that new infrastructure will not
compromise reliability. EPA assumes that utilities will simply pay to upgrade the system,
without assessing how those upgrades occur, the permitting and other requirements that may
hinder the upgrades, whether utilities will be reluctant to fund those upgrades, or whether
ratepayers will bear what may be seen as excessive or disproportionate costs associated with the
upgrades. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1528-A1, p. 17]
The Trinity report also identified the following additional overly optimistic assumptions:
• 'Assuming that IRA tax credits for battery producers will result in cost savings to battery
purchasers (Table 2-44 of the DRIA);
364
-------
• 'Failure to properly account for development and integration costs incurred by vehicle
manufacturers associated with the production of HD ZEVs by assuming that they will be
equal on a percentage basis to those associated with conventional vehicles (Table 3-3 of
the DRIA); and
EPA also makes optimistic assumptions about the costs of electricity and hydrogen to fuel
heavy-duty ZEVs. EPA assigns a cost of 10.7 cents/kWH for electricity to charge BEVs and to
produce hydrogen via electrolysis, which represents the EIA 2022 value for commercial end
users.73 EPA chose this value over the 2023 EIA value for transportation, which is 3 cents/kWH
or 30 percent higher than the value EPA relies upon.74 The Trinity report explains that it is
unclear whether those rates reflect what heavy-duty vehicle operators will have to pay,
particularly if they are using public direct current fast charging stations. 75 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1528-A1, p. 18]
73 Id. at 7.
74 Id.
75 Id.
In any event, costs also are only part of the equation. Just because a course of action is cost-
effective does not mean it will necessarily occur. This is particularly true with infrastructure.
Infrastructure requires building new facilities in cities, towns, and other communities that may be
sensitive to further industrialization. It requires navigating often complex and overlapping
permitting requirements in which a variety of state and municipal governments may have veto
power and may exercise it for a variety of reasons unrelated to costs. Focusing only on costs also
ignores permitting timelines that are susceptible to significant delays, changing officials,
changing politics, and uncertain appeals processes. Similar issues arise with wind and solar
projects. Those projects will require significant transmission system upgrades, but those
upgrades are struggling to catch up with incentives for wind and solar development. They are
simply not being built on the time horizon seen as necessary.76 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1528-A1, p. 18]
76 And, of course, it is worth noting again that delays in building out the transmission infrastructure
necessary to electrify the grid also means that upstream emissions from the use of ZEVs will remain
significant for an extended period of time.
Additionally, EPA's cost analysis of hydrogen infrastructure is rudimentary, focusing on
storage, without addressing other significant infrastructure issues facing hydrogen. While it is
true that the BIL and IRA incentivize hydrogen production, and that the BIL appropriates
billions of dollars to establish regional 'Hydrogen Hubs,' applicants are anticipating long lead
times for those regional hydrogen networks to materialize: 10 to 12 years, according to New
York, Massachusetts, and six other Northeastern states, who recently applied for Hub funding up
to $1.25 billion.77 EPA mentions the funding but omits the timeline. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1528-A1, p. 19]
77 NYSERDA, Seven States in NE Regional Clean Hydrogen Hub Announce DOE Proposal for Funding
and Designation as a National Hub (Apr. 7, 2023), https://www.nyserda.ny.gov/About/Newsroom/2023-
Announcements/2023-4-7-Seven-States-in-Northeast-Regional-Clean-Hydrogen-Hub.
Hydrogen infrastructure has a long way to go. According to DOE, '[t]he major hydrogen-
producing states are California, Louisiana, and Texas. Today, almost all the hydrogen produced
365
-------
in the United States is used for refining petroleum, treating metals, producing fertilizer, and
processing foods.'78 DOE has observed that '[m]ost hydrogen used in the United States is
produced at or close to where it is used—typically at large industrial sites.'79 Hydrogen is not
being produced at scale as transportation fuel. And, as DOE has recognized, the 'infrastructure
needed for distributing hydrogen to the nationwide network of fueling stations required for the
widespread use of fuel cell electric vehicles still needs to be developed.'80 DOE has explained
that the 'initial rollout for vehicles and stations focuses on building out these distribution
networks, primarily in southern and northern California.'81 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1528-
Al, p. 19]
78 U.S. Dep't of Energy, Alternative Fuels Data Center, Hydrogen Production and Distribution,
https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/hy drogen_production.html#:~:text=The%20major%20hydrogen%2Dproducin
g%20states,producing%20fertilizer%2C%20and%20processing%20foods (last visited June 16, 2023).
79 Id.
80 Id.
81 Id.
DOE has identified other significant challenges:
Creating an infrastructure for hydrogen distribution and delivery to thousands of future
individual fueling stations presents many challenges. Because hydrogen contains less energy per
unit volume than all other fuels, transporting, storing, and delivering it to the point of end-use is
more expensive on a per gasoline gallon equivalent basis. Building a new hydrogen pipeline
network involves high initial capital costs, and hydrogen's properties present unique challenges
to pipeline materials and compressor design.82 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1528-A1, p. 19]
82 Id.
EPA's analysis fails to account for all these critical factors. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1528-
Al, p. 19]
The omission of any meaningful analysis of the necessary infrastructure buildout is
significant. Building the supporting infrastructure will be critical to the success of implementing
ZEVs at scale and will require a major reimagining of our transportation infrastructure. As EPA
knows, heavy-duty vehicles are not a monolith. EPA's modeling addresses over 101 different
types of heavy-duty vehicles.83 Its standards range from class 2b to class 8 vehicles, which vary
differently from one another and serve a broad range of purposes. There can be no one-size-fits-
all solution to the necessary infrastructure to support those heavy-duty ZEVs at scale. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1528-A1, p. 20]
EPA is also aware that heavy-duty vehicle manufacturers have concerns about the
infrastructure buildout:
EPA has heard from some representatives from the heavy-duty vehicle manufacturing
industry both optimism regarding the heavy-duty industry's ability to produce ZEV technologies
in future years at high volume, but also concern that a slow growth in ZEV charging and
refueling infrastructure can slow the growth of heavy-duty ZEV adoption, and that this may
present challenges for vehicle manufacturers ability to comply with future EPA GHG
standards.84 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1528-A1, p. 20]
366
-------
84 Id. at 25934.
Heavy-duty vehicle manufacturers have asked EPA to address this concern, and EPA has
specifically requested comment on the topic.85 This concern must be addressed. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1528-A1, p. 20]
85 Id.
EPA must take a harder look at the data and incorporate the challenges to ZEV infrastructure
development into its modeling. EPA should also consider other technologies, such as renewable
fuels, that could significantly reduce heavy-duty vehicle emissions in conjunction with ZEVs.
EPA knows that courts may invalidate rules when agencies have 'entirely failed to consider an
important aspect of the problem' or 'offered an explanation for [their] decision[s] that runs
counter to the evidence before the agenc[ies].'86 The Proposed Rule risks a challenge under
those basic administrative law principles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1528-A1, p. 20]
86 State Farm, 463 U.S. at 43.
In both the Proposed Rule and the Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis (DRIA), U.S. EPA
focuses extensively on the need for widespread deployment of heavy-duty battery electric
vehicle (HD BEV) and heavy-duty fuel cell electric vehicle (HD FCEV) technologies as key
elements in manufacturer efforts to comply with the proposed greenhouse gas (GHG) standards.
Also mentioned are HD vehicles powered by hydrogen fueled internal combustion engines (H2-
ICE). Chapters 1 and 2 of the DRIA provide the bulk of the analysis of the assessment of the
technological feasibility of HD BEV, HD FCEV and H2-ICE technology. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1528-A1, p. 22]
The first key issue identified with findings of U.S. EPA's HD ZEV technology assessment are
the shear volumes of new vehicles that are assumed by the agency to be sold in the U.S. by the
2027 to 2032 model-years given that model-year 2024 engines and vehicles are already entering
the market. The agency's assumptions are presented at various places in the Proposed Rule and
DRIA but can be illustrated through Table 2-82 of the DRIA which is reproduced below. As
shown, U.S. EPA's assumed adoption rates or sales fractions for HD ZEV technology in model-
year 2027 (three years from now) are on the order of 10 to 30% for all applications other than
tractors and certain types of buses. Further, by model-year 2032 (eight years from now) the
assumed adoption rates for most applications double or increase by greater rates such that they
range from 15 to 57%. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1528-A1, p. 23]
The values shown in Table 2-82 can be contrasted with current and forecast sales of HD ZEV
technology published by the U.S. Energy Information Agency in its 2022 Annual Energy
Outlook which is presented in Table 1-4 of the DRIA. Based on the information presented in
Table 1-4, the current (2022) and future (2050) HD ZEV sales fractions (or adoption rate) for the
three groupings of HD vehicles range from 0.10% to 0.75%, respectively. As these data show,
outside of U.S. EPA's analysis growth in the adoption rate of HD ZEV technology is forecast to
increase by 7.5 times, but still amount to less than 1% of heavy-duty vehicle sales at the end of a
28 year period much less the eight year period over which U.S. EPA assumes that HD ZEV
vehicle adoption rates will increases from 150 to 570 times the current adoption rate of about
0.10%. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1528-A1, p. 23] [Refer to Table 2-82, Projected ZEV
Adoption Rates, on p. 24 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1528-A1]
367
-------
Further, U.S. EPA has not provided any analysis or evidence that the heavy-duty vehicle
industry can actually accomplish this level of growth even in light of requirements of the
Proposed Rule. Such an industry analysis would have to address key factors including realistic
lead time requirements that accurately account for research and development, prototyping,
development of production and assembly facilities, availability of tooling and parts including
batteries and fuel cells in sufficient quantities, and existing supplier agreements among others.
As a result of U.S. EPA's failure to perform this type of analysis there is no underlying support
for the agency's HD ZEV adoption rates or its determination that compliance with the proposed
rule will be technically feasible via the adoption of HD ZEV technology. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1528-A1, p. 23]
Another way in which the unsupported and highly optimistic nature of U.S. EPA's
assumptions regarding HD ZEV technology adoption rates can be seen is through a comparison
of the historical adoption rates of ZEV technology in light-duty vehicles. The figure below,
which was prepared by EIA shows that as of the end of 2021 the market share of ZEVs (e.g.
battery electric vehicles) in the U.S. was only 3.4% despite the facts that the State of California
adopted the first regulation mandating the sale of ZEVs in 1990 and that numerous states have
adopted the same requirements under Chapter 177 of the Clean Air Act. Given that ZEV
technology is more amenable to light-duty vehicles than heavy-duty vehicles, the only historical
evidence available directly contradicts U.S. EPA's assumptions that the Proposed Rule can drive
HD ZEV adoption rates from near zero to 15 to 57% in such a short period of time. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1528-A1, p. 23] [Refer reader to the Figure, Quarterly Light-Duty Sales, on p.
24 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1528-A1]
As explained in Chapter 2 of the DRIA, U.S. EPA's adoption rates for HD ZEV technologies
are based on a 'payback' analysis which relies completely on the assumption that HD operators
will purchase ZEVs rather than conventional vehicles if they believe that they will save money in
the near term. The only factors considered by U.S. EPA in estimating HD ZEV adoption rates
are incremental differences in the cost of powertrains, operation and maintenance between HD
ZEVs and conventional HD vehicles. The appropriateness of using this very narrowly focused
payback analysis to determine ZEV technology adoption rates appears to be contradicted by U.S.
EPA itself in Chapter 6.2 of the DRIA where it is stated that:
• ... as discussed extensively in the HD Phase 2 rule and 'energy efficiency gap' or energy
paradox' has existed where available technologies that would reduce the total cost of
ownership for the vehicle (when evaluated over their expected lifetimes using
conventional discounts rates) have not been widely adopted or the adoption is relatively
slow despite their potential to repay buyers initial investments rapidly.' [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1528-A1, pp. 23-24]
Also in Chapter 6.2, U.S. EPA add that:
• Economic research offers several possible explanations for why the prospect of these
apparent savings might not lead HD manufacturers and buyers to adopt technologies that
would be expected to reduce operating costs, though existing research focuses on
adoption of ICE technology that results in decreased fuel costs. Explanations include
constraints on access to capital for investment, imperfect or asymmetrical information
about the new technology (for example, real-world operational cost savings, durability, or
performance), uncertainty about supporting infrastructure (for example, ease of charging
368
-------
a BEV), uncertainty about the resale market, and first-mover disadvantages for
manufacturers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1528-A1, p. 25]
Further, as described above, U.S. EPA's failure to perform an analysis of the whether or not it
is even feasible for the industry to produce the number of HD ZEVs assumed by U.S. EPA in the
assumed timeframe has to be added to the list of contradictions to use of the 'payback' analysis
in forecasting adoption rates. Such an analysis would begin with an assessment of the ZEV
technology supply chain and need to demonstrate, in light of worldwide demand for ZEV
technology, that sufficient raw materials, finished batteries, electric motors, fuel cells,
controllers, regenerative braking system components, will be available with sufficient lead time
and at the costs assumed by U.S. EPA in its payback analysis. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1528-
Al, p. 25]
It should be noted that U.S. EPA also states in Chapter 6.2 that:
• When it comes to HD ZEVs, we are seeing increasing demand for, and increasing
investment in, ZEV technology in the absence of the proposed standards. It is possible
that EPA's reference case is underestimated, and adoption of ZEVs, and other
technologies, will occur more rapidly than EPA predicts in this proposal. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1528-A1, p. 25]
However, even this scenario contradicts U.S. EPA's reliance on the payback analysis
presented in the DRIA. Greater demand for HD ZEVs will lead to greater demand for
components such as batteries and fuel cells which are also likely to be in demand for light-duty
vehicle applications both in the U.S. and around the world. Greater demand will lead to higher
prices for HD ZEVs regardless of the cost of production and, following the logic of U.S. EPA's
payback analysis, lower adoption rates. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1528-A1, p. 25]
Turning to the details of the payback analysis, as discussed below, it rests on unreasonable,
overly optimistic, and unsupported assumptions. The basic payback analysis methodology
involves two steps. The first step involves a comparative analysis of the cost of conventional and
ZEV vehicles over only the first ten years of the vehicles' lives (DRIA Chapter 2.2.1.1.2) while
the second step involves calculation of the 'payback period' required to amortize the incremental
cost of ZEV vehicles. The result of the payback period calculation is then used by U.S. EPA to
determine the assumed rate of HD ZEV technology adoption as is shown in Table 2-73 of the
DRIA and Table 11-23 of the Proposed Rule which is reproduced below. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1528-A1, p. 25]
As shown in Table 11-23, the adoption rates for model-year 2027 apply only to HD BEVs
while the rates for model-year 2032 apply to both HD BEVs and FCEVs and that only some of
the adoption rates are higher in 2032 than in 2027. If the payback period is less than zero years,
e.g. if the HD ZEV costs less to purchase than a conventional vehicle (even by $1), it is assumed
that 80% of operators using that vehicle type will immediately purchase the ZEV thereby
adopting HD ZEV technology. For longer payback periods, lower assumed operating costs (fuel
and maintenance) for HD ZEVs relative to conventional vehicles are assumed to ultimately
offset higher initial purchase costs. Lower penetration rates apply to longer payback periods
although some adoption of HD ZEV technology is assumed even if the payback period is longer
than the ten year time horizon of the comparative cost analysis - e.g. the operator will ultimately
369
-------
not be able to recoup the incremental cost of the HD ZEV. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1528-A1,
pp. 25-26]
The basis for the HD ZEV technology adoption rates shown in Table 11-23 is discussed in
Chapter 2.7.9 of the DRIA. While a number of references are cited, U.S. EPA ultimately states
that:
• Of these methods explored, only ACT Research's work directly related payback period to
adoption rates. Based on our experience, payback is the most relevant metric to the HD
vehicle industry, and thus we relied on the ACT Research method to assess adoption
rates, which we modified to account for the effects of our proposed regulations. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1528-A1, p. 26] [Refer to the Table 11-23, Adoption Rate Schedule
in HD TRUCS, on p. 26 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1528-A1]
However, the ACT Research method is not publicly available and has to be purchasedl
making a review of that method difficult and beyond the scope of this review given time and
resource limitations. U.S. EPA does however indicate that it 'applied a faster adoption rate than
the ACT schedule in each payback period range that is greater than 4 years, due to the assumed
impact of this proposed regulation...' Overall, given the lack of publicly available information
regarding the ACT method and the lack of any supporting basis for U.S. EPA's application of
faster adoption rates, it appears that the HD ZEV adoption rates used by U.S. EPA are
questionable at best and likely to be overstated. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1528-A1, p. 26]
1 https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-0931 Attachment A Page 5 of 20
As discussed in Chapter 2.1 of the DRIA, the comparative costs analysis, is based only on
differences in the powertrain, fuel, and maintenance costs between in the conventional vehicles
and HD ZEVs assumed to occur over the first ten years of the vehicles' lifetime. This limited list
of costs ignores important factors that an HD vehicle owner would be expected to consider when
making purchase decisions regarding conventional vehicles and HD ZEVs. These include
differences in:
• Vehicle insurance costs;
• Resale value;
• Costs associated with the need for purchase of more than one ZEV or the continued use
of conventional vehicles following purchase of a single HD ZEVs due limited range,
limited cargo carrying capacity, as well as poor gradeability when fully loaded; and
• Costs associated with vehicle downtime due to inoperability, repair, and
recharging/refueling. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1528-A1, pp. 26-27]
Based on reports related to light-duty vehicles insurance costs are higher2 and resale values
lower3 for ZEVs than for conventional vehicles both of which would increase the cost of ZEV
ownership if accounted for in the payback analysis. The same is true of the need to supplement a
ZEV that is not fully capable of replacing a conventional vehicle as well as excessive downtime
which has been widely reported as an issue with HD ZEV buses.4 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1528-A1, p. 27]
2 See for example, https://www.caranddriver.eom/car-insurance/a35600058/insure-electric-car/
3 See for example, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0967070X22002074
370
-------
4 See for example, https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-electric-buses-20180520-
story.html#:~:text=A%20Times%20investigation%20found%20its%20buses%20stalled%20on,heat%2C%
20the%20cold%20or%20the%20way%20drivers%20braked.
In addition, U.S. EPA's analysis of differential powertrain costs between conventional and
ZEV vehicles is based on a number of optimistic assumptions that reduce the apparent cost of
ZEV vehicles. These include:
• Assuming that IRA tax credits for battery producers will result in cost savings to battery
purchasers (Table 2-44 of the DRIA);
• Failure to properly account for development and integration costs incurred by vehicle
manufacturers associated with the production of HD ZEVs by assuming that they will be
equal on a percentage basis to those associated with conventional vehicles (Table 3-3 of
the DRIA) and
• Application of an aggressive 'learning curve' for HD ZEV powertrains (Table 3-2 of the
DRIA) which lowers the main element of HD ZEV cost by about 25% over the period
from 2027 to 2032 and by 46% by 2055 while assuming virtually no reductions (2% by
2032 and 8% by 2055) in the cost of conventional powertrains. These cost reductions are
claimed despite that fact that substantial learning related to the production of batteries,
fuel cells, and other ZEV componentry has already occurred in the light-duty vehicle
sector and further learning curve benefits are expected to be much smaller than those
forecast by U.S. EPA. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1528-A1, p. 27]
Another key factor in U.S. EPA's assessment of the incremental cost of HD ZEV technology
is the agency's assumptions that IRA vehicle tax credits will continue to be place over the period
from 2027 through 2032: they could be eliminated or modified by future legislation. This is key
as the availability of these tax credits dramatically reduces the incremental cost of HD ZEVs
estimated by U.S. EPA for many types of HD vehicles in the near term. Further, given the
elimination of these credits beginning with 2033 - one could consider U.S. EPA's selection of an
aggressive learning curve for HD ZEV technology to be fortuitous as adoption rates based on
payback analysis would have otherwise declined beyond 2032. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1528-A1, p. 27]
U.S. EPA also makes optimistic assumptions regarding the costs of electricity and hydrogen
used to assess differences in fueling costs between conventional and HD ZEV vehicles. More
specifically, with respect to electricity, U.S. EPA assumes that the cost of electricity used both to
charge BEVs and to produce hydrogen via electrolysis will be approximately 10.7 cents/kWh
(Table 2-50 of the DRIA). This value was developed by EIA for AEO 2022 for commercial end
users of electricity rather than for use of electricity for transportation purposes. U.S. EPA claims
that this is appropriate because 'most HD vehicles are commercial vehicles'. However, in AEO
2023,5 the differential between the average transportation and commercial cost of electricity is
about 3 cents/kWh. In other words, the average cost of electricity used in the transportation
sector is about 30% higher than the value used by U.S. EPA. It is also not clear that these
electricity rates are representative of what HD vehicle operators will have to pay for electricity
particularly from public direct current fast charging (DCFC) stations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1528-A1, p. 28]
5 See Table 8 https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/tables_ref.php
371
-------
Another issue is that U.S. EPA's Program Cost analysis described in Chapter 3 of the RIA
indicates (DRIA Chapter 3.4.5.1) that the EIA AEO commercial electricity rates were used
through the 2055 end date of the overall cost analysis while the emission factors used for
electricity generation in the Emissions Inventory analysis presented in Chapter 4 of the DRIA
(Table 4-8) were adjusted to reflect emission reductions expected to result from the Inflation
Reduction Act (IRA - DRIA 4.3.3.2). It is not clear that the AEO electricity costs are compatible
with these IRA adjusted emission factors. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1528-A1, p. 28]
Similarly, U.S. EPA assumes that the retail cost of hydrogen for use as a transportation fuel
will drop from $6.10 per kg in 2027 to $4 per kg in 2030 and remain at the level through 2055
(Table 2-57 of the DRIA and DRIA Chapter 3.4.5.1). These values are reported to be taken from
the Department of Energy's 'Liftoff report6 which shows that prices of hydrogen produced from
fossil fuels will be considerably less than that for hydrogen produce from renewable resources.
This is important because, as is discussed later, U.S. EPA's assessment of the GHG reductions
associated with HD FCEVs is based on the assumption that the hydrogen used in the vehicles is
produced by electrolysis from grid electricity. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1528-A1, p. 28]
6 Microsoft PowerPoint - Pathways to Commercial Liftoff - Clean Hydrogen - March 20 - FINAL
(energy.gov)
Further, it is not clear that the hydrogen prices that U.S. EPA assumes accurately reflect the
impacts that demand that would be imposed by the widespread use of hydrogen in HD FCEVs
would have on supply or the infrastructure development required to provide hydrogen for use in
the HD sector. Finally, it is difficult to understand the basis for U.S. EPA's assumption that the
cost of hydrogen for use as a transportation fuel will reach its lowest level in 2032 after dropping
about 50% from 2027 levels and then remain at the level for another 23 years. Again, a more
gradual decline in what are already optimistic 2027 hydrogen prices would reduce the operating
cost benefit for HD FCEVs leading to lower adoption rates through U.S. EPA's payback
analysis. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1528-A1, p. 28]
Overall, it is clear that U.S. EPA's cost estimates for HD ZEV technologies are based on a
number of highly optimistic assumptions which are unlikely to be realized in actuality. Further,
U.S. EPA has performed no sensitivity analysis that would indicate the impact of the invalidity
of any these assumptions to be realized on the cost of compliance with the Proposed Rule.
However, it is clear based on Table 11-23 shown above, that even a one- to two-year increase in
the real payback period for HD ZEVs will lead to substantially lower adoption rates and a much
greater compliance challenge for the HD industry using U.S EPA's methodology. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1528-A1, p. 28][Refer to the Table 11-23, Adoption Rate Schedule in HD
TRUCS, on p. 26 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1528-A1]
Beyond the issues with HD ZEV technology cost and U.S. EPA's payback analysis, there are
other issues with the agency's technology assessment that led to overestimation of adoption rates
for HD ZEVs. These include the assumption that vehicle purchasers will deem a HD ZEV with a
30% lower cargo carrying capacity as equivalent to a conventional vehicle (Chapter 2.8.1 of the
DRIA) and the assumption that purchasers of HD BEVs will accept the relatively low electric
ranges upon which the U.S. EPA has based its cost estimates for HD BEVs (Table 2-33) - many
of which are considerably less than 100 miles. Further, although U.S. EPA considered
gradeability in determining electric motor sizes for HD BEVs (Chapter 2.4.1.2) it is not clear
how U.S. EPA accounted for the impact of grade on BEV range which would increase the need
372
-------
for larger more expensive batteries again making a favorable payback analysis more difficult to
achieve. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1528-A1, p. 29]
Overall, it is clear that the HD ZEV technology adoption rates arrived at by U.S. EPA rest on
a number of overly optimistic assumptions and that a more reasonable analysis or sensitivity
analysis would likely lead to far lower estimates of adoption rates. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1528-A1, p. 29]
Organization: Proterra
Based on the industry's technological maturity and track record, Proterra supports the
strongest possible approach to accelerating the path to electric vehicles in the heavy-duty sector -
heavy-duty GHG standards that are aligned with the Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT) regulation.
Other states like Oregon, Washington, New York, New Jersey Massachusetts, Colorado and
Rhode Island have also led with the adoption of the ACT in the past few years. A convergence in
regulatory consistency at the federal level, rather than a multitude of different standards at the
state level, will provide industry with the certainty needed to invest in American
manufacturing. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1628-A1, p. 2]
These standards are supported by the significant investment that is currently made by the
federal government in growing the medium and heavy duty sectors. Billions of dollars will be
invested through programs like the Federal Transit Administration's Low or No Emission
program for zero-emission transit buses, the EPA's Clean School Bus program for zero-emission
school buses, Clean Ports program for zero-emission port equipment, and Clean Trucks program
for zero-emission Class 6 and 7 trucks. In addition, the 45W Commercial Vehicle Tax Credit and
the 30C credit for charging equipment will drive significant adoption by private and public
fleets. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1628-A1, p. 2]
As this demand has grown, emission standards like the ones proposed are critical to ensuring
the supply chain is provided the regulatory certainty to grow and will propel U.S. manufacturing
forward. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1628-A1, p. 2]
Setting these standards will also ensure that American manufacturers such as Proterra
continue to invest in medium and heavy-duty EVs, which deliver marked environmental and
public health benefits as well as help build a domestic manufacturing base here in the U.S.,
providing good-paying jobs of the future, and building a strong American economy. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1628-A1, p. 2]
Organization: RMI
RMI commends EPA's proposal to drastically cut smog and soot-forming emissions from
heavy-duty trucks and urges the EPA to finalize strong and protective GHG standards for heavy-
duty vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1529-A1, p. 1]
The proposed rule includes new C02 emission standards that are an essential step forward to
cut the emissions needed from the most polluting sector in the US, transportation. Medium- and
heavy-duty trucks in the United States produce over 20 percent of transportation greenhouse gas
emissions even though they only make up 4 percent of vehicles on the road. The United States
has over 4 million heavy-duty trucks that travel over 150 billion miles and create over 260
373
-------
million tons of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions per year. RMI analysis predicts trucking
demand is expected to grow by two thirds through 2050, making reducing emissions from this
sector exponentially important. Pollution from medium- and heavy-duty diesel trucks is a
significant contributor to poor air quality. 1 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1529-A1, p. 1]
1 Kahn et al., The Inflation Reduction Act Will Help Electrify Heavy-Duty Trucking, RMI, 2022,
https://rmi.org/inflation-reduction-act-will-help-electrify-heavy-duty-trucking/
Organization: ROUSH CleanTech
We caution EPA against using California's adoption projections as the basis for a national
rule. California is unique in many ways, but specifically in this case has developed a unified set
of standards that complement each other (Low Carbon Fuel Standard, Advanced Clean Truck,
Advanced Clean Fleet). The sales projections used in California's development assumed high
gas/diesel prices and low electricity pricing from the LCFS; assumed high fleet demand from the
ACF; and high vehicle availability from ACT. There is no other state in the country with this
unified approach. In addition, California's main population centers have uniquely mild climates
which allow for far cheaper BEV designs than are practical nationally—coastal vehicles simply
don't need to be designed with elaborate heat pumps and oversized batteries that are required in
cold and extreme hot climate cities experienced elsewhere. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1655-
Al, p.3]
As noted above, we do not think EPA should include HD-BEV's in the same standards and
credits as SI and CI engines, which would eliminate the need for EPA to make specific
regulatory decisions based on forecasted adoption rates. However, if EPA does continue with
this path, we believe the lower adoption rates presented in Table 11-34 are a better alternative
(although potentially still too high depending on deployment rates and electricity costs of
megawatt charging in the Midwest) and should only apply to sales in states that do not adopt the
ACT. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1655-A1, p.3]
We believe that instead of developing unique federal standards for state of health and other
BEV monitoring functions, EPA should simply adopt California's Zero Emissions Powertrain
(ZEP) requirements, and then work with ARB and stakeholders over time to improve those rules
for national consistent implementation. While we don't believe the ZEP program is perfect by
any means, it is at least something that everyone has seen and intends to implement. While EPA
and ARB clearly do not intend to have a national GHG standard, we suggest that (like ICE OBD)
the EPA could potentially let ARB lead the ruling, since they developed it first, and not create a
new and unique requirement for manufacturers to also follow. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1655-
Al, p.4]
Organization: South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD)
Technologies that reduce NOx and PM should be prioritized to make sure public health
remains at the forefront of this rulemaking. We have two recommendations. First, the standards
should speed up the transition to zero emissions technology and be aligned with non-attainment
needs throughout all parts of the country. CARB's ACT and ACF regulations provide examples
of faster phase-ins of zero emission requirements that U.S. EPA should adopt in the final rule.
These state rules also have requirements that continue to tighten beyond 2032, consistent with a
2037 attainment date for the 2015 ozone standard in much of California. Most heavy-duty
374
-------
vehicles operating in California are first purchased out of state and operated as part of a
nationwide fleet. Federal regulation aligned with California's ZEV requirements for heavy-duty
vehicles would require additional ZEVs to be manufactured, sold and/or imported, thus
increasing the supply of ZEVs, and supporting California's efforts to reduce emissions and
improve public health and welfare. Second, if a technology like hydrogen combustion is allowed
to comply with this rule due to zero tailpipe carbon emissions, it should also be required to have
zero emissions for criteria pollutants and their precursors. We recognize the importance that
hydrogen is expected to have, especially for heavy-duty applications where electric charging and
battery technology present limitations. This may be especially true in regions such as ours with a
significant amount of goods movement activity. However, it is not clear that allowing hydrogen
internal combustion engines in trucking applications will meaningfully accelerate the transition
to hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. Given our challenges with attaining air quality standards, it is
important to transition to the cleanest technologies as quickly as possible. This rule should not
prolong the use of technologies that continue to contribute to our air pollution challenges. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1575-A1, p. 2]
Organization: Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC)
Heavy-duty vehicles are a major source of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and other harmful
pollutants that have serious environmental, public health, and economic impacts. These adverse
impacts are particularly significant in the South. As we noted in comments on the notice of
proposed rulemaking for prior heavy-duty engine and vehicles standards, technology already
exists that eliminates, not just minimizes, tailpipe emissions from these vehicles. EPA has the
authority to adopt "technology forcing" standards for GHG emissions from heavy-duty vehicles
under the Clean Air Act.2 We therefore urge EPA to adopt the strongest possible standards to
accelerate the transition to zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) technology in this part of the
transportation sector. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1554-A1, p. 1]
2 Id.at 25949.
We support the adoption of stronger standards for model year 2027 and the elimination of
credit multipliers for battery electric vehicles (BEVs) and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles
(PHEVs) in that model year. For model years 2028 and later, EPA should adopt standards that
are more stringent than the current proposal. The Phase 3 standards should result in ZEV
adoption rates that are at least as high as those required under California's Advanced Clean
Trucks program. We also support EPA's adoption of progressively more stringent standards
for model years 2033 through 2035, or until as many heavy-duty vehicles as feasible are ZEVs.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1554-A1, p. 1]
Beyond model year 2027, however, the current proposal does not go far enough. Increases
in—and continued acceleration of—ZEV deployment in the heavy-duty vehicle sector, along
with cost-effective improvements available for internal combustion engine vehicles, mean more
stringent standards than those currently proposed are feasible. For model years 2028 through
2032, we urge EPA to adopt standards that would result in ZEV adoption in the heavy-duty
sector at levels the same or greater than those that would be achieved under California's
Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT) program. EPA must continue to increase the stringency of the
GHG emission standards until the heavy-duty vehicle sector has substantially transitioned to
ZEVs, and we therefore support the development of progressively stronger standards that are
375
-------
technology forcing and would apply beyond the model years proposed. The need for stricter
standards in later model years is heightened by the fact that tax credits for the purchase of
heavy duty vehicles under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) expire in 2032. Having a strong
regulatory standard in place will be key to avoiding the backsliding of tailpipe emissions in
heavy-duty vehicles.49 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1554-A1, p. 6-7]
49 See e.g., Peter Slowik et al., INT'L COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSP., Analyzing the Impact of the
Inflation Reduction Act on Electric Vehicle Uptake in the United States (Jan. 2023), https://theicct.org/wp-
content/uploads/2023/01/iraimpact-evs-us-jan23-2.pdf.
54 Press Release, Earthjustice, New York State Advances Clean Trucks Rule to Electrify Vehicles (Dec.
30, 2021), https://earthjustice.org/news/press/2022/new-york-state-advances-clean-trucks-rule-to-electrify-
vehicles.
55 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles—Phase 3, 88 Fed. Reg. 25926, 26009-
10 (Apr. 27, 2023).
56 Compare id. at 25989 ("The approach we used to select the proposed standards .. . does not specifically
include accounting for ZEV adoption rates that would result from compliance with the California ACT
program.") with Phase 3 Draft Regulatory Analysis, supra note 51, at 317-18 ("Because the ACT waiver
was only recently granted, for this proposal EPA used the ZEV sales volumes projections that could be
expected from ACT in the reference case as an overall projection for national ZEV sales volumes, as we
made this projection prior to the granting of the ACT wavier.").
Finally, EPA should assume robust implementation and deployment of funds and incentives
available under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) and IRA in its modeling of baseline ZEV
adoption rates.63 These programs offer significant funding and incentives for states, local
governments, private individuals, and businesses related to ZEV manufacturing, charging
infrastructure, and vehicle purchases, and many states and localities have made it a priority to
maximize funding opportunities under these laws. In at least some instances, however, it appears
that EPA has made conservative estimates about the impact of these provisions on ZEV adoption
rates.64 Additionally, the currently proposed standards do not consider the availability of public
charging infrastructure for heavy-duty vehicles, even though federal infrastructure funding and
other investments are spurring growth in electric vehicle charging and alternative fueling
infrastructure deployment.65 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1554-A1, p. 8-9]
63 EPA notes that an International Council for Clean Transportation and Energy Innovation analysis found
the IRA could significantly impact electric vehicle uptake in the heavy-duty vehicle sector, "projecting
between 39 and 48 percent Class 4-8 ZEV sales in 2030 across three scenarios and between 47 and 56
percent in 2035." Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles—Phase 3, 88 Fed. Reg.
25926, 25941 (Apr. 27, 2023).
64 For example, EPA only quantified the impacts of two IRA provisions as part of its assessments of costs
and feasibility of the proposed standards and admits that its "assessment of the impacts of these provisions
of the IRA on ZEV adoption rates are, therefore, somewhat conservative." Id. at 25946.
65 See CLEAN AIR TASK FORCE, Fact Sheet: Federal Funding Programs to Support Advanced Clean
Trucks Implementation, (Apr. 13, 2023), available at https://www.catf.us/resource/federal-funding-
programs-supportadvanced-clean-trucks-implementation/ (summarizing various federal incentives and
grants to facilitate adoption of heavy-duty ZEVs).
Beyond improvements to the modeling of the baseline ZEV adoption rate, EPA must also
consider improvements in technologies for internal combustion engine vehicles as part of this
proposal. Currently, the proposed standards assume no technological improvements for these
vehicles beyond what is required under the Phase 2 standards. Studies have shown, however, that
376
-------
GHG emissions from these vehicles can be further reduced by existing vehicle efficiency
technologies, and that this technology can be deployed in a cost-effective manner.66 Relatedly,
EPA must also ensure that deployment of ZEV technology does not erode the stringency of the
requirements intended for internal combustion engine vehicles. One way to do this would be to
establish minimum ZEV production requirements—like the requirements in the ACT program—
to separate the regulation of ZEVs and internal combustion engine vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1554-A1, p. 9]
66 Pierre-Louis Ragon et al., supra note 50, at app. A.
Organization: State of California et al. (2)
C. Changed Circumstances Support Increasing the Stringency of the Federal GHG Standards
for Heavy-Duty Vehicles
The current Proposal would tighten the Phase 2 GHG standards for certain classes of heavy-
duty vehicles for model year 2027. It would also set progressively more stringent GHG
emissions standards for numerous vocational vehicles and tractor subcategories for model years
2028 through 2032. As these States and Cities noted in their 2022 comments on the Heavy-Duty
NOx Proposal, and as EPA acknowledges here, there have been significant changes in the heavy-
duty vehicle landscape since the Phase 2 GHG standards were finalized. For example, evidence
demonstrating that ZEV technologies are technologically feasible across this sector much sooner
than EPA projected in 2016, the development of fuel-cell electric vehicle technology, and
increased adoption of existing and cost-effective emission control technologies in conventional
heavy-duty vehicles.146 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1588-A1, p.20]
146 88 Fed. Reg. at 25,939-25,948.
While EPA's proposed standards would mark an important step in ensuring the heavy-duty
vehicle sector continues to reduce its GHG emissions, the States and Cities urge EPA to consider
more stringent standards, with values that would encourage at least the level of ZEV adoption as
in California's ACT standards.228 In light of the vast strides made and expected in the
deployment of heavy-duty battery-electric vehicles, the development and adoption of fuel-cell
electric vehicle technology, and increased adoption of existing and cost-effective emission
control technologies in conventional heavy-duty vehicles, more stringent final standards are
feasible and appropriate in the lead time provided. And, while further ZEV deployment is not the
only way manufacturers can and will comply with more stringent GHG standards, the increasing
use of ZEVs has numerous advantages, including the reduction of toxic and criteria pollution that
already overburdens environmental justice communities located near highways, railyards,
distribution centers, and other sites that experience large volumes of heavy-duty vehicle
traffic. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1588-A1, pp.32-33]
228 88 Fed. Reg. at 25,929.
Organization: Stellantis
As members of EMA, Stellantis helped compile the comments submitted by the Truck and
Engine Manufacturer Association (EMA). We support EMA's points of concern including but
not limited to:
377
-------
• GHG Stringency - Concerns with assumptions used in EPA's newly-created HD TRUCS
modeling (e.g., battery and charging costs to determine assumed EV penetrations)
• EV Market Enablers - Availability of needed charging infrastructure and purchase
incentives
• CAA Lead time and Stability requirements not being met
• Battery DurabilityfWarranty - EPA lacks statutory authority to adopt requirements for
ZEV powertrain components [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1520-A1, p. 2]
Organization: TeraWatt Infrastructure, Inc.
TeraWatt supports the intention of the EPA in the proposed rule to reduce emissions from
medium- and heavy-duty (MHD) vehicles in an effort to accelerate the transition to zero-
emission vehicles (ZEV) in the commercial sector. This rule can provide the necessary market
signals to increase availability and domestic production of MHD ZEVs, as well as attract a
significant increase in private capital investment in ZEV charging infrastructure. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1587-A1, p. 1]
Organization: Tesla, Inc. (Tesla)
Given the acceleration of public health and welfare impacts associated with climate change, it
is incumbent upon the EPA to recognize the crucial role battery electric vehicle (BEV)
technology plays today and how widespread commercial availability of BEVs in the U.S. today
should inform the implementation of a more stringent finalized standard as part of this
rulemaking. As provided below, the rapid pace of medium and heavy-duty electrification
strongly supports efforts to address the significant public health and community impacts of air
pollution associated with the current heavy-duty vehicle fleet. This transformative technology
has been amply demonstrated, is being rapidly deployed, and has rapidly decreasing competitive
costs. Accordingly, Tesla encourages the agency to finalize Phase 3 greenhouse gas (GHG)
standards that are more stringent than the preferred proposed emission reduction standards and
align with the stringency of the California Advanced Clean Truck (ACT) Rule beginning in MY
2027.2 More specifically, EPA should increase the stringency of the proposed grams/ton-mile
stringency in the Class 7-8 category to align with ACT and raise the projected Class 8 Day Cab
Tractor BEV deployment from 20% in 2030 to 30% in 2030 and 40% by 2035.3 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1505-A1, p. 1]
2 See, California Air Resources Board, Advanced Clean Trucks, available at
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2023-06/ACT-1963.pdf
3 Compare 88 Fed. Reg. at 25932 (Table ES-3) and 88 Fed. Reg. at 25947 (Table 1-1).
Stringent Emissions Standards Will Yield Significant Public Health and Welfare Benefits
Tesla supports EPA's efforts to accelerate heavy-duty vehicle electrification as it is essential
for reducing GHG and criteria pollutants and addressing the rapidly escalating climate crisis.
Regardless of the application, EPA has long considered BEVs to be the most effective mobile
source pollution mitigating technology, stating over a decade ago, 'From a vehicle tailpipe
perspective, EVs are a game-changing technology.'41 Additionally, study after study shows
BEVs are a superior technology for reducing air pollution and GHG emissions over
their lifetime.42 On a well to wheels analysis including upstream emissions, the U.S. Department
378
-------
of Energy (DOE) has repeatedly found BEVs to be far superior in emission performance than
internal combustion engine (ICE) technology.43 Moreover, as the carbon intensity of domestic
electricity generation continues to decline, BEV emission performance becomes better and better
over time. In short, consistent with Clean Air Act Section 202(a)(3)(A), in the medium and
heavy-duty vehicle space, deployment of BEVs 'reflect the greatest degree of emission reduction
achievable through the application of technology.'44 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1505-A1,
pp. 7-8]
41 77 Fed. Reg.62624, 62815 (Oct. 15, 2012).
42 See e.g., ICCT, A global comparison of the life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of combustion engine
and electric passenger cars (July 20, 2021) available at https://theicct.org/publications/global-LCA-
passenger-cars-jul2021; National Academies of Science, Accelerating Decarbonization of the U.S. Energy
System (Feb. 2, 2021) at 97 ('Further, light-duty trucks and buses should be electrified, particularly in
urban areas. Over the next decade, the United States needs to ensure that electric vehicles become the
predominant share of new purchases.'); available at https://www.nap.edu/read/25932; Environment
International, Assessing the health impacts of electric vehicles through air pollution in the United States
(Nov. 2020) available at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016041202031970X
43 See Department of Energy, Alternative Fuels Data Center, Emissions from Hybrid and Plug-In Electric
Vehicles available at https://afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.html
44 42 U.S.C. 7521(a)(3)(A).
As the agency highlights, medium- and heavy-duty trucks are major emitters of climate-
warming greenhouse gases (GHGs), stating: Transportation is the largest U.S. source of GHG
emissions, representing 27 percent of total GHG emissions. Within the transportation sector,
heavy duty vehicles are the second largest contributor to GHG emissions and are responsible for
25 percent of GHG emissions in the sector. The reduction in GHG emissions from the standards
in this proposal. . . would contribute toward the goal of holding the increase in the global
average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels, and subsequently reduce the
probability of severe climate change-related impacts including heat waves, drought, sea level
rise, extreme climate and weather events, coastal flooding, and wildfires.45 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1505-A1, p. 8]
45 88 Fed. Reg. at 26047.
As EPA has already determined, vehicle GHG emissions endanger public health and
welfare.46 Since the issuance of the Endangerment Finding continued peer-reviewed scientific
analysis has further elucidated the level of GHG emission reduction needed to protect adequately
the public welfare. In finalizing the requisite level of emissions reduction in the Phase 3
standards, the agency should look first toward the consensus UNFCCC and IPCC goal of
limiting global warming to below 1.5 degrees Celsius compared to pre-industrial levels as its
baseline.47 The U.S. has adopted an international commitment to put policies in place consistent
with this protective aim.48 To meet this new target the U.S. has committed is to achieve a 50-52
percent reduction from 2005 levels in economy wide GHG pollution in 2030.49 This
commitment is part of the national effort to prevent significant domestic impacts from climate
change50 and embodies near term action commensurate with meeting this benchmark.51 [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1505-A1, pp. 8-9]
46 74 Fed. Reg. 66496 (Dec. 15, 2009) (Endangerment Finding).
379
-------
47 See generally, UNFCCC, Key aspects of the Paris Agreement available at https://unfccc.int/process-and-
meetings/theparis-agreement/the-paris-agreement/key-aspects-of-the-paris-agreement
48 The United States of America Nationally Determined Contribution Reducing Greenhouse Gases in the
United States: A 2030 Emissions Target (April 21, 2021) at 23. available at
https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/NDC/2022-
06/United%20States%20NDC%20April%2021%202021%20Final.pdf ('As noted above, the United States'
NDC is consistent with the Paris Agreement temperature goal of holding the increase in the global average
temperature to well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the
temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would
significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change (Article 2.1(a)).'
49 White House: FACT SHEET: President Biden Sets 2030 Greenhouse Gas Pollution Reduction Target
Aimed at Creating Good-Paying Union Jobs and Securing U.S. Leadership on Clean Energy Technologies
(April 22, 2021) available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-
releases/2021/04/22/fact-sheet-president-biden-sets-2030- greenhouse-gas-pollution-reduction-target-
aimed-at-creating-good-paying-union-jobs-and-securing-u-s-leadership-onclean- energy-technologies/
50 See, President Biden, Executive Order 14008, Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad, 86 Fed.
Reg. 7619 (Feb. 1, 2021). available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/02/01/2021-
02177/tackling-the-climate-crisis-athome-and-abroad
51 See Nature, Realization of Paris Agreement pledges may limit warming just below 2 °C (April 13, 2022)
available at https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-04553-
z?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosgenerate&stream=top
(Limiting warming not only to 'just below' but to 'well below' 2 degrees Celsius or 1.5 degrees Celsius
urgently requires policies and actions to bring about steep emission reductions this decade, aligned with
mid-century global net-zero C02 emissions.)
As part of this effort, numerous studies have highlighted that electrifying the medium- and
heavy-duty fleet as rapidly possible will enable the U.S. to meet its commitment and equitably
contribute to emissions reductions that adequately protect the country's health and welfare.52
For example, a central component of the U.S. long-term climate strategy in transportation is the
'rapid expansion of zero-emission vehicles—in as many applications as possible across light-,
medium-, and heavy-duty applications.'53 More specifically, 'addressing legacy diesel vehicles
and emissions associated with ports, including from ships, port equipment, and trucks, would
further contribute to meeting national climate, health, and climate justice goals.'54 Moreover, the
American Lung Association (ALA) found that the environmental benefits from electrifying the
transportation in the form of avoided climate change impacts, as expressed as the social cost of
carbon,55 could surpass $113 billion in 2050 as the transportation systems combust far less fuel
and our power system comes to rely on cleaner, non-combustion renewable energy.56 Critically,
as one analysis recently noted, 'Heavy duty trucks in particular are far behind the net-zero
trajectory and should be a priority focus for policymakers.'57 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1505-
Al, pp. 9-10]
52 See e.g., IPCC, AR 6, Working Group III, Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change (April
4, 2022) at 1109 available at https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-working-group-3/ (finding
in a 1.75 degrees scenario decarbonization happens primarily through a switch to hybrid electric and full
battery-electric trucks, which leads to a 60% reduction in GHG emissions from freight in 2050 relative to
2015. Khalili et al. 20 (2019) also find substantial shifts to alternative fuels in HDVs under aggressive
climate mitigation scenarios. Battery electricity, Hydrogen fuel cell, and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles
constitute 50%, 30%, and 15% of heavy-duty vehicles, respectively, in 2050. They also find 90% of buses
would be electrified by 2050.); See also, UNFCCC, Nationally determined contributions under the Paris
Agreement; Synthesis report by the secretariat (Feb. 26, 2021) at 32 available at
https://unfccc.int/documents/268571 (In terms of specific technologies that Parties intend to use for
380
-------
achieving their adaptation and mitigation targets, the most frequently identified were energy efficient
appliances and processes, renewable energy technologies, low- or zero-emission vehicles and hydrogen
technologies) (emphasis added).
53 United States Executive Office of the President, The Long-Term Strategy of The United States
Pathways to Net-Zero Greenhouse Gas Emissions by 2050 (Nov. 2021) at 31. available at
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wpcontent/uploads/2021/10/US-Long-Term-Strategy.pdf
54 Id. at 42.
55 See White House, Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide
Interim Estimates under Executive Order 13990 (Feb. 2021). available at
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wpcontent/uploads/2021/02/TechnicalSupportDocument_SocialCostofCarbon
MethaneNitrousOxide .pdf
56 ALA, The Road to Clean Air Benefits of a Nationwide Transition to Electric Vehicles (2020) at 6
available at https://www.lung.org/clean-air/electric-vehicle-report/electric-vehicle-report-
2020#:~:text=The%20%22Road%20to%20Clean%20Air,diesel%20power)%20and%20toward%20electric
57 BloombergNEF, Electric Vehicle Outlook 2023, Executive Summary (June 8, 2023) at 4 available at
https://about.bnef.com/electric-vehicle-outlook/
Further, numerous studies show that the medium- and heavy-duty trucking sector must rapidly
decarbonize beginning this decade to meet the U.S. commitments. A recent ICCT study found
that a 2030 target of 45% zero-emission sales in the U.S. heavy-duty vehicle sector is compatible
with limiting warming to less than 2°C.58 Even more is needed to ensure that the protective
limiting of overall warming to 1.5°C is reached.59 Another recent analysis found that if 70% of
the Class 8 regional haul tractors in the U.S. and Canada were electrified, it would result in the
avoidance of almost 29 MMT C02e annually.60 Other analyses indicate reaching net zero
emissions requires 100% BEV sales in the heavy- duty sector by no later than 2045.61 Still
another has found that for the industry to limit temperature increases to no more than 1.5°C, two-
thirds of trucks sold this decade must be zero-emission.62 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1505-A1,
p. 10]
58 ICCT, Emissions Reduction Benefits of a Faster, Global Transition to Zero-Emission Vehicles (Mar. 8,
2022). available at https://theicct.org/publication/zevs-global-transition-benefits-mar22/
59 Id.
60 NACFE, HD Regional Haul Tractors (Dec. 15, 2021). available at https://nacfe.org/wp-
content/uploads/2022/01/HDRegional- Haul-RoL-E-Fact-Sheet.pdf
61 Energy Innovation, The Cost of Delays (Feb. 3, 2020) available at
https://energyinnovation.org/wpcontent/uploads/2021/01/Cost_of_Delay.pdf?utm_source=newsletter&utm
_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosgenerate&stream=top; See also, McKinsey, Climate
math: What a 1.5-degree pathway would take (April 30, 2020) available at
https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/sustainability/our-insights/climate-math-what-a-l-point-5-
degree-pathway-would-take?cid=climate-eml-alt-
mcqmck&hlkid=fllebae680e94eec9228fb44287c32f5&hctky=10204926&hdpid=f93fd3a0-3585-44bl-
be49-c0ece38169e3; WHO, COP26 Special Report on Climate Change and Health (Oct. 12, 2021)
available at https://www.who.int/publicationsMtem/cop26-special-report.
62 World Economic Forum, Road Freight Zero: Pathways to faster adoption of zero-emission trucks (Oct.
2021) available at https://www.weforum.org/reports/road-freight-zero-pathways-to-faster-adoption-of-zero-
emissiontrucks/#:~:text=reach%20this%20target.-
,Road%20Freight%20Zero%3A%20Pathways%20to%20faster%20adoption%20of%20zero%2Demission,o
ut%20of%20trucks%20and%20infrastructure.
381
-------
In addition to medium- and heavy-duty vehicles being one of the largest sources of GHG
pollutants that negatively impact public health, they are also one of the largest sources of criteria
and air toxic pollutants, including PM and NOX. To that end, Tesla fundamentally agrees with
the agency that:
• Emissions from heavy-duty vehicles contribute to poor air quality and health across the
country, especially in overburdened and underserved communities. Without further
reductions, heavy-duty vehicles will continue to be one of the largest contributors to
mobile source emissions of NOX, which react in the atmosphere to form ozone and
particulate matter.63 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1505-A1, p. 10]
63 EPA, Heavy-Duty 2027 and Beyond: Clean Trucks Proposed Rulemaking (March 2022) at 2. available
at https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P1014874.pdf
In short, electrifying the medium- and heavy-duty sector will provide significant
improvements in air quality and benefits to all Americans through reduced GHG, NOX, PM, and
other air pollutant emissions. Tesla believes it is essential for EPA to establish longer-term
medium- and heavy-duty Phase 3 emission standards that actively embrace a more rapid
transition to BEVs, and that the time for doing so is now. EPA's failure to finalize a Phase 3
GHG rule that substantially puts the heavy-duty sector on a path to full electrification and
sufficiently reduces U.S. emissions commensurate with the country's commitment to holding
global warming to well below 2 degrees Celsius would not meet the legal benchmark of the
Clean Air Act to protect the nation's public health and welfare. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1505-A1, p. 12]
To that end, strengthening the proposed Phase 3 regulations will create a significant
manufacturer incentive that supports the President's decarbonization commitments. More
directly, the U.S. recently signed the Global Memorandum of Understanding on Zero-Emission
Medium and Heavy-Duty Vehicles (MOU) which sets nonbinding targets for 30% of those new
vehicles - which include commercial delivery vehicles, buses and trucks - to be zero-emission by
2030 and 100% by 2040.75 Importantly, as proposed, the EPA Phase 3 standards would fall
short of the MOU's commitment with only certain sub-categories of vocational trucks surpassing
30%) deployment in 2030, and Class 8 day tractors new sales falling short at 20%>.76 Tesla
believes increasing the stringency of the proposed Phase 3 regulation will further establish a
marketplace environment that will, along with other recent Congressional and regulatory actions,
support accelerating deployment past the MOU's 2030 goal.77 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1505-A1, p. 13]
75 Global Memorandum of Understanding on Zero-Emission Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles (Nov.
2022) available at https://globaldrivetozero.org/mou-nations/; See also, U.S. State Department, Driving the
Clean Energy Transition: A Progress Report on Implementing U.S. Efforts to Advance Clean Energy (Nov.
18, 2022) available at https://www.state.gov/driving-the-clean-energy-transition-a-progress-report-on-
implementing-u-s-efforts-to-advanceclean- energy/
76 88 Fed. Reg. at 25932
77 See generally, Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021 (IIJA), Pub. Law No. 117-58 (Nov. 15,
2021); Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, Pub. Law No. 117-169 (Aug. 16, 2022); California Advanced
Clean Cars II (ACC II) Regulations (Aug. 25, 2022) available at
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/rulemaking/2022/advanced-clean-cars-ii
EPA's Proposal for the Phase 3 GHG Standards Should Be Strengthened
382
-------
Tesla welcomes the EPA's proposal to reduce GHG emission standards across the many
medium- and heavy-duty sub-categories. Further, it encourages the agency to quickly implement
more stringent Phase 3 GHG emissions standards for heavy-duty engines and vehicles, and to
finalize standards well-before the end of the calendar year. To that end, Tesla encourages the
agency to amend the proposed grams/mile-ton emission standards to reach stringency levels that
ensure BEV deployment reaches the levels in California's ACT rule for MY 2027-2029 and
continues increasing the stringency through MY 2032. 163 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1505-
Al, p. 22]
163 See generally, CARB, Advanced Clean Trucks Fact Sheet (Aug. 20, 2021) available at
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/fact-sheets/advanced-clean-trucks-fact-sheet (Zero-emission truck sales:
Manufacturers who certify Class 2b-8 chassis or complete vehicles with combustion engines would be
required to sell zero-emission trucks as an increasing percentage of their annual California sales from 2024
to 2035. By 2035, zero-emission truck/chassis sales would need to be 55% of Class 2b - 3 truck sales, 75%
of Class 4-8 straight truck sales, and 40% of truck tractor sales).
In its proposal, EPA lays out several factors it utilizes when assessing the 'requisite
technology' that will support establishing a level of stringency in the standard. When analyzing
feasibility and these factors, it should be clear that electrification technology - which is already
commercialized - should form the basis for the agency implementing a far stronger GHG
standard than proposed. As discussed supra, in considering all these factors and the record before
it, the agency should recognize that its proposed increases to the various sub-category stringency
levels are inadequate and need to be strengthened. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1505-A1, p. 22]
Organization: Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
ii. The regulated OEMs cannot ensure EPA's mandated regulatory outcomes
As EMA has discussed with EPA on numerous occasions, any successful regulatory program
to accelerate the manufacture and sale of ZEV trucks must be seen as a three-legged stool. The
legs of that regulatory stool are: (i) reasonable mandates directly or indirectly imposed on OEMs
to design, build and sell more ZEV trucks; (ii) a comprehensive coordinated program at the
federal and state level to ensure the build-out, on-time and at scale, of the necessary battery-
recharging and hydrogen-refueling infrastructures to operate ZEV trucks in a commercially
viable manner; and (iii) sufficient purchase incentives to spur fleet owners and others to buy
ZEV trucks, which currently can cost more than two times the purchase price of ICE-powered
trucks. EPA's Phase 3 proposed mandates only attempt to erect the first leg of the stool. While
the Agency does cite to the recent BIL and IRA as means to provide incentives for building the
other two legs of the regulatory stool, those incentives are likely to be utterly insufficient, both in
scope and in pace, when gauged against the scope and pace of the NPRM's indirectly mandated
penetration and adoption rates for ZEV trucks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, pp. 4-5]
HDOH OEMs certainly have the capacity and intent to design and build more ZEV trucks, to
the extent that there are willing ZEV-truck purchasers in the market. But those OEMs most
definitely do not have the capacity (or responsibility) to fund and build-out the required ZEV-
truck infrastructures (which necessarily will involve the efforts and expertise of utility operators
and public service commissions, state and local transportation departments, service station
operators, urban planners and permitting agencies, large fleet operators, and infrastructure
equipment companies), nor do OEMs have the power to unilaterally change the total cost of
383
-------
ownership (TCO) calculations that are likely to dissuade many fleet operators and others from
buying ZEV trucks during much of the envisioned timeline of the Phase 3 program. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 5]
In the past, when an EPA emission-control program for HDOH vehicles has required action
on the part of non-OEMs to ensure the program's success, the Agency has taken steps upfront to
ensure that those non-OEM actions were taken. For example, when EPA, in effect, mandated the
use of diesel particulate filters (DPFs), the Agency first ensured the widespread availability of
ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel so that the DPFs could function in-commerce as expected. Similarly,
when EPA's subsequent mandate, in effect, required the use of selective catalytic reduction
(SCR) systems, the Agency took steps to authorize and specify "inducements" to ensure that
HDOH vehicle operators would regularly refill their diesel exhaust fluid (DEF) tanks with
sufficient high-quality DEF. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 5]
But here, in the Phase 3 rulemaking, the Agency is taking few if any actual affirmative steps
to ensure that the other two legs of the three-legged stool are erected, or to provide any
mechanisms for regulatory relief for OEMs if the absence of one or both of those other two legs
makes the implicit ZEV-truck sales mandates unworkable. In that regard, EPA's request for
comments on the infrastructure "concern" - the Agency's only practical acknowledgement of
this fundamental issue in the NPRM - is not enough. Nor is it sufficient for the Agency to
assume that the IRA and BIL will ensure that the relevant TCO calculations will work out in
favor of the acquisition of more and more ZEV trucks across-the-board over the next nine years.
In fact, that is likely not the case. For example, a $40,000 tax credit is barely enough to cover the
12% federal excise tax on the increased relative cost of a new ZEV truck, which currently is
more than two times the cost of a conventionally-fueled truck. Moreover, tax incentives are only
valuable to those trucking firms that operate with significant levels of taxable net profits. Many
trucking firms (and many more independent or small operators) are not in a position to prioritize
or maximize tax incentives. In addition, the newly enacted tax incentives for the installation of
ZEV infrastructure come with multiple strings attached (e.g., prevailing wage, registered
apprentice programs, construction principally in rural and historically disadvantaged or
Environmental Justice communities), which may make those incentives unworkable for much of
the HDOH market. Further, since the recipients of infrastructure incentive funding are not
required to design and build stations specifically for ZEV trucks4 (which have different size and
power requirements) it is abundantly clear that the vast majority of those infrastructure
incentives (including available National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) funds) are being
and will be consumed by the light-duty sector in any event. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-
Al, pp. 5-6]
4 See NPRM, 88 Fed. Reg. at 25944.
iv. EPA's likely flawed assumptions
Multiple projection-based assumptions underlie EPA's NPRM, including those pertaining to
advances in ZEV powertrains, battery sizing and costs, the availability of "clean hydrogen," the
availability of critical minerals and rare earth metals, and the pace and extent of the development
and installation of the necessary HDOH battery-recharging and hydrogen-refueling
infrastructures. Indeed, those multiple assumptions apply to each one of the Agency's predictions
of the appropriate ZEV penetration and adoption rates for each of the 101 truck types and
applications that the Agency chose to evaluate. Moreover, while EPA has expressed confidence
384
-------
that Congress and the Administration have initiated measures to address the multiple relevant
supply chain concerns, those measures are almost certainly inadequate to support the Agency's
projection-based assumptions. Consequently, to the extent that any or all of those compounding
multiple assumptions are incorrect, so too are the resultant proposed GEM-based Phase 3 C02
standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 7]
As discussed in detail below, many of the Agency's specific underlying assumptions are
likely incorrect. Moreover, certain other of the Agency's more general assumptions and methods
could be similarly unrealistic, such that they could serve to compound the extent and impact of
the Agency's more specific errors. For example, in its cost assessments, the Agency does not
account for any potential necessary upgrades to the national electrical grid or distribution system,
nor does the Agency account for the upfront capital costs required to plan for, obtain permitting
for and build-out the necessary HDOH ZEV hydrogen infrastructure. Rather, EPA has simply
assumed that all of the projected BEVs will be recharged overnight at fleet-operated depots, and
that those costs can be amortized on a per-vehicle basis beyond the timeframe of the Phase 3
standards. But that overly-simplistic methodology fails to account for: (i) which entities will
actually plan for, install and pay out-of-pocket for the hundreds of thousands of necessary
HDOH charging stations (and hydrogen-refueling stations) that will be required by 2032, and
most of which will need to be 150kW or more; (ii) how long it will actually take to obtain
permits for and to construct the hundreds of thousands of necessary HDOH charging stations;
(iii) what role the nation's electric utilities and rate-setting agencies will need to play in this
massive undertaking, including through tens of thousands of inter-connection upgrades, and at
what cost over what timeline; (iv) whether the supply chains for transformers and switchgears
will be capable of meeting the demands of the overlapping ZEV programs; (v) what the actual
requirements will be for non-depot-based public HDOH charging stations along the nation's
transportation corridors, and what the costs and timelines for those necessary major installations
will be (both for BEVs and FCEVs); and (vi) the impact that the overwhelming demands on the
ZEV market from the near wholesale conversion of the light-duty sector over the same 2027 to
2032 time period will have on the necessary development and expansion of the HDOH ZEV
sector. Indeed, the Agency appears not to have calculated the specific numbers and sites (or
aggregate upfront costs) of the battery-recharging and hydrogen-refueling stations that will be
required to support the NPRM. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, pp. 7-8]
In a similar vein, EPA generally assumes that, within the next few years, nearly all of the
production of the required batteries and fuel cells, perhaps including the mining and processing
of all of the critical minerals as well, will occur domestically in the U.S., so that nearly 100% of
all of the potential incentives available under the IRA and BIL - down to the last dollar - will be
fully utilized between now and 2032. The assumption that battery and fuel-cell manufacturing
plants can be built, domestically sourced, and made operational at exponentially increased
capacities within the next few years does not match any marketplace reality. Indeed, the
expertise does not currently exist in this country to build and operate battery-manufacturing
plants capable of producing at scale the size of batteries (with 4000+ cycles) necessary to power
ZEV-trucks. It also is unrealistic to assume that battery manufacturers will pass on 100% of the
IRA and BIL incentives that they might receive to OEMs in the form of one-to-one battery-cost
reductions. Indeed, it can take well more than a year for a manufacturer to realize any net
benefits from tax credits. Thus, to treat tax credits as a functional equivalent of dollar-for-dollar
385
-------
cost reductions, as EPA has done in its HD TRUCS model, is unreasonable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 8]
EPA's Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) actually highlights many of the questionable
assumptions that underly the NPRM. For example, the Draft RIA describes more fully the
Agency's unreasonable assumptions about the tax credits potentially available under the BIL. In
particular, the Draft RIA notes that, EPA has included the battery tax credit by reducing the
direct manufacturing cost of batteries in BEVs and FCEVs, [even though] there are few
manufacturing plants for HD vehicle batteries in the United States, which means that few
batteries [if any] would qualify for the tax right now. We [nonetheless] expect that the industry
will respond to this tax credit incentive by building more domestic manufacturing capacity in the
coming years, but this will take several years to come to fruition. Draft RIA, p. 18. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 8]
There is very little basis for that assumption. Similarly, EPA makes unsupported assumptions
about the prospects for domestic sourcing of battery manufacturing notwithstanding that
"currently, most mining and refining of the crucial minerals occurs outside of the U.S. and they
are largely imported as refined products," and that "relatively little mining and refining capacity
is in operation." Draft RIA, p. 31. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 9]
In that regard, the corporate "announcements" that EPA cites regarding the potential
construction of domestic battery-manufacturing plants (an inherently aspirational metric) do not
comprise a sufficient basis for assuming that sufficient tax-credit-qualifying battery production
will be available for the HDOH market, especially when the overwhelming demands from the
light-duty sector are factored in, and when "there is no alternative to lithium in manufacturing
automotive BEV batteries." Indeed, EPA concedes that "at present, there are few manufacturing
plants for HD vehicle batteries in the United States." (See Draft RIA, pp. 33, 35, 172.)
Nonetheless, EPA models the domestic battery-manufacturing tax credit "such that HD BEV and
FCEV manufacturers fully utilize the module tax credit and generally increase their utilization of
the tax credit for MY 2027-2029 until MY 2030 and beyond when they earn 100 percent of the
available cell and module tax credits." Draft RIA, p. 172. (Emphasis added.) That is not realistic,
especially within the next seven years. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 9]
EPA's assumptions regarding infrastructure costs, as further described in the Draft RIA, are
highly questionable as well. EPA acknowledges that more infrastructure will be needed as BEV
adoption grows, and notes that approximately 127,000 public and private charging ports could be
needed by 2030 to support approximately 100,000 ZEV tractor-trailers, something that will
require more than a $12 billion investment. EPA also cites an Atlas analysis, which estimates
that it will cost $100 to $166 billion by the end of 2030 to install the necessary infrastructure to
support one million Class 3 through 8 vehicles. That would cover 500,000 depot-charging ports,
and over 100,000 public en-route direct current fast charging (DCFC) ports for long-haul trucks.
Draft RIA, p. 67. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 9]
EPA also acknowledges that: all BEV-charging sites need to have sufficient space for
charging equipment, with some stations potentially needing to accommodate onsite storage and
generation equipment as well; the viability of installing the necessary electric vehicle supply
equipment (EVSE) can depend on landlord-tenant relationships; the construction of any new
charging stations requires compliance with various building and safety regulations; and that
"permitting times can be a challenge and vary by region and site specifics." (Draft RIA, pp. 69-
386
-------
70.) The Agency further concedes that both permitting and utility interconnection times could be
longer for larger, more complex, and/or higher-power charging stations, and that special permits
for trenching and easements may be required. "If upgrades to the electricity distribution system
are required, this could further extend the timeline." On that point, EPA notes that new charging
loads of several megawatts or higher "could take months to several years to implement." Draft
RIA, pp. 69-70. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 9]
Yet notwithstanding all of the foregoing, EPA's NPRM is based on the assumption that all of
the required BEV charging will be provided for and managed through privately owned and
operated depot-charging stations. More specifically, EPA states that,
[F]or this analysis, we estimate infrastructure costs associated with depot charging to fulfill
each BEV's daily charging needs off-shift with the appropriately sized EVSE. BEV owners will
opt to purchase and install sufficient EVSE ports at or near the time of vehicle purchase to ensure
operational needs are met. Each depot charging station will be unique depending on the number
of vehicles that the station is designed to accommodate and their expected duty cycles, site
conditions, and the charging preferences of BEV owners. (Draft RIA, p. 195.) [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-2668-A1, pp. 9 - 10]
That is a bold - and fundamentally unreasonable - assumption given that EPA recognizes that
"the cost for 150 kW EVSE is estimated to be $94,000-$148,000 per port, and the cost for 350
kW EVSE is estimated to be $154,000-$216,000 per port." (Draft RIA, p. 197; emphasis added.)
Indeed, based on that, EPA is forced to admit in the Draft RIA that "not all BEV or fleet owners
may choose to purchase and install their own EVSE." Nonetheless, EPA "does not estimate any
upfront hardware and installation costs for any public or other en-route electric vehicle charging
infrastructure because all BEV charging needs are met with depot charging in our analysis."
(Draft RIA, pp. 63, 195, 197; emphasis added.) Once again, that core assumption is simply not
reasonable. Commercial trucking fleets will not be able to absorb all of the ZEV infrastructure
costs at issue over the next nine years. That simply will not happen. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
2668-A1, p. 10]
Compounding that questionable core assumption, EPA includes no direct accounting for any
hydrogen-refueling infrastructure costs. Rather, EPA asserts that "we included hydrogen
infrastructure costs in our per-kilogram retail price of hydrogen." Draft RIA, p. 186. That is not a
realistic approach, since we are dealing with a refueling infrastructure that has yet to be fully
conceived, let alone built-out. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 10]
Another seemingly obvious flaw in EPA's analysis is that the Agency fails to take into
account any of the costs or supply chain constraints that will be associated with the necessary
upgrades to the nation's electricity grid and distribution systems. In that regard, EPA recognizes
that "some depot-charging sites may require upgrades to the electricity distribution system to
meet new or additional charging loads." Indeed, "loads of just 200 kW or higher could trigger the
need for an onsite distribution transformer." "New charging loads of 5 MW or higher could
require more significant and costly distribution system upgrades, such as those to feeder circuits
or breakers." Draft RIA, p. 201. Here again, though, EPA "does not include any of those costs in
the Agency's analysis." (Id. Emphasis added.) That too is simply not reasonable. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 10]
387
-------
The foregoing types of likely unreasonable assumptions - particularly those regarding
whether and how the necessary ZEV infrastructures and grid upgrades will be deployed at
sufficient scale on the required timeline - amount to major defects in the foundation of the
Phase 3 rulemaking. Yet notwithstanding the potential magnitude of those defects, EPA makes
no effort to cure them with any corresponding mandates for infrastructure or with any potential
adjustments to the proposed Phase 3 standards if the required infrastructure does not develop in
time. Instead, all that EPA says regarding this foundational issue is: EPA requests comment on
this [infrastructure] concern, both in the Phase 3 rulemaking process, and in consideration of
whether EPA should consider undertaking any future actions related to the Phase 3 standards
with respect to the future growth of the charging and refueling infrastructure for ZEVs. EPA
requests comment on what, if any, additional data EPA should consider collecting and
monitoring during the implementation of the Phase 3 standards. (88 Fed. Reg. at 25934.) [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, pp. 10-11]
A general request for comment is not nearly enough to address an issue that goes to the very
heart of the feasibility of the Phase 3 proposal. Rather, the Agency should take it upon itself to
calculate and determine the number and location of ZEV-truck recharging and refueling stations
that will be required to support the ZEV truck adoption rates that the Agency has built into the
Phase 3 standards. The Agency also should start now to monitor and report on the year-by-year
progress made in the deployment of the necessary numbers and location of HDOH ZEV
recharging/refueling stations. Finally, the Agency should establish mechanisms to adjust the
implementation of the annually decreasing GEM-based C02 standards to the same extent that
the annual deployment of ZEV truck recharging/refueling stations falls short of the previously
calculated infrastructure-deployment benchmark. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 11]
Without that type of linkage between the implementation of the Phase 3 standards and the
actual implementation and readiness of the requisite underlying HDOH ZEV infrastructure, the
Phase 3 standards, premised as they are on EPA's overly-aggressive assumptions regarding ZEV
truck adoption rates, likely will prove to be unworkable, and as a worst case, could lead to an
increase in the use and retention of older vehicles, rather than a decrease. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-2668-A1, p. 11]
Increasing GHG Reducing Technologies on ICE Vehicles - The Phase 3 regulation is based
on converting ICE vehicle sales into ZEV sales. In that process, fleets and purchasers that are
focused on reducing costs and/or have a commitment to environmental stewardship will be
among the first to begin the process of converting their fleets. It is those same purchasers,
however, that already optimize their vehicles and fleets for performance and fuel economy. The
lower fuel consumption of those vehicles directly translates into lower GHG scores in EPA's
GEM program, which is used for OEM regulatory compliance. As those low GHG vehicles
become ZEVs, the remaining sales of ICE vehicles must improve to offset the loss of the
industry-leaders' purchases of low GHG-scoring ICE vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
2668-A1, p. 49]
The loss of low-scoring GHG vehicles from the mix of traditional ICE vehicles will amount to
a de facto increase in required GHG technologies for the remaining ICE vehicles. The more
ZEVs that are sold during the initial regulatory years, the greater the increase in GHG reducing
technologies that must be deployed to the shrinking sales numbers of ICE vehicles. Thus, there is
no need for additional EPA action to increase the requirements on ICE vehicles. The addition of
388
-------
ZEVs into the stringency calculation yields the same effect. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-
Al, p. 49]
The ACT regulation is structured as a strict ZEV-truck sales mandate directed to OEMs. A
mandated percentage of an OEMs sales must be either a BEV or FCEV. In contrast, EPA's
approach has always been technology-neutral. The GHG vehicle regulations, both Phase 1 and
Phase 2, are clear examples of the technology-neutral approach. EMA firmly believes that the
non-technology-neutral approach employed by the ACT Rule is not appropriate for a national
standard and should not be included in any alternative approaches being considered by the
Agency. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 50]
Organization: Truck Renting and Leasing Association (TRALA)
Establishing One National Decarbonization Pathway is Critical
Harmonization between the proposed Phase 3 rule and the CARB ACF rule and the Advanced
Clean Trucks (ACT) Rule are essential. In an industry that is mobile by nature and
geographically operational in every state, regulatory consistency is critical in our operations and
for the uninterrupted flow of interstate commerce. National carbon reduction milestones must
also align to afford manufacturers the necessary lead-time and ability to conduct thorough
research and development to ensure all competing emissions regulatory objectives are
achieved. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1577-A1, p. 8]
TRALA is particularly concerned over CARB sunsetting the ACT rule and replacing it with a
100% ZEV sales requirement for model year (MY) 2036 trucks and beyond. While the Phase 3
proposal is requesting comment on whether to set carbon metrics similar to those under the ACT
rule, EPA's recommended alternative stands in stark contrast to the ACT implementation
glidepath. What remains more worrisome is that eight states beyond California have already
opted into the ACT rule (Colorado, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Oregon,
Vermont, and Washington) with several others likely to follow. The ACT rule requires annual
manufacturer ZEV sales percentages for MYs 2035 of 55%, 75%, and 40% for Class 2b-3, Class
4-8, and Class 7-8 tractors respectively. TRALA does not support mandating a national ACT-
like approach since the milestones are both unachievable and include a quantum ZEV sales leap
between MYs 2035 and 2036 that is highly speculative and irresponsible given such mandates
are 13 years into the future. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1577-A1, p. 8]
States opting into the ACT rule will also likely adopt the ACF rule which mandates ZEV
purchase requirements for identified truck categories beginning as early as 2024. While EPA
does not have authority to impose a national truck electrification mandate on fleets, the agency
has the legal authority to determine whether California can begin implementing and enforcing
the ACF rule under Section 209 of the federal Clean Air Act. TRALA requests EPA require
CARB to seek a waiver on the ACF rule and carefully assess and ensure CARBs regulation
satisfies the three-prong waiver test under Section 209. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1577-A1,
p. 9]
Organization: U.S. Tire Manufacturers Association (USTMA)
Overall, USTMA supports the goals of this rulemaking and appreciates the opportunity to
partner with other stakeholders in contributing to further reduce GHG air pollution from highway
389
-------
heavy-duty engines and vehicles across the United States. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1635-A1,
p. 1]
Organization: United Steelworkers Union (USW)
Our union supports reasonable and well-researched regulations to ensure that our shared-
environment and communities are protected. However, EPA's proposed rule for GHG Emissions
Standards for HDVs is far-reaching, and recklessly hits the accelerator on the transition to Zero
Emission Vehicles (ZEVs). As our union represents the majority of unionized workers in both
the auto supply chain and the oil sector, we have grave concerns regarding this proposed rule's
impact on their livelihoods and the negative impact that the rapid implementation of ZEVs will
have on our domestic supply chain. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1514-A1, p. 1]
In 2006, the USW co-founded the BlueGreen Alliance, one of the nation's leading voices for
environmental responsibility, because of the conviction that America can have both good jobs
and a clean environment. Unfortunately, the EPA's plan - unacceptably, needlessly - sacrifices
one for the other. If we work together, we can deliver solutions that improve air quality, and help
to reduce the risks of climate change, while ensuring that workers are not left behind and are
meeting our society's growing energy needs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1514-A1, p. 1]
This proposed rule is just one of three rulemakings under EPA's Clean Trucks Plan that
applies to vocational HDVs (e.g. delivery trucks, public utility trucks, and transit, shuttle, and
school buses) and tractors (e.g. day cabs and sleeper cabs on tractor-trailer trucks). Specifically,
the agency's proposal reopens Phase 2 regulation for model year (MY) 2027 and sets very
stringent carbon dioxide (C02) standards for HDVs that would begin to apply in MY 2028, with
progressively lower standards each model year through MY 2032. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1514-A1, p. 2]
The proposed rule intends to limit the amount of pollution each automaker is allowed to
generate, effectively outlawing the internal combustion engine (ICE). Additionally, unlike the
Phase 1 and Phase 2 rules, which were jointly developed by EPA and the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), EPA is moving forward with the Phase 3 proposed rule
on its own. Further, this proposed rule does not fully consider the impact on jobs and job quality,
speed of infrastructure rollout and domestic supply chain revitalization, and alternative measures
to reduce emissions of ICE vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1514-A1, p. 2]
Additionally, even with the investments from the IRA and IIJA, the zero-emission technology
for HDVs is not readily available and it will take many more years to develop and deploy, which
makes compliance with the EPA's proposal for HDVs unattainable for the foreseeable future.
The White House has noted that 72 percent of goods in this country are moved by truck, placing
the industry at the center of our critical supply chains and economic competitiveness. 5 However,
the technology is nowhere near ready to meet the demand necessary to keep our supply chain
moving at the same rate it is today. More to this point, the Administration continues to delay
rollout of the Build America, Buy America provisions in the IIJA, which is hindering domestic
manufacturing investments for a variety of products, including products contributing to the
transition to low-emissions vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1514-A1, p. 4]
5 U.S. White House, "Fact Sheet: The Biden-Harris Administration Trucking Action Plan to Strengthen
America's Trucking Workforce", December 16, 2021.
390
-------
While the proposed rule is "technology neutral", there is an underlying assumption in the
proposed rule that the shift will be to ZEVs, rather than low-emission vehicles. This means that
automakers can choose to produce a variety of different types of ZEVs, but the fast pace of
lowering emission standards forces manufacturers to choose the production of battery electric
vehicles (BEVs). The BEVs market is the most economically feasible for manufactures of HDVs
even though the domestic supply chain for components and the charging infrastructure isn't close
to being readily available. For example, charging HDVs requires significantly more
expensive conduits and transformers and consumes vastly more electricity, than what is
necessary for charging light- and medium-duty vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1514-A1,
pp. 4 - 5]
Lower Emissions for ICE Vehicles
In the proposed rule, the EPA's approach to lowering emissions is termed the Clean Vehicle
Transition in Technology-Neutral Way, which envisions using more clean-running gas vehicles,
hybrids, fuel cell vehicles, and other innovations to meet stricter standards. However, in this
proposed rule, EPA did not consider improvements to ICE vehicles with off-the-shelf
technology. EPA's proposal will outlaw ICE vehicles without considering or encouraging
manufacturers to invest in engine and fuel efficiency technologies that would lower emissions.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1514-A1, p. 5]
Engine efficiency and aftertreatment systems can help achieve C02 reductions, while
protecting both workers in the ICE vehicle supply chain and oil refinery workers during the
transition to low-emission vehicles. Existing and new technologies ranging between engine
improvements and hybridization can achieve between 5 and 50 percent GHG reductions. For
example, gasoline particulate filters significantly reduce fine particulates black carbon. 8 [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1514-A1, p. 5]
8 Diesel Net, "Gasoline Particulate Filters", Revised June 2021.
Additionally, EPA considered technology improvements for ICE vehicles in the Phase 2 rule.
These technologies included: high compression ratio engines, waste heat recovery, cylinder
thermal insulation, reduced friction losses, aerodynamics, and efficient transmissions. We also
encourage EPA to consider highlighting new engine efficiency technologies to include in Phase
3: cylinder deactivation, high efficiency turbochargers, 48V energy recovery and management
systems, engine-off while coasting, anti-idle and hoteling modes, efficient electrical accessories,
and HDVs hybridization technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1514-A1, pp. 5-6]
Technology that lowers emissions for ICE vehicles should be elevated in this proposal. EPA
could do this by keeping the rule technology neutral and finalizing a more practical timeline for
emissions reductions. These technologies protect jobs in the current auto supply chain and ensure
our nation is actively pursuing policy to lower vehicle emissions. Standards must be reassessed
with the inclusion of these technologies because the current proposal will eliminate the ICE
vehicle all together, and is not an economically or socially viable rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1514-A1, p. 6]
391
-------
Organization: Valero Energy Corporation
I. The HD BEV and FCEV technologies, industries, and markets are not mature enough to
support EPA's proposed Phase 3 GHG vehicle emission standards.
EPA proposes to set GHG emission standards for the U.S. commercial heavy-duty vehicle
fleet that are intended to force adoption of ZEV technology. As detailed below in these
comments, the projected rates of adoption are grossly inconsistent with everything we know
regarding the readiness of the domestic commercial freight industry to make the proposed
fundamental shift in transportation technology. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 1]
A. The proposed rates of ZEV adoption are belied by current sales data.
EPA's projected rates of ZEV adoption are at odds with real-world data regarding the heavy-
duty vehicle market. Specifically, of the estimated 850,000 new heavy-duty vehicle sales per
year in the U.S.,1 EPA projects that 142,000 (16.8%) will be ZEVs in MY 2027 and 390,000
(46.0%) will be ZEVs in MY 2032.2 By contrast, in 2021, only 543 new HD ZEVs were sold in
the U.S. (refer to Figure 1).3 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 1] [See Figure 1: Zero-
emission Sales by Vehicle Type on page 2 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0986-1566-
A2]
1 EPA HD TRUCS spreadsheet (Document ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-0830), "l_Veh Prop" tab,
Column T.
2 EPA HD TRUCS spreadsheet (Document ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-0830), "4_Adoption Rates" tab,
Cells T7 and U7. In MY 2027, EPA projects that all of the HD ZEV will be BEVs. In MY 2032, EPA
projects that the 46.0% ZEV sales will break down as 40.1% BEVs and 5.9% FCEVs.
3 ICCT "Zero-emission bus and truck market in the United States and Canada: A 2021 update," September
2022, https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/update-ze-truck-bus-market-us-can-sept22.pdf. The
75 medium truck and van sales are excluded from the sum, as EPA is proposing in separate rulemaking to
categorize these as Medium-Duty Vehicles (refer to Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0829).
EPA's projections and ambitions in this proposed rulemaking would represent a staggering
63,000% growth in HD BEV adoption over 2021 to 2032 and 1,250,000% growth in HD FCEV
adoption over the same period.4 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 1]
4 Id., Figures 3 and 4. In 2021, FCEV sales accounted for 7% (per Figure 4) of the 51 heavy duty truck
sales (per Figure 3) - or 4 vehicles - with the remainder being BEV.
As of 2021, the U.S. saw a cumulative 3,023 sales of new HD ZEVs.6,7 The body of actual
design, production, performance, and operational data available to EPA is woefully insufficient
to support its impacts and feasibility analyses. EPA acknowledges that".. .assumptions were
difficult to compare across analyses given that ZEVs are still nascent in heavy-duty markets and
actual data is limited. Most authors acknowledge there is uncertainty in their projections. We
applied our technical judgment in assessing relevant trends and used engineering judgement
where necessary."8 But EPA's technical expertise does not lie in vehicle design and
manufacturing, economics, transportation logistics, or other key areas that bear upon
transformation of the domestic heavy-duty vehicle fleet. "Engineering judgment" may be
appropriate to employ when EPA must weigh different data points and considerations to make
technical decisions - for example, to set a minimum calibration frequency for equipment to
detect fugitive emissions. In this context, "engineering judgment" amounts to nothing more than
392
-------
subjective opinion informed more by the current administration's policy objectives than by any
hard data. This term cannot be used as a substitute for dispassionate assessment of credible and
reliable data, and as of today, that information simply does not exist. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1566-A2, pp. 2 - 3]
6 Id. Figure 3 shows 492 + 51 = 543 HD ZEV sales in the U.S. in 2021.
7 ICCT "Zero-emission bus and truck market in the United States and Canada: A 2020 update," September
2021. Figure 5 shows 2,480 cumulative HD ZEV sales in the U.S. through 2020.
8 EPA "Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles: Phase 3 Draft Regulatory Impact
Analysis" ("DRIA") (Document ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1428), April 2023, at 114-115.
Beyond the data from those 3,023 sales, EPA relies on assumptions9 and aspirational goals -
either their own or those of third parties - to support and justify the proposed standards. Courts
have outright rejected EPA rules that are based on incorrect data and "blithe[] assumptions]"
regarding the feasibility of a proposed rule. 10 Despite the degree of conjecture in every step of
the regulatory impact analysis, EPA fails to incorporate an adequate uncertainty analysis that
accounts for the probabilities relating to its guesswork, as outlined in Circular A-4, nor does it
"clearly set out the basic assumptions, methods, and data underlying the analysis and discuss the
uncertainties associated with the estimates." 11 This hardly rises to the level of "reasoned
decisionmaking" required by the Supreme Court and elucidates a process that is anything other
than the "logical and rational.. .consideration of.. .relevant factors." 12 The following sections
highlight examples of EPA's reliance on unrealistic assumptions, estimates and aspirational
goals in the regulatory impact analysis, as well as examples of EPA's lack of transparency
regarding uncertainties. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 3]
9 The word "assume" appears 515 times in EPA's 515-page Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis ("DRIA").
"Estimate" is used 717 times in the DRIA.
10 Small Refiner Lead Phase-Down Task Force v. EPA, 705 F.2d 506, 544 (D.C. Cir., 1983).
11 Circular A-4, Office of Management and Budget,
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4/.
12 Michigan v. EPA, 576 U.S. 743, 750 (2016).
Due the nascent state of the HD BEV and FCEV technologies, industries, and markets, it is
simply not possible for EPA to prepare a thorough and credible impact analysis to support its
proposed standards. EPA's attempt in this rulemaking to represent its DRIA as such is
unreasonable, arbitrary and affirmatively misleading. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 3]
D. EPA's reliance on OEM announcements is unreasonable.
EPA's conclusion that it is feasible within the next decade to force transition of the domestic
HDV fleet to BEV and FCEV inappropriately relies on third-hand sources and news articles
taken out of context. For example, to support the proposition that U.S. truck fleets are already
moving in this direction, EPA claims "[a] report by the International Energy Agency (IEA)
provides a comprehensive accounting of recent announcements made by UPS, FedEx,
DHL, Walmart, Anheuser-Busch, Amazon, and PepsiCo for fleet electrification,"91 But IEA's
report also cautions that "[e]ven with the recent success of EV deployment, reaching a trajectory
consistent with climate goals is a formidable challenge."92 Additionally, per the IEA report, auto
"[manufacturers' electrification targets align with the IEA's Sustainable Development
393
-------
Scenario."93 But "for the Sustainable Development Scenario targets to be met, efforts must be
made to ensure that all the announced [battery] production capacity is built on time and that
factories rapidly increase their capacity factors."94 As detailed below, this is an extremely big
"if." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, pp. 20 - 21]
91 EPA's HD Phase 3 GHG Proposal at 25941 (citing to International Energy Association. Global EV
Outlook 2021. April 2021. Available online at: https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/ed5f4484- f556-
4110-8c5c-4ede8bcba637/GlobalEVOutlook 2021.pdf).
92 International Energy Association. Global EV Outlook 2021 at 6. April 2021. Available online at:
https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/ed5f4484- f556-4110-8c5c-
4ede8bcba637/GlobalEVOutlook2021 .pdf.
93 Id. at 26.
94 Id. at 86.
Similarly, EPA states that "in December 2022, PepsiCo added the first of 100 planned Tesla
Semis to its fleet"95 Yet EPA's source article further provides that "[s]till, industry experts
remain skeptical that battery electric trucks can take the strain of hauling hefty loads for
hundreds of miles economically."96 To date, no pricing data is publicly available for the Tesla
Semi truck. It is unreasonable to read any significance into PepsiCo's purchase other than the
fact it was made; it was not necessarily cost-effective, or effective, period. It may have been
driven more by commitments to ESG shareholders than by any bottom-line considerations, and it
is unreasonable to assume that this acquisition by an international manufacturing titan with a
market capitalization of $255 billion means that similar purchases are likely to be feasible or
desirable for the vast majority of U.S. truck owners and operators. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1566-A2, p. 21]
95 EPA's HD Phase 3 GHG Proposal at 25942.
96 Akash Sriram. "Musk delivers first Tesla truck, but no update on output, pricing." Reuters. December
2, 2022. https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/musk-delivers-first-tesla-semi-trucks-2022-
12-02/. See also Hyunjoo Jin. "Must set to finally take wraps of Tesla truck - to tough crowd." Reuters.
December 1, 2022. https://www.reuters.com/technology/musk-set-finally-take-wraps-off-tesla-truck-tough-
crowd-2022-12-01/ ("The whole reason for a truck is to haul around 40,000 to 45,000 pounds of freight,"
said Roeth, a former executive at U.S. truck maker Navistar. "And if your batteries weigh too much, or they
cost too much... that doesn't work."
Per the proposal, "Daimler Trucks North America has committed to offering only what they
refer to as 'carbon-neutral' trucks in the United States[] by 2039 and expects that by 2030 as
much as 60 percent of its sales will be ZEVs "97 But in one of EPA's source articles cited to in
support of this point, Martin Daum, head of Daimler Trucks & Buses "emphasized the reality on
the ground," stating that "'[l]ocally C02-neutral trucks and buses won't sell themselves, because
even in 2040 — despite all efforts by manufacturers — the acquisition and total cost of ownership
of trucks and buses with electric drives will be still higher than for diesel vehicles.'"98 [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 21]
97 EPA's HD Phase 3 GHG Proposal at 25941.
98 David Cullen, 'Daimler to Offer Carbon Neutral Trucks by 2039,' (October 25, 2019) (emphasis added)
https://www.truckinginfo.eom/343243/daimler-aims-to-offer-only-co2-neutral-trucks-by-2039-in-key-
markets.
394
-------
In EPA's other source article regarding the Daimler Trucks carbon-neutrality announcement,
EPA neglects to mention other obstacles facing Daimler Trucks North America.99 According to
John O'Leary, President and CEO of Daimler Trucks North America LLC (DTNA), "'[o]ur
teams conduct yeoman efforts to secure chips all around the globe... looking for little caches of
chips here and there. We've had good weeks and bad weeks.' He [further] explained that yes,
DTNA has been building vehicles it can't necessarily deliver .... He [is also quoted as saying]
pricing has been a big issue — unlike chips, the company is able to obtain many raw materials
and components, 'but only at a significantly higher price.' DTNA already has announced a price
increase for next year to help cover those increased costs, he said." 100 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1566-A2, p. 22]
99 EPA's HD Phase 3 GHG Proposal at 25941.
100 Deborah Lockridge, "What Does Daimler Truck Spin-off Mean for North America?", Trucking Info
(November 11, 2021). https://www.truckinginfo.com/10155922/what-does-daimler-truck-spin-off-mean-
for-north-america.
EPA also cites to Scania's Electrification Roadmap throughout its proposal to support the
assertion that publicly stated goals meet EPA's HD ZEV penetration trajectory. 101 But Scania's
Electrification Roadmap clearly specifies that "[f]or this to happen, we must have access to
charging infrastructure and renewable electricity." 102 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2,
p. 22]
101 EPA's HD Phase 3 GHG Proposal at 25929, 25933, 25941, etc.
102 Scania, 'Scania's Electrification Roadmap,' Scania Group, November 24, 2021.
E. ZEVs are not fit for purpose as HDVs.
EPA's presumptions regarding consumer acceptance of ZEVs overlook these vehicles'
unsuitability for the purpose of long-haul freight transport. Factors EPA has not fully considered
that are material to HD ZEV feasibility include, among other things: reduced payload capacity;
battery weight requirements; range; impacts to trucking industry jobs; charging/re-fueling
infrastructure availability; the rate of infrastructure buildout; permitting challenges; upstream
environmental impacts inherent to ZEV production; upfront ZEV costs; the HD payback period;
electricity price projections; and battery efficiency in different climate conditions. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 23.]
Regarding "fitness for purpose," while ZEVs may provide options to help reduce GHG
emissions, neither BEV nor FCEV technology is compatible with the full range of use, duty
and demand required by the HD transportation sector, and therefore neither one is suitable to
replace the ICEV and adequately serve the nation's freight and transit needs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1566-A2, pp. 23 - 24.]
The transition of a large and complex transportation system to a BEV or FCEV technology is
a massive undertaking, requiring the establishment of new manufacturing, assembly and supply
chains; build-out of new charging/fueling infrastructure; interface with public utilities; re-
conception of fuel distribution logistics; and ultimate design of end-of-life resource recovery
strategies. Renewable diesel, on the other hand, can utilize existing infrastructure (i.e., pipelines,
terminals, and retail distribution supply chains), requiring far less investment when compared
395
-------
against BEV charging and FCEV hydrogen fueling build-out. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-
A2, p. 25]
There are other complexities associated with a transition to HD ZEVs that EPA should also
consider, including:
• Significant environmental impacts arising from other aspects of the ZEV lifecycle,
including raw material acquisition and processing, and battery production, transport,
disposal, and recycling.116
116 See UC Davis, Achieving Zero Emissions with More Mobility and Less Mining, at 10 (January 2023)
https://www.climateandcommunity.org/_files/ugd/d6378b_3b79520a747948618034a2bl9b9481a0.pdf
("Under prevailing technologies, lithium is an essential ingredient in the batteries that power EVs, as well
as other consumer electronics and forms of electric mobility such as e-buses, e-trucks, and e-bikes. Lithium
mining—currently concentrated in Australia, Chile, China, and Argentina—is, like all mining,
environmentally and socially harmful"). See also Perry Gottesfeld, Electric cars have a dirty little recycling
problem-batteries, CANADA'S NATIONAL OBSERVER, Jan. 22, 2021,
https://www.nationalobserver.com/2021/01/21/opinion/electric-cars-have-dirty-little-recycling-problem-
their-batteries.
Along with their higher upfront capital expenditure, electric HDVs also must contend with
electricity price projections, where utility demand charges are difficult to determine and
electricity costs carry uncertainties such as whether there will be additional costs for trained
personnel to operate a high-powered fast charging system. According to an Atlas Public Policy
report, "[rjelying on public charging networks to charge [HD] EVs was not a viable option due
to the high cost of charging."121 The substantial electricity demand requirements of HDVs
coupled with limited downtime to charge larger class vehicles greatly reduces any financial
savings associated with electricity, if they exist at all, over diesel based on current rates. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, pp. 26 - 27]
121 Satterfield, Charles and Nigro, Nick, Assessing Financial Barriers to Adoption of Electric Trucks, at
ES-6 (Feb. 2020), https://atlaspolicy.eom/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Assessing-Financial-Barriers-to-
Adoption-of-Electric-Trucks.pdf.
II. EPA fails to adequately consider important aspects and consequences of the proposed rule.
In accordance with the policy directive established by the Biden Administration in Executive
Order 14037, EPA assumes without serious, critical, and independent analysis that the heavy-
duty vehicle fleet should be forced to transition to BEV and FCEV technologies. In its haste to
fulfill the Administration's predetermined policy objectives, EPA fails to adequately consider
important aspects of the rule and overlooks significant impacts and consequences that will
inevitably result if the rule is adopted as proposed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p.
27] Moreover, EPA should not merely rely on and extrapolate from third-party data and analysis
without adequately considering differences in scale, climate, terrain, and state economies that
will have profound impacts on America's experience implementing the proposed rule. State
specific and regional factors are material and must be considered to ensure that the proposed rule
is properly and thoroughly vetted for application in each state. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-
A2, p. 36]
According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, "[a]
total of 14.9 million persons (10.2 percent of the U.S. labor force) worked in the transportation
and warehousing sector and related industries (e.g., automotive manufacturing) in 2021—up 3.9
396
-------
percent from 2020. In 2021, total employment in transportation reached the highest level since
1990, surpassing the 2019 level." EPA should quantify the economic impact of supply-chain
disruptions and bottlenecks likely to occur if fleet owners are forced to acquire ZEVs that are not
supported by adequate infrastructure in certain parts of America. In addition, EPA should
address how consumers will be impacted by higher costs of food and goods as the costs of
replacing existing vehicles with ZEVs are passed through to customers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1566-A2, p. 37]
EPA asserts that it has statutory authority to adopt technology-forcing standards for reducing
emissions from motor vehicle tailpipes. CAA Section 202(a) does not authorize the agency to
force grid operators to manage electrical loads in completely new ways, or to dictate vehicle
charging behavior to fleet owners and independent vehicle operators. Yet EPA must account for
the costs and impacts on the grid in the RIA for the rule and consider such costs and impacts and
the availability and reliability of the grid. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 39.]
V. EPA should neither align the proposed rule with the Advanced Clean Trucks program
(ACT), nor rely on ACT or any other state standards.
To the extent EPA is considering extending the model years at issue and increasing the
stringency of the proposed standards in the final rule to align with and/or reflect California's
Advanced Clean Trucks program or any other state greenhouse gas emission standards, or is
otherwise relying on any such state standards, such changes would be unlawful. State greenhouse
gas emission standards and ZEV sales mandates are preempted by both EPCA and the RFS,
making any reliance on such standards by EPA equally unlawful. Moreover, such a radical
departure from the proposed rule would require EPA to reopen the comment period to allow for
meaningful public comment on these issues and their related impacts. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1566-A2, p. 73]
EPCA prohibits States from adopting or enforcing "a law or regulation related to fuel
economy standards or average fuel economy standards for automobiles." 49 U.S.C. § 32919(a)
(emphasis added). The Supreme Court has described "related to" preemption provisions like this
one as "deliberately expansive," Pilot Life Ins. Co. v. Dedeaux, 481 U.S. 41, 46 (1987), and
"conspicuous" in their breadth, FMC Corp. v. Holliday, 498 U.S. 52, 58 (1990). As the Court has
explained, a state requirement "relate[s] to" a federal law or regulation as long as it has a
"connection with," or contains a "reference to," the regulated topic. Rowe v. New Hampshire
Motor Transport Ass'n, 552 U.S. 364, 370 (2008) (quoting Morales v. Trans World Airlines,
Inc., 504 U.S. 374, 384 (1992)). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 73]
State electric-vehicle mandates have a clear "connection with" fuel economy. Electric-vehicle
mandates like California's require manufacturers to make a certain number of "vehicles that
produce zero exhaust emissions of any criteria pollutant (or precursor pollutant) or greenhouse
gas, excluding emissions from air conditioning systems." Cal. Code Regs. tit. 13, § 1962.2(a).
Because emissions of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide are "essentially constant per gallon
combusted of a given type of fuel," the fuel economy of a vehicle and its carbon-dioxide
emissions are two sides of the same coin. 75 Fed. Reg. at 25,324, 25,327 (May 7, 2010).
Accordingly, "any rule that limits tailpipe [greenhouse gas] emissions is effectively identical to a
rule that limits fuel consumption." Delta Constr. Co., 783 F.3d at 1294 (citation omitted). EPA
has previously found California's ZEV mandates are expressly and impliedly preempted by
EPCA. 83 Fed.Reg. 42,986, 43,238-39 (Aug. 24, 2018). That is consistent with the court's
397
-------
finding in Central Valley Chrysler-Plymouth v. California Air Resources Board, No. CV-F-02-
5017 REC/SMS, 2002 WL 34499459 (E D. Cal. June 11, 2002), that "Plaintiffs have shown that
the 2001 ZEV amendments "relate to" fuel economy standards because they "clearly have the
purpose of regulating the fuel economy performance of... the advanced technology hybrids that
the Executive Officer predicts the industry will sell in California...." Id. at *3. As a result of that
litigation, CARB has "removed all references to fuel economy or efficiency," Fact Sheet: 2003
Zero Emission Vehicle Program Changes, California Air Resources Board (Mar. 18, 2004),256
in its ZEV mandates, but removal of the reference does not equate to removal of the fact that
these regulations relate to fuel economy standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, pp. 73
-74]
256 The Fact Sheet clarifies that the changes made were a direct result of the EPCA preemption finding:
"In June 2002, due to a lawsuit against the ARB, a federal district judge issued a preliminary injunction that
prohibited the ARB from enforcing the 2001 ZEV amendments with respect to the sale of new motor
vehicles in model years 2003 or 2004. The lawsuit was focused on the assertion that AT PREV provisions
pertaining to the fuel economy of hybrid electric vehicles were preempted by the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act of 1975 - the law directing the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to
establish corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards. Since adopting the 2003 Amendments to the
ZEV regulation, the parties to the lawsuit have agreed to end the litigation.... • In order to address the
preliminary injunction ... staff proposed additional modifications to the ZEV regulation in March 2003.".
Id. at 1.
Separately, electric-vehicle mandates also relate to "average fuel economy" because they
restrict manufacturers' choices as to how to meet those standards. EPCA allows manufacturers to
meet NHTSA's fuel-economy standards by producing any combination of vehicles that the
national market will bear, using whatever technological approach to fuel economy they think
best. State electric-car mandates, by contrast, require automakers to comply in a specific way:
either by selling a certain percentage of zero-emission vehicles or purchasing credits from
competitors. The state mandates thus relate to federal fuel-economy standards because they
"force [a manufacturer] to adopt a certain scheme" and "restrict its choice" of compliance, and
are thus preempted. New York State Conf. of Blue Cross & Blue Shield Plans v. Travelers Ins.
Co., 514 U.S. 645, 668 (1995); accord Ophir v. City of Boston, 647 F. Supp. 2d 86, 93 (D. Mass.
2009). [EPA-HQ-0AR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 74]
State electric-vehicle mandates are also impliedly preempted by a separate statutory
provision, the RFS. State laws are impliedly preempted when they "stand[] as an obstacle to the
accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress." Arizona v.
United States, 567 U.S. 387, 406 (2012) (citation omitted). A "conflict in technique can be fully
as disruptive to the system Congress erected as conflict in overt policy." Id. (citation omitted);
see Geierv. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861, 881 (2000). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1566-A2, p. 74]
Here, state electric-vehicle mandates conflict with Congress's objectives in enacting the RFS.
The RFS reflects Congress's policy decision to "move the United States toward greater energy
independence and security" in a specific way: by "increas[ing] the production of clean renewable
fuels" to be blended with fossil fuels. ACE, 864 F.3d at 697 (citations omitted). Mandating
electrification—in other words, eliminating vehicles that use liquid renewable fuels—puts severe
pressure on regulated entities' ability to comply with the RFS by reducing the percentage of
vehicles that use those renewable fuels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 74]
398
-------
By contrast, Congress has never included electric-vehicle mandates in its energy-security
plans and in fact has rejected several bills that would have imposed such mandates. See, e.g.,
Zero-Emission Vehicles Act of 2019, H.R. 2764, 116th Cong. (2019); Zero-Emission Vehicles
Act of 2018, S. 3664, 115th Cong. (2018). State electric-vehicle mandates wreak havoc on
Congress's carefully crafted scheme in favor of an option that Congress has consistently rejected.
Cf. West Virginia v. EPA, 142 S. Ct. 2587, 2614 (2022). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2,
p. 74]
Because these state standards and mandates are themselves preempted and unlawful, any
reliance on, or consideration of, such standards by EPA would be equally unlawful. Any such
change(s) at this juncture without reopening the public comment period would also deny
stakeholders an opportunity for meaningful comment, particularly because EPA has not made
available for review the factual or legal basis for any such proposed changes or its analysis of
their economic impact and related policy considerations. Moreover, the final rule would
constitute a radical departure from the proposal without fairly apprising stakeholders of the
standards or their underlying bases. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 74]
EPA's HD Phase 3 GHG proposal is unsupported. Additional challenges related to
accelerated ZEV deployment in the HD fleet have not been accounted for in the proposed
rulemaking. EPA must fully consider factors such as cost, EV supply, mineral and
component supply, infrastructure, and other challenges inherent to its proposal. Specifically,
economic costs for commercial freight must be carefully considered by EPA, as these costs will
directly impact the prices of essential consumer goods. Valero believes that a HD ZEV mandate,
as proposed, represents a serious risk to American consumers and will impede efforts to achieve
transport decarbonization at the lowest societal. These issues call into question the assumptions
underpinning the HD Phase 3 GHG Proposal's central trajectory for HD ZEV sales. Pivoting
towards a technology neutral approach that assesses vehicle emissions on a lifecycle basis would
allow consumer choice to determine the preferred technology pathway at the lowest societal cost,
and bypass the forgoing issues. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, pp. 75 - 76]
Organization: Volvo Group
Packaging Challenges
As we modify products to comply with 2027 stringencies, new components consuming
valuable frame space are required, making our ability to meet a 43" trailer gap for day cabs while
maintaining the fuel capacity to meet our customers' requirements increasingly difficult. The
Exhaust After Treatment System (EATS) requires more 'immediate' on demand heat and the
exhaust stream requires additional Diesel Exhaust Fluid (DEF). As the EATS grows in size, the
DEF volume increases, requiring frame rail extensions to accommodate necessary components.
Despite consideration of numerous alternatives in packaging concepts as the rear bogie(s) move
rearward, the ability to meet a 43" trailer gap is less likely with the prescribed trailer
configuration outlined in 1037.501. If we were to push out our standard 'best aero' day cab
configuration to -48" trailer gap, we would expect overall aerodynamics to be negatively
impacted by 1.5%. To continue to achieve a 43" trailer gap we must weigh the spend (millions of
USD) it takes to re-package components, perform simulations, and ultimately accrue mileage to
achieve the expected reliability growth targets before putting a solution into production. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1606-A1, p. 12]
399
-------
Conventional Vehicle Stringency
Volvo Group supports EPA's inclusion of only BEV and FCEV penetrations in the stringency
calculations. As traditional heavy-duty vehicle manufacturers transition to zero-emission
technologies, we must be able to focus our limited investments on developing and
commercializing zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs), while continuing to support our internal
combustion engine (ICE) technologies in order to meet the needs of the transportation industry
and, ultimately, all consumers during this technology transition. Additionally, the largest
greenhouse gas emission reductions will come from zero and near-zero-emission technologies
and greater utilization of sustainable liquid fuels, not from minor engine and vehicle
improvements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1606-A1, p. 15]
For these reasons we do not believe that conventional vehicle stringencies should be increased
beyond the current model year 2027 levels set in the Phase 2 rulemaking. Furthermore, if EPA
determines to re-evaluate either, or both of the 2027 engine and conventional vehicle levels, the
agency must take all of the factors noted above into consideration, especially the impact of NOx
and increased engine emissions useful life on engine fuel maps used in EPA's Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Model (GEM) to calculate a vehicle's Family Emission Limit (FEL). [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1606-A1, p. 15]
Alternative Stringencies
Volvo Group believes that the proposed stringency levels are inflated due to incorrect
assumptions and inputs used in the agency's analysis as further explained in EMA's comments.
As such, we believe penetration levels above the proposal are likely not feasible.
Specifically: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1606-A1, p. 20]
• EPA should not consider applying CARB's Advanced Clean Truck (ACT) volumes on a
national level. As noted earlier, California has instituted many financial and policy
incentives to accelerate the penetration of medium- and heavy-duty ZEVs, and yet we
already see conditions challenging the realization of ACT volumes in that state due to the
lack of timely charging infrastructure deployment. California's passage of the Advanced
Clean Fleets (ACF) rule was meant to further support heavy-duty ZEV adoption, yet
importantly acknowledges infrastructure challenges and includes provisions to postpone
requirements and prevent non-compliance for up to five years if fleets are unable to
acquire infrastructure. The Volvo Group encourages EPA to include analogous
provisions for OEMs if their customers face similar infrastructure challenges within the
Phase 3 regulation.
• EPA should not incorporate ACT mandated volumes on top of the estimated ZEV
penetration levels anticipated from the Phase 3 proposal itself. California will account for
the majority of EV sales during the Phase 3 period, especially in the early years, where
most other states will lag substantially due to the lack of similar HVIP-like purchase
incentives and charging infrastructure. As a result, incorporating additional ACT related
sales on top of the national deliveries coming out of Phase 3 is not feasible. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1606-A1, p. 20]
400
-------
Organization: World Resources Institute (WRI)
These negative impacts to children and communities from diesel school bus pollution should
be addressed with the strongest possible standards. Therefore, WRI supports the strongest
proposed standard of 50-60% zero-emission vehicle adoption by 2030, that comports with the
levels of the California Air Resource Board (CARB) Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT) Rule. WRI
also encourages EPA to consider even stronger standards that accelerate the timeline and
increase the adoption rate for new school bus purchases to help support the transition of the
nation's entire school bus fleet to electric by 2030. The transition of the nation's school bus fleet
to electric is already underway, with increasing investments from both state and federal
programs, and interest and engagement from manufacturers and utilities. Strong standards for
school buses will advance equity and environmental justice goals. Moreover, school districts are
showing high demand, manufacturers are increasing the availability of models, and states are
setting their own accelerated transition timelines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1601-A1, p. 1]
Schools Are Moving to Electric School Buses
The experience of the first round of funding from the U.S. EPA Clean School Bus Program
provides a strong indication of schools' high level of interest in a transition to electric school
buses. In 2022, EPA announced nearly $1 billion in awards to 389 school districts in all 50 states
and Washington, DC, along with several federally recognized Tribes and U.S. territories, to help
purchase over 2,400 buses as part of the new Clean School Bus Program. In response to the
overwhelming interest from school districts, 95% of the buses funded will be electric school
buses. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1601-A1, p. 2]
EPA's $5 billion Clean School Bus Program was created under the bipartisan 2021
Infrastructure Investments and Jobs Act (IIJA). This program is designated as part of President
Biden's Justice40 Initiative which seeks to ensure at least 40 percent of benefits from climate
programs go to underserved communities disproportionately impacted by pollution. Nearly all of
the awards, or 99 percent, were provided to school districts serving low-income, rural or tribal
students. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1601-A1, p. 2]
EPA received application requests totaling nearly $4 billion for the rebate program - eight
times the $500 million initially announced for this round. This overwhelming response is one
strong indication of the high level of interest in school bus electrification from school districts
across the U.S., and in all climates and geographies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1601-A1, p. 2]
States Are Already Taking Action
Momentum for school bus electrification is already underway in states all across the country
and EPA's standards should reflect and support this momentum. Governors from 17 states and
the District of Columbia have signed a Multi-State Memorandum of Understanding to work
collaboratively to advance and accelerate the market for zero-emissions medium- and heavy-duty
vehicles with the overall goal to ensure that 100 percent of all new trucks and bus sales are zero-
emission vehicles by 2050, with an interim target of at least 30 percent by 2030. Further, eight
states have already adopted a version of the ACT - California, Oregon, Washington, New Jersey,
Massachusetts, New York, Vermont, and Colorado - and there are three other states in the
adoption process - Connecticut, Maine, and Maryland. These states represent a large percentage
401
-------
of the country's medium- and heavy-duty vehicle market, and directly impact school bus
electrification efforts. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1601-A1, p. 2]
Specifically relating to school bus electrification, four states have passed electric school bus
fleet transition targets - New York, Connecticut, Maryland, and Maine. In 2022, New York
established a nation-leading electric school bus transition commitment, requiring all new school
buses to be electric by 2027, and all school buses to be electric by 2035. Focusing on the
disparate impacts of diesel emissions, Connecticut set an earlier transition target of 2030 for
buses operating in environmental justice communities. Maryland required all new school buses
to be electric by 2025. Lastly, Maine requires that 75% of new school bus purchases be electric
by 2035. Collectively, these state transition targets are consequential and timely, covering
roughly 64,000 school buses and over 1,600 school districts, which is roughly 13% of the
nation's school bus fleet. The momentum does not stop there. According to our latest data
collection and analysis, which covers school bus electrification data through December 2022,
there are currently 5,612 committed electric school buses in the country. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1601-A1, pp. 2-3]
These electrification commitments by states underscore the setting of the strongest possible
standard established under this proposed rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1601-A1, p. 3]
The Electric School Bus Market is Expanding
The electric school bus market is primed for this transition. The unprecedented interest
expressed by school districts in the first round of EPA's Clean School Bus Program has
prompted more school bus manufacturers to focus on electric school bus production. There are
currently more than 22 models of ESBs available from a total of 8 manufacturers. Industry-wide,
manufacturers are anticipated to more than double their existing capacity for Type C and D ESBs
by the end of 2024 with longer-term expansion growing five-fold (Lee and Chard 2023). For
more information on the electric school bus market, please see: Electric School Bus U.S. Market
Study and Buyer's Guide: A Resource for School Bus Operators Pursuing Fleet Electrification |
World Resources Institute (wri.org). (Update is forthcoming in Summer 2023). [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1601-A1, p. 3]
Organization: Zero Emission Transportation Association (ZETA)
ZETA appreciates the work that went into this proposal and we encourage the agency to
finalize heavy-duty GHG standards that are more stringent than proposed and align with
California's Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT) regulation. To meet the country's commitments
under the Paris Climate Agreement and the National Blueprint for Transportation
Decarbonization, more than 55% of total class 4-8 vehicle sales must be zero-emission by 2030.
Without a quicker transition, older, more-polluting vehicles will remain on the roads well into
the future. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 1]
Emission standards like these are critical to ensuring the supply chain has the necessary
regulatory certainty in order to put the sector on a glide path to a zero-emission future. We urge
EPA to finalize these standards before the end of calendar year 2023 to ensure they take effect as
soon as permitted under the Clean Air Act as doing so would maximize the potential emissions
reductions, consistent with Executive Order 14037. We also encourage EPA to support the EV
supply chain by providing forums for coordination between the agency, large fleets, utilities,
402
-------
and other stakeholders that will be needed to support the adoption of the electrification
technologies necessary to meet these emissions reductions targets. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
2429-A1, pp. 1-2]
Beyond the environmental, public health, and climate benefits, HDV electrification will help
ensure the United States maintains its economic competitiveness with the rest of the world.
Governments around the world are establishing more ambitious electrification goals to align with
recent announcements from global manufacturers. Ensuring U.S. regulations match or exceed
these ambitions is vital to encouraging domestic investment in the industry. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 2]
EVs are now available in all heavy-duty classes, with many models presenting fleet operators
with a favorable total cost of ownership today. That should be expected to improve further over
the timeframe covered by EPA's proposed standards, and continued innovation by industry will
only increase product offerings and vehicle capabilities in the coming years. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 2]
The entire EV supply chain is preparing today to meet the demand needs of tomorrow. The
certainty that EPA provides in the form of emissions standards like these is critical to helping de-
risk capital expenditures and providing future demand clarity. As domestic manufacturing
capacity continues to grow, ZETA's members are leading the way to ensure the United States is
well positioned to lead the EV revolution. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 2]
ZETA supports many of the provisions included in the proposed rule. We also believe there
are a few key areas where EPA clarification could strengthen the rule to further protect public
health and the environment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 2]
When coupled with EPA's final rule setting multi-pollutant emission standards for HDVs,3
this rule will drive investment in electric technologies that will lead to significant emissions
reductions and improved health outcomes. With an average lifespan of over 15 years and
increasing, most HDVs spend more time and miles on the road before retirement than light-
duty vehicles.4 Therefore, failing to electrify these HDVs now means that fossil fuel-powered
vehicles rolling off assembly lines today will remain on the road well beyond 2040, adding
hundreds of thousands of vehicle miles and associated deadly emissions over the coming
decades. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, pp. 4 - 5]
3 See 88 FR 4296 (January 24, 2023)
4 "Aging Trucks Create More Service Opportunities," accessed May 5, 2023
https://www.ntea.com/NTEA/Member_benefits/Industry_leading_news/NTEANewsarticles/Aging_trucks_
create_more_service_opportunities.aspx?fbclid=IwAR3mkimdcKilEbdqwvYYSwODX5Hop5g6odQWuQ
dlt9c J37130kwxgv209PU
Electrification presents the strongest pathway to reducing pollution from our transportation
sector and unlocking tangible environmental and public health benefits. Each year, more than
12.2 million HDVs across the U.S. travel 297 billion miles and consume 46 billion gallons of
gasoline and diesel.5 HDVs produce about a quarter of all emissions across the transportation
sector, making them major contributors to U.S. emissions of particulate matter (PM2.5), nitrogen
oxides (NOx), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and carbon dioxide (C02).6 Such pollutants
are directly linked to long-term respiratory, cognitive, and autoimmune impairment, and studies
expect the rate of HDEV deployment to have a direct relationship with improved health
403
-------
outcomes, particularly for individuals living near high traffic areas.7 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-2429-A1, p. 5]
5 "Colorado Medium- and Heavy-Duty (M/HD) Vehicle Study," Colorado Energy Office (September
2021) https://drive.google.eom/file/d/lN8tQp0vlRPK86Kle08ZQ83rKsY4Ja5Tx/view
6 "Federal Vehicle Standards," C2ES, accessed May 18, 2023 https://www.c2es.org/content/regulating-
transportation-sector-carbon-emissions/
7 "PM2.5 polluters disproportionately and systemically affect people of color in the United States," Science
Advances (April 28, 2021) https://advances.sciencemag.Org/content/7/18/eabf4491
e. HDEV Manufacturing and New Model Availability
The increase in electric vehicle manufacturing spurred by more stringent Phase 3 GHG
emission standards will drive down the upfront cost of production through economies of scale.
This shift will drive demand for production of component parts, chargers, and battery packs. The
increased demand will drive down the cost of EVSE and batteries necessary for long-haul
electrification, will boost EV growth in other vehicle segments, and will inform electrification
strategies for other vehicle classes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 51]
Among trucks, the shorter-haul vehicle segment is currently more cost-competitive to
electrify than long-haul trucking—although technological improvements are accelerating the
timeline for the latter. At present, transit buses, delivery vans, and school buses are well suited to
electrification: they travel shorter distances, regular routes, and benefit from return-to-
base operations ideal for depot charging. Increasing the proportion of EVs in this vehicle
segment will demonstrate the viability of this technology, increasing consumer confidence and
paving the road for larger scale electrification. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, pp. 51 - 52]
With a growing number of fleet operators intending to decarbonize their fleets, HDV OEMs
have begun ramping up their electric model production. HDEV sales have begun to rise rapidly
in recent years, largely driven by a growth in available models, in addition to the growing policy
support, improving technology, and cost-savings of electric trucks. More than 300 commercial
EV models are available globally and this number is expected to double in the coming
years. 167 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 52]
167 "Zero-Emission Technology Inventory," Global Commercial Vehicle Drive To Zero, CALSTART,
2021, https://globaldrivetozero.org/tools/zero-emission-technologyinventory/
Major HDV manufacturers have made commitments to increase their zero-emission vehicle
offerings. Company commitments range from 50%.67% of MHDV sales by 2030 to 100% of
sales by 2040.168
• Paccar, which comprises 30% of U.S. HDV market share, has committed to be 100%
zero-emission by 2040.169
• In 2020, Volvo committed to 35% ZEVs by 2030 and to be 100% net-zero emissions by
2040.170 Volvo has a market share of more than 10% of heavy-duty trucks in North
America. 171
• In 2021, Daimler announced their goal for 60% ZEV sales by 2030. Today, they sell over
500,000 trucks and buses per year with a 40% market share in North America. 172
404
-------
• Navistar set their ambitions on a goal for 50% ZEV sales by 2030 and 100% by 2040.173
They comprise 40% of school buses on the roads of North America and more than 12%
of Class 8 trucks.
• Swedish-based Scania committed to make 30% of global sales ZEVs by 2030 and 90%
by 2040.174 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 52]
168 Id. at Page 5
169 Id. at Page 51
170 Letter from Volvo Group North America to David S Kim dated May 21, 2021 https://calsta.ca.gov/-
/media/calsta-media/documents/volvo-group-2021-05-21 -comments-capti-final.pdf
171 "Record year for Volvo Trucks in 2022 - all-time high volumes and market share increase in 41
countries," Volvo Trucks, (February 6, 2023) accessed June 5, 2023 https://www.volvotrucks.com/en-
en/news-stories/press-releases/2023/feb/record-year-for-volvo-trucks-in-
2022.html#:~:text=The%20global%20truck%20manufacturer%20delivered,when%20122%2C525%20truc
ks%20were%20delivered
172 "Daimler Truck sets out ambitions as an independent company," PR Newswire, (May 20, 2021)
accessed June 5, 2023 https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/daimler-truck-sets-out-ambitions-as-an-
independent-company-301295906. html
173 Navistar, accessed June 5, 2023 https://www.navistar.com/en/sustainability/our-commitments
174 "Scania's commitment to electrification - our initiatives so far," Scania, (December 21, 2021) accessed
June 5, 2023
https://www.scania.com/group/en/home/newsroom/news/2021/Scanias_commitment_to_electrification_our
_initiatives_so_far.html
In addition to the conventional HD manufacturers, there is an ever-growing list of EV
manufacturers in North America committed to increasing model availability, including:
• Arrival
. BYD
• GreenPower Motor Company
• Lightning eMotors
• Lion Electric Company
• Nikola Corporation
• Proterra
• SEA Electric
• TransPower
• Volta Trucks
. Workhorse [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 53]
In North America, there are 97 heavy-duty models available today, up from 75 in 2021.175
The models span vehicle types including HD tractors, transit, coaches, school buses, and more.
HD trucks alone have 27 available models in 2023, making them one of the fastest growing
segments. See Appendix Figure A.3 for a list of the available HD models in North America for
model years 2021-2023. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 53.] [See Docket Number
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, pages 59-62, for Figure A.3]
175 "Zero-Emission Technology Inventory (ZETI) Data Explorer," Global Commercial Drive to Zero,
accessed June 5, 2023 https://globaldrivetozero.org/tools/zeti-data-explorer/
405
-------
Transit buses have seen the greatest growth in EV adoption as a result of policy incentives
and strong economics. These examples of early adoption can assist with building up economies
of scale to drive down costs and build out supply chains in the U.S. In addition, exposing
consumers to these vehicles increases overall trust and familiarity with the new, electric
drivetrains.176 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 53]
176 Id. at Page 14
Today, there are fourteen heavy-duty Class 7 and 8 electric trucks and an additional eight
electric heavy-duty yard tractors on the market in the U.S. Buses have seen some of the greatest
model availability, with eighteen electric school bus models available for sale in the U.S. These
numbers are comparable to diesel truck models, with the vast majority being sold by three major
manufacturers (Daimler, Paccar, and Navistar). 177 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 53]
177 "ATD Truck Beat: Commercial Truck Sales Increase 3.8% in 2022 over 2021," National Automobile
Dealers Association, accessed June 5, 2023 https://www.nada.org/atd/research/truck-beat
From 2021 to the end of 2022, electric HD truck model availability grew 88%—from
57 models to 107. This does not include electric transit buses, which had 285 available models at
the close of 2022.178 Out of all the vehicle segments, heavy-duty trucks have seen the greatest
growth in model availability every year, shown in Figure 8. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-
Al, pp. 53 - 54.] [See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, page 54, for
Figure 8]
178 "Zero-Emission Truck and Bus Market Update," CALSTART; Global Commercial Drive to Zero,
accessed June 5, 2023 https://globaldrivetozero.org/site/wp-
content/uploads/2022/10/ZE_TruckBus_update.pdf
Even without robust incentives and regulatory certainty, OEMs have dramatically scaled their
HDEV offerings. With more stringent emissions standards, incentives from the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act, and acceleration of corporate sustainability
commitments, the stock of EV models should be reasonably expected to grow substantially over
the next few years before Phase 3 GHG standards take effect. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-
Al, p. 54]
i. ZETA members' HDEV manufacturing announcements
The Inflation Reduction Act helps bolster HDEV supply and demand. Production tax credits
for the construction of vehicles and charging infrastructure are coupled with funding to build
new facilities or retool existing locations into EV manufacturing plants. This includes $60
million to reduce diesel emissions, $2 billion in grants to upgrade facilities, and $20 billion for
the construction of new EV manufacturing facilities. These funds spur new manufacturing and
build market confidence. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 54]
ZETA member Proterra announced a new $76 million battery facility in South Carolina near
its existing Greenville bus facility capable of producing 400 buses annually. 180 Lion Electric, a
ZETA member and manufacturer of medium and heavy-duty EVs, has factories in Illinois and
Quebec with production capacity expected to reach 22,500 electric trucks and buses per year. 181
Arrival is planning to build several U.S. based "microfactories," with the first being a $46
million investment in South Carolina. 182 Their second facility will be a $41 million investment
near Charlotte, North Carolina. 183 GreenPower's bus manufacturing plant is expected to have an
406
-------
economic impact of $500 million per year for the state of West Virginia. 184 Finally, Tesla plans
to build a $3.5 billion semi-truck manufacturing facility in Nevada, its second plant in the
state. 185 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 55]
180 "Proterra Announces EV Battery Factory in South Carolina as Demand for Commercial Electric
Vehicles Grows," Proterra, (December 14, 2021) https://www.proterra.com/press-release/proterra-sc-
battery-factory/
181 "Lion Electric Inaugurates Its Battery Manufacturing Factory for Medium and Heavy-Duty Vehicles"
PR Newswire, (April 17, 2023) accessed June 5, 2023 https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/lion-
electric-inaugurates-its-battery-manufacturing-factory-for-mediumand-heavy-duty-vehicles-
301799083.html
182 "Arrival to build its first U.S. electric vehicle Microfactory in York County, South Carolina," Arrival,
(October 13, 2020) accessed June 5, 2023 https://arrival.com/news/arrival-to-build-its-first-us-electric-
vehicle-microfactory-in-york-county-south-carolina
183 "Arrival to open a second US microfactory to build electric vans for UPS," Arrival, (March 17, 2021)
accessed June 5, 2023 https://techcrunch.com/2021/03/17/arrival-to-open-a-second-us-microfactory-to-
build-electric-vans-for-ups/
184 "GreenPower Motor Co. to begin manufacturing at South Charleston, West Virginia facility 'this
quarter'," The State Journal, (January 16, 2023) accessed June 5, 2023
https://www.wvnews.com/statejournal/greenpower-motor-co-to-begin-manufacturing-at-south-charleston-
west-virginia-facility-this-quarter/article_4c7f8440-92bb-l Ied-a2c8-6bc5445cbe85.html
185 "Tesla Will Build Heavy Trucks at a New Factory in Nevada," New York Times, (January 24, 2023)
accessed June 5, 2023 https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/24/business/tesla-truck-factory-nevada.html
ZETA member companies like Arrival, SEA Electric, GreenPower Motor Company, Lion
Electric, Proterra, and Tesla are all working to manufacture sufficient HDEVs to meet demand.
These companies are capable of producing tens of thousands of HDEVs annually. These
production capacities are proven in part by these companies' investments in new manufacturing
plants like Tesla's Gigafactory in Texas, Rivian's plant in Georgia, Lion Electric's plant in
Illinois, Proterra's heavy-duty battery manufacturing facility in South Carolina, and GreenPower
Motor Company's plant in West Virginia. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 55]
EPA Summary and Response:
General Summary:
Lion Electric, Nuvve Holding, RMI, and TerraWatt commented in support of the proposal.
Others expressed support for certain aspects of the proposal, including a single national standard
(AESI, Eaton, Ford, Proterra), or the goals of the proposal and GHG standards for heavy-duty
vehicles in general (Neste, EEI, USTMA). MECA commented in support of the proposal noting
their particular support for commencing the standards in MY 2027. Ford and Navistar supported
the 2032 standards, but said the early year standards were overly ambitious. Ford noted particular
concern given the large jump in stringency between the model year 2026 standard and the
proposed 2027 MY standard. Navistar expressed support in response to EPA's request for
comment on a slower phase-in alternative for MYs 2027-2031.
Several commenters expressed support for standards that are the "most stringent" or
"strongest possible" (CATF et al., Energy Innovation, GreenLatinos et al., Mayor Becky Daggett
et al., NESCAUM/OTC, Proterra, SELC, WRI), and indicated the rule was needed ensure the
407
-------
U.S. achieves high levels of EV adoption by 2035 (ATS, CleanAirNow, EDF, GreenLatinos et
al., Mayor Becky Daggett et al., MFN). Some of the commenters stating that the proposed
standards were insufficiently stringent centered their arguments on general legal and policy
grounds, maintaining that the standards must be stringent to meet the overriding public health
and welfare protection goals of the Act and of section 202(a)(1). They pointed to the on-going
climate crisis and indicated that emission reduction levels should be commensurate with the
degree of harm posed by that endangerment. (See e.g., CALSTART, CATF, MFN.)
Other commenters expressed concerns with EPA's assessment of the feasibility of the
proposed standards (AmFree, American Highway Users Alliance, API, AFPM, CFDC et al.,
DTNA, Delek, UAW, OOIDA, POET, EMA, Valero, Volvo) and some provided adverse
comment on the broader proposal claiming it to be arbitrary and capricious (AmFree, AFPM,
Arizona State Legislature, CFDC et al., NAD A, Steven Bradbury, Valero). Some urged the
agency to simply leave the 2027 phase 2 standards in place, maintaining on general grounds that
further technological improvements are too nascent to form the basis for more stringent
standards (American Highway Users, AmFree, NACS et al., TRALA, see also summaries in
section 2.3 of this RTC document). These commenters generally cited the uncertainties
associated with sufficiency of supportive electrical infrastructure, especially in the program's
initial years.
Many commenters recommended standards at least as stringent as the California ACT
standards (Allergy and Asthma Network et al., ACEEE, ATS, CARB, CARB et al., Ceres
BICEP, CATF et al., Colorado DOT, District of Columbia DOEE, EDF, MFN, NACAA, NPCA,
NESCAUM/OTC, Out Children's Trust, South Coast AQMD, SELC, State of California et al.,
Tesla, WRI, ZETA), and in some cases argued for standards even more stringent (MFN, Our
Children's Trust, and Energy Innovation). Some requested the standards reflect California ACF
standards in the national standards (NESCAUM/OTC), or suggested the standards include the
ACT sales mandates (South Coast AQMD). Others commented against adopting ACT at a
national scale (ATA, DTNA, ROUSH, EMA, TRALA, Valero, Volvo).
General Response:
We appreciate the expressed support for the proposal and the goals of this rulemaking. We
also appreciate the information commenters shared to support their statements on the feasibility
of the proposal and their requests for more or less stringent standards. As support for more
stringent standards, commenters cited five primary factors, which we summarize and respond to
below as individual comment themes:
• EPA's CAA section 202(a)(1) obligation to "utilize[e] emission standards to prevent
reasonably anticipated endangerment from maturing into concrete harm" Coal. For
Responsible Regulations, Inc. v. EPA, 684 F.3d 102, 122 (D.C. Cir. 2012);
• Evidence of greater ZEV adoption considering manufacturer announcements,
introduction of HD ZEVs in the U.S. and European market, and deployment of ZEVs
by fleets;
• State commitments to adopt ACT and availability of federal, state, and local financial
incentives;
408
-------
• Further improvements that can be made to vehicles powered by internal combustion
engines (ICE vehicles); and
• Federal standards themselves will provide needed certainty for investment in both
ZEVs, critical materials, and infrastructure
We also summarize and respond to two additional themes: the range of comments requesting
EPA update the feasibility analysis for the rule and EPA's consideration of CARB's ACT
regulation. We conclude this section 2.4 with summaries and responses to other discrete themes
brought up in comments.
Summary of Comment Theme: EPA is legally compelled to adopt standards more stringent than
those proposed
Commenters' legal arguments in support of more stringent standards centered on the purpose
of section 202(a)(1)— to use emission standards to forestall the endangerment to which the
emissions contribute {Coal. For Resp. Regulation, 684 F.3d at 122)-- arguing that emission
standards must be of a stringency commensurate with that goal. (See, e.g., CATF, MFN, NPCA,
Energy Innovation; see also Comments of, e.g., ACEEE, Tesla and ZETA maintaining that the
more stringent standards are needed to satisfy United States' commitments in the Paris
Agreement). These commenters acknowledged that section 202(a)(1) is technology based and
affords EPA discretion in how to balance the enumerated statutory factors, but asserted that the
overriding statutory protectiveness imperative, the magnitude of the climate crisis endangerment,
and the technology-forcing directive in section 202(a)(1) not to be limited to current
technological developments in formulating emission standards. (CATF, MFN, CARB.) Both
CATF and MFN suggested that by making payback period a key metric in developing standard
stringency, EPA had impermissibly either considered or over-emphasized the factor of consumer
acceptance in setting the standards. That is, they allege that standards so predicated were likely
to reflect merely business as usual, and so would not achieve emission reductions beyond those
which would occur in any case, at odds with the requirements of section 202(a)(1) to require
emission reductions which would not otherwise occur. These commenters cited the D.C.
Circuit's International Harvester case as support (International Harvester v. Ruckelshaus, 478 F.
2d 615 (D.C. Cir. 1973). CATF et al. stated: "As detailed in Section II, Congress intended
EPA's standards to push the industry toward greater emission reductions and did not expect them
to preserve the market dominance of any particular type of powertrain or power source. EPA
should not give oversized weight to arguments questioning purchaser preferences, which is not a
factor Congress identified in section 202(a)(l)-(2)." NPCA and Tesla cited 202(a)(3) and EPA's
obligation for standards to reflect "the greatest degree of emission reduction achievable."
Response to Comment Theme: EPA is legally compelled to adopt standards more stringent than
those proposed
EPA agrees with NGO commenters that the text of section 202(a)(1) directs EPA to establish
emission standards which limit heavy-duty vehicles' contribution to the air pollution which
causes or contributes to endangerment, and that reducing such emissions that contribute to
endangerment is a central purpose of the Act. Coalition for Responsible Regulation, 684 F. 3d at
122. As noted in previous comment responses and elsewhere, EPA has considered the Act's text
and this central purpose in determining the final standards and in making subsidiary technical
and policy decisions, including the technologies we considered and included in the modeled and
409
-------
additional example potential compliance pathways, and in rejecting manufacturer commenters'
arguments for not revising certain Phase 2 MY 2027 standards. Nonetheless, section 202(a)(1) is
not a health-based standard like some CAA programs such as the NAAQS: the standards under
202(a)(1) are technology-based, not health based. So they cannot be predicated on achieving a
given environmental result as some of the commenters would have it, but rather on consideration
and balancing of the statutory and relevant factors, including technical feasibility, reasonableness
of costs, and sufficiency of lead time. EPA has carefully weighed and balanced the statutory and
relevant considerations, and taken a balanced and measured approach in adopting the final Phase
3 standards.
Willingness to purchase, including costs to purchasers and payback period, is an appropriate
factor for EPA to consider in setting standards under CAA section 202(a)(1). The statute directs
EPA to consider technical feasibility and cost of compliance in setting such standards. As
discussed in Preamble Section II.F. 1 and RIA Chapter 6.2, we consider payback, along with total
cost of ownership, to be key metrics for HD vehicle purchasers. We expect that payback will
impact purchasing behavior and purchaser acceptance, which, in turn, can impact compliance
strategies for manufacturers, particularly if vehicles go unsold due to lack of purchaser
acceptance. Therefore, this is a relevant metric related to implementation of the Phase 3
standards. It is appropriate to consider purchaser acceptance as an aspect of feasibility. If new
vehicles are not purchased, achievement of the emission reduction goals of the statute are
impacted; the standard, as a practical matter, may not be able to be complied with through the
projected potential compliance pathways. Payback period is one reasonable measure of
assessing feasibility. In addition, we note that our consideration of payback is not new and is a
metric we previously considered in the heavy-duty Phase 2 program. See 81 FR at 73622/1 (Oct.
25, 2016) (considering payback period in assessing appropriateness of the Phase 2 tractor
standard); id. at 73719/1-2 (consideration of payback period in assessing appropriateness of
Phase 2 standard for vocational vehicles). The metric relates to consideration of cost as well,
since if few new vehicles are sold, the regulated industry has fewer vehicles over which to
recover fixed costs and may also incur stranded capital assets. See alsoMEMA /, 627 F. 2d at
1118 ("Congress wanted to avoid undue economic disruption in the automotive manufacturing
industry and also sought to avoid doubling or tripling the cost of motor vehicles to purchasers. It
therefore requires that emission control regulations be technologically feasible within economic
parameters. Therein lies the intent of the "cost of compliance" requirement").
Second, as a factual matter, while EPA considered payback as one consideration in setting the
standards, we disagree that the standards or the consideration of payback means that the rule
reflects "business as usual." Our projected estimated GHG reductions make clear that the rule
will achieve meaningful reductions of harmful GHG emissions. Specifically, we project
significant emission reductions from the rule in states which have not adopted the California
ACT program, as well as reductions (albeit fewer) in states which have. Thus, we project that
each non-ACT state will see reductions in HDV emissions from the transportation sector above
those in the reference case (baseline) attributable to the Phase 3 standards of between less than
1% in 2027, 4 % to 5% in 2032, and approximately 16% cumulatively over the entire program
(i.e., by 20 5 5).260 Furthermore, as explained in preamble Section II.F. 1, the portion of the
260 Murray, Evan. Memorandum to Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985. "Calculations of the Impacts of the Final
Standards at Various Geographic Scales". February 2024.
410
-------
overall HD sales in MY 2027 that are ZEVs included in the reference case compared to the
modeled potential compliance pathway in MY 2027 through MY 2032 are shown in Table 2-2.
Table 2-2 HD ZEV Nationwide Percentages in Reference Case and Modeled Potential Compliance Pathway
MY 2027
MY 2028
MY 2029
MY 2030
MY 2031
MY 2032
Reference Case
7%
10%
13%
16%
18%
20%
Modeled Potential
Compliance Pathway
11%
15%
19%
23%
34%
45%
Similarly, the TEIS projects in 2032 that there would be 540,000 HD BEVs in the no-action
case (which reflects the ACT regulation), but 920,000 in the action case reflecting the phase 3
rule again showing appreciable impacts of Phase 3 standards in non-ACT states. 261
We therefore disagree with the commenters' assertion that the final standards will have no or
minimal impact beyond what the existing market would provide. While we include a modeled
potential compliance pathway that includes ZEVs as well as additional example potential
compliance pathways without including additional ZEVs to comply with this rule, if
manufacturers choose the use of BEVs as part of a compliance path, we have considered whether
there would be sufficient distributive buildout supporting infrastructure to support the feasibility
of the standards. Notwithstanding the fact that dedicated HD charging infrastructure may be
limited today, we expect it to expand significantly over the next decade; at the same time, we
recognize that there are still uncertainties regarding infrastructure buildout and have taken that
into consideration when determining the feasibility and the level of stringency of the final
standards, including the needed lead time for their successful implementation. The final
standards reflect a balanced and measured approach in consideration of the statutory and other
relevant factors, including our assessment—in consultation with DOE—regarding infrastructure
availability.
The commenters' citation of International Harvester is not persuasive. The commenters
quote the following language from the opinion: "as long as feasible technology permits the
demand for new passenger automobiles to be generally met, the basic requirements of the Act
would be satisfied, even though this might occasion fewer models and a more limited choice of
engine types. The driving preferences of hot rodders are not to outweigh the goal of a clean
environment." The Phase 3 standards are not least common denominator standards (i.e.,
analogous to "preferences of hotrodders"). While the standards are technology based, they
reflect a careful balancing of the statutory and other relevant factors, including the cost of
compliance and lead time. We also note that International Harvester pertained to light-duty
vehicles, a more homogeneous market segment than the heavy-duty segment. The vehicle types
within the HD market are numerous and varied and many of these vehicles serve specific
functions and perform specific types of work, so the 'hotrodder' outlier analogy does not hold.
The Phase 3 standards reflect a careful balancing of factors to ensure feasibility of the standards
for the various HD TRUCS vehicle types.
261 TEIS Executive Summary at vi.
411
-------
Several additional commenters provided specific suggestions to revise our consideration of
the payback period and we address those comments later in this section 2.4.
We note thatNPCA and Tesla cited 202(a)(3)(A)'s "greatest emission reductions achievable"
statutory language in support of their advocacy of more stringent standards, but this provision is
the incorrect authority for regulating GHG emissions from heavy-duty vehicles. As discussed
elsewhere in RTC Chapter 2, CAA section 202(a)(3)(A) only applies to air pollutants other than
the ones at issue in the Phase 3 rule.
Summary of Comment Theme: Manufacturers' announced product plans, and fleets' and
municipalities' purchase announcements impact on feasibility of standards more stringent than
proposed
Many commenters in support of more stringent standards referred to recent introductions of
ZEVs in the U.S. and European markets, fleet purchases and purchase announcements, and
manufacturer production and announcements as indications that ZEVs are more widely available
than indicated by EPA's projected adoption rates in the proposal.
Commenters requesting more stringent standards pointed to manufacturer announcements
about planned ZEV production goals (Allergy and Asthma Network et al., CALSTART, Ceres
BICEP, CATF et al., Energy Innovation, EDF, EPN, Evergreen Action, GreenLtinos et al.,
MFN, NPCA, Our Children's Trust, Tesla, WRI, ZETA) and introduction of HD ZEVs into the
U.S. market (ACEEE, CARB, CleanAirNow, EDF, MFN). Specifically, EDF cited purchases,
purchase announcements, and aspirational goals of several fleets, including instances of purchase
orders. Among the fleets EDF cited are Walmart, Sysco, UPS, Schneider, and US Foods. See
generally EDF Att. O (2023 Cal Start Market Update), and Att. P (Cal Start report on zero
emission bus availability and deployment).
EDF noted that Tesla alone intends to produce 50,000 Class 8 day cabs for MY 2024, which
percentage alone would exceed the percentage on which EPA predicated the proposed MY 2027
standard. CARB staff found (in the administrative record for the ACF program) that ZEVs are
available in every weight class of trucks, and each weight class includes a wide range of vehicle
applications and configurations. CARB staff also found that there are currently 148 models in
North American where manufacturers are accepting order or pre-orders, and there are 135
models that are actively being supported and delivered (CARB). Commenters also noted the
introduction of HD ZEVs in European markets, and the need for U.S. manufacturers to remain
internationally competitive (Env. Protection Network, Ceres BICEP (who noted that European
manufacturers have already announced commitments to meet standards more stringent than EPA
proposed).
Other commenters (DTNA, AmFree, AFPM, CFDC et al., Valero) argued that manufacturer
statements are non-binding commitments, and it is inappropriate for EPA to base its projected
adoption rates on those statements. DTNA specifically noted goals described in EPA's proposal
that were misattributed to DTNA when, in fact, the 60% ZEV sales was made by DTNA's parent
company, Daimler Truck Holding, and were in reference to European sales. CFDC et al. noted
that manufacturers could change their mind at any time (citing a recent change by Amazon) and
that many manufacturers based those plans on availability of multipliers that are being "cut"
under the proposed rule.
412
-------
Response to Comment Theme: Manufacturers' announced product plans, and fleets' and
municipalities' purchase announcements impact on feasibility of standards more stringent than
proposed
EPA agrees with commenters that manufacturers' announcements and goals, including
aspirational purchase announcements, cannot, in and of themselves, serve as the sole basis for
standards of a given stringency and thus disagrees with commenters arguing that such
announcements and goals should serve as the basis for EPA's final standards being more
stringent than proposed. As described in preamble Section II and RIA Chapter 2, EPA has
considered these announcements and viewed them as supportive of the feasibility of the final
standards, but also carefully considered other potential developments, including vehicle
suitability and availability of supporting charging and refueling infrastructure, that could impact
manufacturers' announced goals. More generally, as EPA explains in section II of the preamble,
our feasibility assessment considers a wide array of data and analysis, including EPA's
independent assessment of technology availability, costs, lead-time, and infrastructure; as well as
our examination of the literature and expert analyst reports, and our coordination with the
Department of Energy and other expert organizations. The agency's decision as to the final
standards reflects our holistic and comprehensive review of these and other relevant materials.
EPA also considered the recent introductions of ZEVs in the US and globally, as discussed in
preamble II. The agency is projecting that manufacturers may choose to produce and sell
significantly more HD ZEVs by the MY 2027-32 time frame than they are doing now. EPA's
analysis comprehensively considers the features of the US market, including for instance the
incentives provided by the BIL and IRA, the development of infrastructure in the US, access to
raw materials domestically and from FTA and other US allies, and so forth.
See preamble Section III and RTC section 10 regarding response to comments on credit
multipliers.
Summary of Comment Theme: State commitments to adopt CARB's ACT standards, and other
federal/State/local financial incentives and initiatives impact on feasibility of standards more
stringent than proposed
Several commenters noted State commitments to adopt the ACT standards in a July 2022
MOU organized by NESCAUM (CATF, EDF, Allergy & Asthma Network et al., WRI). NPCA
and RMI commented that adoption of ACT by other States indicates national feasibility. Other
commenters stated that the California ACT program is not a proper basis for demonstrating
feasibility of federal standards like those proposed (e.g., CFDC et al.). The program has been
adopted by only a small number of additional states, and other states' aspirational MOUs
regarding adoption are just that, aspirational (AmFree). Several other commenters were
skeptical that the California program would be implementable as enacted, (e.g., DTNA, CFDC et
al.)
Commenters in support of more stringent standards noted availability of federal, state, and
local incentives (NESCAUM/OTC, Proterra, EPN, Tesla, WRI). EDF also submitted further
analyses of the potential impacts of the BIL, IRA. The earlier cost projections by Roush in 2022
also showed that BEV operating costs are always lower than internal combustion engine vehicle
(ICEV) operating costs. Because of this, the original analysis found that the time needed for a
BEV to achieve total cost of ownership (TCO) parity with an ICEV could occur at the time of
purchase in 2027 for a few of the segments analyzed and 1-4 years later for other segments. As
413
-------
shown in Table 3, the new IRA credits for BEVs and chargers will reduce the amount of time
needed for BEVs to achieve TCO parity with ICEVs by an additional 1-2 years so that many
segments analyzed will see TCO parity at the time of purchase as early as 2024. EDF Att. M.
In terms of buses, NESCAUM noted that many programs have zero emission urban and
school buses should be reflected in the standards. Those initiatives include urban bus initiatives
in New York City, California, Washington, Maryland, Connecticut, and school bus initiatives in
Massachusetts, Illinois, Hawaii, Washington, Colorado, and Chicago. EDF commented at length
about the feasibility and importance of maximizing zero emission opportunities for the school
bus sector, given the well-documented adverse impacts of diesel fumes on children. Standards
for school buses should be predicated on 50% zero emission by MY 2027, and 90% by MY
2032. They also stress that transit buses are a ready candidate for standards predicated on the use
of zero emission vehicles. They note that even in the pre-IRA medium- and heavy-duty
electrification study performed for EDF in early 2022.
Commenters opposing the proposed standards made the following points:
• The subsidies may not be available in many instances, due to insufficient taxable revenue
to qualify (EMA, AmFree (also noting insufficient staff to do the necessary paperwork)),
purchase incentives for tractors being offset, almost to the dollar, by federal excise taxes
(EMA, POET), or lack of domestic production (EMA, AmFree);
• States are using NEVI funds almost exclusively for light-duty infrastructure, which may
not be suitable for HDV (DTNA App. 2, a state-by-state survey of state planning for
NEVI funding, showing in most instances that states' plans are for light-duty charging
networks, not heavy-duty);
• The active opposition to subsidization of HD ZEVs in several states, including Wyoming,
North Carolina, Georgia, and Oregon (DTNA), indicating there is no "widespread or
uniform state political support" for ZEVs;
• EPA's estimates of the effect of the BIL and IRA are significantly misaligned with those
of the Congressional Budget office (DTNA);
Response to Comment Theme: State commitments to adopt CARB's ACT standards, and other
federal/State/local financial incentives and initiatives impacts on feasibility of standards more
stringent than proposed
As urged by many commenters, and as we signaled at proposal (see 88 FR at 25989), we have
accounted for State's adoption of ACT in our baseline (reference case) scenario for our cost and
emissions impacts analyses. See RIA Chapters 3 and 4. Regarding relevance of the inclusion of
ACT in our reference case to stringency of the final standards, see our response below in this
section 2.4 to the theme EPA's consideration of CARB's ACT regulation. We address comments
relating to our consideration of federal and state measures in section 2.7 of this RTC document.
The DTNA Appendix B survey of State infrastructure plans is addressed in RTC 6.1. See
preamble Section II and RIA Chapter 2 for our discussion of federal excise taxes.
Summary of Comment Theme: EPA's consideration of ICE vehicles
Regarding ICE vehicles, a number of these commenters also stressed the need for further
improvements to ICE vehicles and the engines in the Phase 3 program (ACEEE, CARB,
CALSTART, Ceres BICEP, CATF et al., ICCT, SELC, USW, Neste). US Tire Mfrs urged EPA
set ICE vehicles standards in lieu of ZEV-predicated standards.
414
-------
ICCT urged EPA to consider both vehicle and engine improvements to further increase the
stringency of the Phase 3 standards. ICCT also indicates that vehicle improvements to ICE
vehicles would be both cost-effective and could lead to appreciable further reductions from
conventional vehicles. Specifically, ICCT estimates possible ICE vehicle improvements of
nearly 7% for high-roof sleeper cabs (aero, tires, intelligent controls, weight reduction, axle
efficiency, reduced accessory load); nearly 10% for multi-purpose vocational vehicles (stop-start,
weight reduction, tires, axle efficiency, aero, reduced accessory load); 6-12% for class 7 and 8
tractors; and 15-20% for vocational vehicles (all percentages reflecting incremental
improvements beyond the 2027 MY Phase 2 standard). Further improvements are possible if
engine improvements are considered. (More of ICCT's recommendations for ICE vehicles are
summarized in Section 9 of this RTC document).
ACEEE echoed the ICCT comments urging that the standards reflect further improvements
for ICE vehicles. Acknowledging that these improvements could be viewed as a different
compliance pathway (a "flexibility") to meet the proposed standards (incidentally supporting
EPA's view that the proposal and final rules are not an "EV mandate"), the commenter urged
that these improvements be incremental to any improvements predicated on ZEV technology.
The commenter notes that under the proposal, large percentages of ICE vehicles would remain
and that cost-effective and feasible improvements to these vehicles fuel efficiency are possible,
such as, lightweighting, tire improvements, stop start, advanced aerodynamics. Sources of data
cited in the comment are ICCT's 2023 White Paper, the DOE Super Truck 2 program, and the
NACFE fleet study. These improvements would also benefit if included on BEVs, since they
would increase BEV efficiency and hence increase battery range. The cumulative GHG benefit
of maintaining the emissions reduction trajectory of ICE vehicles is substantial.
ACEEE maintains that potential to reduce ICEV carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions below the
level of current MY 2027 standards, together with the expectation that ICEV sales will continue
to MY 2039 (based on the US National Blueprint for Transportation Decarbonization,25) imply
that EPA could substantially increase emissions reductions out to 2050 by steadily increasing
ICEV efficiency through the Phase 3 standards. For long-haul tractors, for example, the
potential for 23% cost-effective efficiency improvements, as estimated by ICCT, could translate
to an annual reduction in long-haul ICEV emissions of more than 5% per year in MY 2028-2032.
Using Argonne National Laboratory's VISION model, the commenter estimated that this would
reduce cumulative emissions out to 2050 from MY 2027 and beyond sleeper cab tractors by 154
million metric tons (MMT) of CO2. This would add 11% to the emissions reductions achieved
through an electrification-only strategy in which BEV share reached 100% in 2040 per the
National Blueprint. If sleeper cab BEV market share were instead to max out at 80% in 2040 or
alternatively to reach 100% only in 2050, the ICEV efficiency improvements would add 18% or
24%), respectively, to cumulative emissions reductions from electrification alone. (See Comment
Figure 1.) Otherwise viewed, these results show that raising ICEV efficiency by 5% per year in
MY 2028-2032 would nearly {91%) make up for the shortfall in cumulative emissions reduction
resulting from a maximum BEV sales share for sleepers of 80%, instead of 100%), in 2040.
Cumulative emission reductions from electrification of long-haul tractors,
CARB, CALSTART, and CATF et al. also give examples of ICE vehicle technologies that
could provide reductions beyond those realized with the Phase 2 standards, including not only
technologies mentioned by ICCT, but hybrids of all types, 48V energy recovery and
management systems, and predictive cruise control. SELC requested that EPA ensure ZEVs do
415
-------
not erode requirements for ICE vehicles, and suggested that EPA could set "minimum ZEV
production requirements" to separately regulate ICE vehicles and ZEVs. USW requested that
EPA reassess the Phase 3 standards to include ICE vehicles because the proposal would "will
eliminate the ICE vehicle all together, and is not an economically or socially viable rule." Neste
and others suggested that EPA should enhance its consideration renewable fuels in ICE vehicles
(see section 9.1 of this RTC document for our summary of and responses to comments regarding
fuels for ICE vehicles).
With respect to further improvements to ICE vehicles and engines, DTNA noted that some of
the technologies on which the Phase 2 rule was predicated had proved unmarketable, others (like
the Rankine engine and certain advanced aerodynamic features) had never been commercialized,
some had proved less efficient than projected, and as a result, some manufacturers had included
ZEVs within their offerings as a Phase 2 compliance strategy. Non-utilization of various engine
and vehicle technologies thus should not be viewed as either showing opportunity for further
ICEV improvements or as demand for BEV vehicles. Volvo noted their need to focus their
investments on ZEVs while supporting the industry's continued need for ICE technologies
during the transition to ZEVs and that any additional emission reductions from engine or ICE
vehicle improvements would be minor compared to zero and near-zero technologies. Volvo also
indicated that any reassessment of ICE vehicle stringency for MY 2027 would necessarily need
to include an assessment of the impact on NOx emissions, considering new NOx standards are
effective starting in MY 2027 as well.
Response to Comment Theme: EPA's consideration of ICE vehicles
Our modeled potential compliance pathway includes a mix of ZEV and certain vehicles with
ICE technologies; however, we also assess multiple additional example potential compliance
pathways using vehicle with ICE technologies, including technical feasibility, costs, and lead
time, that illustrate it is feasible to comply with the additional stringency of the final standards
without producing additional ZEVs to comply with this rule. See Preamble section II.F.4 and
RIA Chapter 2.11 (which also includes assessment of additional example potential compliance
pathways relative to a no ZEV baseline). While it is appropriate for EPA to consider ZEV
technologies as we explain in preamble Section I and elsewhere in this RTC Section 2,
manufacturers may utilize whatever technology or mix of technologies they choose that meets
the standards. We disagree with commenters that we should finalize more stringent standards
beyond those in this final rule, which in their view would be complied with through
manufacturers including additional improvements to vehicles with ICE and ICE beyond those
included for vehicles with ICE in the modeled potential compliance pathway in addition to ZEVs
in that technology package. Doing so would be inconsistent with the balanced and measured
approach to setting Phase 3 standards under CAA section 202(a)(l)-(2) we are taking in this final
rule. Specifically, manufacturers have limited resources, and generally deploy those resources
into one type of compliance strategy.
Speaking broadly, for Phase 3, our understanding is that OEMs' potential strategies are
including ZEV technologies versus not including ZEV technologies in their technology mixes for
compliance (that is, our modeled potential compliance pathway vs our additional example
compliance pathways). As explained in preamble Section II, both of these potential strategies are
feasible for meeting the Phase 3 standards. However, pursuing both at once, as these commenters
suggest, raises concerns that such an approach would unreasonably strain limited resources past
416
-------
the point of available compliance time, particularly for earlier Phase 3 MYs and given the
balancing of factors for this final rule EPA describes in preamble Section II.G. We also note the
comments received from manufacturers indicating that they have done their own evaluations of
Phase 2 ICE vehicle-based technologies and, in some cases, have chosen other pathways for
meeting the existing Phase 2 standards, including to shift resources from ICE vehicle
technologies to ZEV technologies. Shifting back to pursue the type of dual mix of advanced
technologies strategy advocated by these commenters raises and supports the same concerns we
just identified. In Section II. G of the preamble to this final rule, we discuss the balancing of the
many relevant factors we considered in setting the stringency of the final standards, and our
conclusion that this approach is reasonable and appropriate.
EPA acknowledges commenters' concerns regarding the possibility of existing ICE vehicle
backsliding, but we think that is very unlikely. Manufacturers have invested significant resources
and time into the development and application of emissions reduction technologies for ICE
vehicles for compliance with the existing standards. Removing those technologies could entail
additional costs and lead-time associated with vehicle redesign. In addition, any backsliding of
ICE vehicles would result in emissions deficits that would need to be made up through even
greater penetrations of ZEV technologies than the penetrations presented in the modeled
potential compliance pathway, resulting in additional costs associated with the additional ZEV
deployments. Finally, purchasers of ZEVs are typically profit-maximizing businesses that
significantly value the operational costs of the vehicle. Just as EPA finds that ZEVs produce
operational savings support willingness to purchase, a manufacturer that removes emissions
reduction technology from ICE vehicles and produces vehicles with poorer fuel economy is
likely to encounter purchasers that are less willing to purchase their less efficient and more
operationally costly vehicles. Many fleets also have environmental goals for their operations;
even if these fleets purchase ICE vehicles, they are especially unlikely to purchase ICE vehicles
with emissions backsliding.
We disagree with commenters suggesting the rule mandates ZEVs or eliminates ICE vehicles.
See section 2.1 of this RTC document where we address similar comments. Our approach of
setting performance-based standards continues to allow manufacturers the flexibility to decide
the ultimate mix of vehicle technologies to offer, including advanced ICE and vehicle with ICE
technologies as well as ZEVs for the duration of these standards and beyond. We note that in the
final rule, we have updated our consideration of vehicles with ICE technologies and we have
assessed several additional example potential compliance pathways that demonstrate the
feasibility of the standards without producing additional ZEVs to comply with this rule. See
section II.F.4 of the preamble for further discussion.
Regarding Volvo's comment that conventional vehicle stringencies should not be increased
beyond the current model year 2027 levels set in the Phase 2 rulemaking, EPA notes that the
vehicles with ICE in the modeled potential compliance pathway include a mix of technologies
that meet the Phase 2 MY 2027 standards. These technologies are feasible and available in the
timeframe of the Phase 3 program and at reasonable cost. However, manufacturers may use
whatever technology or mix of technologies they choose that meets the standards.
417
-------
Summary of Comment Theme: Federal standards themselves will provide regulatory certainty
for investment in ZEVs. critical materials, and infrastructure
Many commenters noted the role of federal standards as a means to bolster the EV the market
and encourage investment in infrastructure (ACEEE, AESI, CARB et al., Ceres BICEP,
CALSTART, EEI, Lion Electric, NACAA, NPCA, Nuvve, Proterra, TerraWatt, ZETA). These
commenters noted that investors and companies are looking for certainty, and that new standards
would spur more domestic production and infrastructure buildout and establish the U.S. as a
leader for electric HD vehicles.
Other commenters offer a different view in that the lack of certainty relating to infrastructure
and consumer demand (both of which are out of control of the regulated entities) impact the
rule's feasibility. Navistar conditions its support of the MY 2032 standards on infrastructure
availability ("as long as the necessary charging infrastructure is widely available"). EMA
compares the rule to a three-legged stool and notes that it will only be successful at accelerating
adoption of ZEVs if it includes all three legs: 1) regulation that leads OEMs to design, build, and
sell, 2) infrastructure build-out to ensure operation, and 3) purchase incentives to spur consumer
demand, and points out that the proposal only impacts leg 1. DTNA's analogy focused on the
three main factors influencing consumer demand: (1) vehicle technology development, (2) cost
parity between ZEVs and conventional vehicles, and (3) infrastructure development, and DTNA
similarly notes that the proposal only addresses factor 1.
Response to Comment Theme: Federal standards themselves will provide regulatory certainty for
investment in both ZEVs. critical materials, and infrastructure
We agree with commenters that federal standards serve as a signal for investment in advanced
technologies. Federal standards create certainty for the regulated community. They help to spur
and support investment and provide some level of assurance for research and development
activities and the time and costs associated with those activities. As indicated by the comments,
and the supporting materials they cite, federal standards provide some of this needed assurance.
We note further that these comments come from all sides of the spectrum, spanning NGOs, state
regulators, and manufacturers. Comments in this section center around the "chicken-and-egg
conundrum" and the role of federal standards. Similar comments are shared in RTC sections 6
and 7 relating specifically to charging infrastructure and grid reliability, respectively. We address
the issue in the "Feasibility of Timing" and "Distribution" responses in section 7 of this RTC
document. We note here that these federal standards are a signal not just to the vehicle
manufacturing sector, but to the utility sector as well. We agree with CATF's comment that
"EPA's standards themselves will send a strong signal to the market to undertake the
infrastructure investments needed to accommodate a gradual rise in vehicle electrification," see
CATF Comments at n. 189 and sources cited by CATF in support of this proposition, and we
agree with the Edison Electric Institute's comment that "EPA's Proposed Rule is of critical
importance to EEI members as they continue to lead this clean energy transformation. A HDV
Phase 3 rule that supports the continued electrification of the transportation sector and leverages
the existing investment in the electric system and the electric sector's ongoing clean energy
transformation will provide both environmental benefits and send appropriate signals to support
the continued buildout of infrastructure to support increased electrification." See Comments of
Edison Electric Institute at 6.
418
-------
EPA also carefully considered the availability of purchase incentives, see RTC 2.7, as well as
the costs of ZEVs, including the costs of ZEVs relative to ICE vehicles for both manufacturers
and consumers, see responses below and in RTC 3. In sum, commenters are wrong to claim that
the rule only addresses the issue of vehicle technology development; in fact, the rule rests upon
EPA's holistic assessment of factors affecting feasibility, costs, lead-time, and other relevant
factors, including all "three legs" identified by EMA and the three main factors identified by
DTNA.
Summary of Comment Theme: EPA's feasibility analysis
Several commenters had specific recommendations for EPA to inform its Total Cost of
Ownership (TCO), cost parity with diesel, battery sizing, and other HDTRUCS inputs for
specific applications of vehicles (see section 3 of this RTC document for additional and more
detailed comments related to HDTRUCS). Many commenters had specific comments relating to
the assumptions in EPA's methodology for determining ZEV adoption rates in the potential
compliance pathway. Commenters noted that at proposal EPA used a modified form of a
payback equation developed by ACT Research to quantify when payback periods of given
duration would support adoption of ZEVs as a reasonable compliance option, and that the
equation itself was proprietary and thus did not appear in the DRIA. EPA's approach was
heavily criticized by commenters. Some commenters decried the lack of transparency and
replicability (ICCT, CALSTART, DTNA, POET), while others, including EMA supported by
ACT Research, stated that EPA had applied the equation imperfectly. Some commenters also
shared concerns with EPA's assessment of feasibility in light of uncertainties relating to key
elements of the program that are out of control of the regulated entities. Regarding EPA's
adoption rate assumptions and methodology, Tesla recommended several resources for EPA to
consider, including a National Renewable Energy Laboratory study which found that ZEVs in all
medium- and heavy-duty vehicle classes could reach cost parity with diesel vehicles by 2035,
even without incentives. MFN notes that ZEV adoption rates in recent economic projections in
the literature do not reflect current status as much of the literature on ZE MHDV total cost was
published pre-IRA, meaning that lifetime cost parity would be reached sooner in many cases.
NESCAUM suggested the proposed standard for tractors could be at ACT levels if predicated on
reduced battery size and opportunity (public) charging.
ICCT requested EPA implement different assumptions about battery sizing for tractors. They
stated that by not considering the possibility of opportunity charging for high-roof sleeper cab,
battery size for these applications is overlarge and improperly eliminates these vehicles from
feasible emission reductions. They stated that specifically, assuming availability of public
chargers of 350 kW could reduce needed battery size by 20%; 1 Mw public chargers would
allow 40% reduction in battery size. The comment estimates costs for such charging as part of
electricity rate calculations and contains close analysis of grid reliability, availability of
distributive electrical infrastructure, and associated actions by utilities to effectuate infrastructure
availability. For Class 7 and 8 vehicles, EDF predicted Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) parity
with ICE vehicles by either 2030 or 2032 predicated largely on availability of 3,000 amp
megawatt chargers, which could recharge a tractor battery in 15 minutes and essentially double
its range, allowing for smaller battery sizes and essentially no decrease in cargo capacity.
419
-------
EDF submitted other detailed comments supporting more stringent standards. Many of these
comments concerned the question of price parity between BEVs and their ICE counterparts. EDF
stated the following:
• Powertrain costs of most BEVs will be on par or cheaper than diesel vehicles even
after conservatively considering a 50% higher battery DMCs (compared to the global
average) due to the battery tax credits under the IRA.
• The TCO of BEVs is significantly lower than diesel ICE across all segments. The
payback period is less than 3 years for all vehicles.
• The cargo capacity of most BEVs will be on par with ICEVs due to the increase in
battery energy density.
• 15 minutes of en route charging from an MCS charger can add more than 80% of the
full range of battery electric tractors, enabling them to meet the requirements of more
demanding use cases. Battery technology will enable repeated fast charging while
meeting lifetime VMT requirements. The extended range provided by fast en route
charging could reduce required battery capacity, with the economics being a trade-off
between a cheaper, lighter BEV with more load capacity versus higher electricity cost.
• BEVs have a lower TCO per mile, even with significant en route charging. With 30%
en route charging (20-80%> charge on 50% of days), the payback period of all vehicles
is still less than 5 years.
• Higher annual operational VMTs increase annual savings and reduce the payback
period for BEVs due to their lower energy and maintenance cost per mile.
• An increase in diesel prices makes the economics of BEVs even more attractive due to
the low energy cost per mile. (EDF Comment Attachment Q, plus detailed analysis of
same at EDF pp. 31-40)
• A study published by Argonne National Laboratory's Energy System Division in
April 2021 estimated that electric Class 4 delivery trucks will reach life-cycle cost
parity with diesel trucks in model year 2025, while day-cab tractors will reach cost
parity in model year 2027, and sleeper-cab tractors will reach cost parity in model year
2032. Argonne Nat'l Laboratory Energy and Systems Div. (2021) "Comprehensive
Total Cost of ownership for Vehicles of Different Size, Class and Powertrains". The
analysis included all costs of vehicle ownership including vehicle purchase, fuel, and
maintenance costs as well as insurance, financing costs, and depreciation. It did not
account for the impacts of the IRA or the BIL.
• Another report developed by M.J. Bradley & Associates for EDF in 2021 showed a
large and growing opportunity to expand America's zero-emission freight trucks and
buses. The report evaluated four factors in assessing the readiness of zero-emitting
medium and heavy-duty vehicles in different applications - the availability of electric
models from manufacturers, the requirements for charging, the ability of electric
models to meet operating requirements, and the business case for zero-emitting
vehicles. It found that a large number of market segments have favorable ratings
across at least three of the categories, which indicates strong potential for near term
420
-------
zero-emitting vehicle deployment. These market segments, which represent about 66%
of the current in-use fleet, include heavy-duty pickups and vans, local delivery and
service trucks and vans, transit and school buses, class 3 to 5 box trucks, class 3 to 7
stake trucks, dump trucks and garbage trucks.
EDF also commented that in the study EDF contracted with Roush, they projected that by
2027, battery electric (BE) school buses and transit buses would have lower upfront costs than
their diesel counterparts. EDF stated that one difference in cost estimates between the EPA
proposal and this study is that the BE school bus examined by Roush had a relatively small 60
kWh battery. EDF stated that EPA's methodology assumes school bus segments have larger
batteries, 102-166 kWh. The commenter goes on that using Roush's battery cost estimates, and
accounting for these larger batteries, BE school buses would still have lower upfront costs than
diesel school buses, again without any tax credits. The commenter stated that even accounting
for the cost of the charger and installation leaves the BE school bus cheaper for the 102-kWh
battery and only $1000 more expensive with a 166-kWh battery. The commenter stated that the
IRA vehicle tax credit would not apply in these cases, but the battery production and charging
infrastructure credits could, making it highly likely that the BE school bus would have an
immediate payback.
EDF stated that the BE transit bus examined by Roush had a smaller battery (400 kWh) than
those evaluated by EPA in this proposal (605-649 kWh). The commenter stated that again, using
Roush's cost estimates and accounting for these larger batteries, Roush's BE transit bus would
only cost $8,000-$ 11,000 more than a diesel transit bus, again without any tax credits. The
commenter stated that the IRA vehicle tax credit brings the BE transit bus to price parity with the
diesel. The commenter stated that the cost of the charger and installation is more substantial for a
BE transit bus, $130,000 per bus without the IRA tax credit and $90,000 with the tax credit. The
commenter stated that, however, the annual fuel and maintenance savings are substantial,
resulting in a 1-2 year payback period with either battery size. Based on these analyses, EDF
concludes that a more stringent standard for these applications is justified.
EMA submitted an Exhibit from ACT Research itself maintaining that EPA had misapplied
the ACT Research payback equation, omitted consideration of Total Cost of Ownership, applied
inappropriately long payback times, among other issues. Moreover, DTNA indicated the ACT
Research methodology was based on adoption of technologies significantly less invasive than
electrification (such as advanced aerodynamics), and also was geared toward Class 7 and 8
vehicles, which are the least likely candidates for BEVs (DTNA's comment suggested an
alternative equation (proprietary) as well.) MFN noted that the projected results based on the
modified equation were highly conservative, and inconsistent with the technical literature (citing
the ICCT January 2023 White Paper.) Other commenters suggested EPA utilize instead other of
the algorhythmic methodologies discussed in the DRIA, notably the TEMPO equation and
methodology. (CALSTART, ICCT.)
Commenters maintained that the 80% cap on ZEVs in the proposed compliance pathway was
no solution to all of these feasibility uncertainties and issues (e.g., AmFree, noting the irony that
the 80%) cap applied where payback would suggest a 100%> ZEV compliance pathway was
available). DTNA questioned why the proposed cap was 80%> when even the California ACT
sets lower sales mandates —73% for Class 4-7 and 36% for Class 8. Other commenters,
however, maintained that the proposed cap was both unnecessary and arbitrary (CALSTART,
421
-------
noting that applications like terminal tractors, transit buses, urban and regional vocational
vehicles, and regional class 7/8 vehicles were all candidates for ZEVs), or set too low (ICCT,
recommending a cap of 90%).
EMA submitted detailed comments urging that EPA adopt standards roughly 50% less
stringent than proposed for each subcategory, and commencing in model year 2030, with
standards for HHD vocational vehicle and sleeper cab tractor applications commencing in MY
2033. Their recommended standards would also include three initial years of stability. EMA
derived these standards using EPA's HD TRUC tool with different inputs. Reasons EMA
provided for the different inputs included omitted costs, underestimated costs, certain errors
regarding various of the 101 models included in HD TRUC, misapplication of the ACT payback
algorithm, and unrealistic assumptions. In contrast, CARB commented that the costs of
compliance were reasonable and even the more stringent alternative are "entirely consistent with
the CAA section 202(a)(2) criteria". EMA's comments are summarized below and addressed in
other RTC sections, as noted:
• costs for federal excise tax, state sales taxes, and increased insurance were omitted (see
RTC section 3.8);
• battery pack and fuel cell costs are higher (see RTC section 3.4);
• the assumption of depot charging exclusively is unfounded; some type of public charging
network will be needed in the short term, and those costs should be reflected in the
estimated electricity rate. In addition, EPA's estimated cost of electricity was
unrealistically low to begin with since it improperly reflected optimized rates to
commercial users (see RTC section 6);
• similar to a comment from POET, EMA notes that since HD ZEVs are already being
marketed, learning has already commenced, so the estimated learning curve should be
flatter during the Phase 3 period (see RTC section 12);
• as noted above, that EPA misapplied the ACT algorithm used to derive payback periods,
among other things not including total cost of ownership, and overestimating technology
adoption rates for payback periods of greater than 4 years (EMA Exh. 3. from ACT itself)
(POET offered a similar critique, including a study from Trinity, cited at n. 45 of the
POET comment) (see RTC section 3.11);
• with regard to the payback metric generally, EMA (and DTNA) maintained that payback
is not a guarantee of technology adoption, pointing to various cost-effective technologies
(like drive wheel fairings) which nonetheless proved unmarketable. These same
commenters maintained that a 2-year payback period is more appropriate for HDVs,
since initial purchasers typically have a 3-5 year resale schedule. In any case, total cost
of ownership is a better metric (see RTC section 3.11);
EMA and others challenged additional assumptions underlying the proposal (we expand on
and address each of these topics in other RTC sections, as noted)
• fuel cell efficiency concerns (EMA) (see RTC section 3.2);
• lack of consideration of resale value (EMA) (see RTC section 3.8);
• assumption of 100% pass through of any battery production subsidy in the form of lower
battery pack costs (EMA) (see RTC section 3.4);
422
-------
• unrealistic estimates of cost of hydrogen infrastructure (EMA) (see RTC section 8);
• a cargo penalty of 30% is a significant deterrent (EMA, POET) (see RTC section 3.10);
• over-estimated maintenance and repair savings (AmFree, noting that the single report on
which EPA's estimates are based cautioned about the lack of supporting data of HDVs)
(see RTC section 3.7);
• failure to consider the need for battery mid-life repairs, the need for which will occur
more often than the need for an engine rebuild on an ICE vehicle (AmFree) (see RTC
section 3.7);
• need to purchase more ZEVs to compensate for their limited range and maintenance
downtime (POET) (see RTC sections 3.7 and 3.10);
• need for more lead time to accommodate the research and development needed for the
new technology, which is greater than the lead time needed for ICEV improvements
(POET) (see RTC section 2.3.3);
Several comments more generally noted the implausibility of the proposal. AmFree noted
that the number of BEV buses would need to increase by a factor of 12, and that thousands of
BEV drayage, day-cab tractors, sleeper tractors, and step vans would need to be sold to achieve
the proposed standards; POET noted that EPA's projections of ZEV sales differed drastically
from those of the Energy Information Agency's AEO 2022 report; AFPM scoffed that the
proposal was predicated on a ZEV sale growth rate of 63,000% from 2021-2032. Delek noted
that a predicated introduction of more than two orders of magnitude (0.2% to approximately
40%) in a few model years was inherently implausible.
Certain commenters argue that, in any case, the proposed rule was arbitrary and capricious.
They maintain that the proposal overstated potential benefits, ignored implications related to
depending on foreign entities for critical material, underestimated costs, and underestimated
adverse environmental implications when considering emissions on a lifecycle basis. (Delek.)
For response on critical minerals see Preamble section II.D.2.ii.c and RTC 17.2; for response on
lifecycle emissions see RTC 17.1. Several other commenters maintained that EPA had not
demonstrated a need for a standard because it had not shown any nexus to NAAQS non-
attainment (AFPM, API). Another commenter claimed the proposal infeasible because it ignored
consumer acceptability: consumers simply will not gravitate to ZEVs (Bradbury). Arizona State
legislature maintains that EPA's incorrect estimates relating to grid reliability make the proposal
arbitrary (see RTC 7.1 and 7.2 for response).
The basis of many comments questioning the feasibility of the program includes the following
uncertainties relating to key elements of the program that are out of control of the regulated
entities (we expand on and address each in other RTC sections as noted):
• Comments on availability of distributive electrical infrastructure necessary to support
BEVs (these comments are addressed, and summarized in more detail, in RTC
sections 6 and 7);
o Comments on chicken-egg dynamic of ZEV purchasers needing assurance of
supporting infrastructure before committing to purchases, but electric utilities
423
-------
needing (and, in many cases, legally requiring), assurance of demand before
building out. (e.g., AmFree, UAW, POET, Valero.), the need to get pro-
active involvement of electric utilities, and EPA's seeming lack of effort in
encouraging such actions (see RTC section 7 (Distribution);
o Comments on magnitude of infrastructure buildout needed to support the
levels of BEVs on which the proposal was predicated (stating the need for
15,000 new chargers each week for the next 8 years, per EMA Exh. 1
(Ricardo report)) (see RTC section 6);
o Comments on issue of timing: it can take 40 weeks for utilities to acquire
transformer parts, 70 to acquire switchgear parts. Installation delays can be 1-
3 years for smaller installations (cable, conductor systems), 3-5 for medium
(feeders and substation capacity), and 4-6 for large installations
(subtransmission requiring licensing). (DTNA.); buildout schedules rarely
correlate with purchasers' resale schedules, or with BIL/IRA subsidy timings
(DTNA) (see RTC sections 6 and 7).
• Comments on availability of critical minerals and associated supply chain issues (e.g.,
AFPM, UAW, POET), especially in light of overlapping demands from the LDV
sector (EMA), the assumption of domestic battery production, given the absence of
any domestic lithium mining (EMA) (these comments are addressed in RTC section
17.2 and Preamble Section II.D.2.ii);
• Comments on purchasers' decisions, noting customer reluctance to utilize an
unfamiliar technology (DTNA), unsuitability given limited range and cargo penalty
due to need for large batteries (e.g. CFDC et al.), the inherent improbability of
increasing percentages of BEVs from the current 0.2% by orders of magnitude in a
few model years from now (CFDC et al., Delek) (see RIA 2 and RTC section 3);
• Comments on lack of grid reliability, given competing demands of the light duty
vehicle program, other EPA regulations affecting the grid, and general issues of grid
reliability (AFPM) (addressed in RTC section 7 (Distribution));
• Comments on estimating availability of hydrogen infrastructure is well-nigh futile at
present because this technology is barely commercialized (DTNA); stating EPA has
also mistakenly assumed availability of clean hydrogen, failed to consider costs of
hydrogen infrastructure, ignored potential issues of permitting and interfaces with
electric utilities with regard to hydrogen infrastructure, and failed to discuss physical
requirements of hydrogen charging stations (EMA); and stating EPA also did not
consider issues relating to hydrogen handling or high initial costs of hydrogen
infrastructure (POET) (comments relating to hydrogen availability and infrastructure
are addressed in RTC section 8).
AmFree addressed the issue of these uncertainties as a legal matter. AmFree alleges that EPA
is obliged, under the decision template set out by the court in NRDC v. EPA, to identify the steps
necessary to resolve technical issues within the lead time afforded, must offer reasoned solutions
to any technical difficulties that could emerge, and do so without engaging in crystal ball
424
-------
speculation. The commenter considers EPA's consideration of all of these issues to be merely
speculative given the acknowledged absence of data on which to base projections stating that
EPA has presented no information to justify its determinations that there would be sufficient
supportive distributive buildout infrastructure in the rule's time frame, and that there would be
sufficient critical minerals and supply chains to support the battery production needed for the
standards. Commenters further allege that EPA had ignored issues of dependence on unreliable
or hostile sources of critical minerals, and assumed without basis that consumers would accept
HD ZEVs. In a similar comment, Valero maintained that EPA's statement that it was using
"engineering judgment" to make projections on these uncertain issues was insufficient and
maintains that EPA failed to follow the directives of OMB Circular A-4 to "set out basic
assumptions, methods, and data underlying the analysis, and discuss the uncertainties associated
with the estimate." Both of these commenters maintain that EPA is failing to engage in
"reasoned decisionmaking" within the meaning of the State Farm opinion.
Given the alleged uncertainties, some commenters questioned the disproportionate weight
EPA gave to payback in constructing a ZEV-based compliance pathway. AmFree indicated that
EPA should accord equal analytical weight to purchase price, limited range, excess weight, lack
of electrification infrastructure, durability concerns, and unpromising state support (all concerns
mentioned by EPA itself in the DRIA). POET maintained that there was an inherent flaw in the
approach, because it held supply and demand constant, whereas greater demand would lead to a
corresponding increase in cost (citing Trinity study referenced in n. 45 of the comment).
Commenters also noted the reality of the energy efficiency gap noted by EPA, whereby
purchasers refrain from making seemingly economically rational decisions for various
understandable reasons. (POET, DTNA.) However, many commenters stated that this is
precisely the value of federal standards, to push beyond what the market would otherwise
provide by adopting standards predicated on feasible emission reductions at reasonable cost (see,
e.g., ACEEE (federal standards "close the gap between market-driven and technically and
economically feasible") and CALSTART (maintaining, however, further that the payback metric
alone was insufficient to achieve this purpose).
EMA further maintained that its suggested standards be adjusted automatically downwards, if
any of the assumptions on which a standard is predicated prove unfounded. They specifically
suggest that these triggers include a linkage to infrastructure availability, with the standard be
automatically reduced based on the percentage of infrastructure less than predicted. EMA
further suggested this linkage trigger could be based on infrastructure buildout in counties known
to be freight corridors. In further discussions with the agency, EMA suggested a further trigger
based on monitoring ZEV sales both within states which have adopted the California ACT
program, and states which have not done so. Similarly, DTNA suggested discounting standards
to reflect post-promulgation developments, the discount factor reflecting ratios of supportive
infrastructure in existence and amount of infrastructure actually needed, EVSE (charging)
infrastructure installed versus charging infrastructure needed, and hydrogen infrastructure
deployed versus amount of such infrastructure needed.
DTNA suggested specific updates to the analysis. First, they suggested three-year stability for
2027-2029, then in MY 2030:
• Use EMA's revised HD TRUCS, because of the uncertainties, inaccuracies, and
demonstrated sensitivity informing EPA's proposed ZEV adoption rates—including TCO
425
-------
calculations, application suitability, customer adoption rates, and availability of
infrastructure—DTNA submits that the more realistic technology adoption rates in Table
1 [redacted; sent to EPA separately as CBI], reflecting:
o No ZEV adoption for the HHD vocational vehicle category until 2033 (diverse
applications and vehicle configurations, need additional R&D time for body
builders to produce EVs)
o Same ZEV adoption for HHD and MHD vocational categories (HHD
vocational applications are more challenging to electrify than MHD).
o No ZEV adoption for Long-Haul Sleeper Cab Tractors until 2033 when FCEV
or hydrogen combustion may be viable products (this category needs
nationwide HD-accessible infrastructure, likely ten years out
• 3-year C02 Standard Tiers vs annual increments to align with product cycles, consistent
with Phase 2 and in line with CAA section 202 principle of stability
• Add an infrastructure scaling factor set as a ratio of the total installed HD-accessible ZEV
charging and fueling capacity vs amount needed to support EPA's project vehicle
adoption rates.
o BEV charging capacity estimated for each vehicle proposed in HD TRUCS;
DTNA estimates total installed charging capacity for EPA's projected BEV
volumes for 2027 - 2032 to be approximately 45 gigawatts (denominator); the
numerator for this scalar should correspond to total currently installed HD-
accessible charging capacity in the United States. There is no centralized data
source for determining this number, but our research reveals that it is a very small
number (regularly review and update as charging infrastructure develops),
o Hydrogen fueling capacity by working with DOE to capture accessibility and
hydrogen state (gas or liquid) criteria in the AFDC data for purposes of this
infrastructure scalar, and to make fleets aware of where HD-accessible ZEV
infrastructure can be located. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 64]
• Revised Standard-Setting Methodology to determine payback period and corresponding
adoption rates shared by DTNA (CBI), then multiply the output of its 'ideal' ZEV
adoption rates by an infrastructure scalar, which better accounts for fleet concerns such as
whether 1) a ZEV is suitable for the fleet's application; 2) the ZEV TCO is better than the
ICE TCO within the fleet's trade cycle; 3) there is infrastructure available to use the
ZEV.
Response to Comment Theme: EPA's feasibility analysis- Response to Comments that the
Standards Should be More Stringent
As further noted in the summaries above, we address many of the comments with specific
suggestions for updating our analyses in the preamble, RIA, and/or RTC sections where we
describe those analyses.
In response to commenters requesting the "strongest possible" and "most stringent" standards,
including the thorough comments from EDF, CARB, CATF, ICCT, and MFN, we note that the
final standards reflect a balancing of the statutory and other relevant factors which require that
the Agency give appropriate consideration to cost and lead time necessary to allow for the
development and application of technology. EPA's assessment of the statutory and other factors
426
-------
in selecting the final GHG standards through this balanced and measured approach is found in
Section II. G of this preamble and RTC section 2.1. We have explained above that the standards
demonstrably achieve reductions of GHG emissions nationwide, including beyond those
attributable to the current market (including reductions beyond those attributable to the ACT
standards). We have further indicated that the various caps on consideration of percentages of
ZEV technologies in our modeled compliance pathway reflect reasonable consideration of the
availability and timing of the distributive infrastructure necessary to support that technology
pathway, issues of purchaser acceptance plus our determination that some specific and extreme
cases for HDV applications are unsuitable for ZEVs in the Phase 3 rule's time frame (for which
our modeled potential compliance pathway includes vehicles with ICE technologies). That is,
these caps are neither arbitrary values nor assessments that ZEV technologies will necessarily
reach that penetration in a given year, but rather quantitative representations of relevant factors,
like electrification infrastructure development and suitability, determined by the Administrator
after evaluating the relevant evidence and in the exercise of his technical and policy judgment.
See, e.g., RIA Chapter 2.7.2. stating that "[t]his limit was developed after consideration of the
actual needs of the purchasers related to two primary areas of our analysis. First, this volume
limit takes into account that we sized the batteries, power electronics, e-motors, and
infrastructure for each vehicle type based on the 90th percentile of the average VMT. We utilize
this technical assessment approach because we do not expect heavy-duty manufacturers to design
ZEV models for the 100th percentile VMT daily use case for vehicle applications, as this could
significantly increase the ZEV powertrain size, weight, and costs for a ZEV application for all
users, when only a relatively small part of the market will need such specifications. Therefore,
the ZEVs we analyzed and have used for the feasibility and cost projections for the proposal and
final rule in this timeframe are likely not appropriate for 100 percent of the vehicle applications
in the real-world. Our second consideration for including a limit for BEVs and FCEVs is that we
recognize there is a wide variety of real-world operation even for the same type of vehicle. For
example, some owners may not have the ability to install charging infrastructure at their facility,
or some vehicles may need to be operational 24 hours a day." Under the technology pathway
projected for these final standards, ICE vehicles continue to be available in volumes to address
these specific vehicle applications.
With regard to our decision to exercise caution in considering the extent and timing of
distribution buildout, we note that we considered that successful deployment is not completely in
the control of the regulated entities and requires coordination with electric utilities and other
stakeholders.,. We have carefully examined the steps needed for this to occur to support the final
standards under the modeled potential compliance pathway and projected that these steps can
occur as needed, as discussed in RTC 7 (Distribution). We have correspondingly structured both
the timing and stringency of the standards to take a measured approach in order to reasonably
accommodate the time needed for successful buildout deployment. This is one of the reasons
that the standards are carefully phased in so that the standards for the initial years of the Phase 3
program have a lower increase in stringency than proposed, that Phase 3 standards for various
subcategories commence in post-2027 model years (compared to starting in MY 2027 under the
proposal), and that the increase in stringency of the standards where public charging is part of the
modeled potential compliance pathway are for later Phase 3 model years (to provide additional
lead time). In short, we assessed, and find, that the standards are appropriate under CAA section
202(a)(l)-(2), and are not persuaded to adopt a different weighing of the statutory considerations
to yield more stringent standards.
427
-------
We respond to EDF's specific comments as follows. In response to EDF's comment that
powertrain costs of most BEVs will be on par or cheaper than diesel vehicles even after
conservatively considering a 50% higher battery DMCs, we note that we updated our battery cost
and other component costs for the final rule. Similar to EDF's findings, we do see BEV upfront
costs to be on par with comparable ICE vehicles for many applications, especially in the MY
2032 timeframe, as shown in RIA Chapter 2.9.2 and 2.10.
Regarding EDF's comment that the TCO of BEVs is significantly lower than diesel ICE
vehicles across all segments, we note that similar to EDF's findings, we do see many BEVs have
payback periods of less than 3 years, especially in the MY 2032 timeframe, as shown in RIA
Chapter 2.9.2.
In response to EDF's comment that cargo capacity of most BEVs will be on par with ICEVs
due to the increase in battery energy density, we have reassessed the projected battery energy
density for the two primary battery chemistries, including an assessment of the data shared in
comments, as described in RIA Chapter 2.4.2. We found that BEVs have similar payload
capacity as comparable ICE vehicles for many applications, and some BEV payloads are lower
than may be acceptable for certain applications. We expect that the remaining ICE vehicles in
our modeled potential compliance pathway can address those applications for which payload
capacity is needed beyond what we project would be served by a BEV, as shown in RIA Chapter
2.9.1.
In response to EDF's comment regarding MCS chargers, we agree that some HD ZEVs would
be likely to utilize en route charging, and that such vehicles would not need the size of battery
which we assessed at proposal (see RIA Chapter 2.2.1.2). We have therefore revised our analysis
for the modeled potential compliance pathway accordingly.
Concerning EDF's comment that BEVs have a lower TCO per mile, even with significant en
route charging, we note that as shown in the payback analysis for the final standards noted
above, we project that many HD ZEV applications can achieve payback within the years of first
ownership. Total cost of ownership (TCO) is likewise favorable for many vehicles. See RIA
Chapter 2.12 showing TCO analyses for the 101 vehicle types in HD TRUCS. There are certain
vehicle type for which we regard ZEVs as either too costly or otherwise unsuitable. See, e.g. HD
TRUCS vehicles 18B (coach bus), 38-44 (recreation vehicles), 45, 54, 78, and 79 (tractors), and
61S (snow plow) in RIA Chapter 2.9.2 and our discussion of payload or operational constraints
for certain applications like coach buses and concrete mixers in RIA Chapter 2.9.1).
We agree with EDF that lower annual operational VMT increases the payback period, and we
have conducted our analysis using the 50th percentile VMT for each application, as described in
RIA Chapter 2.2.1.2.
In response to EDF's comment concerning increasing diesel prices making the economics of
BEVs even more attractive due to the low energy cost per mile, we note that we updated our
diesel fuel prices to reflect the latest projections based on AEO 2023, as described in RIA
Chapter 2.3.4.
Regarding EDF's comment concerning the study they referenced that was published by
Argonne National Laboratory's Energy System Division in April 2021, we note that although
this study accounts for the federal excise tax and increased insurance, it likewise appears to
428
-------
assume all charging will be en route (only manufacturer's suggested retail price is given for a
vehicle purchase price, see e.g. Study at 15, 29), and no consideration is given to whether there
would be an adequate private charging network to accommodate all HDV ZEVs within the rule's
timeframe.
In response to EDF's comment about the report they referenced that was developed by M.J.
Bradley & Associates for EDF in 2021, we note that although the study states that depot
charging is the likely norm for HDV BEVs, there is no indication that EVSE costs were
considered. Study at 23-24. Nor is there indication that federal excise tax, insurance, or
maintenance costs were considered. Id. The study also uses a somewhat lower estimate of
battery pack costs than EPA considers appropriate ($86 kWh in 2030 v. EPA's estimate of $97
kWh in 2032). See RIA Chapter 2.4.3.
Additionally, notwithstanding our agreement with EDF on a number of issues relating to
payback period and TCO, we continue to believe that it is appropriate to apply conservative
maximum penetration constraints within HD TRUCS, and somewhat more than at proposal. As
further explained in RIA Chapter 2.7, after consideration of comments, including concerns raised
by manufacturers, we re-evaluated the maximum penetration constraints in HD TRUCS for the
final rule. The constraints discussed in the proposal, such as the methodology to size the batteries
and the recognition of the variety of real-world applications of heavy-duty trucks, still apply to
the final rule analysis. Furthermore, we continued to take a phased-in approach to the constraints
to recognize that the development of the ZEV market will take time to develop. We broadly
considered the lead time necessary to increase heavy-duty battery production, as discussed in
preamble Section II.D.2.ii.b, which shows a growth in the planned battery production capacity
from now through 2031. We also have generally accounted for the time required for the potential
distributive grid buildout through 2032 as informed by the DOE's TEIS and discussed in RIA
Chapter 2.6.4. We see a similar trend in the growth of the infrastructure to support H2 refueling
for FCEVs, as discussed in RIA Chapter 1.8.3.6. In recognition of these considerations, for the
final rule we applied more conservative maximum penetration constraints within HD TRUCS
than at proposal. We limited the maximum penetration of the ZEV technologies in HD TRUCS
for the final rule to 20 percent in MY 2027 and 70 percent in MY 2032 for any given vehicle
type.
Response to Comment Theme: EPA's feasibility analysis- Standards Should be less Stringent or
Remain at Phase 2 Levels
EPA's predictions here are rooted in facts and data, and the agency's fact-based judgments are
not 'crystal ball speculation', as the commenters would have it. Nor has EPA failed to address
critical issues. Instead, the agency acted consistent with the statute and the NRDC decision (655
F. 2d at 333)—identifying the major steps necessary to reach a successful conclusion, indicating
what problems may remain, and identifying reasonable solutions to those potential problems—in
considering and addressing all of the issues raised by the commenters. With regard to standard
stringency, EPA has explained through its detailed technology assessment and analysis of
program costs that the standards are technically feasible at reasonable cost. In doing so, EPA
hewed to NRDC, developing a modeled potential compliance pathway—as well as assessing
several additional example potential compliance pathways—to demonstrate how manufacturers
may choose to comply with the standards. EPA then assessed the cost of the standards under the
modeled potential compliance pathway, assessing those costs as reasonable, and showed how the
429
-------
standards are feasible within the lead time afforded by the rule (as discussed further immediately
below). See preamble Section II and RIA 2; see also EPA's assessment that the additional
example potential compliance pathways support the feasibility of the final standards as discussed
in preamble Section II.F.4 (without producing additional ZEVs to comply with this rule) and
RIA Chapter 2.11. We also note that manufacturers do not need to follow the modeled potential
compliance pathway nor any of the other example potential compliance pathways that EPA
assessed; rather, manufacturers may choose whichever technology or mix of technologies meets
the standards and best suits their business.
Consistent with NRDC, EPA has carefully analyzed potential difficulties in achieving the
standards, and provided reasonable predictions of how those difficulties can be surmounted in
the lead time afforded by the standards. See 665 F. 2d at 333. With regard to infrastructure
availability (in particular availability of "back of the meter" EVSE (i.e. chargers and ports) and
"front of the meter" infrastructure (i.e. distributive grid buildout or, put another way, sufficiency
of time for aligning needs of potential HD ZEVs with those of utilities), EPA has demonstrated,
based on the most recent available information, that there will be sufficient infrastructure
available to support the modeled potential compliance pathway as needed for each model year of
the relevant Phase 3 standards (although we again note that manufacturers are not required to
follow this pathway). See RTC 7 (Distribution). In brief, we show that demand on the grid from
the Phase 3 rule is low both nationally, in the key freight corridors where potential need for
buildout could be highest, and at the individual parcel level both in representative states and
extrapolated nationally. We have further structured the stringency of the final standards to
minimize the need for distributive grid buildout, both through careful gradations of standard
stringency (see response to comment urging more stringent standards, above) and showing how
the standards could be achieved with types of chargers and port sharing that minimize load. We
further show that this analysis is conservative in that it does not consider various available
further measures by which electrification demand can be minimized. In making these
determinations, EPA has relied on its own technical and policy expertise, consulted with
numerous expert entities including the Department of Energy, carefully considered the work of
respected technical analysts, and weighed the entirety of the voluminous evidence in the record.
With respect to issues relating to critical mineral availability, EPA again has acted on the
basis of data, not uninformed speculation as the commenters would have it. We have
supplemented the record from the proposal with additional information and data, and we
reasonably predict that there will be sufficient critical minerals availability, reliable supply
chains, and adequate North American battery production to support the feasibility of the
standards. See Preamble section II.D.2.ii and RTC 17.2. We have further shown that the
necessary critical minerals under the modeled potential compliance pathway can be obtained
within the rule's timeframe either from North American sources, or imported from foreign
countries without raising issues of mineral security. Id. Again, in making these determinations,
EPA has relied on its own technical and policy expertise, consulted with numerous expert
organizations including the Department of Energy, carefully considered the work of respected
technical analysts, and weighed the entirety of the voluminous evidence in the record.
We have also analyzed willingness to purchase ZEVs under the modeled compliance
pathway, using the same approach identified above from NRDC. See Preamble Section VI.E. In
addition to the discussion there, we note that the manufacturing industry has itself invested
billions of dollars into developing and marketing HD BEVs. See RIA 1. While some of this
430
-------
effort may reflect compliance with California ACT standards, EPA reasonably believes that it
also reflects more general market forces across the nation. Manufacturers are not likely to
develop, produce, and market products which they believe to be unsaleable, or to use such
technologies rather than other available potential compliance pathways as part of their
compliance strategies with Phase 2 standards (which several manufacturers indicated they are
doing in their submitted comments). Rather, as highly sophisticated and profit-maximizing
corporations, manufacturers are generally making investments that they believe—based on their
own research and technical and strategic judgments—will yield optimal return on investments
for their shareholders.
EPA has also reasonably addressed the comments alleging that its modeled potential
compliance pathway is inherently implausible because of the level of ZEV adoption projected in
the timeframe of the standards. In RIA Chapters 2 and 3, we document step by step precisely
how such compliance could be achieved. We reiterate that manufacturers are not required to
follow the modeled potential compliance pathway and may choose to instead follow one of the
other example potential compliance pathways EPA assessed— including without producing
additional ZEVs to comply with this rule—or may choose to come up with their own technology
or mix of technologies to meet the standards. In response to the comment of POET (at p. 6 of
Attachment A to their comments) that EPA's estimates of ZEVs in its modeled potential
compliance pathway is inconsistent with the projections of the 2022 Annual Energy Outlook
report of Energy Information Administration, we explained at proposal that that report did not
include any assumptions for new regulations or laws beyond those in place as of November
2021. DRIA at 12. Consequently, its ZEV sales projections do not consider (among other
things) the California ACT requirements, or account for BIL, IRA, and other financial
incentives. EPA consequently reasonably did not use these projections in estimating the volume
of ZEVs in the reference case (baseline), or in the modeled potential compliance pathway.
Some commenters claimed that EPA attached too much weight to payback, and ignored other
relevant metrics, including total cost of ownership, consumer acceptance, and alleged
uncertainties regarding adequacy of supporting infrastructure and critical minerals. As discussed
above and in the earlier response on why EPA is not adopting more stringent standards or giving
different weight to balancing the statutory and other relevant factors that commenters would
prefer, EPA has in fact (and given appropriate weight to) considering issues relating to
uncertainties of supporting infrastructure, willingness to purchase, and critical minerals
availability in determining the appropriate level of stringency for the standards. See also our
discussion of purchaser acceptance in our discussion of economic impacts of the final rule in
preamble Section VI and RTC 19. We evaluate total cost of ownership, see RIA 2.12, but note
further that it is a metric closely related to payback. That is, once there is payback, savings
continue to accrue and thus further reduce the total cost of ownership. Accordingly, in every
instance where EPA has found there to be payback within a reasonable timeframe under the
modeled potential compliance pathway, total cost of ownership will be positive. See RIA 2.7 for
discussion of development of the payback analysis utilized in the final rule.
EPA has carefully considered the alternative standards set out in the comments of the Engine
Manufacturers Association (EMA) which EMA developed using the HD TRUCS model with
different inputs. EMA's projected standards are considerably less stringent than EPA proposed,
and are less stringent (although less dramatically) than the final standards. EMA and DTNA also
suggested that the Agency should establish mechanisms to automatically adjust the CO2
431
-------
standards to the same extent that the annual deployment of ZEV truck recharging/refueling
stations falls short of the previously calculated infrastructure-deployment benchmark. This
adjustment operates as a fraction to reduce whatever level of stringency is otherwise developed.
EPA agrees with EMA and DTNA that the availability of infrastructure is a relevant
consideration, but we disagree that a scalar is the best way to reflect that availability. Although
we acknowledge uncertainties regarding infrastructure availability, EPA has structured the
standards to address those concerns and provided a thorough analysis to support how the final
standards do so. In coordination with DOE, we have closely analyzed projections of
infrastructure availability in the timeframe of the Phase 3 program and reasonably predict there
will be adequate infrastructure to support the Phase 3 standards. We disagree with the scalar that
was suggested by DTNA in setting the standards, but have adopted an approach that
appropriately take our assessments and projections into account for the considerations they
identified (including infrastructure). See further discussion in RIA Chapter 2.7. In addition, as
discussed in Preamble section II.B.2.iii and RTC section 2.9, EPA will closely monitor
infrastructure development progress, and intends to continue to engage with stakeholders post-
promulgation and to monitor implementation of the Phase 3 program. The final standards reflect
careful consideration of, and accounting for, the uncertainties regarding infrastructure buildout.
We respond throughout RIA Chapter 3 and in section 3 of this RTC to the various suggestions of
EMA regarding different inputs and costs which they utilized to come up with their alternative
standard scenario.
API's and AFPM's comments that EPA has shown no need for a Phase 3 rule because it is not
linked to achieving a National Ambient Air Quality Standard ignores the statutory authority
under which EPA is promulgating the standards and the factors that EPA must consider in so
doing. CAA section 202(a)(1) is a technology-based provision aimed at preventing or controlling
emissions of air pollution that cause or contributes to endangerment; it does not direct EPA to set
health-based standards. As explained in preamble Section II, the Phase 3 standards are necessary
to address the HD motor vehicle GHG emissions which contribute to endangerment. See Coal,
for Resp. Regulation, 684 F. 3d at 127 (such standards are mandatory) and 128 (those GHG
standards are not required to achieve a particular level of mitigation). We note further that the
level of GHG emission reductions attributable to the Phase 3 rule is greater than the level in
Coalition for Responsible Regulation referred to as "meaningful mitigation". 684 F. 3d at 128.
We thank commenters for their thoughtful input to HD TRUCS. As noted in preamble section
2, RIA chapter 2, and RTC section 3, the HD TRUCS tool used for the final rule has been
updated from the proposal based on consideration of the many comments received. As discussed
in the final rule preamble, the final rule RIA, and this RTC, EPA has utilized the HD TRUCS
model to inform our assessment of certain technologies in supporting the stringency of the final
rule standards, and the Agency believes this is a reasonable and appropriate modeling tool to
inform the Agency's decision making.
We disagree with commenters that this rulemaking is arbitrary and capricious merely because
there are certain factors influencing the implementation of the final standards that are not within
the complete control of the regulated entities. After considering comments, we have taken steps
to update our consideration of willingness to purchase (including payback) (RIA Chapter 2 and
RTC 2 and 3), charging and hydrogen refueling infrastructure availability (RTC sections 6 and 8,
respectively), grid reliability and adequacy and timing of distributive grid buildout (RTC section
7), critical minerals and supply chain concerns (Preamble Section II.D.2.ii and RTC 17.2), and
432
-------
discussion of purchaser acceptance (RTC section 19). Our assessments and projections reflect
careful consideration of potential obstacles, and means of resolving them.
We note further that there can be no absolute certainty in making predictive judgments. See
NRDC, 665 F. 2d at 335. And so it is here, including with regard to issues such as extent and
timing of vehicle technology development and supportive infrastructure. We have carefully
weighed these predictive uncertainties as reflected in the final standards. Specifically, the final
rule delays setting new standards for certain vehicle categories consistent with our assessment
and addressing those for which commenters have expressed the most concern, thereby increasing
the lead time for deploying emission reducing technologies and infrastructure deployment, as
well as time for purchasers to become more accustomed to the new technology. The final rule
also retains advanced technology credit multipliers for PHEV and BEVs through MY 2027 (as
finalized in the Phase 2 program) to ensure manufacturers continue to have access to any
incentives that are currently in their Phase 2 MY 2027 compliance plans (see RTC section
10.3.1).
We disagree with commenters who claimed that EPA failed to follow OMB Circular A-4.
EPA followed OMB Circular A-4, and we also submitted the rule to OMB for interagency
review pursuant to EO 12866.
Summary of Comment Theme: EPA's consideration of CARES's ACT regulation
Many commenters requested EPA set standards that align with CARB's ACT regulation.
Allergy & Asthma Network et al, ACEEE, ATS, CARB, CARB et al., Ceres BICEP, CATF et
al., CO DOT, DC DOEE, EDF, MFN, NACAA, NPCA, NESCAUM/OTC, Our Children's
Trust), South Coast AQMD, SELC, State of CA et al., Tesla, WRI, ZETA. NESCAUM/OTC
specifically requested that EPA update the reference case to include VT and CO as states
adopting ACT. NESCAUM/OTC and South Coast AQMD requested EPA account for CARB's
ACF regulation in the final standards.
Other commenters strongly opposed the California program(s) as a basis for national
standards. (See e.g., ATA, Ford, Roush, TRALA, Valero.) This group of commenters (excluding
Ford) questioned the feasibility of the standards EPA proposed, much less standards more
stringent still (see below). Ford and Roush noted assumptions and circumstances reflected in
the ACT program which would not be replicated nationally, including assumptions of high diesel
prices, high ACT vehicle availability, and high ACF demand, plus local climate conditions
which did not require BEVs designed for more extreme weather conditions. DTNA, AmFree,
and Delek stated that manufacturers' aspirational goals did not translate to actual production,
especially given uncertainties regarding supporting electric infrastructure, customer reactions to
a new, unfamiliar product, and critical material potential shortages. Valero noted further that a
number of these aspirational announcements were qualified, and that EPA had not always noted
or otherwise accounted for those qualifications. Valero also questioned the legality of the ACT
standards, maintaining that they are preempted by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act.
DTNA summarized its views of whether the ACT program can be viewed as evidence of
feasibility as follows: "California's ACT rulemaking processes both intend to model customer
purchasing behavior, but regulate manufacturer sales. California's ACT regulation cannot force
customers to buy Zero Emission MHDVs, and customers will not buy products which do not
meet their operational needs, cannot reliably be refueled, or do not lead to a positive return on
433
-------
investment. Additionally, while other states have opted into California's ACT provisions, not all
other states have the same complete ecosystem of supporting regulations, and it is not clear how
many ZEVs will be sold in each state. Since the ACT cannot force customer sales of ZEVs, and
it is unclear how many nationwide ZEVs will be sold as a result of the ACT, EPA should not
increase the proposed emission standard stringency levels to account for ACT requirements."
CATF et al. indicated that the baseline should account for both California programs, their
adoption by the section 177 states and their putative adoption by the NESCAUM MOU states.
ICCT argued sales of ZEVs required by California and by the section 177 states adopting the
California ACT standards should not be counted toward compliance with the standard unless the
standard is made more stringent to account for those compelled sales. Otherwise, these sales
have the potential to account for compliance with the rule without any further emission
reductions elsewhere (particularly when considered in combination with the credit multiplier
feature of the rule).
Response to Comment Theme: EPA's consideration of CARB's ACT regulation
The final standards are based on our feasibility assessment as explained in preamble Section
II and supported by our modeled potential compliance pathway which reflects our HD TRUCS
assessment of ZEV technologies feasibility, independent of CARB's ACT. In other words, the
final standards reflect the Administrator's judgment of the standards based on the statutory
criteria and other relevant factors, not based on EPA adopting the ACT program, or stringency
levels that correspond to the ACT program, or otherwise deferring to any judgments made by
CARB in promulgating the ACT program.
We have included ACT adoption as part of our baseline (i.e., reference case) as described in
Chapter 4.2.2 of the RIA to this rulemaking, including the addition of Vermont and Colorado as
states adopting ACT.262 This is consistent with EPA's general practice of considering existing
laws and regulations as part of the regulatory baseline. This approach is also consistent with
OMB Circular A-4. As further support for the reasonableness of including ACT adoption as part
of our baseline, in summer 2023, major manufacturers signed an agreement committing to meet
the Advanced Clean Trucks regulation in California, subject to certain conditions.263
In response to some commenters' assertions questioning the volume of ZEVs that will be sold
as a result of ACT and thus questioning the reasonableness of the reference case and the
feasibility of the final standards, EPA finds that the final standards are reasonable and
appropriate even in the absence of the ACT program. In determining this, we conducted a
reference case ZEV adoption sensitivity analysis with meaningfully lower ZEV adoption than
262 At the time we performed the inventory modeling analysis, seven states had adopted ACT in addition to
California. Oregon, Washington, New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts adopted ACT beginning in MY 2025
while Vermont adopted ACT beginning in MY 2026 and Colorado in MY 2027. Three other states, New Mexico,
Maryland, and Rhode Island adopted ACT (beginning in MY 2027) in November and December of 2023, but there
was not sufficient time for us to incorporate them as ACT states in our modeling. That these additional States have
decided to enact ACT's stringent ZEV sales mandates further corroborates the feasibility of EPA's final standards.
263 See CARB-EMA Agreement i-ii ("The OEMs Commit to Meet CARB Truck Regulations *** The OEMs
commit to meet, in California, the requirements of the relevant regulations as specified below and any agreed upon
modifications per this Agreement, regardless of the outcome of any litigation challenging the waivers/authorizations
for those regulations, or CARB's overall authority to implement those regulations. *** The ACT regulation, as it
existed on March 15, 2021, and the 100 percent ZEV sales requirement set forth in Cal. Code Regs title 13, section
2016, as it existed on April 28, 2023.")
434
-------
our final rule reference case. As further detailed in RIA Chapter 4.10, we calculated the lower
national ZEV sales percentages in the sensitivity reference case using the approach we used in
the NPRM (that was conducted prior to EPA granting the ACT waiver) and that we updated. In
other words, the level of ZEV adoption in the sensitivity reference case reflects the ZEV
adoption that will occur as a result of the existence of the various considerations we discuss in
preamble Section V, including the IRA and BIL, but in response to these comments the
sensitivity looks at lower ZEV adoption than we project in the final rule reference case that will
occur through compliance with CARB's ACT within ACT states (e.g., a future no action
scenario in the absence of an enforceable ACT program). Our sensitivity analysis (which
included the sensitivity reference case and a corresponding sensitivity control case with the same
numeric values of the final standards) showed greater downstream emission reductions than our
main modeling of the final standards. Meanwhile, manufacturer costs are greater in magnitude
than those in the main analysis of the final standards. Importantly, consistent with our discussion
in preamble Section II.G.2 for the main analysis, the fleet-average per-vehicle manufacturer
costs in this reference case sensitivity analysis are lower than those we projected for the HD
GHG Phase 2 rule that we considered to be reasonable. Our assessment is that this sensitivity
analysis demonstrates that, even in the absence of enforceability of CARB's ACT, the final
standards are feasible and appropriate. In addition, our infrastructure analysis and battery
production levels evaluate the total ZEVs projected in the modeled potential compliance
pathway. Therefore, the results of these analyses are the same regardless of how many ZEVs are
in the reference case. Correspondingly, while ACT's existence supports the final standards, the
final standards' feasibility does not depend on ACT.
The final standards are not a national version of the California standards. In the final rule
analysis, we also considered standards consistent with levels of stringency that would be
achieved from the California ACT rule extrapolated to the national level (see also Section II.H of
the preamble to this rule). We are not adopting standards consistent with this more stringent
alternative because we consider the final standards' stringency to reflect the appropriate
balancing of the factors, as discussed in preamble Section II.G. We are not including CARB's
ACF regulation in the analysis of this final rule; at the time of this rulemaking, EPA is still
reviewing the waiver request for the ACF regulation.
Regarding the comments of EDF and others that given the Phase 2 flexibilities and the ACT
requirements, manufacturers will necessarily comply with the Phase 3 standards by virtue of
complying with ACT, please see our discussion and response in preamble Section III. A.
In response to comments regarding the legality of ACT or related actions (such as Section 177
States adopting ACT or EPA granting a waiver for ACT), those comments are beyond the scope
of this proceeding.
Other Comments Related to Stringency or Feasibility:
Summary of comment related to BEV and FCEV efficiency:
ACEEE commented that the Phase 3 standards should promote BEV and FCEV efficiency
and noted that the real-world efficiency gains will not be observed if EPA deems BEV and
FCEV to be zero C02 and they are not required to test. EPA has assumed constant battery
efficiency through MY 2032, but efficiency is likely to increase due to learning, in which case
435
-------
batteries will be both less expensive and have greater range, all of which should be reflected in
the out-year standard stringency.
Response to comment related to BEY and FCEY efficiency:
EPA disagrees with ACEEE that the Phase 3 standards should promote BEV and FCEV
efficiency. As EPA explains in RTC 17, compliance with the Phase 3 standards, like its
predecessors, is determined based on vehicular emissions. Because BEV and FCEV produce no
tailpipe emissions, any efficiency improvements to BEV and FCEV would not reduce their
tailpipe emissions. While such efficiency improvements could reduce upstream emissions
associated with generating and delivering electricity, EPA's longstanding approach to assessing
compliance at the tailpipe is consistent with section 202(a)'s focus on addressing emissions from
classes of motor vehicles. We did not reopen this approach in this rulemaking. EPA notes that
NHTSA's standards do promote energy efficiency.264
EPA, however, has considered the efficiency of BEV and FCEV in modeling the impacts of
the rule. In the final rule, we updated our approach to accounting for efficiency gains and we
refer readers to section 3.2 of this RTC document and Chapters 2.4 and 2.5 of the RIA for this
rule. Further, while the final battery durability and warranty requirements for BEVs and PHEVs
are justified based on vehicular emissions reductions as explained in preamble Section III.B and
not based on energy efficiency, those requirements may incidentally support the efficiency
improvements noted by the commenter. See section 11 of this RTC document and section III.B
of the preamble to this rule.
Summary of comment related to cross-subsidization:
Manufacturers have control over the marketing of ZEV vehicles by means of cross-
subsidization, as EPA noted in the DRIA. (MFN)
Response to comment related to cross-subsidization:
EPA is not predicating any part of the final Phase 3 rule on cross-subsidization strategies. We
recognize that manufacturers have discretion in their pricing strategies, and the final rule does
not preclude manufacturers from using any specific pricing strategies, including cross-
subsidization.
Summary of comment related to stringency benefits to disadvantaged communities:
Some commenters stressed especially the benefits to disadvantaged communities that would
be afforded by more stringent standards and the complementary improvements in criteria
pollutant emissions. (State of California et al., CleanAirNow, RMI, Tesla.) MFN expanded on
the need for stronger standards to address disproportionate impacts: "Had EPA considered the
potential disproportionate and cumulative impacts of vehicle emissions in developing this
proposal, the Agency would have structured the rule so that only the cleanest vehicles would be
incentivized and so that reductions of other health-harming pollutants (like the non-GHG criteria
264 See Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 532 (2007) ("that DOT sets mileage standards in no way licenses EPA
to shirk its environmental responsibilities. EPA has been charged with protecting the public's "health" and
"welfare," 42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(1), a statutory obligation wholly independent of DOT's mandate to promote energy
efficiency. See Energy Policy and Conservation Act, § 2(5), 89 Stat. 874, 42 U.S.C. § 6201(5). The two obligations
may overlap, but there is no reason to think the two agencies cannot both administer their obligations and yet avoid
inconsistency").
436
-------
pollutants and air toxics the rule indirectly affects) are guaranteed. See also Comments of
Evergreen Action: "The transition to zero emissions medium and heavy-duty vehicles is feasible
and necessary to address long standing public health disparities Now that there is viable
technology available that would eliminate tailpipe pollution from trucks, it would be even more
irresponsible and unjust not to compel the most expansive application of this technology to
rectify the pollution impacts imposed on people of color and low-income communities."
Our Children's Trust commented in support of strengthened federal emission standards on
behalf of the nation's youth. Our Children's Trust recommended a documentary film and
requested that EPA "incorporates the protection of children's fundamental rights to a safe
climate system, defined by the best available science, into future rulemaking, policies, and
initiatives."
Response to comment related to stringency benefits to disadvantaged communities:
We address comments related to environmental justice in Section 18 of this RTC document.
In response to Our Children's Trust, see our response in RTC 14. We also note that this action is
subject to Executive Order 13045 and we have evaluated the environmental health or safety
effects of air pollutants affected by the final rule on children. The results of this evaluation are
described in Section VI of the preamble, Chapter 5 of the RIA, and section 14 of this RTC
document.
Summary of comment related to the need for EPA to perform post-promulgation monitoring:
EMA, and other commenters, generally recommended the need for post-promulgation
monitoring of infrastructure developments and critical material availability, and that this be done
on a transparent, government-wide basis.
Response to comment related to the need for EPA to perform post-promulgation monitoring:
Additional comments related to the topic of post-promulgation assessments can be found in
section 2.9 of this RTC document. See preamble section II.B.2.iii for a description of EPA's
commitment to engage with stakeholders and monitor implementation of the HD GHG
programs.
Summary of comment related to scrapping:
CleanAirNow and MFN requested EPA implement a scrapping program. MFN noted such a
program is necessary to prevent "the re-sale, migration, and increased density of dirty diesel
heavy-duty vehicles" in EJ communities, especially port-adjacent communities.
Response to comment related to scrapping:
A scrapping program is out of scope for this rulemaking.
Summary of comments related to biofuels:
A group of commenters urged EPA to predicate standards based on use of biofuels. They
noted that such fuels, including varying degrees of biodiesel, not only provide emission
reduction benefits, but can do so immediately, can do so at less cost, and are the subject of
various federal incentive programs, including those administered by the Dept. of Agriculture.
(Clean Fuels Alliance America, NACS, NESTE, POET).
437
-------
Response to comments related to biofuels:
We are not finalizing standards predicated on the use of biofuels. Manufacturers will continue
to have the option to use biofuels in their compliance strategies to meet the performance-based
standards. Other comments relating to our consideration of fuels, including biofuels, are
summarized and addressed in RTC section 9.1 and 17.
Summary of comment related to EPA's assessment of GHG reductions:
POET stated that EPA's proposal is flawed due to overestimation of GHG reductions, citing a
study by Trinity commissioned by the commenter (n. 45 of comment))
Response to comment related to EPA's assessment of GHG reductions:
Comments relating to emission reductions are addressed in section 13 of this RTC document.
Summary of comments related to EPA's consideration of lifecvcle emissions:
AFPM and others maintained that the standards should be constructed on a lifecycle basis and
that without doing so, EPA's benefit estimates are flawed
Response to comments related to EPA's consideration of lifecvcle emissions:
Comments related to lifecycle are addressed in RTC sections 13 and 17.
Summary of comment related to EPA's consideration of electricity charges:
Valero maintains that by suggesting various ways ZEV purchasers can mitigate electricity
charges, EPA is acting beyond its delegated section 202(a) authority in "dictating] vehicle
charging behavior" or telling grid operators to manage electricity loads in particular manners.
EPA must account for grid costs and impacts, as well as issues of grid availability and reliability.
Response to comment related to EPA's consideration of electricity charges:
In supporting the feasibility of the standards under the modeled potential compliance
pathway, EPA considered the costs of the final standards for both manufacturers (i.e. cost of
compliance) and purchasers (considering willingness to purchase, including payback, as an
appropriate relevant factor), and also considered grid availability and reliability in determining
the appropriate lead time for the standards. In examining ways ZEV users can reduce costs (such
as through time of use charging and other measures), EPA is reasonably considering how best to
assess those overall costs, again within the authority delegated in section 202(a)(l)-(2).
Consideration of these cost and feasibility issues is not "dictating charging behavior" or grid
management, as the commenter would have it, but instead represents a reasonable and thorough
assessment of these considerations.
Comment:
DTNA requests that EPA consider extending the timeframe for manufacturers to remedy end-
of-year C02 credit deficits in 40 CFR 1037.745(a) from 3 to 5 MYs for all regulatory
subcategories of vehicles. By extending the timeframe for manufacturers to balance out credit
deficits, EPA could alleviate some of the impacts of ZEV market uncertainty on manufacturer
compliance plans.
Response:
We did not reopen the existing 3-year period for manufacturers to remedy C02 credit deficits,
and are not taking final action on a revision to extend that period as requested by DTNA. This
438
-------
revision is out of scope for this final rule. We note that we are finalizing certain other flexibilities
while taking into consideration limiting impacts of uncertainty on manufacturer compliance
plans. See section 10 of this RTC document and section III. A of the preamble for this rule for
further discussion.
Comment:
As part of their comment on this rule, Evergreen Action indicated that delayed action on
emission standards from other elements of the mobile source sector (locomotives, off-road
equipment, and marine vessels), the California waivers for many sectors, and IRA incentive
programs is allowing emissions to rise in several regions of the country.
Response:
These comments are outside the scope of this final rule. In this rulemaking, we did not
propose or request comment and are not taking final action in this rule related to standards for
sectors other than heavy-duty highway vehicles (e.g., locomotives, off-road equipment and
marine vessels). EPA action on California waiver requests and incentive availability through the
IRA are also out-of-scope for this rulemaking. We discuss our consideration of California's ACT
program and the IRA/BIL incentives in responses of this section 2.4 and section 2.7 of this RTC
document and in section II of the preamble to this final rule.
2.5 Calculating the standards
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Allison Transmission Inc.
2. Mathematical errors in computed LHD stringency thresholds
In Table 11-29 Calculations of the Proposed MY2032 C02 Emissions Standards for Light
Heavy-Duty (LHD) Vocational Vehicles, Allison has identified five mathematical errors in the
creation of the six "Proposed C02 Emissions Standard" values. Specifically, the value for the CI
LHD Multi-Purpose vehicle is the only correctly computed value in that table. The other values
were not calculated correctly based on the appropriate current value and percentage adoption rate
per equation II-2. Please see Appendix A attached hereto for additional details. Allison requests
that EPA correct these errors prior to finalization of the Phase 3 rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1657-A2, p. 2.] [See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1657-A2, pages 4-5, for
Appendix A.]
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
b. HDVs with no installed propulsion engine
Affected page: 26122 (1037.101(b)) and (1037.102(b))
The NPRM proposes the following language:
"Heavy-duty vehicles with no installed propulsion engine, such as battery electric vehicles,
are subject to compression-ignition emission standards for the purpose of calculating emission
credits." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1591-A1, p.37]
439
-------
The credit calculation (40 CFR 1037.705(b)) requires manufacturers of those HDVs to use the
compression-ignition multi-purpose standard for the purpose of Average, Banking, and Trading
(ABT) credit calculation. CARB staff suggests adding language in 40 CFR 1037.101(b) or
1037.105 that those HDVs are subject to the compression-ignition multi-purpose emission
standards. CARB staff believes that it does not make sense to allow those manufacturers to
certify to the compression-ignition urban or regional standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1591-A1, p.37]
Organization: China WTO/TBT National Notification & Enquiry Center
3. It is suggested to clarify the calculation method and source of emission standard values for
carbon dioxide emissions from heavy-duty vehicles in the table "TABLE 11-19 PROPOSED MY
2027 THROUGH 2032+VOCATIONAL VEHICLE C02 EMISSION STANDARDS". [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1658-A2, p.3]
The reasonable emission values of carbon dioxide in 2027-2032 are calculated and set
according to internationally recognized standards such as ISO 14064 and Euro 6d. In addition,
there are some differences between different methods of calculation. Please explain whether the
differences between the calculation values of international standard methods such as ISO and
Euro and the simulation calculation methods in Chimerica in this regulation are within the valid
and reasonable range. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1658-A2, pp.3-4]
Organization: Cummins Inc.
10. Cummins requests clarification that 40 CFR §1037.705(b) applies to both vocational
vehicles and tractors.
For vehicles with tailpipe C02 emissions deemed to be zero, 40 CFR §1037.705 (b)
references section §1037.105 (vocational vehicles) for generating C02 vehicle credits and does
not include a reference to section §1037.106 (tractors). We would like clarification that both
vocational vehicles and tractors are eligible to generate vehicle C02 credits. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1598-A1, pp. 9 - 10]
Organization: Daimler Truck North America LLC (DTNA)
Common Reference Standard for ZEV Credit Calculations.
DTNA supports EPA's proposal to establish a common reference standard for ZEV credit
calculations under 40 C.F.R. 1037.705 by requiring use of the applicable Compression-Ignition
Multi-Purpose (CI MP) standard for the vehicle's corresponding weight class beginning in MY
2027. However, the Company requests that EPA provide additional flexibility with respect to
which regulatory subcategory standard is appropriate to use for ZEVs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1555-A1, p. 76]
As proposed, EPA's 'common reference standard' approach could create inappropriate
calculation of credits for certain ZEV vehicle types. For example, a manufacturer might, using
the provisions of 40 C.F.R. 1037.140(h), declare an ICE vehicle as an Urban or Regional vehicle,
based on good engineering judgment, or subject to the restrictions listed in 40
C.F.R. 1037.150(z), based on transmission type. The same vehicle, when equipped with a zero-
440
-------
emission powertrain, would generate credits under the assumption it was a Multi-Purpose
vehicle, regardless of the vehicle's operational characteristics. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-
Al, p. 76]
To alleviate this discrepancy, EPA should allow ZEV manufacturers to use good engineering
judgment to determine the appropriate regulatory subcategory for calculation of emission credits
generated by a ZEV, based on the vehicle it is intended to replace. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1555-A1, p. 76]
EPA Request for Comment, Request #54: The calculations for the other model years and
vocational vehicle subcategories are shown in DRIA Chapter 2.9. We welcome comment on this
approach to taking the proposed change to the ZEV ABT credit calculation into account in
setting vocational vehicle standards. We also request comment alternatively on using the same
approach for vocational vehicles as we are proposing for tractors (see Section II.F.2).
• DTNA Response: DTNA provides recommendations and comments on EPA's proposed
revisions to the ABT program in Section III.B. of these comments.
EPA Request for Comment, Request #53: First, prior to the effective date of this proposed
change, there is a potential for manufacturers producing BEVs, FCEVs, and certain H2-ICE
vehicles to generate larger credits than they would after this change, depending on the vocational
vehicle subcategory to which a vehicle is certified. Second, we recognize that manufacturers
develop their emissions compliance plans several years in advance to manage their R&D and
manufacturing investments. After taking these into account, we propose that this regulation
revision become effective beginning in MY 2027 to provide manufacturers with sufficient time
to adjust their production plans, if necessary. We request comment on this proposed revision.
• DTNA Response: To facilitate credit generation for ZEVs, DTNA recommends that
EPA allow manufacturers to determine the most appropriate ZEV service class based on
good engineering judgment and that it revise its regulations to provide that the averaging
set limitations in 40 CFR 1037.740 do not apply to ABT credits generated by ZEVs.
DTNA provides detailed comments on these issues in Sections III.A.4 and III.B. 1 of its
comments on the Proposed Rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, pp. 167-168]
EPA Request for Comment, Request #55: We request comment on possible alternative
vocational vehicle regulatory subcategory structures, such as reducing the number of vocational
vehicle subcategories to only include the Multi-Purpose standards in each weight class, and/or
maintaining Urban, Multipurpose, and Regional but combining SI and CI into a standard for each
weight class.
• DTNA Response: See DTNA Response to Request # 53, above. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1555-A1, p. 168]
Organization: PACCAR, Inc.
D. EPA Should Revise its Proposed Approach to Calculating C02 Emissions Credits for
Vocational Vehicles
EPA's Proposed Rule would require OEMs to use the emissions standard codified at 40
C.F.R. § 1037.105 to calculate credits generated on all MY2027 and later zero emission
441
-------
vocational vehicles. As a result, some vocational vehicles would be newly classified as "multi-
purpose" for credit calculation purposes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1607-A1, p. 11]
PACCAR strongly disagrees with this approach. OEMs should be allowed to classify ZEV
vehicles according to their intended use, and ZEV vehicles should not be limited to multi-
purpose categorization. Current EPA regulations allow manufacturers to select a vocational duty
cycle using any applicable vocational regulatory subcategory.6 Now, however, EPA is proposing
to limit manufacturers to using the Multi-Purpose standard when calculating credits for zero
emission vehicles. This change would result in an unexpected reduction in credits earned for
ZEVs, with insufficient lead-time for manufacturers to adjust their product portfolios and
production planning. EPA should continue to allow zero-emission vehicles to score in any
applicable Phase 3 regulatory subcategory to further encourage increased zero emission vehicle
adoption rates and prevent unexpected disruptions in product planning. If EPA were to
nonetheless require using the Multi-Purpose subcategory, the Agency should not implement the
change before MY2030 to allow OEMs sufficient lead-time. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1607-
Al, pp. 11-12]
6 See 40 C.F.R. § 1037.140(h).
Organization: Volvo Group
Vocational Vehicle Stringency Setting Process
The Agency has proposed determining the Vocational Vehicle stringencies by taking the
expected stringency increases for each model year, calculating the absolute grams per ton-mile
reduction in the Multi-Purpose subcategory for each service class, and applying this absolute
gC02/ton-mile reduction to the Urban and Regional subcategories. For Heavy-Heavy-Duty
(HHD), the proposed stringency increase results in a model year 2027 standard of 193 gC02/ton-
mile in the HHD Compression Ignition (CI) Multi-Purpose subcategory, an absolute reduction of
37 g/C02/ton. This absolute 37 gC02/ton-mile reduction is then applied to both the HHD CI
Urban and Regional Vocational Vehicle subcategories to determine the new standard for each.
The result is an actual stringency increase of 14% in the Urban subcategory, and 20% in the
Regional. (Refer to Table 1 on page 18 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1606-
Al). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1606-A1, p. 17-18]
Although this might seem advantageous for OEMs producing more vehicles in the Urban
subcategory, this actually results in lost credits for the OEM since EPA is proposing that all zero-
emission vocational vehicles are be placed in the Compression Ignition Multi-Purpose
subcategories in their service class regardless of the conventional vehicle they displace. From
Table 2 below, if a zero-emission vehicle that replaces a HHD CI Urban Vocational Vehicle
must be classified in the HHD CI Multi-Purpose subcategory, the resultant loss of credit for that
ZEV is 127 Mg of C02 from what it would receive if it were classified as Urban. The reverse is
true for the HHD CI Regional subcategory. Even though a HHD CI Regional Vocational Vehicle
sees a 20% stringency increase from baseline in MY 2027, a HHD CI Regional ZEV gains 134
Mg when classified against the Multi-Purpose standard. (Refer to Table 2 on page 18 of docket
number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1606-A1). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1606-A1, p. 18]
A cursory review of absolute credits gained or lost with this stringency setting process might
appear beneficial; however, the impact depends upon an OEM's mix of vehicles classified as
442
-------
Urban, Multi-Purpose, or Regional. If a manufacturer has a significantly higher penetration of
vehicles classified as Urban than it does as Regional, they would be at a disadvantage. The
OEM's product mix of ZEVs also has significant implications. If an OEM has greater Urban
ZEV product offerings or sales than for Regional vocational vehicles, the disadvantage could be
substantial. This is most apparent for Mack's distribution of MHD product, where an
overwhelming percentage are classified in the Urban subcategories. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1606-A1, p. 19]
Lastly, all conventional Regional Vocational Vehicles would be required to meet this
increased stringency without consideration for the actual expected ZEV penetration in the
Regional subcategories, or the technology packages that EPA deemed appropriate for those
subcategories in the Phase 2 rule making. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1606-A1, p. 19]
Because of the unintended disadvantages created by this stringency setting process, as well as
the proposed modifications to 1037.705(b) that would require all ZEVs to meet the standard of
the CI Multi-Purpose subcategories in their respect service classes, Volvo Group suggests EPA
re-evaluate the stringency setting procedure and ZEV categorization for vocational
vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1606-A1, p. 20]
EPA Summary and Response:
Summary:
Allison identified a purported error in the calculation of the proposed standards. Cummins
requested EPA to clarify whether the CO2 credit equation of 40 CFR 1037.705(b) continued to
apply for tractors in light of the proposed update to the equation that noted a reference standard
for the vocational vehicles, but did not note anything for tractors. DTNA proposes that EPA
continue to use the Phase 2 approach that allows manufacturers to use good engineering
judgement to determine the appropriate vocational vehicle subcategory (urban, rural, multi-
purpose) for ZEVs as they do for ICEVs. PACCAR also requested that OEMs be allowed to
classify their vocational vehicle ZEVs "according to their intended use" noting that the proposal
would reduce credits earned for certain vocational vehicle ZEVs and thereby not provide enough
lead time for manufacturers to plan unless implementation was delayed until MY 2030. Volvo
also raised concerns with the vocational vehicle standard setting process used by EPA in the
NPRM and suggested that EPA re-evaluate the approach for the final rule considering the
potential impacts on each of the vocational vehicle subcategories. China WTO requests that EPA
explain the differences in the numerical C02 emission standards relative to Euro 6 or other ISO
values.
Response:
After considering comments, we are not finalizing the proposed approach of setting the CI
vocational vehicle standards relative to the CI Multipurpose regulatory subcategory. We agree
with those commenters that asserted this would adversely affect manufacturers whose vehicles
would otherwise be appropriately assigned to a higher credit-generating vocational vehicle
subcategory, and that this could also adversely affect some manufacturers' existing Phase 2
plans for compliance strategies. Therefore, we are utilizing an approach to setting the vocational
vehicle standards in the final rule using the same method we used for tractors in the NPRM. We
continue to be concerned about the possibility of manufacturers assigning vocational vehicle
ZEVs to an inappropriate subcategory. To minimize the potential for incorrect identification of
443
-------
vocational subcategories, we added provisions in 40 CFR 1037 to more clearly define how to
assign a ZEV to a vocational vehicle subcategory (see revised 40 CFR 1037.140(g) that defines
how manufacturers classify their vehicles as Light HDV, Medium HDV, and Heavy HDV,
existing 40 CFR 1037.140(h) allowing manufacturers to use good engineering judgment to
identify vocational regulatory subcategories (i.e., Urban, Multi-Purpose, or Regional), and the
revised 1037.101(b)(2) clarifying that heavy-duty vehicles wih no installed propulsion engine are
subject to CI emission standards).
As described in RIA Chapter 2.10.2.4.1, the standards for the vocational SI vehicles are set
such that the technology package for modeled potential compliance pathway has the same
fraction of ICE and ZEV vehicles regardless of whether a manufacturer is certifying SI or CI
vocational vehicles; this is similar to the proposed approach but is more targeted at addressing
manufacturers' concerns, and it will appropriately reflect the urban, multi-purpose and regional
categories. This approach will continue to allow manufactures to certify ZEVs to the most
appropriate urban, regional, or multi-purpose subcategory, using good engineering judgement, so
the commenters' concern about potential inequities for certifying categories other than multi-
purpose is addressed. This resolution also has the benefit of maintaining the existing, clear
approach for certifying ZEVs to the CI standard. Lastly, this approach has the benefit of ensuring
that manufacturer compliance strategies that include utilization of ZEV technologies will be able
to comply with the same fraction of ZEVs regardless of whether the manufacturer also produces
SI or CI vehicles.
With respect to Allison's comment, we believe they misunderstood the method we used to
calculate the vocational vehicle standards and we disagree that there was an error in the NPRM.
Furthermore, this is no longer a relevant comment because as previously mentioned, we are
using a similar approach to what we proposed for tractors to setting standards for vocational
vehicles and tractors in the final rule.
In response to Cummins, we clarify that manufacturers can continue to use the equation of 40
CFR 1037.705(b) to calculate CO2 credits for tractors. Our proposed update to the "Std" variable
was intended to establish a common reference standard for vocational vehicles deemed to have
zero CO2 emissions. It was not intended to exclude tractors; rather, the tractors would continue to
use the applicable standard "associated with the specific regulatory subcategory" as specified in
the retained text of the variable definition.
China WTO requests information regarding the differences between other CO2 emissions
reported in other countries. We note that the grams of CO2 emitted per ton-mile standards are
challenging to compare because they are specific to the test procedures specified for determining
compliance. Parameters such as the defined payload, the tested weight of the vehicle, the
assumed aerodynamic performance of vocational vehicles, and the drive cycles all have
significant impact on the numerical value of the emissions.
444
-------
2.6 Costs
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Clean Fuels Development Coalition et al.
VII. The Proposed Rule Fails to Adequately Consider Costs.
A. The proposed rule ignores many of the direct compliance costs of the rule.
As detailed above, Section I, supra, the proposed rule neglects to account for many of the
direct costs of the rule. Among these are:
• The costs to build new factories capable of manufacturing heavy-duty electric and fuel
cell vehicles.
The cost to build DC fast-charging stations across the country.
• The cost of new electric infrastructure, including generation, transmission, distribution,
and transformers.
Added costs for maintenance on electrified heavy-duty vehicles.
• Battery replacement costs.
Battery recycling or disposal costs.
• Increased road and tire wear because of increased vehicle weight, and associated
disbenefits and environmental justice impacts from the resulting higher particulate matter
emissions.
Increased insurance costs.
• Loss of jobs in the American automotive industry and other related industries. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1585-A1, p. 32]
H. The proposal manipulates timelines and vehicle categories to inflate the benefits of the
rule.
Perhaps the greatest failure of the proposal's attempt to hide the costs of the rule by spreading
them across multiple classes of truck buyers. The proposal does not conduct a marginal cost
analysis of the rule across each sub-category of vehicles but instead uses averaging, exceeding
the agency's statutory authority as discussed above, to blend these costs together and thus hide
the infeasibility of electrifying larger and heavier classes of vehicles. As vehicles become
heavier, electrification becomes less and less economically feasible. By failing to perform these
calculations in its proposal and instead hiding this infeasibility by averaging over a large pool of
numbers, the proposal has made its cost-benefit analysis unreasonable and inadequate to justify
the proposed rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1585-A1, pp. 37 - 38]
Organization: Daimler Truck North America LLC (DTNA)
Aggregated Incremental Costs
Based on today's BEV prices and future anticipated FCEV prices, EPA's
estimated aggregated incremental ZEV cost estimates appear to be significantly below the actual
costs of ZEV adoption for fleets. For example, in HD TRUCS, EPA projects an approximately
$80,000 incremental cost increase for Class 8 day cab tractors, reduced to $40,000 after
445
-------
application of the Section 45W commercial clean vehicle tax credit.61 DTNA's current
aggregated incremental cost estimates for Class 8 ZEVs are shown in Table 12 below. These
estimates account for both the Section 45W tax credit and payment of the FET but do not include
the cost of charging infrastructure installation. DTNA is optimistic that incremental costs will
decrease over time, but believes EPA should revisit its assumptions as the market
develops. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, pp. 33-34] [Refer to Table 12 on p. 34 of docket
number EP A-HQ-0 AR-2022-098 5 -15 5 5 - A 1 ]
61 See Heavy-Duty Technology Resource Use Case Scenario Tool (HD TRUCS), 'Payback' Worksheet,
https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-0830.
Organization: Delek US Holdings, Inc.
V. The Proposed Rule Severely Underestimates the Costs of BEVs
EPA claims that the Proposed Rule will somehow result in $180 billion to $230 billion in net
benefits, which represents a five-fold increase over the cost in vehicle technology and associated
electric vehicle supply equipment ("ESVE") required to meet the associated standards.25 As
industry experts have asserted, "the derivation of these cost estimates is murky and
fundamentally not credible," especially as EPA's estimate of the no-action alternative from
which all other proposals are compared to deceptively ignores the regulatory costs of the
Administration's current efforts to rapidly escalate electrification and automatically assumes that
"American car buyers will suddenly drop their resistance to EVs."26 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1561-A1, p. 6]
25 Proposed Rule at 25,937.
26 Steven G. Bradbury, THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION, Prepared Statement for the hearing entitled
"Driving Bad Policy: Examining EPA's Tailpipe Emissions Rules and the Realities of a Rapid Electric
Vehicle Transition," before the Subcommittee on Economic Grown, Energy Policy, and Regulatory Affairs
of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Accountability, at 10 (May 17, 2023)
available at https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Bradbury-Prepared-Statement-for-17-
May-2023-Oversight-Hearing.pdf.
Despite the substantial price differences between HD ZEV and ICE vehicles, EPA's cost
analysis concludes—with little to no concrete support—that the "incremental cost" difference
will be "eliminated," leaving only the added upfront cost of EVSE.27 EPA also underestimates
the costs of EVSEs as ZEV HD charging infrastructure is expected to take significantly more
time to deploy and require increased demand on the electricity grid to a greater extent than light
duty charging infrastructure.28 Instead of fully accounting for these obvious costs, EPA relies
heavily on incentives under the IRA,29 which apply to a limited number and type of vehicles and
taxpayers, and ignores the fact that incentives from the IRA are still a "cost" to tax-paying
consumers.30 Notably, the cost to consumer also fails to account for the decreased range and
loads for ZEV HDs in the payback occurring between three and seven years for long-haul
tractors. Beyond the direct costs to the consumer, EPA fails to account for costs associated with
infrastructure impacts from increased operation of heavier ZEVs on the road, including road and
bridge deterioration and commensurate reduced funding for infrastructure from fuel tax
collections. EPA's failure to quantitatively analyze these costs is fatal to its analysis. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1561-A1, pp. 6 - 7]
27 DRIA at 9, 67-68.
446
-------
28 Peter Slowik, et al., THE INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION,
"Analyzing the Impact of the Inflation Reduction Act on Electric Vehicle Uptake in the United States"
(Jan. 2023), available at https://energyinnovation.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Analyzing-the-Impact-
of-the-Inflation-Reduction-Act-on-EV-Uptake-in-the-U.S..pdf.
29 See, e.g., DRIA at 67 - 68.
30 See, e.g., IRS, "Credits for New Clean Vehicles Purchased in 2023 or After" (Apr. 17, 2023), available
at https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/credits-for-new-clean-vehicles-purchased-in-2023-or-after (citing
IRA, § 30D).
And as discussed above, EPA hardly pays any mind to the volatile pricing of critical minerals
and how that can greatly affect battery costs. The price of lithium, for example, has consistently
risen in recent years. Between January 2021 and March 2022, the cost of lithium increased by
738% and continues to rise today.31 Despite these very public findings, EPA asserts that "the
cost to manufacture lithium-ion batteries (the single most expensive component of a BEV) has
dropped significantly in the past eight years, and that cost is projected to continue to fall during
this decade, all while the performance of the batteries (in terms of energy density) improves."32
Yet future lithium-ion battery production will be heavily subsidized if the BIL and IRA remain
in place, which likely serves as an impediment to actually reducing the cost of the battery. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1561-A1, p. 7]
31 See CANADA ENERGY REGULATOR, Market Snapshot: Critical Minerals are Key to the Global
Transition (Jan. 18, 2023), available here.
32 Proposed Rule at 25,930.
Organization: National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB)
NFIB requests that EPA withdraw the proposed rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1472-A1,
p. 1]
First, EPA should bear in mind that its continual turning of the regulatory screw on truck and
truck engine manufacturers, with tighter and tighter GHG emissions standards, imposes
substantial and growing costs not only on the manufacturers, sellers, and purchasers of trucks,
but on the American economy as a whole. EPA's GHG emissions regulations, including the
proposed Phase 3, make trucks more expensive to produce, more expensive for dealers to buy
from manufacturers, and more expensive for trucking companies and independent owner-
operators to buy from dealers. The trucking companies and independent owner-operators must
then, in turn, charge more to the customers who hire them to move freight. Recalling that
10,930,000,000 tons of freight, representing 72.2% of total domestic freight tonnage, moves
annually by truck in America,2 it is clear that EPA's GHG Phase 3 regulations will cost
American businesses, including small and independent businesses,3 and consumers a
fortune. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1472-A1, p. 1]
2 American Trucking Associations, Economics and Industry Data, available at
https://www.trucking.org/economics-and-industry-data (data for 2021) (visited May 10, 2023).
3 EPA stated with respect to small businesses: 'EPA is proposing to make no changes to (i.e., maintain the
existing) MY 2027 and later GHG vehicle emission standards for any heavy-duty manufacturers that meet
the 'small business' size criteria set by the Small Business Administration. In other words, these
manufacturers would not be subject to the proposed revised MY 2027 and new MYs 2028 through 2032
and later HD vehicle C02 emission standards but would remain subject to the HD vehicle C02 emission
447
-------
standards previous [sic] set in HD GHG Phase 2' (citations omitted). 88 Fed. Reg. at 26008, col. 1. While
NFIB appreciates this crumb of freedom that has fallen from EPA's table, it will not benefit most small and
independent businesses. And it would not protect any small and independent businesses from the loss of
profits and jobs due to shipping inflation caused by the proposed rule.
Secondly, EPA failed to conduct a comprehensive benefit-cost analysis to determine whether
the benefit of its proposed GHG Phase 111 regulations outweighs the damage the regulations
inflict on the American economy. EPA says: 'EPA's consistent practice has been to set standards
to achieve improved air quality consistent with CAA [Clean Air Act] section 202, and not to rely
on cost-benefit calculations, with their uncertainties and limitations, in identifying the
appropriate standards.'4 EPA's blithe dismissal of the importance of weighing the costs and
benefits of its proposed regulation runs flatly contrary to Presidential directives. Executive Order
12866 states that (1) 'In deciding whether and how to regulate, agencies should assess all costs
and benefits of available regulatory alternatives, including the alternative of not regulating'5 and
(2) 'Each agency shall assess both the costs and the benefits of the intended regulation and,
recognizing that some costs and benefits are difficult to quantify, propose or adopt a regulation
only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs.'6
EPA admits that it has not conducted the required benefit-cost analysis, without which it cannot
have reached a reasoned determination that the benefits of the proposed GHG Phase 3
regulations justify its cost. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1472-A1, p. 2]
4 88 Fed. Reg. at 25935, col. 1. EPA's compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq., also is in question, as EPA did not consider the effect of shipping inflation caused by the proposed
rule that all small businesses (like other businesses) would face. See 88 Fed. Reg. at 26097, col. 2.
5 Section 1(a) of Executive Order 12866, 'Regulatory Planning and Review,' as amended, 5 U.S.C. 601
note. Note that Executive Order 14037, 'Strengthening American Leadership in Clean Cars and Trucks,' 42
U.S.C. 7521 note, calling for EPA to consider the proposed regulation, did not override the requirements of
Executive Order 12866.
6 Section 1(b)(6) of Executive Order 12866. Also, section 202 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7521)
contains no provision prohibiting consideration of costs, and section 202(a)(2) of the Act (42 U.S.C.
7521(a)(2) explicitly calls for the EPA Administrator to make effective the regulations on emissions of new
trucks and engines 'after such period as the Administrator finds necessary to permit the development and
application of the requisite technology, giving appropriate consideration to the cost of compliance within
such period.' Thus, section 202 of the Clean Air Act clearly allows EPA to follow the Presidential
directives in Executive Order 12866 to analyze and weigh benefits and costs.
Finally, EPA has not properly assessed the practical impact of its proposed regulation. As
ABF Freight System, Inc., told EPA about the proposed regulation: It picks winners and losers
for emissions technology and sets a de facto mandate on the adoption of electric vehicle
technology that is at an early stage of development in the trucking industry. Currently there is
very limited quantities for battery electric trucks on the road today and hydrogen fuel cell trucks
are an even smaller number.7 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1472-A1, p. 2]
7 EPA Comment I.D. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1442.
ABF also stated, with respect to the six electric trucks currently in its fleet: Our experience
with these EVs [electric vehicles] is that our range and usable application is greatly diminished
in comparison with clean diesel technology. In addition, all locations have experienced both
financial and physical constraints regarding supporting infrastructure. 8 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1472-A1, pp. 2-3]
448
-------
8 EPA Comment l.D. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1442.
The American Truck Dealers Division of the National Automobile Dealers Association
(ATDD/NADA) told9 EPA that alternative-fueled trucks, including those powered by plug-in
electrics and hybrids, hydrogen and hydrogen fuel cells, and natural gas, 'are too costly for most
customers and unsuitable for most applications' and that '[i]n addition to price, the greater
obstacles to adoption are range and weight.' The ATDD/NADA also noted that a Class 8 truck
(gross vehicle weight rating in excess of 33,000 pounds) compared unfavorably across a range of
factors to an equivalent diesel-fueled truck: (1) range of 150 miles without refueling compared to
1,000 to 1,500 miles for the diesel-fueled truck, (2) servicing costs double the cost of servicing
the diesel-fueled truck, and (3) purchase price of nearly $500,000 compared to $180,000 for the
diesel-fueled truck. The ATDD/NADA summed up the case: 'Trucking is a for-profit business,
and commercial viability is crucial for acceptance.' EPA's proposed rule fails the commercial
viability test. And EPA should remain ever mindful that profits are essential to the generation of
jobs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1472-A1, p. 3]
9 Testimony by the American Truck Dealers Division of National Automobile Dealers Association before
the Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC (May 3, 2023). EPA Comment l.D. EPA-HQ-
OAR-20220985-1445.
The administrative record in this proposed rulemaking makes clear that EPA's proposed rule
would force the American transportation industry to use trucks that are nearly three times as
expensive as current trucks, with ten percent of the range, double the servicing costs, and little
supporting infrastructure to plug into for electric refueling. EPA's rule would force substantial
new costs on the trucking industry and thereby damage the economic viability of trucking
companies, shippers, and consumers. While EPA can ignore the higher costs it imposes on truck-
shipped goods, American families who pay for those goods cannot. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1472-A1, p. 3]
Organization: Valero Energy Corporation
D. EPA fails to adequately consider economic impacts of the proposed rule.
EPA has not prepared a comprehensive costs model with respect to its proposal. Without
doing so, EPA cannot adequately consider alternatives that emphasize affordability alongside
emissions reductions. EPA's analysis also fails to convey the consequences and difficulties
associated with the major technology transformation required under the rule. For example,
EPA should quantify risks and potential impacts to American stakeholders. This includes
accurately disclosing the total costs of compliance and quantifying impacts to America's job
market. Without doing so, EPA's analysis of the proposed rule is inconsistent and
incomplete. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, pp. 35 - 36]
1. EPA's consideration of program costs is limited to HDV manufacturers and purchasers.
Section 3 of the DRIA represents the costs that EPA estimates "would be incurred by
manufacturers and purchasers of HD vehicles impacted by the proposed standards. We also
present the social costs of the proposed standards."175 EPA has not quantified the following
program costs:
449
-------
• Costs to utilities for upgrades of local electrical distribution systems to accommodate
increased PEV charging, despite EPA's expectation that "distribution system upgrades
may be borne by utilities rather than directly incurred by BEV or fleet owners." 176
• Costs to utilities for actively managing charging behavior to mitigate potential risks to the
electrical grid; 177
• Costs to ratepayers, especially economically-disadvantaged communities, who lack the
flexibility to charge off-hours and may incur higher electricity costs;
• Costs to states and communities relating to road wear by heavier vehicles, which
especially for regional and long-haul heavy-duty vehicles, cannot be recouped via EV
registration fees;
• Lost state revenue due to loss of gas tax, which especially for regional and long-haul
heavy-duty vehicles, cannot be recouped via EV registration fees;
• Full impacts to fleet owners and independent operators, including:
o Loss of revenue and efficiency due to charging "dwell time;"
o Accounting for impacts to fleets operating in remote areas, where higher daily
VMT are needed;
o Accounting for impacts to fleets operating in areas with higher electricity rates;
o Loss of value in the secondary HDV market; and
o Costs associated with battery replacements; and
• Impacts to taxpayers footing the bill for BIL and IRA tax credits. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1566-A2, pp. 36 -37]
175 DRIA at 272
176 DRIA at 201
177 DRIA at 70
EPA claims it is required to consider the costs only to the motor vehicle industry to come into
compliance with the new emissions standards. That is incorrect, at least with regard to these rules
that transform the vehicle market and are designed to address social policy. The cases EPA relies
upon—Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association Inc. v. EPA, 627 F.2d 1095, 1118 (D.C.
Cir. 1979) and Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA, 684 F.3d 120, 128 (D.C. Cir.
2012)—are inapposite because they were not addressing "social cost" and were not creating
transformative changes to force a change from traditional combustion vehicles to ZEVs that
require wholly different manufacturing and fueling sources, consumer choices, and changes to
vehicle infrastructure. EPA must consider all the costs of compliance that are substantially
affected by its new standards, including costs on the manufacturers of the vehicles,
manufacturers of the batteries (including miners, refiners, and manufacturers of the battery
source materials) and other component parts of traditional combustion engines, manufacturers
and sellers of the fuels (whether electric or liquid fuels), consumers who must change their types
of vehicles and fuels, and any others who will be substantially impacted by these new
mandates. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 37]
G. EPA fails to adequately consider the environmental justice impacts of the proposed rule.
EPA's assessment of environmental justice (EJ) in the proposed rulemaking is inappropriately
limited to tailpipe emissions. Other lifecycle emissions like power generation and proximity to
battery production and recycling facilities lack an equivalent EJ analysis. EPA implicitly defends
450
-------
this decision in its rulemaking analysis by estimating that that "[t]he [electricity generating unit]
EGU impacts decrease over time because of projected changes in the power generation mix."
Additionally, EPA's EJ analysis fails to address impacts to electricity rates when utilities seek to
pass costs incurred under the proposal onto consumers and/or balance load requirements during
peak hours. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, pp. 47 - 48.]
For these reasons, the EJ analysis in the proposal is incomplete per EPA's own EJ assessment
criteria. Specifically, when assessing the potential for disproportionately high and adverse health
or environmental impacts of regulatory actions on minority populations, low-income
populations, tribes, and/or indigenous peoples, EPA should answer three broad question
1. Is there evidence of potential EJ concerns in the baseline (the state of the world absent the
regulatory action)?
2. Is there evidence of potential EJ concerns for the regulatory option(s) under consideration?
3. Do the regulatory option(s) under consideration exacerbate or mitigate EJ concerns relative
to the baseline?
EPA fails to perform this full assessment for its proposal. Consequently, EPA ignores EJ
concerns both inherent to the baseline and exacerbated by the proposal. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1566-A2, p. 48.]
Moreover, EPA's proposed rule exposes EJ communities to greater direct emissions
associated with increased local electricity generation. This is because EPA's proposal
disassociates and discounts environmental attributes from emissions-intensive electricity
generation. Supporting electricity generation is predominantly located in more remote, rural
regions that are geographically isolated from urban centers. EPA ignores the fact that increased
electrical demand, such as demand from electric vehicles, will be satisfied by increasing ready,
local, and on-demand power generation in response to demand spikes, and thus increased
emissions associated with the same. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 48.]
Further, EPA has previously acknowledged the environmental impacts of electricity delivery,
but has failed to mention them in its analysis. These impacts include: line loss ("the longer the
distance the electricity must travel from generation to consumer, the larger the line loss"); the
loss of trees and other plants near power lines to keep vegetation from touching the wires; the
placement of powerlines and their access roads in undeveloped areas, which "can disturb forests,
wetlands, and other natural areas"; and sulfur hexafluoride ("[m]any high-voltage circuit
breakers, switches, and other pieces of equipment used in the transmission and distribution
system are insulated with sulfur hexafluoride, which is a potent greenhouse gas. This gas can
leak into the atmosphere from aging equipment or during maintenance and servicing.") The
environmental impacts of electricity delivery should be disclosed in the proposed rulemaking and
further evaluated as related to EJ concerns. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 48.]
By incentivizing electricity generation through an unsynchronized deployment of HD ZEVs,
EPA's proposal directly impacts EJ communities by contributing to additional, local emissions to
meet HD electric vehicle charging demand. Consequently, EJ communities might incur an
incremental burden in exchange for the subsidization of HD ZEVs for commercial trucking
companies. And EPA's EV policy occurs at expense of our most vulnerable communities
451
-------
burdened by emissions as a direct result of the proposal, with no corresponding benefit. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, pp. 48 - 49.]
Similarly, EPA overlooks the EJ impacts of increased production, recycling, and disposal
associated with lithium-ion batteries. On May 24, 2023, EPA issued a memo clarifying that used
vehicle batteries are to be regulated under EPA's Universal Waste standards and are subject to
RCRA requirements for recycling.231 As EPA maintains, hazardous waste management
facilities are disproportionately located near EJ communities. Yet EPA has not considered the
volume of hazardous waste that will be generated under the proposed rule, nor has it identified
the location of facilities currently permitted to handle these materials, much less performed a
siting analysis to identify the locations of facilities most likely to be expanded to handle the
increased volume of battery waste, a necessary precursor to analyzing likely impacts on
overburdened communities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 49.]
231 https://insideepa.eom/sites/insideepa.com/files/documents/2023/jun/epa2023_1003 .pdf
EPA's EJ analysis must be thorough and inclusive of factors that may impact the price of
freight goods, such as HD ZEV affordability, the availability of public and depot charging as
well as refueling infrastructure, reasonable charging practices, and a lifecycle analysis of electric
vehicles and power generation emissions. Without doing so, EPA runs the risk of intensifying
price disparities relative to the baseline for EJ communities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-
A2, p. 49.]
Executive Order (EO) 12898 establishes federal executive policy on EJ. It directs federal
agencies, "to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law," to make "achieving
environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate,
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on communities with environmental justice concerns in the United
States."232 If EJ is truly a commitment for EPA, it should carefully consider criticisms like
those leveled by The Two Hundred for Housing Equity, who point out the disproportionate
impacts to working and minority communities as a result of both California's and EPA's climate
approach regarding electrified transport; those impacts and concerns remain true, and indeed are
magnified under the proposed HD rule.233 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 49.]
232 59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994.
233 See, e.g., Brief of Amicus Curiae, The Two Hundred for Housing Equity in State of Texas et al. v.
EPA, Case No. 22-1031, D.C. Circuit.
Accordingly, EPA should provide for a transparent and reasoned impact analysis. The Agency
falls short in communicating challenges associated with electrified HD transport with the
absence of any substantive EJ assessment regarding its proposal. EJ stakeholders should have an
opportunity to evaluate the data, costs, and assumptions underlying the proposal and any
alternative analysis before EPA finalizes its proposed rulemaking. It is critical from the outset to
minimize the potential for price shocks and supply disruptions. As written, EPA's proposal is not
fit for the purposes of EJ communities. At minimum, EPA should perform a thorough EJ
assessment specific to its HD proposal that is comprehensive of both transport challenges and
impacts faced by EJ stakeholders and the government-wide Justice40 Initiative.234 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 49.]
234 https://www.whitehouse.gov/environmentaljustice/justice40/.
452
-------
Summary and Response:
Summary:
Clean Fuels Development Corp. submitted comments regarding which costs to consider and
methodology for doing so.
Response:
Regarding CFDC stating that EPA failed to consider the costs to build new factories capable
of manufacturing heavy-duty electric and fuel cell vehicles, see discussion of RPE in RIA
Chapter 3 and RTC section 12.1. Regarding the cost to build DC fast-charging stations across the
country, EPA has fully assessed this cost under the modeled potential compliance pathway
supporting the feasibility of the final standards. See preamble Section II.D.2.iii and II.E.5 and
RTC sections 6 and 7. Regarding the cost of new electric infrastructure, including generation,
transmission, distribution, and transformers, EPA has fully assessed these costs under the
modeled potential compliance pathway supporting the feasibility of the final standards. See RTC
sections 6 and 7, including the discussion of the Multi-State Transportation Electrification
Impact Study. Regarding costs for maintenance on BEV and FCEV heavy-duty vehicles, EPA
has fully assessed these costs under the modeled potential compliance pathway supporting the
feasibility of the final standards. See RIA Chapter 2.4.4.1. Regarding battery replacement costs,
see RIA Chapter 2.4.1.1.4 addressing issues of battery deterioration in our final HD TRUCS
analysis. See also RIA Chapter 3.4.7.6 addressing operating costs associated with battery
replacement and ICE engine rebuilding in the final rule program costs analysis. Regarding
battery recycling or disposal costs, see RTC sections 4.7 and 17.1 responding to comments
relating to battery recycling and disposal. Regarding increased road and tire wear because of
increased vehicle weight, and associated disbenefits and environmental justice impacts from the
resulting higher particulate matter emissions, see RTC section 4.6 and 13 and RIA Chapter 4.1
(discussion of accounting for tire wear in emission inventories) and 4.2.4.2 (particulate matter
inventory). Note that commenters Delek and Valero made the identical comment, and our
response to their comments are therefore the same. Regarding increased insurance costs, see RIA
Chapter 2.8.8.3 accounting for insurance costs under the modeled potential compliance pathway
supporting the feasibility of the final standards. Regarding loss of jobs in the American
automotive industry and other related industries, see RTC section 19 discussing issues relating to
employment impacts.
Summary:
CFDC further maintains that EPA "attempts] to hide the costs of the rule by spreading them
across multiple classes of truck buyers. The proposal does not conduct a marginal cost analysis
of the rule across each sub-category of vehicles but instead uses averaging, exceeding the
agency's statutory authority as discussed above, to blend these costs together and thus hide the
infeasibility of electrifying larger and heavier classes of vehicles."
Response:
The commenter is mistaken. Both at proposal and in the final rule preamble and RIA, EPA
has presented manufacturer costs and purchaser costs by regulatory group (light heavy-duty
vocational vehicles, medium heavy-duty vocational vehicles, heavy heavy-duty vocational
vehicles, day cab tractors, and sleeper tractors) for clarity and digestibility. See, e.g., RIA
Chapter 2.10. From many stakeholders, including the regulated entities' (manufacturers')
453
-------
perspective, understanding the costs of the standards at this grouping is informative.
Additionally, we have clarified in the final rule that while the vocational vehicle costs are
presented in some tables at the regulatory group level (e.g., LHDV), if they were instead
presented at the regulatory subcategory level (e.g. CI LHDV MP, CI, LHDV R, and CI LHDV
U) the costs for each regulatory subcategory would be the same as the respective regulatory
group costs. We also note that these groupings are less aggregated than the averaging set level.
See 40 CFR 1037.740. Importantly, to determine the costs presented in these groupings, both at
proposal and in the final rule preamble and RIA, EPA both examined and presented the
manufacturer and purchaser costs of the final standards (including relevant aspects of those costs
like DMC, RPE, operating costs, and infrastructure costs and tax credits as applicable) for each
of the 101 vehicle types in HD TRUCS. Furthermore, each vehicle ID for each vehicle type
clearly identifies the vehicle's regulatory subcategory through indication of class and intended
vehicle duty cycle, and each regulatory group is also presented for each of the 101 vehicle types.
See DRIA Chapters 2.3.2, 2.4.3.4, 2.5.2, 2.8.2; RIA Chapters 2.3.2.1, 2.4.3.4, 2.5.2, 2.9.2, 2.9.3,
2.10.6.1. Thus, EPA's cost estimates were thoroughly explained and transparently presented (and
even more transparently presented than commenter advocated for, including from the purchaser's
perspective, given presentation by vehicle type), and were not "blended" to hide costs of larger
and heavier classes of vehicles. EPA in fact included in those tables all the results of our HD
TRUCS analysis for transparency, including even cost estimates for those vehicle types that EPA
did not include in the technology packages for the modeled potential compliance pathway based
on consideration of relevant factors like payback. Also, EPA's analysis does in fact find that
certain categories of heavier vehicles are in fact more difficult and costly to electrify, and we
have established the standards accordingly, for example, by providing greater lead-time for some
regulatory groups (e.g., HHD and sleeper cabs) and by considering the availability of FCEV in
addition to BEV technologies for certain applications.
Summary:
Daimler Truck North America LLC (DTNA) states that the EPA underestimated incremental
costs for ZEVs. DTNA would like EPA to revisit cost assumptions as the market develops.
Response:
EPA's costs analysis has been updated from proposal as explained in RIA Chapter 2 and RTC
Sections 2.4 and 3. DTNA's cost estimates are for BEV vehicle prices in 2023, which mirror
current vehicles and not vehicles during the timeframe of the Phase 3 standards reflecting
increased learning and higher production levels. EPA is committing to monitor the industry's
compliance with the standards, their development of new technologies including ZEVs, the
growth and barriers associated with public & depot charging infrastructure, and the development
of the hydrogen fueling infrastructure leading up to and through the early years of Phase 3. We
will be issuing annual reports of what we find.
Summary:
Delek states that present costs to purchasers of BEVs are higher than for a comparable ICE
vehicle, and questions EPA's findings relating to payback or other predictions of price parity.
The commenter also notes that there are associated charging costs which must be considered.
Delek also maintains that EPA has failed to account for critical mineral price volatility.
454
-------
Response:
We note that Delek's comment is short of specifics. In the proposed rule, EPA provided
detailed cost analysis in DRIA Chapters 2 and 3. As explained in RIA Chapter 2 and RTC
Sections 2.4 and 3, EPA's costs analysis has been updated from proposal and EPA's payback
analysis is found at RIA Chapter 2.9.2 and reflects both the back-of-the-meter (EVSE purchase
and installation) and front-of-meter (distributive grid buildout) costs. See RIA Chapter 2.8.7 and
RTC section 7 (Distribution). Moreover, the commenter focuses on current BEV vehicle prices,
which reflect current vehicles and not vehicles during the timeframe of the Phase 3 standards
reflecting increased learning and higher production levels. See also the comment from DTNA
excerpted above stating that incremental costs of HD BEV production will fall over time. See
Preamble section II.D.2.ii and RTC section 17.2 where issues relating to price volatility of
critical minerals are addressed in detail.
Summary:
Valero states that EPA failed to consider the following costs at proposal, and that EPA should
take these costs into account in promulgating Phase 3 standards:
• Costs to utilities for upgrades of local electrical distribution systems to accommodate
increased PEV charging, despite EPA's expectation that "distribution system upgrades
may be borne by utilities rather than directly incurred by BEV or fleet owners."
• Costs to utilities for actively managing charging behavior to mitigate potential risks to the
electrical grid;
• Costs to ratepayers, especially economically-disadvantaged communities, who lack the
flexibility to charge off-hours and may incur higher electricity costs;
• Lost state revenue due to loss of gas tax, which especially for regional and long-haul
heavy-duty vehicles, cannot be recouped via EV registration fees;
• Full impacts to fleet owners and independent operators, including:
o Loss of revenue and efficiency due to charging "dwell time;"
o Accounting for impacts to fleets operating in remote areas, where higher daily
VMT are needed
o Accounting for impacts to fleets operating in areas with higher electricity rates;
o Loss of value in the secondary HDV market;
o Costs associated with battery replacements;
Impacts to taxpayers footing the bill for BIL and IRA tax credits.
Response:
Regarding the first bullet of the comment summary, EPA has considered the costs to utilities
of distributive grid buildout with respect to both depot and public charging as part of its cost
analysis for the final rule. See Preamble section II.D.2.ii.c and RTC section 7 (Distribution).
Regarding the second bullet in the comment summary, this comment does not articulate with
reasonable specificity the risks the commenter is concerned about. See preamble Section II and
RTC section 7 discussion of EPA's thorough analysis regarding the grid. As we note in section 7,
we find that managed charging can significantly reduce the costs of charging BEVs, provide
services back to the grid, and potentially generate revenue for fleets, relative to not implementing
managed charging. As such, further deployment of managed charging practices would likely
create additional savings, as opposed to additional costs, for fleets, as well as for society.
455
-------
Regarding the third bullet of the comment summary, EPA considers the costs to BEV
purchasers, including those associated with distributive grid buildout as part of the cost of
charging. See RIA Chapter 2.4.4.2. That analysis includes differential rates depending on
whether depot charging or en route charging is involved. See also RTC Sections 6 and 7.
Regarding the fourth bullet in the comment summary, we acknowledge the comment and note
that we have been fully transparent in showing associated fuel reductions. See RIA Chapter 3. In
addition, EPA does not regard state tax revenues as social costs because they are transfers.
Regarding the fifth bullet in the comment summary:
• The issue of depot dwell time, and how it can be accommodated to fit commercial
schedules, is addressed fully at RIA Chapter 2.6.2.1.4.
• We have taken into account in the HD TRUCS analysis availability of ICE vehicles to
accommodate extreme conditions such as those posited in this comment. Our modeled
potential compliance pathway includes ICEVs in the technology packages, in all of the
regulatory subcategories, for such purposes.
• See earlier portion of this response concerning EPA's methodology for assessing cost of
electricity.
• As noted in RTC section 3.8.1, there is a dearth of experience on resale value of HD
BEVs. However, for the final rule, we conducted a supplemental TCO analysis that
includes the impact of residual value as a proxy for resale value. The results from our
TCO analysis (RIA Chapter 2.12) show that the costs for owning and operating a ZEV
will be lower than a comparable ICE vehicle for all MY 2032 BEVs and FCEVs in our
technology packages to support the modeled compliance pathway when evaluated over a
five-year time horizon including the impact of residual value. Moreover, we note that our
payback analysis does not assume resale value; that is, we find that vehicles pay back
regardless of what the resale value is, including if the resale value were hypothetically to
be zero.
• See RIA Chapter 2.4.1.1.4 for our analysis of issues associated with battery deterioration
and RIA Chapter 3 regarding inclusion in our program cost analysis.
Regarding the sixth bullet in the comment summary, all of our assumptions regarding
utilization of incentives under the IRA are transparent and reasonable. See RTC Section 2.7;
preamble Sections II.E.2 and II.E.4; and RIA Chapters 2.4.3.1, 2.4.3.5, and 2.6.2.1. Regarding
that these are a 'cost' to tax payers, our approach of reducing the cost for vehicle purchasers is
proper because these costs are meant to estimate the costs purchasers will incur upon purchasing
a new vehicle. Therefore, those tax credits should be included, i.e., they should reduce the price
paid by the purchaser. As we did in the NPRM, we have omitted the tax credits and taxes in our
calculation of costs to society (see Section IV.E of the preamble) as these are transfers from
taxpayers to purchasers and we present those transfers for full transparency in Section VIII.B of
the preamble. Moreover, Congress, not EPA, made the decision to enact the IRA. (Note that
commenter Delek submitted a virtually identical comment, and the response is the same.)
Summary:
Valero disputes that EPA is required to consider the costs only to the motor vehicle industry
to come into compliance with the new emissions standards. Valero states that EPA's approach is
456
-------
incorrect, at least with regard to these rules that transform the vehicle market and are designed to
address social policy.
Response:
As the commenter admits, EPA's stated position is consistent with applicable law. See e.g.,
Coalition for Responsible Regulation, 684 F. 3d at 128. Valero seeks to distinguish these cases
on the grounds that they did not consider 'social costs' and were not considering rules which
create "transformational changes". There is no language in the opinions to support these
statements. Nor is the Phase 3 rule transformational or undertaking a different approach under
our same CAA section 202(a)(l)-(2) authority to setting standards than previous HD standards
rulemaking. See preamble Section I and II and RTC section 2.1, noting among other things that
costs to manufacturers and emission reductions associated with the Phase 3 rule are generally
similar to or smaller than those of the past CAA section 202(a)(l)-(2) standards addressing GHG
emissions. Indeed, the emission reductions associated with the Phase 3 rule are essentially
identical to those in the rule upheld by the D.C. Circuit in Coalition for Responsible Regulation.
684 F. 3d at 128. Finally, EPA notes that we did not limit our costs considerations to only costs
of compliance. Consistent with our prior HD GHG rules, EPA also considered costs to
purchasers. EPA also performed a broader analysis of the impacts of the rulemaking, including
net benefits to society, as reflected in preamble Sections VII-VIII.
Summary and Response:
Valero also raises a number of issues concerning EPA's Environmental Justice analysis.
These comments are addressed in RTC section 18.
Summary:
NFIB indicates that the proposed rule would have significant impacts on small businesses
notwithstanding that such businesses are not directly regulated under the rule. They also
incorrectly state that EPA did not conduct a benefit-cost analysis for the rule. They point to
testimony from public hearings regarding the limited range of current HDV ZEVs, challenges
associated with infrastructure, and higher purchase prices for current technologies.
Response:
See RIA Chapter 9 for our assessment of small business impacts, and Section 26 of this RTC
for our response to other commenters indicating EPA should consider the impacts of businesses
not directly regulated under the rule. NFIB's series of comments relating to EPA's cost benefit
analysis are without merit, as explained in the responses in RTC section 23. EPA conducted a
benefits-cost analysis for both the proposed and final rule, as discussed in preamble Section VIII.
In both cases, the net benefits of the proposed rule and final rule exceed the costs. For the final
rule, after considering comments, EPA made a number of updates to our technical analyses that
support the final standards, as described in preamble Section II and RIA Chapter 2. These
updates include upfront technology costs, operating costs, an updated evaluation of infrastructure
development and a commitment to monitor infrastructure after the rulemaking. The commenter
also says that the proposed rule was a mandate, picking winners and losers. Neither the proposal
nor the final rule mandates any specific compliance pathway. The standards are performance
based, and manufacturers may choose any compliance strategy that meets the standards,
including without producing additional ZEVs to comply with this rule. See, e.g., RTC section
2.1 and preamble section II.F.4. The commenter also notes that one of its member companies
457
-------
has had disappointing experiences with current BEVs due to limited range. Our analysis
includes consideration of and addresses issues of range such that operational functionality is not
impeded under the modeled potential compliance pathway. See generally RIA Chapter 2.4.1 and
2.9.1.3.
2.7 Accounting for federal and state measures
Comments by Organizations
Organization: American Free Enterprise Chamber of Commerce (AmFree) et al.
Moreover, as explained above, EPA has not provided any basis for its assumption that
manufacturers will be able to take full advantage of the IRA's Section 13502 tax credit within
the compliance period to reduce their direct manufacturing costs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1660-A1, pp. 53 - 54]
Organization: American Trucking Associations (ATA)
Higher cost for transportation
As noted above, the IRA provides a commercial clean vehicle tax credit of up to $40,000 per
vehicle through 2032 to offset the higher incremental cost of commercial ZEVs. In addition, an
alternative fuel refueling property tax credit of up to $100,000 is available for projects located in
low-income or rural census tracts. While the availability of these tax credits helps offset a portion
of the vehicle and infrastructure expense, ensuring the credits are structured for fleet use will
help incentivize higher utilization rates. Currently, the IRA credit covers less than the $48,000 in
federal excise tax when fleets purchase a $400,000 BEV day cab. Also, the Alternative Fuel
Refueling Infrastructure Tax Credit has limiting factors where fleets will be unable to qualify due
to their depot locations or tax liability. These additional costs must be passed on to consumers
for businesses to stay profitable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1535-A1, p. 14]
Organization: Arizona State Legislature
EPA's analysis includes a tax credit from the Inflation Reduction Act to those who purchase
or lease a qualifying vehicle. 88 Fed. Reg. 25,945. EPA calculates 'the purchaser's incremental
cost of [battery electric vehicles] and [fuel-cell electric vehicles] compared to [internal
combustion engine] vehicles and not the full cost of vehicles in our analysis.' Id. EPA projects
'that the impact of the IRA vehicle tax credit will be significant.' Id. at 25,946. EPA believes that
the Inflation Reduction Act provisions 'reduce or eliminate the cost difference between [internal
combustion engine] vehicles and [zero-emission vehicles].' Id. at 25,954. EPA relies on this
analysis to conclude that it expects the Inflation Reduction Act 'will incentivize the demand and
purchaser acceptance for [heavy-duty zero-emission vehicles].' Id. at 25,998. EPA calculates that
the proposed rule will save $1.4 billion in vehicle costs. Id. at 26,082. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1621-A1, p. 22]
EPA's analysis already has proven inaccurate. Contrary to EPA's assumptions, the price for
electric vehicles has not remained static with the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act. Instead,
days before passage of the Inflation Reduction Act, 'Ford and General Motors announced price
458
-------
increases at similar rates' as the Act's tax credits. 17 Inflation and supply-chain issues have
caused electric car prices to 'surge' and mean fewer buyers can use the Inflation Reduction Act
tax credits. 18 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1621-A1, p. 22]
17 Ryan King, Inflation Reduction Act promises $7,500 electric vehicle credits after Ford and GM raised
prices, WASHINGTON EXAMINER, Aug. 16, 2022, available at
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/democratsextended-credits-evs-ford-gm-prices.
18 Keith Laing, Electric Cars' Surging Prices Mean Fewer Buyers Can Use Tax Credit, BLOOMBERG,
Aug. 4, 2022, available at https://www.bloomberg.eom/news/articles/2022-08-04/electric-cars-rising-
prices-mean-fewer-buyerseligible-for-senate-tax-credit.
Vehicles also have been eliminated from receiving the full tax credit. Ford and Chrysler
parent Stellantis reported in April that 'most of its electric and plug-in electric hybrid models
will see tax credits halved to $3,750 on April 18 after new U.S. Treasury rules take effect.' 19 In
fact, just 11 electric cars from four automakers qualify for the full tax credit.20 And this limited
availability comes before any changes made in response to Senator Joe Manchin, the critical vote
to passing the Inflation Reduction Act, who threatened to repeal the bill or sue the Treasury
Department because the tax credit standards are too liberal.21 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1621-
Al, p. 22]
19 David Shepardson and Nathan Gomes, Ford, Stellantis says new rules will cut EV tax credits for most
models, REUTERS, Apr. 5, 2023, available at https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/ford-
confirms-all-threeevs-plug-in-hybrids-eligible-ira-subsidies-2023-04-05/.
20 Lawrence Ulrich, Electric Vehicle Tax Credit Rules Create 'Chaos for Consumers,' The New York
Times, Apr. 20, 2023, available at https://www.nytimes.eom/2023/04/20/business/electric-vehicle-tax-
credits-consumers.html.
21 Ramsey Touchberry, Sen. Manchin threatens to repeal his own climate law if Biden continues to
'liberalize' it, WASHINGTON TIMES, Apr. 25, 2023, available at
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/apr/25/sen-joemanchin-threatens-repeal-his-own-climate-l/;
David Shepardson, Manchin threatens to sue US Treasury over EV tax credit rules, REUTERS, Mar. 30,
2023, available at https://www.reuters.com/world/us/democratic-sen-manchinthreatens-legal-action-over-
treasury-ev-battery-guidance-2023 -03-29/.
EPA also does not grapple with the economic reality that the Inflation Reduction Act's 'net
impact is likely to be negative on electric vehicle sales in the immediate future.'22 Other
economic analysis concluded the strings attached to the Inflation Reduction Act tax credits 'are
likely to make [electric vehicles] even more expensive.'23 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1621-A1,
p. 23]
22 Anderson Economic Group, 'An estimated 3/4 of recent EV purchases would no longer qualify for tax
credits under the proposed 'Inflation Reduction Act',' Aug. 9, 2022, available at
https://www.andersoneconomicgroup.com/atleast-four-ira-provisions-will-negatively-affect-sales-of-
electric-vehicles/.
23 Tori Smith, 'Proposed Tax Credits Would Make Electric Vehicles More Expensive,' AMERICAN
ACTION FORUM, Aug. 4, 2022, available at https://www.americanactionforum.org/insight/proposed-tax-
credits-would-make-electricvehicles-more-expensive/.
This all significantly affects EPA's analysis. Vehicles that EPA's analysis includes as eligible
for the credit are now ineligible due to price increases or Treasury Department regulations. The
resulting higher prices for electric vehicles, and reduced amount and availability of subsidies,
will affect consumer demand. EPA's conclusions that there is no cost difference between gas-
459
-------
powered and electric-powered vehicles, and that there will be a corresponding increase in
purchaser demand, are thus erroneous. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1621-A1, p. 23]
Organization: BlueGreen Alliance (BGA)
At the same time, EPA must consider that the manufacturing investments from the Inflation
Reduction Act and Bipartisan Infrastructure Law will take time to achieve their full production
capacity. EPA should coordinate with DOE, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), and
the U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC) to ensure that the manufacturing investments from the
Inflation Reduction Act and Bipartisan Infrastructure Law will be fully leveraged to support
regulatory compliance. Programs like the Battery Manufacturing and Recycling Grants (DOE),
the Battery Material Processing Grants (DOE), the Domestic Manufacturing Conversion Grants
(DOE), the 48C Advanced Manufacturing Tax Credit (DOE/DOC), the Advanced Technology
Vehicle Manufacturing Loan Program (DOE), the Clean Heavy-Duty Vehicle Program (EPA),
the Clean School Bus Program (EPA), the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI)
Program (DOT), and the Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Grant Program (DOT) all
provide unprecedented federal resources that manufacturers and fleet owners can leverage to
support both supply and demand for low- and zero-emission heavy-duty vehicles. However,
these programs take time to bear fruit—whether that means a complete heavy-duty vehicle-
enabled EV charging network, or a robust supply chain for Buy America-compliant transit and
school buses. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1605-A1, pp. 6 - 7]
It is essential to workers and communities that these programs be carefully designed and
implemented, with robust stakeholder engagement. This helps ensure that they adhere to
Justice40 requirements as well as the new Build America, Buy America provisions that are
critical to ensuring that federal programs support domestic manufacturing investment. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1605-A1, p. 7]
With that, EPA must account for the time it takes to convert federal awards and allocations
into actual domestic production capacity and critical on-the-ground infrastructure. EPA should
coordinate with DOT and DOE to fully assess the availability of charging and fueling
infrastructure for heavy-duty vehicles, and related grants and loans. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1605-A1, p. 7]
Research from the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) suggests that 85%
of long haul trucking charging needs in 2030 would be met by zero emission fueling
infrastructure buildout of the National Highway Freight Network as designated by the Federal
Highways Administration—that is, the construction of medium- and heavy-duty fueling
infrastructure every 50 miles. Additionally, the energy needs assumed by a fully-electric medium
and heavy-duty fleet are not expected to be limited by power generation capacity in most areas
across the country. ICCT has identified priority counties representing the most highly
industrialized parts of the country, which will require significant and targeted investment to meet
energy demand and fueling infrastructure needs in the near term. 11 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1605-A1, p. 7]
11 International Council on Clean Transportation, Near term infrastructure deployment to support zero-
emission medium- and heavy-duty vehicles in the United States, May 2023. Available Online:
https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/infrastructure-deployment-mhdv-may23.pdf.
460
-------
Organization: Bradbury, Steven G.
(Text giving the following bullet points context: Some of the most consequential burdens and
negative ramifications of the proposed rules that EPA hides, disregards, or minimizes include
the following:)
• Putting the Highway Trust Fund at risk. The Highway Trust Fund, which covers a
large percentage of the costs of state and local highway improvements and
maintenance in the U.S., is currently funded through a gas tax. The gas tax is relatively
easy to administer because it is paid at the level of wholesale gasoline and diesel fuel
distribution by a small number of large distributors. If more than half of new vehicles
sold in the U.S. were EVs, as contemplated in the EPA's proposals, the gas-tax
revenues for the Fund would drop dramatically, and the solvency and utility of the
Fund would collapse. That would threaten the viability of the national highway system
and the capacity of states to maintain highways in good repair. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-2427-A2, p. 19]
If the Fund were to be retained in some form, it would require a new source of
revenue, such as a tax on all vehicle miles traveled, or VMT. The idea behind a VMT
tax is that it would equitably capture the VMT of EVs, just as well as ICE vehicles.
However, a VMT tax is likely to be more complicated and costly to administer than
the gas tax. There are significant questions about the design and administrability of a
VMT tax that would need to be worked out and proven—for example, through one or
more state-wide pilot programs—before implementation. Since EPA is proposing to
adopt rules that would cause a national shift to EVs, which in turn would undermine
the revenue basis for the Highway Trust Fund, EPA should recognize and consider as
part of these rulemakings the upfront costs and dislocations that would be involved in
transitioning to a new revenue basis for the Highway Trust Fund, as well as the
ongoing higher costs of administering such an alternative tax. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-2427-A2, p. 19]
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
The transportation sector remains the largest source of GHG emissions, both in the U.S. and
in California, with HDVs2 constituting an important source of transportation emissions.3 HDVs
contribute about eight percent of total California GHG emissions. Further, GHG emission
reductions from HDVs are needed to avoid the worst effects of climate change and warmer
temperature driven increases in ozone.4 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1591-A1, p. 11]
2 The HD V terminology based on weight class differs in federal and CARB regulations. In California,
vehicles with 8,501 to 14,000 pounds gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) are considered medium-duty
vehicles (MDV). Vehicles with greater than 14,000 pounds GVWR are considered HDVs. In these
comments, HDV is used to refer to vehicles greater than 14,000 pounds GVWR.
3 U.S. EPA's Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles—Phase 3, Proposed Rules,
88 Fed. Reg., April 27, 2023, page 25928. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2023-04-27/pdf/2023-
07955.pdf
4 U.S. EPA's How Climate Change May Impart Ozone Pollution and Public Health through the 21st
Century, February 15, 2022. https://www.epa.gov/sciencematters/how-climate-change-may-impact-ozone-
pollution-and-publichealth-through-
461
-------
21stcentury#:~:text=Higher%201evels%20of%20GHG%20emissions,other%20respiratory%20and%20card
iovascular%20conditions.
As a leader in climate action, California has ambitious goals to combat climate change:
• 40 percent below 1990 GHG emissions by 20305
• More aggressive target of 80 percent below 1990 emissions by 20506
• Decarbonization by 2045 with Governor Newsom ordered targets for a zero emission
(ZE) heavy-duty (HD) fleet by 2035 for drayage trucks and by 2045 for all HD
trucks7 [EPA-HQ-0AR-2022-0985-1591 - A 1, pp.11-12]
5 Executive Order B-30-15 signed by Governor Brown in 2015.
6 Executive Order S-3-05 signed by Governor Schwarzenegger in 2005.
7 Executive Order N-79-20 signed by Governor Newsom in 2020.
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has already taken several important steps to help
California reach these targets and to accelerate the use of HD zero-emission vehicles (ZEV),
including Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT) ZE sales requirements approved in June 20208 and
Advanced Clean Fleets (ACF) further driving fleet purchases and turnover to ZEVs approved in
April 2023.9 Eight stateslO have exercised their options under the Clean Air Act (CAA) to join
California HD programs with every fourth U.S. truck today registered in an ACT state. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1591-A1, p.12]
8 ACT regulation is part of a holistic approach to accelerate a large-scale transition of ZE MDVs and
HDVs from class 2b to class 8. The regulation has a manufacturer sales requirement and a reporting
requirement, https ://ww2. arb .ca. gov/our-work/programs/advanced-clean-trucks
9 ACF regulation is part of CARB's overall approach to accelerate a large-scale transition to ZE MDVs and
HDVs. This regulation works in conjunction with the ACT regulation, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-
work/programs/advanced-clean-fleets
10 Joined by eight (8) ACT-adopted states (MA, NJ, NY, OR, VT, WA, MD, and CO).
As discussed further in Part I. Sections A., C.I., G.I., and I.I., on April 28, 2023, CARB
approved the adoption of the ACF regulation, which accelerates the widespread adoption of
ZEVs in California's MD and HD truck sector beyond the ZEV adoption rates required by the
ACT regulation. CARB staff projects that the ACF regulation will significantly increase the
number of MD and HD ZEVs in California beyond the ZEV sales attributable to the ACT
regulation, by approximately 190,000 ZEVs in 2035, 450,000 ZEVs in 2045, and 640,000 ZEVs
in 2050,23 and determined that the technology needed to comply with the ACF requirements
sufficiently exists. More specifically, CARB staff found that ZEVs are currently available in
every weight class of trucks, and each weight class includes a wide range of vehicle
configurations. Staff also found that currently there are 148 models in North America where
manufacturers are accepting orders or pre-orders, and there are 135 models that are actively
being produced and are being delivered to customers.24 Moreover, the recent announcements by
manufacturers (described above) also support CARB staffs projections that there will be a
sufficient supply of ZEVs available for fleets to purchase. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1591-A1,
pp.15-16]
23 CARB, Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons, Public Hearing to Consider the Proposed Advanced
Clean Fleets Regulation (2022), Executive Summary, Section C. Staff Report available at:
https ://ww2 .arb. ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2022/acf22/isor2 .pdf
462
-------
24 Id. at Section I.F; see also Appendix J to the Staff Report (listing makes and models of commercially
available ZEVs); Appendix J available at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2022/acf22/appj.xlsm
Moreover, on August 16, 2022, President Joe Biden signed the IRA. This landmark piece of
federal legislation establishes several provisions which will reduce costs of MD and HD ZEVs
and will accelerate the ZEV market. Some of the most significant provisions include tax credits
of up to $40,000 per ZEV or 30 percent of each BEV charger, three billion dollars to convert the
United States Postal Service (USPS) fleet to ZE, up to $45/kilowatt hour (kWh) to produce
batteries in the U.S., $3 billion in grants and $20 billion in loans to support ZE manufacturing in
the U.S. These and other provisions will encourage significant investments in ZEV
manufacturing and accelerate ZEVs into the market. The fleet-focused provisions of the IRA will
decrease the TCO of ZEVs and lower the upfront acquisition costs for vehicles as well as the
associated infrastructure. Several studies have been recently released which discuss the positive
impact the IRA will have on the HD ZEV market.40,41,42,43 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1591-
Al, p.19]
40 Environmental Defense Fund, Inflation Reduction Act gives truck electrification a dose of adrenaline,
2022 (web link: https://blogs.edf.org/energyexchange/2022/09/12/inflation-reduction-act-gives-truck-
electrification-adose-of-adrenaline/ last accessed January 2023).
41 The International Council on Clean Transportation, Analysing the Impact of the Inflation Reduction Act
on Electric Vehicle Uptake in the United States, 2023 (web link: https://theicct.org/wp-
content/uploads/2023/01/ira-impact-evs-us-jan23.pdf last accessed February 2023).
42 Rocky Mountain Institute, The Inflation Reduction Act Will Help Electrify Heavy-Duty Trucking, 2022
(web link: https://rmi.org/inflation-reduction-act-will-help-electrify-heavy-duty-trucking/ last accessed
January 2023).
43 Roush, Inflation Reduction Act 2022 Impact Study, 2022 (web link:
https://blogs.edf.org/climate411/files/2022/09/2022-09-EDF-Rouch-IRA-MHD-Final-l.pdflast accessed
January 2023).
In summary, CARB staff has acquired information during its promulgation of the ACF
regulation that informed its determination that the projected costs of compliance of that
regulation, which requires rates of ZEV adoption exceeding those projected in response to the
Proposed Standards, are reasonable within the proposed time frame. That same information
supports the adoption of standards more stringent than U.S. EPA's preferred alternative and at
least as stringent as U.S. EPA's most stringent alternative. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1591-A1,
p. 19]
As CARB staff explains in greater detail throughout these comments, alternative standards
that reflect higher rates of ZEV adoption than the Proposed Standards are indisputably more
protective of the public health and welfare than the Proposed Standards and are therefore more
consistent with U.S. EPA's obligations to prescribe and revise emissions standards to address the
harms that GHGs and other pollutants present to the public health and welfare. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1591-A1, p.20]
Organization: California Air Resources Board et al.
This timing is critical to act strongly now because the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) and
the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) are bringing unprecedented levels of funding for infrastructure
463
-------
and vehicles over the next decade. The integrated magnitude of the commercial vehicle tax
credits in particular is dependent on purchaser choices to employ them—a situation where strong
immediate EPA leadership can materially increase the total financial sum at play and attract the
kinds of innovative business models and financial instruments making those increased benefits
accessible across the most fleets and end users. As noted in our March 2023 letter5, climate
change is an urgent problem demanding immediate action. With increasing examples of how
climate change is already harming human health and the environment, and progressively
sobering reports on how the harm will increase over time, additional actions are paramount if we
are to limit the most severe impacts - much of which will be disproportionately borne by those
least equipped to adapt. We are at a unique point in history—rapid technological innovation with
hundreds of US commercialized zero emission truck models currently available provides a
generational opportunity to catalyze the transition of the heavy-duty transportation sector to zero
emission vehicles. This is one of the most significant opportunities you will have as EPA's
Administrator to improve public health in the United States and abroad, delivering benefits for
generations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1594-A1, p. 1]
5 Submitted March 7, 2023.
Throughout the country, mobile sources and the fossil fuels that power them are the largest
contributors to the formation of ozone, greenhouse gas emissions, fine particulate matter
(PM2.5), and toxic diesel particulate matter. Without transforming the heavy-duty sector to zero
emission everywhere possible, we cannot fully protect communities, meet our greenhouse gas
reduction commitments, or achieve (or maintain) our health-based air quality standards. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1594-A1, p. 2]
The stage has been set for transforming the heavy-duty truck sector. To date, 17 states, the
District of Columbia and the Province of Quebec have entered into a Medium-and Heavy-Duty
(MHD) ZEV Memorandum of Understanding6 with the goal to make at least 30 percent of all
new MHD vehicle sales zero emissions by no later 2030. In July 2022, the signatories released a
Medium and Heavy-duty ZEV Action plan7 including policy options to foster a self-sustaining
market for zero-emission MHD vehicles with a focus on near-term strategies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1594-A1, p. 2]
6 https://www.nescaum.org/documents/multistate-truck-zev-mou-media-release-20200714.pdf
7 https://www.nescaum.org/documents/multi-state-medium-and-heavy-duty-zev-action-plan.pdf
As states who have adopted or are anticipating the adoption of ACT, we recognize the
importance and need for parallel progress as it relates to ZEV infrastructure readiness. While
infrastructure remains a real near-term challenge - it does not need to be a long-term barrier. A
recent ICCT study8 shows that infrastructure can scale for zero emission vehicles at a pace that
meets and exceeds a national ACT-aligned standard. Consistent with the MHD ZEV Action plan,
several programs are currently being administered by local and state agencies to catalyze the
deployment of zero-emission transportation technologies that include Make Ready investments,
point-of-sale ZEV truck purchase rebates9, and charging infrastructure incentives. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1594-A1, p. 2]
8 https://theicct.org/publication/tco-alt-powertrain-long-haul-trucks-us-apr23/
9 https://calstart.org/voucher-incentive-programs-2023/
464
-------
Organization: Clean Fuels Development Coalition et al.
And, as will be discussed later in this comment, the proposal's listed costs grossly
underestimate the rule's true costs. The proper metric is aggregate cost because the major-
questions doctrine asks about the rule's significance to the "national economy." West Virginia v.
EPA, 142 S. Ct. at 2609 (2022). These aggregate costs include: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1585-A1, p. 4]
Taxpayer subsidies: Taxpayers will inevitably subsidize the sales of electric vehicles,
charging infrastructure, roads, and the electricity generation, transmission, and distribution
required to power these vehicles. The proposal currently discounts these costs from the
rule, which is unreasonable. See 88 Fed. Reg. 26,039 ("neither the battery tax credit nor the
vehicle tax credit is included in the social costs analysis."). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1585-
Al,pp. 6-7]
G. The proposal's purchaser acceptance calculations are based on the availability of tax
credits that themselves require domestic manufacturing.
The proposal also repeatedly relies on the tax credits from the IRA to justify the proposed
rule. These tax credits are split into two types: 30D credits for "clean vehicles" and 45W credits
for "commercial clean vehicles." To qualify for the credit, the former contains a requirement for
critical minerals and battery components to be sourced domestically or in a country with which
the United States has a free trade agreement. Most—but not all—heavy-duty vehicles fall into
the latter category. The proposed rule ignores the effect of domestic sourcing requirements on
vehicles in the former category. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1585-A1, p. 29]
As amended by the IRA, the 30D tax credits require an increasing share of minerals to be
produced domestically and explicitly exclude vehicles whose components are minerals are
sourced from foreign entities of concern—any foreign entity that is "owned by, controlled by, or
subject to the jurisdiction or direction of a government of a covered nation (as defined in section
2533c(d) of title 10)"—currently China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran. 12 In its proposal, EPA
makes no mention of what fraction of minerals are mined domestically and glosses over the fact
that China is a key supplier of some 85% of the global stock of critical minerals (including rare
earths, copper, cobalt, etc.), Robert Bryce, The Electric-Vehicle Push Empowers China, Wall St.
J. (Dec. 23, 2021), and that almost no vehicles will be able to qualify for this credit in the near
future. And indeed, as of April 17, 2023, only 16 vehicles qualify for the light duty tax credit and
some only qualify for half of the tax credit because they only meet the critical mineral or battery
components standards. Hannah Northey, Biden's EV bet is a gamble on critical minerals, E&E
News (Apr. 18, 2023), https://www.eenews.net/articles/bidens-ev-bet-is-also-a-gamble-on-
criticalminerals/. This list will be further narrowed as the thresholds for domestic sourcing
increase and when the foreign entity of concern requirements take effect. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1585-A1, p. 29]
12 The Department of the Treasury and the IRS's proposed regulation interpreting these rules is unlawful.
Commentors here have submitted separate comments on that docket to that effect. See Comments of
American Free Enterprise Chamber of Commerce on "Section 30D New Clean Vehicle Credit," RIN 1545-
BQ52. For all of the reasons stated in that comment, most of this tax benefit will be largely unavailable
here.
465
-------
Neglecting that many vehicles will be excluded from these tax credits further undermines
EPA's assertions of feasibility. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1585-A1, p. 29]
Organization: Daimler Truck North America LLC (DTNA)
The timing of new standard implementation must be technologically feasible, giving
appropriate consideration to costs.
Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) Section 202 directs the Agency to prescribe vehicle emission
standards that take effect after the time period found by EPA to be 'necessary to permit the
development and application of the requisite technology, giving appropriate consideration to the
cost of compliance within such period.'3 As EPA notes in the Proposed Rule, emission standards
established under CAA Section 202(a) must be premised on a finding of technological
feasibility, and compliance costs are a key consideration.4 The 'cost of compliance'
considerations embedded in CAA Section 202(a) reflect Congress's desire to 'avoid undue
economic disruption in the automotive manufacturing industry' and the 'doubling or tripling the
cost of motor vehicles to purchasers' through the imposition of new emission standards in an
overly aggressive timeframe.5 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 8]
3 42 U.S.C.A. 7521(a)(2). As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has explained, where the
feasibility of EPA's vehicle emission standards depends upon future technological developments, the
Agency's predictions about such developments—including the pace at which they will occur—must be
reasonable. National Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. U.S. EPA, 655 F.2d 318, 331-32 (D.C. Cir. 1981)
('NRDC'). Reasonableness will be found where the Agency answers any 'theoretical objections' to the
technology in question, identifies the major steps necessary in the refinement of the technology, and offers
plausible reasons for believing that each of these steps can be completed in the time available. Id. at 332.
4 Proposed Rule, 88 Fed. Reg. at 25,948.
5 See Motor and Equipment Mfrs. Ass'n, Inc. v. EPA, 627 F.2d 1095, 1118 (D.C. Cir. 1979).
EPA's statutory obligation to consider costs in setting emission standards—and in particular
the appropriate timeframe for such standards to take effect—is germane here. If the Phase 3
GHG standards finalized in this rulemaking are based upon an over-estimation of the pace of HD
ZEV adoption (due to an under-estimation of costs and associated impacts on purchasing
behavior), they will not be achievable, resulting in a reduction of product offerings in the
commercial transportation sector. This result would be contrary to congressional intent to ensure
that EPA emission regulations do not cause economic disruptions in the manufacturing industry
and significant price increases for purchasers. It would also undermine EPA's stated goal of
encouraging proliferation of low- and zero-emission engine and vehicle technology in the HD
sector. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 8]
Funding for ZEV Applications That Are Ineligible for Current State and Federal Support
Programs. As EPA is aware, there are a number of ZEV funding and financing support
opportunities available for fleets that have the resources to pursue them. For example, EPA's
2022 Clean School Bus Rebate Program, which in 2022 made up to $375,000 in rebates
available for Class 7+ zero-emission (ZE) bus purchases in priority districts, has demonstrated
success in spurring ZE bus adoption. 10 With the enactment of the IRA, Section 45 W was added
to the Internal Revenue Code, making a tax credit available for purchasers of qualified
commercial clean vehicles. 11 With a per-vehicle credit of up to $40,000, Section 45W provides
466
-------
a pathway for fleets with tax obligations to claim a credit for ZEV purchases. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 11]
10 See EPA, 2022 Clean School Bus (CSB) Rebates Program Guide (May 2022) at 6,
https://nepis.epa.gOv/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/P 1014WNH.PDF?Dockey=P1014WNH.PDF.
11 See 26 U.S.C. 45W.
Some states have also developed funding support programs to support ZEV uptake.
California's Hybrid and Zero-Emission Truck and Bus Voucher Incentive Project (HVIP), for
example, is an important complement to the CARB Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT) and
Advanced Clean Fleets (ACF) regulations, and the program directly funded more than 60% of
the ZE trucks on the road in California as of January 2022.12 HVIP voucher amounts for FY22-
23 are shown in Table 2 below: 13 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 11] [Refer to Table
2 on p. 11 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1]
12 See California HVIP, 'Impact,' https://californiahvip.org/impact/.
13 See id., 'Funding Updates,' https://californiahvip.org/funding/.
HVIP voucher amounts facilitate lower ZEV purchase costs for fleets, helping to achieve
payback in a similar timeframe as a conventional vehicle for some applications. However, like
other state incentive programs, HVIP has specific geographic operational requirements, limiting
a fleet's opportunity to pursue funding for vehicles with multi-state operations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 11]
EPA should therefore consider supporting advocacy for federal funding of regional and long-
haul applications that are ineligible under current federal and state incentive programs, either by
expansion of the Section 45 W tax credit, or a new per-mile tax credit for ZEVs to help spur
adoption in applications that travel longer distances and offset more carbon emissions. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 11]
Policies to Encourage Turnover of Legacy Fleets
• Cash for Clunkers. According to an analysis of in-use vehicles performed by the Diesel
Technology Forum, as of the end of 2021, 47% of the nationwide commercial truck fleet
is still utilizing technology that is pre-2011 EPA MY, and these older vehicles emit
significantly more GHG and criteria pollutants compared to current-technology diesel
engines.20 As most of the nation's larger fleets operate on regular trade cycles, most of
these vehicles are likely owned by small businesses and independent owner-operators.
There are a number of small businesses with local delivery routes operating older
technology that could be highly suitable for ZEV operation, but these businesses lack the
capital to purchase new technology diesel engines, much less ZEVs and their
infrastructure. EPA should thus consider supporting and advocating for a Cash-for-
Clunkers style program designed to enable smaller fleets operating legacy technology to
replace their high-emitting vehicles with new technology diesel engines or ZEVs, where
suitable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 15]
20 See Testimony of the Diesel Technology Forum Before the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(April 12, 2022), available at https://www.globenewswire.com/en/news-
release/2022/04/12/2420741/0/en/Testimony-of-the-Diesel-Technology-Forum-Before-the-U-S-
Environmental-Protection-Agency-April-12-2022.html
467
-------
IRA and BIL incentives may not have as significant an impact as EPA projects.
EPA seeks comment on how incentives enacted with passing of the IRA and BIL should
factor into its TCO and market uptake projections, and asserts that these recent congressional
actions will reduce uncertainty related to infrastructure.64 While DTNA appreciates the positive
effects that these ambitious pieces of legislation will likely have on the HD ZEV market and
believes they are directionally correct, the Company is concerned they may not have the
magnitude of impact EPA is projecting. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 36]
64 See Proposed Rule, 88 Fed. Reg. at 26,069.
IRA Incentives
There are certain limitations on fleets' ability to claim IRA tax credits, which are not reflected
in EPA's analysis in the Proposed Rule. For example, a taxpayer claiming the Alternative Fuel
Refueling Property (AFRP) credit, must have a tax obligation of equal or greater value than the
credit (up to $100,000).65 DTNA does not have any data on fleet tax obligations, but suspects
that not all businesses will have tax obligations this sizable, especially small business fleets,
which make up over 95% of fleets today.66 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 36]
65 See 26 U.S.C. 30C(d)(2).
66 See American Trucking Associations, Economics and Industry Data,
https://www.trucking.org/economics-and-industry-data (reflecting that 95.7% of for-hire US motor carriers
operate 10 or fewer trucks). Further, qualifying properties will be limited to those sited in low-income or
non-urban census tracts and businesses claiming the AFRP credit must meet prevailing wage and registered
apprenticeship requirements. DTNA does not have data to determine how many fleets will be eligible for
this tax credit but believes that its impact may be limited in scope based on these and other qualifying
criteria. Even where fleets are eligible to claim this tax credit, it is likely that the credit will not
substantially offset EVSE costs for depot sites requiring multiple chargers.
In addition, there is a lack of alignment between EPA's treatment of the Section 45W clean
vehicle tax credit and the Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) cost estimates in its analysis of
the budgetary effects of the IRA.67 As reflected below in Table 13, CBO estimates that the
Section 45W commercial clean vehicle tax credit will have a budgetary impact of approximately
$2.7 billion total during the years 2027-2031.68. Conservatively assuming that the maximum
credit of $40,000 was claimed for each eligible Class 4 - Class 8 vehicle purchased during those
years, this budgetary estimate would reflect 67,250 new vehicle purchases. This figure is
significantly less than EPA's target of 550,000 new MHD and HDD ZEVs on the road by 2032.
Even if EPA's vehicle target turns out to be realistic, DTNA is concerned that the Section 45W
program could be curtailed if ZEV penetration rates are much higher than CBO's budgeted
amounts. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 36] [Refer to Table 13 on p. 37 of docket
number EP A-HQ-0 AR-2022-098 5 -15 5 5 - A 1 ]
67 See Congressional Budget Office, Cost Estimate, 'Estimated Budgetary Effects of H.R. 5376, the
Inflation Reduction Act of 2022' (rev. Aug. 5, 2022), https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2022-
08/hr5376_IR_Act_8 -3 -22 .pdf.
68 Id. at Table 1.
Similarly, as reflected in Table 14 below, the CBO estimates that the budgetary effects of the
AFRP tax credit will be a total of $1.16 billion from 2027-2031.70 Conservatively estimating
that each taxpayer claiming the credit is entitled to the maximum credit of $100,000, this amount
468
-------
reflects 11,630 property sites, without considering funding for residential sites. If the actual
budgetary impact of the AFRP tax credit is significantly greater than this amount, this could
potentially impact future availability of the credit. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p.
37] [Refer to Table 14 on p. 37 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1]
70 Id.
DTNA projects that such an exceedance is likely, estimating that approximately $30 billion
will be needed for EVSE charging equipment and installation between 2027 and 2032 to support
Class 3-8 BEVs. Assuming CBO's estimated amounts were invested exclusively in commercial
vehicle infrastructure, it would represent only about 5% of the total EVSE funding needed for the
ZEV transition. EPA should thus revise its estimation of the impacts that the IRA will have on
TCO and fleet adoption rates. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 37]
EPA states there are other provisions of the IRA that will support electrification that EPA has
not modeled and therefore asserts that the Agency's projected impacts of the IRA are somewhat
conservative.72 While DTNA believes the IRA will provide valuable benefits for targeted
applications, like the U.S. Postal Service Clean Vehicle Fleet and Facility Management, and spur
some manufacturing and research and development growth, DTNA does not believe there are
other provisions under the IRA that will significantly alter the TCO calculation or address
needed ZEV infrastructure. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, pp. 37-38]
72 See Proposed Rule, 88 Fed. Reg. at 25,946.
BIL Incentives
EPA also appears to over-estimate the impacts that BIL incentives will have on TCO and
infrastructure buildout during the timeframe covered by the Proposed Rule. For example, the
NEVI Formula Program, widely touted for encouraging buildout of public charging along AFCs,
does not require stations to accommodate HDVs. DTNA has reviewed the NEVI plans submitted
by all 50 states, the District of Colombia, and Puerto Rico, and from this review it appears that
most states believe HD public charging infrastructure is out of scope for the NEVI program.73
Other states make no mention at all of HD infrastructure.74 DTNA has also met with a number
of state transportation agencies to discuss the importance of including HDV charging
infrastructure in the NEVI program, and most have provided feedback that they would require
additional federal guidance to do so. Like the IRA, DTNA believes the BIL will help move
industry toward a ZEV future, but the scope of the legislation does not alter the TCO calculation
beyond what EPA has accounted for, and is unlikely to lead to significant HDV infrastructure
buildout. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2022-0985-1555- A 1, p. 38]
73 See Appendix B, 'DTNA Summary and Excerpts of State Infrastructure Deployment Plans for National
Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) Formula Program.'
74 See id.
State HD ZEV incentives are not uniform and have been adopted only by a minority of states.
EPA's market analysis turns in part on the proliferation of state incentives to accelerate HD
ZEV adoption in recent years.75 However, this analysis overlooks the fact that state incentives
have not been uniformly adopted. Indeed, there are wide variations in terms of state-level
engagement on incentivizing HD ZEVs and supporting infrastructure. While seventeen (17)
469
-------
states have signed on to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) committing to take certain
measures to promote ZEV adoption in the HD vehicle market (including considering ACT
adoption),76 the majority of states have declined to mandate or incentivize HD ZEVs, nor
adopted policies supporting development of ZEV infrastructure or requiring utilities to make-
ready for new demands on the grid for ZEV charging. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1,
p. 38]
75 See, e.g., 88 Fed. Reg. at 25,939 (noting, among other developments since the Phase 2 GHG final rule
that have led to increased application of ZEV technologies, that 'there have been multiple actions by states
to accelerate the adoption of HD ZEVs,'including ACT adoption in California and elsewhere, and the
execution of the multi-state MD ZEV Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) establishing goals to support
widespread electrification of the HD vehicle market).
76 See Multi-State Medium- and Heavy-Duty Zero Emission Vehicle Memorandum of Understanding
(July 2020), available at https://www.nescaum.org/documents/mhdv-zev-mou-20220329.pdf/.
Even in jurisdictions that have adopted HD ZEV-supportive laws and policies, these programs
are generally designed to ensure regional benefits and often contain in-state or intrajurisdiction
operational requirements. As an example, the California HVIP program requires voucher
recipients to commit to operate HVIP-funded vehicles within the State of California for at least
three years after the voucher redemption date.77 As another example, the South Coast Air
Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Mobile Source Offset Program (MSOP) provides a
crediting mechanism for the operation of low- or zero-emission on-road vehicles that result in
emission reductions beyond those required by local, state and federal regulations, but credits
accrue only for the operation of such vehicles 'within the boundaries of the District.'78
Washington State provides significant incentives for purchases of clean commercial vehicles
through its Commercial Alternative Fuel Vehicle (AFV) and Fueling Infrastructure Tax Credit,
but this credit may only be claimed by Washington taxpayers who operate qualifying vehicles
that are registered in Washington and display a Washington license plate.79 Further, some states
have even adopted policies to discourage ZEV adoption, as discussed below in Section
II.B.3.e. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2022-0985-1555- A 1, pp. 38-39]
77 See Implementation Manual for the Hybrid and Zero-Emission Truck and Bus Voucher Incentive
Project (HVIP) (March 15, 2022) at 36, available at https://californiahvip.org/wp-
content/uploads/2022/03/HVIP-FY21-22-Implementation-Manual-03.15.22.pdf. There are some
allowances for vehicles registered in a California county that borders another state or Mexico, emergency
response vehicles, Class 8 freight trucks, and vehicles that are registered via the California DMV's
International Registration Plan. Otherwise, HVIP-funded vehicles must operate 100 percent within
California for at least three years, and mileage is verified via telematics reporting by the manufacturer. Id.
78 SCAQMD Rule 1612(a).
79 See RCWA 82.04.4496.
Given that state incentive programs have not been uniformly adopted across the United
States—and that the programs that have been adopted generally do not provide credit and
support mechanisms for ZEV adoption in long-haul, interstate commercial operations—EPA
should reevaluate the extent to which state incentives for HD ZEV adoption can be factored in to
its cost and market penetration analyses. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 39]
EPA should conduct a sensitivity analysis of all cost inputs used in the HD TRUCS analysis
to understand the range of alternative ZEV uptake rates under different scenarios.
470
-------
As discussed above, there is significant uncertainty in a number of EPA's cost projections,
which have major implications for the calculated ZEV adoption rates and proposed C02
standard stringency levels. DTNA strongly recommends that EPA conduct a sensitivity analysis
of all costs used in the HD TRUCS tool, especially component costs and fuel costs, and calculate
what the impact on ZEV uptake would be in those alternate scenarios. EPA should use this
sensitivity analysis when conducting the periodic reviews of the appropriateness of the Phase 3
C02 standards, as discussed in Section II.C.3 of these comments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1555-A1, p. 39]
EPA Request for Comment, Request #10: As described in Section II of the proposed rule,
EPA has considered the potential impacts of the BIL and the IRA in our assessment of the
appropriate proposed GHG standards both quantitatively and qualitatively, and we request
comment on our approach.
• DTNA Response: While DTNA appreciates the positive effects that these ambitious
pieces of legislation will likely have on the HD ZEV market and believes they are
directionally correct, the Company is concerned they may not have the magnitude of
impact EPA is projecting, as discussed in Section II.B.3.a of these comments. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 160]
EPA Request for Comment, Request #40: We welcome comment on our assessment of how
the IRA will impact the heavy-duty industry, and how EPA could consider reflecting those
impacts in our assessment for establishing the HD GHG standards under this proposal, including
comment on methods to appropriately account for these provisions in our assessment.
• DTNA Response: See DTNA Response to Request #10, above. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1555-A1, p. 164]
EPA Request for Comment, Request #41: We welcome comment on how we included the
IRA tax credits for HD vehicles in our assessment.
• DTNA Response: DTNA believes it is appropriate to model the cost impacts of IRA tax
credits but has several concerns with EPA's overall treatment of the cost of HD vehicles,
as detailed in Section II.B.3 of these comments. The Company also believes that EPA
should consider the effects of the IRA expiring in 2032 and the potential risks that the
IRA tax credits could be modified or eliminated, also discussed in Section II.B.3 of these
comments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 165]
EPA Request for Comment, Request #71: We request comment, including data, on all aspects
of the cost analysis. In particular, we request comment on our assessment of the IRA tax credits
(see Sections IV.C.2 and IV.D.2) and operating costs (see Section IV.D.5). We also request
comment, including data, on alternative approaches to estimating cost that may help inform our
cost estimates for the final rulemaking.
• DTNA Response: See DTNA Response to Request #10, above. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1555-A1, p. 172] [Refer to section 2 of this comment summary]
EPA Request for Comment, Request #72: We request comment on our assessment of the
impact of the IRA tax credits.
471
-------
DTNA Response: See DTNA Response to Request # 10, above. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1555-A1, p. 172] [Refer to section 2 of this comment summary]
Organization: Electrification Coalition (EC)
In addition to the economics of HD EVs and the current adoption rates, incentive programs at
the state level are driving fleets to transition their fleet to electric. For example, the PA MHD
incentive program recently closed the application period with an oversubscription of projects. In
Q1 2023, Pennsylvania's Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) released $13 million
from the Volkswagen (VW) Settlement for a Medium- and Heavy-Duty Zero-Emission Fleet
Vehicle Pilot Grant program. 18 The pilot offered up to 100% of funding for Class 4-8 vehicles
and supporting fueling infrastructure. A cost-share depended on applicant type, with non-
government applicants eligible for up to 75% of reimbursement costs, and government applicants
eligible for up to 90% of reimbursement costs. Act 47 financially distressed municipalities in PA
could receive up to 100% of eligible costs. 19 The PA DEP reported that 34 pre-application
meetings were held, with an estimated 25 final applications submitted from that pool.
Applications closed March 31, 2023, and a final announcement of awardees is pending. The PA
DEP staff estimate they can fund anywhere from 2-6 applicants depending on applicant type and
project scope; the PA DEP has stated that this program shows the great depth of interest from
Pennsylvania businesses to electrify their fleets. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1558-A1, pp. 6-7]
18 https://files.dep.state.pa.us/Air/Volkswagen/MHDZEV_ProgramGuidelines.pdf
19 https://dced.pa.gov/local-government/act-47-financial-distress/
Another example of a state level HD EV incentive program that is driving adoption of EVs is
the NJ Zero Emission Incentive Program (NJ ZIP), which is showing high interest even with
micro and small businesses. NJ ZIP is a $90 million pilot administered by the New Jersey
Economic Development Authority (NJEDA) to provide vouchers for the purchase of zero-
emission MHD vehicles. Of the $43.3 million in voucher applications received for Phase 1,
NJEDA approved $39 million. In Phase 1, vouchers under this program were eligible for the
purchase of Class 2B to Class 6 vehicles. Phase 2 of the program is currently accepting
applications. However, due to the high interest in NJ ZIP, NJEDA has received applications
exceeding the amount of funding available for this program. It should be noted that phase 2 of
the program increased eligibility of the program to include Class 7 and 8 vehicles. While
vouchers are capped at 100% of the vehicle cost, bonuses are provided to applicants that meet
certain requirements. For example, small businesses and minority-, women-, and veteran-owned
businesses and applicants purchasing a school bus are eligible to receive bonuses. Additionally,
applicants that commit to operating the vehicle at a given percentage in environmental justice
communities will receive a bonus. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1558-A1, p. 7]
Other states currently have HD EV incentive programs or are considering ones. For example,
legislation in NV this past year (AB 184) considered a MHD EV incentive program. Florida also
considered an MHD EV incentive program in 2023. As states develop their Carbon Reduction
Program plans, some are considering setting aside a portion of funds to create MHD EV
incentives as well. While not all of these policies and programs passed or were adopted this year,
this shows significant interest from policymakers to promote adoption of HD vehicles in this
sector. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1558-A1, p. 7]
472
-------
Organization: Energy Innovation
The latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report makes clear that this is the
decade of action if we are to reverse course on untenable and dangerous climate change: "In this
decade, accelerated action to adapt to climate change is essential to close the gap between
existing adaptation and what is needed. Meanwhile, keeping warming to 1.5°C above pre-
industrial levels requires deep, rapid and sustained [GHG] emissions reductions in all sectors.
Emissions should be decreasing by now and will need to be cut by almost half by 2030, if
warming is to be limited to 1.5°C "5 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1604-A1, p. 3]
5 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, "Press Release: Urgent Climate Action Can Secure a
Liveable Future for All," March 20, 2023,
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/press/IPCC_AR6_SYR_PressRelease_en.pdf.
Fortunately, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL)
helped tip the scale in favor of climate-oriented investments and the adoption of ZEVs, namely
battery electric vehicles (BEVs) and hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs). [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1604-A1, p. 3]
Energy Innovation's modeling reveals that the IRA's transportation electrification incentives
(combined with infrastructure investments in the BIL) can jump-start transportation
decarbonization this decade. However, these federal policies are insufficient to cut the sector's
GHG emissions at the pace needed to achieve the U.S. Nationally Determined Contribution
(NDC) and to be aligned with the Paris Agreement to limit global warming and achieve net zero
by 2050. Mitigating the transportation sector's (especially HDVs') impact on the climate and
public health will require additional policy and regulatory action in the next decade, including
stronger federal tailpipe emissions standards. Our modeling shows that widespread deployment
of ZEVs, powered by a clean grid, can help reduce GHG emissions to meet the U.S. NDC.6 See
Figures 1 and 2. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1604-A1, pp. 3 - 4.] [See Figure 1, Economy-Wide
GHG Emissions, and Figure 2, Transportation Sector GHG Emissions and Reductions, on page 4
of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1604-A1.]
6 Robbie Orvis et al., "Closing the Emissions Gap Between The IRA And 2030 NDC: Policies To Meet
The Moment" (Energy Innovation Policy and Technology LLC, December 2022),
https://energyinnovation.org/publication/closing-the-emissions-gap-between-the-ira-and-ndcpolicies-to-
meet-the-moment/.
Organization: Environmental Defense Fund (EPF)
ii. Impacts of Historic IRA Investment Further Support Feasibility and Accelerating Cost
Declines.
Substantial investments in the IRA only further confirm the feasibility and cost-effectiveness
of EPA standards that help ensure nationwide ZEV levels consistent with the ACT rule. In
particular, the IRA included "Credit for Qualified Commercial Clean Vehicles" which provides a
tax credit for those who purchase qualified M/HDVs between 2023 and 2032 of up to $40,000.37
In particular, the IRA included "Credit for Qualified Commercial Clean Vehicles" which
provides a tax credit for those who purchase qualified M/HDVs between 2023 and 2032 of up to
$40,000.38 ERM estimates that these and other IRA provisions will provide almost $3 billion in
incentives for MHD ZEV purchases.39 This funding has already catalyzed significant
473
-------
investments in EV manufacturing and associated jobs. For example, EDF and WSP found that
over $120 billion in private EV supply ecosystem investments and 143,000 new jobs have been
announced in the last eight years.40 Nearly $90 billion in EV manufacturing announcements has
occurred since the IRA and BIL laws passed and almost $50 billion of that, representing 42
percent of all announced EV investments, has occurred in just the last 6 months since the passage
of the IRA. [EP A-HQ-0 AR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 19] [See Table 2 on p. 19 of Docket
Number EP A-HQ-0 AR-2022-0985-1644-A1 ]
37 Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, P.L. 117-169, § 13404.
38 Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, P.L. 117-169, § 13404.
39 Ellen Robo and Dave Seamonds. 2022. Inflation Reduction Act Supplemental Assessment: Analysis of
Alternative Medium- and Heavy-duty Zero-Emission Vehicle Business-as-Usual Scenarios, ERM for EDF,
Table 2. (Attachment L).
40 See infra n 195. (Attachment AA)
Organization: International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America (UAW)
Short of including safeguards in the proposed standards to support the domestic auto
manufacturing base, the EPA expects minimal incentive for manufacturers to shift to foreign
production as a result of the rule. 10 However, in its analysis, we are concerned the EPA
overvalues the incentives available to domestic manufacturers to produce vehicles and
components domestically. 11 The new 45W Commercial Clean Vehicle tax credits for the
purchase of medium- and heavy-duty EVs do not include domestic assembly or domestic content
requirements. 12 Since November 2022, the import of goods generally, and of automotive
vehicles and parts in particular, has increased as more goods arrive from Mexico and Canada. 13
For this reason, these federal investments should not prima facie be expected to support the
domestic build-out of the EV supply chain. Targeted safeguards are necessary to ensure the
proposed standards support the domestic production of vehicles and components, instead of
encouraging a shift to foreign production. We encourage the EPA to implement standards that
strengthen the domestic auto manufacturing supply chain and require the EV transition to
provide the same level of investment and quality jobs as the current ICE footprint. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1596-A1, p. 4-5]
10 See id. at 26071 ("The proposed emission standards are not expected to provide incentives for
manufacturers to shift between domestic and foreign production. This is because the emission standards
apply to vehicles sold in the United States regardless of where such vehicles are produced. If foreign
manufacturers already have increased expertise in satisfying the requirements of the emission standards,
there may be some initial incentive for foreign production").
11 See id. at 26073 ("This investment includes the BIL, the CHIPS Act, and the IRA, which are expected to
create domestic employment opportunities along the full automotive sector supply chain, from components
and equipment manufacturing and processing to final assembly, as well as incentivize the development of
reliable EV battery supply chains. For example, the IRA is expected to impact domestic employment
through conditions on eligibility for purchase incentives and battery manufacturing incentives. These
conditions include contingencies for domestic assembly, domestic critical materials production, and
domestic battery manufacturing").
12 See, e.g., 26 U.S.C. § 45W.
474
-------
13 Austen Hufford and Anthony DeBarros, "China's Share of U.S. Goods Imports Falls to Lowest Since
2006", (The Wall Street Journal, June 7, 2023), https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-imported-more-cars-
phones-supplies-from-abroad-9157aca6
Organization: Lion Electric, Co. USA
Driving BEV school bus demand over the next five years will dramatically increase due to
support from the EPA's Clean School Bus Program (CSBP) created under President Bidenjjs
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. This program has already begun to help deploy zero-emission
buses and replace their polluting diesel predecessors. Over $900 million was awarded during the
2022 CSBP to replace close to 2,500 diesel-powered school buses. This speaks volumes to
school districts being eager to move toward clean energy, zero-emission school buses. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1506-A1, p. 3]
The continued success of California's longstanding HVIP program, the second installment of
the New Jersey ZIP program, and thousands of zero-emission trucks funded via the statewide
Volkswagen Settlement funding programs, has led for a greater demand for zero-emission trucks
across many industries. Behind the increase in near-term demand for zero-emission equipment
are government regulations and subsidies aimed at reducing carbon emissions and improving air
quality. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1506-A1, p. 3]
Additionally, incentive programs such as the Clean Heavy-Duty Vehicles and Port's program
and the 45W tax credits in the Inflation Reduction Act, will continue to support these goals, help
achieve cost parity, and encourage fleet owners to transition to electric trucks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1506-A1, p. 3]
Organization: National Waste & Recycling Association (NWRA)
With the projected adoption of ZEVs in the waste industry, we ask that EPA work with U.S.
Department of Transportation (USDOT) to resolve the issue of heavier battery vehicles needing
to reduce the amount of mass they can haul to comply with truck weight restrictions. EPA and
USDOT should work together to minimize pollution without sacrificing cargo carrying capacity
of vehicles. This potential reduction of cargo capacity should also be included in EPA's
economic analysis of the rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1616-A1, p. 2.]
Organization: Natural Gas Vehicles for America (NGVAmerica)
(7) The Administration should work with Congress to amend the federal excise tax on new
trucks to reduce the impediment to fleets and businesses purchasing cleaner new trucks by either
eliminating the tax altogether since it discourages new purchases or amend the tax so that it does
not penalize more costly, lower polluting technologies (i.e., eliminate the excise tax on the
incremental cost). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1522-A1, p. 13]
Organization: RMI
Inflation Reduction Act Transforms Total Cost of Ownership
The Inflation Reduction Act's (IRA) incentives for heavy-duty trucks are market transforming
and RMI was thrilled to see the EPA took these incentives into account in their market analysis.
475
-------
With the IRA in place, the industry can dramatically decarbonize by making electric trucks
cheaper than diesel trucks in most use cases, with urban and regional trucks becoming cost-
superior to diesel as soon as 2023. RMI analysis found due to the EV market acceleration from
IRA could result in reducing heavy-duty sector GHG emissions by 59 percent in 2035, nearly
double what would happen without the IRA. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1529-A1, p. 5]
Two tax credits are key to making heavy-duty trucks more affordable, and were analyzed in
the following RMI analysis:
• Qualified Commercial Clean Vehicles Credit: Vehicles greater than 14,000 lbs. that
operate on batteries alone receive a tax credit of $40,000 or 30 percent of the vehicle cost,
whichever is lower.
• Alternative Fuel Refueling Infrastructure Credit: Charger infrastructure tax credits are 30
percent of the cost of installing chargers, up to a lifetime benefit of $100,000 per site.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1529-A1, p. 5]
Through the global Mission Possible Partnership, RMI analyzed trucking economics and how
that drives zero-emissions truck adoption. Once zero-emissions trucks become cheaper than their
diesel counterparts, adoption follows based predominately on vehicle and infrastructure
availability. And with the IRA, the total cost of ownership of electric trucks will be lower than
diesel ones approximately five years sooner than without the law. This is true for urban trucks
that travel locally in cities an average of 50-100 miles a day; regional trucks that move 100-250
miles per day and return to the same depot; and long-haul trucks that travel 250 or more miles
between cities and need to recharge en route. 11 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1529-A1, p. 5]
[Refer to Figure on p. 5 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1529-A1]
11 Kahn et Al, The Inflation Reduction Act Will Help Electrify Heavy-Duty Trucking, RMI, 2022,
https://rmi.org/inflation-reduction-act-will-help-electrify-heavy-duty-trucking/
Organization: Tesla, Inc. (Tesla)
Federal and State Medium- & Heavy- Duty Incentives
Finally, the agency should be prepared to consider the role new state and federal incentives
may play in deployment of heavy-duty electric vehicles. Federally, numerous heavy-duty
electrification grants, demonstration programs, incentives, and infrastructure incentives were
included in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021.113 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1505-A1, pp. 16-17]
113 See, DOE, Alternative Fuel Data Center, Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (Infrastructure Investment and
Jobs Act of 2021) available at. https://afdc.energy.gov/laws/infrastructure-investment-jobs-act
State incentives will create additional uptake of BEVs in the medium- and heavy-duty sector.
These incentives already exist in California, 114 Colorado,115 Connecticut, 116
Massachusetts,! 17 New York,118 Utah, 119 and Washington. 120 Recent sales suggest this is
already occurring. 121 In California, the rapid expansion of participation in the Clean Truck and
Bus Voucher Incentive Project (HVIP) since 2017 exemplifies the increasing readiness of
commercial purchaser uptake of NOX and GHG reducing medium and heavy-duty BEV
technologies. 122 This rapid transition will have significant public health and welfare health
476
-------
benefits, not only in California but also globally.123 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1505-A1,
P- 17]
114 California, HVIP, Carl Moyer, LCFS, and additional CARB programs not listed.
115 Colorado, Colorado Department of Revenue Innovative Truck Credits available at
https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/Income69.pdf
116 Connecticut, Public Act No. 22-25 (May 10, 2022) available at
https://www.cga.ct.gOv/2022/ACT/PA/PDF/2022PA-00025-R00SB-00004-PA.PDF
117 Massachusetts, MOR-EV Trucks Program available at https://mor-ev.org/
118 New York, New York Truck Voucher Incentive Program available at https://www.nyserda.ny.gov/All-
Programs/Truck-Voucher-Program?utm_source=NYTVIP+Newsletter&utm_campaign=c8407bld6e-
EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2020_06_04_10_38_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_a4f89bc0f7-
c8407bld6e-89607338; New York City Clean Truck Program available at https://www.nycctp.com/
119 Utah, Utah Code 59-7-618.1. Tax credit related to alternative fuel heavy duty vehicles available at
https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title59/Chapter7/59-7-S618.1 ,html?v=C59-7-S618.1 2021050520210505
120 Washington, Clean Alternative Commercial Vehicle and Infrastructure Tax Credit available at
https://dor.wa.gov/content/clean-alternative-fuel-commercial-vehicle-and-vehicle-infrastructure-bo-or-put-
tax-credit
121 Fleet Owner, Pace of heavy EV sales quickens with two recent deals (Mar. 22, 2022) available at
https://www.fleetowner.com/emissions-efficiency/electric-vehicles/article/21237583/pace-of-heavy-ev-
sales-quickenswith-two-recent-deals
122 CARB, Second Public Work Group to Discuss the Clean Truck and Bus Voucher Incentive Project
(HVIP) for Fiscal Year 2022-23 (June 28, 2022) at Slide 9 available at
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022- 06/June_28_HVIP_WG_Slides.pdf (showing rapid uptake
starting in 2017).
123 ICCT, Heavy-Duty Zero-Emission Vehicles: Pace and Opportunities for a Rapid Global Transition
(May 18, 2022) available at https://theicct.org/publication/hdv-zevtc-global-may22/ (finding that actions
among G20 economies to ensure that all new HDVs are either ultra-low or zero-emission could avoid 3
million premature deaths through 2050, equivalent to 5 trillion USD in health benefits. The magnitude of
these benefits would be greater with an accelerated transition to HD ZEVs.)
Finally, the IRA has established programs, such as the Clean Heavy-Duty Vehicles Program,
to address climate change by reducing GHG emissions and improve the air quality through the
acquisition and use of zero-emission vehicles. 124 The program directs EPA to award a total of
$1 billion through grants and rebates to eligible recipients (e.g., states and municipalities) to
replace existing heavy-duty vehicles with clean zero-emission vehicles and develop zero-
emission vehicle infrastructure. The funding can be applied to up to 100% of the incremental
costs of replacing an eligible heavy-duty vehicle with a zero-emission vehicle. It can also be used
for other activities such as purchasing, installing, operating, and maintaining infrastructure
needed to fuel or maintain zero-emission vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1505-A1, p. 17]
124 Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, P.L. 117-169 (Aug. 16, 2022), Section 60101.
Accordingly, as supported by this growing base of data and incentives, Tesla recommends
that the agency's final rule do a far better job of recognizing the expected pace and deployment
of BEVs, accurately reflect the state of the existing record of technology and market conditions,
and thus finalize a standard that maximizes and accelerates this transition. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1505-A1, pp. 17-18]
477
-------
Organization: Transportation Departments of Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota and
Wyoming
The proposed rule in this docket seeks to accelerate a shift from the use of internal
combustion engine vehicles to electric vehicles (EVs). An erosion of revenue into the Highway
Trust Fund (HTF) would result. 1 This would place significant downward pressure on highway
and bridge investment, which already faces an investment backlog of $786 billion per U.S.
Department of Transportation's latest 'Conditions and Performance Report' for highways,
bridges and transit. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1487-A1, p.l]
1 The draft Regulatory Impact Statement for the proposal includes a brief reference (page 429) that, under
the proposed rule, fuel consumption would be "reduced." Most fuel sales are subject to a Federal excise tax
and generate the largest share of HTF revenue.
Moreover, that backlog estimate was developed before recent inflation of approximately 50%
from Q1 2021 to Q3 2022 in the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA's) highway
construction cost index.2 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1487-A1, p.l]
2 For the NHCCI see-
https ://explore .dot. gov/views/NHIInflationDashboard/NHCCI?%3 Aiid= 1 &%3 Aembed=y&%3 AisGuestRe
directFromVizportal=y&%3Adisplay_count=n&%3AshowVizHome=n&%3Aorigin=viz_share_link
Significantly, at the same time that EPA has issued this NPRM, it has also issued a separate
proposed rule calling for reduced tailpipe emissions of C02, other GHGs, and other substances
from passenger cars and other light-duty and medium-duty vehicles. See 88 Fed. Reg. 29184
(May 5, 2023). That proposal would accelerate growth in EVs as a percentage of new light-duty
and medium-duty vehicles and erode revenue into the HTF. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1487-
Al, p.l]
However, even though these proposed tailpipe emission rules are high profile initiatives, and
the HTF and the programs it supports are high profile programs, the lengthy NPRM in this
docket and its lengthy draft Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) do not appear to include any
consideration of the adverse impacts of the proposal on revenues flowing to the Highway Trust
Fund (HTF) and on highway investment - even as the new EVs encouraged by the proposed rule
would generate wear and tear on the highways without paying fuel taxes into the HTF. As the
HTF has been, for decades, the Federal Government's largest source of funds for highway
investment, proposed policies that would erode revenue into the HTF raise important concerns
that must be seriously considered by regulatory agencies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1487-A1,
pp.1-2]
Organization: Truck Renting and Leasing Association (TRALA)
Several Cost and Payback Estimations Remain Questionable
Significant costs under Phase 3 appear to be overlooked or underestimated. For instance, it is
not uncommon for federal and state sales taxes collected on new EV trucks to be more than 10%
of the base retail price of the power unit. (See Table 1 below). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1577-
Al, p. 9] [Refer to Table 1 on p. 10 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1577-A1]
Of critical importance in this example is that the $40,000 tax credit afforded under the IRA
for the purchase of a new ZEV would not even cover the additional tax bill for a purchaser of
478
-------
this BEV (not to mention the additional $225,000 cost of the vehicle itself along with associated
charging infrastructure costs). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1577-A1, p. 10]
Increasing Sale of ZEVs Will Significantly Impact Road Infrastructure Funding
Federal and state fuel taxes revenues will plunge when federal and/or state ZEV regulations
are implemented across all vehicle classes. Construction and maintenance of transportation
infrastructure in the U.S. is funded primarily with revenues derived from federal and state excise
taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel. When ZEVs replace vehicles with internal combustion engines,
the demand for gasoline and diesel dissipates and federal and state fuel tax revenues disappear.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1577-A1, p. 16]
The federal Highway Trust Fund (HTF) is the primary source of federal funding used by state
governments to maintain and improve U.S. surface transportation infrastructure. About 84% of
HTF revenues (which annually total around $42 billion) are derived from transportation gasoline
and diesel fuel taxes. In 2020, trucks used for business purposes consumed 9 billion gallons of
gasoline and 35.8 billion gallons of diesel fuel generating $8.7 billion and $1.7 billion in federal
fuel tax revenues respectively (i.e., 24.7% of total HTF dollars).24 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1577-A1, p. 16]
24 Id.
Fuel taxes operate as a road user fee with trucks typically having low fuel efficiency paying
substantially more per mile for road use than automobiles having far better fuel economy.
Potential loss of state and federal surface transportation funding is real and will become an
unintended consequence of ZEV rulemakings. The HTF and maintenance of our nation's
highways remains an under-funded and uphill struggle. TRALA requests EPA to address this
concern in the final rule. Trucking deserves consideration for any accelerated degradation of
what we characterize as our workplace - the nation's highways and byways. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1577-A1, pp. 16-17]
Incentive Use Overestimates ZEV Market Penetration Rates for Trucks
The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL)25 included a total of $7.5 billion for EV chargers
and other alternative fueling facilities. Five billion of that was assigned to the National Electric
Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) Formula Program. Under the NEVI program, states can receive
funding from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for up to 80% of eligible project
costs. NEVI requires charging stations receiving assistance be publicly available or available to
commercial drivers from more than one company and be installed along designated FHWA
Alternative Fuel Corridors (AFCs). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1577-A1, p. 18]
5 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58).
The freight industry needs dedicated charging capabilities for both Medium-Duty (MD) and
Heavy-Duty (HD) trucks near or within the properties of major warehouses, ports, rail yards, and
industrial facilities. These sites can serve multiple companies through an agreement with the site
operator but won't necessarily allow 'public' access. In comments filed on behalf of the trucking
industry to FHWA on its National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Formula Program Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (Federal Register, June 22, 2022), FHWA was asked to direct states to
dedicate specific funding levels towards the build-out charging infrastructure for the trucking
sector. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1577-A1, p. 18]
479
-------
In its final rule, the FHWA addressed this request as follows:
'FHWA understands that the MD/HD charging industry is very nascent and rapidly evolving;
as such, FHWA has not modified the language in this final rule to specifically accommodate
MD/HD needs so as not to preempt the pace of the technological innovation. The rule does not
preclude MD/HD charging infrastructure and FHWA strongly encourages project sponsors to
consider future MD/HD needs. The FHWA will continue to monitor the technological
advancements in the MD/HD industry for consideration as to whether further regulation is
needed to provide applicable minimum standards and requirements at a future date.' 26 [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1577-A1, p. 19]
26 Federal Register, Vol. 88, No. 39, Page 12731 (February 28, 2023).
Given the fact that truck charging infrastructure under NEVI was and remains an afterthought,
TRALA is less optimistic than EPA in assuming the BIL will address the tremendous financial
needs for powering truck ZEVs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1577-A1, p. 19]
The uncertainty within FHWA's guidance for public charging infrastructure for medium
heavy-duty vehicles undermines end-user confidence that there will be sufficient public
infrastructure to support ZEV technologies. Therefore, it will benefit EPA, and all stakeholders
impacted under Phase 3, to define medium heavy-duty charging requirements for 1:1
productivity now so that HD TRUCS has correct Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE)
costs modeled and FHWA has clear requirements for NEVI planning early in the program to
ensure public funding efficiently enables ZEV deployment across all targeted vehicle
applications. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1577-A1, p. 20]
Turning to the IRA, the $40,000 tax credit per qualified ZEV over 14,000 pounds does not
even cover the additional Federal Excise Tax and State Sales Tax paid when compared to the
price of a comparable Class 8 ICE truck, let alone the $225,000 up-front increased retail price tag
(See Table 1 above). Additionally, TRALA members purchasing ZEVs to lease are the eligible
recipients of the ZEV tax credits, not the lessees. Since lessors cannot pass their tax credits onto
lessees - most of which are small businesses - many small businesses will not be able to take full
advantage of such tax credits. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1577-A1, p. 20]
The maximum 30% tax credit, up to $100,000 per EV charger, also has qualifying conditions
including that charging stations must be located in an eligible census tract which by definition
requires:
• A poverty rate of at least 20%; OR
• Location in a census tract that is not in a metropolitan area and the medium family
income for the tract does not exceed 80% of the applicable statewide median family
income; AND
• Laborers employed in the construction of EV charging stations must meet the new
prevailing wage and apprenticeship requirements [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1577-A1,
p. 20]
Many TRALA customers (i.e.., lessees) will not likely be able to maximize this tax credit
either since they may not meet the preceding criteria or they will not have permission to install
charging ports on leased property under their lease terms. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1577-A1,
p. 20]
480
-------
Finally, TRALA hopes that the manufacturing tax credits for the production and sales of
battery cells and modules (up to $45/kWh) will over time help drive down the cost of battery
production. The question that arises is how much of this tax credit will realistically be passed
through to the ultimate purchaser of ZEVs? [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1577-A1, p. 20]
State financial incentives, such as those available in California and other states used to offset
the cost of transitioning to ZEVs, may experience a short shelf-life. The reason for this is that
fleets generally cannot receive public financial assistance for matters that they are legally
required to comply with when regulatory implementation commences. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1577-A1, p. 20]
Political shifts - whether at the federal or state level - can also impact financial assistance for
ZEVs along with charging and fueling infrastructure. This reality should not be overlooked.
While TRALA appreciates efforts to help offset the high costs of ZEVs along with charging and
fueling infrastructure at both the state and federal levels, we are not as enthusiastic as EPA in
projecting the rapid ascent of ZEVs and infrastructure support for the trucking sector. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1577-A1, p. 21]
Organization: United Steelworkers Union (USW)
While the proposed rule is not wrong that the investments made by IRA and IIJA should spur
investments in new technologies to lower emissions of vehicles, it does fail to consider the
timeline and effectiveness of program implementation. Undoubtably, these manufacturing
investments will take time to achieve their full production capacity. Also, small and medium
manufacturers in the auto supply chain must be informed, encouraged, and assisted in utilizing
these investment opportunities to prevent job loss. At this time, outreach to these companies is
limited. EPA should coordinate with the Department of Energy, the Department of
Transportation, and the Department of Commerce to better understand how its regulatory
timelines correspond with the investments that will support regulatory compliance. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1514-A1, p. 4]
Organization: Volvo Group
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) and Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) impacts
At many points throughout the NPRM, EPA asserts that Inflation Reduction Act (IRA)+
credits will significantly reduce vehicle costs, potentially enabling them to reach parity with
equivalent diesel vehicles in as little as one to three years of operational use. The impacts of
these provisions are unproven, and we remain skeptical that the value of the incentives and
credits offered in this federal program will drive the same behavior change as more financially
significant state incentive programs like the HVIP voucher in California. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1606-A1, p. 9]
The primary credit intended to reduce the cost of commercial vehicles is the Qualified
Commercial Clean Vehicle Credit (Section 45W). The credit was initially designed to cover the
lesser of the incremental cost of the vehicle to its diesel comparison or 30% of the purchase.
Unfortunately, a $40,000 cap was placed on all vehicles greater than 14,000 pounds, thereby
greatly limiting its value and impact on purchases of both Class 7 and Class 8 zero emission
vehicles. IRS guidance recognized early in the process that there was no situation where a Class
481
-------
7 or 8 vehicle's incremental cost or 30 percent price threshold would be less than the cap. In fact,
for many Class 8 vehicles, the $40,000 credit will not even fully cover the 12 percent federal
excise tax that is levied on all Class 8 motor vehicles. This is especially true for vocational
vehicles like refuse trucks where significant cost is added by the custom body designed for the
customer. For any Class 8 truck costing more than $333,333, the 12 percent federal excise tax
would be more than the full value of the 45W credit. Additionally, this credit does not include
any transferability, so customers with limited tax liabilities will not be able to leverage this tax
credit. Many trucking companies have low profit margins and therefore may not have enough
taxable income to utilize the 45W credit. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1606-A1, p. 9]
The NPRM asserts that the Advanced Energy Production Credit (Section 45X) is the second
primary program to deliver meaningful price reductions for medium and heavy-duty zero
emission vehicles. The intent of the credit is to incentivize local production of battery cells and
modules, electrode active materials and critical minerals in the U.S. The upfront investment to
begin manufacturing these products is overwhelmingly high, in some cases over $4 billion6. As a
result, regardless of whether a truck or battery manufacturer is making the investment in new
domestic battery supply chains, the high upfront costs of building and equipping these facilities
makes it unlikely that the credit benefits will be passed on to end-consumers, especially as the
end consumer may be more than five steps or tiers away from the supplier directly receiving the
45X credit. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1606-A1, p. 9]
6 https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/ll/hondas-new-4point4-billion-ev-battery-plant-will-be-built-in-
ohio.html
It is true that other IRA programs like the $1 billion Clean Heavy-Duty Vehicle Program
support the purchase of zero-emission vehicles, necessary infrastructure, and workforce training
for certain governmental and tribal customers. Yet this deceptively named program is limited to
Class 6 and 7 vehicles and excludes Class 8 vehicles, thereby preventing fleet owners of vehicles
accounting for the greatest volume of emissions from accessing the program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1606-A1, p. 10]
Federal programs to reduce the cost of charging infrastructure
As discussed throughout the NPRM and our comments, customers are now investing in both a
more expensive vehicle and a fuel source to support that vehicle. While the IRA has tools
designed to support the investments in charging infrastructure, many of these tools are still being
developed and have not yet proven their ability to reduce costs for the end customer. The chief
tool to reduce the cost of charging infrastructure for private charging depots is the Section 30C
tax credit for Alternative Fueling Infrastructure. This credit includes a new geographic limitation
for low-income and non-urban locations. Unfortunately, many operators of battery electric trucks
will not have the flexibility to move their charging stations to one of these targeted
neighborhoods or modify their operations to access the full 30% investment tax credit. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985- 1606-A1, p. 10]
Additionally, there is $7.5 billion available for public charging infrastructure from the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL). Of this funding, $5 billion will be obligated to states by
formula through the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI). Despite the urging of the
Heavy-Duty vehicle industry and the specific inclusion of flexibility for commercial use of
public charging as well as consideration for semi-trailers in the statute, this program has been
482
-------
geared towards light duty charging. Not one state—including states opting into California's
Advanced Clean Trucks rule—proposed a charging station in their plan that would accommodate
heavy duty vehicles. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), however, released guidance
on June 8th of this year clarifying the eligibility of Medium- and Heavy-Duty charging
infrastructure for NEVI funding. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1606-A1, p. 10]
An additional $2.5 billion in BIL funding is found in the Department of Transportation's
(DOT) Charging and Fueling Infrastructure competitive grant program. We are optimistic that
medium and heavy-duty projects will be prioritized in these programs given the light duty
emphasis that has dominated the NEVI program. The initial application window has just opened
so it is too early to determine if medium and heavy-duty vehicles will receive the priority
signaled by U.S. DOT. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1606-A1, p. 10]
Federal barriers to adoption of ZEVs and Hydrogen powered Vehicles
While the Volvo Group was proud to support the Inflation Reduction Act and Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law's zero emission vehicles program incentives and funding, there are still many
federal policies in place that will make it either operationally more difficult or more expensive to
adopt battery electric and hydrogen-powered vehicles. Below are a few examples:
1. The 12 percent federal excise tax (FET) on Class 8 trucks creates an increased
disincentive on the purchase of higher purchase price battery electric and hydrogen-
powered trucks. 7
2. Battery electric trucks and hydrogen-powered trucks do not have payload parity with
their diesel counterparts. Early adopters lose payload as they take on additional battery
weight. This either limits the amount of freight that can be carried or reclassifies a
Class 7 truck as a Class 8 truck forcing the carrier to pay the 12 percent FET.
3. The U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement (USMCA) regional value content
requirements raise the possibility that steep tariffs could be imposed on battery electric
vehicles made in the U.S. and exported to Canada (6%) and Mexico (20%) because of
nascent domestic battery supply chains. Similarly, battery electric vehicles made in
Canada and Mexico that do not meet USMCA content requirements will pay duties
coming into the U.S. market. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1606-A1, p. 10]
7 Perrotta, L., President, American Truck Dealers, Spear, C. President and CEO, American Trucking
Associations, Gore, A., Executive Director, Zero Emission Transportation Association (2023. February 22).
Federal Excise Tax for Heavy-Duty Trucks and Trailers. Letter to Senate Majority Leader Charles
Schumer, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, House Speaker Keving McCarthy, and House
Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, Accessed 14 June 2023 at
https://ata.msgfocus.eom/files/amf_highroad_solution/project_2358/FET_Repeal_Coalition_Letter_2.22.pd
f.
Organization: Zero Emission Transportation Association (ZETA)
ii. Impact of the Inflation Reduction Act and Bipartisan Infrastructure Law
Despite the TCO savings, reaching near upfront cost parity to ICEVs is a preference for fleet
owners. Once cost parity is reached, EV demand can be expected to rise rapidly. Purchase
subsidies for HDEV acquisition offers one way to address the upfront cost differential, though
483
-------
the lower operating expenses still makes them attractive to fleet operators—even without
incentives. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 12]
BloombergNEF projects electric delivery vehicles will reach price parity with diesel trucks
around 2025.50 Due to the IRA's 45W commercial clean vehicle tax credit of up to $40,000 and
battery production incentives of $45/kWh, McKinsey analysts expect electric HDVs with a range
of 400 miles to achieve parity by 2027.51 Prior to the passage of the IRA, cost parity was not
anticipated until much later.52 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 13]
50 Owen MacDonnell and Cristiano Facanha. "How Zero-Emission Heavy-Duty Trucks Can Be Part of the
Climate Solution," CALSTART, (May 2021) https://calstart.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/How-Zero-
Emission-Heavy-Duty-Trucks-Can-Be-Part-of-the-ClimateSolution.pdf
51 "Why the economics of electrification make this decarbonization transition different," McKinsey &
52 "Decarbonizing Medium- & Heavy-Duty On-Road Vehicles: Zero-Emission Vehicles Cost Analysis,"
NREL, (March 2022) https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy22osti/82081.pdf
Beyond the tax credits created or modified by the IRA, the law's funding programs, coupled
with those in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) of 2021, will help drive adoption of heavy-
duty vehicle technologies in all sectors, including transit, school bus, and freight. EPA's Clean
Heavy-Duty Vehicles program and Clean Ports program will incentivize a buildout of
manufacturing capacity to meet the increased demand for these products. EPA's Clean School
Bus program is already having a similar effect on the school bus sector. The Department of
Transportation's Low or No Emission Vehicle Program is also supporting the transition to
electric HDVs with millions of dollars already awarded to transit projects in recent years. The
BIL provided an additional $5.5 billion over five years for the Low-No Program—more than six
times greater than the previous five years of funding. 53 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p.
13]
53 "Biden-Harris Administration Announces Over $1.6 Billion in Bipartisan Infrastructure Law Funding to
Nearly Double the Number of Clean Transit Buses on America's Roads," U.S. Department of
Transportation, (August 16, 2022) accessed June 4, 2023
https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/biden-harris-administration-announces-over-16-billion-
bipartisan-infrastructure-law
EPA Summary and Response:
Summary:
Many commenters acknowledged the likely positive effect of federal, state, and local funding
efforts, but a number were skeptical of the extent of those benefits, stating:
The $40,000 section 45W qualified commercial clean vehicle credit is offset virtually
dollar for dollar by the federal excise tax, which was unaccounted for in EPA's analysis,
and in any case, does not cover the increased purchase price of a HD BEV by a wide
margin. (Clean Fuels Dvl., TRALA, ATA);
The IRA section 30D clean vehicle credit, which applies to a small fraction of the heavy-
duty vehicle market, is of limited use due to the requirement that increasing shares of
minerals be sourced domestically when presently China is the source of roughly 85% of
critical materials (Clean Fuels Dvl.);
484
-------
The alternative fuel refueling property 30C tax credit is so limited by geographic scope
(low income and rural area - non-optimal locales for charging stations) and sufficiency of
taxable income as to be of minimum utility (TRALA, Volvo, DTNA);
Startup costs for battery production are so high that the 45X advanced manufacturing
production credit will be subsumed by those costs. EPA's assumption that this credit will
be passed through to battery purchasers in the form of lower battery costs is thus
unrealistic (Volvo, TRALA);
The Clean HD Vehicle program is for class 6-7 vehicles only (Volvo);
With respect to NEVI funding for charging networks authorized by the BIL, commenters
were adamant that this funding is being dedicated almost exclusively to light duty vehicle
charging networks, which will not be suitable for heavy duty on grounds of space and
charging capacity among other factors. (DTNA, TRALA.) DTNA included an appendix
to its comments of a state-by-state survey to see if any had specific plans for HDV in
their NEVI implementation efforts. Almost none did. TRALA, in public comments to
the Federal Highway Administration—the agency issuing guidance regarding NEVI
implementation— requested guidance that would direct HDV charging networks to be
located near warehouses, ports, and large factories. The FHWA pointedly declined to
issue such guidance.
These commenters thus believe that these incentives, while welcome, are not likely to
appreciably affect such metrics as vehicle price, total cost of ownership, or electric
infrastructure availability. Moreover, DTNA notes that EPA's estimates of IRA effects
differ considerably from those of the Congressional Budget Office and they expressed
concern that the Section 45W program could be curtailed if ZEV penetration rates are
much higher than CBO's budgeted amounts.
• Other commenters were more sanguine. These commenters pointed to the BIL and IRA, plus
state and local initiatives, as confirming feasibility of standards more stringent than those
proposed. Pointing to the $40,000 credit in the IRA for Qualified Commercial Clean
Vehicles, although not to the federal excise tax, EDF quoted estimates that these and other
IRA provisions have already catalyzed significant investments in EV manufacturing and
associated jobs. For example, EDF, through its contractor WSP, documented announcements
between 2015-2023 of over $120 billion in private EV "supply ecosystem investments" (EV,
battery, and battery component production) and 143,000 new jobs (EDF Comment
Attachment AA.)
• RMI likewise pointed to the $40,000 tax credit as accelerating cost parity between ICE and
BEVs. They further pointed to studies indicating that the IRA would accelerate such price
parity by 5 years, including for vehicles needing to recharge en route, noting TCO price
parity for long haul vehicles by 2027, and price parity for urban and regional vocational
vehicles already.
• These commenters also pointed to State initiatives, both legislative and financial. CARB
noted the ACT and ACF regulations. They, and other commenters, also mentioned the
promising California voucher program for HD vehicles. (Tesla). Tesla also cited the Clean
Heavy Duty program providing $1 billion to States and municipalities for replacement of
485
-------
diesel HD vehicles as especially valuable in transitioning. The Electrification Coalition
noted programs in both Pennsylvania and New Jersey directed at promoting MHD BEV
transitioning. DTNA noted that State programs, though helpful, tended to be limited to
within-state scope, and thus were of limited utility, giving as examples the California HVIP
voucher program, and the Washington State Commercial Alternative Vehicle tax credit.
DTNA's ultimate conclusion is that these programs will not have significant effect on total
cost of ownership or other cost metrics.
Response:
EPA agrees with commenters who stated that federal, state, and local funding efforts, in
particular the Inflation Reduction Act, will be beneficial to the deployment of heavy-duty ZEVs.
We anticipate that the IRA programs with the largest impact in the timeframe of this rule will be
the three IRA tax credits described in Section II.E.4 of the preamble: the 45W Qualified
Commercial Clean Vehicles credit, the 45X Advanced Manufacturing Production Credit, and the
30C Alternative Fuel Refueling Property Credit. We have quantitatively included these tax
credits in our analyses as shown in preamble Sections II.E.2, II.E.4, and IV and RIA Chapters
2.4.3, 2.6.2, and 3. These sections detail how we have considered these incentives and the extent
to which we anticipate they will affect the market.
We have made some changes from our NPRM analysis for these three tax credits in this final
rulemaking after consideration of the comments summarized above.
For the 30C Alternative Fuel Refueling Property Credit, we agree that the geographic
requirements under the statute could limit the use of the tax credit. However, a map developed by
DOE to show eligible census tracts supports that stations installed in a large majority of the U.S.
may qualify.265 Additionally, as detailed in a report analyzing Inflation Reduction Act tax credits
for plug-in electric vehicles, DOE projects that the weighted-average 30C tax credit on all
recharging investment for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles will be 18 percent of the installed
cost for depot-based charging.266 This reflects their assessment of the impact of geographic
eligibility requirements in addition to other requirements listed in the statute. We have updated
our EVSE cost analysis to quantitatively include the 30C credit supported by this work. See
preamble Section II.E.2 and RIA Chapter 2.6.2.1.2 for further discussion.
We agree with RMI's assessment that the 45W tax credit will accelerate cost parity between
ICE vehicles and BEVs. We show our anticipated impacts of this tax credit on the relative retail
price equivalents (RPE) of ICE vehicles and BEVs in RIA Chapter 2.9.2. We note that RPE is
not the same as price, but RIA Chapter 2.9.2 does indicate which vehicle types we anticipate will
reach RPE parity between ICE vehicles and BEVs. For the reasons explained in preamble
Section II and RTC section 2.4, our final standards are sufficiently stringent in consideration of
this tax credit among other factors.
265 Internal Revenue Service. "Alternative Fuel Vehicle Refueling Property Credit." February 2, 2024. Last accessed
on March 19, 2024. Available at: https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/alternative-fuel-vehicle-refueling-property-
credit. See also the Department of Energy's map of eligible locations titled "30C Tax Credit Eligibility Locator"
linked from this IRS site, with a direct link here (last accessed on March 20, 2024):
https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/3f67d5e82dc64dl589714d5499196d4f/page/Page/.
266 U.S. Department of Energy. "Estimating Federal Tax Incentives for Heavy Duty Electric Vehicle Infrastructure
and for Acquiring Electric Vehicles Weighing Less Than 14,000 Pounds." March 11, 2024.
486
-------
For the matter of sufficiency of taxable income and HD ZEV purchasers' ability to use the
45W tax credits, we note in preamble Section II.E.4 that the Internal Revenue Service allows the
45W tax credits to be treated as general business credits, which greatly expands the time in
which they can be used to 21 tax years. This treatment of tax credits as general business credits
also applies to 30C.267 It is thus reasonable that businesses would have sufficient taxable income
to use the 45W and 30C credits.
DTNA noted that our estimates of the impact of the 45 W and 30C tax credits in the NPRM
differ from the CBO's. However, CBO's estimates could not have aligned with our projections
of the market under the proposed standards because CBO did not know what the standards would
be. If anything, their estimate may be a better representation of the regulatory baseline, i.e. the
world without this rule, at the time they calculated their estimate. We note that, if one were to
consider CBO's estimate to be a baseline, this CBO baseline would be different than the baseline
we use in this final rule (FRM reference case) because the regulatory landscape has changed
since CBO's cost estimates. Importantly, as discussed in preamble Section V.A.I and RIA
Chapter 4.2.2, in March of 2023 we granted CARB a waiver of preemption to enforce the State's
Advanced Clean Trucks rule, which would not (and could not) have been reflected in CBO's cost
estimates for the IRA which was signed in August of 2022. Whether or not the realized
budgetary impacts after this rule is finalized differ from CBO's estimates and whether or not
they lead to modification of the 45 W and 30C tax credit programs by the U.S. Department of the
Treasury or by Congress is out of scope of the analysis of this rule.
We have included upfront costs for battery production in the RPE (prior to consideration of
the 45X Advanced Manufacturing Production Credit) we use in our modeling, and then
appropriately reduce the costs by the 45X Advanced Manufacturing Production Credit. For
further discussion of direct manufacturing costs, indirect costs, and RPE, see the beginnings of
preamble Section IV and RIA Chapter 3.
Regarding the extent to which battery costs are reduced, the DOE has conducted an analysis
of public announcements that shows that in 2027-2032, there will be sufficient domestic battery
manufacturing capacity for the HD industry to produce cells and modules that meet the
requirements of this tax credit and to supply the volumes we project in this final rulemaking.268
The study includes a bounding analysis of full- and low-end responses for utilization of the IRA
section 45X tax credit. With respect to utilization of the credit for battery cells and modules, the
analysis shows that full- and low-end responses "are nearly identical because the smallest low-
end response is 97%."269 These estimates reflect "announced production capacities" as of
November 2023.270
As noted in preamble Section II.E.4, we have considered a) comments expressing skepticism
over how much of the credit would be passed through to consumers, b) the DOE report described
267 Internal Revenue Service. "Alternative Fuel Vehicle Refueling Property Credit." February 2, 2024. Last accessed
on March 19, 2024. Available at: https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/alternative-fuel-vehicle-refueling-property-
credit.
268 Kevin Knehr, Joseph Kubal, Shabbir Ahmed, "Cost Analysis and Projections for U.S.-Manufactured Automotive
Lithium-ion Batteries", Argonne National Laboratory report ANL/CSE-24/1 for US Department of Energy. January
2024. Available online: https://www.osti.gov/biblio/2280913. See pp.16-19 and Appendix A6.
269 Ibid. See pp. 19 and Tables 39, 41, and 42 (low-end market response, showing 100 percent utilization from MYs
2027-2031 and 97 percent for MY 2032).
270 Ibid. See pp. 47 and 16.
487
-------
in the previous paragraph, and c) Cummins' statement that the 45X tax credit "is expected to
benefit customers by lowering the price of batteries."271 While we expect that the full HDV
battery supply chain, including but not limited to cell manufacturers and vehicle manufacturers,
will be able to receive at a minimum nearly all of the available module and cell credits and a
significant amount of credits for electrode active materials and critical minerals as detailed in the
DOE report, we conservatively maintain our NPRM approach to modeling this tax credit as
described in preamble Section II.E.4 and RIA Chapter 2.4.3.1. We model the vehicle
manufacturers as fully utilizing the value of the battery module tax credit and gradually
increasing their utilization of the value of the cell tax credit for MYs 2027-2029 until MY 2030
and beyond, when they use 100 percent of the value of the available cell and module tax credits.
We model vehicle manufacturers as fully passing through the value of these credits to the
purchasers, consistent with Cummins' stated intention of using the credit to lower the price of
batteries, in order to remain competitive in the market. We also note that our RPE-based
approach to modeling costs should not be considered an actual price since we cannot predict how
vehicle manufacturers will set actual prices. In the same way, we cannot predict exactly how
they will pass the credits through to their customers. However, we note that our RPE (prior to
consideration of the 45X credit) fully accounts for the costs that manufacturers are expected to
attempt to recapture via new vehicle sales, including production costs of batteries and profits.
Since all their costs are accounted for by the RPE (prior to consideration of the 45X credit),
further reductions in cost due to the 45X credit would allow manufacturers to reduce prices to
improve their market power. For further discussion, see RIA Chapter 2.4.3.1.
We note that, should the full HDV battery supply chain (including vehicle manufacturers)
receive as much tax credit as projected by DOE, there would be significantly more 45X tax
credit available than we conservatively project. For example, in 2027, DOE estimates between
$47.60 and $53.90 per kWh of tax credits available (Cost of Automotive Batteries at Tables 41
and 42), whereas our modeling for the same year is only $18.75 per kWh (preamble Section
II.E.4), yielding a difference of $28.85 to $35.15 per kWh. For battery production levels on the
order of tens of gigawatt-hours per year for the HDV market alone (see RIA Chapter 2.10.2 for
further details), the difference between our conservative estimate of the 45X credit and the
amounts likely to be realized per DOE's estimates amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars in
tax credits per year (i.e., that we have conservatively not included in our analysis). To the extent
that our projections for these 45X tax credits are conservative, our cost projections for vehicle
manufacturers and purchasers in preamble Sections II.F.2 and IV and RIA Chapters 2.10.6 and 3
are overestimated.
The Clean Fuels Development Coalition anticipates limited use of the 30D Clean Vehicle
Credit for the heavy-duty vehicle market. We agree that the 30D credit applies to a small fraction
of the heavy-duty market at issue in this Phase 3 rulemaking, and we did not include this credit
in our Phase 3 analysis. Thus, any consideration of the domestic sourcing requirements in
estimating the impact of 30D is outside the scope of this rulemaking. See RTC Section 17.2 for
our consideration of other comments relating to critical materials and the supply chain.
271 Geman, Ben. "How Biden's climate law is fueling the U.S. battery boom." Axios. September 7, 2023. Last
accessed on November 2, 2023 at: https://www.axios.com/2023/09/07/battery-boom-daimler-blackrock
488
-------
We agree that the federal excise tax should be included in our cost analysis and included it in
the cost analysis for the final rule as discussed in RTC Section 3.8.1.
We did not quantitatively include other incentives and programs such as the Clean Heavy
Duty Vehicles program under the IRA, the NEVI program under the BIL, and California's HVIP
in our analysis. Consequently, our analysis supporting this rule (see preamble Section II and RIA
Chapter 2) is not based on these programs appreciably affecting such metrics as vehicle price,
total cost of ownership, or electric infrastructure availability. However, we do expect them to
affect the market (i.e., the ZEV adoption rate) even in the absence of this rule as discussed in
preamble Section V.A.I and RIA Chapters 1 and 4.2.2. To the extent that these incentives and
programs do affect vehicle price and other metrics, our estimates may be conservative. For
example, if the $10 billion of tax credits under the 48C Advanced Energy Project Credit program
extended by the IRA, which is available to facilities that manufacture batteries for HD BEVs and
other advanced energy technologies, appreciably reduces battery costs below our projections,
then our battery cost estimates would be greater than the realized costs and the costs of
compliance in our projected technology pathway would also be overestimated. Further
discussion of some of the relevant programs can be found in RIA Chapter 1.3.
Employment impacts are addressed in RTC Section 19.6.
2.8 Intentionally Left Blank
2.9 Post-rule actions
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Alliance for Vehicle Efficiency (AVE)
Under the proposed rule, auto manufacturers and suppliers are being asked to assume sizable
risk to transition manufacturing operations to meet future standards. To reduce these risks, EPA
should evaluate the ZEV marketplace prior to the Proposal's effective date and review the state
of the ZEV market. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1571-A1, p. 3]
EPA is predicting a significant conversion of the U.S. heavy-duty fleet in under four years.
Meanwhile in 2021, BEVs comprised 0.1% of all heavy-duty vehicles on U.S. roads.5 EPA's
assessment for manufacturer compliance relies heavily on the need for immense infrastructure
and supply chain overhauls. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1571-A1, p. 3]
5 https://www.iea.org/reports/global-ev-outlook-2022/trends-in-electric-heavy-duty-vehicles
Current manufacturing costs for BEV trucks pose a sizable barrier for most fleet owners. Even
with federal subsidies, the cost to manufacture and purchase a BEV will be significant for many
years. The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), cited by EPA as an accelerant to market penetration,
will offset only 10% of the estimated purchase price of a Class 8 vehicle and will still result in a
purchase price nearly twice the average cost of a diesel vehicle.6 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1571-A1, p. 3]
6 https://www.envasetechnologies.com/comparing-total-cost-of-ownership-electric-vs-diesel-trucks
Review of the ZEV marketplace
489
-------
For the reasons stated above, we urge EPA to commit to an evaluation of the Proposal's
feasibility similar to the Agency's midterm evaluation in 2017. The Agency can re-evaluate the
ZEV marketplace including the cost of manufacturing and consumer acceptance. The basis for
doing so is as relevant as it was when EPA committed to the process in 2012.11 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1571-A1, p. 4]
11 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 199 / October 15, 2012 / at 62628
Organization: American Petroleum Institute (API)
f. Program Review
i. Assessment of both vehicle and infrastructure development/deployment progress
The design of a program with such significant unknowns and heavy reliance on technology
and infrastructure that will "hopefully" or is "anticipated/expected to" be available is optimistic
at best. The proposal appears premature on the stated timeline, and essentially in conjunction
with the LD/MD program, which would be competing for the same resources. If EPA is not
willing to adjust the timeline and/or standards of the Phase 3 program, API requests that the
agency consider incorporating a pre-program assessment as well as a program progress
assessment. It is imperative that EPA provide a real-world evaluation, with an honest assessment
provided to the public, regarding progress on infrastructure readiness and ZEV technology
deployment. The opportunity for stranded investments by all stakeholders impacted by this
program is just too great not to incorporate pre- and mid-program reviews. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1617-A1, pp. 15 - 16]
For a mid-program assessment, EPA could consider something akin to the Midterm
Evaluation that was finalized in its 2012 rulemaking establishing the MY 2017-2025 LD GHG
standards.28 Further, we recommend that EPA engage a broad stakeholder community to
identify necessary elements to incorporate into such an assessment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1617-A1, p. 16]
28 https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/midterm-evaluation-light-duty-
vehicle-greenhouse-gas
ii. Future program incentives and program adjustment of standards
In the development of the Phase 3 program, EPA needs to consider future program incentives
such as adoption of a lifecycle approach, combined with fuel carbon intensity reductions. Such
an approach would provide a broad spectrum of industries that power the transportation system
(e.g., OEMs, petroleum refiners, power generators, and renewable fuel manufacturers) with
incentives to reduce GHGs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1617-A1, p. 16]
In addition, we also request that the agency report out on the findings following review with
enough time to adjust the standards if needed. Adequate leadtime must be provided to the
regulated community to allow for necessary adjustments to regulatory compliance strategies, and
to avoid stranded investments as much as possible. A proposal based on stretch goals must
incorporate an "offramp" or some opportunity to pivot if the essential elements of the program,
such as charging/fueling infrastructure, do not materialize. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1617-A1,
p. 16]
490
-------
Organization: Chevron
5. Feasibility and implementation
EPA requested comment on announcements made by vehicle manufacturers about plans to
produce heavy-duty ZEVs prior to 2030. Some of the examples cited by EPA are aspirational
targets provided by manufacturers rather than production or sales commitments. Other comments
are not specific to the U.S. market. Examples of this nature add to the uncertainty about whether
the optimistic BEV forecasts may be overstated. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1552-A1, p.7]
BEV sales forecasts may rely on optimistic expectations for increased electricity generation
and charging infrastructure. EPA should conduct an assessment to account for the costs and
timing associated with upgrades to the nation's grid infrastructure, including new and upgraded
generation, transmission, and distribution, and the costs associated with the installation of public
and private electric vehicle chargers. If it is not feasible to complete expansion and
improvements for the current grid, it may not be possible to meet the additional demand created
by the proposed regulation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1552-A1, p.7]
Stakeholders have expressed concern about the supply and availability of critical minerals and
supply chains for battery manufacturing, many of which are sourced from China. EPA should
quantitatively assess the impact this regulation will have on the nation/worldwide demand of
lithium and other rare earth metals, and the emissions that will be produced as a result of mining
and shipping these materials. EPA should consider environmental impacts from mining of semi-
precious metals and potential mitigations. The proposal does not address the potential hazards,
construction, noise, or other impacts and potential mitigations for these impacts. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1552-A1, p.7]
It is important for EPA to plan for uncertainty in the feasibility and timing of meeting the
standards proposed in the phase 3 heavy-duty rule. We endorse the recommendation from API in
their written comments to implement an interim program review, with provisions for adjustment
of the standards if adequate progress is not being demonstrated. These important program
elements should be incorporated into any final regulatory action. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1552-A1, p.7]
The new standards must be based upon accurate market and technology assumptions that are
subject to periodic review and reevaluation.
EPA's predictions of future HD ZEV adoption depends entirely upon a complex set of
circumstances that may or may not materialize in accordance with the Agency's projections.
These circumstances include, but are not limited to, the buildout of HD ZEV supporting
infrastructure, customer acceptance of new technologies, costs of these new technologies relative
to comparable ICE vehicles, payback periods, and suitability of HD ZEVs for certain drive
cycles. None of these considerations are within EPA's ability to control, meaning that there is no
assurance whatsoever that the proposed standards will be achievable within the timeframes
given. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 9]
Under these circumstances, it is critical that EPA start with reasonable C02 standard
stringency levels that are supported by more conservative projections of ZEV adoption rates.
EPA should also incorporate into the Phase 3 final rule a mechanism for performing periodic
reviews of these standards, including the assumptions and projections upon which they are
491
-------
based, and for adjusting the standards where it is found that these projections have not
materialized. Such a review-and-adjustment process is necessary to ensure that the Phase 3
standards remain feasible and cost-effective, and that EPA's future projections are supported by
reasoned analysis.7 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 9]
7 As courts have observed, EPA's latitude to project future technological developments relevant to
emission standard achievability is 'subject to the restraints of reasonableness and does not open the door to
'crystal ball' inquiry.' International Harvester Co. v. Ruckelshaus, 478 F.2d 615, 629 (D.C. Cir. 1973). In
other words, while the CAA requires EPA to look to the future in setting emission standards, it must
'provide a reasoned explanation of its basis for believing that its projection [of future technological
advances] is reliable. This includes a defense of its methodology for arriving at numerical estimates.'
NRDC, 655 F. 2d at 328.
Organization: Cummins Inc.
To ensure that technology investments like ours continue toward success, EPA's Phase 3 final
rule also must be durable, in that it must be robust against uncertainties that are largely outside
the control of EPA and the companies that must certify to EPA's Phase 3 standards. EPA has
proposed the most ambitious heavy-duty GHG standards ever considered, and EPA arrived at its
proposed stringencies by projecting almost exclusively a rapid increase in the market adoption of
fully electric heavy-duty vehicles in the 2027-2032 timeframe. Cummins and several other
stakeholders, such as the Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA) and its members,
share concerns about the readiness of the U.S. heavy-duty electric vehicle recharging
infrastructure to support EPA's projections in that timeframe. While Cummins supports EMA's
comments recommending that EPA closely monitor infrastructure readiness and adjust Phase 3
stringencies as needed in the future, we also recognize that the prospect of those adjustments
would call into question the durability of Phase 3 altogether. That regulatory uncertainty, in turn,
would have a chilling effect on future technology investments, which would only delay progress
even further. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1598-A1, p. 5]
To help avoid that kind of regulatory uncertainty after Phase 3 is finalized, we believe that
EPA can and should do more than just monitor infrastructure and delay the Phase 3 standards,
should recharging infrastructure be deemed not ready. Hybrids are a technology that OEM's and
customers can rely on if infrastructure is deemed not ready. Specifically, we request that EPA
formally commits to propose a technical amendments rulemaking in the first quarter of 2024 and
to finalize that rulemaking no later than the fourth quarter of 2024. We request that the technical
amendments rulemaking address any of our comments that EPA is unable to address in the Phase
3 final rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1598-A1, pp. 5 - 6]
Organization: Daimler Truck North America LLC (DTNA)
DTNA is heavily invested in the transition of the commercial transportation sector to
emission-free technologies. Manufacturers cannot make this transition happen by themselves,
however. Rather, the development of high quality zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) is only one part
of a three-part 'transformation equation,' which also requires ZEVs to achieve cost parity with
conventional vehicles and for there to be adequate charging and fueling infrastructure available
to support widespread ZEV deployment. Because the latter two factors will significantly impact
the achievability of the Phase 3 standards but are outside of EPA's regulatory authority and
ability to control, the Agency should build in to this rule a mechanism for adjusting its standards
492
-------
if these factors preclude or significantly delay ZEV adoption in the United States. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 1]
EPA's battery cost estimates rely on assumptions about raw materials and critical minerals,
the development of complex supply chains, projected future domestic mining and production,
and global trade and geopolitics. EPA does not, however, account for the possibility that mineral
costs could rise in the future, as global demand for BEVs increases. It is only appropriate that
EPA periodically reassess the battery costs used in the HD TRUCS model to inform the payback
period analysis. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 29]
Given the uncertainties and discrepancies in EPA's projections, a mechanism for periodic
review and standard adjustment is necessary.
In addition to finalizing standards that align with DTNA's proposed and more realistic
technology adoption rates, as discussed above, the Company requests that EPA incorporate the
following procedures for periodic review and possible adjustment of C02 standard stringency
levels:
• Biennial Reviews. Starting in 2024, the final rule must provide a process for EPA to
engage with stakeholders—including vehicle manufacturers, utilities, fleet owners, and
infrastructure providers—to conduct a biennial review and evaluation of the market and
technological assumptions underlying the C02 emission standards that take effect three
years from the review date. This review would encompass review of the standards in two-
year increments (e.g., the 2024 review would reassess MY 2027-2028 standards, the 2026
review would reassess MY 2029-2030 standards, the 2028 review would reassess MY
2031-2032 standards, etc.). EPA should only consider promulgating standards beyond
2032 if the Agency adopts this proposed review process.
• Re-Evaluate HD TRUCS Inputs In Light of Market and Technological Developments.
The biennial review must be focused on assessing whether the market and technological
assumptions that originally supported the Phase 3 C02 emission standard stringencies
have materialized or are reasonably likely to do so within the timeframe that the
standards under review will apply. Based upon the Proposed Rule, key assumptions to be
reviewed would include but are not limited to: (1) all cost inputs, including technology
and fueling costs, as well as continued availability of vehicle and battery tax credits; (2)
payback periods; and (3) projected adoption rates.
• Apply Updated Infrastructure Scalar. DTNA proposes that EPA re-calculate the
infrastructure scalar described in Section II.C.2 at the time of the biennial review. This
updated scalar should then be applied to the revised projected ZEV adoption rates
generated through the HD TRUCS analytical process described immediately above, to
ensure more accurate consideration of the status of ZEV support infrastructure
development at the time of the review.
• Re-Calculate Appropriate Standard Stringency Based Upon HD TRUCS With New
Inputs. After EPA has evaluated and adjusted its technological and market assumptions
as needed, the Agency would apply its HD TRUCS analytical tool using the updated
inputs. Subject to the technical assessment discussed below, this process may result in a
re-calibration of appropriate C02 standard stringency for the years under review.
• Technical Assessment Report and Determination of Standard Appropriateness. The
review and evaluation process described herein must provide an opportunity for public
493
-------
comment and preparation of a technical assessment report on the issues relevant to
emission standard stringency for the MYs under review. 136 After public comment on the
draft technical assessment report, the biennial review would conclude with a
determination by EPA either that (1) the underlying projections for upcoming MY
standards remain accurate and that the standards are appropriate; or (2) the underlying
projections in the Phase 3 final rule have not materialized and the Agency must initiate a
rulemaking to revise the upcoming MY standards, to be either more or less stringent as
appropriate. 137 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, pp. 64-65]
136 See, e.g., 40 C.F.R. 86.1818-12(h) (describing the mid-term evaluation process forEPA's C02
standards for MY 2022-2025 passenger automobiles and light-duty trucks).
137 See, e.g., id. at 86.1818-12(h)(2), (3) (outlining the draft Technical Assessment Report requirement
for EPA's mid-term review of MY 2022-2025 passenger automobile and light-duty truck C02 standards
and a deadline for the report to be issued in advance of EPA's determination of whether these standards are
appropriate).
EPA Request for Comment, Request #9: We request comment on our assessment of the HD
ZEV market and any additional data sources we should consider.
• DTNA Response: Throughout its comments on the Proposed Rule, DTNA provides
significant comment on EPA's assessment of the HD ZEV market and provides
additional data sources that it requests EPA consider. EPA should revisit its data
periodically to evaluate the feasibility of the Phase 3 standards as new data becomes
available, as discussed in more detail in Section II.C of these comments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 160]
EPA Request for Comment, Request #20: We request comment on our approach, including
other data we should consider in our assessment of energy consumption.
• DTNA Response: EPA should consider all available data including that which can be
provided by manufacturers in confidential settings; however, given that the HD ZEV
market is currently in a nascent state, any data available today is necessarily limited. EPA
should thus re-evaluate its assumptions on this issue on a regular basis, using the best
available data. See Section II.C.2 of DTNA's comments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1555-A1, p. 161]
EPA Request for Comment, Request #21: We request additional data that could be considered
in our assessment of PTO loads in our final rulemaking assessment.
• DTNA Response: See DTNA Response to Request # 20, above. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1555-A1, p. 162]
Organization: International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America (UAW)
In light of these projections, we urge the EPA to continue to draw upon technical feedback
from the industry responsible for implementing this transition and calibrate the standards as
explained above. We also encourage the EPA to factor the cost of a disruption to the heavy-duty
vehicle market caused by the proposed standards into its economic impact analysis. This
contingency planning is necessary because heavy-duty vehicles are integral to the functioning of
494
-------
the U.S. economy as they carry 70% of all freight moved in the country and are "expected to
move freight at an even greater rate in the future." 17 The domestic economy and heavy-duty
vehicle market depend on a reliable supply chain. The proposed standards should be better
aligned with these concerns. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1596-A1, p. 6-7]
17 Id. at 1.
Organization: National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA)
II. EPA's failure to provide for an adequate rulemaking process necessitates that its Phase 3
GHG program be subject to periodic review.
Today, less than 1% of new HDV sales are ZEVs. Yet, the Phase 3 proposal projects a near
transformation of the new HDV sales from ICE to ZEV HDVs. Such a transformation would
require massive changes to the design and manufacturer of HDVs and to their refueling
infrastructure (e.g., from the nation's electrical grids or a new facility designed to deliver highly-
compressed or liquified hydrogen). Such a transformation will require thoughtful changes in
business and transportation logistics and related human behavior, and even changes in traffic
patterns and land use for charging infrastructure and ZEV HDV parking. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1592-A1, pp. 2-3]
Despite the transformational nature of the Phase 3 GHG proposal, EPA appears to have based
nearly all its major assumptions and predictions on a "literature review,"8 in contrast with prior
rulemakings that involved data generated and provided by key stakeholders and agency engine
tests and simulations. For example, instead of allowing HDV manufacturers to provide
welldefined costs related to batteries, technology packages, and charging equipment, the EPA is
relying on third-party research. As a result, EPA's payback periods and adoption rates are
missing important inputs and are rife with inaccuracies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1592-A1,
p. 3]
8 The review appears to have included research, surveys, and models developed by International Council
on Clean Transportation (ICCT) and Argonne National Laboratory (ANL), including ANL's BEnefit
ANalysis ("BEAN") model.
A. Recommendations
Consequently, ATD requests that the Phase 3 GHG program provide for a biennial review and
evaluation of the market and technological assumptions underlying the GHG emission standards
that take effect three years from the review date. This biennial review process will enable EPA to
engage with stakeholders, including HDV manufacturers, dealers, fleet and truck owners, and
infrastructure providers, to review based on objective and rational criteria aimed at ensuring the
effective and efficient rollout of ZEV HDV technologies and infrastructure. As detailed below,
EPA's biennial review should in part rely on an updated version of its Heavy- Duty Technology
Resource Use Case Scenario (HD TRUCS) tool, with revisions to key analyses and assumptions
involving, but not limited to: (1) all cost inputs; (2) payback periods; (3) projected adoption
rates; and (4) updated infrastructure monitoring and benchmarks. This process should result in an
appropriate revision of Phase 3 standard stringency based on the updated HD TRUCS
analysis. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1592-A1, pp. 3 - 4]
495
-------
Organization: Navistar, Inc.
EPA should commit to conducting a Midterm Evaluation (MTE) of the Phase 3 GHG
standards.
In addition to the inclusion of a regulatory mechanism discussed above, the proposed rule
should also be revised to include a specific regulatory requirement for EPA to conduct a
Midterm Evaluation ('MTE') of the GHG standards established for MY 2028-2032. The MTE
process should include the establishment of an advisory board made up of representatives of the
various stakeholders, including for example, state, regional and local governments, regional and
local transportation agencies, EMA, ZEV manufacturers, utilities, and NGOs. The MTE process
should involve the preparation of a comprehensive assessment regarding the pace and feasibility
of the deployment of the necessary infrastructure. Following public comment, EPA should issue
recommendations regarding whether to reopen the Phase 3 standards for proposed revisions
consistent with the findings in the comprehensive infrastructure report. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1527-A1, p. 6]
Organization: Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
Because the development of this requisite ZEV-truck infrastructure is, in essence, the linchpin
to the feasibility of the Phase 3 program, EPA should initiate steps now to gauge, monitor and
respond to the pace of deployment of the necessary infrastructures for HDOH BEVs and FCEVs.
As one option for doing so, EPA could work with ICCT, Ricardo and other federal agencies and
departments to identify the top 100 counties in the country where the greatest numbers of ZEV-
trucks likely will need to be deployed under the final Phase 3 (and ACT) regulations. The
number and types of ZEV-trucks that likely will need to be deployed in each of the 100 top
counties during the 2028-2032 time period could be assessed, and from that assessment a
determination could be made of the benchmark number and types of ZEV-truck-battery
recharging and H2-refueling stations that will need to be constructed and made operational in
each of the top 100 counties on an annual basis over the next 8-9 years. EPA could then monitor
the progress of the development of the necessary ZEV-truck infrastructure in the top 100
counties against the annual benchmarks. Based on that annual monitoring, beginning in 2024, if
it is determined by EPA, in consultation with other stakeholders and federal agencies, that
sufficient infrastructure development has not occurred across the top 100 counties - perhaps, for
example, if the pace of infrastructure development falls 20% or more below the calculated
benchmark rates of deployment - the three-year increments of the phase-in schedule could be
shifted forward by one or more model years. Providing that sort of direct linkage between the
phase-in of the final Phase 3 standards and the phase-in of the necessary underlying ZEV-truck
infrastructures will be vital to the success of the Phase 3 program. Without that direct and
objective linkage, the likelihood of the Phase 3 program's collapse and failure will exceed the
likelihood of its successful implementation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, pp. 58 - 59]
To facilitate the necessary monitoring of the requisite infrastructure development, EPA should
specify in any final rule that the Agency will engage with all key stakeholders in a biennial
review process starting as soon as practicable (i.e., the beginning of 2025) to assess whether any
infrastructure-scaled adjustments are required to the final Phase 3 C02 standards or to the three-
year phase-in periods, or both. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 59]
496
-------
Organization: Truck Renting and Leasing Association (TRALA)
Need for Periodic Status Reviews
TRALA strongly recommends EPA consider building 'off-ramps' into the final Phase 3 rule
to include, but not be limited to, the state of electric charging and hydrogen fueling infrastructure
in all states; supply chain shortages including rare earth mineral and precious metal availability;
the state of the nation's economy; and the availability and readiness of low carbon technologies
for every truck family in each compliance year. Such reviews not only make for sound policy
development but are also necessary to better gauge whether ZEV technologies and the
marketplace are aligning as projected. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1577-A1, p. 21]
TRALA also recommends EPA conduct and complete a special study and analysis regarding
Class 8 BEV and FCEV technology pathways prior to the 2030 Class 8 implementation schedule
to assess the feasibility and availability of both technologies. If such study concludes that either
technology has not advanced to the levels predicted six years prior by EPA, the Phase 3 rule
should be revised accordingly. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1577-A1, p. 22]
Organization: Valero Energy Corporation
EPA should account for additional risks and challenges to EV infrastructure implementation
goals, such as equipment supply chain delays, energy security risks, grid capacity and
constraints, and availability of site hosts and matching funds. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-
A2, p. 36]
Organization: Volvo Group
Safety Valves
The stringencies proposed by the agency rely heavily on many assumptions and factors
outside of either the agency's, or manufacturers' ability to control. As such, Volvo Group
believes that safety valves must be placed in the regulation such that industry compliance is not
dependent on the actions of other stakeholders or beyond EPA's authority to regulate. These
include such items as the availability and price of battery raw materials or sufficient charging
and refueling capacity located where it can support the proposed adoption rates, plus some
additional level of capacity (margin) so as not to disadvantage any single OEM based on their
product portfolio, regional strengths, etc. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1606-A1, p. 15]
With respect to infrastructure, Volvo Group proposes that the agency link either the vehicle
stringencies or manufacturer compliance determination for each model year of the Phase 3
regulatory period to the actual infrastructure capacity, accessibility, and density within
geographic areas and along freight corridors. That infrastructure must be able to support the
agency's adoption rates in each vehicle subcategory such that, regardless of geographic area or
freight corridor in which the infrastructure is installed, it can support the previous years' fleet
plus the total number of zero-emission vehicles determined by the agency's annual adoption
rates. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1606-A1, p. 15]
For example, if a city had enough chargers to charge 1,000 HD EVs daily, but the total fleet
(regardless of fuel/energy source) operating in or transiting to and from this city was only 500
497
-------
HD vehicles daily, then the additional capacity would not be included in the capacity assessment.
Of course, it is not realistic that there would be this much excess capacity; the numbers are
exaggerated to make the point. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1606-A1, p. 15-16]
If 50 of those vehicles were locally domiciled Class 8 vocational vehicles that returned to base
every night and had available infrastructure to charge batteries that met their range 100% of the
time, then that capacity would be counted toward the required Class 8 adoption rate. However, if
the chargers were private, but had additional capacity beyond this fleet's needs, this additional
capacity should not be counted. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1606-A1, p. 16]
Thus, this determination, is not a one-to-one equivalence when it comes to number of
chargers, making the assessment more complicated. As noted, the chargers must be accessible,
which means a mix of public and private chargers. Additionally, they must be available for a
sufficient amount of time for charging when and where vehicles need them. In some cases, this
will require opportunity charging, which is not included in the agency's analysis. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1606-A1, p. 16]
There should also be some consideration given to an individual OEM's ability to comply
based on its product portfolio and market share by region and segment. If the infrastructure is
sufficient to meet the adoption rate for Class 8 high roof day cab tractors based only on
infrastructure on the West Coast, but a manufacturer has no sales in that region, they will be at
risk of noncompliance. Thus, there must be some margin applied so that a manufacturer is not
deemed non-compliant due to such factors. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1606-A1, p. 16]
Because of the myriad complicating factors that go into assessing the sufficiency of
infrastructure, we suggest the agency reach out to the broadest possible group of stakeholders. At
a minimum, we think the agency should enlist utilities and public utility commissions; hydrogen,
alternative fuel, and diesel fuel producers and distributors; charging service providers and EVSE
manufacturers; vehicle manufacturers; dealers; public and private fleets; expert industry
consultants in clean transportation; trucking industry service providers; and additional state and
federal agencies such as CARB and DOE. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1606-A1, p. 16]
We also suggest EPA undertake a data collection effort as soon as possible to determine how
to assess sufficiency. One good source of data will be available through the Electric Power
Research Institute's (EPRI) EVs2Scale 2030 project. 11 This project will include a three-year
comprehensive study to model grid impacts (load profiles/clusters) for 50% EV market share by
2030 for light, medium and heavy-duty vehicles. This study will provide critical information to
utilities to determine the pace of year-over-year action and investment required to prepare the
grid in advance of this load. The goal is to help support rapid deployment of millions of electric
vehicles and trucks - while minimizing grid impacts and ensuring regulators/utilities are in
lockstep with OEMs and vehicle regulations. The result will be a 50-state roadmap to 2030
outlining EV loads, grid impacts, lead times, workforce, and costs, assuming 50% EV adoption
across all weight classes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1606-A1, p. 16]
11 Walton, R (2023, April 19). EPRI launches 3-year initiative to address grid constraints, develop tools to
serve coming EV loads. UtilityDive.com. Accessed on 14 June 2023 at
https://www.utilitydive.com/news/epri-initiative-electric-vehicle-loads-power-grid-constraints-
interconnection/648024/
498
-------
Of course, this need does not only apply to infrastructure. It is important to remember that this
is a nascent industry, and many of the assumptions being made may or may not come to fruition.
With such high stringency increases above the Phase 2 2027 model year vehicle standards, the
only pathway to meeting the NPRM's proposed improvements will be through zero, or near-zero
emissions technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1606-A1, p. 16]
Thus, it is absolutely critical that the agency work with all stakeholders during the rulemaking
period to assure the best possible assumptions and inputs are utilized in the stringency setting,
and that there be some included safety valves in acknowledgement of the uncertainty and
volatility around this emerging technology. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1606-A1, p. 17]
Organization: Zero Emission Transportation Association (ZETA)
Other commenters may recommend EPA adopt so-called regulatory "off-ramps" in an effort
to undermine the stringency of the proposed standards. ZETA urges EPA not to adopt any
regulatory changes that would create unnecessary and avoidable uncertainty in the HDEV supply
chain. The private sector investments being made today will be critical in meeting the target EPA
has created with these proposed standards and arbitrarily undermining them with
counterproductive regulatory changes will only add additional risk to such investments. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 16]
EPA Summary and Response:
Summary:
Many commenters coalesced on the point that there must be extensive post-promulgation
oversight and potential action by EPA if the Phase 3 program is to be successfully implemented.
A number of commenters stressed the need for a government-wide approach including at a
minimum, EPA, DOE, and the Joint Office of Energy and Transportation. (DTNA, UAW). The
linked uncertainties cited by commenters as necessitating some type of post-promulgation
monitoring include:
• distributive infrastructure (e.g. Cummins, Chevron, EMA, DTNA)
• customer acceptance of ZEVs (e.g. Chevron, DTNA)
• critical mineral supply and availability (e.g. Chevron)
• ZEV sales (e.g. Chevron)
• other critical assumptions in HD TRUCS relating to cost (e.g. DTNA, NAD A)
Commenters had various suggestions as to the type of post-promulgation activity needed,
ranging from monitoring and reporting, to automatic adjustment of the standards:
• Monitoring and reporting of, in particular, distributive infrastructure, BEV sales, and
critical material availability (Chevron)
• a midterm review analogous to that conducted by EPA for the second LDV GHG
standard (which would include a regulatory requirement binding EPA to conduct such
a review) (API, Navistar)
499
-------
• a commitment to a technical amendment by the end of calendar year 2024 if important
projections appear not to be occurring (Cummins)
• an automatic adjustment factor ('scalar') built into the standards themselves whereby
the standards would be proportionately adjusted downward depending on the
percentages of infrastructure (and potentially other parameters as well) which deviate
from those projected (EMA, DTNA) (this type of off- ramp was actively opposed by
various other commenters including EDF and ZETA)
• careful monitoring, and potential pre-adjustment of standards for MY 2030 for Class 8
vehicles (TRALA)
In public comments, and in subsequent meetings with agency staff, EMA put forward other
ideas of what could be monitored as a type of warning signal. These suggestions included
evaluating potential charging infrastructure needs for the 100 counties considered to be the most
likely areas for ZEV adoption (based, for example, on the ICCT April 2023 White Paper) and
from that assessment determine the benchmark number and types of ZEV-truck-battery
recharging (and H2-refueling stations) that will need to be constructed and made operational in
each these counties on an annual basis over the next 8-9 years. Commenters also suggested that
EPA could then monitor the progress of the development of the necessary ZEV-truck
infrastructure in these top 100 counties against the annual benchmarks. (This suggested
methodology is similar to that utilized by EMA consultant Ricardo in their exhibit to the EMA
public comments). Another suggestion from commenters was to monitor the extent of
compliance with ACT requirements in California and the section 177 States to see what lessons
can be drawn, and to adjust the federal program if needed.
Response:
In response to several commenters raising concerns related in particular to the readiness of the
infrastructure to support ZEVs, we have carefully assessed infrastructure needed for the modeled
potential compliance pathway that supports the feasibility of the final standards. See preamble
Section II.F. As described in preamble Section II.G, we conclude that the Phase 3 standards are
feasible and appropriate, which includes findings that there will be adequate supporting
infrastructure. See also RTC section 7.1. However, EPA also commits in this final rule to
actively engage with stakeholders and monitor both manufacturer compliance and the major
elements of the HD ZEV infrastructure and issue periodic reports in consultation with other
agencies, as discussed in preamble section II.B.2.iii. Based on these reports, as appropriate and
consistent with CAA section 202(a) authority, EPA may decide to issue guidance documents,
initiate a rulemaking to consider modifications to the Phase 3 standards (if the agency determines
that the standards may no longer reflect the appropriate balancing of statutory and other relevant
factors), or make no changes to the Phase 3 rule program. However, EPA is declining to include
in the final rule a self-adjusting linkage between the standards and ZEV infrastructure. First, as
discussed in preamble section II.B.2.iii, our approach here is consistent with similar actions EPA
has taken in the past to monitor implementation successfully post-rulemaking. Second, as
explained in preamble Section II and RTC section 2, the Phase 3 standards are performance-
based standards and the modeled potential compliance pathway is not the only way that
manufacturers may comply with the standards, and thus these reports will include but not be
limited to assessing only HD ZEV infrastructure (the metric suggested by commenters for a self-
adjusting linkage). A self-adjusting mechanism based solely on HD ZEV-related developments
500
-------
would inappropriately suggest that the final standards are a ZEV mandate or can only be
achieved by ZEV technologies, which is both legally and factually erroneous; such a mechanism,
moreover, could improperly reduce regulatory certainty and undermine the development and
application of non-ZEV technologies for achieving GHG emissions reductions. Finally, we
believe our active engagement with stakeholders and our monitoring and reporting activities will
provide sufficient information from which to assess whether any changes to the Phase 3 rule
program are warranted. For discussion of payback and adoption rates, please see RTC section 3.
For discussion of critical minerals, please see RTC section 17.
2.10 Coordination for Implementation of the Program
Comments by Organizations
Organization: American Petroleum Institute (API)
iv. Stakeholders missing from the discussion - utilities
EPA requested comment on stakeholders that may be missing from the discussion. As noted
during the public hearing testimony, of the various stakeholders who testified, representation
from the utilities was lacking. We implore the agency to fully engage the utilities in discussion
prior to finalizing the Phase 3 rule. Because infrastructure is such an important piece of the
program, the main stakeholder group needs to be included in the design of the program to
provide EPA guidance. For example, a set of truck chargers of sufficient size to charge a fleet of
fully electric trucks requires power enough for a small town. 10 If there are National Electric
Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) charging facilities (i.e., four direct current fast chargers (DCFCs)
with the capability to deliver 150 kW simultaneously) located on the same grid, there could be
significant challenges to delivering the power without impacting other residential, commercial,
and industrial customers. Further, a guidance report by the North American Council for Freight
Efficiency (NACFE) and RMI highlights that "[cjharging infrastructure includes not only the
chargers themselves, but the interrelated system of vehicles, duty cycles, chargers, and electric
utilities." 11 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1617-A1, p. 9]
10 "Charging Infrastructure Challenges for the U.S. Electric Vehicle Fleet," American Trucking Research
Institute, December 2022.
11 "Charging Forward with Electric Trucks," North American Council for Freight Efficiency (NACFE)
and RMI, June 2023.
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
The NPRM states that U.S. EPA believes there is sufficient lead time for the charging and
refueling infrastructure to develop to support the Proposed Standards and that such infrastructure
for BEVs and FCEVs is important for the success of the increasing development and adoption of
these vehicle technologies. CARB staff agrees with both statements. In California, staff have
recognized the critical role that infrastructure plays in supporting the adoption of ZE truck
technologies. As such the state has found it useful to bring together environmental, energy,
transportation, and business development agencies to focus on planning, communication,
funding, permit streamlining and workforce development to support development of fueling
infrastructure for BEV and FCEV HDVs. An example of this effort is the Zero Emission
Infrastructure Joint Agency Statement of Intent. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1591-A1, p.49]
501
-------
The NPRM states that U.S. EPA has heard from some representatives from the HDV
manufacturing industry both optimism regarding the HD industry's ability to produce ZEV
technologies in future years at high volume, but also concern that a slow growth in ZEV
refueling infrastructure can slow the growth of HD ZEV adoption, and that this may present
challenges for vehicle manufacturers' ability to comply with future U.S. EPA GHG standards.
This fails to recognize that the standards finalized by U.S. EPA can be, and should be, the
catalyst for any needed planning, investment and fueling infrastructure development (both
Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE)/Hydrogen stations and the upstream infrastructure
for electricity and hydrogen production and delivery). CARB and U.S. EPA have both seen how
standards, of diverse types, can accelerate these kind of developments—whether in low-sulfur
gasoline, biofuels, or ZEV charging. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1591-A1, p.49]
U.S. EPA requests comment on stakeholders they should work with in the assessment of
implementation of the Phase 3 rulemaking, including with respect to important issues of
refueling and charging infrastructure. California has been conducting stakeholder engagement
with the following parties: fleets, fleet depot providers, infrastructure providers, vehicle
manufacturers, utilities, cities and counties, infrastructure consultants, state energy,
transportation, workforce development, and business development agencies, port authorities,
community environmental justice (EJ) organizations, truck stop operators, warehouse operators
and agricultural industry representatives. These engagements have been fruitful in identifying
stakeholder concerns and opportunities for data sharing, as well as for connecting stakeholders
with solution providers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1591-A1, p.50]
Organization: Daimler Truck North America LLC (DTNA)
Successful implementation of the new standards will depend upon coordinated regulatory and
policy support for the HD ZEV transition.
DTNA devotes significant resources to developing an array of ZEV product offerings for its
customers and invests heavily in the technological advancements needed to support expansion of
the Company's ZEV portfolio. Solving TCO and infrastructure barriers to widespread ZEV
adoption cannot be accomplished by manufacturers alone, however. Rather, these obstacles will
be overcome only by coordinated regulatory, legislative, and private sector efforts. As the driver
of national clean transportation regulatory programs, EPA has the unique role of promoting the
clean transportation policies needed to ensure that its emission standards are achievable,
including the following:
• Policies to Promote TCO Parity Between ZEVs and Conventional Vehicles
o Federal Excise Tax Cap or Repeal. The Federal Excise Tax (FET) adds 12% to
the first retail sale of new HD trucks, truck trailers, semitrailers, and tractors. 8
Because HD ZEVs currently retail for two to three times the price of their
conventional vehicle equivalents, the FET applied to a HD ZEV sale is two to
three times the tax applied to the sale of a comparable conventional vehicle.
Given the hefty FET passed on by retailers to ZEV purchasers, the up-to-$40,000
commercial clean vehicle tax credit enacted by the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA)
may only be enough to offset the additional FET applied to a ZEV purchase,
instead of reducing actual technology costs. DTNA thus recommends that EPA
support advocacy for a legislative change to repeal the FET as applied to HD ZEV
502
-------
sales, or to adopt a cap so that the tax applied to such sales is no more than the
FET collected on a comparable conventional vehicle sale. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1555-A1, p. 10]
o Vehicle Weight Adjustments. Due to additional battery weight, commercial ZEVs
weigh significantly more than comparable conventional vehicles. This additional
weight impacts the cargo capacity of the vehicle and ultimately the fleet's
profitability and TCO. In 2019, federal highway laws were amended to allow a
2,000-pound maximum exceedance of the established weight limits for HD BEVs
operating on federal interstates.9 Few states have enacted a similar weight
increase for HD BEVs to operate on state roads, however, despite the fact that
such an increase is needed for BEVs to serve in weight-sensitive applications.
BEV weights also impact Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)
and state-equivalent vehicle weight classification and licensing requirements. For
instance, under FMCSA and state motor carrier safety programs, a number of
vehicle applications that are under the 26,001-pound threshold for conventional
medium-duty vehicles (MDVs) would be classified in a higher weight class as a
BEV, requiring fleets to hire additional drivers with commercial drivers' licenses
(CDLs) where they would not otherwise be required. DTNA recognizes that
adjusting weight limits and classifications have potential implications for road
wear and safety and must be further studied. In the meantime, however, EPA
should consider fully accounting for these weight penalty issues in the TCO
calculations for this rulemaking, or limiting its ZEV uptake projections to only
specific applications that are less sensitive to payload capacity restrictions. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, pp. 10-11]
9 See 23 U.S.C. 127(s).
Organization: Electrification Coalition (EC)
We suggest the EPA work collaboratively with the Joint Office, National Association of
Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC), and additional stakeholders to ensure a successful
implementation of the final rule, particularly for the timely deployment of EV charging
infrastructure. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1558-A1, p. 12]
The EPA specifically requests comments on request comment on whether there are additional
stakeholders EPA should work with during implementation of the Phase 3 standards, particularly
with respect to the important issue of HD EV charging infrastructure. 3 5 The EC comments that
the EPA should work collaboratively with the Joint Office of Energy and Transportation (JO) to
begin with, as some of the lessons learned and best practices from deployment of EV charging
infrastructure on the light-duty side under the National EV Infrastructure (NEVI) Program and
Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Grant Program (CFI) will be applicable to the HD EV
charging sector. The EPA should also work with NARUC, the American Public Power
Association (APPA) and the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA), as
utility Commissioners, staff, muni and coop boards and staff need to be aware of the impact the
EPA proposed rule will have on their utilities. A HD EV charging consortium could be created
consisting of the aforementioned stakeholders, Edison Electric Institute (EEI), regional utility
commission associations, and select additional partners to discuss challenges and solutions. In
particular, this consortium should discuss best practices for commercial utility EV rates and rate
503
-------
design for the HD sector, and encourage adoption of these rates and rate design across all
utilities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1558-A1, p. 12]
35 See page 25934 of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposed rule for Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles-Phase 3 in the Federal Register:
https://www.govinfo.gOv/content/pkg/FR-2023-04-27/pdf/2023-07955.pdf
In addition, the EC suggests the EPA could work with the FHWA to expeditiously announce
the designated national EV charging corridors to support freight and goods movements along
national highways, National Highway Freight Network, and other goods movement locations as
required by the BIL. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1558-A1, p. 13]
Organization: International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT)
The EPA rule can go further than we have outlined here by making use of the significant
research and investment the U.S. Department of Energy is making in truck efficiency. The DOE
SuperTruck program continues to deliver cutting edge innovations in partnership with private
industry. The failure to incorporate commercially viable efficiency packages with short payback
periods is a significant missed opportunity. We encourage EPA in preparing its final rule to
consult with DOE and its industry partners to identify additional efficiency technologies we have
not identified here. Their inclusion will further strengthen and increase the benefits of the
proposed standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1553-A1, pp. 18-19]
Organization: MEMA
It is imperative that EPA aligns with the Joint Office of Energy and Transportation through
the implementation period of this rule to identify shared concerns and solutions for the many
moving parts of the rule. Failure in one key sector, lithium sourcing as one example, could result
in significant cost or schedule impacts, stunting availability or adoption of these new vehicles.
Positive regulatory certainty bolsters consumer confidence in new technologies and decreased
use of gasoline- and diesel-fueled vehicles. EPA should adopt an "all hands on deck" approach
with regards to emissions-lowering technologies and encourage greater acceptance of and
investment in renewable fuels, which can positively impact the net emissions of the entire U.S.
Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) vehicle fleet. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1570-A1, p. 4]
The aggressive pace and scope of the proposed rule obliges EPA to work to ensure success
throughout the course of this rule's implementation. EPA must follow through on all
assumptions, and act accordingly to help make them a reality and reassure manufacturers and
consumers along the way. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1570-A1, p. 4]
Recommendation: EPA align regulations and priorities in concert with the Joint Office of
Energy and Transportation throughout the implementation period of this rule to identify shared
concerns and solutions for the many moving parts of the rule. EPA must follow through on all
assumptions regarding critical materials, infrastructure needs and timing of milestones identified
in the rule's analyses, and take action to make them a reality as this rule is implemented. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1570-A1, p. 4]
The federal government is well-suited to deploy infrastructure along interstates and should
allocate targets in funding for hydrogen and DC fast charging to support opportunity charging
needs for MHDV. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1570-A1, p. 9.]
504
-------
Recommendation: EPA to work with other agencies in the Joint Office of Energy and
Transportation to deploy even more infrastructure than currently planned along interstates and
allocate increased targets in funding for hydrogen and DC fast charging to support opportunity
charging needs for MHDV. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1570-A1, p. 9.]
Organization: Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
Thus, as a practical matter, the NPRM at issue amounts to a one-legged stool, which as
currently designed will fracture and frustrate all stakeholders. The Agency will need to address
that fundament defect upfront in concrete ways. More specifically, and at the very least, the
Agency should work with all of the necessary stakeholders (e.g., the national laboratories, EPRI,
the Joint Office of Energy and Transportation, DOT, FHWA, CRC, OEMs, and others) to
establish benchmarks and timelines for the necessary build-out of the requisite infrastructure, and
should link potential adjustments to the implementation of the Phase 3 standards to those
benchmarks. To not do so is, in essence, to ignore the elephant in the room, an elephant that is
certainly large enough to cause the collapse of what needs to be a three-legged stool. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 6]
EPA Summary and Response
Summary:
In the preamble for the proposal, EPA requested comment on "whether there are additional
stakeholders EPA should work with during implementation of the Phase 3 standards, if finalized,
and what measures EPA should consider to help ensure the success of the Phase 3 program"
(Preamble, Section I.C.). The above commenters provided several suggestions. DTNA stated
that a coordinated regulatory and policy support structure is needed, and that implementation
cannot be solved by manufacturers alone. Other commenters recommended that EPA include a
wide variety of groups, including utilities, fleets, fleet depot providers, infrastructure providers,
vehicle manufacturers, utilities, cities and counties, infrastructure consultants, state energy,
transportation, workforce development, and business development agencies, port authorities,
community environmental justice (EJ) organizations, truck stop operators, warehouse operators
and agricultural industry representatives. Several commenters also suggested involving the Joint
Office of Energy and Transportation, regarding lessons learned and best practices from
deployment of EV charging infrastructure on the light-duty side under the National EV
Infrastructure (NEVI) Program and Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Grant Program (CFI);
the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC), the American Public
Power Association (APPA); and the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA).
CARB recommended, based on their experience, involving people from the environmental,
energy, and transportation sectors, and business development agencies to focus on planning,
communication, funding, permit streamlining, and workforce development to support fuel
infrastructure for BEC and FCEV HDVs. CARB also noted that EPA's rule should be a catalyst
for infrastructure development. DTNA noted that coordinated regulatory, legislative, and private
sector efforts are needed. The Electrification Coalition recommended creating a heavy-duty EV
charging consortium, including Edison Electric Institute, regional utility commission
associations as well as other selected partners. ICCT said EPA should take advantage of the
505
-------
SuperTruck program and consult with DoE and its industry partners. DTNA called for action to
repeal the federal excise tax cap and to modify vehicle weight requirements.
Response:
Regarding coordination and engagement during the course of the Phase 3 rulemaking process,
see preamble Sections ES.E and F for a summary of the extensive coordination and engagement
EPA undertook, as reflected throughout the record of this rulemaking. As noted in Section 2.9 of
this document, and in Preamble Section II.B.2.iii, EPA, in conjunction with its Federal partners,
is committing to continuing this engagement with stakeholders and to monitoring both
manufacturer compliance and the build-out of major elements of the HD ZEV infrastructure.
EPA, and its federal partners, intend to engage with other interested stakeholders as part of these
efforts. See RTC Section 7 for our consideration of comments relating to infrastructure and our
engagement with utilities, as recommended by API. In response to CARET s "catalyst" comment,
we direct readers to RTC Section 2.4 for our responses to comments suggesting that federal
standards will provide needed certainty for investment in ZEVs, critical materials, and
infrastructure. In response to DTNA, we have revised our HD TRUCS analysis as described in
RIA Chapter 2 and RTC Section 3, including specific revisions to our assessment of payload
capacity. DTNA's suggestions that EPA address the federal excise tax cap and vehicle weight
requirements are outside the scope of this rulemaking.
2.11 Other Legal Issues
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF)
Both Tailpipe Rules Violate The Administrative Procedure Act ('APA')
The Tailpipe Rules also violate the Administrative Procedure Act's prohibition against agency
action that is 'arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with
law . . . .' 5 U.S.C. 706. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1488-A1, p. 3]
The statute defines 'air pollutant' as 'any air pollution agent or combination of such agents,
including any physical, chemical, biological, radioactive (including source material, special
nuclear material, and byproduct material) substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise
enters the ambient air.' 42 U.S.C. 7602. Because the statute fails to define the meaning of the
term 'air pollution agent,' this definition is facially circular and therefore void for vagueness.
Antonin Scalia & Bryan Garner, READING LAW 134 (Thomson/West 2012) ('An unintelligible
text is inoperative.'); see also Sackett v. EPA, 598 U.S. (2023), slip op. at 24 (stating that a
'broad and unqualified' interpretation of the Clean Water Act 'gives rise to serious vagueness
concerns'). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1488-A1, p. 3]
Furthermore, carbon dioxide, the most plentiful greenhouse gas, is a natural substance
essential to life on Earth. It is everywhere and in everything, yet EPA claims the power to
regulate it. Congress could not possibly have intended to grant the EPA such wide-ranging
regulatory power when it passed the Clean Air Act. Courts analyzing grants of authority to
executive agencies must consider 'whether Congress in fact meant to confer the power the
agency has asserted.' West Virginia v. EPA, 142 S. Ct. 2587, 2608 (2022). In West Virginia, the
506
-------
Supreme Court affirmed that when 'the history and breadth of the authority that the agency has
asserted, and the economic and political significance of that assertion' are large and weighty,
courts have 'reason to hesitate' before concluding Congress meant to delegate such power. Id.
(cleaned up). At the very least, the Court 'expect[s] Congress to speak clearly if it wishes to
assign to an agency decisions of vast economic and political significance.' Util. Air Regulatory
Grp. v. EPA, 573 U.S. 302, 324 (2014) (cleaned up). Because EPA's interpretation of the CAA
to regulate C02 'would bring about an enormous and transformative expansion in EPA's
regulatory authority without clear congressional authorization,' it is 'patently unreasonable' for
EPA to seize such authority. Id. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1488-A1, p. 3]
EPA points to their Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding, see 74 Fed. Reg. 66496 (Dec. 15,
2009), as the source of their conclusion that it may regulate greenhouse gases. EPA made this
Endangerment Finding without seeking peer review from the Science Advisory Board ('SAB'), a
blue-ribbon panel of experts established by Congress to ensure that EPA regulations are based on
accurate data and credible scientific analyses. In enacting the peer review requirement, Congress
was concerned that EPA not impose unnecessary restrictions on economic and personal freedom
by unintelligently pursuing its regulatory goals. By ignoring the peer review requirement, EPA
violated 42 U.S.C. 4365(c)(1), which states that EPA 'shall' make its regulatory proposals
available to the SAB for peer review. That fundamental error stemmed from a desire to impress
the community of nations by being among the first to regulate greenhouse gas emissions timed to
coincide with the 2009 Copenhagen international climate conference. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1488-A1, pp. 3-4]
The Endangerment Finding has other flaws. In making it, EPA made no showing that the
Finding or any of its related greenhouse gas rules will remove any dangers to human health or
welfare. Indeed, EPA disclaimed any obligation to define its ultimate regulatory objectives or its
chosen means of achieving them and even refused to articulate how the Endangerment Finding
could lead to successfully combating anthropogenic climate change. Furthermore, EPA claimed
it was 90-99% certain that human-caused climate change threatened public health and welfare,
see 74 Fed. Reg. at 66518 n.22, while failing to state what constitutes a safe climate, acceptable
global temperature ranges, how levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (whether natural or
man-made) may affect those ranges, or even whether its regulatory actions would ameliorate any
risk. Because of these substantial gaps in its analysis, no one could accurately judge whether
EPA achieved any discernable public benefit or congressionally-authorized goal when it made
the Endangerment Finding. Section 202(a)(1) of the CAA requires the EPA to exercise its own
independent judgment to determine how its regulatory response to a perceived risk will reduce or
eliminate that risk. Instead, the EPA left evidentiary analysis and risk assessment almost entirely
to international non-governmental organizations ('NGOs') when making the Endangerment
Finding. Congress did not clearly delegate the significant power to make regulatory
determinations affecting public policy to NGOs. See Util. Air Regulatory Grp., 573 U.S. at
324. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1488-A1, p. 4]
For all these reasons, the Endangerment Finding was itself arbitrary, capricious, and ultra
vires, and any regulation based on its authority suffers the same problems. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1488-A1, p. 4]
The HD Tailpipe Rule Will Devastate Trucking
507
-------
Former Supreme Court Justice Breyer stated in Whitman v. Am. Trucking, 531 U.S. 457
(2001), that the Clean Air Act 'does not require the EPA to eliminate every health risk, however
slight, at any economic cost, however great, to the point of 'hurtling' industry over 'the brink of
ruin." Id. at 494. In the Whitman case the Supreme Court vacated the 1997 NAAQS because of
the poor science and lack of discernable criteria underlying them. Likewise here, no scientific
data requires the EPA to enact the most stringent tailpipe emission limits conceivable. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1488-A1, pp. 4-5]
EPA Summary and Response:
Comment Summary:
TPPF raises various challenges to EPA's authority to regulate C02 emissions from motor
vehicles. TPPF commented that the Clean Air Act provisions at issue here are void for vagueness
because the statutory definition of "air pollutant" is circular. The statute defines 'air pollutant' as
'any air pollution agent or combination of such agents, including any physical, chemical,
biological, radioactive (including source material, special nuclear material, and byproduct
material) substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air.' 42
U.S.C. 7602. Because the statute fails to define the meaning of the term 'air pollution agent,'
this definition is facially circular and therefore void for vagueness.
TPPF also commented that Congress couldn't have meant for EPA to regulate C02, which
they state is a ubiquitous substance essential for life on earth. TPPF asserts that EPA's claimed
authority to do so comes from its Endangerment Finding, which they further assert is flawed.
TPPF commented that the proposal is inherently unlawful because the Endangerment Finding, its
predicate, was issued without following proper procedures, referring to review by the Science
Advisory Board. TPFF added that, in their view, the Endangerment Finding is fatally flawed
because it does not state what level of ambient GHGs is "unsafe" or "safe", and in addition, the
agency made no independent findings, relying instead on NGO reports, and so did not exercise
its independent judgment.
TPPF also cites Justice Breyer's concurring opinion in Whitman v. ATA (without identifying it
as a concurrence), and states that the Court vacated EPA's 1997 NAAQS as being scientifically
unsupported and without discernible criteria, flaws the commenter perceives in the HD proposed
rule.
Response:
A commenter raises various challenges to the EPA's authority to regulate C02 from motor
vehicles and the 2009 Endangerment Finding and claim that the statutory definition of "air
pollutant" is circular. EPA disagrees with these comments.
In the 2009 Endangerment Finding, the Administrator determined that emissions of GHGs by
classes of new motor vehicles contribute to air pollution. This finding was upheld by the D.C.
Circuit in Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA, 684 F.3d 102, 117 (D.C. Cir. 2012)
("We ultimately conclude that the Endangerment Finding is consistent with Massachusetts v.
EPA and the text and structure of the CAA, and is adequately supported by the administrative
record."). Based on the 2009 Endangerment Finding, EPA subsequently issued numerous rules to
regulate GHGs from classes of motor vehicles. TPPF's comments questioning the 2009
Endangerment Finding and EPA's authority to regulate GHG emissions from motor vehicles are
508
-------
therefore untimely. EPA did not reopen the 2009 Endangerment Finding in this action.
Nonetheless, we provide a further response to TPPF's arguments.
With respect to the 2009 Endangerment Finding, as noted above, we are not reopening the
Endangerment Finding in this rulemaking, so TPPF's comments are out of scope. We also refer
TPFF to the Supreme Court's Massachusetts v. EPA case, holding that greenhouse gases,
including C02, are air pollutants under the CAA's "capacious" definition, and therefore that the
command in CAA section 202(a)(1) to regulate "any air pollutant" includes C02. 549 U.S. at
529, 533. Further, the Endangerment Finding was sustained in all respects in litigation. Coal, for
Resp. Regulation, 684 F. 3d at 116-125, including rejecting the very argument the commenter
belatedly offers here. 684 F. 3d at 124. In addition to being 14 years out of time and out of scope
for this rulemaking, the commenter fails to note that the arguments relating to the safe level of
ambient GHGs and no independent judgment were likewise rejected by the court in Coal. For
Responsible Regulation v. EPA. See 684 F. 3d at 326-27, 323-24.
The commenter's argument that the definition of "air pollutant" is circular or void for
vagueness is also beyond the scope of this rulemaking. EPA also addressed the definition of "air
pollutant" in the 2009 Endangerment Finding including as it applies to GHGs. See 74 FR 66536.
In any event, EPA disagrees with this comment. The statutory definition explains the
characteristics that may give rise to an air pollution agent or combination of agents being
considered an "air pollutant." EPA properly considers GHGs to be air pollutants under the CAA.
In Massachusetts v. EPA, the Supreme Court upheld EPA's authority to regulate GHG emissions
from new motor vehicles and in doing so explained that "greenhouse gases fit well within the
Clean Air Act's capacious definition of 'air pollutant.'" 549 U.S. 497, 532 (2007). The Court
explained that the definition of "air pollutant," "which includes 'any air pollution agent
including any physical, chemical, . . . substance . . . emitted into ... the ambient air ... ,'
embraces all airborne compounds of whatever stripe. Moreover, carbon dioxide and other
greenhouse gases are undoubtedly "physical [and] chemical... sub stance [s]." Id. (emphases in
original) (bracket alterations in original) (internal citation omitted). This makes clear that GHGs
are properly considered air pollutants under the CAA.
The commenter's reliance on Whitman v. ATA is also misplaced. The Court in Whitman
vacated the D.C. Circuit's opinion holding that the 1997 NAAQS effected an impermissible
delegation of authority, holding that CAA section 109(d) in fact contains an intelligible principle
and so constitutes a permissible delegation of authority to EPA. Whitman v. ATA, 531 U.S. at
474. On remand, the D.C. Circuit upheld the 1997 NAAQS in all remaining respects. ATA v.
EPA. 283 F. 3d 355, 380 (D.C. Cir. 2002).
509
-------
3 HD TRUCS Tool
Comments by Organizations
Organization: CALSTART
Stringency and Penetration Rate Considerations
CALSTART believes that EPA staff has generally taken a thoughtful and serious approach to
set assumptions about ZE-MHDV sales penetration rates. The HD TRUCS tool is a solid
framework, and we do not believe EPA needs to make wholesale changes to its basic model.
That said, we do believe there are some important modifications and adjustments to the
assumptions that would better support the rule and set the penetration rate based on additional
researched sources, given how important this rate is to set the ultimate stringency in the
rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1656-A1, pp. 11 - 12]
We start with our understanding of the Phase 3 framework. In our observations and
discussions with multiple stakeholders, we believe EPA has set stringency based on:
• No additional improvements in ICE technology;
• Incorporating ZE-MHDV sales in ACT states as part of compliance with EPA stringency;
and
• Setting assumptions based on expected market-driven ZE-MHDV sales in the remaining
states as the limit of GHG stringency. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1656-A1, p. 12]
Organization: Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
The specifics of EPA's Phase 3 proposal are largely based on the Agency's HD TRUCS
spreadsheet and the various inputs and assumptions that the Agency used to derive the
underlying estimates of ZEV-truck adoption rates. In this section of our comments, EMA
assesses the reasonableness (or not) of the Agency's inputs and assumptions, and then develops
an alternative HD TRUCS analysis to derive alternative and more reasonable estimates of
potentially achievable ZEV-truck adoption rates. Using those revised data-based adoption rates,
we then derive, for illustrative purposes, alternative GEM-based GHG standards for the 2027
through 2032 model years. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 19]
There are a number of ways that EPA could have set about developing a ZEV-based Phase 3
rulemaking. For example, EPA might have undertaken a comprehensive study of the "best case"
ZEV-truck infrastructure build-out that could be achieved on a nationwide basis over the next ten
years, taking the BIL, IRA and multiple state initiatives into account. Based on that "best case"
analysis, EPA could have derived the optimal ZEV-based program that could be supported by
the achievable ZEV infrastructure, and then could have derived GEM-based GHG standards
from that optimized ZEV-based program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 19]
Alternatively, EPA could have engaged in extensive outreach with ZEV-truck OEMs (and
ZEV-truck component manufacturers) to assess OEMs' maximum capacities to source, produce
and sell ZEV-trucks over the next ten years, again taking the BIL, IRA and multiple state
initiatives into account. Using those OEM-informed data-based projections, EPA could have
510
-------
developed corresponding aspirational ZEV-truck adoption rates to serve as the basis for
calculating future GEM-based GHG standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 20]
As another approach, one that EMA espoused, EPA could have carefully assessed which
types and applications of trucks and trucking fleets are best suited to wholesale conversions to
ZEVs over the next 10 years. Those applications would include trucks that return daily to a
central refueling depot (for overnight charging) and that have daily ranges of less than 150 miles.
EPA could have based its Phase 3 standards on the numbers and types of ZEV trucks that
reasonably could be deployed among the optimized "beachhead" ZEV-truck applications over
the next ten years. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 20]
But EPA did not do any of that. Instead, as the basis for the proposed Phase 3 standards, EPA
simply conducted a literature review in order to construct a spreadsheet-based tool (HD TRUCS)
that it created to estimate the potential future TCOs for 101 different types and applications of
ZEV-trucks. Using that same literature-based spreadsheet tool, EPA next compared the estimated
TCOs of the corresponding conventionally-fueled trucks to determine the respective "payback
periods" (i.e., the number of years it takes for the TCOs to become equivalent) for each of the
101 truck types and applications. As a final step, the Agency then ascribed predetermined (and
overstated) "adoption-rate" percentages for each of the payback periods for the 101 truck types
and applications. The shorter the ZEV-truck payback periods, the higher the ascribed adoption
rate percentages. EPA then developed a truncated adoption-rate table (see Table ES-4) for the
years 2027 through 2032, and used those ZEV-truck adoption rates (and their zero-emission
profiles for GHGs) to determine what the corresponding GEM-based GHG standards should be.
EPA's final table does not take into account the number of years that the initial purchaser will
own the vehicle and the impact of a potentially negative TCO may have on the willingness to
adopt a ZEV at a loss to the business. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 20]
EMA would not have gone about assessing potential Phase 3 GHG standards in the manner
that EPA chose, since, as discussed above, that methodology is premised on overestimated (and
underestimated) literature-based assumptions and predictions. Nevertheless, for the purpose of
these comments, and as a means to highlight and illustrate the magnitude of EPA's
overestimations of adoption rates, EMA has undertaken a thorough assessment of EPA's HD
TRUCS model, including an evaluation of the key inputs that EPA used to generate the model
outputs. EMA has replaced several of those inputs where better, more data-driven inputs are
available, and has, in turn, developed updated and revised ZEV-truck adoption rates through the
HD TRUCS model. As detailed below, those adoption rates are much reduced from EPA's and
demonstrate that the Agency's proposal will need to be revised very substantially before the
Agency issues any final Phase 3 rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 20]
i. EPA's HD TRUCS Tool
EPA created HD TRUCS to serve as a tool for assessing the commercial viability of zero-
emission truck technologies, which assessment is, in essence, the basis of the Phase 3 NPRM.
The HD TRUCS tool, created as an Excel spreadsheet, is capable of performing a comprehensive
analysis of a vast number of parameters related to battery-electric and fuel cell-electric
technologies in a wide range of vehicle types and duty cycles. The tool incorporates 101 different
HDOH vehicles, covering Classes 2b though 8, across a variety of truck and tractor applications.
The applications include delivery, vocational, school bus, coach bus, and transit bus operations.
The tractors include day-cab, sleeper-cab and heavy-haul applications. Specialty market
511
-------
applications were not included in HD TRUCS, since those volumes are very small and most of
those applications are not suitable as BEVs or FCEVs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1,
pp. 20-21]
HD TRUCS uses a physics-based approach to determine the energy needed for an average
vehicle in each truck type to perform its daily work. Battery performance and future
enhancements to the other key components utilized in BEV and FCEV powertrain are modeled.
Batteries are sized in HD TRUCS based on real-world factors that impact battery energy and life,
including degradation over time and limitations of depth of discharge that are used to extend the
life of the battery. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 21]
EPA relied on literature searches to determine the cost of the components that make up the
ICE, BEV and FCEV powertrains, which costs are then assessed through a series of total cost of
ownership (TCO) calculations that were run through HD TRUCS. ICE powertrains are existing
products but will be subject to cost increases due to the upcoming increased stringencies in
recently revised NOX regulations. The BEV costs and especially the FCEV powertrain costs that
EPA calculated are based more on assumptions and estimations than on actual data, since those
are technologies that just started commercial production last year or are still in the prototype
stage, as is the case for the FCEV powertrains. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 21]
HD TRUCS estimates ZEV component performance based both on EPA's literature search
and on the presumptions that technologies and components from the light duty (LD) passenger
car market will translate directly into the medium-heavy duty (MHD) market. Additional
assumptions regarding future improvements to MHD ZEV components are based on national lab,
expert consultant, environmental group, and LD industry projections. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-2668-A1, p. 21]
While HD TRUCS is a comprehensive tool for the assessment of BEV and FCEV
technologies in the MHD market, EMA believes that there are several aspects of a full
assessment of BEV and FCEV costs that are not currently included in HD TRUCS. Those
missing items can be critical to the decision-making process of a potential ZEV-truck buyer, as
they increase both the initial purchasing cost of a ZEV and potentially the capital needed to fund
the purchase, as well as the ongoing expenses of owning and operating a ZEV-truck versus an
ICE vehicle. Specifically, HD TRUCS fails to account for federal excise taxes (FET), state
vehicle sales taxes, insurance cost differentials, electrical grid upgrade costs for EVSE
installations, EVSE annual maintenance, and electricity peak charges and demand charges. EMA
will go into more detail regarding these important omissions later in this section of our
comments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 22]
ii. HD TRUCS - The EMA Version
EMA has completed an extensive study of the HD TRUCS tool. That effort has yielded a
high-level understanding of EPA's approach for estimating adoption rates for BEVS and FCEVs
for the 101 truck types. EMA's study also revealed how EPA translated those adoption rates into
the existing stringency structure of the current GHG regulations, and how the Agency made its
payback determinations and adoption rate selections. EMA's review looked at all the inputs that
EPA incorporated into the HD TRUCS tool. EMA and its members then assessed whether the
various inputs are actually appropriate for use in setting the regulatory standards and if not, what
inputs would be more appropriate based on OEM data, cost and performance projections based
512
-------
on ZEV production and/or development data, or, where warranted, literature-based values that
are directionally consistent with the available OEM data. Significantly, EMA has identified
numerous input values that are suspect and warrant revision. Details are provided below on the
more significant necessary input revisions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 22]
EMA also has identified a number of elements and inputs that are missing from HD TRUCS.
Each of those was assessed to determine if it would have a material impact on the payback
period calculations and adoption rate determinations, or not. Those that were found to be
significant were taken into account through the development of new inputs for the tool. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 23]
In addition, EMA's thorough assessment of HD TRUCS uncovered several errors that need to
be corrected. Those errors range from formula inconsistencies, factors left out of calculations,
incorrect limit values in equations, and formulae that have not properly accounted for the
physical space available on the vehicle for batteries. EMA's comments below include a section
that provides specifics on those errors as well. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 23]
To fully understand the impact of the necessary corrections and revisions to HD TRUCS and
certain of its input values, EMA modified the HD TRUCS tool to create a unique EMA version -
"EMA HD TRUCS." The EMA HD TRUCS tool incorporates corrections to all the issues
identified during EMA's in-depth analysis. The tool was modified to accept the new inputs, and
EMA adjusted the calculations, worksheets and macros to allow the new inputs to properly be
evaluated. Inputs were changed iteratively and in groups to determine the impact that each had
on the final adoption rates calculated by the revised and updated with EMA HD TRUCS
tool. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 23]
The specific modifications to create EMA HD TRUCS, and the revised outputs from running
the updated tool are detailed below. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 23. See Exhibit 2,
Relevant Worksheets and Spreadsheets, at docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A3.]
iii. Modifications Made to Create EMA HD TRUCS
The changes made to create EMA HD TRUCS fall into three categories: corrections, changes
to existing inputs, and additions. The EMA HD TRUCS tool has a separate worksheet that
documents as many of the EMA "Mods" as possible. Copies of the relevant worksheets and
spreadsheets are attached hereto as Exhibit "2." The changes and additions on individual
worksheets and spreadsheets are noted by red text, as compared against the black text of EPA's
original tool. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 23]
iv. Evaluation of the Revised Inputs and Additions to EMA HD TRUCS
EMA has used the revised EMA HD TRUCS tool to determine the impact of the above-
described corrections, revisions and additions to the tool's inputs. An assessment of the impact
that those warranted modifications can have on the estimated payback periods and the associated
ZEV-truck adoption rates is critical to assessing the appropriate level of stringency that should be
considered for the final GHG Phase 3 rulemaking. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 33]
EMA assessed the various input changes both iteratively and as a group. Ultimately, all the
changes and revised inputs were run together, yielding a comprehensive "all-in" assessment of
513
-------
more realistic adoption rates and resultant stringencies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p.
33]
Set forth below are the results of several scenarios that EMA evaluated using the revised
EMA HD TRUCS tool. Although the adoption rates for each of the 101 truck types for each
scenario will not be shown in this document, they were calculated in EMA HD TRUCS and were
used to create the adoption rate tables by regulatory subcategory, similar to the Draft RIA Table
2-80 (shown below). As noted above, the relevant spreadsheets are attached as Exhibit "2."
EMA will make all of the relevant outputs, worksheets and spreadsheets from the revised HD
TRUCS tool available to the Agency to facilitate additional discussions going forward. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, pp. 33 - 34.] [See Table 2-80 on page 33 of docket number EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1 and Exhibit 2, Relevant Worksheets and Spreadsheets, at docket
number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A3.]
Corrections - The necessary corrections to the tool that EMA identified and discussed above
are reflected in the first rerun of the revised HD TRUCS. Corrections aside, the inputs reflect the
same values that EPA used. No additional or updated inputs were included. The results for the
individual 101 truck types were analyzed by EMA. Because of the use of ranges of payback
periods for a single adoption rate, there were changes in adoption rates for only a minimal
number of vehicle types. Those corrections are carried forward in other scenarios run using EMA
HD TRUCS. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 34.]
The new corrected baseline adoption rates at the regulatory subcategory level are shown
below: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 34.] [See Projected ZEV Adoption Rates for
2027 and 2032 Table on page 34 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1.]
Battery Pack Cost, Fuel Cell Stack Cost, and Learning Curve Start Year - All three of these
revised inputs were grouped together and run at the same time, using the values discussed above.
The revised projected ZEV adoption rates from this scenario of the grouped revised inputs are
shown below for 2027 and 2032: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 36] [See the Projected
ZEV Adoption Rates for MYs 2027 and 2032 Table on page 36 of docket number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1.]
All-in - As a final scenario, all of the recommended changes - - including all of the additions
and prioritized modifications to inputs - - were run as a batch. The "all-in" revised adoption
rates, and an ensuing side-by-side comparison of EPA's and EMA's calculated adoption rates,
are shown below: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 39] [See the Projected ZEV Adoption
Rates for MYs 2027 and 2032, Technology Packages Table on page 39 of docket number EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1.]
The foregoing "all-in" table reflects markedly reduced adoption rates (reduced by roughly
50% or more) from those that EPA derived and used to calculate the proposed Phase 3 GHG
standards, and clearly demonstrates that EPA's proposal will require substantial revision to
ensure that realistic and reasonable targets are set. EMA stands ready to share our detailed
analyses and results with the Agency in an effort to assess and determine feasible and cost-
effective final Phase 3 standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 40] [See the Projected
ZEV Adoption Rates for MYs 2027 and 2032, Technology Packages "all-in" Table on page 40
of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1.]
514
-------
v. Revised GEM-Based GHG Stringency
The adoption rates generated through HD TRUCS drive the calculation of the stringency of
the GHG standards for each regulatory subcategory the Phase 3 NPRM using the existing GHG
vehicle structure. The revised and more accurate output of EMA HD TRUCS can be used in a
similar way to calculate revised and more realistic GEM-based stringencies. Set forth below is a
summary of the 2027 and 2032 GHG stringencies that are derived from the EMA HD TRUCS
"All-in" scenario. This run in the revised tool brings together all of EMA's recommended inputs,
additions and modifications to the HD TRUCS tool. The resulting revised GEM-based GHG
stringencies are as follows: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 40] [See the Projected ZEV
Adoption Rates for MYs 2027 and 2032 Summary of Stringencies Table on pages 40-41 of
docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1.]
Importantly, the revised and significantly reduced stringencies shown above should be seen as
a starting point (i.e., the ceiling) for additional discussions regarding what the final Phase 3
standards should be. The revised stringencies clearly show, as do the revised adoption rates, the
significant impact that one or more of EPA's incorrect assumptions and model inputs can have
on an OEM's ability to comply with the next-phase GHG standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
2668-A1, p. 41]
What also is clear from the foregoing revised model runs is that both EPA's proposed and
alternative adoption rates, along with the corollary GHG stringencies, are well beyond what is
feasible or reasonable for this rulemaking. The new inputs and the revised output of EMA HD
TRUCS, even applying EPA's skewed payback-to-adoption rate table, provide clear evidence
that the market simply cannot and will not support the level of ZEV-truck adoptions that EPA
has proposed in the NPRM. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 41]
To recap, using the methodology that EPA created to apply in its NPRM (HD TRUCS), EMA
has identified a number of corrections, additions and revisions that need to be made to the HD
TRUCS tool to improve its overall accuracy and suitability for a rulemaking of this significance.
The net result is that EMA's updated and more complete version of HD TRUCS can serve as the
refined tool to help frame the scope of any final sustainable Phase 3 GHG standards. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 41]
As previously noted, however, the improved relative accuracy of the ZEV-truck adoption
rates generated through EMA HD TRUCS, and the more reasonable resultant GEM-based GHG
standards derived therefrom, are not the end of the necessary analysis. Rather, they are simply
the new starting point for follow-on stakeholder discussions. Moreover, any results determined
through EMA's HD TRUCS still need to be discounted further by the very real probability that
some significant portion of the requisite MHD ZEV-truck recharging and refueling infrastructure
will not be in place in time to meet the implicit ZEV-trucks sales mandates that the Phase 3
standards will impose between 2027 and 2032. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 41]
6. Additional Potential Modifications and/or Additions to HD TRUCS
EMA members have identified several other elements that are potential modifications and/or
additions to HD TRUCS. EPA should consider incorporating these additional elements into the
final rulemaking assessment as well. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p.47]
8. Conclusion and Recommendations
515
-------
EPA's Phase 3 NPRM has missed the mark by a wide margin. EPA has premised the NPRM
on significantly overstated predictions of future ZEV-truck adoption rates. Those predictions, in
turn, are based on significantly over-estimated and under-estimated inputs into the HD TRUCS
model that EPA has created to assess the relative TCO and "payback periods" of ZEV-trucks
during the 2027-2032 time period. The net result is an NPRM that is fundamentally flawed and
unworkable. Indeed, without very substantial revision, EPA's Phase 3 proposal will amount to an
arbitrary, capricious and wholly unreasonable rulemaking. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1,
p. 58]
EMA has analyzed, corrected and improved a number of prioritized inputs into the HD
TRUCS model, and has derived a series of revised adoption rates for ZEV-trucks that are much
more in line with technological and commercial realities. Those revised adoption rates - which
are roughly half of what EPA has predicted - should serve as the starting point (i.e., the ceiling)
for additional collaborative discussions aimed at developing a final cost-effective Phase 3 rule. In
that regard, any final rule will need to discount the reduced adoption rates derived through
EMA's version of HD TRUCS even more to account for the significant probability that the
requisite ZEV-truck infrastructure will not be developed to the full extent required over the next
nine years. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 58]
With all of the foregoing in mind, EMA offers the following recommendations to help guide
the necessary additional assessment of what the final Phase 3 GHG standards should be: [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 58]
The starting point (i.e., the ceiling) for determining the final Phase 3 standards should be
based on the GEM-based GHG standards derived from the substantially reduced ZEV-truck
adoption rates generated through EMA's version of HD TRUCS. Those standards will need to be
discounted further by some appropriate percentage or "scaler" that corresponds with the
probability that the requisite ZEV-truck infrastructure will not be in place where and as needed
during the 2027 through 2032 time period. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 58]
Organization: Valero Energy Corporation
B. EPA's modeling of technological suitability is based on hypothetical future HD BEVs and
FCEVs using unreasonable assumptions.
EPA uses the HD TRUCS model to evaluate hypothetical future HD BEVs and FCEVs and
whether they can be designed to meet the energy demands of 101 different types of existing HD
ICEVs. If a hypothetical future HD BEV or FCEV is deemed to be within the bounds of
thresholds defined by EPA for acceptable gravimetric payload capacity reduction and payback
period, 13 then EPA considers the hypothetical future HD BEV or FCEV to be a suitable
alternative to the comparable ICEV and assumes some percentage of consumer adoption. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 3]
13 Defined by EPA as "the number of years that it would take for the annual operational savings of a ZEV
to offset the incremental upfront purchase price of a BEV or FCEV (after accounting for the IRA [] battery
tax credit and [] vehicle tax credit []) and charging infrastructure costs (for BEVs) when compared to
purchasing a comparable ICE vehicle," DRIA at 235.
2. EPA underestimates the costs of ZEVs.
516
-------
EPA underestimates the upfront and total costs of ownership (TCO) regarding HD ZEVs
throughout its proposal, which include costs of a HD ZEV battery and components. Citing in part
to a January 2022 ICCT working paper, EPA maintains that "[t]he cost to manufacture lithium-
ion batteries (the single most expensive component of a BEV) has dropped significantly in the
past eight years, and that cost is projected to continue to fall during this decade, all while the
performance of the batteries (in terms of energy density) improves."21 However, the ICCT
working paper EPA cites cautions that material market factors will ultimately determine HD
ZEV penetration:22
• "[T]he speed of uptake [of electric Class 2b and 3 trucks] is tailored, in part, by the
economic viability of the technology relative to conventional vehicles."
• "While cost remains an important factor in determining the uptake of electric vehicles,
there are several additional factors influencing consumers' decision-making, including
model availability, recharging infrastructure, range anxiety, environmental concerns,
brand loyalty, and vehicle comfort. As such, attractive TCO economics and purchase
price parity are only a subset of the phenomena impacting the rate at which society
transitions to zero-emission vehicles, and should not be relied on as the sole indicator of
significant market uptake."
• "Our model results are widely dependent on a series of assumed projections which are
key in understanding the total purchase price and total cost of ownership of EVs and
ICEs. Most notably, significant doubts remain related to the evolution of battery prices,
which comprise a considerable amount of the vehicle purchase price. Our assumptions
for battery prices are based off the average of the reported sources from literature and
automaker estimates [], yet the actual price of lithium-ion batteries has largely outpaced
historic projections discussed previously." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 5]
21 EPA's HD Phase 3 GHG Proposal at 25930.
22 Mulholland, Eamonn. "Cost of electric commercial vans and pickup trucks in the United States through
2040." January 2022. https://theicct.org/publication/cost-ev-vans-pickups-us-2040-jan22/.
38 DRIA at 152.
8. EPA arbitrarily excludes viable HDV technologies from its compliance modeling.
In the DRIA, EPA presents data from the U.S. Energy Information Agency's (EIA's) 2022
Annual Energy Outlook (AEO), which projects that an overwhelming majority of non-ICE HDV
sales over the next 30 years will be PHEVs.82 See Figures 5 to 7, below. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1566-A2, p. 16.] [See Figures 5-7, EIA Projected Sales of Vehicles, on page 16 and 17 of
docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0986-1566-A2.]
82 DRIA at 13.
While EPA recognizes that PHEVs will play a role in manufacturers' compliance
strategies,83 PHEVs are excluded from consideration in EPA's HD TRUCS modeling and
regulatory impact analysis. EPA acknowledges in DRIA that it "did not analyze PHEVs because
they are not part of our technology packages in this proposal,"84 without any further explanation
for the omission. This critical omission is wholly at odds with EPA's obligation to consider
reasonable alternatives. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 17.]
83 EPA's HD Phase 3 GHG Proposal at 26016.
517
-------
84 DRIAat 19 and 181.
EPA further fails to consider compliance strategies that involve on-board C02 capture for
subsequent use or sequestration. C02 removal devices that fit behind the cab of Class 8 trucks
are available to the U.S. market today.85 Given the magnitude of carbon capture and
sequestration (CCS) deployment proposed by EPA in the "New Source Performance Standards
for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New, Modified, and Reconstructed Fossil Fuel-Fired
Electric Generating Units; Emission Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Existing
Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric Generating Units; and Repeal of the Affordable Clean Energy Rule"
rulemaking,86 EPA clearly has significant confidence in the technology. Congress recently
provided significant financial incentives in the IRA to encourage development of carbon
sequestration facilities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, pp. 17 - 18.]
85 https://remoracarbon.com/
86 88 FR 33240 (May 23, 2023).
It is arbitrary for EPA to overlook reasonable vehicle technology packages that are fit for
purpose and which may meet the objectives of reducing greenhouse gas emissions at a lower cost
and with fewer adverse consequences for consumers and the U.S. economy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 18.]
EPA Summary and Response:
Summary:
CALSTART complimented the EPA on the development of HD TRUCS. Other commenters
generally had critiques on individual elements of, or inputs to, HD TRUCS in their comments;
these comments are discussed by topic in the sections that follow. EMA stated that they would
have chosen a different means of developing Phase 3 standards, but used HD TRUCS with
different inputs to devise a set of alternative standards- these comments are also addressed in the
sections that follow. Both DTNA and NAD A suggested continuing to use HD TRUCS for post-
rule evaluation (see Section 2 of the RTC).
Valero commented that EPA arbitrarily excludes technology such as PHEVs from its
compliance modeling and that EPA failed to consider onboard CO2 capture. In addition, Valero
commented that EPA underestimates the costs of ZEVs, pointing to the inherent uncertainty of
projecting future costs and future market responses.
Response:
We thank all commenters for their thoughtful input to HD TRUCS. While, as EMA as
suggested, there could be other approaches to developing Phase 3 standards, HD TRUCS
provides a comprehensive approach, has undergone an external peer review, has been reviewed
by commenters including EMA, and has been updated based on consideration of the many
comments described in the remainder of this RTC Section 3 and other RTC sections as described
below. As discussed in the final rule preamble, the final rule RIA, and this RTC, EPA has
utilized the HD TRUCS model to inform the stringency of the final rule standards, and the
Agency believes this is a reasonable and appropriate modeling tool to inform the Agency's
518
-------
decision making.272 EPA responds to the specific comments on HD TRUCS in the remainder of
this RTC section.
In response to the comment that EPA excluded certain technologies from its assessment, EPA
disagrees as we assessed a wide range of technologies as described in preamble Section II and
RIA Chapters 1 and 2. As further explain there, within HD TRUCS EPA analyzed the
technologies that are most likely to yield the largest vehicle emission benefits. Manufacturers,
however, may use other technologies for vehicles with ICE, such as PHEVs, in their compliance
strategies. In fact, we also assess multiple additional example potential compliance pathways
using such technologies, including technical feasibility, costs, and lead time, that illustrate it is
feasible to comply with the final standards including without producing additional ZEVs to
comply with this rule. See Preamble Section II.F.4 and RIA Chapter 2.11 (which also includes
assessment of additional example potential compliance pathways relative to a no ZEV baseline).
Furthermore, the existing HD GHG regulations allow for manufacturers to seek approval for off-
cycle technologies that reduce GHG emissions as prescribed in 40 CFR 1037.610.
In response to Valero's comments about EPA underestimating the costs due to the uncertainty
of future projections, EPA is relying on the best available data as inputs to the HD TRUCS
model. See RIA Chapter 2. We have received many comments on the inputs to HD TRUCS in
this section (RTC Section 3) and throughout multiple sections of this RTC. These include
comments on costs, factors affecting costs and HD TRUCS inputs that recommend both lower
and higher costs than what were in the NPRM. We have carefully considered all comments, and
we have incorporated many suggested changes to the inputs and modeling that are used to
estimate the cost of future ZEVs.
3.1 Sales Distribution
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Alliance for Vehicle Efficiency (AVE)
It is assumed by many stakeholders that lower weight classes within the heavy-duty truck
category will likely see greater, and faster, levels of electrification than the Class 8 category.
These estimates seemingly support EPA's projected compliance pathways. These estimates,
however, may underrepresent the sales picture of the heavy-duty market. As shown in the chart
below, the Class 8 category comprises an overwhelming percentage of trucks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1571-A1, p. 2.] [See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1571 -Al, page 2,
for the referenced chart.]
272 See Midwest Ozone Grp. v. Env't Prot. Agency, 61 F.4th 187, 192-93 (D.C. Cir. 2023) ("the Court has never
required EPA to use a particular modeling method to generate its data or adhere to past practice, but rather that EPA
'considers] all of the relevant factors, and demonstrate[s] a reasonable connection between the facts on the record
and its decision.' Id. (quoting Ethyl Corp. v. EPA, 51 F.3d 1053, 1064 (D.C. Cir. 1995)). Thus, when an agency has
not otherwise acted contrary to law, we will conclude that its choice of model is arbitrary and capricious if "the
model is so oversimplified that the agency's conclusions from it are unreasonable." Appalachian Power, 249 F.3d at
1052 (quoting Small Refiner Lead Phase-Down Task Force v. EPA, 705 F.2d 506, 535 (D.C. Cir. 1983))."
519
-------
Organization: Moving Forward Network (MFN) et al.
8.4. Over-Inclusion of Medium-Duty EVs in EPA's Benefit Cost Analysis
MFN believes that Class 2b-3 vehicles (a majority of which are regulated under the agency's
light- and medium-duty rulemaking) 109 are overrepresented in EPA's HD TRUCS model. The
benefits attributed to such EV adoption levels are, therefore, likely overstated in the agency's
preferred proposal. ERM's benefit-cost analyses accounted for this by adjusting Class 2b-3
vehicle populations, as they are interpreted to be covered by the scope of EPA's heavy-duty
rulemaking. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 53]
109 U.S. EPA. Proposed Rule: Multi-Pollutant Emissions Standards for Model Years 2027 and Later Light-
Duty and Medium-Duty Vehicles. (2023). https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-
engines/proposed-rule-multi-pollutant-emissions-standards-model
As noted in more detail in Figure 7, Class 2b-3 vocational vehicles included in the heavy-duty
Phase 3 standards correspond only with "incomplete" Class 2b-3 HD vehicles that are relevant to
HD vocational vehicle standards. These "incomplete vehicles" represent approximately 5 percent
110 of all Class 2b-3 vehicle sales. The remaining -95 percent of Class 2b-3 vehicles are
covered by EPA's Light- and Medium-Duty Vehicle rules. Consequently, ERM isolated relevant
Class 2b-3 vehicles within MOVES3.R3 for all subsequent EV adoption analyses, sales and in-
use calculations, and VMT and emissions assessments. Ill [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-
Al, p. 53] [Refer to Figure 7, National Heavy-Duty Vehicle Fleet: 2026 Forecast on p. 54 of
docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-202-1608-A1.]
110 Table 3-1 of Multi-Pollutant Emissions Standards for Model Years 2027 and Later Light-Duty and
Medium-Duty Vehicles Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis. (2023). https://www.epa.gov/regulations-
emissions-vehicles-and-engines/proposed-rule-multi-pollutant-emissions-standards-model
111 MOVES3.R3 class 2b-3 vehicles covered by HD vocational standards calculated using assumption that
4.6% of total annual class 2b-3 vehicle sales (MOVES regulatory class 41) are of MOVES source
categories 52 (single unit short-haul truck) and 53 (single unit long-haul truck); annual in-use vehicle
populations estimated using MOVES source/regulatory class-specific survival rates.
EPA Summary and Response:
Summary:
EPA has received two comments relating to sales distribution within HD TRUCS. AVE was
concerned that the percentage of Class 8 vehicles was underrepresented in HD TRUCS and
provided a chart showing how Class 8 trucks represent an overwhelming percentage of HD fleet.
MFN was concerned that Class 2b-3 vehicles were overrepresented in HD TRUCS. They
asserted that only incomplete vehicles in the 2b-3 weight class should be included in this
rulemaking.
Response:
In the proposal, EPA used the 2019 Production Volume Reports into Engine and Vehicle
Compliance Information System to weight the MOVES MY 2019 new vehicle sales from
MOVES 3.Ra into the 101 vehicle applications in HD TRUCS. This data included sales of
chassis certified class 2b-3 vehicles which are not included in this rulemaking. Including such
Class 2b-3 vehicles caused the percentage of HHD vehicles in the NPRM analysis to be
underrepresented as a percentage of the fleet analyzed and the LHD vehicles in the NPRM
520
-------
analysis to be overrepresented. For the final rule, we have updated our sales distribution to more
accurately represent the HD fleet which is the subject of the Phase 3 final rule, both by vehicle
number and percentage. The source we used for the final rule is the MOVES 4.0 new vehicle
sales for Model Year 2021. This change from proposal removed the Class 2b-3 chassis certified
vehicles from our sales and our combined Class 2b-5 vehicle sales went from 55% in the
proposal to 33% in the final rule and increased the percentage of Class 8 vehicles represented in
HD TRUCS from 28% in the proposal to 42% in the final rule.
3.2 Component Performance
3.2.1 BEV Component Efficiencies
Comments by Organizations
Organization: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE)
Assumptions in EPA's analysis of ZEV adoption rates are too limiting
Fully incorporating the results of state actions as recommended above would not be sufficient
to bring EPA's projections of ZEV adoption to highest feasible levels. Certain key elements of
EPA's ZEV analysis tool, HD TRUCS, are overly conservative, leading to low projections of
ZEV adoption. These include battery and payback period requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1560-A1, p. 5]
Another factor that may lead to prolonged, excessive battery requirements is EPA's low
expectations regarding BEV efficiency improvement. Battery efficiency remains constant in MY
2027-2032, and inverter and motor efficiencies are assumed to improve by only a half percentage
point over this period (Table II-6 FR 25977). Charging efficiency improves by a single
percentage point (HD TRUCS). This issue is discussed further in the section below on upstream
emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1560-A1, p. 6]
There is significant potential for BEV and FCEV efficiency improvement.
Table II-6 (FR 25977) shows EPA's assumed BEV component (battery, inverter, e-motor)
efficiency improvements from MY 2027 to 2032. Their combined efficiency improves only 1%
over the life of the standards, from 87% to 88%. This de minimus improvement does not
represent the full potential for efficiency gains, however. The NAS Phase 3 light-duty vehicle
report assumed that EV efficiency would improve by 1% per year through a combination of
vehicle and powertrain improvements discussed in the report.29 The report found, for example,
that "[wide bandgap devices] could result in boosting inverter and converter efficiencies to 99%
(from 96%>)."30 Similar improvements should be available for heavy-duty BEVs. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1560-A1, p. 16.]
29 https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/26092/assessment-of-technologies-for-improving-light-duty-
vehicle-fuel-economy-2025-2035
30 https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/26092/assessment-of-technologies-for-improving-light-duty-
vehicle-fuel-economy-2025-2035
521
-------
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America
EPA Request for Comment, Request #20: We request comment on our approach, including
other data we should consider in our assessment of energy consumption.
• DTNA Response: EPA should consider all available data including that which can be
provided by manufacturers in confidential settings; however, given that the HD ZEV
market is currently in a nascent state, any data available today is necessarily limited. EPA
should thus re-evaluate its assumptions on this issue on a regular basis, using the best
available data. See Section II.C.2 of DTNA's comments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1555-A1, p. 161]
EPA Request for Comment, Request #26: We request comment, including data, on our
approach [battery sizing and daily energy consumption] and the results for our assessment of
system efficiencies for HD BEV components.
• DTNA Response: See DTNA Response to Request # 20, above. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1555-A1, p. 162]
EPA Request for Comment, Request #28: We request comment on our approach using these
performance targets [for eMotors],
• DTNA Response: See DTNA Response to Request # 20, above. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1555-A1, p. 162]
Organization: Dana Incorporated
Dana has reviewed the component efficiencies for battery, invertor and e-motor and find the
number appropriate for its purpose. In fact, Dana feels that some of the noted efficiencies are
conservative if EPA is referring to the maximum efficiency of the components. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1610-A1, p. 5]
EPA Summary and Response:
Summary:
ACEEE recommends using higher efficiency improvement over time for batteries, inverters
and motors, as improvements in efficiencies use in HD TRUCS will reduce size and weight of
the battery and thus increase projected technology adoption rate. Dana commented that the
efficiencies used in HD TRUCS for the battery, invertor, and e-motor were all conservative, but
appropriate. DTNA commented that EPA should consider all available data including that which
can be provided by manufacturers in confidential settings, and asserted that, given data available
today is limited, EPA should re-evaluate its assumptions on this issue on a regular basis, using
the best available data.
Response:
For the final rule, EPA took a comprehensive approach to estimating cycle average efficiency
values for BEV components (see Chapter 2.4.1.1.3 of the RIA for more information). In response
to comments that efficiency values may improve over time, we generally agree that efficiency
improvements are likely to occur in the future (see comments in Section 3.4.2 of the RTC);
522
-------
however, during the MY 2027-2032 timeframe, we have decided to keep the efficiency values
constant as a conservative approach while noting that the cost of these components in HD
TRUCS improves over time due to the learning curve that is applied to BEV technologies. See
Chapter 2.4.3 of the RIA for e-drive costs.
EPA has carefully considered information made available to EPA. As further explained in
preamble Sections I and II, in setting future emission standards under our CAA section
202(a)(l)-(2) authority, given the prospective nature of the factors Congress directed EPA
consider, EPA must necessarily identify potential technologies, evaluate the rate each technology
could be introduced, and project associated cost of compliance. Thus, while we acknowledge that
future projections inherently are subject to uncertainties, EPA has carefully analyzed the
uncertainties and identified the considerations we found persuasive. Consistent with our standard
setting authority the analysis EPA conducted for this final rule appropriately makes use of the
best data available to us, as described in RIA Chapter 2.
3.2.2 Fuel Cell System Efficiency
Comments by Organizations
Organization: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE)
FCEVs would benefit from any inverter or battery efficiency gains for BEVs. For the fuel cell
stack, EPA assumes that efficiency increases from 64.5% to 66% in MY 2027-2032, stopping
short of DOE's 2030 efficiency target of 68% and long-term target of 72% (FR 25979-25980). A
more efficient fuel cell stack may require less cooling and a smaller radiator, compounding
efficiency gains.31 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1560-A1, p. 16.]
H31 https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/26092/assessment-of-technologies-for-improving-light-duty-
vehicle-fuel-economy-2025-2035
Organization: China WTO/TBT National Notification & Enquiry Center
2. It is suggested to moderately reduce the numerical limits in the tables "TABLE II-8
BATTERY PACK LEVEL SPECIFIC ENERGY IN HD TRUCS (WH/KG)", "TABLE II-9
BATTERY PACK LEVEL ENERGY DENSITY IN HD TRUCS (WH/L)", and "TABLE 11-10
FCEV FUEL CELL EFFICIENCIES FOR MY 2027-2032". [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1658-
A2, p.3]
Organization: PACCAR
D. EPA OVERESTIMATES FUEL CELL EFFICIENCY
TRUCS includes an inflated fuel cell efficiency value, which directly affects fuel cell electric
vehicle energy requirements, hydrogen usage, and overall operating cost. TRUCS assumes a
65%) value for MY2027 that increases to 67.5% in MY2032. These values do not accurately
represent any current or planned medium- or heavy-duty fuel cell system, particularly when
accounting for the high power levels required in commercial vehicles compared to automotive
applications. In fact, peak efficiency typically occurs at very low power levels, e.g., at 20 kW for
a 120 kW fuel cell, and nominal efficiencies are measured at the actual power output levels
523
-------
during service and should be used when making comparisons. The typical nominal efficiencies
for the power levels used in commercial vehicles range from 42% to 50%. In addition, fuel cell
performance permanently degrades over time - generally due to impurities in the hydrogen fuel -
and the efficiencies drop significantly from beginning of life to end of life (EOL). EOL nominal
efficiencies can be as low as 40%, which is a major consideration when sizing a fuel cell system
for customer requirements and expectations. In sum, EPA erred in using the peak efficiency
value to model fuel cell operation, and the Agency should correct this error to reflect operating
efficiency values more accurately. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1607-A1, p. 7]
Organization: Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
a) Fuel Cell Efficiency - The evaluation of fuel cell technology in HD TRUCS uses the fuel
cell stack peak efficiency in determining the quantity of hydrogen that will be needed to allow
the FCEV to complete its daily tasks. However, like diesel engines, fuel cell stacks operate at
peak efficiency only for a short period of the vehicle's duty cycle. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
2668-A1, p.47]
ANL's October 2022 paper ANL/ESD-22/6 "A Comprehensive Simulation Study to Evaluate
Future Vehicle Energy and Cost Reduction Potential" (Islam et al.), includes Figure 2-11,
reproduced below, which reflects the operating efficiency curve for medium-duty and heavy-
duty fuel cells. This plot demonstrates that the efficiency is a function of the power required to
perform the work. If peak efficiency is 65%, as is used in HD TRUCS, then the operating
efficiency would be in the range of 56% to 60% when 75% to 50% of the fuel cell's power is
needed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p.47] [See Figure 2-11 on page 48 of docket
number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1.]
EMA recommends that EPA reconsider using the peak efficiency values for fuel cell stack
efficiency in HD TRUCS for the final rulemaking. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p.48]
EPA Summary and Response:
Summary:
We received comments suggesting that the NPRM did not accurately reflect how a fuel cell
operates because we relied on peak fuel cell efficiency rather than average operating efficiency.
One commenter noted that FCEVs would benefit from BEV component efficiency gains and
observed that we did not utilize DOE targets for peak fuel cell efficiency in HD TRUCS,
implying that fuel cells could be more efficient than we assumed in the NPRM because a more
efficient stack would require less cooling, which could lead to compounded gains over time.
Three commenters suggested that the fuel cell efficiency values in HD TRUCS were too high.
PACCAR pointed out that we considered peak efficiency estimates in error rather than nominal
efficiencies at actual power levels (i.e., average operating efficiencies). PACCAR and EMA
offered ranges for operating efficiency at power levels typical for commercial vehicles and
suggested that we revise our fuel cell efficiency estimates. PACCAR also noted that fuel cell
performance can degrade over time, generally due to impurities in hydrogen fuel that cause
efficiencies to drop significantly from beginning of life to end of life.
524
-------
Response:
We evaluated these comments and find those about considering fuel cell efficiencies at more
average rather than peak operating conditions to be persuasive. Accordingly, we have revised our
fuel cell efficiency estimates in a manner that we think appropriately addresses the commenters'
suggestions. This affected the sizing methodology for onboard storage tanks (to meet the energy
demands of a vehicle) in the final rule version of HD TRUCS. Considering the comments, we
also revised our sizing methodology for the fuel cell system (to meet power demands of a
vehicle).
As described in RIA Chapter 2.5.1.2.1, Figure 1 shows the shape of an efficiency curve for a
fuel cell system in a HD FCEV in terms of normalized net power. A typical fuel cell system
operates most efficiently at lower or partial power loads. For example, the figure demonstrates a
peak efficiency of about 65 percent at roughly 10 percent power load compared to an efficiency
of around 55 percent at full poweron a normalized scale.
70
5-50
S 40
S30
201 . .
0 02 OA 06 0.8 1
Power (normalized)
FIGURE 2-11 Operating efficiency of the fuel cell plotted against the normalized net power output
Figure 1. Operating Efficiency of a Fuel Cell-73
For the final rule, in response to comments, though we agree with ACEEE that efficiency
gains are likely over time as the technology matures, we also agree that the fuel cell system
efficiency value in the NPRM was too high and should not be based on peak performance at low
power, since fuel cells typically do not operate for long in that range. We therefore reduced the
energy efficiency value of the fuel cell system by eight percent to reflect a more average
operating efficiency instead of peak efficiency. This was based on a review of DOE's 2019 Class
8 Fuel Cell Targets. DOE has an ultimate target for peak efficiency of 72 percent, which
corresponds to an ultimate fuel cell drive cycle efficiency of 66 percent. This equates to an 8
percent difference between peak efficiency and drive cycle efficiency at a more typical operating
power. Therefore, to reflect system efficiency more accurately at a typical operating power, we
applied the 8 percent difference to the peak efficiency estimate in the NPRM. For the final rule,
the operational efficiency of the fuel cell system (i.e., represented by drive cycle efficiency) is
about 61 percent.
This fuel cell system efficiency value is still somewhat higher than the values suggested by
PACCAR (42 to 50 percent) and EMA (56 to 60 percent). It represents a projection of modest
improvements in fuel cell efficiency over time. Thus, in combination with other sizing
273 Islam, Ehsan Sabri, Ram Vijayagopal, Aymeric Rousseau. "A Comprehensive Simulation Study to Evaluate
Future Vehicle Energy and Cost Reduction Potential", Report to the U.S. Department of Energy, Contract
ANL/ESD-22/6, October 2022. Available online:
https://anl.app.bo\.com/s/an4n\0v2\pud\tpsnkhd5pcim/u4i 1 hk/File/1406494585829.
525
-------
adjustments to account for fuel cell degradation over time, for example, we believe that we have
adequately addressed commenter concerns.
We agree with the ACEEE comment about considering BEV component efficiency gains for
FCEVs and did this for the proposal. (As explained in DRIA Chapter 2.5.1.2.1, we used the same
component efficiencies from Table 2-38, also called a "FC to Road" or "FCTR" efficiency in the
NPRM version of HD TRUCS.274) For the final rule, as explained in RIA Chapter 2.5.1.2, we
combined the revised fuel cell system efficiency value with the BEV powertrain efficiency (i.e.,
the combined inverter, gearbox, and e-motor efficiencies) as a total FCEV powertrain efficiency
to account for losses that take place before the remaining energy arrives at the axle. The final
FCEV powertrain efficiencies, ranging from 51 percent to 57 percent, were used to size the
hydrogen storage tank and to determine the hydrogen usage and related costs.
As described in RIA Chapter 2.5.1.1.2, to avoid undersizing the fuel cell system, we also
oversized the fuel cell stack by an additional 25 percent to allow for occasional scenarios where
the vehicle requires more power (e.g., to accelerate when the battery state of charge is low, to
meet unusually long grade requirements, or to meet other infrequent extended high loads like a
strong headwind) and so the fuel cell can operate within an efficient region. This size increase
we included in the final rule version of HD TRUCS can also improve fuel cell stack durability
and ensure the fuel cell stack can meet the power needs throughout the useful life. This is the
systems' net peak power, or the amount available to power the wheels.275 The fuel cell stack
generates power, but some power is consumed to operate the fuel cell system before it gets to the
e-motor. Therefore, we increased the size of the system by an additional 20 percent276 to account
for operation of balance of plant (BOP) components that ensure that gases entering the system
are at the appropriate temperature, pressure, and humidity and remove heat generated by the
stack. This is the fuel cell stack gross power.
For example:
190 kW (continuous power from FC) * 1.25% = 237.5 kWnet
237.5 kWnet * 1.2% = 285 kWgross
[or 190 kW * 1.5% = 285 kWgross]
The larger fuel cell can allow the system to operate more efficiently based on its daily needs,
which results in less wasted energy and lower fuel consumption. This additional size also adds
durability, which is important for commercial vehicles, by allowing for some degradation over
time. This should address PACCAR's concern about fuel cell degradation over time. We
determined that with this upsizing, there is no need for a fuel cell system replacement within the
10-year period at issue in the HD TRUCS analysis.
274 EPA "Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis: Heavy-Duty Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Phase 3." April 2023. EPA-
420-D-23-004. Page 23. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-
engines/proposed-rule-greenhouse-gas-emissions-standards-heavy or https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1428.
275 Net system power is the gross stack power minus balance of plant losses. This value can be called the rated
power.
276 Huya-Kouadio, Jennie and Brian D. James. "Fuel Cell Cost and Performance Analysis: Presentation for the DOE
Hydrogen Program; 2023 Annual Merit Review and Peer Evaluation Meeting". Strategic Analysis. June 6, 2023.
Available online:
https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/docs/hydrogenprogramlibraries/pdfs/review23/fc353James_2023_o-pdf.pdf.
526
-------
3.2.3 Battery Specific Energy and Energy Density
Comments by Organizations
Organization: China WTO/TBT National Notification & Enquiry Center
2. It is suggested to moderately reduce the numerical limits in the tables "TABLE II-8
BATTERY PACK LEVEL SPECIFIC ENERGY IN HD TRUCS (WH/KG)", "TABLE II-9
BATTERY PACK LEVEL ENERGY DENSITY IN HD TRUCS (WH/L)", and "TABLE 11-10
FCEV FUEL CELL EFFICIENCIES FOR MY 2027-2032". [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1658-
A2, p.3]
According to the description in the text, the emission limits corresponding to each year from
2027 to 2032 in the above table are quantitative theoretical simulation values for Autonomie
vehicle modeling and simulation research, and the simulation values may often differ from the
measured data. Please provide evidence to prove the rationality of the limit values in the above
table. It is recommended to calculate and deduce the reasonable limit value of vehicle battery
according to International Electrotechnical Commission IEC 62133 and SAE 1537 test
calculation method. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1658-A2, p.3]
There is a certain difference in the limit values calculated using the quantitative theoretical
method for IEC and Autonomie vehicle modeling and simulation research. Please explain the
rationality of using the quantitative theoretical method for Autonomie vehicle modeling and
simulation research. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1658-A2, p.3]
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America
EPA Request for Comment, Request #29: We request comment on our approach and results
as well as comment and data on current and projected levels of battery-specific energy and
battery-specific density values for HD vehicles.
• DTNA Response: See DTNA Response to Request # 20, above. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1555-A1, p. 162]
EPA Request for Comment, Request #20: We request comment on our approach, including
other data we should consider in our assessment of energy consumption.
• DTNA Response: EPA should consider all available data including that which can be
provided by manufacturers in confidential settings; however, given that the HD ZEV
market is currently in a nascent state, any data available today is necessarily limited. EPA
should thus re-evaluate its assumptions on this issue on a regular basis, using the best
available data. See Section II.C.2 of DTNA's comments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1555-A1, p. 161]
Organization: Environmental Defense Fund (EPF)
Key EPA assumptions related to ZEV costs and deployment are overly conservative and when
corrected, support more protective standards
527
-------
i. EPA's ZEV technology and adoption modeling assumptions are too conservative
EPA's ZEV assumptions are too conservative and more reasonable assumptions would result
in higher ZEV deployment projections, especially in key categories. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1644-A1, p. 53]
EPA's battery-related assumptions are too conservative
In the HD TRUCS model, EPA makes a number of assumptions related to EV batteries that
result in unnecessarily large, and artificially costly, batteries. First, EPA uses an unrealistically
high daily mileage to size the battery. Second, EPA underestimates the average percent from full
capacity that a battery will discharge per charge cycle, and overestimates deterioration over a
battery's lifetime. Third, EPA does not consider the average decrease in annual mileage over a
vehicles' lifetime. Fourth, EPA's values for battery specific energy (Wh/kg) and energy density
(Wh/L) are overly conservative. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 54]Battery specific
energy. Additionally, EPA's values for the battery specific energy (Wh/kg) and energy density
(Wh/L) used in the HD TRUCS modeling are overly conservative. In 2027, EPA's modeling
assumes batteries will have a specific energy of 199 Wh/kg increasing to 223 Wh/kg in 2032 and
a energy density of 496 Wh/L increasing to 557 Wh/L by 2032. In contrast, studies put current
batteries at 250 to 300 Wh/kg and energy density at 600 to 700 Wh/L. 136 Next generation
batteries are expected to be even more energy dense. The Battery500 consortium out of the
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory have established a cell design that could achieve up to
500 Wh/kg. 137 Battery developer SES has created their Apollo battery cell with an energy
density of 417 Wh/kg and 935 Wh/L with plans to start commercialization of the batteries by
2025.138 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 56]
136 Shuru Chen, Fang Dai, and Mei Cai, ACS Energy Letters 2020 5 (10), 3140-3151, DOI:
10.1021/acsenergylett.0c01545
137 Liu, J., Bao, Z., Cui, Y. et al. Pathways for practical high-energy long-cycling lithium metal batteries.
Nat Energy 4, 180-186 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-019-0338-x
138 Doll, Scooter. SES shares plans for world's largest lithium-metal facility to build 107 amp-hour EV
batteries. November 3, 2021. Electrek. https://electrek.co/2021/ll/03/ses-shares-plans-for-worlds-largest-
lithium-metal-facility-to-build-107-amp-hour-ev-batteries/
Since the eligibility of vehicles to have any BEV adoption in HD TRUCS depends on the
batteries being less than 30% of the payload weight and smaller than 12 feet across, the specific
energy and energy density of the batteries impacts the stringency of the rule. EPA should use less
conservative energy density values in their modeling to better account for the projected
improvement in battery science that will occur in the next decade. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1644-A1, p. 56]
Organization: Moving Forward Network (MFN) et al.
11.1.3.3. Specific energy assumed in the model is lower than expected for HDVs
11.1.3.3.1. Specific energy improvements over time
"Specific energy" is the amount of energy a battery can store per unit of its weight, and
"energy density" is the amount of energy a battery can store per unit of its volume. As shown in
528
-------
Figures 26 and 27 below, both of these metrics have increased dramatically over time for
lithium-ion batteries. Improving battery-specific energy and energy density increases the amount
of energy that can be stored using the same amount of materials, which is important not only for
reducing demand for battery minerals but also for improving the range of electric vehicles. These
increases are due to battery chemistry and design improvements. Battery chemistries have
different specific energies; nickel and cobalt containing chemistries have higher specific energy
than the LFP. For example, Tesla Model Y uses an NCA battery with a reported 276-333 Wh/kg.
The Model S and X use a battery with slightly less at 250 Wh/kg. 202 While lower, this 250
Wh/kg is still a drastic increase from the beginning of Panasonic's production in 1990 when it
was at about 150 Wh/kg. 203 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 95.] [See Figure 26
Specific energy and energy density of nickel-based lithium-ion batteries continue to increase
located on p. 95 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1]
202 Aditya Dhage. Cylindrical Cell Comparison 4680 vs 21700 vs 18650. V. I. (2023).
https://www.batterydesign.net/cylindrical-cell-comparison-4680-vs-21700-vs-18650/
203 Placke, T., Kloepsch, R., Diihnen, S. et al. Lithium ion, lithium metal, and alternative rechargeable
battery technologies: the odyssey for high energy density. J Solid State Electrochem. V. 21. (2017). p.
1939-1964 https://doi.org/10.1007/sl0008-017-3610-7
204 Id.
LFP batteries have similarly seen advancements in their specific energy capacity, with below
90 Wh/kg in 2010 to current reports from Proterra of 170 Wh/kg 205 and BYD with 166 Wh/kg.
206 BYD has recently announced the blade LFP battery which is estimated to reach 180 Wh/kg
207 due to the use of "cell to pack" design, therefore not using the "cell to module to pack"
design that has been historically seen. 208 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 96.]
[See Figure 27 Specific energy of LFP lithium-ion batteries continues to increase located on p.
96 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1.]
205 Proterra. Proterra battery pack features and specifications. (2020). https://www.proterra.com/wp-
content/uploads/2020/08/Proterra-EV-Battery-Pack-Specs-2020.pdf
206 BYD Blade. Battery Design from Chemistry to Pack. (2022). https://www.batterydesign.net/byd-
blade/#:~:text=Weight%203.9%20kg%20%5B3%5D,Energy%20Density%20%3D%20166%20Wh%2Fkg
207 BYD Blade. BYD'S new blade battery set to redefine EV safety Standards. (Nd).
https://en.byd.com/news/byds-new-blade-battery-set-to-redefine-ev-safety-standards/
208 International Energy Agency. Global EV Outlook 2022. (2022).
https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/ad8fb04c-4f75-42fc-973a-
6e54c8a4449a/GlobalElectric VehicleOutlook2022.pdf
209 BloombergNEF. Electric Vehicle Outlook 2022. BloombergNEF. (2022). Subscription required,
https ://bnef.turtl. co/story/evo-2022/page/1
About 40% of global commercial vehicle sales are expected to contain LFP batteries in 2023,
and LFP batteries are more common in certain vehicle segments like electric buses and in
certain countries like China. 210 In the U.S., LFP batteries in heavy-duty BEVs are less common
than nickel- and cobalt-based chemistries, and the use of LFP in commercial vehicles globally is
expected to continue to decrease over time, reaching around 30% in 2032. 211 The relatively low
pack-level specific energy in Table 2-41 of the DRIA shown in Table 10 below appears to only
be taking into account the use of LFP, although this assumption cannot be checked because the
529
-------
cathode chemistry breakout/market share forecast was not provided. This is a conservative
estimate of energy density considering nickel and cobalt containing cathodes are used in about a
third of trucks, and recent advancements, such as the Blade Battery (10 Wh/kg increase),
demonstrate density gains faster than historically seen. The EPA forecasts closely align with the
lowest limit of specific energy forecasts by Bloomberg in Figure 27, although it would be more
accurate to align with a medium forecast scenario considering the share of NMC chemistries
used, especially in the U.S. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, pp. 96 - 97.] [See Table 10
Battery pack-level specific energy used by EPA in HD TRUCS located on p. 97 of docket
number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1 and Figure 28 Historic and Forecasted Specific
Energy for Different Battery Chemistries located on p. 98 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1608-A1.]
210 Colin McKerracher et al. Electric Vehicle Outlook 2023. BloombergNEF. (June 8, 2023).
211 Id.
212 Phase 3 DRIA at 169.
213 BloombergNEF Electric Vehicle Outlook 2022 (subscription required).
In BloombergNEF's analysis, they used chemistry specific density and forecasted based on
linear interpolation demonstrating that in 2027 the 95% confidence lower limit of specific energy
is 198 Wh/kg, the same value used in the analysis shown above in Figure 28. 214
BloombergNEF's lower limit values continue to closely align with the forecast used in EPAs
analysis. As previously stated, this is likely an underestimation of the average specific energy we
will see in the future, considering the share of nickel and cobalt containing chemistries used in
the analysis compared to likely real-world scenarios as well as advancements in battery design.
In addition, the linear interpretation forecast does not account for material substitution and large
specific energy gains expected from quickly advancing technology. For example, the use of
silicon in the anode can increase specific energy as shown in Figure 29 below, 215 and while it is
not yet used widely, startups are progressing the technology and constructing commercial-scale
manufacturing facilities. 216 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 98.] [See Figure 29
Specific energy and capacity for different anode and cathode compositions (silicon carbon
composite anodes show higher metrics across the board than graphite alone) located on p. 99 of
docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1.]
214 Andy Leach. Lithium-Ion Batteries: State of the Industry. BloombergNEF. (September 9, 2022).This
data includes historical and forecasted energy density rates from 2010 - 2035, subscription required for full
report.
215 Placke, T., Kloepsch, R., Diihnen, S. et al. Lithium ion, lithium metal, and alternative rechargeable
battery technologies: the odyssey for high energy density. J Solid State Electrochem. V. 21. (2017). 1939—
1964. https://doi.org/10.1007/sl0008-017-3610-7
216 Matt Blois. Silicon anode battery companies get a major boost. Chemical and Engineering News.
(2022). https://cen.acs.org/energy/energy-storage-/Silicon-anode-battery-companies-
major/100/web/2022/12; Groupl4. Groupl4 Begins Construction of World's Largest Commercial Factory
for Advanced Silicon Battery Materials. (April 4, 2023). https://groupl4.technology/en/news/groupl4-
technologies-begins-construction-of-the-worlds-largest-commercial-factory-for-advanced-silicon-battery-
materials-
217 Placke et al.
530
-------
Updating the specific energy forecast would likely lead to lower costs of heavy-duty BEVs,
and therefore, increased feasibility of BEV technologies, thus justifying stronger standards even
under EPA's current analytical approach. EPA's assumptions must be revised to reflect what is
actually occurring in the market. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 99]
Table 11 represents the specific energy for HDVs using the linear interpolation approach of
the EPA, and including a 30% portion of NMC batteries. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1,
p. 100.] [See Table 11 Estimated Specific Energy for Heavy-duty BEVs located on p. 100 of
docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1.]
218 BloombergNEF Electric Vehicle Outlook 2022 (subscription required)
Table 11 is calculated based on historical energy densities for LFP and cobalt-containing
cathodes provided by BloombergNEF. 219 When specific energy for LFP and cobalt-containing
cathodes are individually calculated based on linear interpolation, Table 12 are the results. If the
ratio of 70% LFP and 30% cobalt-containing is kept, we get the average specific energy in Table
11. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 100.] [See Table 12 Estimated Specific Energy for
LFP and Cobalt-containing Battery Chemistries located on p. 101 of docket number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1.]
219 Colin McKerracher et al. Electric Vehicle Outlook 2022. BloombergNEF. (June 1, 2022).
EPA Summary and Response:
Summary:
We received several comments relating to battery specific energy and energy density; most
commenters believe we should use a higher value for the specific energy. EDF states the battery
properties including specific energy and energy density are lower than current values of specific
energy "at 250 to 300 Wh/kg and energy density at 600 to 700 Wh/L"; they maintain that battery
cells will be redesigned to improve the specific energy of the battery. They state that this
improvement in battery chemistry and pack design, such as by sodium-ion chemistry or solid-
state design, will significantly reduce weight of the battery and hence improve payload capacity.
They further cite to specific instances of battery packs having higher specific energy and energy
density than EPA considered, referring to Battery500 Consortium (Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory) with specific energy of 500 Wh/kg, and the Apollo battery from SES with specific
energy of 417 Wh/kg and 935 Wh/L of energy density. They suggest further that EPA's values at
proposal reflect a low-end estimate from Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) and discuss
why a midpoint estimate would be more appropriate.
MFN provided a similar comment, noting that the specific energy of batteries has improved
over time for both nickel and iron-phosphate based batteries. They use improvements of Tesla
Model Y from Models S and X as an example of recent improvements in nickel based batteries.
Their Models S and X have batteries with 250 Wh/kg and Model Y has a reported specific
energy of 276-333 Wh/kg. MFN states that LFP batteries are more common in China than
worldwide, and that the specific energy and energy density used by EPA at proposal only
accounts for LFP batteries. They state that the value in the DRIA also aligns with the lowest limit
forecast by BNEF, whereas, in the commenter's view, it should align with the medium BNEF
forecast which considers the share of NMC chemistries used in the US.
531
-------
China WTO/TBT National Notification and Enquiry Center believes there is an overall issue
with using simulated results from Autonomie for battery specific energy and energy density in
that there is inherent difference between simulation compared to measured data. The commenter
states that further justification is needed for using simulated data.
DTNA commented that EPA should consider all available data including that which can be
provided by manufacturers in confidential settings, and asserted that, given data available today
is limited, EPA should re-evaluate its assumptions on this issue on a regular basis, using the best
available data.
Response:
We received comments from EDF and MFN maintaining that EPA had used overly
conservative values at proposal for battery energy density and specific energy. EPA recognizes
that there have been significant developments in the areas of battery chemistry, battery cell and
battery pack design. EDF and MFN provided examples and values for battery specific energy as
well as for energy density, however, as explained in RIA Chapter 1, there is a difference between
battery cell properties and battery pack properties. For the HD TRUCS analysis, one metric we
used is to determine the weight of the BEV powertrain system, which includes the battery pack
weight as well as the motor weight and sometimes the gear box weight. Since a battery pack
consists of a group of cells (or modules), additional mass from packaging, cooling system and
battery management system will only add additional mass without providing additional energy.
This will bring down the overall specific energy (and energy density) for the pack level value.
For example, the value that MFN provided for the Model Y is 276 Wh/kg; however, this value is
for their first generation 4680 cylindrical cell. As documented in a recent report, Munro tore
down a Tesla Model Y which used the 4680 cells.277 This vehicle's battery weight was 543 kg,
which means that for a usable battery energy of 67 kWh, the pack level energy density would be
123 Wh/kg or about 45% of the cell level specific energy278 — lower than the reported value
compared to the proposal. MFN also reported the specific energy of the 2020 Proterra bus battery
pack as 170 Wh/kg, but conflates the BYD Blade battery cell specific energy of 166 Wh/kg as a
pack level energy (although the same citation from MFN estimates the pack level specific energy
of the BYD Blade battery pack to have a specific energy of 150 Wh/kg). Lastly, some
commenters compared the NPRM specific energy value to that of the lower bound of BNEF
value battery specific energy; however, the values for the specific energy of battery packs with
lithium-ion cell chemistries in the proposal are based on the 2021 version of Autonomie (see
DRIA Chapter 2.4.2.1 for more information). 279>280
We generally disagree with the China WTO/TBT National Notification and Enquiry Center
perspective about using Autonomie values as input to HD TRUCS. Autonomie is a vehicle
277 https://insideevs.com/news/595621/munro-4680-tesla-modely-teardown/
278 We should note the actual specific energy of the Tesla Model Y is higher than the 123 Wh/kg because the likely
pack energy is higher than the reported usable energy of the battery pack.
279 Argonne National Laboratory. VTO HFTO Analysis Reports - 2021. "ANL - ESD-2110 Report - MD HD Truck
- Autonomie Assumptions.xlsm". Available online:
https://anl.app.box.eom/s/an4nx0v2xpudxtpsnkhd5peimzu4jlhk/folder/177858439896.
280 EPA "Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis: Heavy-Duty Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Phase 3." April 2023. EPA-
420-D-23-004. Page 23. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-
engines/proposed-rule-greenhouse-gas-emissions-standards-heavy or https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1428.
532
-------
simulation model that provides expected physical results based on modeled vehicle parameters.
Although we agree that actual physical tests may yield dissimilar results from model results,
there are limitations in testing real heavy-duty vehicles. It is generally cost prohibitive and time
consuming to build every vehicle variation for physical tests, and results can be inconclusive.
See comments of EMA at p. 53] and our response in section 24 of the RTC, amending
regulations to no longer require that OEMs conduct corroborative chassis testing of HDVs for
MY 2026 and earlier vehicles unless EPA requests it and we are sun-setting the requirement for
MY 2027 and later vehicles. Furthermore, Autonomie is a well-established (>15 year old)
vehicle simulation model, and many of the results of the model have been validated against
component and vehicle test data. Lastly, the two test methods provided by China WTO/TBT
International Electrotechnical Commission, IEC 62133 and SAE 1537, do not yield more
information about specific energy or energy density. International Electrotechnical Commission
IEC 62133 is a safety requirement test, and SAE 1537 are tests associated with fuel pump and
fuel injection systems. Even if there is an IEC or SAE test that can be used to determine the
specific energy or energy density of batteries, these tests will be unhelpful in projecting future
properties of the battery as these batteries do not yet exist and are proprietary information.
For the final rule version of HD TRUCS we have updated both our value for specific energy
and for energy density. Instead of relying on the 2021 version of Autonomie as we did at
proposal for specific energy, we revised the specific energy of the battery based on an updated
ANL DOE study281 resulting in an input to HD TRUCS of 198 Wh/kg. See RIA Chapter 2.4.2.1
for an in-depth discussion about this value and our decision to apply the conservative assumption
that this value does not improve over the MY 2027-MY 2032 time frame. For energy density, we
divided the energy density values provided by MFN in their comment by their corresponding
specific energy and averaged the results to calculate a factor to change the specific energy in HD
TRUCS to energy density. The average of the values was 2.2; however, we used a value of 2.0 to
be conservative and in consideration that some of the battery specifications provided were at the
battery cell level rather than the battery pack level.
EPA has carefully considered information made available to EPA. As further explained in
preamble Sections I and II, in setting future emission standards under our CAA section
202(a)(l)-(2) authority, given the prospective nature of the factors Congress directed EPA
consider, EPA must necessarily identify potential technologies, evaluate the rate each technology
could be introduced, and project associated cost of compliance. Thus, while we acknowledge that
future projections inherently are subject to uncertainties, EPA has carefully analyzed the
uncertainties and identified the considerations we found persuasive. Consistent with our standard
setting authority the analysis EPA conducted for this final rule appropriately makes use of the
best data available to us, as described in RIA Chapter 2.
281 Kevin Knehr, Joseph Kubal, Shabbir Ahmed, "Cost Analysis and Projections for U.S.-Manufactured Automotive
Lithium-ion Batteries", Argonne National Laboratory report ANL/CSE-24/1 for US Department of Energy. January
2024. Available online: https://www.osti.gov/biblio/2280913
533
-------
3.2.4 Other Efficiency Improvements
Comments by Organizations
Organization: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE)
Both BEV and FCEV efficiencies could also be substantially increased from the
improvements to tires, aerodynamics, and auxiliary systems referenced earlier as efficiency
opportunities for ICEVs. The final rule should promote these efficiency gains both through
standards reflecting ICEV improvements beyond MY 2027 targets and through realistic
upstream emissions accounting. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1560-A1, p. 16.]
Organization: International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT)
ENERGY CONSUMPTION OF TRACTOR-TRAILERS EPA assumes there will be no
improvement in the energy efficiency of zero-emission trucks over time. This is driven by EPA's
assumption that there will be no efficiency improvements for ICE vehicles beyond Phase 2
requirements. Improvement in vehicle aerodynamics, tires, and lightweight chassis technologies
can decrease truck energy consumption and result in smaller battery sizes. We think it would be
appropriate for EPA to assume manufacturers will deploy vehicle efficiency technologies that
reduce the direct manufacturing costs of the vehicle without sacrificing vehicle range. Based on
ICCT's analysis, improvements in vehicle technologies can result in energy efficiencies as low
as 2.29 kWh/mile by 2032 for battery electric tractor-trailer sleeper cabs reaching 2.12 kWh/mile
once the technology reaches its full potential by 2035. (Basma et al., 2023) [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1553-A1, pp. 13-14]
Basma, H., Buysse, C., Zhou, Y., & Rodriguez, F. (2023). Total cost of ownership of alternative powertrain
technologies for Class 8 long-haul trucks in the United States. International Council on Clean
Transportation, https://theicct.org/publication/tco-alt-powertrain-long-haul-trucks-us-apr23/
ICCT recommends updating the energy consumption figures for battery-electric tractor-trailer
sleeper cabs, considering the vehicle technology improvement and more representative cooling
and heating loads, which would result in a truck energy consumption in the range 2.29 kWh/mile
by 2032. This energy consumption estimate is almost 18% lower than what EPA assumes. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1553-A1, p. 14]
Organization: Moving Forward Network (MFN) et al.
The fuel economy and efficiency of the trucks are based on EPA's Phase 2 requirements for
diesel-powered vehicles, as simulated for representative duty cycles in a modified version of
EPA's GEM model designed in MATLAB. Because the model is not designed for electric
powertrains, electric efficiency was determined via an observed energy-efficiency relationship
between diesel and electric powertrains observed in real-world testing. 99 A comparison between
the modeled efficiencies and EPA's assumptions in its HD TRUCS model are shown in Figure 3
to ground this work in the assumptions used in the proposal. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-
Al, p. 42-43] [Refer to Figure 3, Comparison between EPA truck efficiency and trucks modeled
in this analysis, on p. 43 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-202-1608-A1.]
534
-------
99 Liu, X., et al. Well-to-wheels analysis of zero-emission plug-in battery electric vehicle technology for
medium and heavy-duty trucks, Environ. Sci. Technol. V. 55. (2021). p. 538-546.
https://doi.org/10.102 l/acs.est.0c02931; Hunter, C., et al. Spatial and temporal analysis of the total cost of
ownership for class 8 tractors and class 4 parcel delivery trucks. Technical Report NREL/TP-5400-71796.
(2021). https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/71796.pdf; California Air Resources Board. Battery Electric
Truck and Bus Energy Efficiency Compared to Conventional Diesel Vehicles. (May 2018).
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2018-ll/180124hdbevefficiency.pdf.
EPA Summary and Response:
Summary:
EPA received comments raising concerns about the efficiency of the vehicles modeled in HD
TRUCS. ACEEE and ICCT commented that ZEVs total efficiency could improve substantially
with improvements to tires, aerodynamics, and auxiliary systems, just like ICE vehicles. ACEEE
suggested that the final rule should take these efficiencies into account for both ICE vehicles and
ZEVs when setting the stringency of the standard. ICCT additionally commented that
lightweighting chassis technology should also be considered as reducing vehicle weight and will
lead to reduced energy consumption and smaller battery sizes. MFN stated that the efficiency of
the modeled BEVs in HD TRUCS was greater than the efficiency they modeled using empirical
data. See many additional comments on this issue in section 2.4 of this RTC.
Response:
EPA has considered further ICE vehicle improvements and adoption as part of the additional
example compliance pathways that support the stringency of our final standards. See RIA
Chapter 2.11 and generally RTC sections 2.1 and 9.2. Please refer to Section 2.4 for response to
comments of ICCT and others that EPA should adopt more stringent Phase 3 standards reflecting
technology packages of both ZEVs and further improvements to ICE vehicles and engines
beyond those projected to meet the MY 2027 Phase 2 standards.
As explained in RIA Chapter 2.4 and 2.5, the efficiency of the vehicles modeled in HD
TRUCS are based on the best available data for the efficiency of the different drivetrain systems
in ZEVs. In the proposal and for the final rule, we started with the energy demand at the axle
calculated in GEM using a suite of technologies that meet the Phase 2 MY 2027 standards over
the Phase 2 drive cycles and associated weightings. We then applied appropriate losses for each
powertrain system based on data from component suppliers and literature. We agree with ICCT
that manufacturers will likely deploy vehicle efficiency technologies (like improving the
aerodynamics of the vehicle and lightweighting) that further improve the efficiency of ZEVs if
they are cost-effective. After considering their comment, we revised the aerodynamic load for
one day cab vehicle type and one sleeper cab vehicle type in HD TRUCS to reflect the
aerodynamic performance of today's day cab tractor produced by Tesla, which is more
aerodynamic than today's ICE tractors. As for lightweighting the chassis, we agree that this will
happened as the vehicles continue to be improved; however, our approach for modeling vehicle
energy demand includes the weight of the vehicle, powertrain, payload and the trailer (for
tractors), so there is not enough certainty that small improvements in vehicle weight will result in
a lower gross combined vehicle weight. Because of this we took a conservative approach and
modeled the ZEV at the same vehicle weight as the comparable ICE vehicles. We appreciate the
comment from MFN that provided information on how the energy efficiency of ICE vehicles and
ZEVs compared between their analysis and what was used in HD TRUCS. The energy efficiency
535
-------
of ZEVs and ICE vehicles is a function of the duty cycle and MFN used different duty cycles for
their assessment than what was used for HD TRUCS. The efficiency of ZEVs in HD TRUCS is
determined from a bottom-up approach using the efficiency of the powertrain and drivetrain
components. For further information on the efficiency rates we used for each powertrain system,
see Chapter 2 of the RIA.
Please refer to Section 17.1 for our response to ACEEE's comment related to upstream
emissions.
3.2.5 PTO
Comments by Organizations
Organization: MEMA
The EPA HD TRUCS Tool Must Be Expanded and Improved
We appreciate the substantial work EPA has invested in framing and inputting to the Heavy-
Duty Technology Resource Use Case Scenario (HD TRUCS) tool to date, to create modeling
resources for various truck technologies. The model needs to be improved before it can
accurately inform and assist EPA in finalizing this rule. Industry and end-users can support EPA
with data to improve inputs to the HD TRUCS model. Appendix 1 of this document contains
several sections and use-case reviews, along with numerous recommendations on how to
improve HD TRUCS. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1570-A1, p. 14.] [See Docket Number EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1570-A1, pages 16-23, for Appendix 1.]
Appendix 1
The Draft EPA HD TRUCS Model is a Good Framework and Will Benefit from Significant
Additional Development
We commend EPA for building and soliciting comments on the HD TRUCS model, which
represents an endeavor to build a bottom-up projection of ZEV adoption deemed feasible from
MY27 through MY32. We offer several observations on the HD TRUCS model and where it can
be improved:
• There is a great level of detailed source data from the National Renewable Energy Lab
(NREL) about one vocational application (utility boom trucks) in the TRUCS model and
limited detail for other vocational applications. This limited view must be corrected.
• EPA included one source that measures Power Takeoff (PTO) across vocations - the
California data on safe-harbor percentages - to estimate PTO usage and energy demands
into HD TRUCS. This must be expanded.
• EPA's GHG Phase II inclusion of neutral-idle technology within the GEM model creates
a compliance pathway for more OEMs to utilize idle reduction features in vocational
trucks as GHG Phase 2 stringencies tighten. This is a positive example of how EPA can
integrate efficiency features into the GEM model to incentivize deployment for mature,
ready-efficiency technology with low regulatory overhead.
536
-------
Industry and end-users can support EPA with data to improve inputs to the HD TRUCS
model. We recommend EPA plan a second comment period or technical amendment to publicize
data collected from this NPRM and to solicit additional data similar to EPA data collections from
NREL on boom trucks for vehicle applications within HD TRUCS. Given the time constraints
EPA is under to finalize the rule, some MEMA members plan to provide available duty cycle
data that has been collected from end-user vehicle applications to answer EPA's question
regarding vehicle applications that are expected to be more challenging to electrify and take
more time to convert to ZEV. For example, PTO data can be used to estimate energy usage for
battery sizing as EPA has, and PTO can also be an indicator of vehicle specialization which has
additional timing considerations for end-user ZEV adoption. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1570-
Al, pp. 16-17]
Section 1: Vehicle applications with additional challenges to implementing ZEV technology
Specialized vehicle bodies - EPA has gathered information on PTO operation time and energy
consumption for battery sizing. The presence of a PTO also indicates specialization of the truck
body with accessories and other high-powered equipment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1570-A1,
p. 17]
Section 3: Continuous, stationary use and occasional high-performance demands
Similarly, ready-mix concrete applications need to continuously turn the drum to avoid
concrete hardening leading to higher fuel burn in the range of 35-49% from PTO usage. This is
higher fuel burn from PTO usage than referenced NREL data from utility bucket trucks showing
<15% fuel burn from intermittent PTO usage. Likewise, concrete pumpers have extremely high-
performance needs for PTO that would require higher performance PTO than utility bucket
trucks. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2022-0985-1570-A1, p. 20.] [See Docket Number EP A-HQ-0 AR-2022-
0985-1570-A1, page. 20, for referenced figures.]
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America LLC (DTNA)
EPA Request for Comment, Request #20: We request comment on our approach, including
other data we should consider in our assessment of energy consumption.
DTNA Response: EPA should consider all available data including that which can be
provided by manufacturers in confidential settings; however, given that the HD ZEV market is
currently in a nascent state, any data available today is necessarily limited. EPA should thus re-
evaluate its assumptions on this issue on a regular basis, using the best available data. See
Section II.C.2 of DTNA's comments. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 161]
EPA Request for Comment, Request #21: We request additional data that could be considered
in our assessment of PTO loads in our final rulemaking assessment.
• DTNA Response: See DTNA Response to Request # 20, above. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1555-A1, p. 162]
Organization: Odyne Systems LLC
Provide a greater regulatory benefit for the use of electric Power Take-Off (ePTO) systems
537
-------
Odyne recommends that the EPA consider increasing the regulatory benefit of using ePTO
systems. In the past, chassis OEMs have not had a sufficient need to use ePTOs to meet
regulations. ePTOs can significantly reduce NOx and GHG emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1623-A1, p. 2]
Trucks operating at worksites often use engines to power truck-mounted equipment, such as
cranes, bucket trucks, and other applications. Depending on the application, diesel trucks can be
in PTO mode for many hours daily. Some examples of trucks with PTOs are shown below and
listed in California Regulation 1432.1 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1623-A1, p. 2]
1 PTO examples: "boom truck (block boom), bulk feed truck, car carrier with a hydraulic winch, carpet
cleaning van, cement mixer, cement pumper, distribution truck (hot asphalt), dump trailer, dump truck, fire
truck, garbage truck (automated side loader, manual side loader, single drive front end loader, dual drive
front end loader, single drive rear end loader, dual drive rear end loader, roll-off truck, lugger truck,
recycling truck (compaction and non-compaction), one-pass truck, and container delivery truck), leaf truck,
lime spreader, line trucks with digger, derrick or aerial lift, log trucks with self-loader, mobile crane,
pneumatic tank truck, refrigeration truck, salt spreader (dump with spreader), seeder truck, semi-wrecker,
service trucks with a jackhammer or pneumatic drill, sewer cleaning truck (sewer jet, sewer vactor), snow
plow, spray truck, super suckers (port-o-let trucks), sweeper truck, tank transport, tank truck, truck with a
hydraulic winch, transfer trailer, and wrecker." https://www.cdtfa.ca.gov/lawguides/vol3/dftr/dftr-
regl432.html
Very high unregulated GHG and NOx emissions in the PTO operating mode: GHG and NOx
emissions from trucks are often very high when operating Power Take-offs (PTOs). Odyne has
worked with the U.S. Department of Energy on various projects that show 50% or more of daily
fuel can be consumed in some applications due to PTO operations. DOE studies also show very
high NOx emissions since PTO operation does not allow the diesel after-treatment system to
work correctly. Very high NOx output results from a low average load on the engine during
many PTO applications, causing the exhaust to be too cold to enable the emissions system to
work properly. As a result, 90% of full-day NOx emissions in some applications can be
attributed to PTO use per DOE studies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1623-A1, pp. 2-3]
California Regulation 1432 may underestimate the percentage of fuel consumed in PTO mode
The EPA relied on California Regulation 1432, in section 2.2.2.1.4 Power Take Off (PTO)
and Table 2-28 Annual Diesel Fuel Consumption from Driving and PTO Use (MY 2027-2032)
of the EPA phase 3 Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis. Regulation 1432 may underestimate fuel
use in PTO mode. Per California regulations, "If the motor vehicle is idling on the highway
while auxiliary equipment is in use, a refund will be allowed for the diesel fuel tax paid on that
portion of the diesel fuel which is used to operate the auxiliary equipment; however, no refund
will be allowed for the diesel fuel tax paid on that portion of the diesel fuel which is used for
idling."2 While regulation 1432 may not attribute fuel consumption in PTO mode to idling, it still
occurs when a diesel engine-powered truck is in PTO mode and should be added to EPA's fuel
estimates. Work crews turn on the PTO to operate truck-mounted equipment. They may also turn
on a PTO function because it enables the vehicle to continue to idle without triggering an
automatic engine shutdown. Work crews sometimes keep the engine idling in PTO mode, even if
the equipment is not operated because HVAC continues to operate, and the 12V battery is
charged, which is helpful if 12V worksite warning lights are activated. For example, Utility
vehicle PTO consumption in Regulation 1432 (Line truck with digger, derrick, or aerial lift 20%)
appears low based on U.S. DOE estimates. Table 2-28 estimates may also be low depending
538
-------
upon equipment and use variation. Odyne has collected data on wallboard cranes, indicating that
up to 1700 gallons + of fuel annually can be consumed in PTO mode. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1623-A1, p. 3]
2 https://www.cdtfa.ca.gov/lawguides/vol3/dftr/dftr-regl432.html
Odyne encourages the EPA to consider increasing the stringency of regulations impacting
PTO emissions because eliminating emissions in power take-off mode reduces large amounts of
GHGs and decreases harmful NOx by up to 90%. The GHG reductions/fuel savings in PTO
mode may be larger than estimated by the EPA based on regulation 1432 since the California
regulation does not count idling that occurs in PTO mode, and other government-funded studies
show PTO fuel consumption being higher than shown in the Phase 3 Draft Regulatory Impact
Analysis. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1623-A1, p. 3]
EPA Summary and Response
Summary:
MEMA raises concerns with the limited source of PTO data used to develop the PTO energy
consumption in HD TRUCS. They recommend that EPA open a second comment period or
technical amendment to solicit more detailed PTO data, such as the NREL data source for utility
boom trucks which uses 15% fuel burn. MEMA compares the fuel burn for concrete mixers to
the 15%) fuel burn for utility vehicles in the NREL paper. MEMA states the fuel burn range for
the PTO for concrete mixers is 35-49%>. DTNA stated that EPA should consider all data made
available to EPA in the rulemaking and suggested, because of the limited data available for PTO,
EPA should re-evaluate the PTO as more data becomes available.
Odyne raised a concern that the California Regulation 1432 may underrepresent the fuel usage
in PTO mode as it does not attribute fuel consumption in PTO mode to idling, but idling still
occurs when a diesel-powered truck is in PTO mode. Odyne also raised concerns about NOx
emissions during PTO operation.
Commenters also requested that EPA develop procedures, standards, and/or GEM features
that encourage more efficient PTO applications, such as ePTOs.
Response:
In the NPRM, EPA requested additional PTO data that could be considered in the assessment
of PTO loads in our final rulemaking assessment (88 FR at 25975); the only additional PTO fuel
burn data that was submitted in comments was an estimate from MEMA for concrete mixers. We
therefore disagree that EPA should open a second comment period, as EPA provided
commenters an opportunity to provide any such additional data in the NPRM comment period.
We note that PTO data was used to inform the comparative baseline energy consumption, and
thus the comparative upfront cost and cost of operation, between ZEVs and comparable ICE
vehicles. An increase in the estimate of fuel burn for PTO increases the required battery size and
therefore upfront cost of ZEVs compared to ICE vehicles but leads to lower operating costs due
to greater efficiency of ZEVs and the fuel/electricity cost differences among the ZEV and ICE
technologies.
539
-------
As discussed in Chapter 2.2.2 of the RIA, for the final rule EPA increased the PTO fuel burn
for concrete mixers/concrete pumpers and has used an average of the estimated range submitted
by MEMA to update the PTO fuel burn rate.
MEMA's comment comparing the PTO fuel burn rate of concrete mixers to the 15% fuel burn
rate for utility vehicles appears to imply that EPA used a 15% PTO fuel burn rate across all
applications; however, that is not the case. As discussed in RIA 2.2.2, EPA relied on a table
described in California's Diesel Tax Fuel Regulations, specifically in Regulation 1432, "Other
Nontaxable Uses of Diesel Fuel in a Motor Vehicle,"282 that covers a wider range of vehicles
beyond the electric utility vehicles in the referenced NREL studies. In response to Odyne's
comment that the California's Diesel Tax Fuel Regulations may underestimate fuel usage due to
the exclusion of idle fuel consumption, EPA disagrees because idle fuel consumption is already
accounted for in the vocational vehicle duty cycle weightings, which include 25% parked idle.283
HD TRUCS also increases the energy consumption of each vehicle based on the percent PTO
use from California's Diesel Tax Fuel Regulations with powertrain efficiencies applied. See RIA
Chapter 2 for further information regarding increase in energy consumption based on percent
PTO usage.
In response to Odyne's comments about NOx emissions during PTO operation, this comment
is out of scope for the current rulemaking, as we did not reopen our criteria pollutant standards.
We note that the existing off-cycle criteria pollutant standards in 40 CFR 1036.104 cover PTO
operation, so the current standards ensure that NOx is controlled during PTO operation.
In response to the comment that EPA should develop test procedures for recognizing the
benefits of electrified PTO systems, we note that the current 40 CFR 1037.520(k) and 40 CFR
1037.540 already allow for this.
EPA has carefully considered information made available to EPA. As further explained in
preamble Sections I and II, in setting future emission standards under our CAA section
202(a)(l)-(2) authority, given the prospective nature of the factors Congress directed EPA
consider, EPA must necessarily identify potential technologies, evaluate the rate each technology
could be introduced, and project associated cost of compliance. Thus, while we acknowledge that
future projections inherently are subject to uncertainties, EPA has carefully analyzed the
uncertainties and identified the considerations we found persuasive. Consistent with our standard
setting authority the analysis EPA conducted for this final rule appropriately makes use of the
best data available to us, as described in RIA Chapter 2.
282 See Cal. Code Regs. tit. 18, § 1432, "Other Nontaxable Uses of Diesel Fuel in a Motor Vehicle," available at
https://www. cdtfa.ca.gov/lawguides/vol3/dftr/dftr-regl432. html.
283 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles -
Phase 2 RIA available at https.V/nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/P 100P7NS.PDF?Dockey=Pl00P7NS.PDF. See
Table 3-19, Page 3-71.
540
-------
3.3 Battery Sizing
3.3.1 90th Percentile VMT
Comments by Organizations
Organization: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE)
EPA's battery requirements may unnecessarily limit BEV adoption in some applications, as a
result of high cost or payload constraints. Examples of onerous requirements include sizing the
battery for a given vehicle type to meet the daily needs for vehicle-miles-traveled (VMT) of 90%
of all vehicles of that type (88 FR 25977). For long-haul tractors in particular, it is reasonable to
expect that OEMs would offer a range of battery sizes so that fleets would not need to over-
specify their trucks. However, HD TRUCS requires, for example, that a BEV Class 8 sleeper cab
tractor with average daily operational VMT of 200 miles (vehicle type 78) have a battery that
serves for 400 miles of daily operation. Consequently its battery is sized at more than 1450 kWh
through MY 2032 and reduces the truck's payload capacity by more than EPA's threshold value
of 30% until MY 2031. Such requirements result not only in long payback periods but the
exclusion of BEVs for all sleeper cab trucks, with ZEVs first appearing in 2030 as fuel cell
electric vehicles (FCEVs). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1560-A1, p. 5]
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
However, CARB staff believes that U.S. EPA's analysis is overly conservative regarding
battery sizing for long range HD BEVs. To calculate battery size, the U.S. EPA methodology
included multiplying the 90th percentile of daily range by the estimated energy usage per mile
including temperature effects and battery conditioning, and then added a 20 percent buffer for
battery deterioration and 20 percent for a depth of discharge reserve. This methodology results in
overly inflated battery sizes for HDVs which do not reflect fleet purchasing decisions nor what
manufacturers are offering on the market today. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1591-A1, p.61]
In particular, the assumption that fleets must purchase ZEVs with range needs which meet the
90th percentile of usage is not in line with typical fleet purchasing decisions. To compare, U.S.
EPA's analysis generally finds that the 90th percentile of daily range results in daily mileage 35
to 200 percent above the 50th percentile. For instance, the 50th percentile of a class 8 sleeper cab
in a regional duty cycle is 400 miles while the 90th percentile is 550 miles. This means that
under U.S. EPA's assumptions, every sleeper cab must be sized for a battery capable of 550
miles, which then results in a battery size of 2,036 kWh. Similarly, a class 8 day cab in a region
duty cycle has a daily range of 191 miles at the 50th percentile and 349 miles at the 90th
percentile. This range of 349 miles results in a battery size of 1,261 kWh after factoring in the
energy usage and additional buffers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1591-A1, p.61]
These oversized battery capacities have numerous negative impacts on the vehicle's attributes
including cost, weight, and space. The battery is the largest component of BEV powertrain costs,
and as a result, oversizing batteries results in major increases in expected costs. Larger batteries
weigh more and occupy more space, both of which negatively impact the expected performance
of BEVs. As a result, the battery sizing assumption ends up being one of the most critical
541
-------
assumptions in the model, and it is imperative to properly model this in line with fleet
needs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1591-A1, pp.61-62]
U.S. EPA's analysis does not appear to be in alignment with fleet purchasing decisions. Fleets
generally look for opportunities to minimize costs and will not pay for additional range that is
not needed. Many fleets dispatch their vehicles from a centralized control and have flexibility in
which vehicles to dispatch on which routes. Fleets can dispatch ZEVs on routes which are within
their range needs and leave longer distance routes for the ICE vehicles in the fleet. Given the
minimal presence of ZEVs in the trucking fleet overall today, any new ZEV purchase
requirement will mean fleets will still have ICE vehicles in their fleet for a significant length of
time. Over time, as technology develops and fleets gain familiarity with how BEVs fit into their
operations, longer range BEVs can be procured. While these will cost more upfront, the longer
range enables more routes and additional operational savings at the same time. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1591-A1, p.62]
Real-world data illustrates how these assumptions are not aligned with actual vehicles being
sold as commercial products. Battery-electric class 8 day cab tractors are commercially available
today and numerous manufacturers have products targeting the drayage operation or regional
applications on fixed routes.209 Based on the range and associated energy capacity, it is clear the
battery capacities assumed in the Heavy- Duty Technology Resource Use Case Scenario (known
as HD TRUCS) model do not reflect the actual range needs to vehicles produced by
manufacturers for the modeled segments. In fact, per U.S. EPA's analysis, regional class 8 day
cabs are described as infeasible for BEV operations, in stark contrast to the market today, four
years before U.S. EPA's revised and new standards would begin. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1591-A1, p.61] [Table 1 can be found on pp. 62-63 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1591-A1]
2. BEV Technology Costs
Affected pages: NPRM 25977 and DRIA 158-166
CARB staff finds U.S. EPA's assumptions for component costs to be reasonable given
available information and literature projections. CARB staffs analysis for the ACF regulation
performed a similar analysis which determined the upfront costs of BEVs through a component
cost analysis. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1591-A1, p.61]
U.S. EPA's analysis also does not factor in the potential benefits of longer operations, in
particular, higher operational savings. BEVs which need to travel longer distances will cost more
upfront but can generate higher fuel and maintenance savings on a per mile basis as well. As a
result, longer range operations do not inherently lead to worse payback periods; in fact,
depending on the operation, higher daily range can increase savings and accelerate the payback
period. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1591-A1, p.63]
In summary, U.S. EPA's battery size projections appear to overestimate fleet needs and do not
reflect actual models being offered by manufacturers today. CARB staff recommend that U.S.
EPA reevaluate the assumptions used in battery sizing and in particular, the assumptions
regarding the 90th percentile. While this assumption is necessary for some applications such as
recreation vehicles, in other applications such as motorcoaches, day cabs, and sleeper cabs, it is
542
-------
resulting in flawed modelling with negative impacts on the rest of the analysis. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1591-A1, p7.63]
Organization: Daimler Truck North America LLC (DTNA)
DTNA's review of telematics data supports more conservative assumptions about purchaser
decisions based upon ZEV suitability. DTNA analyzed an 18-day snapshot from May 1, 2023 to
May 18, 2023 of telematics-equipped Class 8 day cab and sleeper cab tractors in operation
nationwide and compared this snapshot to EPA's assessment of duty cycle characteristics and
ZEV suitability. Based on this data, which is set forth in more detail in Appendix A ('DTNA
Telematics Data vs. EPA's GHG Phase 3 Suitability Assessment'), DTNA believes EPA is
significantly overestimating current ZEV application suitability with respect to daily VMT,
charging dwell times, and return-to-base operations that could rely on depot charging. As shown
in Table 4 below, DTNA's 90th percentile daily VMT is significantly higher than EPA's value
used for assessing BEV component sizing in HD TRUCS. This data indicates that the Proposed
Rule overestimates suitable applications and underestimates the associated battery costs and
weight penalty required to size batteries to meet the 90th percentile operational needs. If EPA
were to use DTNA's 90th percentile daily VMT to size batteries, all day cab and sleeper cab
tractors would exceed EPA's 30% payload capacity penalty threshold. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1555-A1, p. 22] [Refer to Table 4 on p. 22 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1555-A1]
Fleets may choose not to adopt new technology if that technology could have a worse
payback period in the future. As IRA incentives expire and electricity prices rise, fleets may wait
to see if the TCO case will remain positive in the long run without subsidies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 26]
• Vehicle Suitability to Fleet Operations. As EPA acknowledges, commercial vehicles are
purchased to perform a variety of operations. Before a calculated payback period is
considered, the fleet must decide whether the ZEV will meet required drive cycle and
operational requirements. In the HD TRUCS model, EPA sizes BEV and FCEV
components to meet 90th percentile VMT needs, stating that the Agency expects
manufacturers to design to this condition, as opposed to operational extremes. Unless
fleets have exceptionally high confidence their vehicle will see a predictable route and
weight that falls within the 90th percentile of operation, they will not purchase a ZEV
that can fulfill only the 90th percentile of daily use cases. Furthermore, as discussed
above, EPA significantly underestimates the 90th percentile daily VMT for the tractor
categories. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 26]
EPA Request for Comment, Request #22: We request comment, including comment with
data, on our VMT assessments.
• Based upon DTNA's analysis, EPA underestimates the 90th percentile daily VMT for
heavy duty vehicles. An accurate estimate is critical to the feasibility of HD ZEVs to
replace a conventional vehicle, thus EPA should reevaluate VMT using the best available
data, including the data DTNA provides for certain vehicle categories in Section II.B.3
and Appendix A to these comments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 162]
543
-------
EPA Request for Comment, Request #50: Our request for comment includes a request for data
to inform an assessment of the distribution of daily miles traveled and the distribution of the
number of hours available daily to charge for each of the vehicle types that we could use to
update a constraint like this in the final rulemaking analysis.
• DTNA Response: Based upon DTNA's analysis, EPA significantly underestimates daily
VMT in the tractor categories and over-estimates dwell time available for vehicles to
charge, as reflected in Section II.B.3 and Appendix A to these comments. An accurate
estimate is critical to the feasibility of HD ZEVs to replace conventional vehicles, thus
EPA should reevaluate VMT using the best available data, including the data DTNA
provides for certain vehicle categories in Section II.B.3 and Appendix A to these
comments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 167]
Organization: Environmental Defense Fund (EPF)
Daily mileage. EPA uses the 90th percentile daily mileage to set the battery size but only
assumes that vehicles will travel the 50th percentile annual miles. 132 While battery size impacts
the upfront cost of the vehicle, the annual miles dictate how quickly the fuel and maintenance
savings from ZEVs will pay back the upfront costs. The stringency of the standards, which is
determined in part by the payback period, is directly impacted by these assumptions. In the Draft
RIA, EPA alludes to the assumption that vehicle manufacturers will make only one ZEV for each
of the 101 categories EPA has identified. This is not the current reality of the market nor is it
expected to be in the future. Vehicle manufacturers currently make the same vehicle with
multiple battery size options to allow fleet or vehicle owners to select the best vehicle for them.
As can be seen in Appendix C of the ERM EV Market Update from April 2023, many of the
current BEV HD offerings come in multiple battery sizes. 133 For instance, the Kenworth Class 7
box truck can be purchased with a 141 kWh or 282 kWh battery. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1644-A1, p. 54-55]
132 Section 2.2.1.2.1 Sizing VMT and Section 2.2.1.2.2 Operational VMT in Greenhouse Gas Emission
Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles: Phase 3 Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis
133 Rachel Macintosh, Harrison Branner, Kayla Escobar, and Sophie Tolomiczenko. 2023. Electric
Vehicle Market Update: Manufacturer & Commercial Fleet Electrification Commitments Supporting
Electric Mobility in the United States, ERM for EDF, Appendix C.
While it is reasonable to assume that some vehicles will not drive the exact same number of
miles per day, many vehicles drive similar numbers of miles per day as they carry out similar
duty cycles (e.g., school buses drive the same route every day). EPA's current assumption that
vehicle owners would pay for such a large battery when their vehicles do not need it most of the
time is inconsistent with good business practices and reality. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-
Al, p. 55]
ii. Correcting EPA's assumptions that all sleeper cabs will be FCVs and that all heavy-duty
vehicles will be charged in depots supports stronger standards.
EPA's modeling assumes all sleeper cab tractors will exclusively be fuel cell electric vehicles
(FCEVs). However, as noted above, a number of sleeper cab tractors travel short enough
544
-------
distances every day that it would be very reasonable for EPA to assume those vehicles could be
battery electric starting as early as 2027. The two categories of sleeper cabs EPA modeled had a
90th percentile daily mileage of 400 and 550 miles. By only breaking up sleeper cabs into these
two categories, EPA is disregarding the share of vehicles that drive fewer daily miles. The 2002
VIUS found 10% of sleeper cabs 5 years or younger drove fewer than 200 miles 90% of the
time and CARB found that 14% of sleeper cabs drove fewer than 200 miles on average.98
Additionally, CARB found that 28% of sleeper cabs drive fewer than 300 miles a day.99 [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, 44-45]
98 Vehicle Inventory and Use Survey 2002. U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation
Statistics, 2004, https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/42632
99 California Air Resources Board. 2022. Large Entity Fleet Reporting: Statewide Aggregated Data.
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-02/Large_Entity_Reporting_Aggregated_Data_ADA.pdf
While this does not represent the majority of the sleeper cabs, failing to incorporate these
vehicles into EPA's analysis negatively impacts the stringency of the rule. Tractors account for a
significant share of on road tailpipe emissions and early decarbonization of even a small portion
of this sector is crucial. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, 45]
Organization: MEMA
Section 2: Worksite location unpredictable, away from depot
Any vehicle application that builds and maintains infrastructure, including construction
applications and utility trucks that respond in emergencies to restore critical services, represent
commercial vehicle missions where the vehicle has a significant probability of not being able to
return to the depot to charge overnight. Such vehicles might stay at the job site for days or weeks
at a time when its performance demands are highest and most critically needed. This need for
geographic flexibility brings added challenges to fleets planning infrastructure. A MEMA
member has compiled available duty cycle data to provide real-world examples of these kinds of
vehicle's daily variation in miles traveled. This is shown in the figure below: [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1570-A1, p. 18.] [See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1570-A1, page.
18, for referenced figures.]
Organization: POET
Beyond the issues with HD ZEV technology cost and U.S. EPA's payback analysis, there are
other issues with the agency's technology assessment that led to overestimation of adoption rates
for HD ZEVs. These include the assumption that vehicle purchasers will deem a HD ZEV with a
30%) lower cargo carrying capacity as equivalent to a conventional vehicle (Chapter 2.8.1 of the
DRIA) and the assumption that purchasers of HD BEVs will accept the relatively low electric
ranges upon which the U.S. EPA has based its cost estimates for HD BEVs (Table 2-33) - many
of which are considerably less than 100 miles. Further, although U.S. EPA considered
gradeability in determining electric motor sizes for HD BEVs (Chapter 2.4.1.2) it is not clear
how U.S. EPA accounted for the impact of grade on BEV range which would increase the need
for larger more expensive batteries again making a favorable payback analysis more difficult to
achieve. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1528-A1, p. 29]
545
-------
EPA Summary and Response:
Summary:
A number of commenters questioned EPA's choice of a 90th percentile for sizing VMT, and
some questioned the value itself as either too high or too low. The main assertions from
commenters were that different sets of data have different 90th percentile values, that fleets will
not buy vehicles that only meet the 90th percentile operating conditions, that fleets will not buy
vehicles sized to the 90th percentile if they were buying a vehicle that operates less than 90th
percentile routes, and that using the 50th percentile for calculating daily operational costs (i.e.
daily VMT) increases the number of payback years arbitrarily since fleets would not purchase a
90th percentile vehicle and operate it on a 50th percentile duty cycle. There was also a concern
raised about the minimum mileage of electric vehicles, saying that fleets would not purchase
vehicles that were sized for less than 100 miles of daily VMT, and that EPA had not properly
factored gradeability into the sizing of the batteries.
ACEEE commented that the 90th percentile value in HD TRUCS was too high for most fleet
needs. They stated that manufacturers will offer multiple battery sizes for their vehicles to meet
the needs of a wider range of fleet requirements. They stated that the battery sized in HD TRUCS
will be more expensive than required due to its size. They stated that this oversized battery will
also be heavier than necessary which negatively impacts the projected payload of the vehicle.
They stated that these factors, in combination, unreasonably reduce the adoption rate calculated
in HD TRUCS.
EDF went into more depth, disputing the methodology used by EPA for both the sizing VMT
and the operation VMT. First, they stated that the 90th percentile VMT is too high and cited
several supporting sources of telematics data including the 2002 VIUS survey, data used by
CARB for the ACT standards, and a report from Roush Industries. Second, they argued that the
combination of the 90th percentile 'sizing' VMT - the VMT used to size the battery - with a 50th
percentile 'daily' VMT was not only overly conservative but self-contradictory. That is, they
argued these combined assumptions essentially mean that the battery is sized for the 90th
percentile when that size battery is almost never needed (as shown by the daily/operational VMT
estimate). They argued that the 90th percentile sizing should be reduced since manufacturers will
provide multiple battery options for their vehicles - purchasers need not buy vehicles with
batteries larger than what they need. Moreover, they argued that the 90th percentile sizing means
that vehicles get a large upfront cost due to a large battery and 50th percentile operational range
means that the amount of time required for fuel and maintenance savings to pay back the upfront
cost is increased.
CARB agreed with the points made by EDF in regard to using the 90th percentile for sizing
batteries for HD vehicles. They made their point using fleet purchasing decisions, stating that
fleets will only buy vehicles that meet their milage requirements, and generally look for
opportunities to minimize costs. CARB also commented that fleets typically operate from a
centralized control and have flexibility as to which vehicles to dispatch on which routes, thereby
using ZEVs for shorter routes and ICE vehicles for longer routes. CARB also states that the
batteries sized using the 90th percentile VMT do not match BEVs that are currently available
today and the assumptions used in battery sizing need to be reevaluated.
546
-------
CARB noted how these sizing and operating assumptions could be at odds with reality. The
proposed version of HD TRUCS did not recognize Class 8 BEV day cabs, but CARB notes that
such vehicles exist in today's market and are being used in regional applications.
Both DTNA and POET commented that the sizing VMT in HD TRUCS was too low. Their
dispute is both with the choice of a 90th percentile, and the mileage estimate of that 90th
percentile. DTNA's comments focused on tractors (both day cabs and sleeper cabs). DTNA
provided 18 days of telematics data from May of 2023 showing the daily VMT for their vehicles
with a much greater 90th percentile VMT than EPA estimated at proposal. They point out that
using a higher sizing VMT would increase the upfront costs of the vehicle and that the larger
battery required using their 90th percentile VMT would exceed the 30% payload reduction
feasibility metric used in HD TRUCS at proposal. DTNA further commented that fleets would
not be inclined to purchase vehicles that are sized only to the 90th percentile but would instead
purchase vehicles that were designed to operational extremes. Fleets would only purchase 90th
percentile trucks if they had exceptionally high confidence that their vehicle will see predictable
routes.
POET focused on the vocational vehicles in HD TRUCS that had ranges less than 100 miles.
Their comment stated that customers would not purchase vehicles with a range significantly
lower than 100 miles. They also commented on how the impact of grade on range was factored
into sizing batteries in HD TRUCS. They said that since gradeability was factored into motor
sizing, it should be accounted for in the energy consumption and therefore battery sizing.
MEMA raised concerns about jobsite location, especially for vehicles used in applications
supporting infrastructure maintenance and development as well as construction and utility
vehicles have the potential of remaining at a job site for days at a time and are not always able to
return to a depot for charging. They were concerned that these large changes in daily VMT
would implement challenges for fleets planning infrastructure to charge these vehicles at
different locations.
Response:
Please see Chapter 2.2.1.2.2 and 2.2.1.2.3 of the RIA for an in-depth discussion about the
approach to sizing VMT that EPA used in the final rule after consideration of these comments.
Among other things, those sections explain how the sizing VMT in the final rule is generally
consistent with the telematics data submitted by commenter DTNA, although EPA did not use
those data in calculating sizing VMT. The discussion there further explains that taken a different
approach, such as sizing batteries to meet shorter daily VMTs through using a lower sizing VMT
would mean that these depotcharged BEVs would be unavailable for some market segments in
our analysis, and, conversely, that sizing batteries to meet VMTs greater than the 90th percentile
would be unnecessarily large for many applications where fleets are using depot charging.
We understand that there are many different datasets available and that the 90th percentile
VMT will be different in each dataset. However, the NREL FleetDNA database and MOVES
uses data from many different sources across the country giving a homogenized representation of
the HD fleet nationwide rather than data from a single source, even if that data was collected on
a nationwide basis. In EPA's judgment, the NREL FleetDNA, University of California-
Riverside, and MOVES databases are therefore more representative of the nationwide fleet of
HD vehicles, compared to data from any individual manufacturer.
547
-------
DTNA was also concerned that fleets would not purchase vehicles that were designed for only
the 90th percentile operating range, and that HD TRUCS should be sizing vehicles to perform at
operational extremes. ACEE, EDF, and CARB all commented that fleets would not purchase
vehicles sized to the 90th percentile as these vehicles would have larger batteries than required to
meet the majority of fleet needs which would increase costs unnecessarily. Their comments
suggested reducing the sizing metric from the 90th percentile to an unspecified lower percentile
that would cause the vehicles in HD TRUCS to reflect comparable BEVs being offered today.
For the final rule, for the reasons fully explained in preamble Section II and RIA Chapter 2, we
are continuing to size almost all vocational vehicle batteries to the 90th percentile as this
percentile would cover the majority of fleet operations. As reflected in the modeled potential
compliance pathway, we expect that ICE vehicles will still be sold in the timeframe of this rule
and that those vehicles will be used in applications that see extremes whether they be extreme
daily VMT or ambient temperatures. However, we have also addressed the concerns of CARB,
EDF, and ACEEE where we agreed it was appropriate to do so, for example by adding tractors to
the rule with varying daily VMTs to represent vehicles that are used in applications which can be
recharged en route and so do not need to be sized to the 90th percentile. For vehicles that are
assumed to be charged en-route, we have accounted for en-route charging costs. For additional
discussion on the specifics for these vehicles see Chapters 2.2.1.2.2 and 2.2.1.2.3 of the RIA. For
information about en-route charging costs, see RIA Chapter 2.4.4.2.
EDF was concerned about using the 50th percentile daily VMT for operating costs while
simultaneously using the 90th percentile daily VMT for sizing the battery. We are retaining this
approach for the final rule with the exceptions discussed in the previous paragraph. We are
retaining this approach because it is a reasonably conservative analytical approach. Our basic
premise was to size most ZEVs so that they could perform the majority of fleet operations where
fleets are using daily depot charging (90th percentile VMT), and to use the average amount of
work done by a comparable ICE vehicle during a normal workday as a conservative but
reasonable means to analyze the payback (50th percentile VMT). This ensures that the vehicles
specified in HD TRUCS are capable of doing the work performed by comparable ICE vehicles
and keeping payback calculations realistic through use of average daily VMT.
POET was concerned about the low daily VMT to which some of the vehicles in HD TRUCS
were sized at proposal, commenting that customers would not purchase vehicles that had less
than 100 miles of range. In response to this comment, and as a conservative cost assumption, we
are adding an additional constraint for minimum battery sizing, such that no vehicle in HD
TRUCS is designed for less than 100 miles of range, i.e., any vehicle with 90th percentile VMT
of less than 100 miles in our analysis has been assigned a sizing VMT of 100 miles. For
additional discussion about sizing VMT, see Chapters 2.2.1.2.2 and 2.2.1.2.3 of the RIA.
POET also requested clarity on how road grade was factored in for sizing batteries. In our
analysis, road grade was factored in with the amount of energy required to move the vehicle.
This value was calculate using GEM results. GEM takes road grade into account in the duty
cycles that are simulated. The 55 mph and 65 mph cruise cycles include road grades between
positive and negative 5%,284 and the energy consumption rate calculated includes weighted
averages of these cycles. See RIA Chapter 2.2.2.1.2.
28481 FR 73633.
548
-------
MEMA expressed concern about the need to charge vehicles, such as utility trucks, that may
need to go longer periods without charging during emergencies to restore critical services. As we
just mentioned, for the final rule analysis, we have increased the minimum range to 100 miles for
all vehicles, including utility trucks. This change led to larger battery sizes in utility vehicles for
the final rule, which will allow BEV utility vehicles to operate for longer periods of time than the
vehicles we assessed in the proposal. Based on MEMA's and similar comments, we have made
additional changes from the proposal to reflect this consideration. We have included limitations
on our consideration of ZEV technology adoption for the regional duty-cycle utility trucks for
the final rule to reflect consideration of their use in restoring critical services. It is our
understanding that public utility trucks using urban and multi-purpose duty cycles would not be
used to restore critical services outside of their typical service area. Under the modeled potential
compliance pathway, in MY 2027 all regional duty-cycle utility vehicles are assigned zero
adoption of ZEV technologies, and in MY2030 and MY2032 the adoption rate is limited to 14%.
The modeled potential compliance pathway correspondingly thus includes a higher adoption rate
for ICE vehicles technologies, resulting in a higher number of regional duty-cycle utility trucks
remaining as ICE vehicles. We would also like to point out that new charging solutions are being
developed for just this purpose. Containerized and mobile charging solutions exist today with
large ranging capabilities including DCFC that use their own batteries to store energy from a
wide variety of power sources and use it to charge electric vehicles.285'286'287'288'289'290 These
systems can be used in a variety of ways and locations to provide temporary power at job sites
where it is not possible for ZEVs to return to a depot each day.
Please see Section 3.10.1 of this RTC for comments and responses on payload.
3.3.2 HVAC Loads
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America
EPA Request for Comment, Request #23: We request comment on and data to support other
approaches to quantify the HVAC energy demand in BEVs, including the ambient temperature
ranges where heating and cooling are utilized.
285 Lightning Energy. Lightning Mobile. Available online: https://lightningemotors.com/wp-
content/uploads/2023/06/LE_Lightning_Mobile_sheet_Jun2023_v lb_online.pdf
286 Power Sonic. EVESCO. Off-Grid EV Charging Solutions. Available online: https://www.power-
sonic.com/evesco/off-grid-ev-charging/
287 Pioneer Emobility. E-Boost. Off-Grid EV Charging, Power and Connectivity with Mobility. Available online:
https://www.pioneer-emobility.com/
288 Setec Power. Container EV Charging System. Available online: https://www.setec-power.com/container-ev-
charging-system/
289 Amply Power. Amply Power Launches New Containerized EV Charging Infrastructure Solution, Anaheim
Transportation Network Signed on as First Customer. Available online: https://amplypower.com/amply-power-
launches-new-containerized-ev-charging-infrastructure-solution-anaheim-transportation-network-signed-on-as-a-
first-customer/
290 Ideanomics. A Scalable Solution: The Benefits of Containerized EV Charging. February 16, 2023. Available
online: https ://ideanomics.com/a-scalable-solution-the-benefits-of-containerized-ev-charging/
549
-------
• DTNA Response: See DTNA Response to Request # 20, above. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1555-A1, p. 162]
EPA Request for Comment, Request #24: We welcome data to support these or other cabin
size scaling factors.
• DTNA Response: See DTNA Response to Request # 20, above. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1555-A1, p. 162]
EPA Request for Comment, Request #25: We request additional data on the battery thermal
management loads for HD BEVs
• DTNA Response: See DTNA Response to Request # 20, above. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1555-A1, p. 162]
EPA Request for Comment, Request #25: We request additional data on the battery thermal
management loads for HD BEVs
DTNA Response: See DTNA Response to Request # 20, above. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1555-A1, p. 162]
Organization: International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT)
Another important factor considered by EPA to estimate the vehicle energy needs, and
therefore the battery size, is the auxiliary heating and cooling load. The heating and cooling load
includes the driver's cabin and the battery thermal management system. To estimate the energy
needed for heating and cooling, EPA uses publicly available data on the heating and cooling
needs of a transit bus and then corrects this heating and cooling load to reflect a truck application
considering the ratio between the truck cabin surface area and the reference bus surface area.
This simplistic approach ignores the impact of surface type on the different heating transfer
phenomena that take place between the vehicle cabin and the environment. For example, a
significant portion of a transit bus body surface is glazed, which leads to a higher rate of heat
transfer with the environment. In addition, the bus passengers are a significant additional heat
source that would increase the cooling needs of the bus during hot days, which is not relevant for
trucks. ICCT published an analysis in 2022 on the cooling and heating needs of trucks, focusing
on long-haul trucks operating in Europe. (Basma & Rodriguez, 2022) Table 1 summarizes the
heating and cooling load. ICCT recommends that EPA uses the presented data in Table 1 as the
baseline data for the truck cooling and heating needs and adjusts the load accordingly for other
truck segments given the ratio of the trucks' surface areas. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1553-A1,
p. 14] [Refer to Table 1, Summary of Truck Cabin Cooling and Heating, on p. 14 of EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1553-A1.]
Basma, H., & Rodriguez, F. (2022). Fuel cell electric tractor-trailers: Technology overview and fuel
economy. International Council on Clean Transportation, https://theicct.org/publication/fuel-cell-tractor-
trailer-tech-fueljul22/
Organization: ROUSH CleanTech
Ignoring these considerations, the Basma study cited an average HVAC power demand of
25kW at 14°F, plus additional 4.9kW for battery heating. Even in a conservative assumption of 4
550
-------
hours between opportunity charging, this would require an extra 120kW-hr (or more) of battery
capacity beyond nominal, solely to run the heating systems—and again, this is at 14°F, not 0° or -
20°F which is more typical of the minimum ambient temperatures required in most of the US.
EPA Summary and Response:
Summary:
ICCT commented on the methodology for determining the heating and cooling loads in HD
TRUCS. They commented that the methodology, which used publicly available data on heating
and cooling of transit buses, did not accurately reflect the heating and cooling needs of trucks
due to differences in cabin materials. Their concern was that a significant portion of a transit
buses surface area is glazed and therefore has a different heat transfer rate than a truck which
uses much less glazing in its construction. They were also concerned about the effect of
passengers, who are also a heat source, and their effect on cooling the bus on hot days. Their
recommendation was to use data collected by a study they published in 2022 that analyzed the
heating and cooling needs of long-haul trucks in Europe and use that data to scale for other
trucks.
Roush commented that the batteries sized in HD TRUCS are not large enough to
accommodate extreme cold temperatures that are commonly seen in most of the United States for
buses and other large cabin vehicles.
Response:
We compared the heating and cooling values presented in ICCT's comments for a long-haul
tractor with the values we used in HD TRUCS for sleeper cabs, which include a 0.3 cabin scaling
factor and represent a heavy-duty VMT-weighted average of the U.S. temperatures to determine
heating and cooling loads. The heating and cooling loads in ICCT's work and HD TRUCS are
similar; therefore, we view this comment as further supporting the values we used in the NPRM.
We appreciate Roush's comments on the sizing of batteries for use in extreme operation, but
we are not sizing batteries to the extremes in our analysis. As we explain in RIA Chapter 2, we
sized the batteries, power electronics, e-motors, and infrastructure for each vehicle type based on
the 90th percentile of the average VMT. We utilized this technical assessment approach because
we do not expect heavy-duty OEMs to design ZEV models for the 100th percentile VMT daily
use case for vehicle applications, as this could significantly increase the ZEV powertrain size,
weight, and costs for a ZEV application for all users, when only a relatively small part of the
market will need such specifications. We know that BEVs today are being sold with reasonably
sized batteries, see Chapter 1 of the RIA for a list of BEVs available through MY2024.
Therefore, the ZEVs we analyzed and have used for the feasibility and cost projections for the
proposal and final rule in this timeframe are likely not appropriate for 100 percent of the vehicle
applications in the real-world. However, we have taken into account temperature variations
across the country by using a VMT-weighted average of temperature and sized the batteries
accordingly. We have taken into account in the HD TRUCS analysis availability of ICE vehicles
to accommodate extreme conditions such as those posited in this comment. Our modeled
potential compliance pathway includes ICEVs in the technology packages, in all of the
regulatory subcategories, for such purposes, and the additional example potential compliance
pathways we assessed including without producing additional ZEVs to comply with this rule, so
551
-------
our analyses appropriately contemplate that fleets that operate in extreme weather conditions can
use ICE vehicles to meet their specific needs.
Regarding DTNA's comment, DTNA did not provide any specific data related to HVAC or
battery thermal loads. EPA has carefully considered information made available to EPA. As
further explained in preamble Sections I and II, in setting future emission standards under our
CAA section 202(a)(l)-(2) authority, given the prospective nature of the factors Congress
directed EPA consider, EPA must necessarily identify potential technologies, evaluate the rate
each technology could be introduced, and project associated cost of compliance. Thus, while we
acknowledge that future projections inherently are subject to uncertainties, EPA has carefully
analyzed the uncertainties and identified the considerations we found persuasive. Consistent with
our standard setting authority the analysis EPA conducted for this final rule appropriately makes
use of the best data available to us, as described in RIA Chapter 2.
3.3.3 Depth of Discharge and Deterioration
Comments by Organizations
Organization: American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)
EV batteries are high-cycle batteries and are made to function for approximately 10 years for
a light-duty vehicle, and a shorter time for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1659-A2, p. 29]
EV batteries lose approximately 3 percent of their charging capacity and associated range per
year of operation. These percentages likely are higher for higher mileage utilization for typical
heavy-duty vehicles. EPA has not made any effort to account for battery degradation, and
associated reductions in charging efficiency, charging capacity, customer impacts and
accelerated battery replacement and costs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1659-A2, p. 29]
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America
EPA Request for Comment, Request #27: We request comment on approach and results for
the useable battery range and battery deterioration for HD BEVs that we could consider for our
final rule analysis.
• DTNA Response: See DTNA Response to Request # 20, above. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1555-A1, p. 162]
Organization: Environmental Defense Fund (EPF)
Discharge and deterioration percentage. EPA assumes only 80% of the battery will be able to
be discharged and over the lifetime of the battery there will be 20% deterioration. Both of these
values are conservative. They represent current battery technologies and assume no improvement
between now and 2027-2032. Given the fast pace of battery chemistry development it is
unreasonable to assume a static industry. In their February 2022 report, Roush found that newer
battery technologies are allowing vehicle owners to discharge more of their battery in every
charge cycle and increase the battery lifetime. 134 In their recent report on the electrification of
552
-------
tractors, Roush sets the discharge limit at 90% and projects 10% degradation over the lifetime of
the battery. 135 We recommend EPA adopt similar assumptions for the final rulemaking. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985- 1644-A1, p. 55]
134 Vishnu Nair, Sawyer Stone, Gary Rogers, Sajit Pillai. 2022. Medium and Heavy-Duty Electrification
Costs for MY 2027- 2030, Roush for Environmental Defense Fund. See
http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/files/2022/02/EDF-MDHD-Electrification-vl.6_20220209.pdf
135 Vishnu Nair, Himanshu Saxena, Sajit Pillai. 2023. Class 7 and Class 8 Tractor-Trailer Electrification
for MYs 2030 and 2032, Roush for Environmental Defense Fund
Mileage decreases. In its HD TRUCS model, EPA assumes vehicles will travel between 29%
and 35% fewer miles in their 10th year of service compared to their first. This decrease lines up
with the assumed deterioration of the battery. Even if the usable battery decreased by 20% over
the lifetime of the vehicle, that more than matches the decrease in the mileage traveled by the
vehicle. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 55]
Organization: International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT)
In addition, EPA's battery sizing approach considers oversizing the battery by 20% to
accommodate capacity fade over time. While battery capacity fade will certainly reduce a truck's
driving mileage, it is unclear how EPA decided on the 20% figure given the very scarce battery
aging data for heavy-duty vehicle applications. In addition, recent developments in battery
technology are resulting in a significantly prolonged battery lifetime, reaching 1.5 million
kilometers (ca. 932,000 miles) for long-distance trucking applications. We encourage EPA to
adopt a capacity fade assumption based on publicly available information and in consultation
with battery suppliers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1553-A1, p. 13]
Organization: Moving Forward Network (MFN) et al.
11.1.3.1. Modeling oversized batteries results in higher than necessary BEV costs
The battery size calculated by Equation 2-27 in the DRIA includes a 20% deterioration of the
battery over its lifetime, and accounts for this by including a 20% larger battery at point of sale
than necessary to cover the vehicle miles traveled of the desired route. The rationale stated for
this increased battery size is that, at the end of the HDVs lifetime, it should cover the same route
and go the same distance as needed when an HDV is new. This is a conservative estimate,
considering the fleet owner would likely adjust mileage and routes to adjust for the declining
capacity over the 15-year lifespan, as has been the case for diesel-powered trucks for decades via
the secondary market, rather than pay for the large amount of unused capacity. This is especially
true considering the batteries are also estimated to only use 80% of their capacity in order to
increase the lifespan of the battery. It would be more appropriate to model the battery usage and
mileage based on capacity fade, which has been demonstrated by Yang et al. 193 and Dunn et al.
194 These lifespan estimations of batteries are modeled as a linear decline over the 10-15 years
until capacity reaches 70-80%. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 92]
193 Yang, F., Wang, D., Zhao, Y., Tsui, K.-L., & Bae, S. J. A study of the relationship between coulombic
efficiency and capacity degradation of commercial lithium-ion batteries. Energy. V. 145. (2018). p. 486-
495. https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.12.144
553
-------
194 Jessica Dunn, Kabian Ritter, Jesus M. Velazquez, and Alissa Kendall. Should high-cobalt EV batteries
be repurposed? Using LCA to assess the impact of technological innovation on the waste hierarchy. Journal
of Industrial Ecology. (2023). https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.llll/jiec.l3414?af=R
Equation 2-27 shown in Figure 24 below, overestimates battery capacity, therefore increasing
the cost of BEVs. Any material demand analysis that uses similar metrics would overestimate the
amount of materials needed for electric truck batteries. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1,
p. 92.] [See Figure 24 EV Battery Pack Sizing Equation, located on p. 93 of docket number
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1.]
195 EPA Phase 3 DRIA at 216-217.
Organization: Tesla, Inc. (Tesla)
EPA costs projections assume a 20% oversize in battery to provide excess capacity for
range. 145This assumption harms the projected rate of BEV uptake through imposition of
substantial new costs associated with designs utilizing oversized battery capacity. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1505-A1, p. 20]
145 88 Fed. Reg. at 25962.
Utilizing this approach to the BEV manufacturing cost assessment is also fundamentally
flawed and not supported by logic or the record. BEV heavy-duty customers will have
guarantees of performance from the manufacturer that do not necessitate hidden battery capacity.
In addition to cost and range, the hidden capacity approach negatively impacts other product
performance metrics (such as range recovered during a fast-charging event). All it does is take
away utility, and further emission reductions, at the beginning of life to give customers a
manufactured sense of stability. Allowing full access to the battery (with reliable energy
estimation) allows for maximum utility of deployed products over the entire life - something that
is fundamental to the Tesla customer experience and should be present in good public policy. In
short, EPA should not model BEV cost using oversized batteries. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1505-A1, p. 20]
EPA Summary and Response:
Summary:
EPA received comments about battery capacity as well as change in capacity over time.
These comments include 20% extra battery capacity to account for battery deterioration over
time as well as limiting depth of discharge to 80%. Some of these commenters said we should
reduce or remove the additional 20% of extra battery capacity for degradation and the 80% depth
of discharge. While others, including AFPM, pointed out batteries degrade over time and will
reduce in capacity, up to 3% annual capacity loss.
EDF cited a February 2022 Roush report on the electrification of tractors where Roush had set
the depth of discharge to 90% and a 10% battery degradation value and suggested using those
values. They also pointed out that the decrease in VMT as a vehicle ages used in HD TRUCS for
calculating operating costs meets or exceeds the 20% reduction in battery capacity over that
same time. They argue that the decrease in VMT already accounts for 20% battery deterioration
and that it should not be included, or that EPA should adopt the 10% value that Roush used in
their report. ICCT questioned the source for a 20% battery capacity fade. They agreed that
554
-------
batteries will degrade over time, but stated that data is scarce for HD applications and that recent
developments in battery technology have resulted in prolonged battery life with long-distance
trucks reaching over 900,000 miles. MFN stated that the additional 20% battery sizing for
deterioration was an overly conservative estimate and that fleets would adjust the milage and
routes used for a vehicle over time as they currently do with ICEVs by using the secondary
market. They stated that fleets would not pay for the additional unused battery capacity to save
on costs. MFN also raised concerns about using an 80% depth of discharge value saying that it
would be more appropriate to model battery usage and milage based capacity fade, citing a
demonstration by Yang et al. and Dunn et al. Tesla stated that oversizing the battery harms the
projected rate of BEV adoption due to increased costs attributable to the extra battery capacity.
They also raised concerns about the effect of hidden battery capacity on metrics such as range
recovered during fast charging and remove utility of the vehicle in the beginning of the vehicle
life.
DTNA commented that EPA should consider all available data including that which can be
provided by manufacturers in confidential settings, and asserted that, given data available today
is limited, EPA should re-evaluate its assumptions on this issue on a regular basis, using the best
available data.
Response:
For the proposal, we assumed that each battery would degrade 20% over the lifetime of the
vehicle, and to ensure that the battery for each vehicle would last through the life of the vehicle,
we added 20% to the size of the battery. This ensures that each vehicle would still be able to
travel the 90th percentile daily VMT at the end of its life. Based on consideration of comments
received from EDF, ICCT, MFN, and Tesla, in the final rule we have changed how we calculate
battery size to account for battery deterioration. In the final rule, we no longer increase the
battery size by 20% for each vehicle; instead, we calculate the number of cycles each battery
undergoes during 10 years of operation. If the number of cycles is higher than 2,000, we then
increase the size of the battery. In response to EDF's comment about taking into account that
VMT declines over time, the energy throughput and battery cycling calculations in HD TRUCS
use the operating VMT schedule which appropriately declines over time. See RIA Chapter
2.2.1.2.4. Put another way, the energy consumption (energy throughput) and number of cycles
are calculated using the VMT schedule over time, so the two metrics are exactly paired and the
issue EDF raised in its comments will not arise. The methodology for estimating the number of
battery cycles and a discussion of the selection of 2000 cycles can be found in Chapter 2.4.1.1 of
the RIA.
For the proposal, we used an 80% depth of discharge as batteries need an operating window
of charge to ensure proper functionality over the lifetime of the vehicle. Over-discharging and
charging a battery increase the amount of deterioration experienced by the battery and shorten its
life. Based on consideration of comments from EDF, MFN, and Tesla, we revisited this value
and changed our depth of discharge to 90% for the final rule. The Roush report cited by EDF
provides strong support in favor of increasing the depth of discharge as no significant
degradation was experienced in their study for LFP batteries at 90% depth of discharge. After
considering these comments, and further supported by the depth of discharge values used in the
555
-------
2022 Autonomic tool from ANL for this time frame, we revised the battery depth of discharge
window to 90 percent in HD TRUCS.291
3.3.4 En-Route Charging
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Environmental Defense Fund (EPF)
EPA's analysis also assumes that all heavy-duty vehicles will be charged in depots. While it is
reasonable that a large share of vehicles, particularly vocational vehicles, will be charged where
they are domiciled in the evenings, this assumption restricts the extent vehicles can be electrified
within the rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, 45]
As demonstrated in Roush's modeling, a 15-minute charge using a 3,000 amp charger will
significantly increase the range of a vehicle, taking a battery from 20% to 80% charged. 100
Figure 9 below shows the extent of the battery range increase possible with a 15 min charge.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, 45] [See Figure 9 on p. 46 of Docket Number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1]
100 Vishnu Nair, Himanshu Saxena, Sajit Pillai. 2023. Class 7 and Class 8 Tractor-Trailer Electrification
for MYs 2030 and 2032, Roush for Environmental Defense Fund.
These types of high-powered chargers would not be required everywhere in the U.S. but
instead would need to be located at intervals along major highway routes. Companies such as
TeraWatt have already begun development on charging networks to meet this need. TeraWatt
has raised $1 billion to place chargers along I-10 spaced 150 miles apart across California,
Arizona, and New Mexico. 101 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, 46]
101 Emma Newburger, TerraWatt Announces First Interstate EV Charging Network for Trucks, CNBC
(Oct. 20, 2022), https://www.cnbc.eom/2022/10/20/-terawatt-announces-first-interstate-ev-charging-
network-for-trucks.html.
By incorporating high speed chargers, vehicles could drive more miles and have smaller
batteries. This is particularly relevant for tractors where the daily mileage of the vehicles can
exceed 500 miles. By incorporating such assumption, the feasibility of BEV tractors would be
greatly expanded past what our recommendation contemplates. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1644-A1, 46]
Given the analyses projecting BEV tractor prices to fall and provide significant savings to
fleet owners as well as the high percent of tractor trips that could be easily converted to BEVs,
we recommend EPA finalize a tractor standard consistent with at least 50% ZEV sales by
2032. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, 47]
291 Argonne National Laboratory. VTO HFTO Analysis Reports - 2022. "ANL - ESD-2206 Report - MD HD Truck
- Autonomie Assumptions.xlsx". Available online:
https://anl.app.box.eom/s/an4nx0v2xpudxtpsnkhd5peimzu4jlhk/folder/242640145714. In the "Battery" tab, we
calculated the difference between the "SOC Max" and "SOC Min" columns for BEVs and chose the lowest depth of
discharge as a conservative value.
556
-------
Organization: International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT)
The EPA rule would more closely reflect this business case with changes in its battery size
assumptions. Excessively large battery sizes of over 1,000 kWh and up to 2,036 kWh for
'vehicle ID 79' are driven by EPA's assumption that opportunity charging for long-distance
truck applications will not exist. Opportunity charging can reduce the required battery mileage
design point by more than 20% when assuming 350 kW charging capacity and by more than
40% when assuming 1 MW charging capacity. By assuming availability of opportunity charging,
ICCT analysis demonstrates lower total-cost-of-ownership and higher forecasted adoption of
battery-powered tractors in this decade relative to fuel cell powered tractors. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1553-A1, p. 3]
First, we suggest EPA size batteries based on daily energy needs, taking into account
opportunity charging performed during a driver's mandatory break. Second, we suggest EPA
assume per-vehicle charging capacity at publicly accessible charging stations is 350 kW today
and will be 1 MW as of 2027. Finally, we suggest EPA assume a maximum battery size of 1
MWh due to payload and volume capacity constraints. Battery size assumptions are critical to
the stringency of this proposal since they shape the retail price of battery-electric trucks, their
fuel economy, technology payback period, technology adoption rate, the stringency of the
proposal, and the benefits of the rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1553-A1, p. 3]
BATTERY SIZING FOR TRACTOR-TRAILERS Assumptions regarding truck battery size
are critical as they strongly affect the retail price and fuel economy of battery electric trucks,
significantly affecting the technology payback period and the corresponding technology adoption
rate. In general, the sizing approach considered by EPA resulted in reasonable battery sizes for
most truck classes. However, the approach considered by EPA for battery electric tractor-trailers
sleeper cabs and day cabs (referring to vehicle ID 78, 79, 80, 82, 84) resulted in very large and
unrealistic battery sizes, exceeding 1,000 kWh in some cases and reaching 2,036 kWh for
'vehicle ID 79'. This is driven by EPA's assumption of the absence of opportunity charging for
long-distance truck applications. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1553-A1, pp. 12-13]
Trucks operating in long-haul will have the opportunity to recharge at truck stop stations
during a driver's mandatory break, resulting in a lower battery size without affecting the mission
profile. Based on a recent ICCT publication, opportunity charging during the day can reduce the
required battery mileage design point by more than 20% when using 350 kW charging
technology and by more than 40% when using 1 MW charging technology (Basma et al., 2023).
Based on independent discussions with leading truck OEMs, we conclude that trucks will likely
be designed with battery sizes no greater than 1 to 1.2 MWh in energy capacity to minimize
payload and packaging constraints. Futhermore, we conclude based on information provided via
monthly megawatt multi-port charging meetings organized by Argonne National Laboratory
since 2021 that the megawatt charging standard SAE J3271 capable of up to 3.5MW is on track
to be finalized by 2025 (Bohn, 2023). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1553-A1, p. 13]
Basma, H., Buysse, C., Zhou, Y., & Rodriguez, F. (2023). Total cost of ownership of alternative powertrain
technologies for Class 8 long-haul trucks in the United States. International Council on Clean
Transportation, https://theicct.org/publication/tco-alt-powertrain-long-haul-trucks-us-apr23/
557
-------
Based on our independent analysis, industry design decisions, and progress towards finalizing
a megawatt charging standard, we recommend EPA revise its battery size assumptions for
battery electric sleeper cabs and day cabs in the following manner:
• Size batteries according to the daily energy needs of the vehicle while assuming
opportunity charging would occur during a driver's mandatory break.
• Consider the following charging rates for trucks at publicly accessible charging stations:
350 kW today and 1 MW as of 2027.
• Cap the battery size to 1 MWh due to payload and volume capacity constraints. When a
larger battery is required, it can be assumed that the drivers stop more frequently for
charging, which will increase labor costs. The increase in labor cost can be assumed to be
proportional to additional needed charging time during the day outside the drivers' break
time window. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1553-A1, p. 13]
With this sizing approach, we estimate that the battery size of a 500-mile sleeper cab is in the
range of 900 kWh by 2027, as highlighted in Table A1 in Basma et al. (2023), and we
recommend that EPA uses a similar approach to design the battery size of electric trucks. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1553-A1, p. 13]
Basma, H., Buysse, C., Zhou, Y., & Rodriguez, F. (2023). Total cost of ownership of alternative powertrain
technologies for Class 8 long-haul trucks in the United States. International Council on Clean
Transportation, https://theicct.org/publication/tco-alt-powertrain-long-haul-trucks-us-apr23/
EPA Summary and Response:
Summary:
EPA received comments on the use of en-route charging for tractors and other vehicles with
long range. EDF pointed out that not all HD vehicles are depot charged as assumed in the
proposal. They also cited a report from Roush that opportunity charging with 3,000 amp chargers
can significantly increase the range of a vehicle with a 15 minute charge. They pointed out that
incorporating high speed chargers would allow vehicles with smaller batteries and be able to
cover additional miles. ICCT stated that 350 kW chargers can reduce battery sizes by 20% while
1 MW chargers can reduce battery size by 40% for tractors. ICCT also recommends capping
batteries to 1 MWh. In addition, they state that by using opportunity charging in HD TRUCS,
tractors could be sized with smaller batteries which would decrease their cost and number of
payback years. They also suggested that the en-route charging can be completed during a
driver's mandatory break and would therefore not create an additional cost since the vehicle
would need to be stationary for the duration of the driver's break. Most of the comments on this
issue are found in Chapter 4 of the RTC and are addressed there.
Response:
For the proposal, we assumed that the BEVs adopted during the timeframe of the rule would
be charged once per day at a depot. Vehicles that would require overly large batteries to meet the
daily VMT requirements were not included in the technology package to support the proposed
rule and instead we included FCEVs for such vehicle types in the ZEV technologies portion of
the technology packages for the potential compliance pathway in the proposal. However, we
know that battery electric tractors are available in the market today, see RIA Chapter 1 for a list
of available BEVs through MY2024. To reflect this reality and to address the comments from
both ICCT and EDF (among others), we modified the approach in the final rule to include
558
-------
consideration of en-route charging using public 1 MW chargers for certain tractors. For the
longest range day cabs and sleeper cabs, where we project the use of public charging, we find
that approximately 30 minutes of mid-day charging at 1 MW is sufficient to meet the 90th
percentile VMT in HD TRUCS assuming vehicles start the day with a full battery. These
vehicles are evaluated using a public charging rate in HD TRUCS that is higher than the depot
charging rate. For a more detailed discussion of en-route charging see RIA Chapters 2.2.1.2.2,
2.6.1.3, 2.4.4.2, 2.6.3, and 1.6.1.3. In the final rule, all BEVs included in the modeled potential
compliance pathway's technology package have batteries less than lMWh in size. Please see
RIA Chapter 2.9 for analyses of weight and volume payload impacts.
3.4 Component Cost
3.4.1 Battery Cost
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Clean Air Task Force et al.
1. Stronger standards are feasible based on BEVs.
a. EPA is correct that battery prices will continue to fall and that domestic battery
manufacturing capacity will grow.
EPA appropriately concludes that the cost to manufacture lithium-ion batteries, the single
most expensive component of a BEV, has dropped significantly in recent years and will continue
to fall in future years. 88 Fed. Reg. at 25930. The agency further notes that this trajectory will
likely accelerate due to manufacturers' announced plans to invest billions of dollars in BEV
technology and development, as well as the significant incentives in the BIL and IRA that reduce
costs for manufacturers to produce and sell BEVs. Id. There is ample research to support these
findings, as these trends are already established and well-underway. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1640-A1, p. 42]
According to the International Energy Agency's (IEA) Global EV Outlook 2023, there are
several indicators that battery prices will continue to fall. 166 The price of lithium carbonate has
increased over the past two years, but it dropped 20 percent between January and March 2023,
returning to its late 2022 level. The trend, if sustained, "could translate into lower battery
prices." 167 Moreover, several of the events that exacerbated the supply chain disruptions leading
to mineral shortages will likely be less severe over the coming years. These include the COVID-
19 pandemic, the demand surge as the world economy started to recover, and Russia's invasion
of Ukraine in February 2022.168 As supply chains approach pre-pandemic levels of reliability,
markets will better absorb the disruptions of the previous few years, contributing to lower battery
prices. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 43]
166 IEA, Global EV Outlook 2023, at 60 (2023), https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/dacfl4d2-eabc-
498a-8263-9f97fd5dc327/GEVO2023.pdf.
167 Id.
168 Id. at 61.
559
-------
Moreover, battery prices may continue to fall even if the market experiences some
fluctuations in mineral supply and price. This is due to the reduction in cost of pack
manufacturing, which today accounts for 20 percent of total battery cost (down from 30 percent a
decade ago). 169 Efficiency gains in pack manufacturing help decrease costs, even if individual
cell production costs increase. As IEA summarizes, "[p]ack production costs have continued to
decrease over time, down 5% in 2022 compared to the previous year.... Bloomberg New Energy
Finance (BNEF) sees pack manufacturing costs dropping further, by about 20% by 2025,
whereas cell production costs decrease by only 10% relative to their historic low in 2021."170
This means that overall battery prices may continue to fall despite temporary fluctuations in the
price of minerals. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 43]
169 Id.
170 Id.
Many other studies confirm that "[bjattery prices have been consistently reducing more
rapidly than projections." 171 Projected battery costs have fallen so significantly that a Roush
Industries report notes that "[bjattery cost projections made in 2017-2018 are already
obsolete." 172 In 2010, battery pack costs were over $l,000/kWh, but have fallen dramatically to
approximately $132/kWh in 2021.173 Costs are expected to continue this downward trajectory,
"reaching $100/kWh between 2023 and 2025 and $61-72/kWh by 2030.174 Auto manufacturers
have endorsed these projections."175 Other analyses have projected battery costs falling to
$100/kWh by 2025,176 reaching a range of $59-68/kWh by 2027.177 BNEF projects battery
pack prices will drop to approximately $80/kWh in 2026 and $60/kWh in 2029, down from
$137/kWh in 2020,178 and Ford has targeted $80/kWh by 2030.179 These trends confirm a
consistent downward trajectory that many experts predict will continue. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1640-A1, pp. 43 -44]
170 Id.
171 See, e.g., Phadke et al., at 8.
172 Vishnu Nair et al., Technical Review, at 44, Figure 15 (Feb. 2, 2022).
173 Macintosh et al., April 2022 EV Market Update, at 10. These 2021 battery pack price estimates are
based on BloombergNEF, id. at 20.
174 Id. at 10.
175 Id.
176 Hunter et al., at 10.
177 Nair et al., Technical Review, at 36.
178 Colin McKerracher, The EV Price Gap Narrows, BloombergNEF (Jun. 25, 2021),
https://about.bnef.com/blog/the-ev-price-gap-narrows/; Colin McKerracher, Hyperdrive Daily: The EV
Price Gap Narrows, Bloomberg (May 25, 2021), https://www.bloomberg.eom/news/newsletters/2021-05-
25/hyperdrive-daily-the-ev-price-gap-narrows.
179 Macintosh et al., April 2022 EV Market Update, at 20; Todd Gillespie, Rising Battery Costs Hit
Carmakers, Threaten Climate-Change Path, Bloomberg Green (Nov. 30, 2021),
https://www.bloomberg.eom/news/articles/2021-ll-30/even-the-battery-boom-can-t-escape-world-s-
supply-chain-woes.
560
-------
Battery prices have fallen for many reasons, including greater manufacturing scale and
technological improvements, such as improved quality and material substitution. EPA is correct
to "expect domestic manufacturing of batteries and cells to increase considerably over the
coming decade." 88 Fed. Reg. at 25966. Industry and government have made substantial
investments in developing the battery manufacturing sector and lowering battery costs. Many
manufacturers are making strides toward significant domestic battery production, with at least 27
new battery plants announced since the passage of the IRA, 180 further supporting this downward
trend. Automakers have also announced research and production partnerships aimed at securing
ready supplies of batteries and developing less-expensive batteries. 181 For example, Daimler
recently announced a battery technology partnership through which the company will work with
lithium-ion battery manufacturer and developer Contemporary Amperex Technology Co.
Limited for its supply of lithium-ion battery packs and to jointly work toward designing and
developing next-generation battery cells and packs specifically for trucks. 182 Additionally, in its
Energy Storage Grand Challenge, the Department of Energy (DOE) announced a goal to reduce
battery cost to $80/kWh by 2030 for 300-mile range EVs.183 The BIL also included additional
funds aimed at "expanding] the processing and manufacturing of advanced batteries, including
for [BJEVs and the electric grid." 184 These federal funds include: $3 billion for battery material
processing; $3 billion for battery manufacturing and recycling; $10 million for the Lithium-Ion
Battery Recycling Prize; $60 million for Battery Recycling RD&D; $50 million for state and
local programs; and $15 million for Collection Systems for Batteries. With these programs and
investments taken together, some experts forecast that the global lithium-ion battery cell
nameplate capacity will triple by 2025, with North America's capacity growth expected to
outpace Europe's. 185 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 44]
180 Dan McCarthy & Maria Virginia Olano, The Remarkable Upsurge in US Clean Energy Manufacturing,
in Charts, Canary Media (June 6, 2023), https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/clean-energy-
manufacturing/the-remarkable-upsurge-in-usclean-energy-manufacturing-in-charts; see also Charged, EV
Supply Chain Dashboard (May 27, 2023), https://www.charged-the-book.com/na-ev-supply-chain-map
(data courtesy of Prof. James Martin Turner) (finding that since the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act,
there have been 25 new battery cell, battery pack or battery cell component manufacturing announcements,
and another 5 under construction).
181 Macintosh et al., April 2022 EV Market Update, at 23.
182 Commendatore.
183 Macintosh et al., April 2022 EV Market Update, at 20; DOE, Department of Energy Releases Energy
Storage Grand Challenge Roadmap (Dec. 21, 2020), https://www.energy.gov/articles/departinent-energy-
releases-energy-storage-grand-challenge-roadmap.
184 Macintosh et al., April 2022 EV Market Update, at 17.
185 Clean Energy Associates, ESS Supplier Market Intelligence Program H2 2022 Report Sample, at 8
(2023).
Advances in battery recycling technology are likely to lead to additional decreases in battery
prices. The IRA added additional incentives through the Advanced Manufacturing Production
Credit and the credit for Qualified Commercial Clean Vehicles. 88 Fed. Reg. at 25985. A report
by Roush also details additional advancements in battery systems, such as lithium iron phosphate
batteries, dry battery electrode coating processes, and tabless anodes, which will lead to greater
efficiency and reduced costs for ZEVs.186 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 45]
561
-------
186 Vishnu Nair & Gary Rogers, Roush Industries, Reducing Medium- and Heavy-Duty Fuel Consumption
and Criteria Pollutants, at 7-8, 33-37 (2021). See also Himanshu Saxena et al., Roush Industries,
Electrification Cost Evaluation of Class 2b and Class 3 Vehicles in 2027-2030, at 95-126 (2023),
https://cdn.mediavalet.eom/usva/roush/rOYBSBBvOOedOiBP759yoA/3Hcv7F_W-
0G9ek0ODPgNMg/Original/Electrification%20Cost%20Evaluation%20of%20Class%202b-
3%20Vehicles%20in%202027-2030_ROUSH.pdf (describing improvements in BEV technologies).
Summarizing many of these recent trends and studies, the International Energy Agency
recently concluded that due to "record sales of EVs, strong investment in battery storage for
power (which are expected to approach USD 40 billion in 2023, almost double the 2022 level)
and a push from policy makers to scale up domestic supply chains," there has been "a wave of
new lithium-ion battery manufacturing projects around the world." 187 EPA is correct to view
these projects and overall trends as contributing to falling battery prices in future years. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985- 1640-A1, p. 45]
187 IEA, World Energy Investment 2023, at 21 (2023), https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/8834d3af-
af60-4df0-9643-72e2684f7221/WorldEnergy Investment2023.pdf.
Organization: Clean Fuels Development Coalition et al.
D. The proposal relies on unsound battery costs projections.
As the proposal explains, "[o]ne of the most important factors influencing the extent to which
BEVs are available for purchase and able to enter the market is the cost of lithium-ion batteries,
the single most expensive component of a BEV." 88 Fed. Reg. 25,941. The proposal notes that
"average lithium-ion battery costs have decreased by more than 85 percent since 2010" and that
"battery pack costs are projected to continue to fall during this decade." Id. As a result, EPA
projects battery costs of $ 111 perkWhin 2032. Id. at 25,981. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1585-
Al, p. 25]
This projection isn't realistic. In 2022 battery costs were $153 per kWh, Electric Vehicle
Battery Pack Costs in 2022 Are Nearly 90% Lower than in 2008, according to DOE Estimates,
Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy (Jan. 9, 2023),
https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1272-january-9-2023-electricvehicle-battery-
pack-costs-2022-are-nearly. While there has been a decrease in cost over the last decade, prices
have not continued to drop. Instead, cost reduction curves have already begun to flatten out and
battery costs rose 7 percent in 2022. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1585-A1, p. 25]
Many studies project battery costs to rise over the next few years. For example, E Source
estimates battery cell prices will surge 22% from 2023 through 2026. Phil LeBeau, EV battery
costs could spike 22% by 2026 as raw material shortages drag on, CNBC (May 18, 2022),
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/18/ev-battery-costs-set-tospike-as-raw-material-shortages-drags-
on.html. And Benchmark Mineral Intelligence projects that prices could become worse at the end
of the decade as an increase in global electric vehicle manufacturing leads to massive lithium
shortages beginning in 2029 and getting increasingly worse as through 2032. Eric Onstad et al.,
Lithium prices bounce after big plunge, but surpluses loom, Reuters (May 2, 2023),
https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/lithium-prices-bounce-after-bigplunge-surpluses-
loom-2023-04-28/. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1585-A1, p. 25]
Many analysts are projecting that material shortfalls—and resulting high prices—in part
because of labor shortages. "The crunch spans engineers who design job sites, miners who
562
-------
extract raw metals and the truck drivers who haul them away for processing." Hardika Singh,
'War for Talent' at Mines Could Drive Up Cost of Energy Transition, Wall St. J. (June 8, 2023),
https://www.wsj.com/articles/war-fortalent-at-mines-could-drive-up-cost-of-energy-transition-
30b927eb. "Citi expects labor shortages, permitting challenges and other issues will propel
lithium prices higher by as much as 40% by year's end [and] copper will jump 50% by 2025."
Id. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2022-0985-1585- A 1, p. 25]
The proposal also fails to analyze the costs of different battery chemistries. For example, the
proposal acknowledges that some cost reductions have emerged because electric vehicles have
leveraged less expensive iron phosphate batteries in light-duty vehicles. 88 Fed. Ref. 25,961. But
these batteries—while less expensive— have lower "gravimetric and volumetric energy
densities," id., and thus are heavier and offer shorter range than those made with more expensive
minerals. As a result, these batteries are not suitable for heavy-duty vehicles. The proposal
cannot rely on price trends in batteries that cannot be used in heavy-duty vehicles to justify the
feasibility of electric heavy-duty vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1585-A1, pp. 25 - 26]
B. The proposed rule underestimates battery costs.
EPA projects battery costs of $111 per kWh in 2032. 88 Fed. Red. 25,981. But, as discussed
above, 2022 battery costs were $153 per kWh, Electric Vehicle Battery Pack Costs in 2022 Are
Nearly 90% Lower than in 2008, according to DOE Estimates, Office of Energy Efficiency &
Renewable Energy (Jan. 9, 2023), https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1272-
january-9-2023-electricvehicle-battery-pack-costs-2022-are-nearly. While battery costs have
decreased over the last decade, these and cost reduction curves have already begun to flatten out.
Indeed, battery costs rose 7 percent in 2022. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1585-A1, p. 32]
The proposal also ignores the many studies project battery costs to rise over the next few
years. See, e.g., Phil LeBeau, EV battery costs could spike 22% by 2026 as raw material
shortages drag on, CNBC (May 18, 2022), https://www.cnbc.eom/2022/05/18/ev-battery-costs-
set-to-spike-as-raw-materialshortages-drags-on.html (projecting battery cell prices to surge 22%
from 2023 through 2026); Eric Onstad et al., Lithium prices bounce after big plunge, but
surpluses loom, Reuters (May 2, 2023), https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/lithium-
prices-bounce-after-bigplunge-surpluses-loom-2023-04-28/ (projecting massive lithium
shortages beginning in 2029 and getting increasingly worse as through 2032). [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1585-A1, pp. 32 - 33]
The proposal also arbitrarily attributes recent cost reductions in batteries to technologies that
cannot be used in heavy-duty vehicles. For example, the proposal accounts for cost reductions
resulting from iron phosphate batteries in light-duty vehicles. 88 Fed. Reg. 25,961. But these
batteries—while less expensive— have lower "gravimetric and volumetric energy densities," id.,
and thus are heavier and offer shorter range than those made with more expensive mineral,
making them unsuitable for heavy-duty applications. The proposal cannot rely on price trends in
batteries that cannot be used in its cost-benefit analysis. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2022-0985-1585-A1,
p. 33]
Finally, as detailed above, EPA also excludes "both the IRA battery tax credit and vehicle tax
credit" from consumer costs. 88 Fed. Reg. 26,079. This is unreasonable because (a) it is unclear
if the industry will be capable of meeting the domestic sourcing requirements and (b) those costs
are ultimately still paid by taxpayers. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2022-0985-1585-A1, p. 33]
563
-------
Organization: Daimler Truck North America LLC (DTNA)
Considering the factors discussed above, we propose that EPA incorporate into its HD
TRUCS analysis the alternative adoption rate schedule set forth in Table 6 below, to ensure that
actual customer purchasing behavior is more accurately reflected in the standards adopted in the
final rule. In the Company's experience, even customer willingness to adopt a new technology
and to install infrastructure to support this new technology may not positively impact actual
infrastructure availability, so DTNA does not include infrastructure considerations here; rather,
we propose that an additional infrastructure scalar be applied to the adoption rate percentages
that are ultimately adopted in the Phase 3 final rule, as discussed in Section II.C. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 27] [Refer to Table 6 on p.27 of docket number EP A-HQ-0 AR-
2022-0985-1555-A1]
The Proposed Rule reflects incomplete, inaccurate, and overly optimistic assumptions about
ZEV Total Costs of Ownership (TCO). Because EPA's assumptions regarding TCO and
calculated payback period appear to be incomplete, inaccurate, and overly optimistic, it is
questionable whether fleets will in fact adopt ZEV technologies at the rates that EPA suggests. In
this section, DTNA addresses some of the cost inputs in the HD TRUCS tool based upon the
Company's own data and advises on additional costs that should be included. DTNA shares
EPA's optimism that some costs will fall as technologies develop, but the Company believes that
all of the costs EPA uses to inform payback periods and adoption rates relied on for Phase 3
standard-setting should be updated every two years based on the best available market data from
OEMs and other sources. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 28]
EPA's cost estimates inaccurately reflect or fail to account for a number of key inputs. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 28]
Component Costs
EPA's projected pack-level battery costs of $145/kWh in MY 2027, falling to $111/kWh in
MY 2032,53 do not appear to accurately reflect the actual cost of battery components. DTNA's
battery cost targets for two different pack sizes are shown in Table 7 below. These targets are
subject to change, based on raw material and other factors between now and start of production.
In the Company's experience, smaller pack sizes are more expensive on a dollars per kilowatt-
hour basis, as the cost of manufacturing the non-cell components are spread across a lower
energy density. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 28] [Refer to Table 7 on p. 28 of docket
number EP A-HQ-0 AR-2022-098 5 -15 5 5 - A 1 ]
53 See Proposed Rule, 88 Fed. Reg. at 25,981 (Table II-l 1).
In battery pack manufacturing, a significant portion of the cost is derived from raw materials,
which are subject to global price elasticity. Lithium prices over the last two years are shown in
Figure 1 below. In 2022, the price of lithium spiked to approximately $85 per kilogram,
compared to approximately $30 per kilogram a year previously. [EP A-HQ-0 AR-2022-0985-
1555-A1, p. 28] [Refer to Figure 1 on p. 29 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-
Al]
The 2022 price spike likely occurred due to increased demand for lithium and supply
pressures brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic. The Company is optimistic that lithium prices
will continue to fall and normalize, but battery costs will remain sensitive to raw material prices
564
-------
and may not decrease year-over-year as EPA projects. Table 8 below shows the Company's
projected battery costs if lithium were sourced at the peak $85/kg to serve medium- and heavy-
duty truck needs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 29] [Refer to Table 8 on p. 29 of
docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1]
EPA's battery cost estimates rely on assumptions about raw materials and critical minerals,
the development of complex supply chains, projected future domestic mining and production,
and global trade and geopolitics. EPA does not, however, account for the possibility that mineral
costs could rise in the future, as global demand for BEVs increases. It is only appropriate that
EPA periodically reassess the battery costs used in the HD TRUCS model to inform the payback
period analysis. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 29]
EPA Request for Comment, Request #14: We request comment on our assessment and data to
support our assessment of battery critical raw materials and battery production for the final rule.
• DTNA Response: As discussed in Section II.B.3.a of these comments, EPA has not
adequately considered battery cost sensitivity to raw material pricing, and these costs
should be periodically reviewed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 160]
EPA Request for Comment, Request #32: We request comment, including additional data, on
our analysis for consideration in the final rule regarding current and projected BEV component
costs.
• DTNA Response: See DTNA Response to Request # 20, above. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1555-A1, p. 163]
EPA Request for Comment, Request #33: We request comment, including data, on our
approach and projections for battery pack costs for the heavy-duty sector, including values that
specifically incorporate the potential impacts of the IRA.
• DTNA Response: See DTNA Response to Request # 20, above. In addition, DTNA is
willing to confidentially share battery cost targets with EPA, as its costs are higher than
EPA's projections. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 163]
Organization: Environmental Defense Fund (EPF)
c) Key EPA assumptions related to ZEV costs and deployment are overly conservative and
when corrected, support more protective standards
i. EPA's ZEV technology and adoption modeling assumptions are too conservative
EPA's ZEV assumptions are too conservative and more reasonable assumptions would result
in higher ZEV deployment projections, especially in key categories. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1644-A1, p. 53]
EPA is overestimating battery prices. In 2030, EPA assumes batteries without the IRA
production tax credits will cost $120/kWh falling to $111/kWh by 2032. In their recent report on
tractors, Roush projects that absent IRA credits HDV batteries will cost $98/kWh in 2030
and $88/kWh in 2032.131 Batteries make up the bulk of the powertrain costs for BEVs. As a
result, if EPA were to adjust the battery costs used in this proposal, it would have a significant
565
-------
impact on BEV price, payback period, and the final rule stringency. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1644-A1, p. 53-54]
131 Roush conducted their study in 2022$. The prices presented from their study were deflated by 8% to
adjust to 2021$ to be consistent with EPA.
Organization: Moving Forward Network (MFN) et al.
11.2. EPA's forecast of factors related to battery technologies are behind current market and
future trends
EPA's forecast of battery cost per unit of battery power output ($/kWh) aligns with the best
available knowledge and prediction of the market at this time. However, EPA's forecast of some
of the other factors related to battery technologies like specific energy are behind where the
market is currently and is trending in the future. These inputs can therefore cause the full cost of
a heavy-duty BEV to be modeled higher than the most likely real-world scenarios. Therefore,
even though the cost per kWh input is appropriate, the cost per BEV is likely an overestimate
which would have resulted in a lower ZEV penetration rate than is actually technologically and
economically feasible even under EPA's approach. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1,
p. 104]
11.1.3. Modeled heavy-duty BEV costs could potentially decrease based on battery-related
modeling inputs
EPA's HD TRUCS tool modeling and subsequent cost-benefit analysis for comparison to the
No Action case are thorough, but likely overestimate the battery cost per heavy-duty BEV due to
conservative technical assumptions made about the advancements of lithium-ion batteries that
would replace materials, increase specific energy, or allow for the longer use of batteries through
refurbishment or reuse. Therefore, the heavy-duty BEV sales forecasted through the HD TRUCS
tool may be an underestimate if these assumptions had a significant impact on the total cost of
ownership of BEVs. Additionally, although the mineral demand forecasts from Li-Bridge and
other materials cited in the Proposed Rule's discussion of mineral demand are not directly related
to HD TRUCS and EPA's cost analysis, the variables discussed below can also cause mineral
demand forecasts to be higher than actual future material demand. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1608-A1, p. 92]
11.1.4. Battery costs per kWh will continue to decrease.
In its model, EPA uses an average HD battery cost (2021$/kWh at the pack-level) based on a
literature review by ICCT as the input in the HD TRUCS model. 225 EPA also notes that
according to BloombergNEF, global average pack prices were expected to reach $100/kWh by
2026 as the price increase in 2022 due to mineral price volatility will be resolved within a couple
of years. We believe these costs are an appropriate representation of the market. Our own
analysis, based on data available to BloombergNEF subscribers in their 2022 Lithium-ion
Battery Price Survey, yields numbers just slightly below the costs EPA uses in its modeling as
shown in Table 13 and Figure 29 below. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, pp. 102 - 103.]
[See Table 13 ICCT's Average Battery Costs used by EPA and Alternate Cost Forecast, and
Figure 30, ICCT's Average Battery Cost Used by EPA is Similar to An Alternative Cost
Forecast located on p. 103 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1.]
566
-------
Table 13: ICCT's Average Batten" Costs used by EPA and Alternate Cost Forecast--6
Pack-Level Cost Comparison {2021$/kWh)
MY
m
MV
M#
SVV
MV
ZQ2? ;
2023
2029
2C30
3031
2032
Cost EPA Used in HO TRUCS
(Source: 1CCT) 5
14 S $¦
$ *2b
$ 110
h lib $
111
Alternate Cost Prediction
{Source Data; BloombergNEF) 5
139 &
."*1
5 -23
5 nc.
3 U1 S
105
225 Ben Sharpe, Hussein Basma. A meta-study of purchase costs for zero-emission trucks. The
International Council on Clean Transportation. (February 2022). https://theicct.org/wp-
content/uploads/2022/02/purchase-cost-ze-trucks-feb22.pdf
226 BloombergNEF 2022 Lithium-Ion Battery Price Survey (subscription required).
227 BloombergNEF Electric Vehicle Outlook 2022 (subscription required).
We used battery cost data (2022$/kWh) for e-buses and commercial vehicles, global battery
demand forecasts, and the most updated learning rate used by BloombergNEF after the 2022
price increase, and a 7.02% inflation rate between June 2021 and June 2022 to convert the data
back to 2021$/kWh. 228 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 103]
228 Evelina Stoikou et al. Lithium-Ion Battery Price Survey. BloombergNEF. (December 6, 2022). This
data includes 2022 e-bus and commercial battery cost data and historical and forecasted global battery
demand data from 2010 - 2035, subscription required for full report.
Organization: PACCAR
II. EPA'S HEAVY DUTY TECHNOLOGY READINESS USE CASE SCENARIO
ASSUMPTIONS ARE INACCURATE AND SHOULD BE REVISED
EPA created the Heavy-Duty Technology Readiness Use Case Scenario ("TRUCS") Excel
spreadsheet to assess the commercial viability of zero-emission truck technologies. EPA used
this detailed analytical tool to calculate HD vehicle energy usage, estimate overall vehicle costs,
and forecast ZEV adoption rates. The proposed Phase 3 GHG reduction targets and standards
result directly from EPA's TRUCS analysis. Any TRUCS input value variation, therefore,
directly and substantially affects the defensibility and technical feasibility of the proposed Phase
3 standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1607-A1, p. 4]
Although EPA relied on surveys, research studies, and publicly available data to develop
TRUCS input data, the data and the assumptions upon which EPA relied do not align with real-
world OEM information. Such real-world information - much of which is confidential business
information and includes component costs, efficiency, and performance targets - renders many
TRUCS input values overly optimistic and leads to artificially inflated ZEV adoption rate
estimates. PACCAR therefore respectfully requests that EPA revise its TRUCS analysis to
include more accurate data to recalculate more precisely the predicted adoption rates, and to set
the Phase 3 standards according to those revised values. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1607-A1,
p. 4]
A. EPA SIGNIFICANTLY UNDERESTIMATES BATTERY COSTS
567
-------
PACCAR's forecasted battery costs are significantly higher than those in TRUCS, even with
certain strategic initiatives in place that PACCAR expects will generate lower battery costs than
most competing OEMs. Table 1 below compares TRUCS assumed battery costs used to develop
proposed Phase 3 standards with PACCAR's current Confidential Business Information
MY2027-2032 battery cost forecast. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1607-A1, p. 5]
Organization: Tesla, Inc. (Tesla)
Battery Costs Continue to Decline
EPA's proposed rule also addresses battery costs as a factor in the rate of heavy-duty fleet
adoption. 130 The agency assumes the battery pack manufacturing costs for the Phase 3 GHG
regulations will be at $111/kWh in MY 2032.131 Tesla believes this cost assumption is far too
high and does not fully consider the documented and projected rapid decline in battery cell and
pack costs. As DOE has recently documented, the energy density of lithium-ion batteries
Increased by more than eight times between 2008 and 2020, allowing for BEVs to travel the
same distance with a smaller battery pack, thus saving space, weight, and manufacturing
costs. 132 Similarly, DOE has found that BEV battery pack cost dropped 90% since
2008.133 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1505-A1, p. 18]
130 88 Fed. Reg. at 25980-81.
131 Id. at 25981.
132 DOE VTO, FOTW #1234, April 18, 2022: Volumetric Energy Density of Lithium-ion Batteries
Increased by More than Eight Times Between 2008 and 2020 (Apr. 18, 2022). available at
https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1234-april-18-2022-volumetric-energy-density-lithium-
ion-batteries
133 DOE, FOTW #1272, January 9, 2023: Electric Vehicle Battery Pack Costs in 2022 Are Nearly 90%
Lower than in 2008, according to DOE Estimates (Jan. 9, 2023) available at
https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1272-january-9-2023-electric-vehicle-battery-pack-
costs-2022-are-nearly
To the extent reductions have been profound in the light duty sector, the similarity in battery
chemistries will carry over to the medium- and heavy-duty sectors. For example, UBS reports
that leading manufacturers are estimated to reach battery pack costs as low as $67/kWh between
2022 and 2024.134 Recently, others have also projected costs significantly lower than EPA's
past projections. BNEF's recent estimate is that pack prices go below $100/kWh on a volume-
weighted average basis by 2024, hit $58/kWh in 2030,135 and could achieve a volume-weighted
average price of $45/kWh in 2035.136 The National Academies of Sciences found high-volume
battery pack production would be at costs of $65-80/kWh by 2030137 and DNV-GL has
predicted costs declining to $80/kWh in 2025.138 The IPCC recently concluded
similarly. 139 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1505-A1, pp. 18-19]
134 UBS, EVs Shifting into Overdrive: VW ID.3 teardown - How will electric cars re-shape the auto
industry? (March 2, 2021) at 60 available at https://www.ubs.com/global/en/investment-bank/in-
focus/2021/electric-vehicle-revolution.html
135 BNEF, Electric Vehicle Outlook 2021 (June 9, 2021) available at https://bnef.turtl.co/story/evo-2021/
136 BNEF, Hitting the Inflection Point: Electric Vehicle Price Parity and Phasing Out Combustion Vehicle
Sales in Europe (May 5, 2021) available at
568
-------
https://www.transportenvironment.org/sites/te/files/publications/2021_05_05_Electric_vehicle_price_parit
yandadoptio n_in_Europe_Final.pdf
137 NAS, Assessment of Technologies for Improving Light-Duty Vehicle Fuel Economy - 2025-2035
(March 31, 2021) available at
https://www.nap.edu/resource/26092/BriefingSlidesPublicReleaseFinal20210331.pdf
138 DNV-GL, Tesla's Battery Day and the Energy Transition (Oct. 26, 2020) available at
https://www.dnvgl.com/feature/tesla-battery-day-
energytransition.html?utm_campaign=GR_GLOB_20Q4_PROM_ETO_2020_Tesla_Battery_Article&utm
_medium=email&utm_source=Eloqua
139 IPCC, AR 6, Working Group III, Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change (date) at 10-32
available at https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6wg3/pdf/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_FinalDraft_FullReport.pdf (For example,
according to IEA, battery pack costs could be as low as 80 USD perkWhby 2030 (IEA 2019a). In
addition, there are clear trends that now vehicle manufacturers are offering vehicles with bigger batteries,
greater driving ranges, higher top speeds, faster acceleration, and all size categories (Nykvist et al. 2019).
In 2020 there were over 600,000 11 battery-electric buses and over 31,000 batteryelectric trucks operating
globally (IEA 2021a).)
These cost estimates all were projected before the IRA passed Congress. IRA adds a
significant new element to battery cost reduction as Section 45X provides domestically
manufactured cells and finished batteries a production tax credit of $45/kWh. 140 This
production tax credit is predicted to cut one-third to one-half off the total cost of any BEV
battery with both cells and pack built in the U.S.141 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1505-A1, p. 19]
140 Inflation Reduction Act, P.L. 117-169 (Aug. 16, 2022) at Section 13502.
141 Car and Driver, U.S.-Made EVs Could Get Massively Cheaper, Thanks to Battery Provisions in New
Law (Feb. 3, 2023) available at https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a42749754/us-electric-cars-could-get-
cheaper-inflation-reduction-actsection- 45x/
Finally, the agency's assessment should further recognize the technology forcing created by
finalization of the proposed regulations by factoring in battery cost reductions that will likely be
seen during the Phase 3 period as well, including LFP applications 142 and sodium ion
batteries. 143 Indeed, battery technologies entering the commercialization phase such as silicon
anodes, solid state batteries, and sodium-ion batteries are predicted to improve performance and
costs and alter current material supply chains. 144 The current regulatory impact statement only
makes glancing reference to these technologies and the record is deficient in this respect. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1505-A1, p. 19]
142 See Draft RIA at 28; See also, CleanTechnica, Designwerk Offers LFP Battery Cells for The HIGH
CAB Semi Lowliner (April 25, 2023) available at https://cleantechnica.com/2023/04/25/designwerk-offers-
lfp-battery-cells-for-the-high-cab-semi-lowliner/
143 See Draft RIA at 35; See also, Bloomberg, Silicon Valley Startup Charts a Path to Cheaper Batteries
(Feb. 22, 2023) available at https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-02-22/silicon-valley-startup-
charts-a-path-to-cheaper-
evbatteries?cmpid=BBD022223_hyperdrive&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_term=23
0222&utm_campaign=hyperdrive
144 BloombergNEF, Electric Vehicle Outlook 2023, Executive Summary (June 8, 2023) at 9 available at
https://about.bnef.com/electric-vehicle-outlook/
Heavy-duty BEVs Are Rapidly Approaching, If Not At, Total Cost of Ownership Parity
569
-------
EPA also solicits greater input on medium- and heavy-duty BEV total cost of ownership
(TCO). 146Reductions in battery costs are projected to lead to cost parity in many vehicle
segments by 2025.147 Some analyses have suggested that parity will occur even earlier. 148
Continued and expansive research and development in this sector can be expected to further
drive down costs. 149 Consistent with these declines, other key subsystems of BEV technology
will continue to see cost reductions as manufacturers scale production. 150 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1505-A1, p. 20]
146 88 Fed. Reg. at 25942.
147 MJ Bradley, Medium- & Heavy-Duty Vehicles: Market Structure, Environmental Impact, and EV
Readiness (Aug. 11, 2022) at 7. available at https://www.mjbradley.com/reports/medium-heavy-duty-
vehicles-market-structure-environmentalimpact-and-ev-readiness (EVs in most market segments have the
potential to achieve life-cycle cost parity with internal combustion engine vehicles by model year 2025 or
earlier if M/HD battery costs follow a similar trajectory as battery costs for light-duty EVs).
148 UC Berkeley, 2035 Report: Transportation: Plummeting Costs and Dramatic Improvements in
Batteries Can Accelerate Our Clean Transportation Future (April 2021) available at
https://www.2035report.com/transportation/transportationnew/wp-
content/uploads/2020/05/2035_Transportation_Report.pdf?hsCtaTracking=544e8e73-752a-40ee-b3a5-
90e28d5f2e 18%7C8 Ic0077a-d0 Id-45b9-a3 3 8-fcaef78a20e7
149 See generally, Energy & Environment Sciences, Determinants of lithium-ion battery technology cost
decline (Jan. 3, 2022) available at https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2021/ee/dlee01313k
150 See generally, ICCT, A Meta-Study of Purchase Costs for Zero-Emission Trucks (Feb. 17, 2022)
available at https://theicct.org/publication/purchase-cost-ze-trucks-feb22/ (Finding, inter alia, by 2030 key
subsystems can achieve up to 40% to 60% cost reduction driven by technology and manufacturing
scalability).
A recent ICCT analysis found that battery costs for zero-emission trucks are expected to halve
by 2030 compared to 2022, reaching $120/kWh at the pack level with electric drive systems—
including the transmission, motor, and inverter— forecasted to see cost reductions of over 60%
by 2030, reaching $23/kW.151 Such reductions find upfront cost parity between battery electric
trucks and their diesel counterparts achieved in the late 2020s. 152 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1505-A1, p. 20]
151 ICCT, Purchase Costs of Zero-Emission Trucks In The United States To Meet Future Phase 3 GHG
Standards (March 2, 2023) available at https://theicct.org/publication/cost-zero-emission-trucks-us-phase-
3-mar23/
152 Id.
A reduction down to $120kWh per pack plus drivetrain would likely reduce BEVs well below
cost parity. Indeed, a recent LBNL study found that recent reductions in battery prices and
improvement in energy density have made long haul electric trucking viable in the near term. 153
More directly, the study concluded: 'At the current global average battery pack price of $135 per
kilowatt-hour (kWh) (realizable when procured at scale), a Class 8 electric truck with 375-mile
range and operated 300 miles per day when compared to a diesel truck offers about 13% lower
total cost of ownership (TCO) per mile, about 3-year payback and net present savings of about
US $200,000 over a 15-year lifetime. This is achieved with only a 3% reduction in payload
capacity.'154 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1505-A1, pp. 20-21]
570
-------
153 LBNL, Why Regional and Long-Haul Trucks are Primed for Electrification Now (Mar. 15, 2021)
available at https://etapublications.lbl.gov/publications/why-regional-and-long-haul-trucks-are
154 Id.
Still other recent assessments of the total cost of ownership indicate that EPA stands on firm
ground to strengthen the stringency in the rule. Indeed, some OEMs predict BEV cost parity in
2025 well ahead of the proposed rule's 2027 implementation date. Further numerous studies
have found that heavy-duty BEVs outperform conventional trucks on a total cost of ownership
basis. 155 Tesla projects that its Semi will have energy costs that are half those of diesel, provide
over $200,000 in fuel savings, and have a two-year payback period. 156 Another manufacturer
has found that BEVs could save fleets up to 80% on energy costs and 60% on repair. 157 Yet
another found that the benefits of electrifying heavy-duty truck fleets are significant with recent
studies showing that operating costs for electric trucks can be between 14 and 52 percent lower
and repair costs around 40 percent lower than their combustion-powered counterparts. 158 CARB
has found that battery-electric vehicles appear cost competitive with the established combustion
technologies by 2025 in many use cases. 159 Real world demonstrations have also proven this
out. 160 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1505-A1, p. 21]
155 See e.g., UC Berkley, 2035 Report: Transportation: Plummeting Costs and Dramatic Improvements in
Batteries Can Accelerate Our Clean Transportation Future (April 2021) at 15 available at
https://www.2035report.com/transportation/transportation-
new/wpcontent/uploads/2020/05/2035_Transportation_Report.pdf?hsCtaTracking=544e8e73-752a-40ee-
b3a5-90e28d5f2el8%7C81c0077a-d01d-45b9-a338-fcaef78a20e7 (finding BEV heavy-duty trucks already
hold a TCO advantage today and, for heavy-duty trucks, an EV advantage of $0.05/mi in 2020 that
increases to $0.22/mi in 2030—magnified by the large number of miles traveled by this class of vehicles. In
absolute terms, in 2020 this translates to a $42,800 TCO advantage of electric heavy-duty trucks, which
increases to $200,000 in 2030. The TCO advantage of EVs continues to grow through 2050).
156 See Tesla, Semi available at https://www.tesla.com/semi
157 Utility Dive, Lion Electric: EVs save transport firms 80% on energy, 60% on repair costs compared to
diesel (Mar. 17, 2021) available at https://www.utilitydive.com/news/Lion-Electric-trucking-total-cost-of-
ownershipdiesel/596835/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Issue:%202021-03-
17%20Utility%20Dive%20Newsletter%20%5Bissue:33047%5D&utm_term=Utility%20Dive
158 Argonne National Lab, Comprehensive Total Cost of Ownership Quantification for Vehicles with
Different Size Classes and Powertrains (April 2021) available at
https://publications.anl.gov/anlpubs/2021/05/167399.pdf
159 CARB, Draft Advanced Clean Fleets Total Cost of Ownership Discussion Document (Sept 9, 2021)
available at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021-08/210909costdoc_ADA.pdf See also,
Transport & Environment, Why the future of long-haul trucking is battery electric (Feb. 18, 2022) available
at
https://www.transportenvironment.org/wpcontent/uploads/2022/02/2022_02_battery_electric_trucks_HDV
_factsheet.pdf
160 North American Council for Freight Efficiency, Electric Trucks Have Arrived: Documenting A Real-
World Electric Trucking Demonstration (Feb. 2, 2022) available at https://nacfe.org/wp-
content/uploads/edd/2022/01/RoL-Report-Executive-Summary-FINAL.pdf
Recently, the IEA has concluded, 'In the regions where electric trucks are becoming
commercially available, battery electric trucks can compete on a TCO basis with conventional
diesel trucks for a growing range of operations, not only urban and regional, but also in the
heavy-duty tractor-trailer regional and long-haul segments.' 161 Similarly, new analysis looking
571
-------
at the IRA's incentive have medium-duty TCO parity expect in 2024 with the heavy-duty sector
to follow in the middle of the decade. 162 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1505-A1, pp. 21-22]
161IEA, Global EV Outlook 2023, Trends in charging infrastructure available at
https://www.iea.Org/reports/global-evoutlook-2023/trends-in-charging-infrastructure#abstract (emphasis
added)
162 McKinsey, Why the economics of electrification make this decarbonization transition different (Jan.
30, 2023) available at https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/automotive-and-assembly/our-insights/why-
the-economics-of-electrificationmake-this-decarbonization-transition-
different?stcr=F2E91F7E3B364985951002C7 AEE3 3 3 5D&cid=other-eml-alt-
mipmck&hlkid=5029d8f5ce4c43abb7c63ff53e942ad0&hctky= 10204926&hdpid=4eb le872-7192-48d7-
b6cb-0642d205d4c5
In short, BEVs offer the best compliance technology near term and dramatically decreasing
battery costs and numerous TCO studies further support emission standards leading to BEV
deployment at levels surpassing those proposed by the agency. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1505-A1, p. 22]
Organization: Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
b) Revisions
HD TRUCS has close to 100 inputs that are used, and that can be modified, within the tool.
Those multiple inputs cover costs, efficiency factors, and performance factors, to mention a few.
During our review, EMA identified a subset of these inputs that we prioritized as elements where
corrected values - - values different than were used in the NPRM - - need to be utilized. The five
(5) prioritized inputs in need of correction and revision are described below. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 25]
Battery Pack Cost and Fuel Cell Stack Cost - These two revised inputs were run together as
they are the core components of their respective powertrain systems. EMA's recommended 2027
cost of $183/kWh is used for the battery packs, as compared to the NPRM cost of $145/kWh.
The fuel cell stack cost is $498/kW, versus $242/kW for the NPRM. The revised projected ZEV
adoption rates from running EMA HD TRUCS with these two updated inputs are shown below
for 2027 and 2032: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 35.] [See the Projected ZEV
Adoption Rates for 2027 and 2032 Table on page 34 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-2668-A1.]
Battery Pack Cost ($/kWh) - The HD TRUCS tool utilizes a cost of $138 per kilowatt-hour
(kWh) (2019$) for the cost of a battery pack. That cost comes from a February 2022 paper
published by ICCT. Within HD TRUCS, an adjustment factor is applied to this cost, which is in
2019 dollars, to bring it up to 2021 dollars, which adjusted cost is used in preparing the NPRM.
This results in an assumed battery pack cost of $145/kWh. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1,
p. 25]
OEMs, all of which have one or more BEV powertrains in production, provided EMA with
their December 2022 cost for battery packs, along with the cost from approximately June 2022.
The December 2022 average cost was $270/kWh hour, nearly double the cost estimated by
ICCT. National labs and third-party expert consultants have consistently estimated that battery
costs would fall substantially from 2019 through 2040. But, in fact, those costs have increased
572
-------
recently, rising from an average of $233 in June 2022, to $270 in December 2022. The critical
elements for battery manufacturing have been in short supply, driving up prices. The pressure on
the supply chain from LD ZEV growth, especially the volume increases from the growing
regulatory mandates for more and more ZEVs, will continue to create supply and cost issues for
the significantly smaller MHD market. Thus, the projections of falling costs are not
accurate. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 25]
OEMs also provided future battery pack costs based on contracts, pending projects, and active
development programs. The average cost for 2027 production is $183. Although notably reduced
from current costs, this is still a 26% increase to the value used in the NPRM, making the
$183/kWh a more appropriate value for use in the EPA version of HD TRUCS. Accordingly,
EMA uses that value ($183/kWh) in the EMA HD TRUCS tool. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
2668-A1, pp. 25 -26]
Organization: Valero Energy Corporation
Similarly, EPA cites to another ICCT study in support of the proposition that "[projected
costs [of HD ZEVs] are expected to decrease as manufacturing matures and materials
improve."25 However, EPA fails to disclose that the ICCT study is simply based upon a review
of recent literature, and caveats that it is predicated on "a dearth of publicly available data about
the costs of battery-electric and hydrogen fuel cell trucks, as well as the cost breakdowns for the
various systems in these vehicles."26 EPA further provides that it "considered this source to be a
comprehensive review of the literature at the time of the HD TRUCS analysis for the cost of
battery packs in the absence of the IRA".27 Based on a review of EPA's underlying source
material, however, EPA's analysis and proposal is inconsistent and incomplete. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 6]
25 EPA's HD Phase 3 GHG Proposal at 25941 (citing to Sharpe, Ben and Hussein Basma. "A Meta-Study
of Purchase Costs for Zero-Emission Trucks". The International Council on Clean Transportation. February
2022).
26 Sharpe, Ben and Hussein Basma. "A Meta-Study of Purchase Costs for Zero-Emission Trucks". The
International Council on Clean Transportation. February 2022. https://theicct.org/publication/purchase-
cost-ze-trucks-feb22/
27 EPA's HD Phase 3 GHG Proposal at 25980-81.
EPA is at a distinct advantage relative to general public commenters in that it has the ability to
seek out reliable data and is obligated to provide such. For example, in the recently proposed
Renewable Fuel Standard "Set Rule," EPA provided citations to various peer reviewed studies
that demonstrated the work of researchers over the decades that the Renewable Fuel Standard has
been administered by the EPA. Likewise, EPA has been issuing rules regulating emissions from
heavy duty vehicles since 198528 and as the following examples show, EPA has instead chosen
to rely on incomplete source material from third parties. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2,
p. 6]
The proposal states that "BloombergNEF presents battery prices that would reach $100 per
kWh in 2026."29 But EPA fails to disclose that BloombergNEF also identifies factors that may
increase prices:
573
-------
• "[T]he impact of rising commodity prices and increased costs for key materials such as
electrolytes has put pressure on the industry in the second half of the year."
• "[E]ven low-cost chemistries like [lithium iron phosphate] LFP, which is particularly
exposed to lithium carbonate prices, have felt the bite of rising costs throughout the
supply chain. Since September [2021], Chinese producers have raised LFP prices by
between 10-20%."
• "Kwasi Ampofo, head of metals and mining at BloombergNEF [has] said: 'Prices for
lithium have risen substantially this year as a result of constraints within global supply
chains, rising demand in China and Europe and the recent production curbs in China.'"
30 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, pp. 6 - 7]
29 EPA's HD Phase 3 GHG Proposal at 25980 (citing to Bloomberg NEF. "Battery Pack Prices Fall to an
Average of $132/kWh, But Rising Commodity Prices Start to Bite." November 30, 2021.
https://about.bnef.com/blog/battery-pack-prices-fall-to-an-average-of-132-kwh-but-rising-commodity-
prices-start-to-bite/).
30 Bloomberg NEF. "Battery Pack Prices Fall to an Average of $132/kWh, But Rising Commodity Prices
Start to Bite." November 30, 2021. https://about.bnef.com/blog/battery-pack-prices-fall-to-an-average-of-
132-kwh-but-rising-commodity-prices-start-to-bite/.
EPA's analysis selectively ignores price volatility in the lithium and battery materials market
and national security concerns inherent in these statements and exacerbated by the proposed HD
Phase 3 GHG rule. EPA also cites to several sources that warn of rising battery costs, yet EPA
does not adequately consider these realities in its analysis. For example, EPA cites to a
Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) blog post for the proposition that "recent information
indicates that the [lithium] market is responding robustly to demand".31 Yet the BNEF source,
titled "Lithium-ion Battery Pack Prices Rise for First Time to an Average of $151/kWh,"32
warns that:
"Rising raw material and battery component prices and soaring inflation have led to the first
ever increase in lithium-ion battery pack prices since BloombergNEF (BNEF) began tracking the
market in 2010. After more than a decade of declines, volume-weighted average prices for
lithium-ion battery packs across all sectors [] increased to $151/kWh in 2022, a 7% rise from last
year in real terms. The upward cost pressure on batteries outpaced the higher adoption of lower
cost chemistries like lithium iron phosphate (LFP). BloombergNEF expects prices to stay at
similar levels next year, further defying historical trends." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2,
p. 7]
31 EPA's HD Phase 3 GHG Proposal at 25965.
32 Bloomberg New Energy Finance, "Lithium-ion Battery Pack Prices Rise for First Time to an Average of
$151/kWh," December 6, 2022. https://about.bnef.com/blog/lithium-ion-battery-pack-prices-rise-for-first-
time-to-an-average-of-151-kwh/.
Further, Kwasi Ampofo, head of metals and mining at BloombergNEF, is quoted as saying:
"[l]ithium prices remain high due to persistent supply chain constraints and the slow ramp up in
new production capacity.33 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 7]
33 Bloomberg New Energy Finance, "Lithium-ion Battery Pack Prices Rise for First Time to an Average of
$151/kWh," December 6, 2022. https://about.bnef.com/blog/lithium-ion-battery-pack-prices-rise-for-first-
time-to-an-average-of-151-kwh/.
574
-------
EPA also claims that "[djespite recent short-term fluctuations in price, the price of lithium is
expected to stabilize at or near its historical levels by the mid-to-late 2020s."34 However, one of
EPA's sources on this point is an article covering a Chinese study, which contains analysis
specific to the Chinese spot market for lithium, which is inconsistent with the express intent of
the IRA.35 For the abovementioned reasons, EPA misrelies on its authorities and must revise the
proposal after giving due consideration to the data regarding HD ZEV costs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 7]
34 EPA's HD Phase 3 GHG Proposal at 25966.
35 Green Car Congress, "Tsinghua researchers conclude surging lithium price will not impede EVboom,"
July 29, 2022. https://www.greencarcongress.com/2022/07/20220727-
tsinghua.html#:~:text=27%20July%202022,electrification%20in%20the%201ong%20run.
Organization: Volvo Group
Phase 3 Proposed Stringencies
• Costs are too low based on current data and internally anticipated cost reductions,
especially for batteries.
EPA Summary and Response
Summary:
A number of commenters provided cost estimates for the high voltage battery; these
comments are from both industry and NGO groups. EMA shared values they believe are
appropriate for battery packs during the time frame of the rule, based on future contracts which
are higher than EPA's estimate. EMA recommends that EPA use a figure roughly 26% greater
than estimated at proposal. PACCAR, Stellantis, and DTNA provided battery cost projections to
the Agency which were submitted under claims of Confidential Business Information. DTNA
also commented that EPA should consider all available data including that which can be
provided by manufacturers in confidential settings, and asserted that, given data available today
is limited, EPA should re-evaluate its assumptions on this issue on a regular basis, using the best
available data.
Valero Energy questioned EPA's reliance on the ICCT Working Paper 2022-09 value for
battery pack cost given ICCT's caution about uncertainty within the market for this sector. The
commenter further maintains that the ICCT Paper did not adequately explain or cite empirical
support for averaging of the values, and that instead upper and lower bounds should be adopted
for HD TRUCS cost inputs.
Although some commenters believe the battery costs used for the NPRM are too low, others
believe the battery costs used are too high; these commenters include CATF, EDF, MFN and
Tesla. CATF cited a plethora of sources that all indicated a decrease in battery costs in previous
years and in future years. Their sources provided costs as low as $59-68/kWh in 2027. EDF
referenced a Roush report of HDV battery cost of $98/kWh in 2030 and $88/kWh in 2032
without IRA adjustment. MFN believes the battery used for HDV will be less conservative than
the one modeled by EPA in terms of both specific energy and energy density, this
conservativeness is reflected in EPA's estimates of battery costs. The commenter's estimates
align with BNEF where battery cost will decline to $100/kWh by 2026 as a result of mineral
575
-------
price stabilization. Tesla referenced an ICCT report where batteries would reach a cost of
$120/kWh at the pack level by 2030.
The Clean Fuels Development Coalition, et. al., took exception to EPA applying "both the
IRA battery tax credit and vehicle tax credit" to consumer costs on the basis that industry may
not be capable of meeting the domestic sourcing requirement and the costs ultimately being paid
by taxpayers.
Response:
Please see Chapter 2.4.3.1 of the RIA for a discussion of the battery costs for the final rule.
Regarding the commenter's concern with the inclusion of the IRA battery and vehicle tax
credits from purchaser costs despite the costs being paid by taxpayers, this is the proper approach
to estimating purchaser costs which are meant to estimate the costs purchasers will incur upon
purchasing a new vehicle. Therefore, those tax credits should reduce the price paid by the
purchaser. As we did in the NPRM, we have omitted the tax credits and taxes in our calculation
of costs to society (see Section IV.E of the preamble) as these are transfers from taxpayers to
purchasers and we present those transfers for full transparency in Section VIII.B of the preamble.
Regarding concerns over industry being capable of meeting the domestic sourcing
requirements to realize the IRA tax credits, please refer to our response in Section 2.7 of this
document.
Comments on minerals critical to battery production are addressed in Preamble Section
II.D.2.ii.c and in Section 17.2 of this document.
EPA has carefully considered information made available to EPA. As further explained in
preamble Sections I and II, in setting future emission standards under our CAA section
202(a)(l)-(2) authority, given the prospective nature of the factors Congress directed EPA
consider, EPA must necessarily identify potential technologies, evaluate the rate each technology
could be introduced, and project associated cost of compliance. Thus, while we acknowledge that
future projections inherently are subject to uncertainties, EPA has carefully analyzed the
uncertainties and identified the considerations we found persuasive. Consistent with our standard
setting authority the analysis EPA conducted for this final rule appropriately makes use of the
best data available to us, as described in RIA Chapter 2.
3.4.2 E-Drive
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Daimler Truck North America LLC (DTNA)
EPA's projections for e-Drive costs may also be inaccurate. Table 11-12 in the Proposed Rule
appears to reflect a combined cost per kilowatt for the eMotor, inverter, and gearbox
combination. DTNA's e-Drive cost estimate, which includes EPA's components plus an eAxle,
is shown in Table 9 below. EPA should consider the inclusion of an eAxle for some applications,
as eAxles increase driveline efficiency by reducing gear losses and can offer the additional
needed packaging space in the chassis for other components like battery packs. DTNA
recommends that EPA apply eAxle costs to weight-sensitive applications with constrained
576
-------
packaging space, and that the Agency periodically reassess e-Drive cost inputs used in the HD
TRUCS tool. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 29] [Refer to Table 9 on p. 30 of docket
number EP A-HQ-0 AR-2022-098 5 -15 5 5 - A 1 ]
EPA Request for Comment, Request #34: We request data on e-axle costs that we could
consider for the final rule.
• DTNA Response: See DTNA Response to Request # 20, above. In addition, DTNA is
willing to confidentially share e-drive costs with EPA, including an eAxle, and
recommends EPA incorporate eAxle costs for at least some population of vehicles. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 163]
EPA Request for Comment, Request #35: We welcome comment, including data, on our
assessment of e-drive costs.
• DTNA Response: See DTNA Response to Request # 20 and 34, above. [EP A-HQ-0 AR-
2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 163]
Organization: Dana Incorporated
eDrive Direct Manufacturing Costs
As an eDrive manufacturer, Dana believes that various configurations such as direct-drive,
etransmissions, and e-axle will co-exist in the market. Each of these vehicle powertrain
configurations has a certain level of manufacturing complexity. Dana believes that the market
will demand multi-speed etransmissions and e-axles solutions that will drive higher product as
well as manufacturing costs. Therefore, EPA must consider different direct manufacturing cost
values for each vehicle powertrain configuration. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1610-A1, p. 5]
Dana also believes using only $1 kW unit may not accurately compare the cost of different
powertrain configurations. For instance, a motor with 450 kW of power and 2,500 Nm of torque
used as a direct drive would provide 2,500 Nm at the driveshaft, but with the same motor paired
with a multi-speed eaxle, it would provide 450 kW but it could provide 28,000 Nm of peak
torque, allowing it to be used in a much heavier type of vehicle platform. The cost to achieve
28,000 Nm of peak torque is higher even though $/ kW is the same. This exemplifies the issue of
using power only as a cost metric. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1610-A1, p. 5]
Organization: Environmental Defense Fund (EPF)
Additionally, EPA's projection of motor costs are too high. In the same Roush study they
project motor and inverter costs will be $8/kW in 2030 and 2032. EPA projects in their proposal
these costs will be $16/kW and $15/kW for 2030 and 2032 respectively. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2022-
0985-1644-A1, p. 54]
577
-------
EPA Summary and Response
Summary:
Commenters focused on differing aspects of the e-drive292 in their comments. Dana and
DTNA both commented that there will be various configurations of e-drives for ZEV vehicles,
and that EPA should reflect the variety of costs that may occur as a result of using different
technologies such as eAxles, and multispeed transmissions. In particular, Dana was concerned
that using only $/kW unit may not accurately compare the cost of different powertrain
configurations, and DTNA requested that EPA apply eAxle costs to weight-sensitive applications
with constrained packaging space. DTNA also commented that EPA should consider all
available data including that which can be provided by manufacturers in confidential settings,
and asserted that, given data available today is limited, EPA should re-evaluate its assumptions
on this issue on a regular basis, using the best available data.
EDF says that the HD TRUCS costs for e-motors are too high, and references Roush reports
with e-motor costs of $8/kW for 2030 and 2032, much lower than EPA's e-motor value. DTNA
provided CBI values of e-Drive system costs that include the combined eMotor, inverter,
gearbox, and eAxle costs and are higher than the e-motor cost used in the NPRM. Tesla cited an
ICCT report that projected cost reductions of 60% by 2030 and that the price of electric
powertrain systems including the transmission, motor, and inverter would reach $23/kW (see
Section 3.4.1 for Tesla Comment).
Response:
In the NPRM, the e-drive system in EPA's HD TRUCS included the electric motor (e-motor),
power electronics and electrical accessories, and a driveshaft which can include a transmission
system or gearbox. Although EPA used a $/kW cost estimate for e-motors, the gearbox costs are
distinguished by application and weight categories that were developed for the Autonomie tool.
The e-motor and gearbox cost, together with the power electronics, power accessories, and the
final drive costs, sum to create the entire e-drive cost for each vehicle in HD-TRUCS. These
costs were not a constant $/kW across all applications. We are retaining this methodology for the
final rule as it reflects different e-drive costs for each vehicle in HD TRUCS depending on
weight class, duty cycle, and axle configuration. For additional discussion on the components
and costs associated with the e-drive system in HD TRUCS, see Chapter 2.4.3.2 of the RIA.
EPA did not estimate different costs for all potential e-drive permutations with emerging
technologies. Instead, we relied on the components as described in the BEAN and Autonomie
tools, so that we used underlying inputs for various e-drive components that are self-consistent.
For example, we recognize that some emerging technologies, like e-axles, have the potential to
realize further efficiency gains because they have fewer moving parts. EPA finds that the various
configurations considered represent a reasonable approximation of the technology costs of e-
drives.
There is no consensus about what is included in e-drive or e-motor costs, and these terms are
sometimes used interchangeably. In fact, EPA's proposal included a table (Table 11-12) of e-
motor costs that were mistakenly labeled as e-drive costs. The other e-drive component costs
were described in the surrounding NPRM preamble text, but the caption for Table 11-12 may
292 See Chapter 2.4.3.2.1 of the RIA for description of the HD TRUCS e-drive components and costs.
578
-------
have led to confusion about whether the entire e-drive costs were all based on a constant $/kW
and commenters may have misunderstood the total e-drive costs that are used in HD TRUCS,
which are much higher than just the $/kW cost of the e-motor. The final rule includes the correct
caption for the e-motor cost table, as shown in preamble Section HE. 1 and RIA Chapter 2.4.3.2,
along with the costs for the other e-drive components.
EPA has carefully considered information made available to EPA. As further explained in
preamble Sections I and II, in setting future emission standards under our CAA section
202(a)(l)-(2) authority, given the prospective nature of the factors Congress directed EPA
consider, EPA must necessarily identify potential technologies, evaluate the rate each technology
could be introduced, and project associated cost of compliance. Thus, while we acknowledge that
future projections inherently are subject to uncertainties, EPA has carefully analyzed the
uncertainties and identified the considerations we found persuasive. Consistent with our standard
setting authority the analysis EPA conducted for this final rule appropriately makes use of the
best data available to us, as described in RIA Chapter 2.
3.4.3 FC Stack & H2 Tank Costs
Comments by Organizations
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
4. FCEV Technology Costs
Affected pages: DRIA 185-194
CARB staff finds U.S. EPA's assumptions for component costs to be reasonable given
available information and literature projections. CARB staff for the ACF regulation performed a
similar analysis which determined the upfront costs of FCEVs through a component cost
analysis. As noted by U.S. EPA and ICCT,217 there are a wide range of projections for fuel cell
components in the future. U.S. EPA's assumptions appear, generally, to be on the conservative
(higher) end of that range. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1591-A1, pp.63-64]
217 ICCT's A meta-study of purchase costs for zero-emission trucks, Working Paper 2022-09, February
2022. https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/purchase-cost-ze-trucks-feb22-l.pdf
Organization: Daimler Truck North America LLC (DTNA)
FCEVs will likely not see significant availability and uptake until at least 2032, thus accurate
cost projections cannot be made at this time. Existing FCEV technologies must be adapted, not
simply scaled, to achieve HD performance requirements. EPA's cost estimates for hydrogen
tanks may be reasonable for compressed hydrogen given the current market, but in the long-term,
liquid hydrogen will be the primary fuel in the HD market to enable the 500 - 600 mile range that
achieves comparable range to conventional diesel vehicles today. Gaseous hydrogen occupies
too much volume to be carried on board in the required quantities to achieve a 500 - 600 mile
range. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 30]
As neither liquid hydrogen tanks nor heavy-duty fuel cell stacks are being produced at scale
today, DTNA does not have data to assist the Agency in estimating costs. In its April 2023 white
579
-------
paper on TCO for Class 8 alternative powertrain technologies, ICCT estimates 2030 fuel cell
costs at $301/kg and hydrogen tank costs at $844/kg, which are notably higher than EPA's HD
TRUCS projections of $200/kg and $660/kg respectively.55 These projected major component
costs have significant impacts on the payback period calculation, thus they must be regularly
reviewed to account for technology and market developments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-
Al, p. 30]
55 See ICCT, Total Cost of Ownership of Alternative Powertrain Technologies for Class 8 Long-Haul
Trucks in the United States (April 2023), https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/tco-alt-
powertrain-long-haul-trucksus- apr23.pdf (ICCT TCO White Paper) at Table 4.
EPA Request for Comment, Request #39: We request comment, including data, on our
approach and cost projections for FCEV components
• DTNA Response: EPA should consider all available data including that which can be
provided by manufacturers in confidential settings; however, given that the HD ZEV
market is currently in a nascent state, any data available today is necessarily limited.
DTNA believes HD FCEV technology costs cannot be accurately predicted today. EPA
should thus re-evaluate its assumptions on this issue on a regular basis, using the best
available data. See Section II.C.2 of DTNA's comments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1555-A1, p. 164]
EPA Request for Comment, Request #44: We request comment on this approach for both ICE
vehicles and ZEVs, in addition to data on battery and fuel stack replacement costs, engine
rebuild costs, and expected component lifetime periods.
• DTNA Response: See DTNA Response to Request # 20, above. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1555-A1, p. 165] [Refer to section 2 of this comment summary]
Organization: Dana Incorporated
Fuel Cells
Dana is a component supplier of bipolar plates for fuel-cell and electrolyzer stacks and relies
largely on publicly available information or customer shared information as knowledge of fuel
cell costs. Given this, it appears that the direct cost of a fuel cell stack noted in the proposed rule
is excessively high, if it is referring only to the stack and not to the entire fuel-cell system. For
reference, below are some targets set by the European Joint Undertaking (https://www.dean-
hydrogen.europa.eu/about-us/keydocuments/strategic-research-and-innovation-agenda en). This
reference shows a fuel cell stack cost at less than €100 / kilowatt and a 2030 target of less than
€50 / kilowatt versus $200 USD (approx. €185) in 2030. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1610-A1,
p. 3.] [See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1610, page 4, for reference.]
Organization: MEMA
Take-away: Like motorcoach and sleeper applications, liquid fueling (hydrogen) or other
renewable fuel capability, provided through publicly available infrastructure would be the best
solutions path to address the variable performance demands and extended use these
applications. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1570-A1, pp. 18 - 19]
580
-------
Recommendation: EPA expands the HD TRUCS model feasibility and cost sections to
include the preceding applications and fuel sources. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1570-A1, p. 19]
Organization: PACCAR
B. EPA SIGNIFICANTLY UNDERESTIMATES FUEL CELL COSTS
PACCAR is developing and commercializing fuel cell powertrains and has received
suppliers' fuel cell stack cost quotes. None of PACCAR's projected costs are as low as the
values EPA used in TRUCS. Even the ICCT paper upon which EPA relied to estimate fuel cell
stack costs acknowledges there is a great degree of cost uncertainty, e.g., ICCT estimated
MY2025 fuel cell costs ranging from $50/kW to $750/kW.2 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1607-
Al, p. 5]
2 "A Meta-Study of Purchase Costs for Zero Emissions Trucks" (Sharpe and Basma, 17 Feb. 2022)
ICCT recently published another paper that estimates fuel cell stack costs will be $301/kW in
MY2030, which is significantly higher than TRUCS's $200/kW value (see Table 4 below).3
Based on the ICCT analysis, estimated MY2027 fuel cell stack will be $498/kW if linearly
interpolating between MY2022 and MY2030, or $365/kW if using EPA's "learning curve"
approach, working backwards from the $301/kW value. Considering (i) TRUCS assumes a
typical tractor fuel cell power of 200 kW, and (ii) the difference between the ICCT paper
MY2030 $301/kW estimate and EPA's assumed $200/kW MY2030 cost, TRUCS
underestimates fuel cell cost by approximately $20,100. PACCAR therefore respectfully requests
that EPA revise the TRUCS analysis with more accurate fuel cell cost figures. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1607-A1, pp. 5 - 6.] [See table 4 on page 6 of EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1607-A1.]
3 "Total Cost of Ownership of Alternative Powertrain Technologies for Class 8 Long-Haul
Trucks in the United States" (Basma et. al., April 2023)
Organization: Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
Fuel Cell Stack Cost - Fuel cell systems are an emerging technology within the MHD market.
As such, there is significant uncertainty regarding the development of MHD fuel cells and their
ultimate production costs. For EPA's HD TRUCS model, the Agency chose to rely on the fuel
cell cost from an ICCT paper published in February 2022. That 2027 cost is $242 per kilowatt
(kW). Significantly, a more recent ICCT paper on ZEV total cost of ownership (TCO), dated
April 2023, includes a notably higher cost for the fuel cell stack, estimated at $498 for 2027.
That value was determined through a linear interpolation of the ICCT data in Table 9 of the April
paper, which noted stack costs of $827 in 2022 and $301 in 2030. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
2668-A1, p. 26]
The estimated $498/kW value is consistent with the spread of data that EMA received from
OEMs. As such, $498/kW is the value that EMA is using in EMA's version of HD
TRUCS. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 26]
Battery Pack Cost and Fuel Cell Stack Cost - These two revised inputs were run together as
they are the core components of their respective powertrain systems. EMA's recommended 2027
cost of $183/kWh is used for the battery packs, as compared to the NPRM cost of $145/kWh.
The fuel cell stack cost is $498/kW, versus $242/kW for the NPRM. The revised projected ZEV
581
-------
adoption rates from running EMA HD TRUCS with these two updated inputs are shown below
for 2027 and 2032: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 35.] [See the Projected ZEV
Adoption Rates for 2027 and 2032 Table on page 34 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-2668-A1.]
Organization: Valero Energy Corporation
4. EPA's technological feasibility analysis relies on aspirational projections of EV battery,
fuel cell stack and hydrogen fuel tank costs, while failing to discuss the associated uncertainties
or probability of success.
EPA relies on a recent ICCT working paper46 for its projections of EV battery, fuel cell stack
and hydrogen fuel tank costs over MY 2027-2032.47 The ICCT working paper compiles retail
price projections for ZEV trucks based on a literature review of U.S. and EU sources, each of
which provides projections, goals, or targets for 2025/2030. ICCT's summary of the range and
average of the literature-projected costs are shown below.48 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-
A2, pp. 9-10]
46 ICCT Working Paper 2022-09, "A meta-study of purchase costs for zero-emission trucks," February
2022.
47 EPA HD TRUCS spreadsheet (Document ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-0830), "Inputs" tab, Rows 4, 5,
44, 45, 103 and 104.
48 ICCT Working Paper 2022-09 at Figure 2.
ICCT acknowledges that "due to the nascent nature of the market, there is a lack of publicly
available data on the costs of heavy-duty zero-emission vehicles and powertrains, especially for
freight trucks."49 EPA nevertheless adopts the average costs from the ICCT working paper as
fact, without any reference to the ICCT's expression of uncertainty in the surveyed literature
projections. Moreover, EPA fails to consider the magnitude of cost ranges presented in the ICCT
working paper and evaluate the sensitivity of its modeled impacts to the ranges of uncertainty.
For example, the upper bounds of the ranges of the cost projections in the ICCT working paper
in 2027 for energy battery, fuel cell and hydrogen storage are interpolated to be approximately
60% higher, 100% higher, and 60% higher than the respective average values.50 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 10]
49 ICCT Working Paper 2022-09 at 1.
50 ICCT Working Paper 2022-09 at Figure 2.
EPA fails to offer any explanation why it is reasonable to assume the average cost values
from the ICCT working paper while disregarding the upper or lower bounds of the cost ranges,
nor does it evaluate the sensitivity of its HD ZEV adoption modeling to these
uncertainties. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 10] [See Figures 2 through 4, ICCT
Costs, on page 10 and 11 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0986-1566-A2]
It should also be noted that EPA's input into HD TRUCS for the 2027 fuel cell stack cost of
"230*Adj_Factor"52 does not match the average projection in Figure 2 of the ICCT Working
Paper and is incorrect, according to EPA's approach. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2,
p. 11]
582
-------
52 EPA HD TRUCS spreadsheet (Document ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-0830), "Inputs" tab, Cell G45.
EPA Summary and Response
Summary:
Several commenters addressed EPA's estimates for fuel cell costs. CARB agreed that EPA's
estimates are reasonable, noting they used similar estimated values in their Advanced Clean
Fleets rule proceeding. Dana thought the NPRM fuel cell cost estimates were too high,
particularly if they represent the fuel cell stack alone, based on targets published by the European
Joint Undertaking. EMA, however, referred to values from a more recent (2023) ICCT White
Paper that shows a higher estimate than EPA's, and indicated that their members concurred with
the higher ICCT estimates. DTNA (an EMA member) felt that fuel stack technology is too
nascent to make any type of realistic cost estimate. They noted that existing component
technologies still need to be adapted for the HD market and that fuel cell stacks are not being
produced at scale now, and they stated that they do not believe accurate HD FCEV technology
costs can be predicted now. They further said that because costs of major components impact
payback, they must be reviewed regularly as the market matures to account for the best available
data. DTNA, EMA, and PACCAR pointed to ICCT's revised estimates, which they say are more
in line with available data, but they also noted that ICCT also recognizes there is significant
uncertainty. Valero said that EPA failed to fully evaluate the uncertainties associated with the
projected costs in HD TRUCS and identified a potential error in the HD TRUCS tool.
Only two commenters mentioned onboard hydrogen storage tank costs. DTNA noted that
EPA's estimates for compressed hydrogen tanks may be reasonable. But they said that to
accommodate long-distance ranges of over 500 miles in the longer-term, liquid hydrogen will be
the primary fuel, and it is too soon to offer costs estimates for liquid tanks. Both DTNA and
Valero referenced the 2023 ICCT study for onboard hydrogen storage tank costs.
MEMA also suggested that liquid hydrogen or other liquid renewable fuels, should be
considered in HD TRUCS when evaluating feasibility and costs, provided through publicly
available infrastructure to support them.
Response:
Hydrogen infrastructure is addressed in RTC Section 8.
As discussed in RTC Section 5.3 on storage tank packaging and in RIA Chapter 1.7.3, we did
not consider liquid hydrogen explicitly in this rule and only evaluate HD FCEVs with 700 bar
gaseous tanks that can accommodate a range of up to 500 miles prior to refueling, given that
gaseous hydrogen technologies are predominantly used today and the readiness of liquid storage
and refueling technologies is relatively low. However, compliance with the GHG standards in
this rule is possible through numerous potential pathways as long as testing and other
requirements are met.
Fuel Cell Costs:
For the NPRM, we relied on an average of costs from an ICCT meta-study that found a wide
variation in fuel cell costs in the literature (Sharpe and Basma et. al, 2022). Valero suggested
there was an error in our fuel cell cost estimate in HD TRUCS for MY 2027. In fact, there was
an error in the writeup about our approach. In the DRIA Chapter 2.5.2.1, we said that we
"averaged the 2025 cost values from the Sharpe and Basma meta-study, averaged the 2030 values,
583
-------
and then linearly interpolated to get MY 2027 values and adjusted to 2021$; we then applied the
learning curve shown in DRIA Chapter 3.2.1 to calculate MY 2028- 2032 values." We actually used
the average values from 2030 ($191 per kW), and then applied our learning rates backwards293 to
get a MY 2027 value. Then we applied an adjustment factor to get from 2019$ to 2021$ and
applied the learning curves shown in DRIA 3.2.1 to calculate MY 2028 to 2032 values.
For the final rule, we revised our fuel cell cost estimates from those in the NPRM. The revised
fuel cell system cost estimates for the final rule are described in RIA Chapter 2.5.2.1.
We reviewed the ICCT paper that several commenters referenced. In March 2023, ICCT
published a meta-study (Xie et. al, 2023)294'295 that revised a meta-study from 2022 (Sharpe and
Basma et. al, 2022).296 Xie et. al adjusted estimates based on average inflation between 2020 and
2022. They replaced one source from the previous review of the literature (Transport &
Environment) with another source (Interact Analysis)297. For fuel cells, they developed a cost
curve by weighting primary research (Ricardo, Interact Analysis, and Roland Berger) twice as
highly as secondary research. All sources referenced by ICCT appear to account for fuel cell
system costs that include both the fuel cell stack and balance of plant (BOP).
293 After applying our learning rates backwards, if one applied the learning rates to the newly calculated MY 2027
value, they would calculate the 2030 value we started with.
294 Xie, et. al. "Purchase costs of zero-emission trucks in the United States to meet future Phase 3 GHG standards".
The International Council of Clean Transportation, Working Paper 2023-10 (March 2023). Available online:
https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/cost-zero-emission-trucks-us-phase-3-mar23.pdf.
295 The paper that commenters cite (Basma et. al, 2023) refers to costs from the Xie et. al paper.
296 Sharpe, Ben and Hussein Basma. "A Meta-Study of Purchase Costs for Zero-Emission Trucks". The International
Council on Clean Transportation. February 17, 2022. Available online: https://theicct.org/wp-
content/uploads/2022/02/purchase-cost-ze-trucks-feb22-1 .pdf.
297 We are unable to find this source.
584
-------
Table 1: Sources of Information on ICCT's Fuel Cell Technology Costs
Sharpe & Basma (2022)298
Xie et. al (2023)299
Ricardo:
$750/kW (2025); $525/kW (2030)
= Ricardo Strategic Consulting* (2021)300
T&E:
$371/kW (2025); $186/kW (2030)
Interact Analysis* (2022)301
FCHJU:
$370/kW (2025); $120/kW (2030)
= Roland Berger* (2020)302-303
Noll et. al: n/a
= Noll et. al (2021)304
NREL:
$140/kW (2025); $124/kW (2030)
= Hunter et. al (2021)305
ANL:
$50/kW (2025); $40-47/kW (2030)
= Burnham et. al (2021)306
UC Davis:
$150/kW (2030)
= Burke and Sinha (2020)307
%200/kW(EPA estimate, 2030)308
$301/kW (ICCT estimate, 2030)
* Considered primary research by ICCT
298 Sharpe, Ben and Hussein Basma. "A Meta-Study of Purchase Costs for Zero-Emission Trucks". The International
Council on Clean Transportation. February 17, 2022. Available online: https://theicct.org/wp-
content/uploads/2022/02/purchase-cost-ze-trucks-feb22-1 .pdf.
299 Xie, et. al. "Purchase costs of zero-emission trucks in the United States to meet future Phase 3 GHG standards".
The International Council of Clean Transportation, Working Paper 2023-10 (March 2023). Available online:
https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/cost-zero-emission-trucks-us-phase-3-mar23.pdf.
300 Ricardo. "E-Truck Virtual Teardown Study: Final Report". ICCT. June 11, 2021. Available online:
https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Final-Report-eTruck-Virtual-Teardown-Public-Version.pdf.
301 Interact Analysis. (2022). Electrified Truck and Bus Powertrain Components (Americas & EMEA). A detailed
quantitative and qualitative analysis of trends & challenges for components in electrified vehicles.
302 Roland Berger. "Study summary. Fuel Cells Hydrogen Trucks: Heavy-Duty's High Performance Green
Solution". December 2020. Available online: https://www.rolandberger.com/en/Insights/Publications/Fuel-Cells-
Hydrogen-Trucks.html.
303 Roland Berger. "Study report. Fuel Cells Hydrogen Trucks: Heavy-Duty's High Performance Green Solution".
December 2020. Available online: https://www.clean-hydrogen.europa.eu/system/files/2021-
03/FCH%2520HDT%2520-%2520Study%2520Report_final_vs.pdf.
304 Noll, et. al. "Analyzing the competitiveness of low-carbon drive-technologies in road-freight: A total cost of
ownership analysis in Europe". Applied Energy, Volume 306, PartB. January 15, 2022. Available online:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S03062619210136597via%3Dihub.
305 Hunter, et. al. "Spatial and Temporal Analysis of the Total Cost of Ownership for Class 8 Tractors and Class 4
Parcel Delivery Trucks". NREL. September 2021. Available online: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/Iy21osti/71796.pdf.
306 Burnham, et. al. "Comprehensive Total Cost of Ownership Quantification for Vehicles with Different Size
Classes andPowertrains". ANL. April 2021. Available online:
https://publications.anl.gov/anlpubs/2021/05/167399.pdf.
307 Burke, Andrew and Anish Kumar Sinha. "Technology, Sustainability, and Marketing of Battery Electric and
Hydrogen Fuel Cell Medium-Duty and Heavy-Duty Trucks and Buses in 2020-2040". UC Davis. March 2020.
Available online: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7s25d8bc.
308 In the NPRM, we used the average values from 2030 and then applied our learning rates backwards to get a MY
2027 value. Then we applied an adjustment factor to get from 2019$ to 2021$ and applied the learning curves
shown inDRIA 3.2.1 to calculate MY 2028 to 2032 values.
585
-------
In Xie et. al, ICCT shows a range of costs used to calculate their estimates and lists minimum
and maximum values from the literature. The volumes associated with the costs included in their
assessment are not clear. For example, the high costs that they cite in 2020, which the sources
indicate were identified in consultation with experts, appear to correspond with very low
volumes without any economies of scale; projected costs decline as volume grows but the
associated volumes are not clear. According to Ballard, a fuel cell developer, PEM stack and fuel
cell balance of plant cost reductions of about 60 to 65 percent are possible even at a relatively
small annual production volume of 10,000 trucks per year due to a low dependency on
commodities compared to batteries.309'310
Both the Ricardo study and Burke and Sinha considered an analysis conducted by Strategic
Analysis that was used to develop the DOE Class 8 technical targets for long-haul FCEV
trucks.311'312'313 The Hunter and Burnham analyses were conducted by DOE labs. DOE's work
generally speaks about costs in terms of kWnet, or net system power. (According to James et. al,
they design fuel cells for a net system power.314) DOE's targets estimated the heavy-duty fuel
cell system cost to be $190 per kW in 2019 (2016$) based on a low manufacturing volume of
1000 units per year. DOE assumes 100,000 production units per year for their interim (2030)
Class 8 target of $80 per kW and ultimate target of $60 per kW.315
During the DOE Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technology Office's Annual Merit Review in 2023,
DOE shared durability-adjusted modeled costs for a 275 kWnet fuel cell (2022). At 1,000 units
per year, the cost of $302 per kWnet appears to be higher than the previous estimate of $190/kW,
but it is still in line with future targets when considering volume projections. They noted that the
cost at 50,000 systems per year of $196 per kWnet in 2021 could drop to a new interim target of
$140 per kWnet by 2025 to meet the $80 per kW target for 100,000 units by 2030.316
309 Pocard, Nicolas. "Blog: Fuel Cell Price Drop 70-80% as Production Volume Scales". Ballard. February 11, 2022.
Available online: https://blog.ballard.com/fuel-cell-price-drop.
310 Hydrogen Council. "Path to hydrogen competitiveness: A cost perspective". January 20, 2020. Available online:
https://hydrogencouncil.eom/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Path-to-Hydrogen-Competitiveness_Full-Study-l.pdf.
311 James, et. al. "Mass Production Cost Estimation of Direct H2 PEM Fuel Cell Systems for Transportation
Applications: 2018 Update". Strategic Analysis. December 2018. Available online:
https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/articles/mass-production-cost-estimation-direct-h2-pem-fuel-cell-systems-7.
312 The Ricardo study relied instead on fuel cell costs $1000-1500 per kW from a 2018 Hydrail Feasibility Study to
reflect current market status by 2020. The Hydrail study acknowledged that costs (supplied by Ballard) are likely to
trend downward as the production of PEM fuel cells expands to support transportation.
313 Prepared for Metrolinx. "Regional Express Rail Program, Hydrail Feasibility Study Report". Revision B,
February 2, 2018. Available online: https://assets.metrolinx.com/image/upload/Documents/Metrolinx/CPG-PGM-
RPT-245_HydrailFeasibilityReport_Rl.pdf.
314 Net system power is the gross stack power minus balance of plant losses.
315 Marcinkoski, Jason, et. al. "Hydrogen Class 8 Long Haul Truck Targets". U.S. Department of Energy, Program
Record 19006. October 31, 2019. Available online:
https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/docs/hydrogenprogramlibraries/pdfs/19006_hydrogen_class8_long_haul_truck_ta
rgets.pdf?Status=Master.
316 Papageorgopoulos, Dr. Dimitrios. "Fuel Cell Technologies Overview". U.S. Department of Energy. June 6, 2023.
Available online:
https://www.hydrogen.energy.gOv/docs/hydrogenprogramlibraries/pdfs/review23/fc000_papageorgopoulos_2023_o.
pdf.
586
-------
Due to the wide range of projected costs in the literature, EPA contracted with FEV317 to
independently evaluate direct manufacturing costs of heavy-duty vehicles with alternative
powertrain technologies, and EPA conducted an external peer review of the final FEV report.318
In the report, FEV estimated costs associated with a Class 8 FCEV-dominated long-haul tractor
with graphite fuel cell stacks, which are more durable than stainless steel stacks typically used in
light-duty vehicle applications. FEV leveraged a benchmark study of a commercial vehicle fuel
cell stack from a supplier that serves the Class 8 market. They also built prototype vehicles in-
house and relied on existing expertise to validate their sizing of tanks and stacks.319 When
considering a range of costs based on lower production volumes from the literature, the FEV
2027 costs (in 2022$) came in on the lower end of projections. Table 2 includes FEV cost
estimates for the fuel cell system, based on cost of both the stack and the BOP. They are in terms
of kWgross (or gross system power):
Table 2 FEV Fuel Cell System Costs320
# Units
10,000
5,000
1,000
FC System
$89/kW
$114/kW
$147/kW
For the final rule, as described in RIA Chapter 2.5.2.1, we established MY 2032 fuel cell
system DMCs using cost projections from FEV and ICCT.321 We weighted FEV's work twice as
much as ICCT's because it was primary research and because some of the values in ICCT's
analysis were not transparent. We note that this method of weighting primary research more
heavily than secondary research is generally appropriate for assessing predictive studies of this
nature; indeed, it is consistent with what ICCT itself did. For FEV's work, we selected costs that
align with the HD FCEV production volume that we project in our modeled potential compliance
pathway's technology packages developed for this final rule, which is roughly 10,000 units per
year in MY 2032, for a DMC of $89 per kW. (As noted above, Ballard points out that economies
of scale are possible even at small production volumes of about 10,000 trucks.) For ICCT's
work, we used the 2030 value of $301 per kW for MY 2032, since 2030 was the latest year of
values referenced by ICCT from literature. Our weighted average yielded a MY 2032 fuel cell
system DMC of $160 per kW, shown in Table 3. In order to project DMCs for earlier MYs, we
used our learning rates shown in RIA Chapter 3.2.1. This yielded the MYs 2030 and 2031 DMCs
shown in Table 3.
317 FEV Consulting. "Heavy Duty Commercial Vehicles Class 4 to 8: Technology and Cost Evaluation for
Electrified Powertrains—Final Report". Prepared for EPA. March 2024.
318 FEV Consulting. "Heavy Duty Commercial Vehicles Class 4 to 8: Technology and Cost Evaluation for
Electrified Powertrains—Final Report". Prepared for EPA. March 2024.
319ICF. "Peer Review of HD Vehicles, Industry Characterization, Technology Assessment and Costing Report".
September 15, 2023.
320 Daniels, Jessica and Alex Wang. Memorandum to docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985. FEV Component Cost
Estimates. March 2024.
321 Since the ICCT estimates do not indicate if the costs are in kWgross or in kWnet power, we treated them like the
FEV values, or as if they were kWgross costs. This assumption is conservative because, if the costs are in kWnet,
they would need to be adjusted down before combining them with FEV values.
587
-------
Table 3 Fuel Cell System Direct Manufacturing Costs (2022$)
Year
MY 2030
MY 2031
MY 2032
FC System
$170/kW
$165/kW
$160/kW
See Section 12.3 of the RTC for comments and responses on learning curves.
We agree with DTNA's comment that FCEV component technology is still being adapted for
the HD market, and we recognize their work with DOE through SuperTruck 3322 and the efforts
of DOE's Million Mile Fuel Cell Truck partnership to meet HD FCEV targets,323 as described in
RIA Chapter 1.7.6. In RIA Chapter 1.7.5, we also note that FCEV technology is being developed
and demonstrated now while fuel cell and HD FCEV production is gearing up, and we expect
that this final rule will provide greater certainty to the market to support timely supply of
technologies. Our overall assessment is that early market HD FCEV production volumes to
support the updated FCEV adoption levels in the modeled potential compliance pathway are
possible in the MY 2030 to MY 2032 timeframe.
Onboard Hydrogen Fuel Tank Costs:
In the NPRM, similar to our approach for fuel cell costs, we relied on an average of costs
from an ICCT meta-study that found a wide variation in onboard hydrogen storage tank costs in
the literature (Sharpe and Basma et. al, 2022). And similar to the response to our fuel cell costs,
commenters referred to ICCT's revised meta-study for better estimates.324
As mentioned above, ICCT published a revised meta-study with adjusted estimates based on
average inflation between 2020 and 2022 (Xie et. al, 20 23).325>326 For the onboard hydrogen
storage tank costs, they added one source (Interact Analysis327) to their assessment, and they
weighted primary research (Ricardo and Interact Analysis) three times as high as secondary
research to develop a cost curve. All referenced sources appear to be for usable hydrogen in
Type IV 700 bar gaseous tanks made of carbon fiber.
Table 4 Sources of Information on ICCT's Onboard Hydrogen Storage Tank Technology Costs328
Sharpe & Basma (2022)
Xie et. al (2023)
Ricardo:
$1289/kg (2025); $900/kg (2030)
= Ricardo Strategic Consulting* (2021)
T&E:
$960/kg (2025); $880/kg (2030)
Interact Analysis* (2022)
322 HDT Truckinginfo. "Daimler Working With Oregon State on SuperTruck 3 FCEV Project". January 17, 2023.
Available online: https://www.truckinginfo.eom/10190506/daimler-working-with-oregon-state-on-supertruck-3-
fcev-project.
323 U.S. Department of Energy. MillionMile Fuel Cell Truck. Available online: https://millionmilefuelcelltruck.org/.
324 Xie, et. al. "Purchase costs of zero-emission trucks in the United States to meet future Phase 3 GHG standards".
The International Council of Clean Transportation, Working Paper 2023-10 (March 2023). Available online:
https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/cost-zero-emission-trucks-us-phase-3-mar23.pdf.
325 Xie, et. al. "Purchase costs of zero-emission trucks in the United States to meet future Phase 3 GHG standards".
The International Council of Clean Transportation, Working Paper 2023-10 (March 2023). Available online:
https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/cost-zero-emission-trucks-us-phase-3-mar23.pdf.
326 The paper that commenters cite (Basma et. al, 2023) refers to costs from the Xie et. al paper.
327 We were unable to find this source.
328 For citations, see footnotes for Table 1.
588
-------
NREL:
$533/kg (2025); $480/kg (2030)
= Hunter et. al (2021)
UC Davis:
$375/kg (2025); $250/kg (2030)
= Burke and Sinha (2020)
$660/kg (EPA estimate, 2030)329
$844/kg (ICCT estimate, 2030)
* Considered primary research by ICCT
In Xie et. al, ICCT shows a range of costs used to calculate their estimates and lists minimum
and maximum values from the literature. Like fuel cell costs, onboard gaseous hydrogen tank
costs are dependent on manufacturing volume. The volumes associated with the costs included in
ICCT's assessment are not clear. For example, the Ricardo analysis appears to consider volumes
that range from 1,000 to 30,000 dual tank configuration units per year but the scaling assumed
based on this data is not clear. According to the Hydrogen Council, tanks can achieve costs
reductions of roughly 50 percent with an annual production of about 10,000 FCEVs.330
We contracted FEV331 to independently evaluate onboard hydrogen storage tanks costs for
2027 (2022$) based on manufacturing volume, and EPA conducted an external peer review of
the final FEV report.332 FEV evaluated onboard hydrogen storage tanks costs for 2027 (2022$)
based on manufacturing volume and estimated the following:
Table 5 FEV Costs for Onboard Hydrogen Storage Tanks333
# Units
10,000
5,000
1000
Onboard H2 Tank
$504/kg
$562/kg
$722/kg
These costs account for total hydrogen stored in a tank if only 80 percent of the tank's
hydrogen is useable.334
Using the same approach taken for fuel cell system costs, as described in RIA Chapter 2.5.2.2,
we established MY 2032 onboard storage tank DMCs using cost projections from FEV and
ICCT. We weighted FEV's work twice as much as ICCT's because it was primary research and
because some of the values in ICCT's analysis were not transparent. We note that this method of
weighting primary research more heavily than secondary research is generally appropriate for
assessing predictive studies of this nature; indeed, it is consistent with what ICCT itself did. For
FEV's work, we selected costs for roughly 10,000 units per year in MY 2032, for a DMC of
$504 per kg. For ICCT's work, we used the 2030 value of $844 per kW for MY 2032, since 2030
329 In the NPRM, we used the average values from 2030 and then applied our learning rates backwards to get a MY
2027 value. Then we applied an adjustment factor to get from 2019$ to 2021$ and applied the learning curves
shown inDRIA 3.2.1 to calculate MY 2028 to 2032 values.
330 Hydrogen Council. "Path to hydrogen competitiveness: A cost perspective". January 20, 2020. Available online:
https://hydrogencouncil.eom/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Path-to-Hydrogen-Competitiveness_Full-Study-l.pdf.
331 FEV Consulting. "Heavy Duty Commercial Vehicles Class 4 to 8: Technology and Cost Evaluation for
Electrified Powertrains—Final Report". Prepared for EPA. March 2024.
332 ICF. "Peer Review of HD Vehicles, Industry Characterization, Technology Assessment and Costing Report".
September 15, 2023
333 Daniels, Jessica and Alex Wang. Memorandum to docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985. FEV Component Cost
Estimates. March 2024.
334 HD TRUCS assumes that 95 percent of the hydrogen in a tank can be accessed, or is useable, plus there is a 10
percent buffer added to the tank to avoid complete depletion of hydrogen. We have seen ranges of between 80 and
90 percent in the literature and did not receive comment on this input.
589
-------
was the latest year of values referenced by ICCT from literature. Our weighted average yielded a
MY 2032 fuel cell system DMC of $617 per kW. In order to project DMCs for earlier MYs, we
used our learning rates shown in shown in RIA Chapter 3.2.1. This yielded the MYs 2030 and
2031 DMCs shown in Table 6.
Table 6 Onboard Hydrogen Storage Tank Direct Manufacturing Costs (2022$)
Year
MY 2030
MY 2031
MY 2032
Onboard H2 Tank
$659/kg
$636/kg
$617/kg
See Section 12.3 of the RTC for comments and responses on learning curves.
3.5 Intentionally Left Blank
3.6 Intentionally Left Blank
3.7 Maintenance and Repair
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Advanced Energy United
A large percentage of emissions reductions from the transportation sector will be
accomplished by replacing gas- and diesel-powered buses, trucks and vans with EV models. EVs
are not only much more energy efficient than gas-powered cars but are also less expensive to fuel
and maintain over their lifetimes. Thus, the EPA's proposed rule presents an opportunity to
decarbonize the largest source of emissions in the American economy while scaling up an
emerging domestic market. Electrified transportation reduces our reliance on fossil fuels,
strengthens America's energy independence, and produces economic benefits across the value
chain of the automotive industry. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1652-A2, pp. 1-2]
Organization: American Free Enterprise Chamber of Commerce (AmFree) et al.
First, EPA concludes that electric vehicles come with substantial savings in maintenance and
repair. See Draft RIA at 185. That conclusion is based on a 2022 study finding that the
maintenance and repair costs for battery-electric vehicles will be 29 percent lower than those for
internal-combustion-engine vehicles. Id. (citing Guihua Wang et al., Estimating Maintenance and
Repair Costs for Battery Electric and Fuel Cell Heavy Duty Trucks, Univ. of Cal., Davis, at 10
(Feb. 2022)). But the authors of that study emphasize the uncertainty underlying that finding: To
sum up, currently there are very limited data on [maintenance and repair] costs for battery
electric and fuel cell trucks. Even for the transit bus segment which has the most experience in
advanced HD technology applications, there is no consensus on the maintenance cost
comparison among diesel, battery, and fuel cell buses. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1660-A1, p.
27]
Wang et al., Estimating Maintenance and Repair Costs at 10 (emphases added). Although the
study notes a consensus in existing research that maintenance and repair costs for electric
590
-------
vehicles, in the future, will be smaller than for conventional vehicles generally, see id., the
degree of difference is critical to EPA's estimate of future sales: If the maintenance and repair
costs for electric and conventional vehicles are not as far apart as EPA assumes, the payback
period could be longer—and, in turn, the adoption rates of electric vehicles could be much lower.
According to EPA's own analysis, the adoption rate could drop by 10 percent if the payback
period is off by even one month. See Draft RIA at 232-33. The existing data, however, are
inadequate to make reliable calculations of the degree of difference. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1660-A1, p. 28]
Second, EPA estimates operational savings without considering "midlife overhaul costs,"
which include "the cost resulting from an engine rebuild for a conventional diesel vehicle, a
battery replacement for a battery electric vehicle, or a fuel cell stack refurbishment for a
hydrogen fuel cell vehicle." Wang et al., Estimating Maintenance and Repair Costs at 10-11.
EPA disregarded these costs on the ground that its "payback analysis typically covers a shorter
period of time than the expected life of these components." Draft RIA at 185. That reasoning is
illogical. Assuming (as EPA does) that net costs drive purchasing decisions, commercial-fleet
owners are unlikely to buy an electric model if they anticipate that such vehicles will require
costly midlife repairs that would erase any initial savings. Some evidence suggests that this will
occur. For example, one report (performed by the California Air Resources Board) cited in the
Wang study noted above posits that electric trucks will require battery replacement every
300,000 to 500,000 miles—much sooner than a comparable conventional vehicle is likely to
require an engine rebuild. See Draft Advanced Clean Fleets Total Cost of Ownership Discussion
Document, Cal. Air Res. Bd., at 26 (Sept. 9, 2021) (indicating that a Class 8 heavy-duty diesel
truck is likely to require an engine rebuild after 800,000 miles). The cost of major midlife repairs
for electric vehicles also may be substantially greater. Compare, e.g., Certified Diesel Sols.,
When to Overhaul a Diesel Engine, https://tinyurl.com/2dch6xv3 (estimating cost of a diesel-
engine rebuild between $20,000 and $40,000), with EPA, Heavy- Duty Technology Resources
Use Case Scenario, at 2_BEV Tech (Apr. 10, 2023), https://www.epa.gov/system/files/other-
files/2023-04/hd-tech-trucs-tool-2023-04.xlsm (Columns AJ & AK) (EPA's modeling suggesting
that the cost of manufacturing batteries may be several multiples higher). The Senior Vice
President of the American Transportation Research Institute cautions that heavy duty-vehicle
operators are "going to be switching out the batteries on a Class 8 truck every four to seven
years" and "pay between $85,000 and $120,000 for a replacement set." Cristina Commendatore,
Report Pinpoints Top Challenges for Widespread Battery-Electric Vehicle Adoption, FleetOwner
(Dec. 7, 2022), https://tinyurl.com/243euzxr. Thus, owners of electric heavy-duty vehicles could
find themselves saddled with new and substantial midlife overhaul costs that cut into their
operational savings. EPA should assess—not ignore—this issue before calculating the payback
period. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1660-A1, pp. 28 - 29]
Fourth, EPA explains that the operating costs for a battery-electric vehicle include
"insurance" and "labor." Draft RIA at 182. Nevertheless, the agency does not evaluate either of
these costs because it assumes that they will not "differ significantly" for owners of electric and
internal-combustion-engine vehicles. Id. Available evidence suggests otherwise. According to a
recent study, fleets considering electric-vehicles "are facing higher insurance costs," which "may
be due to new and unfamiliar technology, overall higher purchase costs, and higher costs of
repair after accidents." Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicle Electrification at 10. And although the
labor costs associated with electric and internal- combustion-engine vehicles may eventually
591
-------
even out, owners will incur additional costs when they first begin incorporating electric vehicles
into their fleets. Managers and maintenance staff will need to be retrained in the new technology
or replaced by workers who are already up to speed. Id. at 11. These costs should likewise be
factored into the agency's calculation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1660-A1, pp. 29 - 30]
Second, EPA concluded that the costs of the proposed rule would be offset by $250 billion in
"operational savings" that heavy-duty operators would experience by shifting to electric vehicles.
88 Fed. Reg. at 26,082. This conclusion is doubly erroneous. As an initial matter, as explained
above, the bulk of these purported savings come from $200 billion saved in repair-and-
maintenance costs—an enormous sum that EPA bases on a single study that itself undercuts
EPA's calculation. And the remainder of the operational savings that EPA estimates, including
from pre-tax fuel savings and diesel exhaust fluid savings, are also unreliable for the reasons
already stated. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1660-A1, p. 64]
More broadly, EPA's conclusion that these operational savings exist defies common sense. As
EPA acknowledges, if abandoning internal-combustion-engine vehicles in favor of electric
vehicles could actually be expected to result in huge operational savings, rational users of heavy-
duty vehicles would likely already be switching. See 88 Fed. Reg. at 26,071; Draft RIA at 417
(noting that a "normally functioning competitive market" would "lead buyers to purchase
[electric vehicles] willingly"). The fact that they are not doing so is a strong indication that
EPA's asserted operational savings do not in reality outweigh the costs of switching to electric
vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1660-A1, p. 64]
Organization: American Highway Users Alliance
Repair and servicing of the EV was reported as costly because 'danger' in servicing the EV
requires two technicians rather than one. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1550-A1, p. 7]
Organization: American Trucking Associations (ATA)
Fleet maintenance of a ZEV needs to be better understood than it is currently. As a non-
capital expense, estimating any expected savings over its lifespan is especially difficult. The
previously mentioned fleet manager said their fleet relies on the OEM to repair their ZEVs but
anticipates transitioning to in-house maintenance after the warranty expires. This fleet manager
was not alone in his approach. All the fleets that we surveyed that had ZEVs in their fleets are
currently contracting out the maintenance for the vehicles. Fleet operators need to gain
knowledge on accurately calculating and assessing repair turnaround times, workforce training
requirements, and occupational risks of maintaining and servicing high-voltage batteries (ranging
from 600 to 800 volts) but see a benefit to doing the work in-house rather than sending the
vehicle away. The same fleet manager highlighted that for the TCO to be justifiable, the
acquisition costs of their box trucks would need to decrease by $100,000. Maintenance costs are
unknown once battery warranties expire. Fleets told us these costs can have outsized impacts on
their TCO. For example, a large national carrier cautioned that one outside-of-warranty battery
repair or replacement job of $30,000 to $100,000 could be detrimental to an entire TCO
structure. The calculation on BEV maintenance costs, they say, should only be assumed at a
certain percentage if real-world average savings over the life of a vehicle can be proven. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1535-A1, p. 11]
592
-------
Technicians' new skills to service
As EPA has noted, performing standard maintenance on BEVs leads to new or increased risk
compared to ICE vehicles and requires corresponding safety training due to the following:29
• the presence of high voltage components and cabling capable of delivering a fatal electric
shock;
• the storage of electrical energy with the potential to cause explosion or fire;
• components that may retain a dangerous voltage even when a vehicle is switched off;
• electric motors or the vehicle itself that may move unexpectedly due to magnetic forces
within the motors;
• manual handling risks associated with battery replacement;
• the potential for the release of explosive gases and harmful liquids if batteries are
damaged or incorrectly modified;
• the possibility of people being unaware of vehicles being in motion because when they
are electrically driven, they are silent in operation; and the potential for the electrical
systems on the vehicle to affect medical devices such as pacemakers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1535-A1, p. 20]
29 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Heavy-Duty
Vehicles: Phase 3: Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis, pgs. 38-39, EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985, April 27,
2023.
EPA further notes that hydrogen-related fuel cell vehicles carry additional risks that can be
mitigated through:30
• proper no/low leak designs for infrastructure, hydrogen fill equipment, vehicle
connectors, and vehicle storage and supply;
• ambient hydrogen concentration monitoring and alarm;
• hydrogen pressure monitoring in the vehicle and infrastructure to indicate leaks;
• proper ventilation in and around hydrogen fueling equipment and fuel cell vehicles;
• vehicle controls to ensure the vehicle cannot be driven while fueling equipment is
attached; and
• vehicle controls that isolate hydrogen storage in the case of an accident. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1535-A1, p. 20-21]
30 Ibid, pg. 76
Fleets will need to expand existing technician safety training and education to manage these
potential risks. Maintenance facilities upgrades will also be needed to accommodate BEV and
FCEV vehicles. For example, because hydrogen is lighter than air, shop ventilation and
monitoring will be needed for fleets servicing FCEVs. For BEVs, isolating high-voltage service
bays has been mentioned as a potential maintenance strategy. Fleets are in the initial stages of
understanding how to adapt existing maintenance shops to accommodate BEVs and/or FCEVs.
As many fleets conduct in-house maintenance on their vehicles, EPA should further investigate
the proposed rule's impact on maintenance practices and facilities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1535-A1, p. 21]
593
-------
Organization: Arizona State Legislature
EPA believes 'lower maintenance and repair costs for [zero-emission vehicle] technologies as
compared to [internal combustion engine] technologies, etc.' help justify the rule. 88 Fed. Reg.
25926, 25936 (Apr. 27, 2023). EPA acknowledges that '[d]ata on real-world [maintenance and
repair] costs for [heavy-duty zero-emission vehicles] is limited due to limited [heavy-duty zero-
emission vehicle] technology adoption today.' Id. at 25986. EPA speculates that fewer moving
parts, not requiring fluids or exhaust filters, and regenerative braking systems will lead to lower
maintenance and repair costs. Id. at 25986-987. Based on this speculation, EPA calculates the
proposed rule will save a staggering $24 billion in repair and maintenance costs. Id. at 26,082.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1621-A1, p. 23]
EPA's assumptions are not supported by actual data. An analysis of the service and repair
visits for about 19 million vehicles between the 2016 and 2021 model years found that electric
vehicles cost more to repair than gas-powered vehicles.24 The study found that electric vehicles
were 2.3 times more expensive than gas-powered vehicles to service in the first three months of
ownership, and 1.6 times more expensive at the twelve-month mark.25 The study blamed the
increased time that technicians spent as well as the fewer number of technicians that could work
on electric vehicles charging a higher hourly rate.26 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1621-A1, p. 23]
24 Sean Tucker, Study: EVs Cost More to Repair, Less to Maintain, KELLEY BLUE BOOK, Aug. 17,
2021, available at https://www.kbb.com/car-news/study-evs-cost-more-to-repair-less-to-maintain/.
25 Id.
26 Id.
Organization: BorgWarner Inc.
We propose that EPA revisit how the lack of qualified technicians could impact the total cost
of ownership for BEVs, and the maintenance and service needed to ensure reliable, consistent
charging station operability as this could significantly impact HD fleet owners purchasing
decisions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1578-A1, p. 7]
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
5. Maintenance and Repair Operating Costs
Affected pages: 25986-25987
CARB staff concurs with U.S. EPA's methodology regarding maintenance and repair costs.
Many recent announcements by manufacturers indicate that key components of BEVs and
FCEVs, including batteries, will be able to last for ten years or longer.218,219 This supports
U.S. EPA's assumptions that no midlife battery replacement or fuel cell refurbishment is
necessary for a 10-year analysis. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1591-A1, p.64]
218 IAA Transportation 2022: Daimler Truck unveils battery-electric eActros LongHaul truck and expands
e-mobility portfolio, September 18, 2022.
https://media.daimlertruck.com/marsMediaSite/en/instance/ko/IAA-Transportation-1182022-Daimler-
Truck-unveils-battery-electric-eActros-LongHaul-truck-and-expands-e-
mobilityportfolio.xhtml?oid=52032525
594
-------
219 Scania andNorthvolt's new EV battery can power a truck for 1.5Mkm, April 21, 2023.
https://electrek.co/2023/04/21/scania-northvolt-new-ev-battery-truck/
Organization: Clean Fuels Development Coalition et al.
E. The proposal overestimates maintenance savings.
Without any justification, EPA assumes that "the maintenance and repair savings are
substantial due again to electrification of the HD fleet, with HD BEVs and FCEVs projected to
require 71 percent and 75 percent, respectively, of the maintenance and repair costs required of
HD vehicles equipped with internal combustion engines." 88 Fed. Reg. 26,080. The evidence
points to the opposite conclusion: that Heavy Duty EVs are more costly to maintain than
conventional alternatives. In testimony before the EPA, a representative from American Truck
Dealers explained that owing to the immense danger of working on heavy-duty electric vehicles,
a second repair technician is required to supervise work and to be at the ready to rescue—
literally with a hook—the first technician if something goes wrong. See The American Truck
Dealers Division, Dkt. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1445 (May 3, 2023). [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1585-A1, p. 35]
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America LLC (DTNA)
EPA Request for Comment, Request #20: We request comment on our approach, including
other data we should consider in our assessment of energy consumption.
• DTNA Response: EPA should consider all available data including that which can be
provided by manufacturers in confidential settings; however, given that the HD ZEV
market is currently in a nascent state, any data available today is necessarily limited. EPA
should thus re-evaluate its assumptions on this issue on a regular basis, using the best
available data. See Section II.C.2 of DTNA's comments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1555-A1, p. 161]
EPA Request for Comment, Request #43: We followed this approach and applied a
maintenance and repair cost scaling factor of 0.71 for BEVs and 0.75 for FCEVs to the
maintenance and repair costs of diesel-fueled ICE vehicles. The scaling factors are based on an
analysis from Wang et al. that estimates a future BEV heavy-duty truck would have a 29 percent
reduction, and a future FCEV heavy-duty vehicle would have a 25 percent reduction, compared
to a diesel-powered heavy-duty vehicle.488,489 We welcome comment on our approach and
these projections.
• DTNA Response: See DTNA Response to Request # 20, above. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1555-A1, p. 165]
Organization: Lion Electric, Co. USA
The absence of complex engine components, such as pistons, valves, and camshafts in a Lion
vehicle reduces the likelihood of mechanical failures and may result in extended vehicle lifespan.
This inherent simplicity can contribute to longer service life, reduced maintenance costs and
fewer scheduled service visits compared to vehicles with internal combustion engines
(ICEs). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1506-A1, p. 2]
595
-------
Lion's customers and partners say the savings between electric vehicles and diesel-powered
ones is very clear: 80% in energy cost reduction and 60% maintenance cost decrease when
organizations transition to all-electric MHDVs. (Source: Lion fact sheet). In fact, a school district
operating an electric school bus can expect to see over $100,000 in lifetime fuel and maintenance
savings, compared to an equivalent diesel bus. All About Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) for
Electric School Buses | Electric School Bus Initiative [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1506-A1, p.
2]
Organization: National Association of Chemical Distributors (NACD)
The largest savings calculated by the EPA are reductions in maintenance costs. Again, current
demand for reduced emissions vehicle maintenance (particularly for trucks) is nearly non-
existent, and the EPA uses data from 2019, when even less information was available on the
repair costs for low emissions vehicles. One thing is for certain, if trucking firms were forced to
quickly move toward these technologies, there would not be a sufficient supply of mechanics or
vehicle parts to maintain all of these vehicles, even if they required less service than diesel
powered trucks. This would certainly increase the cost of maintenance.6 The EPA relies on a
single source for its estimate that the cost of maintenance for the required vehicles would be 71
percent of that of diesel trucks. 7 Even this source provides a very large range for differential
costs, with some estimates being as low as a 10 percent difference (not the 29 percent difference
used in the RIA). Assuming that the cost differential for maintenance and repair is at this lower
end would lead to a savings of $13,944 billion, or $1,066 per truck. This would amount to a
savings of $1.2 billion for the chemical distribution industry. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1564-
A2, pp. 2 - 3]
6 In addition, according to the RIA: Data on real-world maintenance and repair costs for heavy-duty BEVs
is limited due to limited heavy-duty BEV technology adoption today. We expect the overall maintenance
costs to be lower for heavy-duty BEVs than a comparable ICE vehicle for several reasons. First, an electric
powertrain has fewer moving parts that accrue wear or need regular adjustments. Second, BEVs do not
require fluids such as engine oil or DEF, nor do they require exhaust filters to reduce particulate matter or
other pollutants. Third, the per-mile rate of brake wear is expected to be lower for BEVs due to
regenerative braking systems. Several literature sources propose applying a scaling factor to diesel vehicle
maintenance costs to estimate BEV maintenance costs. We followed this approach and applied a repair cost
scaling factor of 0.71 to the maintenance and repair costs for diesel-fueled ICE vehicles that are shown in
Table 2-29. The 0.71 scaling factor is based on an analysis from Wang et al. 2022, that estimates a future
BEV HD vehicle would have a 29 percent reduction compared to a diesel-powered HD vehicle. In our
payback analysis in HD TRUCS, we did not account for potential diesel engine rebuild costs for ICE
vehicles, potential replacement battery costs for BEVs, or potential replacement fuel cell stack costs for
FCEVs because our payback analysis typically covers a shorter period of time than the expected life of
these components. Typical battery warranties being offered by HD BEV manufacturers range between 8
and 15 years today.97 A BEV battery replacement may be practically necessary over the life of a vehicle if
the battery deteriorates to a point where the vehicle range no longer meets the vehicle's operational needs.
7 The citation in the RIA refers back to a broken link. The paper is Wang, G. et. al., White Paper: The
Current and Future Performance and Costs of Battery Electric Trucks: A Review of Key Studies and a
Detailed Comparison of their Cost Modeling Scope and Coverage, National Center for Sustainable
Transportation, June 7, 2022. It is a white paper, not a study published in any sort of journal, meaning that
it has not been peer reviewed. The research was funded by the Federal Government.
Moreover, forcing more zero emission vehicles (ZEVs) on the road, as this proposal aims to
do, may create backlogs in maintenance for these vehicles. As the National Automobile Dealers
Association noted in their testimony before the EPA, ZEVs require more specialized labor that is
596
-------
less available for their maintenance compared to traditional diesel trucks.3 This adds additional
strain on the limited technicians available to service heavy-duty trucks and will create backlogs
in necessary services, again removing trucking capacity from the supply chain. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1564-A1, p. 3]
3 National Automobile Dealers Association, "Comment submitted by National Automobile Dealers
Association, American Truck Dealers Division," nada.org, NAD A,
https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1445
Organization: National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA)
I. ATD dealers support continuous improvements in environmental and fuel economy
performance of the fleet.
Without a doubt, alternative-fueled HDV sales have grown and will continue to grow. And
America's car and truck dealers are doing their part to embrace this technological revolution and
facilitate the introduction of alternative vehicles into the fleet. As evidenced by activities at the
2022 and 2023 NAD A/ATD Shows4, and by its work with the U.S. Departments of
Transportation and Energy on the deployment of critical public charging facilities, ATD is
committed to supporting alternative-fueled vehicles. To this end, NAD A/ATD estimates that
franchised dealerships are on track to spend billions in EV infrastructure.5 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985, p 1-2]
4 See Appendix A: "Everything Electric" at NAD A/ATD Show 2022-2023.
5 This projection is based on available data from a selection of vehicle manufacturer brands and
dealerships. This number reflects data from franchised dealerships that sell new light-, medium-, and/or
heavy-duty vehicles.
Dealership investments necessary to sell and service ZEV HDVs vary widely with cost
estimates costs ranging from $100,000 to over $1 million per store. These estimates do not
necessarily include all the specialized equipment purchases needed to service ZEVs or the
additional costs from local utilities for extending new power lines or adding transformers. In
many cases, installing electric chargers requires a more comprehensive electric system, including
new transformers and power lines. Installations of this magnitude can involve major
construction, which is accompanied by permits, supply chain delays, and environmental safety
requirements, all barriers that HDV dealers are working to overcome. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985, p 2]
As the frontline of customer education, HDV dealers are investing in staff training across
departments so that prospective ZEV purchasers receive the most accurate, current, and complete
information about ZEVs. Some dealers are taking that work to the next step with dedicated ZEV
education programs. This includes bringing ZEV HDVs to local auto shows and customer events
and even educating first responders on proper battery safety when responding to crashes
involving ZEVs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985, p 2]
These investments echo ATD's long-standing support of continuous emission improvements
for HDVs. At the same time, ATD has suggested consistently that new emissions mandates must
not compromise the affordability, reliability, fuel economy, and/or serviceability of HDVs. This
position reflects the fact that prospective customers will avoid purchasing or leasing new HDVs
597
-------
that cost too much, offer performance compromises, or pose risks of unacceptable downtime.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985, p 2]
This rulemaking occurs at a time when HDV dealerships and their customers are just
beginning to evaluate alternative HDV technology options and to understand the infrastructure
that is necessary to support those options. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985, p 2]
Organization: Tesla, Inc. (Tesla)
Still other recent assessments of the total cost of ownership indicate that EPA stands on firm
ground to strengthen the stringency in the rule. Indeed, some OEMs predict BEV cost parity in
2025 well ahead of the proposed rule's 2027 implementation date. Further numerous studies
have found that heavy-duty BEVs outperform conventional trucks on a total cost of ownership
basis. 155 Tesla projects that its Semi will have energy costs that are half those of diesel, provide
over $200,000 in fuel savings, and have a two-year payback period. 156 Another manufacturer
has found that BEVs could save fleets up to 80% on energy costs and 60% on repair. 157 Yet
another found that the benefits of electrifying heavy-duty truck fleets are significant with recent
studies showing that operating costs for electric trucks can be between 14 and 52 percent lower
and repair costs around 40 percent lower than their combustion-powered counterparts. 158 CARB
has found that battery-electric vehicles appear cost competitive with the established combustion
technologies by 2025 in many use cases. 159 Real world demonstrations have also proven this
out. 160 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1505-A1, p. 21]
155 See e.g., UC Berkley, 2035 Report: Transportation: Plummeting Costs and Dramatic Improvements in
Batteries Can Accelerate Our Clean Transportation Future (April 2021) at 15 available at
https://www.2035report.com/transportation/transportation-
new/wpcontent/uploads/2020/05/2035_Transportation_Report.pdf?hsCtaTracking=544e8e73-752a-40ee-
b3a5-90e28d5f2el8%7C81c0077a-d01d-45b9-a338-fcaef78a20e7 (finding BEV heavy-duty trucks already
hold a TCO advantage today and, for heavy-duty trucks, an EV advantage of $0.05/mi in 2020 that
increases to $0.22/mi in 2030—magnified by the large number of miles traveled by this class of vehicles. In
absolute terms, in 2020 this translates to a $42,800 TCO advantage of electric heavy-duty trucks, which
increases to $200,000 in 2030. The TCO advantage of EVs continues to grow through 2050).
156 See Tesla, Semi available at https://www.tesla.com/semi
157 Utility Dive, Lion Electric: EVs save transport firms 80% on energy, 60% on repair costs compared to
diesel (Mar. 17, 2021) available at https://www.utilitydive.com/news/Lion-Electric-trucking-total-cost-of-
ownershipdiesel/59683 5/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Issue :%202021-03-
17%20Utility%20Dive%20Newsletter%20%5Bissue:33047%5D&utm_term=Utility%20Dive
158 Argonne National Lab, Comprehensive Total Cost of Ownership Quantification for Vehicles with
Different Size Classes and Powertrains (April 2021) available at
https://publications.anl.gov/anlpubs/2021/05/167399.pdf
159 CARB, Draft Advanced Clean Fleets Total Cost of Ownership Discussion Document (Sept 9, 2021)
available at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021-08/210909costdoc_ADA.pdf See also,
Transport & Environment, Why the future of long-haul trucking is battery electric (Feb. 18, 2022) available
at
https://www.transportenvironment.org/wpcontent/uploads/2022/02/2022_02_battery_electric_trucks_HDV
_factsheet.pdf
160 North American Council for Freight Efficiency, Electric Trucks Have Arrived: Documenting A Real-
World Electric Trucking Demonstration (Feb. 2, 2022) available at https://nacfe.org/wp-
content/uploads/edd/2022/01/RoL-Report-Executive-Summary-FINAL.pdf
598
-------
Organization: Valero Energy Corporation
EPA also does not acknowledge the ICCT's disclaimer that "very little information is
available on the maintenance cost disparity between electric and conventional Class 2b and
3 vehicles."23 Further, per the ICCT, [i]In the United States, there is "little real-world evidence"
to confirm the disparity in maintenance costs when comparing HD ZEVs relative to their diesel
counterparts "24 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, pp. 5 - 6]
23 Mulholland, Eamonn. "Cost of electric commercial vans and pickup trucks in the United States through
2040." January 2022. https://theicct.org/publication/cost-ev-vans-pickups-us-2040-jan22/.
24 Mulholland, Eamonn. "Cost of electric commercial vans and pickup trucks in the United States through
2040." January 2022. https://theicct.org/publication/cost-ev-vans-pickups-us-2040-jan22/.
Organization: Zero Emission Transportation Association (ZETA)
i. Fuel and maintenance costs
EVs have fewer moving parts than their ICE counterparts, which makes them simpler to
maintain and reduces the probability of a major malfunction. Reduced maintenance saves both
time and money, particularly for fleet managers operating on tight margins. School districts, in
particular, tend to lack the economic and labor resources to make repairs to their existing
vehicles, thus making EVs a more attractive alternative. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1,
p. 12]
A Class 8 electric truck costs 4.7 cents less per mile to maintain compared to its diesel
counterpart and these maintenance savings alone can equate to thousands of dollars over the
vehicle's lifetime.48 The EIA expects a 55% growth in total MHDV VMT between 2019 and
2050, largely driven by the rise of e-commerce.49 Due to HDVs' higher VMT and lower fuel
economy, they stand to see significant cost savings from increased efficiency and lower dollar-
per-mile costs with electrification. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 12]
48 "Calculating TCO for EVs: Where to Find the Greatest Long-Term Cost Savings for Medium- and
Heavy-Duty Vehicles." Advanced Clean Tech News. (August 26, 2020) www.act-
news.com/news/calculating-tco-for-medium-and-heavy-duty-evs/
49 "Annual Energy Outlook 2019," U.S. EIA, (2019) https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/
EPA Summary and Response:
Summary:
EPA indicated at proposal that HD ZEVs would experience significant maintenance and
repair savings relative to their ICE counterparts. This finding was based on the simpler design of
ZEVs, notably absence of pistons and valves, and fewer moving parts in general. 88 FR 25986-
87. Multiple commenters, such as Lion Electric, a producer of HD BEVs, Advanced Energy
United, CARB, EDF (located in Section 2), MFN (located in Sections 2 and 23 of the RTC),
RMI (located in Section 3.11 of the RTC), Tesla (citing sources in addition to those cited by
EPA), and ZETA agreed that BEVs or ZEVs would have lower maintenance and repair costs.
Other commenters questioned EPA's finding, however. These commenters include the
American Free Enterprise Chamber of Commerce (AmFree), Arizona State Legislature, Clean
599
-------
Fuels Development Coalition, National Association of Chemical Distributors, and Valero. Both
American Highway Users and Clean Fuels Development Coalition indicated that it would take
two technicians rather than one to service an HD BEV. ATA and NADA said that mechanics
will require safety training for ZEV maintenance and repair. Arizona State Legislature (located
in Section 5 of the RTC) said that EPA did not estimate the cost or timetable for safety training.
NACD noted that even finding a sufficient number of qualified technicians would be an issue,
and Borg Warner commented that EPA should look at how the lack of qualified BEV technicians
could impact TCO. Other commenters, such as ATA (see also Section 19 of the RTC), NADA
(see also Sections 6 and 19 of the RTC), and TRALA (located in Section 19 of the RTC) said
that maintenance facility upgrades will be needed in order to service ZEVs.
More basically, several of these commenters challenged the empirical basis for EPA's
estimates. In HD TRUCS, ZEV maintenance and repair costs are estimated by first calculating
the baseline diesel maintenance and repair costs which are based on equations in the BEAN
model which are based on work by Burnham, et al.335, and then by applying BEV and FCEV
scaling factors based on Wang, et al.336 The Arizona State Legislature noted that EPA was
relying on a single source, which itself quoted a large range of potential values. Arizona
Legislature noted a multi-year study of light duty electric motor vehicles which showed repair
costs averaging 2.3 times that of ICE vehicles due to the longer diagnosis time and lack of
qualified technicians. AmFree noted that the paper that EPA used to support the scaling factors
for ZEVs (Wang et al., Estimating Maintenance and Repair Costs for Battery Electric and Fuel
Cell Heavy Duty Trucks, University of California, Davis, 202) mentions limited data and
uncertainty about maintenance cost comparisons. AmFree also notes that the degree of difference
between diesel and BEV/FCEV maintenance and repair costs are critical to EPA's estimates of
future sales. Other commenters, such as ATA and Valero mentioned concern about general
levels of uncertainty.
Several commenters suggested that ZEV insurance rates would be higher due to higher costs
for repairs due to workforce development and other factors. These comments are addressed in
Chapter 3.8.2 of the RTC.
Several commenters also expressed concern about battery replacement costs or "midlife
overhaul costs." These comments are addressed in Section 3.8.3 of the RTC.
DTNA commented that EPA should consider all available data including that which can be
provided by manufacturers in confidential settings, and asserted that, given data available today
is limited, EPA should re-evaluate its assumptions on this issue on a regular basis, using the best
available data.
335 Burnham, Andrew, David Go hike, Luke Rush, Thomas Stephens, Yan Zhou, Mark A. Delucchi, Alicia Birky,
Chad Hunter, Zhenhong Lin, Shiqi Ou, Fei Xie, Camron Proctor, Steven Wiryadinata, Nawei Liu, and Madhur
Boloor. "Comprehensive Total Cost of Ownership Quantification for Vehicles with Different Size Classes and
Powertrains". April 2021. Accessible online: https://publications.anl.gov/anlpubs/2021/05/167399.pdf
336See Table 6 on page 17. Wang, et al." Estimating Maintenance and Repair Costs for Battery Electric and Fuel Cell
Heavy Duty Trucks." February 2022. Available at:
https://escholarship.org/content/qt36c08395/qt36c08395_noSplash_589098e470b036b3010eae00f3b7b618.pdf?t=r6
zwjb.
600
-------
Response:
Commenters did not dispute the fact that ZEV vehicles have fewer moving parts, which is
typically indicative of fewer serviceable parts and fewer potential failures. Multiple cost
assessment papers and the California Advanced Clean Fleets Regulation, Appendix G: Total
Cost of Ownership,337 use cost reduction factors for ZEV maintenance compared to internal
combustion engine maintenance, and multiple commenters agreed with the assessment that ZEV
maintenance and repair costs will be less expensive than those for internal combustion engines.
However, EPA agrees with commenters that there is some uncertainty in predicting cost
reductions for maintenance and repair of ZEV heavy-duty vehicles before they are produced and
operated at scale, since the available information about the costs for maintaining and repairing
heavy-duty ZEV vehicles generally comes from pilot programs. A further uncertainty involves a
potential need to retrain technicians to work on ZEVs. To address this concern EPA has phased
in the ZEV cost reduction factors as discussed below.
The NPRM version of HD TRUCS calculated BEV maintenance and repair by applying a
constant scaling factor of 71% to diesel vehicle maintenance and repair estimates for 2027 and
beyond and calculated FCEV maintenance and repair by applying a constant scaling factor of
75% to diesel vehicle maintenance and repair estimates for 2030 and beyond. However, EPA
agrees with some of the commenters that there may be a transition period during which costs for
maintaining and repairing ZEVs will not yet be at their full savings potential due to the need to
train more of the workforce specifically for ZEV maintenance and repair. To account for this
period, EPA has phased in the ZEV scaling factors for maintenance and repair. As NACD
pointed out, the Wang, et al.,338 paper includes a range of cost reductions, for current and future
battery electric and fuel cell trucks; therefore, for the version of HD TRUCS used for the final
rule, instead of applying a single scaling factor for every year commencing in 2027 (for BEVs)
or 2030 (for FCEVs) as at proposal, EPA is starting with a higher scaling factor and gradually
decreasing it (i.e. gradually increasing the projected cost savings) over a 5-year period. The
initial higher scaling factor comes from Wang et al. and reflects estimates for 2022. (See RIA
Chapter 2.4.4.1 for more details on the phase-ins of the scaling factors for BEV and FCEV
vehicles). EPA's approach of applying this factor commencing in 2027 or 2030 is consequently
conservative given that technicians in those later years will be more experienced than they were
in 2022.
The criticism that EPA used a single source to derive the scaling factors does not paint a full
picture of EPA's selection of these values. EPA examined multiple papers with proposed scaling
factors, see DRIA at 265 and sources cited in notes 93, 94 and 95, and selected the values in the
Wang et al. paper because its methodology was supported by a ground up assessment of the
337 See page G-20. California Advanced Clean Fleets Regulation, Appendix G: Total Cost of Ownership. Available
at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2022/acf22/appg.pdf.
338 See Table 6 on page 17. Wang, et al." Estimating Maintenance and Repair Costs for Battery Electric and Fuel
Cell Heavy Duty Trucks." February 2022. Available at:
https://escholarship.org/content/qt36c08395/qt36c08395_noSplash_589098e470b036b3010eae00f3b7b618.pdf?t=r6
zwjb.
601
-------
differences in BEV, FCEV and diesel components, and the cost reduction (scaling factor) values
in the paper fell within the range of other suggested scaling factor values in the literature.339
Regarding the maintenance and repair cost savings estimates themselves (as opposed to costs
relating to service technicians), as noted in the comment summary above, the diesel M&R costs
in HD TRUCS were developed from two equations in the BEAN model that were based on
curves in the Burnham, et.al.340 paper: one equation for semi-tractors, which EPA used for long
haul tractors, and another equation based on box trucks, which EPA used for all vocational
vehicles and for short-haul tractors. The box truck equation has a higher slope and intercept than
the semi-tractor which means that the HD TRUCS vocational vehicle and short haul tractor
diesel maintenance costs per mile (and therefore also the ZEV M&R savings per mile) were
much higher than the long-haul tractors M&R costs (and savings) per mile.
Even though EPA did not receive any comments that specifically challenged the underlying
diesel M&R estimates, EPA chose to take a conservative approach for the final HD TRUCS
M&R savings calculations by using the semi-tractor equation for calculating diesel maintenance
and repair costs per mile for all vehicles. This change reduced the overall maintenance cost
estimates for diesel vehicles, which in turn reduces the overall savings from ZEV M&R, since
the savings values are estimated as a cost reduction from the diesel maintenance and repair
values. Lowering the diesel maintenance and repair costs, along with phasing in the ZEV scaling
factors, together resulted in a substantial reduction in ZEV maintenance and repair savings
estimates between the NPRM and the final rule. As such, this change further addresses the
uncertainties associated with future ZEV maintenance and repair costs.
The article cited by the Arizona State Legislature from Kelly Blue Book341 refers to an
analysis of light-duty, not heavy-duty, vehicles.342 While this article says that a predictive
analytics firm, We Predict, found that EVs "cost more to repair than their gasoline engine
counterparts," that article also states that that "EVs cost less in maintenance because they have
fewer regular maintenance procedures." The reason it finds that EVs are more expensive is
because technicians are spending more time working on EVs than they are on gasoline cars, and
that those technicians cost more per hour. As noted earlier in this response above, EPA
understands that costs for servicing ZEVs may be more expensive in the very near term than they
will be once technicians are retrained and have gained some experience; EPA expects the service
technician workforce to transition to a workforce that has the skills and experience needed to
339 NACD stated, mistakenly, that EPA's citation to Wang et al. in the DRIA (at 265 n. 96 and at 269 n. 139) refers
back to a broken link. NACD refers to this paper as "Wang, G. et. al., White Paper: The Current and Future
Performance and Costs of Battery Electric Trucks: A Review of Key Studies and a Detailed Comparison of their
Cost Modeling Scope and Coverage, National Center for Sustainable Transportation, June 7, 2022." In fact, EPA
cited (and utilized) Wang et al. "Estimating Maintenance and Repair Costs for Battery Electric and Fuel Cell Heavy
Duty Trucks (2022). The links in the DRIA are functioning. See docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-0681.
340 See page 91. Burnham, Andrew, David Gohlke, Luke Rush, Thomas Stephens, YanZhou, Mark A. Delucchi,
Alicia Birky, Chad Hunter, Zhenhong Lin, Shiqi Ou, Fei Xie, Camron Proctor, Steven Wiryadinata, Nawei Liu, and
Madhur Boloor. "Comprehensive Total Cost of Ownership Quantification for Vehicles with Different Size Classes
and Powertrains". April 2021. Available at: https://publications.anl.gov/anlpubs/2021/05/167399.pdf
341 Tucker, Sean. "Study: EVs Cost More to Repair, Less to Maintain." Kelly Blue Book. Aug. 17, 2021. Available
at: https://www.kbb.com/car-news/study-evs-cost-more-to-repair-less-to-maintain/.
342 Heavy-duty ICE vehicle maintenance and repair may have some correlation with light-duty maintenance and
repair, but the comparison does not consider the maintenance and repair costs of diesel engine and exhaust
aftertreatment systems which are greater than the costs associated with light-duty vehicles maintenance and repair.
602
-------
service ZEVs.343 The Kelly Blue Book article supports EPA's expectation: the article states that,
"The cost issue may fade as EVs become more common" and quoted We Predict "believes that
EVs may prove less expensive in the long run." The article goes on to quote the We Predict
CEO, James Davies: "The cost of keeping the vehicle in service for the EV, even as the EV gets
older, becomes smaller and smaller and actually less than keeping an ICE [internal combustion
engine] vehicle on the road, .. .That's not just maintenance costs, but all service costs."344 EPA is
not aware of any large datasets tracking heavy-duty ZEV maintenance and repair, and
commenters who disputed maintenance and repair savings estimates did not supply any
comprehensive heavy-duty ZEV maintenance and repair data for the industry as a whole. As
described above, EPA phased in the scaling factors in HD TRUCS to address the near-term
uncertainty of costs for heavy-duty ZEV maintenance and repair.
While commenters, such as NAD A, expressed concerns about facility upgrade costs for some
dealers, NADA also acknowledges that facility upgrades will vary significantly, and NADA did
not provide supporting details for numeric inputs into the range of costs they asserted in their
comments for EPA to evaluate or an estimate as to what proportion of dealers would see higher
versus lower costs. EPA agrees that when new products are introduced dealers may encounter
new costs. EPA accounts for dealer costs in the retail price equivalent (RPE) multipliers in
assessing the costs of the rule. EPA's heavy-duty RPE factor for "Dealer new vehicle selling
costs" includes a 6% markup over manufacturing cost for dealer costs, and EPA's assessment is
that this appropriately addresses the costs identified by NADA that are associated with the final
rule. Importantly, these costs discussed in RIA Chapter 3 are in addition to the costs incurred by
dealerships prior to the commencement of this rule, the latter of which we view as not
appropriately separated in NADA's general comment on this issue and which are not costs of the
final rule. As shown in Section V.A.I of the preamble, the reference case includes ZEV adoption
that is projected to occur absent this final rulemaking. The ZEV adoption that has been occurring
in the heavy-duty sector since MY 2021 drove the need for some dealers to already invest in
facility modifications to accommodate ZEVs. Also, additional dealers will see ZEV sales,
including beginning in 2024 as the first year of the ACT program begins in states, so they also
will be investing separate from this final rule. Furthermore, the costs associated with significant
build-out of infrastructure, such as new transformers, are not anticipated because a dealer would
not need the number of EVSE installations that a fleet with a large number of vehicles at a depot
that are charged simultaneously would need. (Indeed, as shown in our analysis of grid
distribution impacts at the level of high-traffic freight corridors and localized parcels, we do not
project the Phase 3 rule as resulting in significant buildout needs even for such depots. See RTC
section 7 (Distribution.). We also have included grid infrastructure distribution costs, such as
these, in our electricity prices in our analysis. See RIA Chapter 2.4.4.2.
EPA has carefully considered information made available to EPA. As further explained in
preamble Sections I and II, in setting future emission standards under our CAA section
202(a)(l)-(2) authority, given the prospective nature of the factors Congress directed EPA
consider, EPA must necessarily identify potential technologies, evaluate the rate each technology
could be introduced, and project associated cost of compliance. Thus, while we acknowledge that
343 For example, APTA has already developed and published recommended practices for Zero-Emission Bus
Maintenance Training. See https://www.apta.com/wp-content/uploads/APTA-BTS-ZBT-RP-001-23.pdf.
344 Tucker, Sean. "Study: EVs Cost More to Repair, Less to Maintain." Kelly Blue Book. Aug. 17, 2021. Available
at: https://www.kbb.com/car-news/study-evs-cost-more-to-repair-less-to-maintain/.
603
-------
future projections inherently are subject to uncertainties, EPA has carefully analyzed the
uncertainties and identified the considerations we found persuasive. Consistent with our standard
setting authority the analysis EPA conducted for this final rule appropriately makes use of the
best data available to us, as described in RIA Chapter 2.
Comments on both BEV and FCEV safety and comments about the need for two service
technicians rather than one for BEV maintenance and repair are addressed in Section 4.8 and 5.2
oftheRTC.
Comments on infrastructure and EVSE maintenance are addressed in Section 6 of the RTC.
Comments related to economic impacts are addressed in Section 19 of the RTC.
3.8 Additional Costs
3.8.1 Other Costs
Comments by Organizations
Organization: American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)
EPA also fails to account for infrastructure impacts from increased operation of heavier ZEVs
on the road including road and bridge deterioration and commensurate reduced funding for
infrastructure from fuel tax collections as EPA fails to account for the fact that ZEVs do not pay
federal and state liquid transportation fuel taxes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1659-A2, p. 30]
Organization: American Highway Users Alliance
Further, the lengthy NPRM and its lengthy draft Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) do not
appear to include any consideration of the adverse impacts of the proposal on revenues flowing
to the Highway Trust Fund (HTF) and resulting Federal highway infrastructure investment. The
proposed rule in this docket seeks to accelerate a shift from the public's use of internal
combustion engine (ICE) vehicles to electric vehicles (EVs). A substantial erosion of revenue
into the HTF would result,3 placing major downward pressure on needed highway and bridge
investment, which already faces an investment backlog of $786 billion per USDOT's latest
'Conditions and Performance Report.' Moreover, that $786 billion estimate was developed
before recent significant inflation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1550-A1, pp. 2-3]
3 The draft RIA includes a brief reference (page 429) that, under the proposed rule, fuel consumption
would be 'reduced.' Fuel sales, which are subject to a Federal excise tax, generate the largest share of HTF
revenue.
Failure to Consider Adverse Impact on Highway Investment
As noted earlier, the lengthy NPRM and its draft Regulatory Impact Analysis do not evidence
any consideration of the adverse impacts of the proposal on revenues flowing to the Highway
Trust Fund (HTF) and resulting Federal highway infrastructure investment. For decades, the
largest source of Federal transportation infrastructure funding has been the HTF, which is largely
dedicated to highway funding distributed to states. The proposed rule in this docket seeks to
accelerate a shift from the public's use of ICE vehicles to EVs or other alternate fueled vehicles,
604
-------
or more fuel-efficient ICE vehicles. A substantial erosion of revenue into the HTF would result,
placing major downward pressure on needed highway investment, which already faces an
investment backlog of $786 billion per USDOT's latest 'Conditions and Performance Report.'
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1550-A1, p. 8]
Moreover, that backlog estimate was developed before recent inflation of 50% or more just
from Q1 2021 to Q3 2022 in the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA's) highway
construction cost index. That index also shows significant inflation from 2017 through the third
quarter of 2022 - approximately 72%.7 EPA must reconsider what it proposes after seriously
weighing, among other issues noted, the impact of the proposal on the HTF and highway
investment, particularly given all of the benefits from those investments for highway safety and
the economy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1550-A1, p. 8]
7 For the NHCCI see-
https://explore.dot. gov/views/NHIInflationDashboard/NHCCI?%3Aiid=l&%3Aembed=y&%3AisGuestRe
directFromVizportal=y&%3Adisplay_count=n&%3AshowVizHome=n&%3Aorigin=viz_share_link. The
last entry for 2022 is an index reading of 2.786 (with 2003 as 1.000), while the index was at 1.62 at the start
of 2017 (thus, an increase of 72% since the start of 2017).
Organization: Daimler Truck North America LLC (DTNA)
There are a number of TCO Inputs that EPA has not accounted for. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1555-A1, p. 34]
There are a number of TCO inputs that EPA has not accounted for in the HD TRUCS tool that
should be included to more accurately inform payback periods and adoption rate projections for
the Proposed Rule, including:
• Federal Excise Tax. As explained in Section I.B.4 of these comments, the FET adds 12%
to the first retail sale of all new HD trucks, truck trailers, semitrailers, and tractors.
Because of their higher upfront incremental cost, ZEV purchases will be subject to a
significantly higher FET than conventional vehicle purchases. EPA should thus include
FET in the HD TRUCS calculation because it impacts TCO. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1555-A1, p. 34]
• State Sales Tax. State sales tax is also applied to the purchase price of HDVs. Again, due
to the higher incremental upfront cost of ZEVs, fleets will pay a significantly higher state
sales tax on the purchase of an HD ZEV as compared to the tax paid on a conventional
HDV purchase. To reflect these costs, EPA should apply an average state sales tax of
approximately 5.5% in the HD TRUCS tool. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 34]
• State ZEV Registration Fees and Per-Mile Taxes. As described in more detail below in
Section II.b.3.e, in recent years a number of states seeking to recoup gasoline tax
revenues that are declining with increased ZEV uptake have enacted measures to impose
extra registration fees or per-mile taxes on ZEV owners. EPA should ensure that these
costs are captured in the HD TRUCS tool, especially as they become more widespread
and are adopted by new states.62 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 35]
62 See National Conference of State Legislatures, 'Special Fees on Plug-In Hybrid and Electric Vehicles'
(March 27, 2023), available at https://www.ncsl.org/energy/special-fees-on-plug-in-hybrid-and-electric-
vehicles.
605
-------
Organization: Dana Incorporated
Speculative Residual Resale Values
Residual values are essential when fleets determine their expected total cost of ownership
(TCO) on new vehicles. Residual equipment values affect buying, financing, and leasing
decisions for fleets. Far ZEVs, it is becoming a prevalent issue for their wide-scale adoption both
in the initial and aftermarket applications. However, EPA should not include residual value
estimates in its TCO and payback period estimations at this time. Any market valuation forecasts
are speculative at this stage without a guarantee of the residual resale values for ZEVs for the
transitional period. An overstatement/understatement of resale values will have an impact on
adoption rates. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1610-A1, p. 2]
Organization: National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA)
1. State sales and FET taxes
In assessing payback periods, EPA has neglected to account for FET and state sales taxes.
These taxes are additional costs levied on new HDV purchases. Because they are based on a
percentage of an HDV's sales price, they are necessarily higher for ZEV HDVs due to their
higher upfront costs. The chart below provides a real-world price comparison illustrating how
FET and sales taxes compare across ZEV HDVs and comparable ICE HDVs. In this example, an
average 5% state vehicle sales tax 12 was used with Class 8 HDVs subject to an additional 12
percent FET. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1592-A1, p. 7.] [See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1592-A1, page 7, for referenced chart.]
12 Rachael Brennan, Auto tax rate by state, POLICYGENIUS (Jan. 20, 2023).
Throughout its regulatory impact analysis, EPA relies heavily on provisions arising from the
IRA and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) to promote ZEV HDV market growth.
ATD believes that, in reality, these ambitious pieces of legislation will have limited impact on
the adoption of ZEV HDVs. For example, the maximum $40,000 IRC Section 45W Clean
Commercial Vehicle Tax credit is likely to be more than offset by the FET on a Class 8 ZEV
tractor. Moreover, EPA incorrectly assumes that manufacturers will pass on all of the BEV
manufacturing tax credits they receive in the form of lower ZEV HDV pricing. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1592-A1, p. 7]
2. Resale values
Resale value and vehicle depreciation is a key factor in determining HDV TCOs and first
purchaser behaviors. ATD submits that the Phase 3 proposal fails to consider the impact of resale
values. Resale values are based on the work a vehicle is capable performing and the expected
maintenance and repair costs for a given period. Currently, there is no established resale history
for ZEV HDVs. As a result, most dealerships and new HDV customers are conservatively
factoring in the resale value as zero for purposes of their TOC calculations. HDV tractors
typically have a 3-5 year trade cycle and HDV trucks range from 7-10 for most operations. Any
reduction in resale value ultimately negatively impacts the TCO for first owners and increases
payback periods. Consequently, first owners/adopters will be cautious when considering the
purchase of ZEV HDVs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1592-A1, pp. 7 - 8]
606
-------
3. Charging rates and charging downtime
A common phrase is the commercial truck space is - "Trucks that don't move don't make
money." EPA ignores this reality when it points to savings from lower fuel, DEF, and
maintenance costs but fails to account for the costs associated with the necessary downtime for
ZEV HDV charging. It appears that EPA assumes all ZEV HDVs will return to a centralized
location to recharge for 12 hours overnight. This is unrealistic. For example, many HDVs drive
exclusively at night to avoid traffic or operate with multiple duty cycles each day. These HDVs
will incur significant charging and downtime costs, especially if Level 2 chargers are
used. 13 [EPA-HQ-0AR-2022-0985-1592-A1, p. 8]
13 According to the U.S. DOT the estimated BEV charge time from empty on a Level 2 charger is 4 - 10
hours and the estimated range added per hour of charging is 10 - 20 miles. Charger Types and Speeds, U.S.
DOT (May 4, 2023).
4. Recommendations
ATD recommends that EPA act as follows:
• Work with EMA and its members to determine the appropriate assumptions, data, and
calculations that should be included in HD TRUCS related to the price, feasibility, and
timelines of technology packages and related components.
• Factor in FET and sales taxes, resale values, and charging-related downtime to more
accurately determine HDV ZEV purchaser costs and related payback periods.
• Work with HDV fleet and owner/operators to ensure the accuracy of purchaser costs.
The above recommendations serve as a starting point. EPA must revise HD TRUCS to
include additional and more accurate data points using feedback from stakeholders. These
revisions must be reflected in the final Phase 3 GHG rule to help accurately forecast realistic
payback periods and adoption rates. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1592-A1, pp. 8.]
Organization: PACCAR
In addition, as electric-powered trucks displace diesel-powered trucks, they will also displace
the transportation infrastructure-funding model that currently relies on revenue from diesel fuel
taxes. As the diesel fuel-based tax base decreases, governments will need to replace that revenue,
possibly through increased vehicle registration costs, but more likely by taxing energy flow
through chargers. Although EPA specifically included state and federal diesel taxes in fuel costs,
the Agency did not account for the inevitable corollary tax on charging costs for electrically
powered vehicles needed to maintain transportation infrastructure tax revenue. EPA should
therefore revise its TRUCS assumptions accordingly to take into account taxes on energy flow
charging costs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1607-A1, p. 8]
Organization: POET
EPA's comparative cost analysis for ZEVs themselves also fails to address several important
factors. As the Trinity report has identified, EPA compares powertrain, fuel, and maintenance
costs of conventional vehicles and heavy-duty ZEVs, assumed to be incurred over the first ten
years of those vehicles' lifetimes.70 That limited list ignores other important costs:
607
-------
• Resale value;
• Costs associated with vehicle downtime due to inoperability, repair, and
recharging/refueling.71 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1528-A1, p. 17]
70 Attachment A at 5.
71 Id. at 6.
Organization: Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
Federal Excise Tax (FET) and State Vehicle Sales Tax - These two additions to the EMA HD
TRUCS tool were run in parallel. For this scenario, the FET is set at 12% and the average State
vehicle sales tax is set at 5.02%. The resultant revised adoption rates are in the table
below: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 38. See the Projected ZEV Adoption Rates for
MYs 2027 and 2032] [State Sales Tax Table on page 38 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-2668-A1.]
c) Additions
In the course of our analysis of HD TRUCS, EMA also identified three significant elements
that EPA failed to include as inputs to the Agency's payback and adoption rate calculations:
federal excise taxes, state vehicle sales taxes, and insurance cost differentials. EMA recommends
that all three of these elements be incorporated into the HD TRUCS for the final rulemaking.
These additions are included in EMA's HD TRUCS tool. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1,
p. 30]
The incorporation of the additional elements required modifications to the HD TRUCS tool.
Columns of data were added to several worksheets in order to create the needed calculations and
to display summary data, as was done by EPA in HD TRUCS. Numerous equations in Excel
were modified to include the new data elements. The Payback macro on the Summary worksheet
was revised to account for the added columns of data on specific worksheets. Where possible,
the columns added and altered in the spreadsheets were changed using red text to help denote the
affected content of the tool. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 30]
Federal Excise Tax - Federal law requires that a 12% excise tax be applied to the purchase of
all Class 8 vehicles, based on the purchase price of the vehicle. For HD TRUCS, this tax was not
included. EMA recommends that the 12% tax be included on the difference between the ICE
powertrain cost and the corollary ZEV powertrain cost for each vehicle type. Where the ZEV is
more expensive than the ICE powertrain, the FET will add to the purchase costs for the owner. In
years where the ZEV may be less expensive than the ICE, especially in the later years of the
Phase 3 proposed regulation, the FET differential will reduce the overall purchase price for the
owner. It should be noted that the FET only applies to Class 8 vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-2668-A1, pp. 30-31.]
State Vehicle Sales Tax - Each state is allowed to collect a tax on the sale of any vehicle
within that state. Most states have a declared vehicle sales tax, while a few do not. Research
shows that the average State vehicle sales tax is currently 5.02%. The table below shows the
vehicle sales tax for each state. EMA recommends that the state vehicle sales tax be included in
the final version of HD TRUCS. It should be noted that the state vehicle sales tax applies to all
608
-------
classes of vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 31. See the State Vehicle Sales Tax
table on pages 31-32 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1.]
b) Residual / Resale Value - The Phase 3 regulation fails to consider the cost impact that the
first owner may experience when a ZEV is sold on the secondary market. Tractors typically have
a 3-5 year trade cycle. Truck trade cycles range from 7-10 years in most operations. At the time
of resale, the value of the vehicle is defined either by the leasing company, through the residual
value in the lease contract, or by the value that the next purchaser pays for the vehicle. That
value is based on the work the vehicle is capable of doing for a given time period, and the
expected maintenance and repair costs that can be anticipated during its second life. The
replacement cost of a BEV battery set, if needed, will be substantial as a service item. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 48]
Since there is no established resale history for BEV trucks, the secondary market for BEV
trucks is most likely to be highly cautious in its assessment of future residual value and costs.
That could work to decrease the value of a BEV truck in the secondary market versus its
equivalent diesel vehicle. The reduction in resale value negatively impacts the TCO for the first
owner, thus increasing the payback period and reducing the willingness of first owners to adopt
the BEV technology and to purchase the ZEV. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 48]
These trade cycle effects and secondary market values are not considered in the current
version of HD TRUCS (and are ignored in EPA's misuse of ACT's payback-based adoption
rates). EMA recommends that these effects also be factored into the final rulemaking version of
HD TRUCS. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 48]
Organization: Valero Energy Corporation
3. EPA fails to account for key BEV and FCEV cost considerations in its payback analysis.
In the DRIA, EPA states that
"Given the wide range of diversity in the trucking industry, HD TRUCS analyzes a vehicle's
operation during the first 10 years of ownership. We selected 10 years to include high mileage
years and to reflect changes in maintenance and repair costs over time, since vehicle use
(measured in VMT) and operating costs can change over the course of ownership and as a
vehicle ages."36 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 8]
36 DRIA at 116.
While EPA believes that "the payback period is the most relevant metric to determine
adoption rates in the HD vehicle industry,"37 the agency's total cost of ownership payback
analysis fails to consider significant costs relative to BEVs and FCEVs, specifically costs related
to battery/fuel cell stack replacement, resale value, repairs, insurance premiums, and motor
vehicle accidents. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 8]
37 EPA's HD Phase 3 GHG Proposal at 25991-25992.
While EPA considers fuel saving as a component of the total cost of ownership for BEVs in
an effort to portray BEV's as being cost competitive, or even advantageous versus their ICE
counterparts, EPA fails to properly address insurance and depreciation, claiming they excluded
609
-------
them based on the unsupported and incorrect assumption that these costs are similar for BEVs
and ICE vehicles.38 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 8]
Regarding resale value, EPA fails to consider the resale value disparity between HD ICEVs
and HD BEVs/FCEVs. Even if the original owner of a ZEV is able to avoid having to replace a
battery or fuel cell stack, a potential secondary owner would rightfully have serious reservations
about buying a used HD BEV or FCEV versus a used HD ICEV. This uncertainty is likely to
affect inventory values for fleets, which in turn may have consequences for financing. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 9]
Reducing reliance of liquid fuels will also lead to a direct decrease in both federal and state
excise tax revenues from gasoline and diesel, as has been demonstrated in the numerous states
that have already adopted ZEV mandates.228 This, in turn, will decrease state and federal
funding for construction and maintenance of transportation infrastructure in the US, which is
primarily funded from these tax revenues.229 Thus, not only will ZEV centric policy destroy the
domestic production of asphalt used primarily for road construction and repairs, it will also lead
to a precipitous decline in each state's ability to pay for road maintenance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 47]
228 See Berkeley Research Group, Policy Briefs, The Effect of Zero-Emission Vehicle Policies on
Dedicated Highway Infrastructure Funding in Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, Nevada, New York,
Oregon, and Virginia, available at https://www.thinkbrg.com/insights/publications/effect-of-zev-policies-
on-dedicated-highway-infrastructure-funding/.
229 Id.
EPA Summary and Response:
Summary:
Several commenters raised concerns about costs that were not included in the HD TRUCS
model. These concerns include Federal Excise Tax (DTNA, EMA, NADA); State Sales Tax
(DTNA, EMA, NADA); BEV component replacement costs (which purportedly will be higher
for BEVs than for ICEVs) (TRALA, Valero); lower resale value (Dana, EMA, NADA, Valero,
POET); costs associates with downtime for repairs (POET); additional cost due to vehicle
accidents (Valero); more rapid depreciation (Valero); additional costs to account for charging
during the work day (NADA, POET); additional state taxes to replace lost gasoline and diesel tax
revenue, and state ZEV registration fees (AFPM, AHUA, PACCAR, DTNA, Valero).
Response:
Based on comments received and further analysis, as explained in RIA Chapter 2, we have
added certain additional costs in HD TRUCS that are affected by the incremental purchase price
differences of ZEVs and ICE vehicles. Our assessment is that these costs will be factored into
purchasing decisions and are therefore appropriate to consider in our analysis of payback period
for the final rule. Commenters correctly stated that EPA did not consider federal excise tax, state
sales tax, and ZEV-specific registration fees at proposal, and EPA has accordingly added
consideration of these three costs in HD TRUCS for the final rule. Please see Chapter 2 of the
RIA for more information about these costs. As discussed in Section 3.8.2 of the RTC, we have
also included consideration of incremental insurance costs (as part of annual operating costs).
610
-------
Regarding comments on component replacement costs and costs associated with downtime
for repairs, in both the proposal and final rule we have included the cost of vehicle maintenance
and repair, which includes costs for maintenance components for both ICE and ZEV vehicles.
We do not expect maintenance downtime to be greater for ZEV vehicles than for ICE vehicles;
additionally, ZEVs will generally need less maintenance than ICE vehicles, as discussed in
Section 3.7 of the RTC. For further discussion on our M&R analysis see RIA Chapter 2.4.4.1
and the previous comment response in section 3.7.
For a discussion of our change in approach from proposal for battery replacement in the final
rule, see Section 3.8.3 of the RTC.
While commenters have pointed out that there is limited information on the resale of HD
ZEVs, concerns regarding adequate information to project resale values and future ZEV resale
values being lower than comparable ICE vehicles are addressed through our payback
calculations and analysis approach. In our payback analysis, we have only included ZEV
technologies in our technology packages that pay back within their typical first ownership period
and therefore resale value does not impact this analysis. In other words, even if hypothetically
the resale value of the BEV powertrain is $0 (which is obviously not a reasonable assumption for
a ZEV during the timeframe of the Phase 3 standards), we project that ZEVs will pay back
within their first ownership period (and so the purchaser will have recovered the equivalent of
their upfront purchase cost before taking into account any resale value). Additionally, for the
final rule, we have conducted a supplemental TCO analysis that includes the impact of residual
value as a proxy for resale value. The results from our TCO analysis (RIA Chapter 2.12) show
that the costs for owning and operating a ZEV will be lower than a comparable ICE vehicle for
all MY 2032 BEVs and FCEVs in our technology packages to support the modeled compliance
pathway when evaluated over a five-year time horizon including the impact of residual value.
RIA Chapter 2.7.1 discusses in more detail our preference in using payback years over total cost
of ownership in our assessment of feasibility of ZEV adoption in our modeled potential
compliance pathway (although both metrics support the feasibility of the standards). We also
note that there is uncertainty as to how future technological advances will affect the resale value
of ICE vehicles; it is reasonable to expect that as purchasers become more used to ZEVs and
realize the considerable operational savings, that may also reduce the resale value of ICE
vehicles.
As for additional costs due to motor vehicle accidents for the final rule, we have addressed the
incremental difference in costs of a vehicle accident through accounting for incremental
insurance costs for both ICE and ZEV technologies. HD vehicles are generally insured for
accidents, and insurance companies account for the cost of paying out claims in pricing their
plans. Thus, we find that accounting for insurance costs reasonably reflects the costs for motor
vehicle accidents. See Section 3.8.2 of this RTC for further discussion on ZEV insurance
premiums and RTC Section 4.8 for further discussion on the safety of ZEVs.
We do not think it is appropriate to include an additional cost for opportunity charging for
electric vehicles. In our analysis for the final rule, we have sized the batteries for the majority of
vehicles to perform a single day's worth of work on a single charge, such that the vehicle would
be recharged during its typical downtime (dwell period). With respect to the eight BEV types in
HD TRUCS for which we project en-route charging in our modeled compliance pathway (these
include tractors and coach buses), we have sized the battery of the mid-and long-range tractor
611
-------
vehicle types such that they can be driven the 50th percentile daily VMT on one charge. For the
longest range day cabs and sleeper cabs, on days when these vehicles are required to travel
longer distances, we find that less than 30 minutes of mid-day charging at 1 MW is sufficient to
meet the HD TRUCS 90th percentile VMT assuming vehicles start the day with a full battery).
For further discussion on en-route charging see RTC Section 4 and RTC Section 3.3.4 and RIA
Chapter 2.6.3. For an explanation of our projected costs for en-route charging, please see RIA
Chapters 2.4.4.2 and 2.6.3.
For the final rule analysis, we have also included a cost for state registration fees that are
specific to ZEVs. At this time, 18 states do not have any additional registration fee for ZEVs. For
the states that do, the registration fees are generally between $50 and $225 per year.345 While
EPA cannot predict whether and to what extent other states will enact ZEV registration fees, we
have nonetheless conservatively added an annual additional registration fee to all ZEV vehicles
in our HD TRUCS analysis. Regarding lost state fuel tax revenue, see our response in RTC
section 2.
Issues of additional cost relating to electrification infrastructure are addressed in Section 6 and
7 of this RTC.
3.8.2 Insurance
Comments by Organizations
Organization: American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)
Yet EPA has not considered this interaction, on safety directly or the associated increase in
insurance costs,51 which is all the more critical to the Proposed Rule as commercial trucks are
involved in 13 percent of all fatal crashes on U.S. roadways and these trucks will be heavier and
faster under the Proposed Rule.52
51 Jason Metz & Michelle Megna, Electric Car Insurance: Why It Costs More (Jan. 4, 2023),
https://www.forbes.com/advisor/car-insurance/electric-vehicle/ (explaining that electric vehicles are
costlier to insure)
52 U.S. DOT, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, "2020 Pocket Guide to Large Truck and Bus
Statistics," available at https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/sites/fmcsa.dot.gov/files/2020-
10/FMCSA%20Pocket%20Guide%202020-v8-FIN AL-10-29-2020.pdf.
EPA also fails to account for the massive increase in insurance costs that must occur when
significantly more expensive vehicles are mandated to be on the road, particularly when they are
vehicles that insurance companies frequently "total", i.e., scrap, after low-impact crashes due to
liability concerns associated with battery fires. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1659-A2, p. 30]
Organization: Arizona State Legislature
Insurance claims data includes similar findings. A study found repairing mid-size and luxury-
brand SUVs cost 53% more for electric vehicles than comparable gas-powered vehicles, and
345 National Conference of State Legislatures. "Special Fees on Plug-In Hybrid and Electric Vehicles" March 2023,
Available at: https://www.ncsl.org/energy/special-fees-on-plug-in-hybrid-and-electric-vehicles.
612
-------
27% more for small, non-luxury electric vehicles.27 The study found that electric vehicles had
more expensive driver assistance system sensors that were more likely to be damaged in a
collision, heavier battery packs that resulted in collisions with greater momentum as well as
more expensive materials to offset battery weight, and battery pack removal and reinstallation in
order to spray paint.28 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1621-A1, p. 24]
27 Jim Henry, Repairing an Electric Vehicle Could Cost More Than Gasoline Cars: A New Kind of Sticker
Shock, FORBES, July 25, 2022, available at https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimhenry/2022/07/25/repairing-
an-electric-vehiclecould-cost-more-than-gasoline-cars-a-new-kind-of-sticker-shock/?sh=17c649ff5eee.
28 Id.
Organization: Clean Fuels Development Coalition et al.
Insurance costs: Electric vehicles are more costly to insure than conventional vehicles both
because they have a higher upfront sticker cost and "because of higher repair and replacement
costs for damaged parts."
Mark Rosanes, Do Electric Vehicles Cost More to Insure Than Gasoline-powered Cars?, Insurance
Business (Oct. 28, 2022), https://www.insurancebusinessmag.com/us/news/auto-motor/doelectric-vehicles-
cost-more-to-insure-than-gasolinepowered-cars-425631.aspx; see also Benjamin Preston, Electric Vehicles
May Cost More to Insure Than Gasoline-Powered Cars, Consumer Reports (Apr. 27, 2023),
https://www.consumerreports.org/money/carinsurance/electric-vehicles-cost-more-to-insure-than-gasoline-
powereda6372607024. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1585-A1, p. 6]
Organization: Daimler Truck North America LLC (DTNA)
There are a number of TCO Inputs that EPA has not accounted for. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1555-A1, p. 34]
There are a number of TCO inputs that EPA has not accounted for in the HD TRUCS tool that
should be included to more accurately inform payback periods and adoption rate projections for
the Proposed Rule, including:
• Increased Insurance Premiums. Because the cost to purchase and replace an HD ZEV is
higher than such costs for a conventional vehicle equivalent, EPA should account for the
increased premiums that fleets will likely have to pay to insure their vehicles. DTNA
does not have data that could be used to estimate these increases, but recommends EPA
work with fleets to understand the increased cost of ZEV insurance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1555-A1, pp. 34-35]
Organization: POET
EPA's comparative cost analysis for ZEVs themselves also fails to address several important
factors. As the Trinity report has identified, EPA compares powertrain, fuel, and maintenance
costs of conventional vehicles and heavy-duty ZEVs, assumed to be incurred over the first ten
years of those vehicles' lifetimes.70 That limited list ignores other important costs:
• Vehicle insurance costs;
613
-------
Organization: Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
Insurance Cost Differential - The average insurance rate of 3% was run in the EMA tool to
calculate the impact of annual insurance costs based on the difference in powertrain costs
between an ICE vehicle and the corollary ZEV for each truck type and year. Below are the
results from that model run: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 38] [See the Projected ZEV
Adoption Rates for MYs 2027 and 2032, Insurance Table on page 38 of docket number EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1.]
We expect fueling and charging costs and [maintenance and repair] costs to be different for
ZEVs than for comparable diesel-fueled ICE vehicles, but we do not anticipate other operating
costs, such as labor and insurance, to differ significantly, so the following subsections focus on
[maintenance and repair] and fueling or charging costs. (Draft RIA, p. 162) [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 32]
The percentage charged for insurance on commercial vehicles is determined by a variety of
factors and will vary depending on the size of the fleet. ICCT in their April 2023 white paper on
ZEV TCO (p. 17), uses what they feel is an average insurance rate of 3% for determining annual
insurance cost. OEMs have provided data of higher rates that their customers pay, but EMA
believes the ICCT value of 3% is directionally correct for this rulemaking. As with taxes, some
ZEV-truck types in certain years will carry insurance differential costs that add to the annual
operating cost of the vehicle, and in other years, this factor will result in a cost reduction. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, pp. 32 - 33]
As such, EMA recommends that differential insurance costs be included in the annual
operating cost for the final rulemaking assessment based on the powertrain differential cost
calculated in HD TRUCS. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 33]
Organization: Truck Renting and Leasing Association (TRALA)
Anecdotal evidence acquired by TRALA suggests that fleets considering ZEVs will face
substantially higher insurance costs due to new and unfamiliar ZEV technologies, overall higher
purchase costs of ZEV trucks, and higher costs of repair after accidents. It remains unclear
whether EPA accounted for this cost in its Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA). [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1577-A1, p. 10]
Organization: Valero Energy Corporation
As for repairs, EPA's assessment of maintenance and repair costs focuses on the EV
components and fails to consider that BEV manufacturers often reduce frame weight to
compensate for heavy batteries, e.g., by using composite rather than metal frames, which are
more susceptible to cracking and damage.45 In particular, EPA overlooks the fact that BEVs are
more likely than ICEVs to be "totaled" following a motor vehicle accident due to the flimsiness
of the composite frame metal frame and the integration of the batteries into the vehicle frame. As
a result, the cost to insure a BEV or FCEV can be considerably higher than the cost to insure
ICEVs. EPA does not appear to have included these costs in its consideration of the cost of
ownership. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 9.]
614
-------
45 https://whyy.org/articles/septas-cracking-battery-buses-raise-questions-about-the-future-of-electric-
transit/.
EPA Summary and Response:
Summary:
Several commenters maintained that the proposed version of HD TRUCS failed to reflect a
difference in insurance costs for BEVs when compared to ICE vehicles. AFPM commented that
EPA did not account for higher insurance costs for more expensive vehicles. The Arizona State
Legislature cited a study of light duty vehicles that found the cost to repair electric vehicles is
higher than repair costs for comparable ICE vehicles due to advanced materials, advanced
sensors, and battery pack removal and installation which all would increase insurance premiums.
The Clean Fuels Development Coalition et al. cited a different study than the Arizona State
Legislature, but the study had the same findings: BEVs are more expensive to insure because of
higher repair costs. DTNA commented that due to purchase price and replacement cost of HD
ZEVs, insurance premiums would be higher than for a comparable ICE vehicle and this
differential should be included in HD TRUCS but did not suggest a value to use. POET
referenced the Trinity report which stated that the EPA had not considered additional insurance
costs in our payback calculations. EMA suggested that we should consider adding a 3% cost to
the cost differential of BEVs and ICE vehicles in HD TRUCS, citing a 2023 ICCT paper, that
EMA said was directionally correct for this rulemaking. TRALA cited anecdotal evidence that
insurance costs, among others, would be significantly higher for BEVs than for ICE vehicles and
requested clarity on the inclusion of increased insurance costs in HD TRUCS. Valero cited an
article that found BEV transit buses were reducing their weight of the vehicle by making the
frames out of composite material which caused cracking due to the weight of the vehicle. Their
conclusions were that lightweighting vehicles by changing the material of the frame allows
BEVs to be more susceptible to frame damage in the case of an accident and this would cause
insurance rates to increase.
Response:
EPA received many comments regarding insurance rates for BEVs, and we agree with
commenters that insurance costs should be included in our final analysis. EMA provided the
only quantitative suggestion for estimating insurance premiums, based on an ICCT paper, that
uses the differential upfront cost of the vehicle to calculate insurance differences. We consider
this to be a reasonable approach. It is generally typical for more expensive vehicles to have
higher insurance premiums, so an approach that relies on the upfront cost differences among
technologies is a logical way to estimate the differences in annual insurance premiums, including
differences associated with higher up-front, components, and repair costs. This value was added
as an additional operating cost in HD TRUCS. See Chapter 2 of the RIA for insurance cost
calculations.
Valero cites an instance of an EV bus using a composite frame which did not hold up under
stress and maintains that this type of breakdown should be reflected as a cost of a Phase 3 rule.
EPA's modeled potential compliance pathway does not consider composite construction or other
forms of lightweighting. We project the same chassis construction for ZEVs (including all transit
buses in HD TRUCS) as for ICE vehicles. We note, moreover, that lightweighting is not a
phenomenon limited to ZEVs; manufacturers could also choose to implement lighter frames on
615
-------
ICE vehicles in order to reduce their manufacturing costs and increase fuel efficiency.346
However, the final GHG standards are not premised on the use of lightweighting in any vehicles.
See Section 3.7 above for our response to the Arizona State Legislature comment citing a
study of light-duty vehicles and the effect on insurance costs.
3.8.3 Battery Replacement
Comments by Organizations
Organization: American Free Enterprise Chamber of Commerce (AmFree) et al.
Second, EPA estimates operational savings without considering "midlife overhaul costs,"
which include "the cost resulting from an engine rebuild for a conventional diesel vehicle, a
battery replacement for a battery electric vehicle, or a fuel cell stack refurbishment for a
hydrogen fuel cell vehicle." Wang et al., Estimating Maintenance and Repair Costs at 10-11.
EPA disregarded these costs on the ground that its "payback analysis typically covers a shorter
period of time than the expected life of these components." Draft RIA at 185. That reasoning is
illogical. Assuming (as EPA does) that net costs drive purchasing decisions, commercial-fleet
owners are unlikely to buy an electric model if they anticipate that such vehicles will require
costly midlife repairs that would erase any initial savings. Some evidence suggests that this will
occur. For example, one report (performed by the California Air Resources Board) cited in the
Wang study noted above posits that electric trucks will require battery replacement every
300,000 to 500,000 miles—much sooner than a comparable conventional vehicle is likely to
require an engine rebuild. See Draft Advanced Clean Fleets Total Cost of Ownership Discussion
Document, Cal. Air Res. Bd., at 26 (Sept. 9, 2021) (indicating that a Class 8 heavy-duty diesel
truck is likely to require an engine rebuild after 800,000 miles). The cost of major midlife repairs
for electric vehicles also may be substantially greater. Compare, e.g., Certified Diesel Sols.,
When to Overhaul a Diesel Engine, https://tinyurl.com/2dch6xv3 (estimating cost of a diesel-
engine rebuild between $20,000 and $40,000), with EPA, Heavy- Duty Technology Resources
Use Case Scenario, at 2_BEV Tech (Apr. 10, 2023), https://www.epa.gov/system/files/other-
files/2023-04/hd-tech-trucs-tool-2023-04.xlsm (Columns AJ & AK) (EPA's modeling suggesting
that the cost of manufacturing batteries may be several multiples higher). The Senior Vice
President of the American Transportation Research Institute cautions that heavy duty-vehicle
operators are "going to be switching out the batteries on a Class 8 truck every four to seven
years" and "pay between $85,000 and $120,000 for a replacement set." Cristina Commendatore,
Report Pinpoints Top Challenges for Widespread Battery-Electric Vehicle Adoption, FleetOwner
(Dec. 7, 2022), https://tinyurl.com/243euzxr. Thus, owners of electric heavy-duty vehicles could
find themselves saddled with new and substantial midlife overhaul costs that cut into their
operational savings. EPA should assess—not ignore—this issue before calculating the payback
period. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1660-A1, pp. 28 - 29]
346 See, e.g., Constructing Lightweight Bus Structures with Stainless Steel,
https://www.mobilityengineeringtech.com/component/content/article/48578-sae-ma-07195
616
-------
Organization: American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)
Nor does it account for the emissions impacts from the full life cycle of ZEVs, particularly
heavy-duty ZEVs with batteries that may not achieve either "useful life" standards or mandatory
emission control technology warranties applicable to other vehicles with emission standards
issued under the Clean Air Act. To the extent heavy-duty ZEVs and their batteries have not been
demonstrated to achieve useful life standards and minimum emission control warranty
requirements, in real-world operation, EPA must include their replacement costs as part of their
analysis; EPA has not. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1659-A2, p. 14]
Organization: Arizona State Legislature
EPA recognizes that replacing an electric truck's battery 'may be practically necessary over
the life of a vehicle if the battery deteriorates to a point where the vehicle range no longer meets
the vehicle's operational needs.' 88 Fed. Reg. 25,987. EPA does not calculate the frequency or
likelihood that a truck will need to replace its battery due to wear or accident. Nor does EPA
calculate the cost of battery replacement. Battery replacement for a heavy-duty track can cost
between $85,000 to $120,000.29 One battery replacement would obviate any cost savings
estimated by EPA. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1621-A1, p. 24]
29 Cristina Commendatore, Report pinpoints top challenges for widespread battery-electric vehicle
adoption, FLEETOWNER, Dec. 7, 2022, available at https://www.fleetowner.com/emissions-
efficiency/article/21255957/atripinpoints-top-challenges-for-widespread-batteryelectric-truck-deployment-
in-the-us.
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
5. Maintenance and Repair Operating Costs
Affected pages: 25986-25987
CARB staff concurs with U.S. EPA's methodology regarding maintenance and repair costs.
Many recent announcements by manufacturers indicate that key components of BEVs and
FCEVs, including batteries, will be able to last for ten years or longer.218,219 This supports
U.S. EPA's assumptions that no midlife battery replacement or fuel cell refurbishment is
necessary for a 10-year analysis. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1591-A1, p.64]
218 IAA Transportation 2022: Daimler Truck unveils battery-electric eActros LongHaul truck and expands
e-mobility portfolio, September 18, 2022.
https://media.daimlertruck.com/marsMediaSite/en/instance/ko/IAA-Transportation-1182022-Daimler-
Truck-unveils-battery-electric-eActros-LongHaul-truck-and-expands-e-
mobilityportfolio.xhtml?oid=52032525
219 Scania andNorthvolt's new EV battery can power a truck for 1.5Mkm, April 21, 2023.
https://electrek.co/2023/04/21/scania-northvolt-new-ev-battery-truck/
Organization: Clean Fuels Development Coalition et al.
Vehicle maintenance costs: This includes the standard maintenance that electrified heavy-duty
vehicles would need to undergo (which the proposal underestimates, see generally The American
Truck Dealers Division, Dkt. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1445 (May 3, 2023), as well as
617
-------
vehicle battery replacement costs (which the proposal ignores) and battery disposal or recycling
costs (which the proposal also ignores). EPA also ignores "midlife overhaul costs," which
include "the cost resulting from an engine rebuild for a conventional diesel vehicle, a battery
replacement for a battery electric vehicle, or a fuel cell stack refurbishment for a hydrogen fuel
cell vehicle." G. Wang et al., Estimating Maintenance and Repair Costs for Battery Electric and
Fuel Cell Heavy Duty Trucks, UC Davis, at 10-11 (Feb. 2022). The proposal illogically chooses
to disregard these costs, ignoring its assumption in other areas of the rule that net cost drives
purchasing decisions. DRIA at 185. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1585-A1, p. 5]
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America
EPA Request for Comment, Request #44: We request comment on this approach for both ICE
vehicles and ZEVs, in addition to data on battery and fuel stack replacement costs, engine
rebuild costs, and expected component lifetime periods.
• DTNA Response: See DTNA Response to Request # 20, above. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1555-A1, p. 165]
• Response to Request # 20: EPA should consider all available data including that which
can be provided by manufacturers in confidential settings; however, given that the HD
ZEV market is currently in a nascent state, any data available today is necessarily limited.
EPA should thus re-evaluate its assumptions on this issue on a regular basis, using the
best available data. See Section II.C.2 of DTNA's comments.
Organization: MEMA
Additionally, specialized vehicle bodies are more unique to end-users' needs, so there is
higher cradle-to-grave ownership cycle costs, which means that battery replacement costs are
going to weigh higher into fleet-level business cases and decision-making. These end-users with
longer ownership cycles tend to adopt technology more cautiously, with a more measured
approach due to limited resale markets. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1570-A1, p. 17]
Organization: Valero Energy Corporation
With regard to costs to replace key ZEV components such as batteries and fuel cells, EPA
explains that it "did not account for potential diesel engine rebuild costs for ICE vehicles,
potential replacement battery costs for BEVs, or potential replacement fuel cell stack costs for
FCEVs because our payback analysis typically covers a shorter period of time than the expected
life of these components."39,40,41 While data is sparse due to the immaturity of heavy-duty
ZEV technologies, some literature sources indicate that these components may require
replacement well before the expiration of typical payback period. For example, E-Mobility
Engineering reports:
"Packs designed with high cycle numbers for their lifetimes are expected to reach 80% of
their nominal capacities - a figure widely accepted as their 'end of life' in the e-mobility world -
between 4 and 10 years after their initial delivery."42 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 8]
39 DRIA at 185.
618
-------
40 For BEV, EPA indicates "we assumed the deterioration of the battery to be 20 percent over its life,"
without any indication of the basis of the assumption or the projected length of the BEV life. DRIA at 217.
41 For FCEV, EPA cites an "interim target fuel cell system lifetime for a Class 8 tractor-trailer is 25,000
hours, which is equivalent to more than 10 years if a vehicle operates for 45 hours a week for 52 weeks a
year," without any indication of the basis of the target. DRIA at 195.
42 E-Mobility Engineering, "Challenge of batteries for heavy-duty EVs", https://www.emobility-
engineering.com/challenge-of-batteries-for-heavy-duty-evs/.
"Expected life" aside, the potential need for replacement of an EV battery or fuel cell stack
carries a significant cost differential to the potential rebuild of a diesel engine, and EPA's
failure to consider the replacement of these components is a glaring gap in its payback analysis.
Even if a battery replacement occurs outside the payback period considered by EPA, payback
can be expected to "un-occur" quickly when a HDV owner is faced with the choice of whether to
replace the battery/fuel cell stack or to terminate the life of the HDV. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1566-A2, pp. 8-9]
EPA Summary and Response:
Summary:
Several commenters raised concerns about the cost of replacing a vehicle battery. They stated
that battery replacement is a very large cost that should be accounted for as it will have a large
effect on the payback calculation since the cost of batteries make up a large portion of the cost of
an electric vehicle. (Clean Fuel Development Coalition, MEMA, Valero). Valero cites an article
for the proposition that batteries with high cycle numbers are expected to reach the end of their
useful life within 4-10 years in support of its contention that battery replacement cost should be
included as a cost of the rule, and further maintains that EPA lacks authority for its statement at
proposal that HD BEV battery warranties are typically for 8 to 15 years. CARB stated that
batteries will be able to last for ten years or longer. DTNA commented that EPA should consider
all available data, however since data is limited EPA should re-evaluate its assumptions on this
issue on a regular basis.
Response:
EPA appreciates the concern expressed about battery replacement; we understand that the cost
of batteries for HDVs is a significant portion of the overall cost of the vehicle and that replacing
the battery would result in a different payback analysis than that contained in the NPRM for HD
BEVs. As discussed in Chapter 2.7 of the RIA, we limit the BEVs in our technology packages to
those that pay back in 10 years or less. Therefore, for the final rule we changed from proposal
our process for sizing the BEV batteries in HD TRUCS so that they are designed to meet at least
10 years of operation before the battery range degradation exceeds 20%.
Specifically, in the analysis to support this final rule, EPA used a constraining factor to
address this concern by setting 2,000 cycles as the expected life for a HD battery.347'348 We chose
347 Preger, Yuliya, et. al. "Degradation of Commercial Lithium-Ion Cells as a Function of Chemistry and Cycling
Conditions". Journal of The Electrochemical Society. September 2, 2020. Available online:
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1149/1945-711 l/abae37.
348 Tankou, Alexander, Georg Bieker, and Dale Hall. "White Paper—Scaling Up Reuse and Recycling of Electric
Vehicle Batteries: Assessing Challenges and Policy Approaches". International Council on Clean Transportation.
619
-------
2,000 cycles as a conservative sizing value based on studies that show LFP batteries can
maintain 80 to 95 percent state of charge at 3,000 cycles and NMC batteries can retain 80 percent
state of charge at 2,000 cycles under typical operating conditions (discharge and charging power
of 0.5 C or less and SOC swings of 20 to 80% or less). Our use of a 2,000 cycle limitation is
consequently conservative because we project that many heavy-duty truck applications where
durability is a primary concern will utilize LFP batteries. Thus, the final rule analyzes need for
battery replacement and engine rebuilds in the same manner: we are sizing batteries and engines
such that neither need replacement during the normal 10-year operating period (as well as the
maximum payback period we consider reasonable in our analysis). In HD TRUCS, we calculate
the number of battery cycles for each of the 101 vehicles and compare it to 2,000 cycles. We
then increased the size of the battery if the number of cycles for a particular vehicle was greater
than 2,000 cycles. A more thorough discussion of this topic can be found in Chapter 2.4.1.1.3
and 2.4.1.1.4 of the RIA.
We do, however, recognize that while the BEV batteries are sized in a way that batteries will
not need replacement for the initial payback calculation, this does not necessarily extend to the
entire life of the vehicle. Some vehicles, particularly tractors with high number of charge and
discharge cycles may need replacement beyond the first 10 years of use. Therefore, for the final
rule, we have added both battery replacement and ICE rebuild costs into the operating costs of
our program cost analysis in RIA Chapter 3. Since this replacement occurs after the initial
purchase and may be beyond the period of first ownership of the vehicle, we calculated the
replacement cost of the battery and compared it to the engine-rebuild cost as described in
Chapter 3.4.7.5 of the RIA. The cost of battery replacement and engine-rebuild are added to the
final program costs.
Valero cited an undated article containing the anecdotal statement that batteries with high
cycle numbers (unquantified) can be expected to reach the end of their useful life within 4-10
years.349 The article fails to provide any data or analysis in support of this conclusion. EPA's
well-documented analysis summarized above responds to this comment by documenting how
EPA conservatively sized batteries for purposes of our HD TRUCS analysis such that no
replacement is needed for the first 10 years of HD BEV operation.
3.9 Alternative Inputs and Sensitivities
3.9.1 Fuel Price Adjustments
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Daimler Truck North America LLC (DTNA)
Fuel Costs There is significant risk in projecting diesel, electricity, and hydrogen costs to
inform payback periods four to nine years in advance. Diesel prices are sensitive to global
February 2023. Available online: https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/recycling-electric-vehicle-
batteries-feb-23 .pdf.
349 https://www.emobility-engineering.com/challenge-of-batteries-for-heavy-duty-evs/. (unpaginated), statement
appearing in ninth paragraph from the end of the article.
620
-------
politics and economics and are highly volatile, as observed over the last several years. Prices fell
drastically during the COVID-19 pandemic, followed by a sharp price increase when demand
resurged faster than supply, creating a price spike in 2022, as shown in Figure 2 below. As fuel
prices are a major piece of the TCO equation, high diesel prices will make the ZEV TCO case
more attractive, whereas low diesel prices will keep conventional technologies competitive.
DTNA also notes many fleet customers have bulk supply agreements and purchase diesel fuel for
costs well below the retail price at the pump. EPA should ensure that the diesel prices projected
in HD TRUCS reflect the price paid by fleets, and not the national average retail price. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, pp. 31-32] [Refer to Figure 2 on p. 32 of docket number EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1]
Organization: Environmental Defense Fund (EPF)
Under a high diesel fuel scenario, most BEV tractors have a payback period of less than 1
year.
In this sensitivity analysis, Roush used the high oil price scenario from AEO2023. The last
couple years have seen record high diesel prices. Under such a scenario, the savings from BEV
adoption increase tremendously. The TCO per mile of BEVs under the high diesel cost scenario
is between 36% and 47% lower than ICEV. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 36] [See
Figure 5 on p. 36 of Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1]
Organization: Moving Forward Network
In addition to providing significant absolute fuel cost savings relative to gasoline or diesel,
driving on electricity also provides a significant price-stability advantage. As shown in
Figure 17, for more than the last two decades, driving a passenger EV on residential electricity
prices has been the cost equivalent of driving on dollar-a-gallon gasoline, whereas the price of
gasoline itself jumps up and down in response to world events beyond our control. 168 [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, pp. 79 - 80.] [See Figure 17, Equivalent Electricity and Diesel
Prices: January 2001-April 2023 located on p. 80 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1608-A1.]
168 Source data: EIA, Short Term Energy Outlook. Electricity prices shown in "eGallons" a Department of
Energy metric that "represents the cost of driving an electric vehicle (EV) the same distance a gasoline
powered vehicle could travel on one (1) gallon of gasoline." Methodology available at:
https://www.energy.gov/articles/egallon-methodology
The contrast is even more stark between electricity and diesel prices, as shown in Figure 18,
which shows the cost of diesel compared to the "dollar-per-diesel-gallon-equivalent" cost of
driving a Class 5 Step Van on electricity. 169 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 80.] [See
Figure 18, Equivalent Commercial Electricity and Diesel Prices for Class 5 Step Van: January
2001-January 2023 located on p. 81 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1.]
169 Source data for fuel prices: EIA, Short Term Energy Outlook. In this instance the Department of
Energy's "eGallon" methodology developed using the efficiencies of light-duty vehicles was adapted to
reflect the fuel economy (mpg) and electricity consumption (kwh/mi) of a Class 5 Step Van, as documented
by the California Air Resources Board, available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2018-
1 l/180124hdbevefficiency.pdf
621
-------
The price stability advantage of electricity should further both consumer and fleet manager
acceptance of EVs. In addition to saving money on fuel, fleet operators stand to benefit from no
longer having to pay financial institutions hefty commissions and fees associated with hedging
against fuel price volatility, and their customers will benefit from no longer being subject to "fuel
surcharges" designed to reduce fleet exposure to the volatility of the world oil market. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 81]
Organization: Volvo Group
• EPA should update their analysis based on the most recent data, including the Energy
Information Administration's 2023 Annual Energy Outlook. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1606-A1, p. 17]
EPA Summary and Response
Summary:
Some commenters believe the fuel prices, in particular, should include alternative scenarios
beyond the AEO 2021 reference case scenario. EDF believes that high diesel cost scenario may
be a more appropriate price for diesel, whereas DTNA asserts fuel price including diesel,
electricity and hydrogen prices are difficult to predict into the future and that fleets have bulk
agreements instead of retail pricing. Volvo said that EPA should update its analysis based on
the latest data, including AEO 2023.
Response:
For the final rule, we have updated diesel prices to AEO2023 values using the Reference Case
scenario. We have used AEO Reference Case scenarios in each of our HD GHG rulemakings to
date, and are continuing to do so for Phase 3. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) is
the recognized official source for such projections. The Reference Case fuel prices are lower
than those suggested by EDF, but may be higher than what some fleets pay. We agree with the
commenter that price stability for electricity compared to the volatility of oil prices may benefit
BEV owners.
3.9.2 Inflation Adjustment
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Daimler Truck North America LLC (DTNA)
• Inflation and Rising Interest Rates. The Proposed Rule and supporting DRIA do not
address the impacts of inflation and corresponding interest rate increases on vehicle
prices and purchase costs. The majority of commercial vehicle purchases are financed
through equipment loans, lines of credit, and other financing mechanisms. These
financing options have become significantly more expensive in recent years due to rising
interest rates. It is not clear how EPA has factored into its TCO estimates the substantial
borrowing costs associated with financing the purchase of an HD ZEV, which will almost
certainly be felt by purchasers over the next few decades unless interest rates decline
substantially. Indeed, EPA's purchaser cost analysis is entirely devoid of any discussion
622
-------
of borrowing and financing costs for HD ZEVs, which are a substantial expense given the
capital outlays needed to purchase the new technology.63 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1555-A1, p. 35]
63 See, e.g., CARB, Advanced Clean Fleets, Initial Statement of Reasons (Aug. 30, 2033), Appendix G:
Total Cost of Ownership Discussion Document at G-15, available at
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2022/acf22/appg.pdf (estimating that 80% of fleets
will finance new HD ZEV purchase at 5% annual percentage rate, and that 20% of fleets will finance at
15%, resulting in an average financing rate of 7%).
• Inflation and Other Economic Conditions. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics, the purchasing power of the dollar declined about 7.4% between 2021 and
2022 because of inflation.42 Consumer price inflation (CPI), as measured by the 12-
month change in the price index for personal consumption expenditures (PCE), was at 5.4
percent in January 2023,43 well over average inflation rates of the last 20 years.44 In
projecting consumer uptake of new ZEV technologies, EPA does not consider that, given
the current economic environment of high inflation, eroding purchasing power, and high
interest rates, fleets likely do not have the appetite to take on or finance significant capital
outlays over the next few years. This would especially include expensive investments in
new technologies and supporting infrastructure. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1,
p. 26]
42 See U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 'Consumer Price Index,' available at
https://www.bls.gov/cpi/factsheets/purchasing-power-constant-
dollars.htm#:~:text=This%20means%20that%20the%20purchasing,%2C%20on%20average%2C%20in%2
02021.
43 See Federal Reserve, Monetary Policy Report (March 3, 2023), available at
https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/2023-03-mpr-summary.htm.
44 See U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Databases, Tables, and Calculators by Subject, available at
https://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet.
EPA Summary and Response:
Summary:
DTNA commented that EPA's purchaser cost analysis does not consider inflationary
pressures that can discourage purchase of BEVs.
Response:
In the final rule, we have adjusted all dollar values to 2022 dollars which reflects the most
recent data available regarding inflation and its impacts on the costs we estimate. Discussions for
adjustment to 2022 dollars can be found in introduction of Chapter 3 of the RIA. By doing so,
our cost analysis reflects purchasing power, including impacts of inflation, as of the most recent
time for obtaining reliable, comprehensive data. Potential inflation (either increased or decreased
inflation) after that cut-off date is beyond the scope of our analysis for this rule. See Arkansas
Dairy Co-op Ass 'n v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 573 F. 3d 815, 831 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (upholding
evidence consideration cutoff, stating "at some point the Secretary must stop reviewing evidence,
and review the rulemaking record").
623
-------
3.9.3 Other sensitivities
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Daimler Truck North America LLC (DTNA)
EPA should conduct a sensitivity analysis of all cost inputs used in the HD TRUCS analysis
to understand the range of alternative ZEV uptake rates under different scenarios.
As discussed above, there is significant uncertainty in a number of EPA's cost projections,
which have major implications for the calculated ZEV adoption rates and proposed C02
standard stringency levels. DTNA strongly recommends that EPA conduct a sensitivity analysis
of all costs used in the HD TRUCS tool, especially component costs and fuel costs, and calculate
what the impact on ZEV uptake would be in those alternate scenarios. EPA should use this
sensitivity analysis when conducting the periodic reviews of the appropriateness of the Phase 3
C02 standards, as discussed in Section II.C.3 of these comments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1555-A1, p. 39]
EPA Request for Comment, Request #45: We request comment on our approach and
assessment of future fuel, electricity, and hydrogen prices for the transportation sector.
• DTNA Response: Fuel prices are a critical piece of the TCO calculation and will have
significant impacts on ZEV adoption rates. Future fuel, electricity, and hydrogen prices
cannot be accurately be predicted four to nine years in advance, as these prices are
subject to global economics, supply-demand relationships, infrastructure buildout rates,
etc. EPA should consider all available data and re-evaluate fuel costs on a regular basis,
as discussed in Section II.C of these comments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1,
p. 165]
Organization: Valero Energy Corporation
C. The outcome of EPA's HD TRUCS modeling is highly sensitive to its unsupported
assumptions.
As described above, EPA frequently and significantly relies on assumptions, estimates, and
aspirational goals in the place of actual performance data for HD BEVs and FCEVs. Not only
does EPA fail to discuss the uncertainties in the data, it also fails to adequately consider a
scenario in which these assumptions, estimates, and aspirational goals do not come to perfect and
complete fruition in the rulemaking timeline. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 18]
Figure 8 demonstrates the sensitivity of EPA's HD TRUCS modeling to following individual
assumptions, estimates, and aspirational goals upon which EPA relies, as well the aggregate
sensitivity to all of the listed modifications:
• Acceptable payload impact tolerances are reduced from 30% in EPA modeling to 5% or
0% (refer to Section III.A.l of this letter);87
• The 2027 battery cost, fuel cell stack cost, and hydrogen fuel tank cost reflect the upper
bound of the ICCT projected ranges (refer to Section III.A.4 of this letter);88
624
-------
• The costs to install EVSE are increased to more realistic values (refer to Section III. A.6
of this letter);89 and
• The "learning gains" are reduced to 75% of EPA's predictions (refer to Section III. A. 9 of
this letter). 90 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, pp. 18 - 19.] [See Figure 8, HD
TRUCS Sensitivity Analysis, on page 20 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0986-
1566-A2.]
87 The sensitivity run modified EPA's original HD TRUCS run by changing cell F108 of the "Inputs" tab
to 5% and 0%, respectively, and by changing cell H4 of the "A4a_Adoption Rates (BEV)" tab to 5% and
0%, respectively.
88 The sensitivity run modified EPA's original HD TRUCS run by changing cell G5 to "220*Adj_Factor,"
cell G45 to "680*Adj_Factor," and cell G58 to "1150*Adj_Factor" in the "Inputs" tab.
89 The sensitivity run modified EPA's original HD TRUCS run by changing cell F17 to 150,000; cell F19
to 20,000; cell F21 to 250,000; and cell F23 to 86,000 in the "Inputs" tab.
90 The sensitivity run modified EPA's original HD TRUCS run by changing cell H95 to 0.941,195 to
0.900, J95 to 0.868, K95 to 0.843, and L95 to 0.823 in the "Inputs" tab.
Adjusting these four variables to be more closely aligned with reality, EPA's HD TRUCS
model projects only a 4% ZEV adoption by MY 2027 and 11% by MY 2032, a significant
reduction from the 16.8% and 46% adoption in EPA's original modeling: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1566-A2, p. 19.]
Organization: Volvo Group
• The agency referenced many studies and analyses in their determination (ACT Research,
ICCT, EDF/ERM, etc.), but many of those studies have already been shown to be
outdated based on their model year 2021 and 2022 heavy duty ZEV sales projections
when compared to actual industry sales volumes and vehicle registrations.
• EPA should update their analysis based on the most recent data, including the Energy
Information Administration's 2023 Annual Energy Outlook. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1606-A1, p. 17]
EPA Summary and Response
Summary:
DTNA expressed concern over uncertainty in the cost projections in the modeled potential
compliance pathway which have an effect on ZEV adoption rates. They recommended that we
conduct a sensitivity analysis on all costs used in HD TRUCS, especially component costs and
fuel costs, and how these changes affect adoption rates in the technology packages. They further
suggested using the sensitivity analysis when conducting the DTNA-recommended periodic
reviews of the Phase 3 standards. Volvo also recommended EPA update the final rule analysis
using the more up-to-date information such as the AEO 2023. They also highlighted some
sources EPA used, such as the ICCT report, which Volvo stated are outdated in their projections
based on actual sales. Valero believes many data sources EPA relies on for the proposal are
assumptions, estimates and aspirational goals, which Valero states does not match actual data for
ZEVs. Valero states that they believe EPA fails to discuss uncertainties in data or assumptions
and that if they do not come to true will lead to impacts on ZEV adoption rates.
625
-------
Response:
As further explained in preamble Sections I and II, in setting future emission standards under
our CAA section 202(a)(l)-(2) authority, given the prospective nature of the factors Congress
directed EPA consider, EPA must necessarily identify potential technologies, evaluate the rate
each technology could be introduced, and project associated cost of compliance. Thus, while we
acknowledge that future projections inherently are subject to uncertainties, EPA has carefully
analyzed the uncertainties and identified the considerations we found persuasive350 Consistent
with our standard setting authority the analysis EPA conducted for this final rule appropriately
makes use of the best data available to us, including using data from AEO 2023 and other data as
described in RIA Chapter 2.
DTNA suggested EPA include a sensitivity analysis as part of a periodic review of Phase 3.
See preamble Section II.B.2.iii and section 2.9 of this RTC document for a discussion of reviews
we may consider in post-rule implementation of the Phase 3 rule.
DTNA and Valero suggested that EPA conduct sensitivity analysis for the final rule using
alternative inputs for HD TRUCS. As EPA notes above, and in the preamble and RIA for this
final rule, EPA has used what we consider to be the most appropriate inputs for the HD TRUCS
model for the analysis which informed the CO2 emission standards established in this final rule.
As described throughout preamble Section II and RIA Chapter 2, in many instances in
determining inputs for HD TRUCS, EPA determined that the most appropriate inputs were a
conservative approach based on the best data available 1. Furthermore, EPA developed and
assessed additional example potential compliance pathways that support the feasibility of the
final standards including without producing additional ZEVs to comply with this rule (see RIA
Chapter 2.11 for this example and others). These additional technology packages support that the
performance-based standards are feasible at reasonable costs with even lower ZEV adoption
rates than discussed in Valero's comment.
350 Certainty is essentially impossible in making predictive judgments, and agencies are not absolved from decision
making due to lack of prescience. See Rural Cellular Ass'n v. F.C.C., 588 F.3d 1095 (D.C. Cir. 2009 ("Where, as
here, the FCC must make predictive judgments about the effects of increasing subsidies, certainty is impossible. ...
In circumstances involving agency predictions of uncertain future events, 'complete factual support in the record for
the Commission's judgment or prediction is not possible or required' since "'a forecast of the direction in which
future public interest lies necessarily involves deductions based on the expert knowledge of the agency.'... Thus,
when an agency's decision is primarily predictive, our role is limited; we require only that the agency acknowledge
factual uncertainties and identify the considerations it found persuasive." See also, in the context of assessing future
economic conditions, N. Am.'s Bldg. Trades Unions v. Occupational Safety & Health Admin., 878 F.3d 271, 299
(D.C. Cir. 2017) ("OSHA concluded that 'even in a lower price environment, hydraulic fracturing entrepreneurs will
be able to implement the controls required by th[e] final rule without imposing significant costs, causing massive
economic dislocations to the ... industry, or imperiling the industry's existence.' Given the inherent uncertainty in
forecasting future economic conditions, OSHA's thorough consideration of Industry's concerns, and the delayed
implementation timeline, OSHA's finding that the rule is economically feasible in hydraulic fracturing finds ample
support in the record").
626
-------
3.10 Feasibility
3.10.1 Payload
Comments by Organizations
Organization: American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)
6. EPA Proposes Standards that Fail to Consider ZEV Market Demands.
EPA improperly relied on the general characterization of the heavy-duty vehicle and engine
market as supplemented by incentives in the BIL and IRA to support its proposition that there
will be a rapid increase in ZEV market penetration. But these ZEVs simply do not have the same
range, load capacity, and intended use of existing fleets. To illustrate the needs the BEV market
must meet, we are providing at Appendix I information on the sales and uses of Class 7 (26,001-
33,000 pound) and Class 8 (33,001 pounds and over) HD vehicles from the U.S. Department of
Energy. 114 EPA's Proposed Rule provides little to no information regarding how— or
whether—the ZEV mandate can meet current market needs for HD vehicles given the higher
range 115 and load capacity 116 of current ICE HD engines, particularly diesel. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1659-A2, pp. 30-31.] [See Appendix I on page 43-45 of docket number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1659-A2.]
114 Stacy C. Davis and Robert G. Boundy, OAK RIDGE NAT'L LABORATORY - U.S. DEP'T OF
ENERGY, "Transportation Energy Data Book," 40th ed. (June 2022), 5-4-5-13, available at
https://tedb.ornl.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/TEDB_Ed_40.pdf.
115 Beia Spiller et al., Medium- and Heavy-Duty Behicle Electrification: Challenges, Policy Solutions, and
Open Research Questions (May 3, 2023), https://www.rff.org/publications/reports/medium-and-heavy-
duty-vehicle-electrification-challenges-policy-solutions-and-open-research-questions/ ("The current
available range for electric trucks is less than 200 miles on a single charge—much shorter than the range of
comparable diesel vehicles, which. . . can go 2,000 miles without refueling.").
116 Id. ("The high density of batteries generally makes an MHDEV heavier than its diesel equivalent, and
the payload may need to be reduced to compensate for the extra weight (Phadke et al. 2021). The extent to
which the payload needs to be reduced is unclear, however, and likely depends on several factors, such as
fleet operations and vehicle type.").
Notably, the cost to consumer also fails to account for the decreased range and loads for ZEV
HDs in accounting for the payback occurring between three and seven years for long-haul
tractors.. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1659-A2, p. 30]
Organization: American Highway Users Alliance
• Long-haul trucks require significantly heavier batteries (anywhere from 6,000 to 17,000
lbs.), which leads to reduced payload capacity. When trucks are less productive due to
decreased payload capacity, limited mileage range, and downtime for charging, the
consequence is that more trucks and drivers are needed to move the same amount of
freight. Some of our large members running limited-scope BEV operations report the
need for a 3:2 and sometimes even 2:1 ratio of battery-powered trucks relative to what
their diesel trucks produce. Couple the need for more trucks with the fact that each BEV
627
-------
truck costs 2-3x that of today's clean diesel truck (a roughly $300,000 upcharge per unit)
and it's easy to see that the negative economics of BEVs would be felt severely by the
trucking industry and in turn shared by shippers and consumers... [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1550-A1, p. 6]
Organization: American Soybean Association (ASA)
However, ZEV heavy-duty vehicles powered by electric battery technology create other
problems for farmers. When hauling large cargos, shippers must consider whether they will box
out (run out of space) or weigh out (reach the federal or state weight limit) first. When hauling
soybeans, a truck will almost always weigh out first. A University of California, Davis, study
estimated the average electric heavy-duty truck battery will weigh an additional 5,000 pounds
compared to a semi with an internal combustion engine (ICE) on the road today.2 This means
each truckload of soybeans will need to carry as many as 85 fewer bushels per trip. Given that
one ICE semi can currently haul 910 bushels of soybeans before it weighs out, this would limit
capacity by 9%. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1549-A1, p. 2]
Organization: American Trucking Associations (ATA)
Performance is key to whether heavy-duty ZEVs meet a given duty cycle's range,
performance, and battery capacity requirements. Drivers regularly run short and long-haul routes,
often including regional and interstate journeys. For example, a carrier transporting perishable
agricultural products to and from a West Coast port runs routes to inland destinations like
Colorado, St. Louis, Reno, and California's Central Valley. This operation's range and battery
performance needs differ significantly from shorter hauls primarily within ten miles of a point of
origination. Battery weight is a crucial factor. A bulk agricultural hauler moving mixed
commodities to and from a facility can easily come up against weight limits with added
batteries. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1535-A1, p. 10]
In addition to range and battery capacity, other performance factors also play a role in heavy-
duty ZEVs. Power output, acceleration, and overall vehicle performance are crucial to ensuring
vehicles can meet the demands of their duty cycles, regardless of climate or topographical
conditions. ZEVs must be capable of the same payload while climbing steep inclines,
maintaining high speeds on highways, and handling challenging extreme temperatures in a way
that compares favorably with ICEVs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1535-A1, p. 10]
Organization: Arizona State Legislature
Electric trucks cease to be profitable long before they reach the 30% payload capacity
threshold. Electric-powered trucks can legally weigh a maximum of 82,000 pounds, 2,000
pounds more than diesel-powered trucks. 23 U.S.C. 127(s). Electric batteries can weigh up to
16,000 pounds, or almost one-fifth of the truck's weight.38 Using the University of California -
Davis estimate that electric trucks will weigh 5,000 pounds more than diesel-powered trucks
(6.1% of payload) results in cargo loss for electric trucks equivalent to 17,000 t-shirts, 16,000
apples, or one full car less than a diesel-powered truck.39 Trucking company net margins are
generally between 2.5% and 6%, meaning a 6.1% payload loss can eliminate any profitability.40
Other studies put the payload loss at almost 14,000 pounds.41 Payload lost by electric battery
628
-------
weight will affect company decisions to purchase electric trucks in the first place, but EPA does
not consider this issue. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1621-A1, p. 26]
The smaller cargo capacity will impact traffic and emissions as well. According to the
American Transportation Research Institute, 'Battery weight increases price and vehicle range,
but decreases cargo revenue weight. Ultimately more [battery electric vehicle] trucks will be
needed on already congested roadways to haul the same amount of freight.'42 EPA does not
calculate the increased emissions that will come from these additional trucks upstream or
downstream, nor does it calculate the increased emissions from additional traffic congestion that
may result from more trucks on the roads. Increased costs incurred by companies by additional
trucks and trips to haul the same amount of goods no doubt will be passed on to consumers and
increase the cost of goods families need; EPA does not consider this issue, either. a[EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1621-A1, p. 26]
42 American Transportation Research Institute, Charging Infrastructure Challenges for the U.S. Electric
Vehicle Fleet, Dec. 2022, 2, available at https://truckingresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/ATRI-
Charging-Infrastructure-Challenges-for-the-U. S.-EV-Fleet-Summary-12-2022.pdf.
EPA's failure to adequately consider weight limit issues is arbitrary and capricious. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1621 -A1, p. 26]
Organization: Chevron
One performance issue of concern is the loss of cargo hauling efficiency associated with
heavier battery electric vehicles. Battery electric trucks would carry heavy batteries which would
reduce their load carrying capacity. Smaller cargo loads will require additional truck trips to
deliver the same quantity of goods, reducing the overall utilization efficiency of the trucking
fleet. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1552-A1, p.5]
Organization: Daimler Truck North America LLC (DTNA)
There are a number of TCO inputs that EPA has not accounted for in the HD TRUCS tool that
should be included to more accurately inform payback periods and adoption rate projections for
the Proposed Rule, including:
• Weight Penalty. EPA assumes that fleets will accept up to a 30% weight penalty for
BEVs in certain applications. Fleets are likely to account for this reduction in payload
capacity in the TCO calculation as the cost per ton of goods moved will increase, thus it
should be factored in to HD TRUCS. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 35]
Likewise, EPA asserts that most vehicles 'cube out' (fill up with goods or passengers before
reaching the maximum vehicle weight) before they 'gross out' (reach maximum vehicle weight
before filling up with goods or passengers) and estimates that battery technology is suitable for
applications up to a 30% weight penalty.45 EPA references a report prepared by the North
American Council for Freight Efficiency (NACFE) in support of this weight penalty threshold.46
The referenced NACFE report explains that vehicle weight distribution data is often
misinterpreted, due to the fact that data reflecting vehicle loads 'per run' is often misunderstood
as vehicle loads 'per truck,' leading many to conclude that a significant percentage of trucks on
the road operate well below their maximum weight capacity.47 As NACFE explains, however,
the relevant metric for understanding weight distribution data 'is loads, not trucks.'48 'Because
629
-------
many loads are unpredictable, one day a truck may cube out and the next it might weigh out.'49
Fleets are thus unlikely to purchase vehicles with a weight penalty outside of very specific
applications that have predictable loads, as they cannot be used as flexibly as a diesel-powered
alternative. For these reasons, EPA's HD TRUCS tool does not adequately consider application
suitability with respect to weight. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, pp. 26-27]
45 See DRIA at 234.
46 See id. at 271 (citing NACFE, 'Electric Trucks Have Arrived: The Use Case for Heavy-Duty Regional
Haul Tractors—Run on Less Electric Report' (May 5, 2022). Figure 16 (NACFE Report)).
47 See NACFE Report at 38.
48 Id.
49 Id.
Organization: Hill Bros. Inc.
Subject: Battery powered trucks will not work for expedited team freight
2. The batteries are too heavy and will not allow enough payload for a trade off. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1461-A1, p. 1]
Organization: Lynden Incorporated
An electric truck weighs approximately 9,000 pounds more than a diesel truck. This means
that trucks will need to make additional trips to get the job done, increasing the total cost to
deliver freight and ultimately increasing the number of trucks on the road and overall emissions.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1470-A1, p. 3]
Organization: National Association of Convenience Stores (NACS), NATSO, and SIGMA
Beyond cost, a wide variety of barriers to heavy-duty truck electrification are not sufficiently
addressed in the Proposal. Battery weight is likely to significantly curtail the long-haul
capabilities of heavy-duty electric trucks. As noted above, the battery can add an additional
16,000 pounds to an HD truck. This reduces the amount that trucks can carry and will result in a
need for substantially more vehicles on the road to transport the same amount of cargo. Truck
carriers near the maximum allowable weight will likely have to modify their operations in order
to comply with the Proposal.
Organization: Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA)
BEVs with heavier weights will displace payload capacity and require more trucks on the
road. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2022-0985-1632-A1, p. 4]
Organization: POET
• Costs associated with the need for purchase of more than one ZEV or the continued use
of conventional vehicles following purchase of a single HD ZEVs due to limited range,
630
-------
limited cargo carrying capacity, as well as poor gradeability when fully loaded; and
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1528-A1, p. 17]
Beyond the issues with HD ZEV technology cost and U.S. EPA's payback analysis, there are
other issues with the agency's technology assessment that led to overestimation of adoption rates
for HD ZEVs. These include the assumption that vehicle purchasers will deem a HD ZEV with a
30% lower cargo carrying capacity as equivalent to a conventional vehicle (Chapter 2.8.1 of the
DRIA) and the assumption that purchasers of HD BEVs will accept the relatively low electric
ranges upon which the U.S. EPA has based its cost estimates for HD BEVs (Table 2-33) - many
of which are considerably less than 100 miles. Further, although U.S. EPA considered
gradeability in determining electric motor sizes for HD BEVs (Chapter 2.4.1.2) it is not clear
how U.S. EPA accounted for the impact of grade on BEV range which would increase the need
for larger more expensive batteries again making a favorable payback analysis more difficult to
achieve. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1528-A1, p. 29]
Organization: Schneider National Inc.
The EPA assumes up to a 30% payload penalty is acceptable for BEV.
• Cutting payload would have an impact on shipper costs, staffing, inventory, etc. More
loads would also potentially require more capacity. In our experience, as an example,
approximately 20% of intermodal loads already max out due to weight under the current
diesel truck equipment configuration (and, on belief, a ZEV would weigh -4,000-6,000
pounds more than a diesel truck). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1525-A1, p. 2]
Organization: The Sulphur Institute (TSI)
TSI's concerns echo many concerns of other industry stakeholders when it comes to this
rulemaking. One main concern is that heavier electric battery or hydrogen powered heavy trucks
will reduce cargo payload for commercial tank trucks, requiring truck companies to either 1)
increase their fleet size or 2) incur more trips per day in and out of the refineries to load and
transport recovered sulphur. In a day of commercial vehicle driver shortage and government
imposed electronic logging, making more trips per day or having more trucks to operate creates
an even bigger challenge for an already stressed industry and is untenable in the long run, not to
mention increased congestion on roads and highways. Many of the truck companies supporting
sulphur recovery operations are small niche operating companies, with small fleets of trucks
compare to over-the-road national companies. Having to increase fleet size to more expensive
trucks and expand driver pools is an expensive proposition, and frankly, something these
companies simply cannot sustain over the long run. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1624-A1, p. 1]
Organization: Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
The NPRM and HD TRUCS incorrectly assume that all commercial BEVs will be depot-
charged at night, and that any commercial ZEVs that need to operate further from home will
be FCEVs. The NPRM also assumes that trucking fleets will be able to devote up to 30% of each
vehicle's cargo carrying capacity for batteries large enough to provide enough power for the
vehicle's entire daily work. If a commercial vehicle cannot carry enough batteries to complete its
daily work, or if it must travel too far from its home terminal, the NPRM assumes that a FCEV
631
-------
will be used instead of a BEV. Of course, those FCEVs will require an entirely separate
infrastructure of hydrogen-refueling stations, which still needs to be designed and
developed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, pp. 45 - 46]
c) Payload Limitation Criteria for Vocational Vehicles - Vocational vehicle types and
applications, in general, can be more sensitive to the loss of payload. In fact, the purchasers of
concrete mixers, some dump truck applications, and tanker trucks will go to great lengths to
reduce the chassis and body weight to enable additional payload to be carried to the job site. The
vehicles are "spec'd" with smaller engines, aluminum components, even aluminum frame rails at
times, no passenger seats, and the lightest and smallest necessary component options, as
examples of the length purchasers will go to maximize payload. For these applications in
particular, reduced payloads of 30% from using a BEV powertrain will be highly detrimental to
their overall utility. Reduction in payloads of even 5% to 10% likely will require additional
vehicles or vehicle trips to perform the same work as a diesel-powered vehicle. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-2668-A1, pp. 48 - 49]
HD TRUCS does not take this critical payload limitation into account for these types of
vocational vehicles. This is the most evident in the Custom Chassis - Concrete Mixer regulatory
subcategory, which has an 18% adoption rate of BEVs in 2027 and 35% in 2032. Those same
vehicles are added into the HHD subcategory as well. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1,
p.49]
EMA recommends that an adjustment be made to the payload loss limitation criteria in the
final rulemaking HD TRUCS for these weight-critical vehicle types. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-2668-A1, p.49]
Organization: Truck Renting and Leasing Association (TRALA)
Securing National Weight Exemptions for BEVs and FCEVs Will be Difficult
Battery electric or fuel cell trucks will incur a substantial weight penalty that can put truck
gross vehicle weights over their allotted federal limits. Roughly 10-15%) of truckloads hit their
maximum federal weight limits due to the types of payloads they carry. Federal legislation
passed in 2019 allows a 2,000-pound weight exemption for battery powered heavy-duty trucks.
The problem is the additional battery weight for a Class 8 BEV could add up tol6,000 pounds
depending on the battery configuration. This is one of the primary reasons why Class 8 trucks
will rely upon the development and advancement of Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles (FCEVs). Fuel
cell vehicles will also experience additional weight issues but not to the extent of BEVs. OEMs
estimate the additional weight of an FCEV compared to a comparable ICE vehicle will be
somewhere in the range of 8,000 pounds. The longer the vehicle range the more battery cells or
fuel cell modules required which in turn has a direct correlation to overall added vehicle weight.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1577-A1, p. 15
Federal legislation was introduced in May to secure a 2,000-pound weight exemption for
hydrogen-powered trucks. However, a 2,000-pound weight allowance for either BEVs or FCEVs
is a mere drop in the bucket. Federal legislation to acquire additional weight exemptions to offset
added ZEV technology weight will be extremely difficult given strong opposition from select
industry, safety, and infrastructure interests. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1577-A1, p. 15]
632
-------
With respect to infrastructure concerns, the American Society of Civil Engineers' (ASCE)
2021 Infrastructure Report Card gave the nation's roads a 'D' grade and its bridges a 'C'
grade.22 Roads and bridges need continual repair, rebuilding, and investment. Added vehicle
weights and the high torque rates of ZEVs has the potential to accelerate the degradation of our
nation's road networks. TRALA requests further analysis be undertaken to ensure that the
increased use of all on-road ZEVs will not result in any detrimental impacts and unanticipated
costs related to maintaining our nation's existing highway infrastructure. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1577-A1, pp. 15-16]
Organization: Valero Energy Corporation
Due to federal weight constraints for tractor trailers, a long-haul BEV trucks would lose 20%
of payload capacity compared with a diesel truck, reducing the available revenue per mile and
increasing the number of trucks needed to avoid delay or interruption of nationwide freight
services. 108 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 24]The weight limitations for HDVs are
based on the Dwight D. Eisenhower System of Interstate and Defense Highways, which limit the
maximum gross heavy-duty vehicle weight, including the vehicle and cargo, to 80,000 pounds
for ICE vehicles and 82,000 pounds for natural gas and electric battery vehicles, however
different, lower, weight limits can be applicable depending upon various vehicle axle
configurations. 153 Given the enormous weight of the batteries deployed in HD BEVs, EPA's
proposal will significantly increase the curb weight for HDVs and therefore reduce their ability
to haul cargo. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 31]
153 23 U.S.C.A. § 127. Vehicle weight limitations - - Interstate System
By assuming that payload loss is acceptable, EPA arbitrarily dictates how businesses can and
cannot use HDVs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 5]
. EPA assumes, with no supporting evidence, that a 30% loss of gravimetric payload is
acceptable, across all classes of HDVs.
EPA assumes for the purposes of its HD TRUCS modeling that a gravimetric payload
reduction (caused by battery weight) of less than 30% is acceptable, "since most vehicles cube
out (fill up with goods or passengers before reaching maximum vehicle weight) before they gross
out (reach maximum vehicle weight before filling up with good or passengers)." 14 EPA bases
the assumption on "publicly available data that was available at the time frame of this proposal"
and cites a report by the North American Council for Freight Efficiency (NACFE) titled
"Electric Trucks Have Arrived: The Use Case for Heavy-Duty Regional Haul
Tractors." 15 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 4]
14 DRIA at 234.
15 DRIA at 234.
However, the NACFE report makes no such claim. In fact, in several places the NACFE
report discusses longer BEV ranges as coming "at the sacrifice of significant payload
capacity." 16 Further, EPA cites a figure from the NACFE report for its data on freight weight
data, maintaining that trucks "cube out" before they "weigh out." However, this data is from
2010.17 The trucking industry has undergone drastic changes and increased efficiencies since
2010. This data is now thirteen years old and does not account for the "e-commerce" boom, not
633
-------
to mention other developments in supply chain logistics. For example, online sales in 1998 were
only $5 billion. Today, e-commerce sales top $800 billion. 18 All of these additional sales have
undoubtedly impacted freight weight data. Additionally, UPS, FedEX, and USPS have all
changed their shipping rates since 2010, charging based on dimensions rather than weight with
the goal of encouraging more efficient shipping practices and avoid cubing out before weighing
out. 19 Therefore, it could very well be the case that today's delivery trucks weigh out before
cubing out. Even if the NACFE report did support EPA's assumption that a 30% payload
reduction is acceptable, the NACFE report refers only to regional haul trucks - it would be
inappropriate for EPA to extend the assumption to all types of heavy-duty vehicles. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 4]
16 NACFE, "Electric Trucks Have Arrived: The Use Case for Heavy-Duty Regional Haul Tractors," 2022,
at 3 and 25.
17 "In several reports, NACFE has cited freight weight data, including data shown in Figure 14, Figure 15,
and Figure 16 from M.J. Bradley and New West Technologies. The graphs were originally reported in a
2010 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine Transportation Research Board (TRB)
report, Technologies and Approaches to Reducing the Fuel Consumption of Medium- and Heavy-Duty
Vehicles." Id. at p. 35.
18 Annual Retail Trade Survey Shows Impact of Online Shopping on Retail Sales During COVID-19
Pandemic, US Census Bureau (Apr. 27, 2022), https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2022/04/ecommerce-
sales-surged-during-pandemic.html.
19 See, e.g., New FedEx and UPS Dimensional Weight
EPA also fails to account to the flexibilities inherent in diesel fueled trucks versus battery
powered trucks. For example, a diesel truck could be fueled with the precise amount needed to
haul the freight to the destination and return to the origin point. With a diesel truck, the weight of
a vehicle plus the freight and the fuel can be fine-tuned for each trip. However, this is not the
case with a BEV truck, which has the same battery weight for each and every trip. This does not
allow the shipper to fine tune the weight of the vehicle just for the trip at hand. Even worse, the
battery truck must be recharged every night, making it far less efficient than a diesel-powered
model beyond just the lost cargo space due to the size of the batteries.20 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1566-A2, pp. 4 - 5]
20 Fan Tong et al., Energy consumption and charging load profiles from long-haul truck electrification in
the United States, Environmental Research: Infrastructure and Sustainability (Sept. 2, 2021),
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2634-4505/acl86a/pdf (finding that even under the most
optimistic case, electric trucks technical performance in terms of payload and range is still lower than that
of a future diesel truck and that assuming the current technologies available today, the electric trucks would
require a 65% increase in total vehicle distance traveled to make up for the reduced payload capacity).
EPA Summary and Response:
Summary:
Many commenters raised concerns about the reduction in payload due to increased tare weight
of ZEVs. Their concerns include need for additional trips to carry the same amount of freight due
to reduction in payload, consequent concerns over having additional drivers and trucks to meet
freight demands, loss of operating margins, and increased congestion from the additional trucks,
again, due to assumed reduction in payload .
634
-------
The principal concern raised is that battery size and weight constrain payload so much as to
render BEVs not economically viable. Several commenters indicated that BEVs would weigh out
before cubing out—that is, due to added weight from the BEV powertrain, otherwise available
cargo capacity would be lost. (American Soybean Ass'n, Arizona State Legislature, ATA,
Chevron, Hills Bros., NACS, OOIDA, TRALA, TSI, Valero.) The American Soybean
Association elaborated, indicating that BEVs on average weigh over 5,000 pounds more than
their ICE counterparts351, AHUA indicating an addition of 6,000 to 17,000 pounds, Schneider
National indicating batteries would add 4,000 to 6,000 pounds to a truck, Lynden Incorporated
indicating batteries would add 9,000 pounds, the NACS indicated that batteries would add
16,000 pounds to a HD truck as did the Arizona State Legislature and TRALA who further stated
that FCEVs would weigh 8,000 pounds more than a HD truck. These commenters stated that
this necessarily lost capacity raises significant questions as to BEV economic viability.
Several commenters had specific issues with EPA's proposed metric of a 30% payload loss;
these commenters include AFPM, Arizona State Legislature, DTNA, EMA, Schneider, Valero,
POET. TRALA further commented that loads weigh out before cubing out 10-15% of the time
while Schneider National approximated from their own data that 20% of intermodal loads weigh
out. Daimler commented that the assumed 30% weight penalty used in the analysis for the rule
should be included in the cost of the vehicle as fleets would account for the additional cost of
making up for the lost payload through additional trips or vehicles. Several commenters stated
that EPA misunderstood the NACFE report. Daimler further commented that EPA had
misinterpreted the NACFE report on which the agency had based its statement at proposal that
HD vehicles would cube out before weighing out. DTNA maintains that: "[t]he referenced
NACFE report explains that vehicle weight distribution data is often misinterpreted, due to the
fact that data reflecting vehicle loads "per run" is often misunderstood as vehicle loads "per
truck," leading many to conclude that a significant percentage of trucks on the road operate well
below their maximum weight capacity." DTNA comment at pp. 29-30. The relevant metric is
load, not trucks: "[bjecause many loads are unpredictable, one day a truck may cube out and the
next it might weigh out." Id. [2]Fleets are thus unlikely to purchase vehicles with a weight penalty
outside of those few applications that have predictable loads. Valero Energy shares similar
thoughts that NACFE does not make claim that 30% payload loss is acceptable. In addition, the
NACFE report is from 2010, the industry has gone through significant changes since then as a
result of e-commerce as well as new shipping practices. Furthermore, the NACFE report only
accounts for regional haul vehicles; this value should not be extended to all heavy duty vehicles.
Valero further stipulates that diesel trucks offer the flexibility in that it can be refueled as needed
for the payload whereas BEVs battery size are fixed. EMA believes payload penalty from battery
limit is too high for vocational vehicles; for some, even a 5 to 10% loss is too much to achieve
their required duty cycle. EMA recommends adjustment to the payload cut off. POET also share
similar belief that 30% payload loss is too high.
AHUA proports reduced payload capacity, limited mileage range, and downtime for charging
will increase the need for additional trucks and drivers; this similar sentiment is expressed by
POET and OOIDA. Likewise, Chevron and Lynden comments additional trips will be necessary
for reduction in payload; Lynden further explains this will increase the number of vehicles on the
351 Harvey, J., PhD, Saboori, A., et al. (2020) Effects of Increased Weights of Alternative Fuel Trucks on Pavement
and Bridges. Available online: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/4z94w3xr
635
-------
road and overall emissions. Valero comments on diesel trucks can fine tune their fuel amount for
the work it needs to do, whereas BEVs has the same battery weight for every trip.
Response:
At proposal, EPA assumed that if a BEV could accommodate at least 70 percent of the
standard payload used to demonstrate compliance with Phase 2 (see 40 CFR 1037.801) of a
comparable ICE vehicle, the BEV would be considered to have sufficient payload capacity.
DRIA at 234. As explained in Chapter 2.9.1 of the RIA, based on consideration of comments
received, for the final rule we are not using a 30% payload reduction as an a priori metric for
determining BEV suitability or the related NACFE study. Instead, we concluded that it is more
appropriate and robust to assess each application in HD TRUCS on an individual basis and
determine the suitability of each application for BEVs based on the payload difference between
ICE vehicles and BEVs. . See RIA Chapters 2.9.1.1 and 2.9.1.2 discussing EPA's case-by-case
determinations regarding payload for vehicles in HD TRUCS. EPA conducted two separate
individualized types of determinations: one for battery payload weight, the other for battery
volume. See RIA Chapter 2.9.1.1 and 2.9.1.2. We note further that this delineation responds to
those comments relating to weighing out and cubing out, since we are conducting separate
analyses for each of these issues.
Commenters are incorrect in asserting that added battery weight will impede HD BEVs from
being able to negotiate steep grades. In HD TRUCS, we determined the motor power
requirements to meet four performance metrics. These performance metrics are the peak power
requirement of the ARB transient cycle, 0-30 MPH vehicle acceleration times, 0-60 MPH
vehicle acceleration times, and the ability of the vehicle to maintain a constant cruise speed at 6
percent grade as described in RIA Chapter 2.4.1.2 and 2.8.5.4.
The comment from ATA that added payload can decrease ability of HD BEVs to operate
across various (unspecified) duty cycles is also misplaced. Inputs to HD TRUCS include power
requirements adequate to assure that each of the GEM test cycles are met. See RIA Chapter
2.4.1.2 and 2.8.5.4
Comments regarding payload penalty are exaggerated. As shown in RIA Chapter 2.9.1.1,
many BEVs in HD TRUCS would not incur a weight penalty. For those that do, we conducted a
further evaluation of the impact of the BEV weight on maximum payload capacity, including an
analysis of the impact of selecting battery chemistries with higher specific energy (lower weight
for a given battery range) on payload capacity. For the Class 8 dump trucks, the payload
difference (loss) was modest: 2.6 percent or with the NiMn battery chemistry specific energy
(226 Wh/kg) the payload loss is 1.3 percent. The tanker payload loss was 2 percent of maximum
payload. EPA did not view these differences as sufficient to preclude utilization of BEV
technology at the rates projected in EPA's modeled compliance pathway. See RIA Chapter
2.9.1.1 for detailed explanations, by vehicle. On the other hand, for concrete mixers and
pumpers, EPA determined that battery size, energy demand, and corresponding costs were all
significantly higher than EPA had projected at proposal and accordingly determined that EPA's
optional custom chassis standards for Concrete Mixers/Pumpers and Mixed-Use Vehicles will
remain unchanged from the Phase 2 MY 2027+ CO2 emission standards. We found the weight to
be reasonable for most of the tractors in HD TRUCS. EPA further examined when tractors are
636
-------
utilized at maximum load352 and found that many commodities do not require transport at
maximum load, for further discussion on our analysis of tractor loading based on commodities,
see Chapter 2.9.1 of the RIA. Our ultimate conclusion was that our modeled compliance pathway
projects a majority of these vehicles remain ICE vehicles, that ICE vehicles therefore would be
available to accommodate those commodities for which maximum loads are needed, and that
BEVs remain a viable alternative for other commodities. See RIA 2.9.1.1 for a vehicle-by-
vehicle discussion. We likewise show in RIA Chapter 2.9.1.2 why BEVs in our analysis would
not incur a volumetric penalty.
We also do not agree with the comments that BEVs will prove economically infeasible to
operate because they will need to make so many more trips than their ICE counterparts. As
discussed in RTC section 4.3.1 and in RIA Chapter 2.9.1.1, EPA has completed further analysis
since the NPRM on the effect on payload comparing an ICE to BEV powertrain.353 This analysis
was performed to ensure that HD BEVs are capable of performing the same amount of work as
ICE vehicles without incurring additional trips.
We have not included a cost for additional ZEVs required to perform the same work as ICE
vehicles because, in general, we expect that our component sizing methodology (see RTC
Section 3.3.1) describes ZEVs that can perform in full the work of a comparable ICE vehicle. As
further explained in our response in RTC section 2.4, we acknowledge that there are some uses
cases, including those with extreme daily VMT demands, for which ICE vehicles may be better
suited during the timeframe of this rule. Our modeled potential compliance pathway accounts for
this and includes ICE vehicles. For all of the HDV subcategories, that pathway projects that there
would be ICE vehicles available to meet the needs of those vehicles that operate under extreme
daily VMT demands.
Please see Section 3.3 of this RTC for responses to comments relating to range and battery
sizing.
3.10.2 Intentionally Left Blank
3.10.3 Battery Volume
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
Battery Length Calculation in 2 BEV Tech worksheet - EPA included an assessment of
battery volume in the NPRM (see Draft RIA Section 2.4.2, p. 166). The volume assessment
drives the calculation of the width of the battery based on the battery volume that is determined
for each vehicle type within HD TRUCS. The calculation divides the battery volume by the
presumed battery height (110% of the frame rail height) and by the battery length (wheelbase) of
each vehicle type to calculate a battery width. However, if this entire rectangle is used for
352 DOE. Vehicle Technologies Office. Fact of the Week #1293. "In 2019, More Heavy Trucks Operated at 34,000
to 36,000 Pounds than Any Other Weight Category". Available online:
https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1293-june-5-2023-2019-more-heavy-trucks-operated-34000-
36000-pounds-any
353 See Landgraf, Mike. Memorandum to docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985. "HD GHG Phase 3 Rule BEV Payload
Analysis" February 26, 2024.
637
-------
batteries on a BEV, there will be no room for the front or rear tires, since the prescribed
dimensions violate the space envelope required for the tires. EMA recommends that the battery
length factor be reduced to allow for a more realistic volume requirement for the batteries in HD
TRUCS. Specifically, EMA reduced the length by 26 inches for non-tractors to allow space for
the front tire. The overlap with the rear tire may be able to go between the frame rails behind the
axle, since trucks have more frame extended behind the rear axle(s). For Class 7 tractors, which
are a 4x2 axle configuration, the length should be reduced by 26 inches for both the front and
rear axle, for a total reduction of 52 inches. The after-frame on tractors is very short to provide
clearance for the landing gear of a trailer, so there is no space behind the axle for additional
batteries. On Class 8 tractors, which have a tandem rear axle (6x4), the battery length needs a
reduction of 26 inches for the front axle and 52 inches for the rear axle. The wheelbase on 6x4
configurations is measured to the centerline of the two rear axles, which necessitates additional
reductions over Class 7 tractors. These battery-length errors allow HD TRUCS to include various
tractors as BEVs when, in fact, there is insufficient space for the required battery. Those vehicles
should be treated as FCEVs instead. The space needed for the frame rails also needs to be
considered. Each of the two rails are about 3.5 inches wide. EMA believes this is a less
significant issue in the battery width limitation evaluation, so it is not included in the corrections
to EMA HD TRUCS. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 24]
EPA Summary and Response:
Summary:
EMA commented that the calculation used in determining the length of battery in the battery
volume calculation in HD TRUCS was inaccurate. They commented that the calculation did not
account for wheels and tires when determining the length of the battery and that the value we
used (wheelbase) should be shortened to account for the steer tire and the drive tires. EMA gave
values that could be used to account for wheels and tires in determining the overall length of the
battery. They also pointed out that the calculation for width did not account for the width of the
frame rails and gave a value that can be used for the width of the frame.
Response:
EPA generally agrees with EMA that our calculation for battery length in the proposal should
have accounted for wheels and tires, and we also understand the criticisms about factoring in the
width of the frame. However, we have taken a different approach for the final rule. Instead of
calculating the specific volume of the battery for each vehicle, we have compared the battery size
in kWh of the vehicles in HD TRUCS to comparable current BEVs. If the comparison showed
that the battery size of the vehicle in HD TRUCS was similar to or smaller than current
production BEVs, that battery was determined to have no packaging constraints. If the battery
size of the vehicle in HD TRUCS was significantly larger than current production BEVs, then
that battery was determined to have packaging constraints and would not be possible to package
on the vehicle. This is a conservative approach as we are presume that battery energy density
will increase over time allowing the same amount of energy to be stored in a physically smaller
battery. This new approach is more robust because it compares packaging to existing BEVs, so
we are confident that similar battery volumes can be packaged. For further discussion on our
analysis for battery volume and packaging see Chapter 2.9.1.2 of the RIA.
638
-------
3.11 Payback Period, Baseline, Projected Compliance Pathway,
TCO
3.11.1 Baseline
Comments by Organizations
Organization: American Free Enterprise Chamber of Commerce (AmFree) et al.
a. Current Adoption Of Electric Vehicles
Today, electric vehicles are barely used in the heavy-duty industry. Manufacturers offer very
few models, and heavy-duty vehicle operators do not buy them. The few that have been
purchased are almost all show-pieces purchased by local governments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1660-A1, p. 19]
Battery-Electric Vehicles. For the current model year, there are only 120 heavy-duty battery-
electric vehicle models available for purchase. See U.S. Dep't of Energy, Alternative Fuels Data
Ctr., Alternative Fuel and Advanced Vehicle Search, https://tinyurl.com/4pmta4a6 (last accessed
June 12, 2023).2 Those models are spread between several categories, including step vans,
vocational/ cab chassis vehicles, street sweepers, refuse haulers, tractors, passenger vans, shuttle
buses, transit buses, and school buses. Id. The limited number of options may be a result of
exceedingly low demand. In 2022, for example, there were a mere 2,000 electric buses registered
in the United States, making up only 2 percent of buses overall. See IEA, Electric Bus
Registrations and Sales Share by Region, 2015-2022 (Apr. 26, 2023),
https://tinyurl.com/yckwdj3e. In that same year, there were a mere 3,100 electric trucks
registered in the United States, making up only 0.4 percent of trucks overall. See IEA, Electric
Truck Registrations and Sales Share by Region, 2015-2022 (Apr. 26, 2023),
https://tinyurl.com/4z2c2rm5. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1660-A1, pp. 19 - 20]
Fuel-Cell Vehicles. The number of heavy-duty fuel-cell vehicle models is even lower. For the
current model year, there are only four heavy-duty fuel-cell models available for purchase. See
U.S. Dep't of Energy, Alternative Fuels Data Ctr., Alternative Fuel and Advanced Vehicle
Search, https://tinyurl.com/ymvf2u6z (last accessed June 13, 2023).3 Three are transit buses, and
the fourth is a street sweeper. Id. There are thus zero available 2023 fuel-cell models for many of
the vehicle categories in the heavy-duty industry. And the models that are available are barely
used in the United States. In 2022, for example, there were approximately 200 fuel-cell buses
registered nationwide, accounting for only 0.2 percent of buses overall. See IEA, Trends in
Electric Light- Duty Vehicles (2023), https://tinyurl.com/mpwrhuev. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1660-A1, p. 20]
3 EPA reports that there are 16 available heavy-duty fuel-cell models. Draft RIA at 76-77. Again, EPA
includes models from prior and future years, as well as internal-combustion-engine models that can be
retrofitted into electric vehicles through a costly conversion process. See id.
By and large, the heavy-duty industry has not embraced a shift from internal- combustion-
engine vehicles to electric ones. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1660-A1, p. 20]
639
-------
Organization: Clean Air Task Force et al.
A. EPA must use an accurate baseline in promulgating vehicle standards.
Under section 202(a)(1), EPA must, as a consequence of its Endangerment Finding, adopt
standards that address the threat that GHG emissions from heavy-duty vehicles pose to public
health and welfare. See 42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(1). Standards that do no more than track anticipated
market trends, when stronger standards are technically and economically feasible, do not satisfy
this statutory mandate in the face of ever-growing risks and impacts of climate change. A factual
prerequisite to determining whether proposed emission standards will have any independent
effect or will instead merely track, or trail, anticipated market developments, is to develop an
accurate baseline (or "reference case," as EPA refers to it in the proposal). Reflecting this reality,
OMB's Circular A-4 provides that identifying an appropriate baseline is a "key element" of a
regulatory analysis.40 Accordingly, an agency's failure to use an appropriate baseline in
developing its regulatory action is arbitrary and capricious. See Leather Indus, of Am., Inc. v.
EPA, 40 F.3d 392, 404-05 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (holding that EPA's selenium limits for land-applied
sewage sludge were arbitrary and capricious because they were based on overly conservative
baseline exposure assumptions); Stewart v. Azar, 366 F. Supp. 3d 125, 154 (D.D.C. 2019)
(striking down Department of Health and Human Services' approval of state Medicaid
demonstration project because it was based on an irrational baseline); cf. Am. Equity Inv. Life
Ins. Co. v. SEC, 613 F.3d 166, 178 (D.C. Cir. 2010) ("The SEC could not accurately assess any
potential increase or decrease in competition, however, because it did not assess the baseline
level of price transparency and information disclosure under state law."); Or. Nat. Desert Ass'n
v. Jewell, 840 F.3d 562, 568 (9th Cir. 2016) (noting that in the context of NEPA, "[t]he
establishment of a baseline is not an independent legal requirement, but rather, a practical
requirement in environmental analysis often employed to identify the environmental
consequences of a proposed agency action.") (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). It is
therefore imperative that EPA develop an accurate baseline of HD ZEV penetration and use that
baseline to help inform the stringency of its final standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-
Al, p. 20]
40 OMB, Circular A-4: Regulatory Analysis, at 2 (Sept. 17, 2003), https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-
content/uploads/legacy_drupal_files/omb/circulars/A4/a-4.pdf.
B. The proposal underestimates baseline HD ZEV penetration levels.
EPA's proposed standards are too lenient in part because they rely on underestimates of future
baseline HD ZEV market penetration levels, which causes EPA to underestimate the feasibility
of higher stringency levels that would be achievable through greater deployment of zero-
emission technologies. Finalizing the standards as proposed would fail to achieve the emissions
reductions necessary to meet EPA's statutory mandate to protect public health and welfare,
including by facilitating greater use of improved emission control technologies. See, e.g., NRDC
v. EPA, 655 F.2d 318, 328 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (stating that "Congress intended the agency to
project future advances in pollution control capability" and noting that Clean Air Act section
202(a)(2) embodies Congress's intent that EPA "press for the development and application of
improved technology rather than be limited by that which exists today."); 88 Fed. Reg. at 25949
(noting that EPA "has clear authority to set standards under [Clean Air Act] section 202(a)(1)-
(2) that are technology forcing when EPA considers that to be appropriate.").41 EPA has
recognized in the past that underestimating the baseline has a direct impact on the stringency of
640
-------
emission regulations. See, e.g., Control of Air Pollution From New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty
Engine and Vehicle Standards 87 Fed. Reg. 17414, 17561 (proposed Mar. 28, 2022) (recognizing
that considering a more accurate (higher) baseline HD ZEV market penetration could lead to
more stringent standards). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, pp. 20 - 21]
41 See also 81 Fed. Reg. 73478, 73809 (Oct. 25, 2016) (EPA's HDV GHG Phase 2 standards were
"predicated on performance of technologies not only currently deployed but those which reasonably can be
developed during the phase in period.").
Here, EPA's baseline HD ZEV penetration rates are too low because they unreasonably
assume essentially no baseline ZEV adoption due to natural market forces and instead model the
level of ZEVs resulting only from the ACT rule in California and some of the other states that
have adopted the ACT rule.42 This approach results in an unrealistic underestimate of baseline
HD ZEV sales. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 21]
42 See EPA, Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis (DRIA), at 317 ("To estimate the adoption of HD ZEVs in
the reference case, we assumed a national level of ZEV sales based on volumes expected from ACT in
California and the other states that have adopted ACT. We used those volumes as the numeric basis for a
projection of the number of ZEVs nationwide in the 2024 and later timeframe.") Here, EPA considered
ZEV sales that would occur in California and five ACT-adopting states (Oregon, Washington, New York,
New Jersey, and Massachusetts), but did not account for two additional states that have since adopted the
rule (Vermont and Colorado). See Sierra Club, Vermont Adopts Rules for Cleaner Cars and Trucks (Dec.
1, 2022), https://www.sierraclub.org/vermont/vermont-adopts-rules-cleaner-cars-and-trucks; Colo. Dep't
Pub. Health & Env't, Colorado Adopts New Measures to Increase Availability of Zero-Emission Trucks
That Offer Lower Operating and Fuel Costs (Apr. 21, 2023), https://cdphe.colorado.gov/press-
release/colorado-adopts-new-measures-to-increase-availability-of-zero-emission-trucks-that.
In fact, as explained in this section, the level of ZEV sales EPA models for its proposed
standards—which is based on payback period as the driver of ZEV adoption43—is actually a
more reasonable assessment of a likely baseline level of ZEV sales. Specifically, the ZEV
penetration rates that EPA anticipates will result from the standards merely track one projection
of market trends rather than reflect any additional feasible adoption of emissions-reducing
technology. The payback period approach on which EPA relies to set its standards, then, more
appropriately informs baseline ZEV adoption, i.e., what the heavy-duty ZEV market would be
expected to achieve without considering the effect of Phase 3 standards on ZEV adoption. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985- 1640-A1, p. 21]
43 EPA based its payback periods on a report by ACT Research titled "Charging Forward: 2020-2040 BEV
& FCEV Forecast & Analysis: Commercial Electric and Fuel Cell Vehicle Multi-Client Study." DRIA, at
231-32 ("[W]e relied on the ACT Research method to assess adoption rates, which we modified to account
for the effects of our proposed regulation."). Citing a licensing agreement, EPA declined to make the ACT
Research report available in the public docket. Memorandum from George C. Mitchell, Mem. to Docket
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0829 (Apr. 7, 2023), https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-0931. Furthermore, the report is not available in the EPA Reading Room. Instead, it is available
only for purchase from ACT Research by paying a $25,000 fee. ACT Research, Are You Charging
Forward to Zero Emissions?, https://www.actresearch.net/consulting/special-projects/commercial-vehicle-
decarbonization-forecast-reports (last visited June 10, 2023) (PDF of pricing information attached to this
comment letter). Thus, we cannot make an assessment of the accuracy, reasonableness, or appropriateness
of ACT Research's data, assumptions, methodology, analysis, findings, and conclusions. This, in turn,
prevents us from assessing and commenting on the reasonableness of EPA's heavy reliance on the report
and on EPA's approach to determining payback periods. We object to EPA's withholding of this critical
material from the public docket, which has prevented us from offering meaningful comment on a key
aspect of the proposal.
641
-------
Several additional analyses project baseline levels of HD ZEV penetration that are very close
to the level of ZEVs that EPA anticipates manufacturers will produce to comply with
the proposed standards, further supporting a higher baseline and calling into question EPA's
approach. And data on government, manufacturer, and fleet policies, investments, and
commitments underscore the accuracy of these higher levels of baseline HD ZEV penetration.
EPA should revise its baseline in the final rule to reflect what would actually occur under
baseline circumstances, which would result in higher baseline HD ZEV sales shares. A more
accurate baseline would involve ZEV penetration levels closer to those that EPA projected
would result from the proposed standards. See EPA, Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis (DRIA)
at 319, Tbl. 4-7 (showing projected ZEV adoption rates under EPA's proposed standards).
Assuming a more accurate and reasonable HD ZEV baseline, it becomes clear that a national
stringency level at least as protective of public health and welfare as the ACT Rule, implemented
nationwide, is entirely feasible and more aligned with EPA's mandates under the Clean Air
Act. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, pp. 21 - 22]
1. The payback period analysis that EPA relies on in proposing the stringency of its standards
should instead be used to inform EPA's regulatory baseline.
Circular A-4, which provides guidance to federal regulatory agencies on the rulemaking
process, explains that a regulatory baseline "should be the best assessment of the way the world
would look absent the proposed action," and should include consideration of the "evolution of
the market "44 In EPA's proposal, the Agency explains that in setting its proposed standards it
relied primarily on a method developed by ACT Research based on technology payback period
to inform its ZEV adoption level because "payback is the most relevant metric to the HD vehicle
industry," and "only ACT Research's work directly related payback period to adoption rates."
DRIA at 232. Payback period, however, is of key relevance to a baseline-level analysis—
especially for heavy-duty vehicles. EPA's proposal does not consider payback period to inform
its baseline HD ZEV penetration rates, but it should. Heavy-duty vehicles are generally
purchased to fulfill a business need such as delivery services, municipal work, transporting
people or goods, construction, refuse collection, and freight delivery. 88 Fed. Reg. at 25938. As
EPA notes, "[businesses that operate HD vehicles are under competitive pressure to reduce
operating costs, which should encourage purchasers to identify and rapidly adopt new vehicle
technologies that reduce operating costs." 88 Fed. Reg. 26071. Thus, market trends, payback
periods, and total cost of ownership of vehicles are and have always been relevant to a baseline-
level inquiry. While it is possible that some HDV purchasers refrain from purchasing ZEVs even
when they make economic sense, it is unreasonable to wholly disregard payback periods in
setting the baseline—especially when Circular A-4 directs EPA to consider "market trends" in
doing so—and consider them only in setting the standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1,
p. 22]
44 OMB, Circular A-4, at 15.
EPA also explains that ZEV adoption rates typically follow an S-curve, DRIA at 231, and
cites several additional sources modeling HD ZEV adoption, including research by government,
nonprofit, and private entities.45 These additional sources, however, actually consider
and/or project HD ZEV penetration rates in a baseline scenario—i.e., what would happen under
market conditions absent the Phase 3 standards—and each projects ZEV penetration consistent
with or even higher than that EPA anticipates will result from its proposed standards. Essentially,
642
-------
EPA appears to simply propose to codify a baseline level of HD ZEV penetration, rather than
drive additional feasible adoption of emission control technologies to achieve the emissions
reductions necessary to protect public health and welfare. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1,
pp. 22 - 23]
45 EPA notes that it considered the following studies: Ellen Robo & Dave Seamonds, ERM, Technical
Memo to Environmental Defense Fund: Analysis of Alternative Medium- and Heavy-Duty Zero Emission
Vehicle Business-As-Usual Scenarios (May 16, 2022) [hereinafter Robo & Seamonds, Technical Memo],
https://www.erm.eom/contentassets/154d08e0d0674752925cd82c66b3e2bl/edf-zev-baseline-technical-
memo-16may2022.pdf; Peter Slowik et al., ICCT & Energy Innovation, Analyzing the Impact of the
Inflation Reduction Act on Electric Vehicle Uptake in the United States, at ii (2023), https://theicct.org/wp-
content/uploads/2023/01/ira-impact-evs-us-jan23-2.pdf; Baha M. Al-Alawi et al., Calstart, Global Sales
Targets for Zero-Emission Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles—Methods and Application (2022),
https://globaldrivetozero.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/CALSTART_Global-Sales_White-
Paper.pdf. EPA also considered several models: MA3T-TruckChoice, see Zhenhong Lin et al., Oak Ridge
Nat'l Lab'y, Presentation of Transportation Energy Evolution Modeling (TEEM) Program (June 22, 2021),
https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2021-07/van02 l_lin_202 l_o_5-
28 1126pm_LR_FINAL_ML.pdf; Oak Ridge Nat'l Lab'y, Transportation Energy Evolution Modeling
(TEEM) Program, https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/transportation-energy-evolution-
modeling-teem-program-1 (last visited June 14, 2023); Nat'l Renewable Energy Lab'y (NREL), T3CO:
Transportation Technology Total Cost of Ownership, https://www.nrel.gov/transportation/t3co.html (last
visited June 14, 2023); Argonne Nat'l Lab'y, BEAN: Benefits Analysis,
https://vms.taps.anl.gov/tools/bean/ (last visited June 14, 2023); and Pacific Northwest Nat'l Lab'y,
GCAM: Global Change Analysis Model, https://gcims.pnnl.gov/modeling/gcam-global-change-analysis-
model (last visited June 14, 2023).
The baseline HD ZEV penetration projections from the analyses EPA cites, along with those
of other relevant analyses, are shown in comparison to projected ZEV penetration rates in EPA's
baseline and proposed standards in Table 2, below. Comparing the levels in each of these
baseline projection analyses to EPA's baseline, and the proposed standards highlights that EPA's
baseline HD ZEV sales projections are unreasonably low, and that in fact EPA's proposed
standards would merely codify a reasonably anticipated market-driven heavy-duty ZEV
penetration level. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 23.] [See Docket Number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, pages 23-24, for Table 2]
Each of the analyses in Table 2 endeavors to model what the market is likely to do absent the
Phase 3 standards. The values show a range due to differing underlying assumptions regarding
the impact of state and federal policies, along with assumptions regarding market trends, but all
show baseline ZEV penetration rates much higher than EPA's baseline and more consistent with
the level of ZEV penetration that EPA predicts will result from its proposed standards. A
payback period approach like the one EPA uses in its standard-setting analysis is by no means
the only consideration relevant to estimating HD ZEV baseline penetration levels, but payback
periods are reasonable and important factors to consider in setting the baseline ZEV penetration
rate. In considering payback period for the baseline, however, EPA should consider sources in
addition to the ACT Research report. As explained in footnote 43, the Agency has not made that
report available in the public docket, making it impossible for commenters to understand whether
the ACT Research payback periods are accurate or reasonable. In addition to considering
payback period, EPA should consider other relevant factors that inform baseline HD ZEV sales,
such as federal and state rules, programs, and incentives, and fleet and manufacturer
commitments—many of which also inform the baseline analyses listed in Table 2. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, pp. 24 - 25]
643
-------
2. EPA's HD ZEV baseline should account for all state-level rules and investments.
EPA's proposal correctly notes that "a number of states have signaled interest in greater
adoption of HD ZEV technologies and/or establishing specific goals to increase the HD electric
vehicle market." 88 Fed. Reg. at 25947.57 EPA highlights a few of these state-level goals, such
as the Multi-State Medium- and Heavy-Duty Zero Emission Vehicle Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) organized by Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management
(NESCAUM), but the Agency underestimates the depth and breadth of state-level commitments
and fails to incorporate their effects on HD ZEV sales directly into the baseline. For the final
rule, EPA should utilize a baseline that takes into account (1) the projected HD ZEV sales to be
achieved in all states that have adopted the ACT rule,58 including the most recent states to have
adopted that rule; (2) projected sales to be achieved in all states that have signed the NESCAUM
MOU; and (3) at least some modest level of ZEV adoption by other states based on factors that
will independently drive adoption of HD ZEVs: extensive and growing government, fleet, and
manufacturer commitments, achieved or near-term HD ZEV cost favorability, and the impacts of
the BIL and IRA on market-based adoption. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 25]
57 See also 87 Fed. Reg. at 17440, 17595-17598 (noting that numerous states "have announced plans to
shift the heavy-duty fleet toward zero-emissions technology," and detailing examples such as states' and
cities' expansion of electric bus fleets).
58 Advanced Clean Trucks Regulation, Cal. Code Regs. tit. 13, §§ 1963-1963.5, 2012-2012.2 (2019),
https://ww2.arb. ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2019/act2019/fro2 .pdf.
a. EPA's baseline should account for all states that have adopted the ACT rule.
EPA notes that for its baseline, the Agency "assumed a national level of ZEV sales based on
volumes expected from ACT in California and the other states that have adopted ACT," and
"used those volumes as the numeric basis for a projection of the number of ZEVs nationwide in
the 2024 and later timeframe." DRIA at 317. EPA has now granted California's ACT rule waiver
request, 88 Fed. Reg. at 25947 n.186, and the Agency should continue to include sales required
under the ACT in its final baseline HD ZEV penetration levels. For the proposal, EPA assumes
ACT-level ZEV sales in California plus five additional states that have adopted ACT under
Clean Air Act section 177: Oregon, Washington, New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts.
DRIA at 317 n.iii; 88 Fed. Reg. at 26040 n.656. EPA also notes that Vermont recently adopted
ACT under section 177 and that Vermont's adoption was not included due to timing issues,
but that it "provides additional support for the ZEV levels in our reference case." Id. at 26040
n.657. In fact, Vermont and Colorado both have adopted the ACT rule,59 and the ACT-level HD
ZEV sales requirements for both states should be calculated and included in EPA's baseline for
the final rule. HD ZEV sales in ACT-adopting states will need to reach between 30 percent
(Class 7-8 tractors) and 50 percent (Class 4-8 trucks) by 2030, and 40 percent (Class 7-8
tractors) to 75 percent (Class 4-8 trucks) by 2035 in order to meet the ACT targets.60 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, pp. 25 - 26]
59 See Sierra Club, Vermont Adopts Rules for Cleaner Cars and Trucks (Dec. 1, 2022),
https://www.sierraclub.org/vermont/vermont-adopts-rules-cleaner-cars-and-trucks; Colo. Dep't Pub. Health
& Env't.
60 Advanced Clean Trucks Regulation, Cal. Code Regs. tit. 13, § 1963.1, Table A-l (2019); see also
Rachel Macintosh et al., EDF, Electric Vehicle Market Update 15 (April 2022) [hereinafter Macintosh et
al., April 2022 EV Market Update].
644
-------
b. EPA's baseline should account for significant ZEV adoption in the states that are in the
process of adopting ACT and the states that have signed the NESCAUM multi-state MOU.
As EPA correctly explains, "there have been multiple actions by states to accelerate the
adoption of HD ZEVs" in addition to the ACT rule. 88 Fed. Reg. at 25930. EPA notes that 17
states and the District of Columbia have signed the NESCAUM MOU, "establishing goals to
support widespread electrification of the HD vehicle market." 88 Fed. Reg. at 25931. The multi-
state MOU targets ZEV sales equaling 30 percent of all HDV sales by 2030 and 100 percent of
all HDV sales by 2050.61 In July 2022, NESCAUM and the MOU states issued a comprehensive
and detailed Action Plan to meet their goals.62 An analysis by ICCT estimates that 36 percent of
all HDV sales in MOU states (excluding California) would be ZEVs in 2030 if all states
implement the goals set out in the MOU.63 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 26]
61 NESCAUM, Multi-State Medium- and Heavy-Duty Zero Emission Vehicle Memorandum of
Understanding, at 3-4 (2022) [hereinafter NESCAUM, MOU], https://www.nescaum.org/documents/mhdv-
zev-mou-20220329.pdf; 88 Fed. Reg. at 25947.
62 NESCAUM, Multi-State Medium- and Heavy-Duty Zero-Emission Vehicle Action Plan: A Policy
Framework to Eliminate Harmful Truck and Bus Emissions (2022) [hereinafter NESCAUM, Action Plan],
https://www.nescaum.org/documents/multi-state-medium-and-heavy-duty-zev-action-plan-dual-page.pdf.
63 Arijit Sen et al., ICCT, Benefits of the 2020 Multi-State Medium- and Heavy-Duty Zero-Emission
Vehicle Memorandum of Understanding 5 (2022), https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/md-hd-
mou-benefits-apr22 .pdf.
Moreover, EPA correctly "anticipate^] more jurisdictions will follow" with proposals to fully
adopt the ACT rule. 88 Fed. Reg. at 25948. In April 2022, Connecticut passed legislation
authorizing the state's Department of Energy and Environmental Protection to adopt the ACT
rule.64 Rhode Island is currently in the midst of a rulemaking process to adopt the ACT rule,
with the comment period having just closed on May 24, 2023,65 and in April 2023, Maryland's
General Assembly passed a bill directing the state to adopt the ACT rule.66 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 26]
64 See Sierra Club, Connecticut General Assembly Passes Legislation for Clean Trucks, Clean Air (Apr.
29, 2022), https://www.sierraclub.org/press-releases/2022/04/connecticut-general-assembly-passes-
legislation-for-clean-trucksclean-air.
65 See R.I. Dep't Env't Mgmt., Advanced Clean Cars II (ACCII) & Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT),
https://dem.ri.gov/environmental-protection-bureau/air-resources/advanced-clean-cars-ii-advanced-clean-
trucks (last visited June 15, 2023).
66 Calstart, By Paving the Way for Clean Trucks, Maryland Reaffirms Its Position as a Climate Leader,
https://calstart.org/calstart-applauds-maryland-for-adopting-clean-truck-legislation/ (last visited June 15,
2023).
HDV sales in ACT and MOU states, including California, make up a significant portion of
national HDV sales—about 36.5 percent.67 Despite mentioning the MOU, the proposal does not
factor into its baseline the fact that ZEVs will be added to the heavy-duty fleet more rapidly in
these 17 states and the District of Columbia, which make up more than a third of national HDV
sales, or that several of these states are poised to adopt the ACT rule soon.68 EPA's baseline
must reflect the impact of these significant commitments to ZEVs by the MOU
signatories. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 27]
645
-------
67 Claire Buysse et al., Racing to Zero: The Ambition We Need for Zero-Emission Heavy-Duty Vehicles
in the United States, ICCT (Apr. 8, 2022), https://theicct.org/racing-to-zero-hdv-us-apr22/. This is
consistent with MOVES projections for MY 2027, which show 215,328 heavy-duty sales in all the MOU
states, as compared to 589,910 total heavy-duty sales nationally, or 36.5 percent of all sales.
68 The MOU signatories are: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia,
Washington, and the District of Columbia. See NESCAUM, MOU.
c. EPA should consider the impacts of California's Advanced Clean Fleets rule.
On April 28, 2023, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) approved the ACF rule,
which will result in even faster growth in heavy-duty ZEV sales in California.69 The ACF rule
will regulate public and private fleets, new mobility fleets, large employer fleets, rental fleets,
and delivery fleets, with the "goal of achieving a zero-emission public bus and truck fleet in
California by 2045 and significantly earlier for certain market segments like last mile delivery
and drayage trucks."70 The ACF regulations are expected to be fully effective by 2024,
increasing HD ZEV uptake in California even more than the ACT rule alone.71 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 27]
69 CARB, California Approves Groundbreaking Regulation That Accelerates the Deployment of Heavy-
Duty ZEVs to Protect Public Health (Apr. 28, 2023), https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/news/california-approves-
groundbreaking-regulation-accelerates-deployment-heavy-duty-zevs-protect.
70 Macintosh et al., April 2022 EV Market Update, at 15.
71 Id.
CARB has explained that the ACF regulation "is projected to significantly increase the
number of medium- and heavy-duty ZEVs in California beyond the ZEV sales expected from the
ACT regulation," with ZEV sales greater under ACF and ACT together than ACT alone for all
model years covered by EPA's proposed standards, and beyond.72 Although the ACF Rule has
not yet been fully finalized under California state law, fleets are already planning for ACF
implementation; as one industry compliance expert has advised fleets, "[t]here is a lot of
coordination that's going to be required between groups like operations, finance and vehicle
procurement," and "coordination needs to start happening now."73 If the ACF regulation is
finalized and enforceable before finalization of EPA's rule, EPA should include ACF-related HD
ZEV sales in its baseline. Otherwise, EPA should conduct a sensitivity analysis of the impact of
ACF on its baseline. Regardless, the fact that the industry is already planning to increase HD
ZEV deployment in response to ACF provides further support for strong Phase 3
standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 27]
72 CARB, Public Hearing to Consider the Proposed Advanced Clean Fleets Regulation, Staff Report:
Initial Statement of Reasons 1, Fig.l (2022),
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2022/acf22/isor2.pdf (showing ZEV increases under
ACF for all years through 2049).
73 John Kingston, Advanced Clean Fleets Rule: Like It or Not, It's Time to Get Ready, Freight Waves
(June 1, 2023), https://www.freightwaves.com/news/advanced-clean-fleets-rule-like-it-or-not-its-time-to-
get-ready (comments of Sean Cocca, director of compliance at the advisory firm of Gladstein, Neandross &
Associates).
3. EPA's baseline should account for other government, fleet, and manufacturer commitments
and investments.
646
-------
While including all ACT-adopting and MOU states in the baseline would result in more
accurate projections and therefore more appropriate standards, even these more accurate
estimates would fail to reflect growing HD ZEV deployment in other states. Significant future
HD ZEV deployment will be driven by other federal government programs, local government
programs, and private sector investments. The proposal notes a few of these public and private
programs, investments, and commitments, but it fails to capture the depth and breadth of the pace
at which these commitments are being announced. This section offers a non-exhaustive survey of
some of the many investments already made. Several sources are regularly updated and available
to EPA to track the rapidly expanding HD ZEV market.74 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1,
p. 28]
74 For updated information, EPA should consult the following resources: EDF, Electric Fleet Deployment
& Commitment List, https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/110m2DolmjSemrb_DT40YNGou4o2m2Ee-
KLSvHC-5vAc/edit#gid=1902784037 (last visited June 15, 2023) (tracking, under the "Production" tab,
fleet-level orders, vehicles in operation, commitments, production, and EV certified dealerships);
CALSTART, Zero-Emission Technology Inventory, https://globaldrivetozero.org/tools/zeti/ (last visited
June 15, 2023) (tracking HDV ZEV models and commercial availability); DOE, Federal and State Laws
and Incentives, Alternative Fuels Data Center, https://afdc.energy.gov/laws (last visited June 15, 2023)
(tracking federal, state, and local laws and commitments within all ZEV sectors).
a. State policies and commitments and local government actions
On the state level, commitments and incentives extend beyond the ACT rule and the multi-
state MOU, even in states that have adopted ACT and/or signed the MOU. For example,
CARB's Innovative Clean Transit regulation directs large transit agencies to make 25 percent of
new bus purchases zero-emission in 2023, increasing to 50 percent by 2026 and 100 percent by
2029.75 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 28]
75 Sandra Wappelhorst & Felipe Rodriguez, Decarbonizing Bus Fleets: Global Overview of Targets for
Phasing Out Combustion Engine Vehicles, ICCT (Dec. 9, 2021), https://theicct.org/decarbonizing-bus-
fleets-global-overview-of-targets-for-phasing-out-combustion-engine-vehicles; CARB, Innovative Clean
Transit Fact Sheet (May 16, 2019), https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/fact-sheets/innovative-clean-transit-
ict-regulation-fact-sheet.
Significant state-level commitments have been made in other states beyond the ACT and
MOU states as well. In fact, all 50 states plus the District of Columbia have announced goals,
made commitments, promulgated regulations, and/or provided financial incentives (such as
rebates and funding) specific to the heavy-duty sector.76 These heavy-duty sector programs are
in addition to many broader state and local programs targeted at ZEV adoption generally (across
all vehicle sectors), which also exist in all 50 states,77 and include programs such as: medium-
and heavy-duty or diesel emissions reduction funding, rebates, or HDV replacement grants in
states such as Delaware, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Montana, New Mexico, Ohio, South
Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming;78 allowance for HD ZEVs to exceed weight limits in Arizona;
ZEV school and/or transit bus programs and incentives in Illinois, Minnesota, Missouri,
Oklahoma, Texas, West Virginia, and Wisconsin; and a diesel refuse truck replacement program
in Nebraska.79 Additionally, states beyond those that have adopted the ACT rule or signed the
MOU have been forming smaller regional collaborations aimed at HD ZEV adoption. For
example, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin signed an MOU establishing the
Regional Electric Vehicle Midwest Coalition, which "aims to create [a] cohesive regional
framework to accelerate the transition to electric vehicles."80 One of the Regional Electric
Vehicle Midwest Coalition's three key foundations is to accelerate medium- and heavy-duty fleet
647
-------
electrification. 81 These state actions—reaching across the nation—should be considered when
setting a nationwide level of ZEV penetration for EPA's baseline. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1640-A1, pp. 28 - 29]
76 See DOE, Federal and State Laws and Incentives.
77 Information on regulations and programs in all states, including those that have signed the MOU or
adopted ACT regulations, is available in id., and from the N.C.Clean Energy Tech. Ctr., Database of State
Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency (DSIRE), https://programs.dsireusa.org/system/program (last
visited June 15, 2023).
78 Many of these programs are funded as part of the Volkswagen Environmental Trust/Volkswagen
settlement.
79 This list is compiled from information available at DOE, Federal and State Laws and Incentives. This
list is a non-exhaustive sample of programs and investments and does not include the vast array of
programs and incentives available in the MOU and ACT states.
80 Macintosh et al., April 2022 EV Market Update, at 16.; Regional Electric Vehicle Midwest Coalition,
Memorandum of Understanding Between Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin 1 (2021),
https://www.michigan.gOv/documents/leo/REV_Midwest_MOU_master_737026_7.pdf.
81 Id
Cities and local entities are also committing to ZEV technologies in the heavy-duty sector.
The Los Angeles Department of Transportation has committed to electrifying its entire transit
fleet by 2030 or sooner.82 Numerous other cities and localities across the country have set zero-
emission transit and/or school bus commitments or piloted zero-emission bus programs,
including programs in Chicago, Seattle, New York City, and Washington, D.C. 87 Fed. Reg. at
17597. Arizona—not an ACT or MOU state—had the largest year-over-year increase in zero-
emission transit bus deployment in the past year, with an increase of 280 percent.83 Forty-seven
U.S. states and the District of Columbia had funded, ordered, or deployed full-size zero-emission
HD transit buses as of September 2022.84 Notably, the region comprised of Arkansas,
Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas—none of which are ACT or MOU states—had
the highest growth rate in zero-emission buses (129 percent compared to 2021), and seven out of
ten of the states with the largest numerical increases in full-size zero-emission transit buses
(compared to 2021) were states that had not adopted the ACT rule or signed the multi-state
MOU.85 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 29]
82 Los Angeles Dep't Transp. Transit, Zero-Emission Bus Rollout Plan 4 (2020),
https://ww2.arb.ca.gOv/sites/default/files/2020-12/LADOT_ROP_Reso_ADA12172020.pdf.
83 Rachel Chard et al., Calstart, Zeroing in on ZEBs 1 (2023), https://calstart.org/wp-
content/uploads/2023/02/Zeroing-in-on-ZEBs-February-2023_Final.pdf.
84 Id. at 6-8.
85 Id. at 9.
According to data from the World Resources Institute (WRI), there are now electric school
bus commitments in districts in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.86 These commitments
are growing especially rapidly in the South. Prior to October 2022, over 50 percent of electric
school bus commitments were in California, but now, California's share accounts for only 39
percent of commitments—"only a little more than the South's 34% share of commitments."87
Moreover, these commitments are being announced not only in cities and suburbs, but also in
648
-------
rural areas. In September 2022, only 19 percent of school districts with at least one committed
electric school bus were in rural areas; by December 2022, 41 percent of districts with at least
one committed electric school bus were classified as rural.88 At least 5,612 electric school buses
have been ordered, delivered, put in operation, or funded through government awards as of
December 2022, in more than 895 school districts.89 WRI notes that "[t]his is almost double the
number of both buses and districts with electric school buses in just three months" since WRI's
previous dataset.90 States and cities across the country also have ordered not just electric school
and transit buses, but other Class 4-8 ZEVs, such as refuse and fire trucks. Again, these orders
are happening in states beyond those that have signed the MOU or adopted the ACT rule, such as
Wisconsin, Florida, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Arizona, Texas, and Alaska.91 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1640-A1, pp. 29 - 30]
86 Leah Lazer & Lydia Freehafer, The State of Electric School Bus Adoption in the US, Electric School
Bus Initiative (Apr. 26, 2023), https://electricschoolbusinitiative.org/state-electric-school-bus-adoption-
us?utm_medium=email+&utm_source=blog&utm_campaign=adoption_blog (relying on data collected by
WRI).
87 Id.
88 Id.
89 Id.
90 Id.
91 EDF, Electric Fleet Deployment & Commitment List (listing, under the "Deployments" tab, HD ZEVs
already deployed or ordered by public entities nationwide).
By accounting for ZEV adoption only in states that have adopted the ACT rule, EPA's
proposal fails to capture the speed and breadth of state and local government actions, including
and beyond the ACT rule and the multi-state MOU. At least some modest level of HD ZEV
uptake in states that have not adopted the ACT rule or signed the MOU is likely—and already
taking place—and would lead to baseline HD ZEV penetration rates closer to those EPA models
for its proposed standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 30]
b. Private fleet commitments
While EPA's proposal mentions a few examples of private fleet ZEV commitments, again it
fails to capture the speed and breadth of these commitments, which are driven not only by
governmental policy but also by private industry interests.92 These purchases are happening
throughout the nation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 30]
92 See Section III.D, infra for a further discussion of these private industry interests and purchaser
acceptance of and preference for ZEVs.
According to EDF's Electric Fleet Deployment & Commitment List, commercial fleets have
already ordered or deployed at least 27,510 Class 4-8 HD ZEVs.93 These orders cover the full
range of heavy-duty applications—from last-mile delivery vehicles to trucks intended to cover
longer distances—and include large orders such as 300 Class 8 tractors by A.P. Moller-Maersk;
871 Class 8 tractors by Anheuser-Busch Co.; 105 Class 5 step vans by Bimbo Bakeries USA;
104 Class 8 tractors by DHL Worldwide Express; 500 tractors and box trucks by Pride Group
Enterprises; 4,000 Class 5 vans by Ryder System, Inc.; 851 Class 8 tractors by Sysco; and 11,644
Class 4-8 tractors, vans, and box trucks by UPS Inc.94 EPA should factor such commitments
649
-------
and deployments into its HD ZEV baseline market penetration estimates. At the very least, these
fleet commitments show significant momentum toward greater HD ZEV deployment within
private fleets nationwide and offer further evidence that baseline HD ZEV market penetration
rates in EPA's proposal are too low. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, pp. 30-31]
93 EDF, Electric Fleet Deployment & Commitment List.
94 Id.
In addition, numerous tools and resources are available to fleet managers who are considering
or in the process of transitioning their fleets to ZEVs. These resources build off of the extensive
fleet commitments cited above and can help smooth the adoption of ZEVs across the HD
market.95 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 31]
95 See, e.g., Electrification Coalition, Piloting the Transition to Freight Electrification: Lessons Learned in
Electrifying On-Road Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles (2023), https://electrificationcoalition.org/wp-
content/uploads/2023/06/Piloting-Freight-Web.pdf; Electrification Coalition, Dashboard for Rapid Vehicle
Electrification: DRVE Tool, https://electrificationcoalition.org/resource/drve/ (last visited June 13, 2023);
EDF, Fleet Electrification Solution Center, https://www.electricfleet.org/ (last visited June 13, 2023); Ryan
Kennedy, Overcoming roadblocks to fleet electrification, Freightwaves (June 12, 2023),
https://www.freightwaves.com/news/overcoming-roadblocks-to-fleet-electrification.
c. Manufacturer commitments
Government and fleet commitments work in connection with manufacturers producing HD
ZEVs, and manufacturers are in fact planning to rapidly increase HD ZEV production to meet
growing demand. Manufacturers have comprehensive plans to produce HD ZEVs, and have
indicated that they expect additional states to adopt the ACT and ACF rules.96 EPA should
consider manufacturers' vehicle offerings, plans, and commitments when estimating baseline HD
ZEV market penetration for the final rule, as well as when considering the appropriate stringency
of emission standards that drive adoption of zero-emission technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1640-A1, p. 31]
96 David Taube, California Truck Emissions Rules Appear Poised to Spread Across North America,
TransportDive (May 17, 2023), https://www.transportdive.com/news/ceos-say-states-will-follow-
california-emissions-regulation/650369/.
At May 2022's Advanced Clean Transportation Expo, manufacturers such as Cummins and
Navistar announced commitments to deploying zero-emission technologies at a rapid pace.
Cummins CEO Tom Lineburger stressed the need "to move faster for the sake of our kids and
grandkids,"97 and Navistar CEO Mathias Carlbaum suggested that "[b]y 2030... 50% of all
trucks by volume will be BEVs."98 Navistar's CEO reiterated to reporters that "[w]e believe
50% of our sales will be electric by 2030," and that 100 percent of sales would be ZEVs by
2040.99 Cummins (the largest supplier of diesel engines for HDVs) also announced a partnership
with Daimler on FCEVs, and Amy Davis, the president of Cummins' New Power unit, noted that
the partnership was "an important milestone for both companies as we work to accelerate the
shift to a carbon-free economy." 100 Navistar plans to sunset their diesel development programs
starting in 2027,101 and in July 2022, the company announced that its newest combustion
vehicle would be its last for North America. 102 Similarly, HD manufacturer Daimler Truck
North America recently announced the "beginning of the end of the diesel era." 103 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, pp. 31 - 32]
650
-------
97 Jack Roberts, Cummins CEO: Get on the Path to Net-Zero Emissions, HDT Truckinginfo (May 12,
2022), https://www.truckinginfo.com/10170751/cummins-ceo-get-on-the-path-to-net-zero-emissions.
98 Jack Roberts, Navistar CEO Calls for Long-Term Commitment to Get to Net Zero, HDT Truckinginfo
(May 12, 2022), https://www.truckinginfo.com/10170459/navistar-ceo-calls-for-long-term-commitment-to-
get-to-net-zero.
99 Alan Ohnsman, Big Rigs Going Electric as Navistar, Cummins, Daimler Rev Up Next-Generation
Trucks, Forbes (May 13, 2022).
100 Id.
101 Gladstein, Neandross & Associates, State of Sustainable Fleets 2023 Market Brief 7 (2023)
[hereinafter Gladstein, Neandross & Associates, State of Sustainable Fleets],
https://cdn.stateofsustainablefleets.com/2023/state-of-sustainable-fleets-2023-market-brief.pdf.
102 Alan Adler, Navistar's New Internal Combustion Engine Will Be Its Last, FreightWaves (Aug. 16,
2022), www.freightwaves.com/news/navistars-new-internal-combustion-engine-will-be-its-last.
103 Gladstein, Neandross & Associates, State of Sustainable Fleets, at 7.
According to the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, "[g] rowing numbers of
electric truck and bus models are reaching the market or are scheduled to be on the market soon,
with models ranging from heavy-duty pickup trucks to 18-wheel tractor-trailers." 104 The pace of
innovation in this sector has accelerated in recent years. In 2016, Oak Ridge National Laboratory
identified just eight commercially available medium- and heavy-duty ZEV options. 105 By 2019,
there were about 70 HD models available from 27 manufacturers, 106 and that number has
continued rapid growth. EPA's DRIA includes updated information showing that currently there
are "over 170 models produced by over 60 manufacturers that cover a broad range of
applications, including school buses, transit buses, straight trucks, refuse haulers, vans, tractors,
utility trucks, and others, available to the public through MY 2024." 88 Fed. Reg. at 25961,
DRIA at 44-51. EPA notes that the number of available models is expected to grow to about 200
models by 2024. Id. at 44. CALSTART's Zero-Emission Technology Inventory provides further
evidence that the growth of zero-emission medium- and heavy-duty models in the United States
and Canada has been rapid, with more manufacturers entering the market and the number of
available ZEV models growing. 107 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 32]
104 Steven Nadel & Peter Huether, ACEEE, Electrifying Trucks: From Delivery Vans to Buses to 18-
Wheelers, at iv (2021), https://www.aceee.org/research-report/t2102.
105 Paige Jadun et al., NREL, Electrification Futures Study: End-Use Electric Technology Cost and
Performance Projections through 2050, at 20 (2017), https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fyl8osti/70485.pdf (citing
Alicia K. Birky et al., Oak Ridge Nat'l Lab'y, Transportation Electrification Beyond Light Duty:
Technology and Market Assessment (2017), https://info.ornl.gov/sites/publications/Files/Pub72938.pdf).
106 Union of Concerned Scientists, Ready for Work: Now is the Time for Heavy-Duty Electric Vehicles 8-
9 (2019), https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/2019-12/ReadyforWorkFullReport.pdf.
107 CALSTART, Model Availability to Follow Upward Trajectory, ZETI Analytics,
https://globaldrivetozero.org/tools/zeti-analytics/ (see table titled "Growth of Models Available by Region
and OEMS by Region Trending Upwards").
These numbers are certain to increase further, as is evidenced by the increasing frequency of
new HD ZEV product announcements and commitments by manufacturers. A sampling of these
are included below in Table 3. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 32.] [See Docket
Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, pages 32-36, for Table 3]
651
-------
While the above table includes a sample of relevant product announcements and
commitments, new commitments, technological developments, and investments are being
announced every day. The progress and potential in the manufacturing sector further underscores
both that EPA's proposed baseline HD ZEV market penetration projections are underestimated,
and that much higher deployment is eminently feasible. EPA should consider manufacturers'
vehicle offerings, plans, and commitments when estimating baseline HD ZEV market
penetration for the final rule, as well as when considering more stringent emission standards that
drive adoption of zero-emission technologies. EPA is correct to note that "[standards.. .can
create conditions under which companies invest in major innovations," DRIA at 420, and this is
especially true if the standards are set at a level that exceeds the technology's market-based
penetration rate. Because EPA's proposed standards essentially mirror what would happen in a
world "if the proposed rule is not adopted," 142 they reflect the baseline rather than an
appropriate level of stringency under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. EPA should instead set
its final standards at a level that will lead to greater deployment of zero-emission technologies
(and produce greater emission reductions) than the market would otherwise achieve. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 36]
142 See Circular A-4, at 2.
4. Recent cost estimates support the viability of HD ZEVs across vehicle segments and should
inform EPA's baseline.
Declining costs for HD ZEVs also support a baseline market penetration rate higher than
EPA's baseline and more consistent with rates EPA projects may occur under its proposed
standards. EPA notes that "[t]he lifetime total cost of ownership (TCO)...is likely a primary
factor for HD vehicle and fleet owners considering BEV and FCEV purchases," and cites
analyses by ICCT, Phadke et al., and the Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI) showing near-term
TCO parity. 88 Fed. Reg. at 25942. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 37]
Numerous cost studies, including those cited by EPA, estimate that at least some categories of
HD ZEVs have already reached TCO parity with their diesel counterparts—even prior to
accounting for IRA incentives and credits—and more categories will reach TCO parity prior to
2027, or faster now that IRA is in effect. EPA should consider these favorable cost projections in
its estimates for baseline HD ZEV market penetration. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1,
p. 37]
The estimates cited by EPA include: (1) pre-IRA projections from ICCT (2019),143 which
concluded that at least some HD ZEVs could reach cost parity in the "early 2020s;" (2) pre-IRA
projections from Phadke et al. (2021), which suggested "that BEV TCO could be 13 percent less
than that of a comparable diesel combustion vehicle if electricity pricing is optimized," 88 Fed.
Reg. at 25942; 144 and (3) a post-IRA RMI analysis showing that the IRA will result in the TCO
of electric trucks falling below the TCO of comparable diesel trucks about five years faster than
without the IRA. 145 See 88 Fed. Reg. at 25942. Several additional recent studies not included in
EPA's proposal also estimate when various classes of HD ZEVs will reach cost parity with their
conventional counterparts. These studies generally show that transit buses, refuse trucks, school
buses, and Class 4-7 short-haul rigid trucks such as delivery and utility vehicles—which together
make up approximately 47 percent of the entire HD market—either have already reached cost
parity with their diesel counterparts for some vehicle categories, or will do so by 2027 for
nearly all categories. 146 And these studies were conducted pre-IRA, meaning that for most of
652
-------
these categories, TCO parity could be sped up by at least 5 years based on the RMI analysis cited
in EPA's proposal, 147 with parity already achieved for at least some additional vehicles. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985- 1640-A1, pp. 37 - 38]
143 Dale Hall & Nic Lutsey, ICCT, Estimating the Infrastructure Needs and Costs for the Launch of Zero-
Emission Trucks, at ii (2019), https://theicct.org/publication/estimating-the-infrastructure-needs-and-costs-
for-the-launch-of-zero-emission-trucks/.
144 Amol Phadke et al., Lawrence Berkeley Nat'l Lab'y, Why Regional and Long-Haul Trucks are Primed
for Electrification Now 8 (2021), https://eta-
publications.lbl.gov/sites/default/files/updated_5_final_ehdv_report_033121 .pdf.
145 Ari Kahn et al., The Inflation Reduction Act Will Help Electrify Heavy-Duty Trucking, RMI (Aug. 25,
2022) [hereinafter Kahn etal., The Inflation Reduction Act], https://rmi.org/inflation-reduction-act-will-
help-electrify-heavy-duty-trucking/.
146 See, e.g., Dan Welch et al., Int'l ZEV Alliance, Moving Zero-Emission Freight Toward
Commercialization, (Oct. 2020), https://www.zevalliance.org/zero-emission-freight-2020/; Ehsan Sabri
Islam et al., Argonne Nat'l Lab'y (ANL), A Detailed Vehicle Modeling & Simulation Study Quantifying
Energy Consumption and Cost Reduction of Advanced Vehicle Technologies Through 2050 (Oct. 1, 2021),
https://anl.app.box.eom/s/xzhqi4x5sw3anw6rbgz7f6716ti0qikd (using ANL's BEnefit ANalysis modeling);
see also ANL, Vehicle Systems & Mobility Group, BEAN, https://vms.es.anl.gov/tools/bean/ (last visited
June 15, 2023); Chad Hunter et al., NREL, Spatial and Temporal Analysis of the Total Cost of Ownership
for Class 8 Tractors and Class 4 Parcel Delivery Trucks (2021),
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/71796.pdf; Andrew Burnham et al., ANL, Comprehensive Total Cost
of Ownership Quantification for Vehicles with Different Size Classes and Powertrains (2021),
https://publications.anl.gov/anlpubs/2021/05/167399.pdf; Dana Lowell & Jane Culkin, M.J. Bradley &
Associates, Medium- & Heavy-Duty Vehicles: Market Structure, Environmental Impact, and EV Readiness
(2021), https://www.edf.org/sites/default/files/documents/EDFMHDVEVFeasibilityReport22jul21 .pdf;
CARB, Draft Advanced Clean Fleets Total Cost of Ownership Discussion Document: Advanced Clean
Fleet Workshop (2021), https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021-08/210909costdoc_ADA.pdf;
Vishnu Nair et al., Roush Industries, Technical Review of: Medium and Heavy-Duty Electrification Costs
for MY 2027-2030 (2022) [hereinafter Nair et al., Technical Review]; Ledna et al.; Sara Kelly et al., ICCT,
ICCT Comments on EPA's Proposed Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards 23 (May 10, 2022).
147 Kahn et al., The Inflation Reduction Act.
Several very recent post-IRA analyses of TCO parity have found even more encouraging
estimates of near-term parity. In comparing BEV, FCEV, and diesel long-haul tractor-trucks,
ICCT found that long-haul BEVs are expected to have the lowest TCO by 2030 in all of the
states ICCT investigated. 148 The ICCT study also found that even at high daily mileages, BEVs
would still achieve a better TCO compared to their diesel counterparts, because day-to-day
mileage variability for these vehicles is low. 149 An analysis by Roush considering seven
segments of medium- and heavy-duty trucks found that, for vehicles purchased in 2027, ZEV
TCO was projected to be lower than diesel TCO for all segments. 150 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1640-A1, p. 38]
148 Hussein Basma et al., ICCT, Total Cost of Ownership of Alternative Powertrain Technologies for
Class 8 Long-Haul Trucks in the United States, at i (2023), https://theicct.org/publication/tco-alt-
powertrain-long-haul-trucks-us-apr23/.
149 See Hussein Basma & Ray Minjares, ICCT, Battery-Electric Trucks: The Most Affordable Path to
Decarbonizing Tractor-Trailers 9 (Apr. 27, 2023), https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Battery-
electric-trucks_-The-most-affordable-path-to-decarbonizingtractor-trailers.pdf.
653
-------
150 This analysis considered the following HDV market segments: transit bus (Class 8); school bus (Class
7); shuttle bus (Class 3-5); delivery and service van, box and stake truck (Class 3); short haul delivery,
service, box, and stake truck (Class 6-7); short haul delivery and service van, box and stake truck (Class 4-
5); and refuse hauler (Class 8). Nair et al., Technical Review, at 18, 20.
Another recent ICCT analysis considered upfront cost parity (i.e., the purchase price, separate
from total cost of ownership), and found that even upfront cost parity between BEVs and their
diesel counterparts is expected in the late 2020s or early 2030s for most truck segments. 151 And,
as EPA cited in the proposal, RMI's latest analysis concluded that "with the IRA, the total cost
of ownership of electric trucks will be lower than diesel ones approximately five years sooner
than without the law," finding this to be "true for urban trucks that travel locally in cities an
average of 50-100 miles a day; regional trucks that move 100-250 miles per day and return to
the same depot; and long-haul trucks that travel 250 or more miles between cities and need to
recharge en route."152 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, pp. 38 - 39]
151 Yihao Xie et al., ICCT, Purchase Costs of Zero-Emission Trucks in the United States to Meet Future
Phase 3 GHG Standards 22 (2023), https://theicct.org/publication/cost-zero-emission-trucks-us-phase-3-
mar23/.
152 Kahn et al., The Inflation Reduction Act.
EPA should comprehensively consider the numerous relevant studies pointing to rapidly
declining costs for HD ZEVs in the classes and time periods covered by the proposal. The cost
studies show that many HD ZEVs were already both technically feasible and cost effective, or
would become so prior to MY 2027 in the absence of the IRA, and the IRA's incentives and
credits increased the number of feasible and cost-effective options. As Daimler Truck AG's chief
technology officer explained, "In the very moment that the customer starts benefiting more from
a zero-emission truck than from a diesel truck, there is no reason to buy the diesel truck
anymore." 153 By failing to consider the full literature of cost projections in informing the
baseline, EPA assumes inappropriately low baseline HD ZEV adoption and, as a result, proposes
standards that are too lenient and themselves actually reflect a reasonable baseline ZEV
penetration rate. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 39]
153 Cristina Commendatore, Daimler Truck to Ramp Down ICE Spending, Focus on ZEVs, Fleetowner
(May 25, 2021), https://www.fleetmaintenance.com/equipment/emissions-and-
efficiency/article/21224178/daimler-truck-to-ramp-down-ice-spending-focus-on-zevs.
5. EPA should more fully account for the extent to which BIL and IRA incentives will
independently drive adoption of HD ZEVs.
The BIL and IRA will channel billions of dollars into the HD ZEV sector. EPA included two
provisions of the IRA within its quantitative analysis of HDV technology adoption and costs, the
Advanced Manufacturing Production Credit and the credit for Qualified Commercial Clean
Vehicles. See 88 Fed. Reg. 25985. While these credits will have important effects in driving
adoption of HD ZEVs, EPA errs in not including additional impacts of the BIL and IRA in its
analysis. Furthermore, EPA should ensure that impacts of the BIL and IRA are included in its
calculation of the baseline as well as in the costs and outcomes of the standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 39]
The IRA and BIL will drive significant HD ZEV adoption independent of the Phase 3
standards. Numerous analyses conducted in the wake of BIL and IRA passage have found that
these laws will dramatically increase HD ZEV adoption. 154 For example, ICCT finds that HDV
654
-------
ZEV sales penetration will rise from 48 percent in 2035 to up to 56 percent when accounting for
the IRA. 155 EPA should accordingly ensure that these important laws are reflected in its
estimate of baseline HD ZEV market penetration. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 39]
154 See, e.g., Kahn et al., The Inflation Reductin Act; Clean Air Task Force, Federal Funding Programs to
Support Advanced Clean Trucks Implementation: A Guide for States (2023), https://cdn.catf.us/wp-
content/uploads/2023/04/13154057/act-federal-funding-resource.pdf;
155 Slowik et al., at ii (2023).
As EPA appropriately describes in section 1.3.2 of the DRIA, the BIL and IRA include
numerous incentives, grants, and other programs that will help to spur deployment of low
emission HD vehicles, including BEVs and FCEVs. These programs will, among other things,
provide both direct grants and tax credits to lower acquisition costs of vehicles and increase
the range of cost-effective applications, 156 help entities conduct planning for fleet
electrification, 157 enable deployment of charging and hydrogen fueling infrastructure, 158 and
facilitate advances in technology that can lower future vehicle costs. These programs also invest
in vehicle and battery manufacturing and recycling, driving cost reductions and increasing
domestic supply. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, pp. 39 - 40]
156 See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 7432 (appropriating $1 billion to EPA to create a program that awards grants and
rebates for the costs of replacing existing class 6 and 7 HDVs with ZEVs, purchasing, installing, operating,
and maintaining infrastructure needed for ZEVs, associated workforce development and training, and
planning and technical activities needed to support the deployment of ZEV); 26 U.S.C. § 45W (providing
up to $40,000 in tax credits to assist with vehicle replacements and reduce the effective cost of commercial
ZEVs).
157 See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 7432.
158 See, e.g., 26 U.S.C. § 30C (providing tax credits to qualified alternative fuel vehicle property); 42
U.S.C. § 16161a (providing $8 billion to DOE to fund regional hydrogen hubs across the country); 23
U.S.C. § 151 (appropriating $2.5 billion to support the build-out of clean charging and fueling
infrastructure projects along designated alternative fuel corridors of the National Highway System).
An ERM analysis found that, considering only a portion of these programs, the BIL would
provide over $19.4 billion in funding toward medium- and heavy-duty ZEV purchases. 159 A
further analysis of a portion of IRA programs calculated an additional $2.8 billion in funding
toward medium- and heavy-duty ZEV purchases, resulting in a 46 percent increase in ZEV sales
projections in 2029 compared to a scenario not including the IRA. 160 However, EPA does not
consider the full range of BIL and IRA programs, accounting only for the Advanced
Manufacturing Production Credit and the credit for Qualified Commercial Clean Vehicles. While
it may be difficult to quantify the aggregate impact of these programs on the scale and cost of
deployment of HD ZEVs, EPA should nevertheless ensure that this impact is accounted for in its
analysis. As it stands, not assessing the impact of these programs quantitatively results in an
inaccurate and overly conservative baseline and cost analysis. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-
Al, p. 40]
159 Robo & Seamonds, Technical Memo, at 7
160 Robo & Seamonds, IRA Supplemental Assessment, at 1-2.
In sum, EPA's proposal underestimates the baseline HD ZEV market penetration in several
ways, as the Agency itself recognizes. See DRIA at 417 ("It is possible that EPA's reference case
655
-------
is underestimated, and adoption of ZEVs, and other technologies, will occur more rapidly than
EPA predicts in this proposal.") EPA should update its baseline assessment to account for the
vast amount of highly relevant data and information showing strong ZEV sales even in a world
absent the proposed action. EPA should reconsider its baseline in light of (1) current market
projections indicating significantly higher baseline HD ZEV sales, including those upon which
EPA relies to set the ZEV penetration levels under the proposed standards; (2) federal, state,
local, and private sector actions supporting a much higher baseline HD ZEV penetration rate; (3)
recent HD ZEV cost estimates supporting the viability of ZEVs across vehicle segments; and (4)
the extent to which BIL and IRA incentives will independently drive adoption of HD ZEVs. All
of these factors make clear that EPA's standards essentially codify what the market would do at
baseline. To comply with its duties to protect public health and welfare, EPA must go well
beyond this level in its Phase 3 emission standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 40]
Organization: ClearFlame Engine Technologies
EPA should integrate State Low-Carbon Fuel Standards and other SLF-focused programs, just
as it is integrating ZEV-focused state programs [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1654-A2, p. 11]
In the ABT section of the Proposal, EPA seeks comment on how California's Advanced
Clean Truck Rule and its adoption by other states (collectively, referred to herein as the '177
States,' for the Clean Air Act section that authorizes states to adopt California vehicle emission
standards for which California has received an EPA waiver from the federal standards) might
shape the future truck and bus market.30 We agree that EPA should rely on current trends that
are propelled by the certainty of state regulation in determining nationwide production volumes.
Just as EPA may rely on the actions of California and the 177 States to accelerate heavy-duty
electrification to determine future nationwide production volumes, it should integrate and rely on
trends in California and other states that have or are planning to adopt a Low Carbon Fuel
Standard (or comparable Clean Fuel Standards) to gauge the decarbonization potential of a
transition to lower-carbon intensity fuels. This change in the carbon intensity of the nation's
fuels is equally important to the overall structure and success of the Final Rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1654-A2, pp. 11-12]
30 See, e.g., Proposal at 43, and at 235.
Organization: Daimler Truck North America LLC (DTNA)
EPA's assumptions about the existing Phase 2 rule are inaccurate and must be accounted for
when setting Phase 3 standard stringencies.
The technology packages upon which the proposed Phase 3 C02 standards are based assume
ICE vehicles that comply with the existing Phase 2 MY 2027 C02 standards using emission-
reduction technologies such as low rolling resistance tires; tire inflation systems; efficient
engines, transmissions, and drivetrains; weight reduction; and idle reduction technologies.94 As
EPA explains, '[t]hese vehicles are used as baselines from which to evaluate costs and
effectiveness of additional technologies and more stringent standards on a per-vehicle
basis.'95 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 42]
94 See Proposed Rule, 88 Fed. Reg. at 25,958 ('For each regulatory subcategory, we selected a theoretical
ICE vehicle with C02-reducingtechnologies to represent the average MY 2027 vehicle that meets the
656
-------
existing MY 2027 Phase 2 standards.'); 25,959, Tables II-l and II-2 (reflecting GEM inputs used by EPA
to make the fleet average technology package that meets existing MY 20207 C02 tractor and vacation
vehicle emission standards).
95 Id.
Despite EPA's statement in the Proposed Rule that its Phase 2 C02 standards were not 'in
any way premised on the application of ZEV technologies,'96 DTNA's understanding is that
many manufacturers may have incorporated ZEVs into the strategies they use under the Phase 2
program to meet currently-applicable C02 standards using an averaging approach because they
are not able to achieve the necessary level of emissions performance using conventional Phase 2
technologies alone, given slower-than-anticipated adoption rates. EPA does not acknowledge this
in the Proposed Rule, nor the implications for Phase 3—that because manufacturers are already
relying on ZEV production volumes to certify vehicle families under the Phase 2 standards, they
will have to produce ZEVs at levels that significantly exceed EPA's projected ZEV uptake rates
to comply with the Phase 3 C02 stringency levels that EPA proposes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1555-A1, p. 42]
96 Id. at 25,957.
The GHG-reduction technologies upon which the Phase 2 standards were based have proven
to be less effective and adopted at lower rates than what the Agency projected during that
rulemaking. For instance, the Agency projected ambitious adoption rates for technologies like
advanced aerodynamic features and tire rolling resistance that did not come to pass, due to cost,
feasibility, application suitability, and other issues.97 EPA's predictions about adoption rates for
improved gear efficiency and idle reduction technologies also proved to be overly ambitious.98
Other technologies, like waste heat recovery, that EPA predicted would reduce GHG emissions
from diesel engines, may not be feasible to bring to production due to complexity and cost
issues, as well as conflicting priorities with regard to the new Low NOx emissions standards set
by the EPA. The result has been that manufacturers have had to incorporate significant numbers
of ZEVs into their fleets to obtain certification under the current Phase 2 standards, a
consequence that was unanticipated by EPA. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 43]
97 See EPA, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty
Engines and Vehicles—Phase 2; Final rule, 81 Fed. Reg. 73,478, 73,709 (Oct. 25, 2016) (projecting 100%
adoption rates for low rolling resistance tires); 73,557 (projecting WHR adoption rates of 1% of tractor
engines by 2021, 5% by 2024, and 25% by 2027, with nearly all being used on sleeper cabs).
98 As examples, in DTNA's experience, customers have chosen not to adopt start-stop and idle shutdown
technologies at all, citing convenience and other factors.
There is a further unintended consequence of the Agency using overly ambitious technology
projections as the basis for its GHG standards that EPA should consider carefully: the significant
detrimental impacts on the emissions performance of manufacturers' conventional fleets, for
which there will still be a market for years to come. Manufacturers needing to produce and sell
large volumes of ZEVs to meet stringent C02 standards are likely to transition their high-
performing conventional vehicles to a ZEV platform first. This is because the customers who are
most likely to buy high-performing conventional vehicles are the ones most likely to have a
compelling business case for reducing fuel costs—thus they are already highly motivated to
transition their fleet to ZEVs. As a result, manufacturers will prioritize transitioning their high-
performing conventional vehicles to ZEVs, as these vehicles are the most likely to have willing
657
-------
buyers, leaving a worse-performing conventional fleet. It is thus incorrect for EPA to assume that
the remaining ICE fleet will maintain, on average, compliance with the existing Phase 2 MY
2027 standards. To address this imbalance and to avoid unintended consequences that may have
a net-negative impact on emissions performance, EPA should perform a new feasibility analysis
on the existing Phase 2 standards, re-evaluating the level at which the remaining conventional
fleet will perform. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 43]
Organization: Environmental Defense Fund (EPF)
d) EPA's primary proposal reflects a conservative assessment of ZEV deployment in the
coming years.
EPA uses a reference case that assumes ACT levels of ZEV sales in California and the five
states that had already adopted ACT at time the proposal was issued: Oregon, Washington, New
York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts. The reference case does not assume any additional ZEV
sales as a result of regular market trends. EPA's primary proposal sets a stringency level roughly
equivalent to ZEV adoption projected under ACT Research's adoption curve based on payback
period. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 60]
EPA's reference case should more accurately reflect ZEV deployment that will occur due not
only to ACT but to the landscape of factors that will facilitate ZEV sales, including market
trends, other state actions like ACF, the NESCAUM MOU, and federal government and private
investments. The payback period analysis discussed above, which EPA relies on in setting its
proposed stringency level, is better suited to inform the reference case. EPA's proposed
standards should build on this improved baseline to achieve emissions reductions consistent with
ACT-level ZEV deployment nationally and additional reductions in the tractor and bus
categories. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 60-61]
Organization: National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA)
Regarding EPA's proposed baseline for HD ZEV market penetration, NPCA agrees with
numerous other commenters the approach taken by EPA in this rulemaking is far too
conservative, and severely underestimates potential HD ZEV sales that will take place in the near
future. For instance, EPA's analysis appears to look only at outdated projections conducted by
CARB regarding HD ZEV adoption under California's Advanced Clean Trucks rule and fails to
take into consideration additional factors such as additional state regulatory requirements,
dropping costs, improving technology, and growing public interest in HD ZEVs. EPA's
California-focused analysis of ACT HD ZEV potential fails to account for the growing list states
that have adopted ACT, Omnibus, or HD Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), nor does it
consider additional commitments at the federal, state, local, and private level. It also fails to
account for California's recent enactment of its even more stringent Advanced Clean Fleets Rule.
This underestimation of HD ZEV potential unjustly diminishes justifications for the feasibility of
stringent ZEV advancements in the coming years. EPA's final rule must adequately account for
all of the above listed factors in determining baseline HD ZEV sales. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1613-A1, p. 4]
658
-------
Organization: RMI
Electric Heavy-Duty Market
The electrification of specific trucking applications can be economically advantageous today,
yet, in some respects, electric heavy-duty truck adoption is inhibited by the lack of adequate
vehicle supply and the need for a greater variety of Medium Duty Trucks (MDT) and Heavy
Duty Trucks (HDT) vehicle models to meet the diverse requirements of freight hauling. The
EPA tailpipe emissions standards could galvanize greater vehicle supply in these
segments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1529-A1, p. 3]
The following analysis focuses on tractor-trailers, also referred to as semi-trucks, as these
trucks drive 177 billion miles per year while consuming an average of six times more energy per
mile than a passenger car in the United States. Because they drive so many miles and use so
much energy, semis will be the majority of the US heavy-duty electric truck load. Over the past
seventy years, trucking and America's two million licensed heavy-duty truck drivers have
become increasingly essential. Truck trips have increased 30% in the past 30 years and are
projected to increase 66% more by 2050.4 The fact that these energy-intensive trucks are also
frequently concentrated in depots with dozens or hundreds of vehicles will have profound
implications for the grid as those vehicles electrify.5 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1529-A1, p. 3]
4 Ari Kahn, Emily Yang, and Wouter Vink, Making Zero-Emissions Trucking Possible, Mission Possible
Partnership, 2022, https://missionpossiblepartnership.Org/wp-content/uploads/2022/l 1/Making-Zero-
Emissions-Trucking- Possible.pdf.
5 Kahn et al., Preventing Electric Truck Gridlock, RMI, 2023 https://rmi.org/insight/preventing-electric-
truck-gridlock/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=spark&utm_content=spark-
a&utm_campaign=2023_06_01
Most of these trucks have the economic and technical potential to electrify. Currently, electric
trucks (e- trucks) are most viable for short- and medium-haul trucking, which are not a majority
of truck miles traveled, but are the majority of trucks in operation. Loosely speaking, semi-trucks
fit into three operational categories: short, medium, and long haul. Short- and medium-haul
trucks travel fewer than 100 and 300 miles per day respectively. They return to a depot or home
location, unlike long-haul trips that can traverse the country. And while these long-haul trucks
make up around a quarter of the stock, they contribute to over half of total miles traveled. The
North American Council on Freight Efficiency (NACFE) estimates that 50% of the
approximately 1 million medium haul heavy-duty trucks are electrifiable based on route lengths
today6, while RMI analysis for New York State and California indicates that 49% of all HDT
using less than 300 miles per day and returning to a base are also electrifiable today.7 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1529-A1, pp. 3-4] [Refer to Figure on p. 4 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1529-A1]
6 Roeth et al., Electric Trucks Have Arrived: The Use Case for Heavy-Duty Regional Haul Tractors,
NACFE, May 5, 2022, https://nacfe.org/wp-content/uploads/edd/2022/05/HD-Regional-Haul-Report-
FINAL.pdf
7 Jessie Lund et al., Charting the Course for Early Truck Electrification, RMI, 2022,
https://rmi.org/insight/electrify-trucking/.
The market for e-trucks is growing and electric trucks are improving, with greater efficiency
and battery capacity extending trucks' range and capabilities. Incumbent and new manufacturers
659
-------
have trucks that offer sufficient range and reliability for many customers today, and those trucks
are improving, following the trend of electric cars that increased efficiency, improved range, and
increased charging speed. Vehicle drivetrains, manufacturing efficiency, and battery cells are
continuously improving, reducing average vehicle costs by approximately 5% per year. 8 [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1529-A1, p. 4]
8 BloombergNEF model price for 2019-2021: $18/kWh annual decrease and GNA 2022 State of
Sustainable Fleets.
Thanks to Existing Policy EV Trucks are Affordable
State Policy Driving Demand
Policy at the state level is already driving heavy-duty fleet electrification. Over the next
several years, state regulations that require the sale of zero-emissions trucks and government
incentives for vehicles, chargers, and electric or hydrogen fuel are the carrots and sticks that will
help generate e-truck sales. Starting in 2024, California's Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT)
regulation requires electric truck sales phase ins, culminating in 40% to 70% of new truck sales
being zero emissions by 2035.9 California is not alone. Six states have codified their
commitment to ACT, while seven other states and the District of Columbia are in various stages
of rulemaking. 10 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1529-A1, pp. 4-5]
9 The 2035 sales requirement is: 40% for tractor trailers, 55% for class 2b-3 medium-duty trucks, and 75%
for medium- and heavy-duty 'straight trucks'(https://www.freightwaves.com/news/california-gets-epa-
waiver-to-move-ahead-with-advanced-clean-trucks-rule).
10 'Advanced Clean Trucks Fact Sheet,' California Air Resources Board, August 20, 2021,
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/fact-sheets/advanced-clean-trucks-fact-sheet.
Organization: Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC)
In order to properly evaluate the feasibility of the proposed standards, EPA must develop an
accurate projection of the ZEV adoption that will occur in the heavy-duty vehicle sector without
the proposed standards. An inaccurate model that assumes artificially low baseline ZEV adoption
rates is likely to cause EPA to adopt standards that are too lenient or that could be achieved
under business-as-usual conditions. A recent report by the International Council on Clean
Transportation, for example, estimated that 15 percent of all Class 4-8 vehicle sales will be ZEVs
by model year 2025 and 39 percent by 2030, even without the proposed Phase 3 standards.50
These projections seem to be much higher than the ZEV adoption rate used by EPA in its
reference case and technology package modeling. 51 As noted throughout the proposed
rulemaking, there are a number of factors that have resulted in increased ZEV adoption in the
heavy-duty vehicle sector in recent years, and ZEV deployment is expected to continue to
accelerate. EPA must therefore improve its modeling to account for higher rates of baseline ZEV
adoption to ensure it adopts the strongest standards possible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1554-
Al, p. 7]
50 Pierre-Louis Ragon et al., INT'L COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSP., Potential Benefits of the U.S.
Phase 3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Regulation for Heavy-Duty Vehicles, app. A (Apr. 2023),
https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/hdv-phase3-ghg-standards-benefits-apr23.pdf. The
"potential market growth" projection in this report is "based on market conditions in combination with state
ACT rule adoption and federal subsidies under the Inflation Reduction Act." Id. at 5.
660
-------
51 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles—Phase 3, 88 Fed. Reg. 25926, 25932
(Apr. 27, 2023); U.S. EPA, Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles: Phase 3 Draft
Regulatory ImpactAnalysis 318 (Apr. 2023) [hereinafter "Phase 3 Draft Regulatory Analysis"].
Among other things, EPA must fully account for the ACT program that has been adopted by
California and eight other states.52 The ACT program establishes binding requirements in
participating states that progressively increase the percentage of medium- and heavy-duty ZEVs
that must be sold in these states starting in model year 2025. By model year 2035, ZEVs will be
required to make up approximately 55 percent of Class 2b-3 vehicle sales, 75 percent of Class 4-
8 vehicle sales, and 40 percent of Class 7-8 tractor sales in participating states,53 which make up
over 20 percent of the nation's medium- and heavy-duty vehicle fleet.54 Proper consideration of
the ACT program is especially important if EPA moves forward with its proposal to use a
"nationwide production volume" as part of the averaging, banking, and trading program.55
Based on conflicting statements in the regulatory documents, it is not clear how EPA
incorporated the ACT program into its assessment.56 What is clear is that this program will have
a direct impact on ZEV deployment in states that have adopted the program and an indirect
impact on ZEV deployment in other states as more heavy-duty ZEVs are made available in the
market. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1554-A1, p. 7-8]
52 ELEC. TRUCKS NOW, States Are Embracing Electric Trucks,
https://www.electrictrucksnow.com/states (last visited June 9, 2023).
53 See CAL. AIR RES. BD., Updated Informative Digest, 5 (Jan. 20, 2021),
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/regact/2019/act2019/uid.pdf. The ACT program provides some compliance
flexibility through the use of credits. Id. at 6.
54 Press Release, Earthjustice, New York State Advances Clean Trucks Rule to Electrify Vehicles (Dec.
30, 2021), https://earthjustice.org/news/press/2022/new-york-state-advances-clean-trucks-rule-to-electrify-
vehicles.
55 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles—Phase 3, 88 Fed. Reg. 25926, 26009-
10 (Apr. 27, 2023).
56 Compare id. at 25989 ("The approach we used to select the proposed standards .. . does not specifically
include accounting for ZEV adoption rates that would result from compliance with the California ACT
program.") with Phase 3 Draft Regulatory Analysis, supra note 51, at 317-18 ("Because the ACT waiver
was only recently granted, for this proposal EPA used the ZEV sales volumes projections that could be
expected from ACT in the reference case as an overall projection for national ZEV sales volumes, as we
made this projection prior to the granting of the ACT wavier.").
EPA must also incorporate consideration of other regulatory programs and state policies that
are likely to impact nationwide baseline ZEV adoption rates into its assessment. For example, 11
jurisdictions in addition to the states that have adopted the ACT program have committed to a
goal of having at least 30 percent of all new medium- and heavy-duty vehicle sales be ZEVs by
no later than 2030, and 100 percent of sales being ZEVs by no later than 2050 under the Multi-
State Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicle Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).57 Other
regulatory programs and state fleet commitments, like California's Innovative Clean Transit
rule58 and Advanced Clean Fleets rule,59 may also impact baseline ZEV adoption rates. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1554-A1, p. 8]
57 Multi-State Medium- and Heavy-Duty Zero Emission Vehicle Memorandum of
Understanding, https://www.nescaum.org/documents/mhdv-zev-mou-20220329.pdf/ (last updated Mar. 29,
2022).
661
-------
58 CAL. CODE REGS. tit. 13, §§ 2023 et seq. (2019).
59 Advanced Clean Fleets Rule, 35-Z Cal. Regulatory Notice Reg. 997 (Sept. 2, 2022) (indicated that the
new regulation will appear in CAL. CODE REGS. tit. 13, §§ 2012-16).
In addition to state level programs and policies, vehicle manufacturers and other companies
have made public announcements of their intent to shift their fleets to ZEVs.60 This shift, as well
as declining costs and other economic forces, are likely to drive higher deployment of medium-
and heavy-duty ZEVs in coming years. A study by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory
found that ZEVs in all medium- and heavy-duty vehicle classes could reach cost parity with
diesel vehicles by 2035, even without incentives.61 Coupled with the deployment of charging
and refueling infrastructure, this could result in ZEVs accounting for 42 percent of medium- and
heavy-duty sales by 2030, and over 99 percent of sales by 2045.62 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1554-A1, p. 8]
60 Pierre-Louis Ragon et al., supra note 50, at 2-3.
61 Catherine Ledna et al., NAT'L RENEWABLE ENERGY LAB'Y, Decarbonizing Medium- & Heavy -
Duty On-Road Vehicles Cost Analysis (Mar. 2022), https://www.nrel.gov/docs/ly22osti/82081.pdf.
62 Id.
Organization: Tesla, Inc. (Tesla)
Deployment of Medium- & Heavy-Duty Vehicle Electrification Will Scale Rapidly
In general, EPA's proposed standards are set at a level less stringent than the depth and pace
of electrification technology deployment that has already occurred and will be accelerated
through market forces and numerous other state and federal policies. BEV deployment, like other
technologies, will follow a S curve leading to a much more rapid pace of adoption between now
and when the Phase 3 regulations take hold. Indeed, many manufacturers have rapidly placed
innovative technology across major portions of their new vehicle offerings in only a few model
years.78 BEV technology will continue to follow similar paths, and deployment has already been
shown to outperform the traditional S curve.79 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1505-A1, p. 13]
78 See e.g. Hula, et al, Analysis of Technology Adoption Rates in New Vehicles, SAE International (April
1, 2014) available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-10/documents/2014-01-0781_0.pdf
79 Ark Investment, Electric Vehicles Are Outperforming the Traditional S-Curve Dynamics (July 2, 2019)
available at https://ark-invest.com/articles/analyst-research/ev-growth-outperforming-the-traditional-s-
curve-dynamics/
In its proposal, EPA utilizes the latest EIA estimates to characterize heavy-duty BEV sales
that project out BEV sales share of less than 1% in key market segments in 2050.80 This
assumed baseline is woefully low, cuts against many projections, and is not fully supported by
the record. Indeed, as EPA indicates, the BEV market is dynamic and changing rapidly.81 One
recent report published two months before passage of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) found
that revenue from the electric truck market was growing at a compound annual growth rate of
54%.82 In another example, NREL has found economics will drive much faster adoption with
ZEV sales possibly reaching 42% of all medium- and heavy-duty trucks by 2030.83 It even
projects out a scenario where ZEV sales reach >99% by 2045, and 80% of the sector transitions
to ZEVs by 2050, reducing C02 emissions by 69% from 2019.84 A new analysis views the
heavy-duty haul market as 50% electrifiable right now.85 Still other analyses have found that
662
-------
most 'market segments have the potential to be fully mature by 2025, with EV models available
from multiple companies, including the majority of major OEMs that currently have 90% market
share of the inuse fleet.'86 Further, it is predicted the pace of electrification in the truck sector
will increase rapidly over the next decade.87 Recent sales suggest this pace of adoption is
already occurring.88 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1505-A1, pp. 13-14]
80 Draft RIA at 11.
81 88 Fed. Reg. at 25940.
82 Charged, New Reports Analyze US Electric Truck Market and Global Off-Highway EV Market (June
16, 2022) available at https://chargedevs.com/newswire/new-reports-analyze-us-electric-truck-market-and-
global-off-highway-evmarket/?utm_source=ChargedEVs.com+Email+Newsletter+Opt-
in&utm_campaign=c0d41568d2-
Daily+Headlines+RSS+Email+Campaign&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_6c05923d39-c0d41568d2-
343935020
83 NREL, Decarbonizing Medium- & Heavy-Duty On-Road Vehicles: Zero-Emission Vehicles Cost
Analysis (March 8, 2022) available at https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy22osti/82081.pdf
84 Id.
85 NACFE, Charting the Course for Early Truck Electrification (May 2022) available at
https://rmi.org/insight/electrifytrucking/?mc_cid=09f3d727f2&mc_eid=544476f6cl (Analysis shows that
approximately 65 percent of medium-duty trucks and 49 percent of heavy-duty trucks — are regularly
driving short enough routes that they could be replaced with electric trucks that are on the market today);
See also, NACFE, Electric Trucks Have Arrived: The Use Case For Heavy-Duty Regional Haul Tractors
(May 2022) available at https://nacfe.org/heavy-duty-regional-
haultractors/?mc_cid=09f3d727f2&mc_eid=544476f6cl
86 MJ Bradley, Medium- & Heavy-Duty Vehicles: Market Structure, Environmental Impact, and EV
Readiness (Aug. 11, 2022) at 6 available at https://www.mjbradley.com/reports/medium-heavy-duty-
vehicles-market-structure-environmentalimpact-and-ev-readiness
87 See, Wood Mackenzie, US electric truck sales set to increase exponentially by 2025 (Aug. 10, 2020)
available at https://www.woodmac.com/press-releases/us-electric-truck-sales-set-to-increase-exponentially-
by-2025/ (finding there were just over 2,000 electric trucks on US roads at the end of 2019 and project this
to grow to over 54,000 by 2025); BNEF, EV Outlook 2021 (heavy-duty electric trucks become
economically attractive in urban duty cycles by the mid-2020s. Megawatt-scale charging stations and the
emergence of much higher energy density batteries by the late 2020s result in battery electric trucks
becoming a viable option for heavy-duty long-haul operations, especially for volume-limited applications.)
available at https://bnef.turtl.co/story/evo-202l/page/3/2?teaser=yes
88 Fleet Owner, Pace of heavy EV sales quickens with two recent deals (Mar. 22, 2022) available at
https://www.fleetowner.com/emissions-efficiency/electric-vehicles/article/21237583/pace-of-heavy-ev-
sales-quickenswith-two-recent-deals
As with EPA's proposal, these estimates do not take into account the BEV sales impacts that
will result from California's newly adopted Advanced Clean Fleets (ACF) program. 89 ACF will
require last mile delivery and yard trucks to transition to ZEVs by 2035, work trucks and day cab
tractors must be zero-emission by 2039, and sleeper cab tractors and specialty vehicles must be
zero-emission by 2042.90 Moreover, the ACF rule has accelerated the rate of BEV deployment
under the original ACT rule to embrace an end to combustion truck sales in 2036.91 In
California alone, the original ACT rule was estimated to require the deployment of 100,000
heavy-duty ZEVs in 2030 and 300,000 by 2035.92 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1505-A1, p. 14]
89 88 Fed. Reg. at 25973.
663
-------
90 California Air Resources Board, Advanced Clean Fleets Regulation Summary available at
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/fact-sheets/advanced-clean-fleets-regulation-summary
91 CARB, California approves groundbreaking regulation that accelerates the deployment of heavy-duty
ZEVs to protect public health (April 28, 2023) available at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/news/california-
approves-groundbreaking-regulationaccelerates-deployment-heavy-duty-
zevsprotect#:~:text=The%20Advanced%20Clean%20Fleets%20rule%20includes%20an%20end%20to%20
combustion,accelerated%20benefits%20for%20California%20communities.
92 CalMatters, California Mandates Zero-exhaust Big Rigs, Delivery Trucks (July 6, 2020) available at
https://calmatters.org/environment/2020/06/california-zero-emission-trucks/
The adoption of forward-looking heavy-duty electrification policies in numerous other states
will also drive more rapid electrification of the medium- and heavy-duty sectors. 93 As the
agency discusses, the ACT regulation will drive significant emission reductions and medium-
and heavy-duty vehicle electrification through Model Year (MY) 2035.94 Additionally, seven
states - Colorado95, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York,96 Oregon, Vermont, and
Washington - have already adopted those standards. Several additional states, including
Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, and Rhode Island,97 are expected to adopt the rule soon. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1505-A1, pp. 14-15]
93 88 Fed. Reg. at 25947.
94 Id.; See also, CARB Advanced Clean Trucks Fact Sheet (Aug. 20, 2021) available at
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/factsheets/advanced-clean-trucks-fact-sheet.
95 Colorado Dept. of Health and Environment, Colorado adopts new measures to increase availability of
zero-emission trucks that offer lower operating and fuel costs- (April 21, 2023) available at
https://cdphe.colorado.gov/pressrelease/colorado-adopts-new-measures-to-increase-availability-of-zero-
emission-trucks-that
96 See, ICCT, Benefits of Adopting California Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicle Regulations In New
York State (May 27, 2021) available at https://theicct.org/publication/benefits-of-adopting-california-
medium-and-heavy-duty-vehicle-regulations-innew- york-state/
97 Rhode Island Dept. Env. Mgmt., DEM Announces that Rulemaking Process to Implement Draft Clean
Car & Truck Emissions Standards is Set to Start at May 18 Public Listening Session (May 10, 2023)
available at https://dem.ri.gov/pressreleases/dem-announces-rulemaking-process-implement-draft-clean-
car-truck-emissions-standards
If the eighteen states98 that have adopted the current California light duty ZEV standards also
adopt California's ACT rule, it is estimated that 1 in 8 trucks sold in 2030 will be electric.99
Importantly, the ACT rule incentivizes early action from manufacturers, further supporting a
significant increase in deployment of zero emissions trucks in the near term in states that adopt
the ACT rule. Further, the adoption of the ACF will only serve to accelerate this through
required sales. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1505-A1, p. 15]
98 CARB, States that have Adopted California's Vehicle Standards under Section 177 of the Federal Clean
Air Act (May 13, 2022) available at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/states-have-adopted-
californias-vehicle-standards-undersection-177-federal
99 Union of Concerned Scientists, We Can Electrify One in Three Heavy Duty Trucks by 2030: Here's
How. (Mar. 22, 2022) Available at https://blog.ucsusa.org/sam-wilson/we-can-electrify-one-in-three-heavy-
duty-trucks-by-2030-heres-how/
664
-------
While the agency also notes the multi-state NESCAUM Memorandum of Understanding
(NESCAUM MOU),100 it should ensure that the deployment of BEV technology envisioned
under the agreement is included in the NOX (and GHG) baseline assessment. More specifically,
in July 2020,101 fifteen states and the District of Columbia announced that they entered the joint
NESCAUM MOU wherein they committed to working together to advance and accelerate the
market for electric medium- and heavy-duty trucks. The parties agreed to a goal that 100% of
new medium- and heavy-duty vehicle sales would be zero emission by 2050, with an interim
goal of 30% sales by 2030. A recent analysis found that expanding the NESCAUM MOU
nationally would result in more than half of the fleet being electric by 2045 and reduce annual
GHG emission reductions 5% of U.S. truck emissions in 2035 increasing to an 18% reduction in
U.S. truck emissions in 2045.102 Another found that these states adopting the ACT rule would
lead to over 756,000 medium- and heavy-duty ZEVs deployed between 2024 and
2035.103 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1505-A1, p. 15]
100 88 Fed. Reg. at 25947(This effort was organizing by the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use
Management (NESCAUM). The state signing on to the MOU were California, Connecticut, Colorado,
Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.).
101 NESCAUM, 15 States and the District of Columbia Join Forces to Accelerate Bus and Truck
Electrification (July 14, 2020) available at https://www.nescaum.org/documents/multistate-truck-zev-mou-
media-release-20200714.pdf/
102 Rhodium Group, States Pave the Way for a Zero-Emission Vehicle Future (Aug. 13, 2020) available at
https://rhg.com/research/states-zero-emission-vehicles/.
103 CALSTART, Zeroing in on Zero Emission Trucks (Jan. 2022) at 21 available at
https://calstart.org/wpcontent/uploads/2022/02/ZIO-ZETs-Report_Updated-Final-II.pdf
Interest in the NESCAUM MOU and its goals continues to expand. 104 In September 2021,
the Province of Quebec signed on to the NESCAUM MOU. Virginia followed suite in December
2021, and Nevada just joined at the end of March 2022, bringing the total number of signatories
to seventeen states, one province, and the District of Columbia. The signatory states have
committed to working together through the existing multi-state ZEV Task Force 105 to develop
and implement an Action Plan to help states meet these ambitious goals. In March, the Draft
Multi-State Medium-and Heavy-Duty Zero-Emission Vehicle Action Plan was released for
public comment. 106 Notably, the first recommendation in the draft Action Plan called for the
signatory states to adopt the ACT regulation. As noted in the plan:
• While market-enabling programs such as incentives are also important, regulatory
requirements mandating MHD ZEV sales provide market certainty needed to drive
investments in zero-emission technologies and charging and fueling infrastructure at the
pace and scale required for rapid electrification. Indeed, the ZEV sales mandate for
passenger vehicles, established by California and adopted by other states, has prompted
unprecedented investment in light-duty zero-emission technologies and substantial
growth in the market share of light-duty ZEVs. The ACT regulation may be an even more
important driver of electrification of the MHD vehicle sector given the costs and
characteristics of trucks and buses. 107 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1505-A1, pp. 15-16]
104 Transport Dive, States band together to push for nationwide fleet electrification (May 5, 2022)
available at https://www.transportdive.com/news/nevada-joins-nescaum-multi-state-zero-emissions-
vehicle-mou/622520/
665
-------
105 NESCAUM, ZEV Task Force, Multi-State ZEV Action Plan (2018) available at
https://www.nescaum.org/documents/2018- zev-action-plan.pdf/
106 NESCAUM, Releases Draft Multi-State Medium-and Heavy-Duty Zero-Emission Vehicle Action Plan
for Public Comment (March 10, 2022) available at https://www.nescaum.org/documents/announcement-
mhd-zev-ap-public-draft.pdf/
107 NESCAUM, Multi-State Medium- and Heavy-Duty Zero-Emission Vehicle Action Plan (March 10,
2022) available at https://www.nescaum.org/documents/mhd-zev-action-plan-public-draft-03-10-2022.pdf
at 25.
Moreover, a new analysis indicates adoption of the ACT rule in these states would
significantly expand the BEV market and lead to 36% of all new medium- and heavy-duty
vehicles being powered by zero-emission engines in 2030.108 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1505-
Al, p. 16]
108 ICCT, Benefits of the 2020 Multi-State Medium- and Heavy-Duty Zero-Emission Vehicle
Memorandum of Understanding (Apr. 27, 2022) available at https://theicct.org/publication/md-hd-mou-
benefits-apr22/
Electrification of the Federal Medium- and Heavy-Duty Fleet
The agency's Phase 3 proposal also does not appear to consider the role electrification of the
federal medium and heavy-duty fleet will play in driving the transition to electrification. In late
2021, the President issued Executive Order 14057 directing all federal agencies, inter alia, to
maximize acquisition and deployment of zero emission medium- and heavy-duty vehicles. 109 In
seeking to decarbonize the federal fleet, the President directed the U.S. Government to procure
'100 percent zero-emission vehicle acquisitions by 2035.' 110 Turning over the U.S. Government
fleet will require the transition of 103,00 medium-duty trucks and 39,000 heavy-duty trucks. 111
Not only will this significantly reduce the fleets' cost per mile to operate the vehicles and the
fleet's collective GHG emissions, these procurement policies will further accelerate the demand
for and heavy-duty technologies. 112 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1505-A1, p. 16]
109 President Biden, E.O. 14057, 'Catalyzing Clean Energy Industries and Jobs Through Federal
Sustainability,' 86 Fed. Reg. 70935 (Dec. 13, 2021) at 204.
110 Id. at 102(a)(ii).
111 McKinsey, Net-zero emissions in US government fleets (April 18, 2022) available at
https://www.mckinsey.com/Industries/Public-and-Social-Sector/Our-Insights/Net-zero-emissions-in-US-
government-fleets
112 Id.
Organization: Valero Energy Corporation
3. EPA must consider the regionality of the increased electrical demand.
EPA fails to anticipate a regional roll-out of HD PEVs and makes no attempt to model the
impacts of regionalized PEV charging demand on the electric power sector. In contrast, in the
proposed Multi-Pollutant Emissions Standards for Model Years 2027 and Later Light-Duty and
Medium-Duty Vehicles, EPA expects and attempts to account for a "highly regionalized initial
rollout of electric vehicles under the California ZEV program." 189 EPA's failure to consider the
regional adoption of HD ZEVs and the associated regionalization of PEV charging demand is a
666
-------
major flaw in EPA's otherwise weak analysis of electrical grid impacts. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1566-A2, p. 39.]
189 88 Fed. Reg. 29303 (May 5, 2023).
EPA explains in the DRIA that it "granted the ACT [(Advanced Clean Trucks)] rule waiver
requested by California under CAA section 209(b) on March 30, 2023, which did not allow
enough time for EPA to consider a different approach for this proposal."190 The coordination
and timing of EPA's approval of the ACT waiver request and EPA's proposed motor vehicle
tailpipe standards were wholly within EPA's control - self-imposed time constraints are no
excuse for an inadequate regulatory impact analysis. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p.
39.]
190 DRIA at 255.
EPA further explains
"With the recent granting of the ACT waiver, we intend to consider how vehicles sold to meet
the ACT requirement in California and other states that may adopt it under CAA section 177
would impact or be accounted for in the standard setting process approach described in the
preamble in Section II. For example, we may adjust our reference case to reflect the ZEV levels
projected from ACT in California and other states. We also may consider increasing the
technology adoption rates in the technology packages and correspondingly increase the
stringency of the proposed Phase 3 emission standards to account for the incremental difference
in the projected ZEV adoption levels from the proposed Phase 3 emission standards and the
adoption levels projected from ACT in those states."191 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2,
pp. 39 -40.]
191 DRIA at 255
When EPA adjusts the reference case and Phase 3 emission standards to reflect projected
impacts of ACT, EPA must perform a more comprehensive and regionally disaggregated
analysis of impacts to the electrical grid and provide additional opportunity for review and
comment on that new analysis. This information is central to the proposed rule and should be
made available for comment before EPA can issue a final rule on the basis of such
information. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 40.]
EPA Summary and Response:
Summary:
AmFree states that the heavy-duty industry has not embraced a shift from internal-
combustion-engine vehicles to electric ones, citing a limited number of models of BEVs and
FCEVs available today and a limited number of registrations as well.
ClearFlame Engine Technologies supports the use of trends that are propelled by state
regulations in determining nationwide production volumes, such as California's Advanced Clean
Trucks rule. They recommend integrating and relying on trends in California and other states that
have or are planning to adopt a Low Carbon Fuel Standard (or comparable Clean Fuel Standards)
to gauge the decarbonization potential of a transition to lower-carbon intensity fuels.
667
-------
Daimler Trucks North America comments that many manufacturers have incorporated ZEVs
into the strategies they use under the Phase 2 program to meet currently-applicable C02
standards and that the ICE vehicles in their fleets are lower-performing than EPA anticipated.
They stated this is due to lower adoption rates of the GHG-reduction technologies upon which
the Phase 2 standards were based. Additionally, they stated that customers who are more likely
to purchase high-performing ICE vehicles are more likely to purchase ZEVs, leaving a worse-
performing ICE vehicle fleet. Thus, they assert that it is incorrect for EPA to assume that the
remaining ICE vehicle fleet will maintain, on average, compliance with the existing Phase 2 MY
2027 standards and we should perform a new feasibility analysis on the existing Phase 2
standards, re-evaluating the level at which the remaining ICE vehicle fleet will perform.
Valero Energy Corporation criticized EPA for not modeling regional roll-out of HD plug-in
electric vehicles and asserted that EPA must perform a more comprehensive and regionally
disaggregated analysis of impacts to the electric grid and provide additional opportunity for
review and comment on that new analysis.
The other commenters maintained that the baseline from which EPA assessed standard
stringency and associated costs and benefits was mistakenly conservative. (CATF, EDF,
National Parks Conservation Ass'n, RMI, SELC, Tesla.) These comments assert that the
proposed standards merely reflect what the market would otherwise produce in violation of the
requirements of section 202(a)(1) (as interpreted by the D.C. Circuit) to adopt standards which
go beyond this 'business as usual' outcome. They also cite studies estimating greater future HD
ZEV adoption than our baseline and point to state policies, such as California's ACT and ACF
programs, as supporting greater HD ZEV adoption in the baseline. For example, CATF argued
that the baseline must necessarily reflect all of the following, since they state that all of these
indicate what will happen in the absence of federal regulation:
• California ACT standards
• California ACT standards as adopted by the so-called section 177 states;
• California ACF program
• NESCAUM MOU states
• The effects of federal funding beyond the Advanced Manufacturing Credit and
Qualified Commercial Vehicle Credit considered by EPA at proposal;
• State and local initiatives (itemized and discussed in detail in the comment);
• Manufacturer and fleet production and purchase public commitments;
• ZEV adoption for vehicles for which EPA's payback analysis shows ready payback;
• ZEV adoption for vehicles where there are reliable indications of price parity with ICE
vehicles before or during the model years of the proposal, including transit buses,
refuse trucks, school buses, delivery vehicles, and (by MY 2030) long-haul tractors
(citing ICCT April 2023 White Paper);
• The commenter includes citations to cases holding agency action arbitrary and
capricious due to miscalculation of a baseline, and also cites OMB Circular A-4 for
668
-------
the need to properly state a baseline as part of the process of calculating costs and
benefits of agency actions. The commenter further maintains that the proposal
violates CAA section 202(a)(1) by proposing standards which produce no emission
reductions beyond those which would occur without the regulation.
Response:
Regarding AmFree's comments on the current state of the heavy-duty industry, we agree that
there are relatively few models and registrations of BEVs and FCEVs today as discussed in the
Executive Summary of the preamble and RIA Chapter 1. However, we also note in those
sections significant interest, commitments, and investments towards applying such technologies
to HD vehicles from manufacturers, fleets, state and local governments, as well as incentives
under the IRA and BIL. We expect that the number of models and registrations of BEVs and
FCEVs will increase significantly in the coming years. EPA also finds that the final rule provides
sufficient lead-time for the development and application of BEV and FCEV technologies.
We appreciate ClearFlame's support for considering state regulations in determining
nationwide production volumes of ZEVs. Regarding integrating or relying on trends in
California and other states that have or are planning to adopt a Low Carbon Fuel Standard (or
comparable Clean Fuels Standards) to gauge the decarbonization potential of a transition to
lower-carbon intensity fuels, the requested action is outside the scope of this rulemaking. See
also our responses in RTC Section 9.
Regarding Daimler Trucks North America's comments, we do not agree that our modeling
baseline is improper. For the purposes of modeling the projected impacts of the Phase 3
standards, our approach appropriately reflects the emissions associated with the regulatory
baseline, including among other things HD GHG Phase 2 and ACT, and the reduction in
emissions attributable to this rule. This approach is consistent with Circular A-4, which states
"Your baseline should reflect, when appropriate and feasible, the future effect of current
government programs and policies. More specifically, the baseline should attempt to reflect
relevant final rules (especially if their requirements are being modified by the regulation under
consideration) ... ,"354 The Phase 2 Rule is an existing regulation, and therefore it is appropriate
to consider that rule in the baseline. The same is true for ACT.
We acknowledge that the baseline reflects one potential compliance pathway for the
regulations modeled (not including Phase 3). While this baseline is not necessarily consistent
with any individual firm's compliance pathway, it is a reasonable projection to represent the
baseline emissions from the industry as a whole. That is the case even taking as true DTNA's
premise that it and some other manufacturers may produce more ZEVs and worse-performing
ICE vehicles in MY 2027 than projected by Phase 2. This is not a situation where regulated
entities are unable to comply with a prior regulation; rather we expect, and DTNA does not
contest, that it and the industry generally are capable of complying with Phase 2. The fact that
DTNA may employ different technologies than we projected in Phase 2 is a feature of the
performance-based nature of the standards, not a defect in modeling. Further, in our evaluation
of MY 2021 and MY 2022 heavy-duty GHG certification results, we find that there are ICE
vehicles being built that already meet the Phase 2 MY 2027 emission standards, well in advance
of MY 2027. Thus, given that Phase 2 is an existing final rule, the only question is how to model
354 Circular No. A-4 (Nov. 9, 2023), 11-12.
669
-------
Phase 2 compliance in the baseline. We think the agency's chosen modeling, which is based on
the Phase 2 rule's projections of technology adoption, is a reasonable way to model the industry
as a whole.
We note that similar to our modeling of Phase 2, our modeling of the final standards also
represents one potential compliance pathway, which may differ from the pathway that any
specific manufacturer or the industry ultimately take, and which reasonably estimates the
emission reductions under the Phase 3 standards. For discussion of the notion that the ICE
vehicle fleet will be worse performing than the Phase 2 MY 2027 standards, see RTC Section
2.4.
Regarding Valero's comments, we have updated from proposal our baseline to account for
regional differences in HD ZEV adoption and we have modeled the impacts of these differences.
See preamble Sections V, II.D, and HE and RIA Chapter 4.
See also RIA Chapter 4 and RTC section 2.4 for our response regarding EPA's consideration
of CARB's ACT regulation, including uncertainties in the final rule baseline for ZEV adoption
and our final rule reference case ZEV adoption sensitivity analysis.
We agree that the baseline we presented in the proposal was conservative in part because it
did not fully account for the ACT rule. As described in Section V.A.I of the preamble, and
Chapter 4.2.2 of the RIA, our baseline for this final rulemaking ("FRM baseline", and also
referred to as our final rule reference case) shows increased ZEV adoption for all heavy-duty
vehicle types compared to the baseline for the proposal. This FRM baseline reflects
manufacturers' compliance with ACT in eight states and a lower, non-zero level of ZEV
adoption in the other 42 states.355
We acknowledge that our FRM baseline does not explicitly reflect many of the items in the
bulleted list in our comment summary above such as the ACF rule, NESCAUM MOU states, and
public commitments by manufacturers and fleets for production and purchase of ZEVs,
respectively, with the exception of the ACT rule in eight states who have finalized its adoption
and which we have accounted for in the FRM baseline. Many of these items do not represent
enforceable requirements, and they may or may not occur in the absence of the Phase 3 program.
For example, we are not including CARB's ACF regulation in our baseline because at the time
of this rulemaking, EPA is still reviewing the waiver request for the ACF regulation. However,
we recognize and have taken into consideration that these other measures may have an impact on
the market regardless of whether they are enforceable. To provide one example, in summer 2023,
major manufacturers signed an agreement committing to meet the Advanced Clean Fleets 100%
ZEV sales requirement in California, subject to certain conditions.356 For the reasons detailed in
355 At the time we performed the inventory modeling analysis, seven states had adopted ACT in addition to
California. Oregon, Washington, New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts adopted ACT beginning in MY 2025
while Vermont adopted ACT beginning in MY 2026 and Colorado in MY 2027. Three other states, New Mexico,
Maryland, and Rhode Island adopted ACT (beginning in MY 2027) in November and December of 2023, but there
was not sufficient time for us to incorporate them as ACT states in our modeling.
356 See CARB-EMA Agreement i-ii ("The OEMs Commit to Meet CARB Truck Regulations *** The OEMs
commit to meet, in California, the requirements of the relevant regulations as specified below and any agreed upon
modifications per this Agreement, regardless of the outcome of any litigation challenging the waivers/authorizations
for those regulations, or CARB's overall authority to implement those regulations. *** The ACT regulation, as it
670
-------
preamble Section V and RIA 3, our FRM baseline generally has higher ZEV adoption rates than
the baseline used in the proposal. Further discussion of the FRM baseline can be found in
Preamble Section V.A.I.
The commenters do not sufficiently explain how to include the requested items in estimating
the baseline ZEV adoption. They, in particular CATF, support their comments with citations to
the literature. However, the literature estimations vary over a wide range—indicating uncertainty
in the methodologies—and the literature doesn't appear to consider several important real-world
factors which would in general be expected to slow down or reduce ZEV sales. These include
such factors as ZEV product research and development timelines, ZEV manufacturing timelines,
the availability of ZEV models, manufacturing or infrastructure constraints, driver preferences,
and other factors. For example, EDF and ERM conducted a follow-up analysis of their HD ZEV
sales projections after the IRA passed in 2022 in which they anticipate that approximately six
percent of medium- and heavy-duty sales would be ZEVs.357 In fact, EPA certified
approximately 3,400 HD BEVs in MY 2022, which represents less than one percent of the
market—significantly less than EDF and ERM's projection. This difference can likely be
attributed in part to their omission of the real-world factors stated above.
CATF suggests that the adoption rates we presented in the proposal are actually a reasonably
anticipated market-driven HD ZEV penetration level and so should be included in the baseline.
We disagree because, while the payback-adoption rate analysis indicates what is achievable
when limited only by the economics associated with payback, there are additional, important
real-world factors that may affect ZEV adoption. EPA's analysis considers these additional
factors, which include ZEV product research and development timelines, ZEV manufacturing
timelines, the availability of ZEV models, manufacturing or infrastructure constraints, driver
preferences, critical mineral and related supply chain availability, and other factors.
CATF also recommends considering payback period for the baseline. As described in Section
V.A.I of the preamble, among vocational vehicles in the FRM baseline, ZEV adoption rates
increase with weight class which trends inversely with payback period as shown in RIA Chapter
2.9.2. Similarly, ZEV adoption rates are greater for short-haul tractors than long-haul tractors in
the FRM baseline, which is also consistent with our payback analysis. We do not anticipate the
payback period at the individual vehicle level to be affected by the Phase 3 standards, so the
payback periods shown in RIA Chapter 2.9.2 are indicative of payback periods we would expect
in the baseline.
We do not agree that the standards violate the Act because they produce no emission
reductions. As we explain in preamble Section V, we expect the standards to produce significant
GHG reductions. We further explain our interpretation of the statute in preamble Section I and
II.G, and in RTC section 2.4.
existed on March 15, 2021, and the 100 percent ZEV sales requirement set forth in Cal. Code Regs title 13, section
2016, as it existed on April 28, 2023."). Available online: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2023-
07/Final%20Agreement%20between%20CARB%20and%20EMA%202023_06_27.pdf.
357 Robo, Ellen and Dave Seamonds. Technical Memo to Environmental Defense Fund: Investment Reduction Act
Supplemental Assessment: Analysis of Alternative Medium- and Heavy-Duty Zero-Emission Vehicle Business-As-
Usual Scenarios. ERM. August 19, 2022. Page 9. Available online:
https://www.erm.com/contentassets/154d08e0d0674752925cd82c66b3e2bl/edf-zev-baseline-technical-memo-
addendum.pdf.
671
-------
3.11.2 Payback Period
Comments by Organizations
Organization: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE)
Assumptions in EPA's analysis of ZEV adoption rates are too limiting
Fully incorporating the results of state actions as recommended above would not be sufficient
to bring EPA's projections of ZEV adoption to highest feasible levels. Certain key elements of
EPA's ZEV analysis tool, HD TRUCS, are overly conservative, leading to low projections of
ZEV adoption. These include battery and payback period requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1560-A1, p. 5]
Payback requirements may also unnecessarily constrain ZEV adoption. Time to payback
determines projected ZEV penetration through the HD TRUCS adoption rate schedule set out in
in Table 2-73 (p.232) of the Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis (DRIA) .16 The schedule imposes
onerous payback requirements in part because it does not differentiate by vehicle type. Typical
first vehicle ownership period varies across type, affecting the payback period sought by the
prospective buyer. An adoption rate under 45% in MY 2032 for a 1-2 year payback, as HD
TRUCS dictates, is surprisingly low, even for the long-haul tractors purchased by large fleets
that may sell their trucks after a few years. Indeed, fleets commonly cited 18 months as an
acceptable payback period for efficiency technology in the Phase 1 and Phase 2 heavy-duty
rulemaking processes. For a vocational fleet likely to own its vehicles for many years, one would
expect that a payback period of several years would be acceptable and that MY 2032 adoption
rates would reflect that. Furthermore, the Phase 3 program should be expected to play a role in
tuning the vehicle market to properly value fuel cost savings for used as well as new vehicles.
Hence, assigning high adoption rates to vehicles that pay back well within the life of the vehicle
would be reasonable and would lead to adoption rates substantially higher than the proposed
standards reflect. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1560-A1, p. 6]
16 https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P10178RN.pdf
Organization: American Trucking Associations (ATA)
4. The Upfront Costs of ZEVs are High and Fleets are Looking for Proof Prices Will Come
Down
ZEVs' upfront acquisition costs are generally much higher than ICEVs, making it difficult for
fleets to embrace electrification until they see meaningful year-over-year upfront purchase price
declines. Before incentives, costs can be two to three times higher for BEVs and up to seven
times higher for hydrogen fuel cell Class 8 trucks. 13 Across the industry, acquisition costs are
often greater than or equal to three-fifths of the TCO.14 For many fleets, calculating the TCO is
a complex math problem that cannot be easily confirmed without significant expense and trial
and error. Case studies alone are insufficient to validate assumptions due to each fleet's unique
operating characteristics, including configuration, duty cycle, and cost. 15 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1535-A1, p. 10]
672
-------
13 Class 4-6 battery electric delivery vehicles can range from $100,000 to $200,000, while Class 8 over-
the-road vehicles can cost $400,000 or more before incentives. Diesel MDV is around $75,000 and HDV is
$165,000.
14 See, e.g., Volvo Trucks North America, Press Releases, "Volvo Trucks' New Electromobility Total
Cost of Ownership Tool Demonstrates Financial, Environmental Benefits of Volvo VNR Electric," October
23, 2022; and Dana, Inc., Total Cost of Ownership Tool, n.d.
15 These variable inputs can be non-linear, colinear, and frequently interconnected, further complicating
the TCO calculation process.
In calculating TCO, fleets generally think about capital and non-capital expenses. Capital
expenses can be depreciated to offset some, though not all, of the significantly higher MSRP on a
ZEV. Capital expenses are also expected to retain some residual value at the end of their useful
lives, but there is little data to estimate these values for heavy-duty ZEVs. The fleet survey
conducted by ATA confirms that most fleet respondents were uncertain about ZEVs' residual
value. Reducing MSRP would be an impactful way to offset the uncertainty around TCO and
encourage adoption. However, many fleets worry about the uncertainties of EPA's BEV price
and cost assumptions because the technology is a new product category. They worry capacity
improvements in batteries or efficiency gains in the cost-per-unit capacity will not necessarily
translate into direct price reductions in the near to medium term, as projected under the proposed
rule. Notably, battery and component costs have remained comparatively stable in the light-duty
market for BEVs. Similarly, a midsize fleet manager running a mixed truckload and less-than-
truckload operation shared they have seen prices increase year-over-year due to component
pricing. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1535-A1, p. 11]
Another way to view these cost increases is their relationship to vehicle purchase prices. EPA
estimated the Phase 2 2027 costs would increase the price of tractors by 12 percent and
vocational vehicles by 3 percent. 18 Using EPA's minimum vehicle price estimate of $100,000
for tractors and vocational vehicles, this equates to a 2027 ZEV price increase of 9 to 15 percent
for vocational vehicles and 61 percent for tractors. For perspective, even with the IRA vehicle
tax credits in place, these increases will be on par and surpass the U.S. consumer price increases
of 9 percent in 2022, reaching its highest level in more than 40 years. The projected price
increases associated with the proposed rule is a significant concern and requires further analysis
of how purchasers will respond. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1535-A1, p. 14]
18 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Transportation, Greenhouse Gas Emissions
and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles-Phase 2: Final Rule,
Federal Register Vol, 81. No. 206. pg. 73482, October 25, 2016.
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
In its recent ACF rulemaking, CARB staff estimated the impact that regulation would have on
vehicle costs for both ICE vehicles and ZEVs. CARB staff developed those estimates through a
lengthy public process and through literature reviews of numerous sources discussing ZEV costs.
CARB staff determined that although the vehicle acquisition costs for battery electric vehicles
(BEV) and fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEV) will exceed the respective acquisition costs for
their ICE counterparts until at least 2030, the costs for some categories of BEVs and FCEVs will
decrease to below the costs of their ICE counterparts after 2030 as declining battery and
component costs and economies of scale are expected to decrease the incremental costs of ZEVs
as the market for ZEVs expands.26 CARB staffs findings are corroborated by numerous other
673
-------
studies evaluating ZEV prices—including in markets beyond California—over time.
27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1591-A1, pp. 17-18]
26 Staff Report, ACF regulation, Chapter VIII.B.5.
27 Atlas Public Policy, Assessing Financial Barriers to Adoption of Electric Trucks, 2020 (web link:
https://atlaspolicy.eom/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Assessing-Financial-Barriers-to-Adoption-of-Electric-
Trucks.pdf last accessed August 2022).
28 Environmental Defense Fund, Technical Review of Medium-Duty and Heavy-Duty Electrification Costs
for MY 2027-2030, 2022 (web link: https://blogs.edf.org/climate411/files/2022/02/EDF-MDHD-
Electrification-vl.6_20220209.pdf last accessed March 2023).
29 ERM, Investment Reduction Act Supplemental Analysis: Analysis of Alternative Medium- and Heavy-
Duty Zero-Emission Vehicle Business-As-Usual Scenarios, 2022 (web link:
https://www.erm.com/contentassets/154d08e0d0674752925cd82c66b3e2bl/edf-zev-baselinetechnical-
memo-addendum.pdf last accessed January 2023).
30 Hydrogen Council, Path to Hydrogen Competitiveness - A Cost Perspective, 2020 (web link:
https://hydrogencouncil.eom/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Path-to-Hydrogen-Competitiveness_Full-Study-
l.pdf last accessed August 2022).
31 The International Council on Clean Transportation, A meta-study on purchase costs for zero-emission
trucks, 2022 (web link: https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/purchase-cost-ze-trucks-feb22-l.pdf
last accessed March 2023).
32 ICF International, Comparison of Medium-Duty and Heavy-Duty Technologies in California, 2019
(web link: https://caletc.aodesignsolutions.com/assets/files/ICF-Truck-Report_Final_December-2019.pdf
last accessed August 2022).
33 McKinsey, Preparing the World for Zero-Emission Trucks, 2022 (web link:
https://www.mckinsey.eom/~/media/mckinsey/industries/automotive%20and%20assembly/our%20insights
/preparing%20the%20world%20for%20zero%20emission%20trucks/preparing-the-world-for-
zeroemission-trucks-f.pdf last accessed March 2023).
34 North American Council for Freight Efficiency, Guidance Report: Medium-Duty Electric Trucks Cost
of Ownership, 2018 (web link: https://nacfe.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/medium-duty-electric-trucks-
cost-of-ownership.pdf last accessed August 2022).
35 North American Council for Fuel Efficiency, Regional Haul, 2019 (web link: https://nacfe.org/regional-
haul/ last accessed August 2022).
36 North American Council for Fuel Efficiency, Viable Class 7/8 Electric, Hybrid, and Alternative Fuel
Tractors, 2019 (web link: https://nacfe.org/future-technology/viable-class-7-8/ last accessed August 2022).
37 University of California Los Angeles, Zero-Emission Drayage Trucks - Challenges and Opportunities
for the San Pedro Bay Ports, 2019 (web link: https://innovation.luskin.ucla.edu/wp-
content/uploads/2019/10/Zero_Emission_Drayage_Trucks.pdf last accessed August 2022).
38 Union of Concerned Scientists, Ready to Work - Now is the Time for Heavy-Duty Electric Vehicles,
2019 (web link: https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/2019-12/ReadyforWorkFullReport.pdflast
accessed August 2022).
CARB staff further evaluated the total cost of ownership (TCO) of ZEVs versus ICE
vehicles39 by comparing TCOs of gasoline, diesel, natural gas, battery electric, and hydrogen
fuel cell vehicles in six applications on a per-vehicle basis. CARB staffs analysis indicates that
the TCO for BEVs appears to be cost competitive with established combustion technologies by
2025 in a variety of use cases, and that BEVs offer significant savings in the walk-in van, refuse
truck, and day cab categories, even by 2025. FCEVs also appear to be cost competitive with
674
-------
combustion-powered technologies in the 2025 to 2030 timeframe for some vehicle types.
Moreover, despite the higher upfront costs associated with vehicle costs and infrastructure, cost
savings from lower fuel costs and operational costs will result in a positive TCO for ZEVs, and
the TCO for ZEVs is expected to further decrease over time as costs continue to decline. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1591-A1, pp.18-19]
39 See Appendix G to the Staff Report; Available here:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2022/acf22/appg.pdf
G. Estimated Cost and Economic Impact
1. Overall Comments on Economic Impact Analysis
Affected pages: NPRM 25974-25998 and DRIA 157-261
In assessing U.S. EPA's economic analysis, CARB staff performed a comparison versus the
cost and economic analysis performed for the recently adopted ACF regulation. The ACF
analysis included direct costs on affected businesses including upfront costs, operating costs, and
other miscellaneous costs associated with transitioning MD vehicles and HDVs from ICE
vehicles to ZEVs. Staffs ACF analysis was developed through a lengthy public process. Staff
held public workgroup meetings on December 9, 2020, September 9, 2021, and February 11,
2022, to discuss costs associated with ZEVs and their infrastructure. Through these meetings,
staff solicited feedback on data sources to use, updated our assumptions discussing CARB's
economic analysis for the regulation, and solicited public input on appropriate sources. CARB
staff also performed literature reviews to identify sources discussing ZEV costs. Through this
process, CARB was able to ensure the analysis was using up-to-date information which reflects
the current state of the truck market and future projections on ZEV costs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1591-A1, p.59]
U.S. EPA's findings that ZEVs have lower costs than ICE vehicles and a positive payback
period are well supported by literature and consistent with CARB's ACF analysis. In addition to
CARB staffs recent economic analysis for the ACT regulation 194,195 and ACF
regulation, 196,197 numerous other third-party analyses have found similar
conclusions. 198,199,200,201,202,203,204,205,206,207,208 While ZEVs have higher upfront
costs due to incremental vehicle costs and infrastructure costs, lower operating costs from fuel
savings and reduced maintenance expenses deliver a positive TCO to fleet operators. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1591-A1, pp.59-60]
194 CARB, Public Hearing to Consider the Proposed Advanced Clean Trucks Regulation - Staff Report:
Initial Statement of Reasons, 2019 (web link:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2019/act2019/isor.pdflast accessed May 2023)
195 CARB, Attachment C Updated Costs and Benefits Analysis for the Proposed Advanced Clean Trucks
Regulation, 2020 (web link:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gOv/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2019/act2019/30dayattc.pdf last accessed May 2023)
196 CARB, Public Hearing to Consider the Proposed Advanced Clean Fleets Regulation - Staff Report:
Initial Statement of Reasons, 2022 (web link:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2022/acf22/isor2.pdf last accessed May 2023)
197 CARB, Appendix B Updated Costs and Benefits Analysis, 2023 (web link:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2022/acf22/acfl5db.pdf last accessed May 2023)
675
-------
198 Atlas Public Policy, Assessing Financial Barriers to Adoption of Electric Trucks, 2020 (web link:
https://atlaspolicy.eom/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Assessing-Financial-Barriers-to-Adoption-of-Electric-
Trucks.pdf last accessed August 2022).
199 CleanTechnica. Tesla Police Vehicle Brings Huge Monetary Savings To Westport, Connecticut, June
2021 (web link: https://cleantechnica.eom/2021/06/02/tesla-police-vehicle-brings-huge-monetary-savings-
to-westportconnecticut/ last accessed March 2023).
200 Environmental Defense Fund, Technical Review of Medium-Duty and Heavy-Duty Electrification
Costs for MY 2027-2030, 2022 (web link: https://blogs.edf.org/climate411/files/2022/02/EDF-MDHD-
Electrification-vl.6_20220209.pdf last accessed March 2023).
201 ERM, Investment Reduction Act Supplemental Analysis: Analysis of Alternative Medium- and Heavy-
Duty Zero-Emission Vehicle Business-As-Usual Scenarios, 2022 (web link:
https://www.erm.com/contentassets/154d08e0d0674752925cd82c66b3e2bl/edf-zev-baselinetechnical-
memo-addendum.pdf last accessed January 2023).
202 Hydrogen Council, Path to Hydrogen Competitiveness - A Cost Perspective, 2020 (web link:
https://hydrogencouncil.eom/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Path-to-Hydrogen-Competitiveness_Full-Study-
l.pdf last accessed August 2022).
203 ICF International, Comparison of Medium-Duty and Heavy-Duty Technologies in California, 2019
(web link: https://caletc.aodesignsolutions.com/assets/files/ICF-Truck-Report_Final_December-2019.pdf
last accessed August 2022).
204 McKinsey, Preparing the World for Zero-Emission Trucks, 2022 (web link:
https://www.mckinsey.eom/~/media/mckinsey/industries/automotive%20and%20assembly/our%20insights
/preparing%20the%20world%20for%20zero%20emission%20trucks/preparing-the-world-for-
zeroemission-trucks-f.pdf last accessed March 2023).
205 North American Council for Fuel Efficiency, Regional Haul, 2019 (web link:
https://nacfe.org/regional-haul/ last accessed August 2022).
206 North American Council for Fuel Efficiency, Viable Class 7/8 Electric, Hybrid, and Alternative Fuel
Tractors, 2019 (web link: https://nacfe.org/future-technology/viable-class-7-8/ last accessed August 2022).
207 University of California Los Angeles, Zero-Emission Drayage Trucks - Challenges and Opportunities
for the San Pedro Bay Ports, 2019 (web link: https://innovation.luskin.ucla.edu/wp-
content/uploads/2019/10/Zero_Emission_Drayage_Trucks.pdf last accessed August 2022).
208 Union of Concerned Scientists, Ready to Work - Now is the Time for Heavy-Duty Electric Vehicles,
2019 (web link: https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/2019-12/ReadyforWorkFullReport.pdf, last
accessed August 2022).
CARB staff finds broadly that U.S. EPA has performed a robust analysis on the economic
impact of ZEVs. However, staff has identified numerous areas where U.S. EPA's assumptions
may be overly conservative and are resulting in potentially higher costs than expected. By
assuming vehicles are more costly, U.S. EPA's analysis generates lower payback periods which
in turn result in lower standards per U.S. EPA's methodology to tie the Proposed Standards to
the payback period. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1591-A1, pp.60-61]
CARB staff also note that U.S. EPA's analysis is based on solely BEVs or FCEVs for each
vehicle configuration. In reality, manufacturers are developing both BEV and FCEV models for
the same vehicle configurations, and as a result a greater portion of the market will be addressed
than any technology can do individually. BEVs and FCEVs can address the needs of fleets with
different preferences, so U.S. EPA's methodology will underestimate the number of ZEVs which
676
-------
can be deployed through development of multiple low and zero-carbon technologies. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1591-A1, p.61]
3. BEV Powertrain Cost Calculation
Affected pages: NPRM 25974 and DRIA 177-181
CARB staff has noted the cost of a BEV's powertrain in the NPRM for numerous vehicle
configurations behaves in an unexpected manner. Costs decline from 2027 to 2030, then increase
from 2030 to 2032. Given that the component costs and learning factors lead to cost reductions
over time, this increase in cost appears to be unwarranted. CARB staff seeks further clarification
in this regard. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1591-A1, p.63]
6. Payback Period
Affected pages: 25989-25996
U.S. EPA's economic analysis is used to determine a payback period for BEV and FCEV
technologies versus diesel, which is the main input in setting the Proposed Standards for the
Phase 3 rulemaking. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1591-A1, p.64]
Typically, new vehicles are purchased by larger fleets who operate these vehicles for a length
of time, then sell them into the secondary market to predominantly smaller fleets.220,221 Larger
fleets typically have a thorough, data-driven process to procure vehicles which is commonly
based off a TCO analysis comparing different options. Smaller fleets typically have less
sophisticated procurement decision making and face challenges such as access to capital which
leads to the short-term payback period being a more critical determining factor. Given that U.S.
EPA's NPRM applies to new vehicle sales, it is important to recognize that the decisions of
larger fleets will be the key driver, not smaller fleets or fleets as a whole. As a result, TCO is a
key parameter which must be assessed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1591-A1, pp.64-65]
220 ICCT, No Fleet Left Behind: Barriers and Opportunities for Small Fleet Zero-Emission Trucking, 2022
(web link: https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/small-fleet-ze-trucking-oct22.pdf, last accessed
June 2022).
221 CCJ, New Truck Buyers Dictate the Portfolio Planning of Used Truck Buyers, 2023 (web link:
https://www.ccjdigital.eom/trucks/used-trucks/article/15307006/new-truck-buyers-dictate-used-
truckselection, last accessed June 2023)
U.S. EPA's analysis for 2032 shows ZEVs in nearly all applications have a payback period
under six years with many applications having a payback period of less than two years. On a
TCO basis, this means the entire upfront cost has been recouped and the ZEV will deliver
operational savings versus its diesel counterpart for the rest of its operations. Given this
information, fleets will see a major cost advantage in purchasing ZEVs and risk falling behind
competitors if they do not expeditiously transition to ZEVs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1591-
Al, p.65]
Based on these facts, the adoption rates reflected by U.S. EPA in 2027 and 2032 are far too
pessimistic regarding uptake of ZEVs by fleets. Larger fleets who purchase ZEVs are conscious
of all costs associated with operating a vehicle over its lifetime and will make decisions on the
expected total costs. Given this, the adoption rates for vehicle configurations which pay back
between zero and four years is far too low, with some values as low as 18 percent. U.S. EPA's
677
-------
own analysis notes that a typical ownership period can be ten years, indicating that the ZEV
technology will deliver significant savings to the vehicle's operator over the expected lifetime. In
addition, U.S. EPA should consider whether the cap of adoption rate above 80 percent is
warranted - if a technology option simultaneously has lower upfront costs and lower operating
costs, it is hard to imagine a reason one out of five fleets will consciously avoid that
technology. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1591-A1, p.65]
CARB staff also recommends U.S. EPA reevaluate the Proposed Standards after reassessing
the payback period given how the standards are dependent on the payback period. CARB staff
recognizes that HD ZEV technology is in its nascent stages, especially in some categories, but
this development is already underway and will continue improving between now and 2027 and
then further before 2032. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1591-A1, p.65]
Organization: Daimler Truck North America LLC (DTNA)
In the Proposed Rule, EPA establishes a direct relationship between payback period and
technology adoption rates, which are used to project future adoption levels for each vehicle
category considered in the HD TRUCS tool. In doing, so, it appears that EPA has made a number
of questionable assumptions about purchaser behavior that will likely undermine the accuracy of
its adoption rate projections. There are also a number of real-world factors and fleet
considerations not addressed by the Agency or the sources it relies upon that could further
preclude future ZEV adoption at the rates that EPA projects. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-
Al, p. 19]
EPA's analysis of payback periods and adoption rates is distorted by incorrect assumptions
about the impacts of the Phase 3 regulations and future technology improvements on purchaser
behavior. EPA performed a literature review to establish the payback period/adoption rate
relationship, including the Americas Commercial Transportation Research Company LLC (ACT
Research) 'Charging Forward' report, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)
Transportation Technology TCO tool, Oak Ridge National Laboratory's Market Acceptance of
Advanced Automotive Technologies model, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory's Global
Change Analysis Model, ERM's market growth analysis done on behalf of the Environmental
Defense Fund (EDF), Energy Innovation's United States Energy Policy Simulator used in
analysis by the International Council for Clean Transportation (ICCT) and Energy Innovation,
and CALSTART's Drive to Zero Market Projection Model.29 All of these sources project
adoption rates based on their own sets of assumptions and predictions, which should be reviewed
as the market matures and new data becomes available. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1,
pp. 19-20]
29 See id. at 231-32.
EPA relies most heavily on ACT Research's Charging Forward report methodology, but
makes several modifications that DTNA believes are not supported by data. Table 3 below
shows EPA's proposed adoption rates compared to the adoption rates derived from the ACT
Research 'Charging Forward' report: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 20] [Refer to
Table 3 on p. 20 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1]
ACT Research's adoption rate model assigns an adoption percentage rate based on payback
year, stated to be based on experience. ACT Research then uses the percent difference in TCO to
678
-------
provide another driver of adoption.31 EPA asserts that a faster adoption rate compared to the
ACT Research schedule is reasonable due to the assumed impact of the Phase 3 regulations and
the more modest 80% constraint that the Agency applies to the less-than-zero-year payback
period.32 EPA further increases the adoption rate in 2032, stating that 'ZEV technology will be
more mature; fleet owners and drivers will have had more exposure to ZEV technology, which
may alleviate concerns of reliability and result in a lower impression of risk of these newer
technologies; and infrastructure to support ZEV technologies will have had more time to
expand.'33 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 20]
31 See ACT Research, 'Charging Forward' 2020-2040 BEV & FCEV Forecast & Analysis (December
2021) at 105, available at https://www.actresearch.net/consulting/special-projects/commercial-vehicle-
decarbonizationforecast-reports.
32 See DRIA at 232.
33 Id.
DTNA disagrees with these reasons for increasing ACT Research's projected adoption rates,
as the requirements in the Proposed Rule will apply to manufacturers and will not directly impact
consumer purchasing decisions, as discussed in more detail in Section II.B.3.C of these
comments. Despite its estimation that more than 150 HD BEV models were available in the
United States in 2021,34 EPA cites data provided in the EIA 2022 AEO that BEV and FCEVs
made up less than 0.1% of Class 7-8 sales in that year.35 As adequate supply is already available
in the market with limited demand, it is unreasonable to assume that a regulation impacting only
ZEV supply will have a significant impact on purchaser behavior and adoption rates.36 [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, pp. 20-21]
34 See id. at 44.
35 See id. at 11 (citing U.S. Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2022, Table 49:
Freight Transportation Energy Use (March 2022),
https://www.eia. gov/outlooks/aeo/data/browser/#/?id=58-AEQ2022®ion=0).
36 EPA notes that EIA's AEO forecasts do not account for incentives provided by tax credits enacted under
the IRA, see DRIA at 12; however, it is unlikely that IRA tax credits will alter the payback period/adoption
rate relationship, only the calculated payback period.
While future ZEV technology improvements have a positive impact on purchaser behavior,
EPA already accounts for this in the declining costs and improved efficiencies used to calculate
improved payback periods year-over-year in the HD TRUCS tool. It is not appropriate to
consider technology improvement in both the TCO and adoption rate calculations. Fleet owners
and drivers may have some increased exposure to ZEVs by 2032, but significantly increasing
adoption rate projections fails to account for the additional challenges discussed below, and
FCEV technologies will still be new to the market compared to BEV options. Further,
infrastructure expansion is unlikely to enable this increased adoption rate in 2032, as discussed in
Section II.B.3.b of these comments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 21]
Finally, in our experience, most large on-highway fleets operate on a regular 3-5 year vehicle
trade cycle. Fleets invest in new technologies to earn a payback, not simply to break even, so
adoption rates are highest for technologies where payback occurs in less than half the trade cycle.
The Company has observed a rapid decline in adoption rates for payback periods that exceed 2
years. Vehicle resale values generally begin to decrease after 4 years, further reducing the
679
-------
adoption rates of technologies with payback periods of 4 years or more. The adoption rates
projected by both EPA and ACT Research, as shown in Table 3 above, thus appear to over-
estimate adoption rates for ZEVs with payback periods longer than 2 years. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 21]
Historical adoption rates for fuel-economy improvement technologies do not provide a sound
basis for predicting customer acceptance of ZEV technologies. The ACT Research method and
other literature relying on historical adoption rates of fuel-economy improvement technologies
for conventional vehicles to predict ZEV adoption rates will result in significant over-projection,
as minimally invasive options like aerodynamic components naturally see much greater adoption
rates than ZEVs that require dedicated charging infrastructure and are more limited to specific
route and weight applications. Furthermore, the adoption rate models that EPA references in the
DRIA are based on existing GHG reduction technologies, which are well-established and are
minimally invasive compared to ZEVs. It is unlikely ZEVs will see uptake rates higher than the
uptake rates for minimally-invasive aerodynamic and other changes. Finally, historically the
highest GHG technology adoption rates have been in the long-haul segment, where the cost-per-
mile metric is compounded by the high daily mileage driven. These applications are the least
suitable for BEVs and FCEVs, until technologies and charging and fueling infrastructure
networks are significantly expanded. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 21]
The Zero Emission Truck Market Assessment prepared by CARB in support of its ACT
regulations evaluated ZEV application suitability based on range, weight, and vehicle space
constraints, and considered charging/fueling infrastructure access as return-to-base operations,
but did not necessarily consider whether infrastructure can be made available at those bases.38
CARB evaluated Class 4-7 and Class 8 categories, and determined what percentage of vehicles
may be suitable for BEV and FCEV technologies, shown in Table 5 below. CARB determined
72-73% of Class 4-7 vehicles could be suitable for ZEVs, but found only 29-36% of Class 8
vehicles could be suitable for ZEVs.39 Given these findings, DTNA believes 73% should be the
maximum possible Class 4-7 adoption rate, and 36% should be the maximum possible Class 8
adoption rate, in lieu of the values that EPA proposes in Table 11-23 of the Proposed Rule. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 23] [Refer to Table 5 on p. 23 of docket number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1]
38 See CARB, Advanced Clean Trucks, Initial Statement of Reasons (Oct. 22, 2019), Appendix E: Zero
Emission Truck Market Assessment, available at https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/regact/2019/act2019/appe.pdf.
39 Id. at 4.
In DTNA's experience, a favorable payback period does not by itself guarantee high rates of
technology adoption. While payback period is certainly an important factor for fleets considering
technology adoption, a favorable payback period alone does not guarantee high rates of
technology adoption. For example, drive wheel fairings are a mature, relatively low cost
technology that typically result in a fuel economy payback within the fleet trade cycle. However,
DTNA's drive wheel fairing adoption rate in the HD fleet is less than 5%. Fleets are often
deterred from utilizing this technology because drive wheel fairings are easily damaged,
increasing overall cost and vehicle downtime. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 23]
DTNA has observed similarly low uptake of tire pressure monitoring systems (TPMS), due in
part to a longer calculated payback period (greater than 2 years) and added complexity for tire
680
-------
changes. If a roadside tire replacement occurs, the TPMS sets diagnostic errors, requiring
additional downtime to repair after the tire change. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 24]
To illustrate this phenomenon, we take the example of DTNA's experience with ZEV uptake
in California, which has the most developed ZEV market in the United States. To assess the
accuracy of the payback period/adoption rate relationship on which the Proposed Rule is based,
DTNA used California's HVIP TCO estimator tool to estimate the current payback period for a
Class 8 tractor.40 Using a 200 mile/day use case, we adjusted the calculator's default values to
represent the Company's vehicle pricing and current estimates of California diesel and electricity
prices. We included the Federal Excise Tax (FET) but excluded Low Carbon Fuel Standard
(LCFS) program participation. Two example payback periods using these inputs and two
different incentive values are shown below: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 24] [Refer
to Scenarios 1 and 2 on p. 24 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1]
40 See California HVIP, 'Total Cost of Ownership Estimator,' available at https://californiahvip.org/tco/.
DTNA believes these estimated payback periods in the 3 - 6 year range to be reasonably
accurate for the scenario described. Based on EPA's proposed adoption rate table, these payback
periods should result in 13 - 18% ZEV adoption. However, the Company is currently
experiencing Class 8 BEV tractor uptake of less than 1% in California, despite additional
regulatory drivers for fleet adoption. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 25]
Based upon these considerations of ZEV suitability, EPA should adopt more conservative
maximum adoption rates. EPA states in the Proposed Rule that it limited the maximum
penetration rate to 80% to account for the 'actual needs' of purchasers related to two primary
areas of its analysis, namely application suitability and infrastructure availability.37 DTNA
submits, however, that an 80% maximum adoption rate over-represents the fraction of the market
where BEVs or FCEVs are suitable in the near-term and that application suitability is
inadequately addressed in the HD TRUCS methodology. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1,
p. 23]
37 Proposed Rule, 88 Fed. Reg. at 25,992.
EPA Request for Comment, Request #18: We request comment on this approach [payback
period] and any supporting data on the potential for these and additional technologies to be
available in the HD market in the MY 2027 through MY 2032 timeframe.
• DTNA Response: EPA's approach to the payback period/adoption rate relationship
underpinning its proposed C02 standard stringency levels does not accurately reflect the
HD ZEV market, and overlooks a number of complex considerations including
infrastructure challenges, reluctance to adopt new technology, inflation and other
economic concerns, and vehicle suitability, as discussed in Section II.B.3 of these
comments. EPA should not consider proposed penetration rates of any vehicle types
outside of the BEV and FCEV categories included in the Proposed Rule. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 161]
EPA Request for Comment, Request #48: Thus we request comment and data on our
proposed adoption rate, including schedule and methods. We also request comment and data to
support other adoption rate schedules; see also Section II.H.
681
-------
• DTNA Response: EPA's ZEV uptake projections in the Proposed Rule are overly
optimistic and do not account for a number of fleet considerations including
infrastructure availability, reluctance to adopt new technology, inflation and other
economic conditions, and vehicle suitability to fleet operations, as discussed in Section
II.B.3 of these comments. DTNA therefore proposes an alternate adoption rate schedule
based on CARET s estimate of ZEV suitability and the Company's experience with GHG
technology uptake rates, as detailed in Section II.C of these comments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 166]
EPA Request for Comment, Request #49: For example, some owners may not have the ability
to install charging infrastructure at their facility, or some vehicles may need to be operational 24
hours a day. Under our proposed standards, ICE vehicles would continue to be available to
address these specific vehicle applications. We request comment, data, and analysis on both of
these considerations and our use of an 80 percent volume limit.
• DTNA Response: EPA's 80% volume limit significantly over-estimates ZEV suitability
with respect to infrastructure and operational needs. As discussed in Section II.B.3 and
Appendix A to these comments, DTNA's telematics data indicates that only a small
fraction of vehicles are returning to base at the end of their workdays. In addition, return-
to-base operations depend on ready availability of infrastructure at a given site, which is
not at all guaranteed. CARB assessed 72% maximum suitability in Classes 4 through 7,
and 36% in Class 8 applications based on range, weight, and return-to-base operations.
DTNA recommends EPA cap its ZEV maximum volumes at these rates, as explained in
Section II.B.3.a. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 167]
EPA Request for Comment, Request #51: We request comment and data on our projected
adoption rates in the technology packages [ZEV + assumption that ICE meets 2027] as well as
data supporting higher or lower adoption rates than the projected levels. We also request
comment on projecting adoption rates out through MY 2035.
• DTNA Response: See DTNA Response to Request # 2, above. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1555-A1, p. 167] [Refer to section 2 of the comment summary]
EPA Request for Comment, Request #76: We request comment and data on acceptance of HD
ZEVs.
DTNA Response: Throughout its comments on the Proposed Rule, DTNA provides
details and supporting data on the factors influencing acceptance of HD ZEVs, including
ZEV suitability, TCO, and infrastructure availability. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-
Al, p. 172]
Organization: Energy Innovation
II. THE EPA SHOULD UTILIZE OTHER INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS AND
TRANSPARENT METHODS TO FORECAST ZEV ADOPTION RATES. THE EPA
SHOULD ALSO ACCOUNT FOR THE IMPACT OF ADDITIONAL FACTORS THAT MAY
ACCELERATE LEARNING CURVES FOR HDV BEVS IN THE NEAR FUTURE.
682
-------
In response to the EPA's request for comments on its approach to selecting ZEV technology
adoption rates based on payback, we offer the following observations and propose adjustments to
the methodology for the EPA's consideration. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1604-A1, p. 7]
First, nine states have adopted California's Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT)v rules (as of June
2023). According to the National Automobile Dealers Association, medium- and heavy-duty
truck sales from franchised dealerships in these nine states made up nearly 24 percent of total
HDV sales volume nationwide in 2022.14 As such, applying a uniform approach to forecast ZEV
technology adoption rates in all states does not fully reflect the impact of ACT states on the share
of HDV sales (nor does it capture the ripple effect on the HDV market as a whole). Accordingly,
ZEV adoption in ACT states should be accounted for separately in the EPA's methodology and
should mirror the adoption rates defined by each state's standard. As more ZEVs are produced
and sold in ACT states, production costs will decline, making them cheaper across state
borders. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1604-A1, p. 7
iv California, Colorado, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Oregon, Vermont,
and Washington.
v The Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT) rule, adopted first by the California Air Resources
Board in June 2020, requires truck manufacturers to transition from diesel trucks and vans to
electric zero-emission trucks, phasing in available heavy-duty zero-emission technology starting
in 2024 with full transformation over the next two decades. See https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-
work/program s/advanced-cl ean-trucks.
14 "ATD Data 2022: Annual Financial Profile of America's Franchised New-Truck Dealerships" (National
Automobile Dealers Association, 2022), https://www.nada.org/media/5008/download7inline, 6.
Second, in the original Draft Regulatory Impact Assessment (DRIA),vi the EPA cites the
ACT Research report ChargeForward (December 2021) as the source of equation 2-61 that
defines the relationship between payback period and technology adoption rates for HDVs. 15 The
now-redacted equation 2-61 was used to inform EPA's methodology to produce the adoption rate
schedule for model year (MY) 2027 and MY 2032 in EPA's model, HD TRUCS. The
assumptions derived from the ACT Research study impact forecasted ZEV technology adoption
rates, which influence the stringency of the rule and the future of the HDV market. The EPA
states that "the adoption rate method used for this proposal was developed after considering
methods in the literature to estimate adoption rates in the HD vehicle market," and it provides a
list of other methods they considered (including a January 2023 study by the International
Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) and Energy Innovation, Analyzing the Impact of the
Inflation Reduction Act on Electric Vehicle Uptake in the U.S. (ICCT-EI Study), among several
others). 16 But, it states "of these methods explored, only ACT Research's work directly related
payback period to adoption rates...and thus we relied on the ACT Research method to assess
adoption rates." 17 The EPA's reliance on a method from a single proprietary study (with the
hefty price tag of $25,000 for access 18) to estimate technology adoption rates is highly
concerning because it restricts transparency and accessibility of data and underlying assumptions
and methodologies. All interested stakeholders should have the opportunity to review any
underlying assumptions, methods, data, and approaches used to determine the proposed rule.
Energy Innovation did not purchase the ACT Research study and therefore lacks insight into the
details underlying the methodology to derive the equation and other assumptions regarding
683
-------
payback and adoption rates. We see the EPA's reliance on this source as a limitation in the
proposed rule's core assumptions about adoption rates. We suggest the EPA take an alternative
approach to its methodology and use sources that are transparent, independently verifiable, and
available at no cost for interested stakeholders. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1604-A1, p. 7]
vi The original DRIA was subsequently edited after being posted online. The new version
online contains redacted information (equation 2-61 and table 2-72), presumably because they
were proprietary to ACT Research.
15 "Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles: Phase 3, Draft Regulatory Impact
Analysis (DRIA)" (Assessment and Standards Division Office of Transportation and Air Quality U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, April 2023),
https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P10178RN.pdf. 231.
16 "DRIA," 31-2.
17 "DRIA," 32.
18 "Are You Charging Forward to Zero Emissions?," ACT Research, n.d.,
https://www.actresearch.net/consulting/specialprojects/commercial-vehicle-decarbonization-forecast-
reports.
Third, the EPA applied the "conservative limit" of 80 percent market share for all vehicle
classes "after consideration of the actual needs of the purchasers." 19 The EPA states that it does
"not expect heavy-duty OEMs to design ZEV models for the 100th percentile VMT daily use
case for vehicle applications" and it recognizes "there is a wide variety of real-world operation
even for the same type of vehicle."20 While it is always challenging to predict which technology
evolutions will occur in the future, assuming the HDV market will be the same as it is today a
decade from now ignores the likelihood that technology advances in EV models, batteries,
charging infrastructure, and real-world HDV operations will be notably different by 2032. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985- 1604-A1, pp. 7 - 8]
19 U.S. EPA, "Proposed Rules," 25992.
20 U.S. EPA, 25992
Applying a static limit on market adoption for the duration of the proposed rule (i.e., model
years 2027 - 2032) puts an arbitrary constraint on the model and heavily discounts the likelihood
of breakthrough technological advances (as well as market and consumer adaptations) over the
next decade. It also ignores recent trends in EVs that will impact learning curves for the HDV
sector (discussed further below). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1604-A1, p. 8]
The light-duty vehicle (LDV) EV market provides several illustrative examples of the fast
pace of technology evolution and market adaptation (which were unanticipated just a few years
ago). Figure 4 shows the exponential growth in the number of models with a range of 300 miles
or greater in less than a decade. And Figure 5 shows a similar trend between 2010 and 2021 for
global EVs. Other non-transportation examples further illustrate this point, such as smartphones,
semiconductors, cloud storage, and cryptocurrency—all game-changing technologies whose
rapid growth was near-impossible to accurately predict in their nascent years. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1604-A1, p. 8.] [See Figure 4, Light-Duty EVs with Range of 300 Miles or
Greater,on page 8 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1604-A1 and Figure 5,
684
-------
Evolution of Average Range of EVs by Powertrain, on page 9 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1604-A1.]
Considering the aforementioned issues, Energy Innovation conducted an independent analysis
of technology adoption rates that we hope the EPA considers as it develops the final rule. Below
is an overview of our methodology, the results of our analysis for different HDV vehicle classes,
and key takeaways. We have also attached with our comments the spreadsheet used to develop
the analysis. We are happy to discuss this analysis in greater detail with the EPA and any
interested stakeholders. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1604-A1, p. 9]
A. HDV Sales Adoption Methodology
To estimate the sales of HDVs with different engine types, we used a logit allocation based on
total cost of ownership (TCO). This approach follows our methodology from the ICCT-EI Study
with a few modifications. The logit allocation assigns sales shares to different vehicle
technologies based on the TCO of different vehicles using an assumed financial horizon and
discount rate. Vehicle costs, maintenance costs, fuel prices, vehicle distances, and remaining
inputs to the TCO paper are all sourced from the referenced ICCT-EI Study. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1604-A1, p. 9]
We made two modifications for this analysis to estimate sales for a rule affecting future sales.
First, our prior modeling used an inflated share-weight for ICE HDVs, depending on vehicle
class. This assumption limited the uptake of BEVs, even at TCO parity. For this analysis, we use
a value of 1 for all engine types across all vehicle classes to reflect the growth in market supply
along the timeline on which the rule takes effect. A share-weight of 1 results in higher BEV
shares at a given TCO, but reflects the potential for vastly increased supply of BEV HDVs over
the next 5-10 years. Second, we updated the financial horizons used for different vehicle classes
from our prior modeling. Previously we assumed a financial horizon of 6 years (as an average
duration of first owner vehicle ownership) across all HDV classes. In this analysis, the financial
horizon varies from 5 to 12 years depending on the vehicle class and the typical owner type (for
example, municipal buses will have a longer financial horizon given that cities typically own and
finance fleets over a longer period than commercial trucking companies). Our results are also
translated into sales shares for different payback periods to align with the approach the EPA used
in its proposed rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1604-A1, pp. 9 - 10]
B. HDV Sales Adoption Analysis Findings
Applying the methodology outlined above, we generated market sales share curves based on
payback period for the years 2027 (orange line) and 2032 (blue line), and compared them with
the EPA/Act Research curves (gray line) for the following HDV classes: Rigid Trucks (4-5, 6-7,
and 8); Tractor Truck (short-haul and long-haul); Refuse Truck; and Buses (school bus, other bus
6-8, small bus 4-5, and transit bus 6-8). We removed the 80 percent cap to allow for 100 percent
market sales share where the payback was <0. For all vehicle classes, we see greater market sales
share for both 2027 and 2032 than what the EPA forecasts in its proposed rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1604-A1, p. 10.] [See Figures 6(a) - 7(i). Market sales share adoption for 2027 and
2032, on pages 10-11 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1604-A1.]
C. Key Takeaways from HDV Sales Adoption Analysis
685
-------
We observe similar levels of adoption when the payback period is zero or negative, with
values typically at or above 80 percent. However, given projected cost trends (taken from the
ICCT-EI Study) and especially when layered with IRA incentives, there will be several classes
of HDV BEVs with paybacks of <0 years in the future. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1604-A1,
p. 11]
While our model captures the ability of sales share to exceed 80 percent when this occurs, the
EPA's current approach, as noted above, caps sales shares at 80 percent, regardless of the
payback period (even if zero or negative). Based on our analysis, we observe that this cap
artificially constrains the deployment of BEVs in the EPA's modeling and does not reflect
changes in consumer purchasing behavior as BEV prices fall. In addition, a static 80 percent cap
applied for all vehicles fails to differentiate across vehicle classes and vehicle types. For
example, while it may be true that a BEV may not be a viable technology for certain long-range
heavy-duty tractor trailers, given today's technologies and charging infrastructure, a class 4 truck
that travels long distances could be a BEV far more easily, based on charging needs and usage
patterns. The EPA should consider amending its methodology to increase the limit when payback
periods are highly beneficial to the end user, adjust the cap for differences across vehicles and
end uses, and/or gradually increase the cap over time to account for future technology
improvements and adjustments to HDV use cases and consumer behavior. Furthermore, the EPA
should consider binning sales estimates in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) deciles, to capture very
high adoption in the lower and medium tier deciles. For example, for certain vehicle classes, for
the first 90 percent of VMT, sales could reach 100 percent, but might only be 80 percent for the
last 10 percent of VMT. This would yield an adoption rate of 98 percent, as opposed to a ceiling
of 80 percent. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1604-A1, p. 12]
In addition, our approach yields significantly higher BEV adoption than the EPA's approach
for all payback periods, especially those beyond 2 years. This is due to a combination of using a
logit function that is less price sensitive (our function parameters are derived from the Pacific
Northwest National Laboratory's Global Change Analysis Model (GCAM)21 and methodology)
and a discount rate of 15 percent. Using our methodology, we ran some sensitivity analyses to
approximate the deployment curves in the EPA's proposed rule, and it required applying some
extreme assumptions (e.g., discount rates of 80 percent or higher and a logit exponent of around -
40 compared to a value of -8 from the GCAM model). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1604-A1,
p. 12]
21 "GCAM: Global Change Analysis Model," Global Change Intersectoral Modeling System (GCIMS),
n.d., https ://gcims.pnnl.gov/modeling/gcam-global-change-analysis-model.
Absent more detailed documentation from the ACT Research methodology and EPA's
approach to determine adoption rates, and with only the outputs from the TRUC tool available,
we call into question the methodology and assumptions the EPA is relying on to inform ZEV
technology adoption for the proposed level of stringency of the rule. The EPA's more
conservative approach relies on a more limited set of assumptions for technology adoption rates
that may reflect today's limitations for BEVs in the HDV market but fail to fully account for
future technology advancements and relevant factors impacting learning curves (discussed
below). We urge the EPA to consider updating its methodology and use other curves, like our
analysis or other independent and verifiable analyses that are aligned with published and publicly
available models. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1604-A1, p. 12]
686
-------
III. MODELING SHOWS THAT NEW FEDERAL POLICIES COMBINED WITH STATE
POLICIES WILL ADVANCE THE HDV ZEV MARKET FASTER, WHICH SUPPORTS THE
EPA'S ADOPTION OF ALTERNATIVE, MORE STRINGENT TAILPIPE STANDARDS.
We appreciate that the EPA has "considered new data and recent policy changes [the BIL and
IRA] and [is] now projecting that ZEV technologies will be readily available and technologically
feasible much sooner than [it] had projected."35 The EPA also notes that the "IRA in particular
provides significant incentives for GHG reductions in the HDV sector."36 We agree, and our
modeling supports these findings. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1604-A1, p. 16]
vii Available at https://theicct.org/publication/ira-impact-evs-us-jan23/ and attached to these
comments.
35 U.S. EPA, "Proposed Rules," 25929 and 25939.
36 U.S. EPA, 25929.
In the ICCT-EI Study, we examined the impact of the IRA on the sale of new EVs in the LDV
and HDV sectors in the U.S. through 2035.vii We used a customized Excel model based on
Energy Innovation's U.S. EPS, using updated data on vehicle costs, battery pack estimates,
efficiencies, charging behavior, future fuel prices, and state adoption of Advanced Clean Cars II
(ACC II) rules and ACT rules. We have attached the full study with our comments. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1604-A1, pp. 16 - 17]
We evaluated three IRA Scenarios: Low, Moderate, and High, with different assumptions for
each scenario to reflect how certain provisions of the IRA (the Personal Tax Credits for Clean
Passenger Vehicles (30D), the Commercial Vehicle Tax Credits (45W), and the Advanced
Manufacturing Production Tax Credit (45X)) are implemented and the value of incentives passed
on to consumers. We compared these scenarios to a Baseline (no IRA with just California
adoption of ACC II and ACT rules). We also evaluated the impact of state adoption of clean car
and truck standards. For HDVs, for all scenarios, we assume the ACT rule is followed in states
that had adopted it as of October 2022 (California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York,
Oregon, and Washington).viii The ACT rule requires HDV manufacturers to sell ZEVs as
increasing shares of their annual sales from 2024 to 2035. By 2035, ZEV sales would need to be
75 percent of Class 4-8 straight truck sales and 40 percent of tractor truck sales to meet these
requirements.37 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1604-A1, p. 17]
viii Notably, more states have since adopted ACT rules for a total of nine states (California,
Colorado, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Oregon, Vermont, and
Washington).
37 "Advanced Clean Trucks Fact Sheet," California Air Resources Board, n.d.,
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/fact-sheets/advanced-cleantrucks-fact-sheet.
We found that the IRA will accelerate electrification in both the light-duty and heavy-duty
sectors. For heavy-duty, we find a range of 39 to 48 percent ZEV sales share by 2030 and 44 to
52 percent by 2032. See Figure 11. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1604-A1, p. 17.] [See Figure 11,
Projections of ZEV Sales for HDVs, on page 17 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1604-A1.]
687
-------
As shown in Figure 12, taken from the ICCT-EI Study, BEVs across different categories of
HDVs make up increasing shares of new sales during the years that IRA incentives are available.
When the IRA expires, some HDV classes will experience a drop in overall BEV shares of new
sales, indicating the impact of the IRA on those vehicle markets. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1604-A1, pp. 17 - 18.] [See Figure 12, ZEV Shares of HDV by Category, on page 18 of docket
number EP A-HQ-0 AR-2022-0985-1604-A1. ]
A primary takeaway from our analysis is that the IRA's financial incentives for vehicles and
manufacturers enable and support the adoption of more stringent federal vehicle standards at a
lower cost and higher benefit to consumers.38 However, ZEV sales shares from our analysis are
not guaranteed. Federal tailpipe standards are a critical tool that give truck manufacturers a clear
mandate to retool their production lines to produce zero-emission trucks at scale. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1604-A1, p. 18]
38 Slowik et al., "Analyzing the Impact of the Inflation Reduction Act on Electric Vehicle Uptake in the
United States."
Another notable finding from our analysis is that new sales shares of BEVs exceed FCEVs by
a wide margin for all vehicle classes, due to greater cost differentials for the vehicles (even with
IRA incentives) and limited availability of hydrogen infrastructure, relative to electric charging
infrastructure. While we support technology-neutral standards and believe they are most
appropriate to ensure optimal flexibility, our analysis suggests that the economics and logistics of
FCEVs may make BEVs the leading choice for compliance for the foreseeable future. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1604-A1, pp. 18 - 19]
We invite the EPA to rely on our analysis to support adopting a more stringent set of emission
standards that would be based on higher ZEV adoption rates on a national level. Specifically, the
EPA has requested input on several alternative proposals, including "values in between the
proposed standards and those that would reflect ZEV adoption levels (i.e., percent of ZEVs in
production volumes) used in California's ACT, values that would reflect the level of ZEV
adoption in the ACT program, and values beyond those that would reflect ZEV adoption levels
in ACT such as the 50- to 60-percent ZEV adoption range"39 and "represented by the publicly
stated goals of several major OEMs for 2030."40 See Table 11-35 below from the proposed rule.
We believe any of these alternatives would be advantageous in terms of accelerating the adoption
of ZEVs and spurring a faster transition to clean vehicles in the HDV sector. Alignment with
California's ACT (and the nine states that have adopted that rule) would help create greater
market consistency across the country and ensure all states and communities can benefit from
clean, non-polluting trucks on the road. Although the vehicle categories are different in the
ICCT-EI Study (Figure 5) from those in Table ES-441 below, we note that the adoption rates
from our analysis are generally aligned and the ACT adoption rates are also aligned with what is
needed for climate stability. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1604-A1, p. 19. See Table ES-4
Aggregated Projected ZEV Adoption Rates (from the proposed rule), on page 19 of docket
number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1604-A1.]
39 U.S. EPA, "Proposed Rules," 25929.
40 U.S. EPA, 25929.
41 U.S. EPA, 25933.
688
-------
Organization: Environmental Defense Fund (EPF)
These laws have also led to a significant decrease in upfront and lifetime ownership costs of
EVs for consumers and fleets. An updated study by Roush Industries for EDF in May 2023
assessed and quantified, where possible, the key impacts of the IRA on the cost of electrifying
medium- and heavy-duty vehicles that have access to overnight recharging at a central location
(assessing the same vehicle classes from the earlier 2022 report, including Class 8 transit buses,
Class 7 school buses, Class 3-7 shuttles and delivery vehicles, and Class 8 refuse haulers), using
the previous study costs as a baseline.41 The analysis found that IRA credits help absorb the
near-term higher upfront cost of battery electric vehicles (BEVs) and will accelerate the purchase
parity with the segments analyzed. According to the research, all segments analyzed will now
meet purchase price parity with their diesel counterparts if purchased as early as MY 2024,
assuming reasonable economies of scale for BEV production. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-
Al, p. 20-21]
41 H. Saxena, S. Pillai. 2023. Impact of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 on Medium- and Heavy- Duty
Electrification on MYs 2024 and 2027, Roush for EDF (Attachment M).
The earlier cost projections by Roush in 2022 also showed that BEV operating costs are
always lower than internal combustion engine vehicle (ICEV) operating costs.42 Because of this,
the original analysis found that the time needed for a BEV to achieve total cost of ownership
(TCO) parity with an ICEV could occur at the time of purchase in 2027 for a few of the
segments analyzed and 1-4 years later for other segments. As shown in Table 3, the new IRA
credits for BEVs and chargers will reduce the amount of time needed for BEVs to achieve TCO
parity with ICEVs by an additional 1-2 years so that many segments analyzed will see TCO
parity at the time of purchase as early as 2024. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 21] [See
Table 3, p. 21 of Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1]
42 Nair, V., Stone, S., Rogers, G., Pillai, S. 2022. Medium- and Heavy-duty Electrification Costs for MY
2027-2030, Roush for EDF.
As a result of the IRA, the purchaser of a BEV in MY 2024 could save an estimated $18,000
on a Class 3 delivery van and $500,000 on an urban transit bus over the life of the BEV
compared to a comparable diesel vehicle (Figure 1). If we assume that diesel fuel prices return to
the prices occurring during the summer of 2022 ($5.18/gallon versus $3.25/gallon the lifetime
savings due to switching to a BEV would increase to $33,000 for a Class 3 delivery van and
$700,000 for an urban transit bus.43 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 21-22] [See Figure
1, p. 21 of Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1]
43 H. Saxena, S. Pillai. 2023. Impact of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 on Medium- and Heavy- Duty
Electrification on MYs 2024 and 2027, Roush for EDF.
The IRA also includes tax credits and other incentives for several aspects of battery
production. These IRA provisions could lead to lower-priced batteries and batteries with
competitive prices where much of the manufacturing occurred in the U.S. and North
America. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 22]
3. EPA's ZEV adoption curve is overly conservative
Compounding the agency's conservative cost assumptions, discussed above, several
additional factors result in EPA's modeled rate of ZEV adoption being overly conservative. First,
689
-------
EPA relies on an overly conservative estimation of the relationship between payback period and
technology adoption percentage. Second, EPA artificially caps ZEV adoption at 80% even for
vehicle types for which the upfront cost is lower for ZEVs than ICE vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 56]
One of the crucial elements in EPA's estimation of ZEV adoption in HD TRUCS is the
relationship between payback period and adoption percentage. This equation has a first order
impact on the stringency of the rule. In the DRIA, EPA identifies numerous studies that project
the rate of zero-emission technology adoption in MHDVs. EPA surveyed this data though appear
to have largely adopted a curve based on an ACT Research report. 139 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1644-A1, p. 57]
139 Section 2.7.9 Technology Adoption in Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles:
Phase 3 Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis
In addition, in their modeling, EPA caps adoption for any one of the 101 vehicle types at 80%
even if the upfront cost of the ZEV is cheaper than the ICE vehicle. No other study, including the
ACT Research equation included in the DRIA, makes such an assumption. EPA offers several
rationales for the cap, including their choice to size the batteries to the 90th percentile of daily
VMT, as well as the assumption that some uses or fleet owners may not be able to electrify their
vehicles due to their need to operate the vehicles 24 hours per day or their inability to install
EVSE.140 While it is a reasonable assumption, particularly in the first few years of increased
HD ZEV adoption, that some vehicles would be less suited to electrification even with a short
payback period, that impact should decrease as fleet owners become more familiar with the
technology, business practices surrounding ZEVs become more robust, and a wider range of
ZEV models become available. As such, we believe the imposed cap on ZEV adoption should
lessen through the rule years and be substantially higher by 2032. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1644-A1, p. 57]
140 Ibid.
Additionally, an 80% cap in 2027 is too high. The same vehicles that need to operate 24 hours
a day are presumably the ones with higher daily mileage. EPA provides no supporting evidence
for the assumption that on top of the daily mileage concerns, there are an additional 10% of each
vehicle type that could not be electrified in the next decade. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-
Al, p. 57]
Central to establishing this relationship is an understanding of the impact of payback period
on fleet owners' decisions to purchase vehicles with higher capital costs but lower operating
costs such as many ZEVs. In their March 2022 study, NREL assumed the financial horizon for
Class 3 vehicles is 3 years, Class 4-6 vehicles is 4 years, and Class 7-8 vehicles is 5 years. 141 In
a 2019 report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, authors stated
they "heard from manufacturers and purchasers that they look for 1.5- to 2-year paybacks or, in
other cases, for a payback period that is half the expected ownership period of the first owner of
the vehicle." 142 With EPA's proposed rule, the assumed adoption of ZEVs drops from 80% if
the payback period is less than 0 years to 55% if the payback period is between 0 and 1 years. In
practice, this means that for vehicles with a payback period of one day only around half of
vehicle purchasers would select the ZEV even though they would see savings starting on day 2
of the vehicle's life. This is inconsistent with the literature around financial horizons for vehicle
690
-------
owners. The adoption rate should remain high through at least a two-year payback period at
which time a decline in adoption after that point would be more reasonable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 57-58]
141 Muratori, Matteo et al. 2022. Decarbonizing Medium- and Heavy-Duty On-Road Vehicles: Zero-
Emission Vehicles Cost Analysis, NREL Transforming Energy.
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/ly22osti/82081 .pdf.
142 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2019. Reducing Fuel Consumption and
Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles, Phase Two: Final Report. Washington,
DC: The National Academies Press, https://doi.org/10.17226/25542. (Attachment V)
In both cases, studies stated one of the reasons vehicle owners might require shorter payback
periods was uncertainty connected to the new technology. As a result, it should be expected that
the adoption curve based on payback period EPA is utilizing will evolve between the beginning
and end of the rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 58]
EDF acquired the inputs and results from a study on HD ZEV adoption conducted by NREL
using their TEMPO model, referenced above, to create an alternative adoption curve based
on payback period. 143 144 Additional details about the methodology used to establish this curve
are in Appendix BA.145 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 58-59]
143 Catherine Ledna et al. 2022. Decarbonizing Medium- and Heavy-Duty On-Road Vehicles: Zero-
Emission Vehicles Cost Analysis, NREL Transforming Energy.
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/ly22osti/82081 .pdf
144 Matteo Muratori er al. 2021. Exploring the future energy-mobility nexus: The transportation energy &
mobility pathway options (TEMPO) model. Transportation Research Part D,
https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.trd.2021.102967
145 The interpretation of the results and opinions stated are EDF's alone. EDF would like to thank NREL
and Catherine Ledna for providing the underlying data and inputs.
Figure 10 shows the TEMPO data points, the curve based on the data, the two step-wise
functions used by EPA in HD TRUCS, and the ACT Research curve from Equation 2-61 of the
DRIA. The curve based on TEMPO data (the solid red curve) projects 100% adoption of ZEVs
when the ZEV and ICE vehicle are the same price or the ZEV is cheaper (i.e., a payback period
of less than 0 years). The ACT Research curve assumes only a 71% adoption of ZEVs when
there is purchase price parity. While the adoption begins to decrease once there is a non-zero
payback period, it declines at a slower rate than ACT Research's curve, particularly up to one
year of payback. Analysis of the TEMPO model outputs indicates that the general shape of the
ACT Research curve is reasonable but the adoption levels assumed for low payback periods is
far too modest. Particularly for short payback periods (less than 2 years), this analysis shows that
EPA is profoundly underestimating the resulting ZEV adoption. High adoption rates for
technologies that start providing meaningful savings to vehicle owners after only a few years is
also consistent with the available literature. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 59] [See
Figure 10 on p. 60 of Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1]
EPA must reassess their technology adoption curve and better align the values they are using
to curves such as the TEMPO model based curve presented here that have strong scientific
backing and better align with the existing literature on financial horizons of fleet owners. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985- 1644-A1, p. 60]
691
-------
Organization: International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT)
FORECAST OF ZEV ADOPTION
EPA proposes to define the stringency of its greenhouse gas standard based on a projection of
future zero-emission vehicle sales. While the approach in principle is sound, our analysis has
identified several improvements that, if corrected, would increase the potential benefits of this
rule. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2022-0985-1553- A 1, p. 2]
EPA has selected a model of technology adoption rates that we do not support. Central to the
EPA approach is a market forecast of zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) adoption based on Equation
2-61 of the Draft Regulatory Impact Assessment. This model of ZEV technology adoption rates
is taken from a proprietary study prepared by ACT Research. We find EPA's selection of the
ACT Research study to be arbitrary. Furthermore, the selection of this study presents significant
obstacles to public comment. The study is not available in the public docket and is not available
from the EPA Reading Room. The study is available today for purchase at a cost of $25,000.
This approach is not consistent with traditional standards of transparency that we think are
necessary for the agency to defend and support its rulemakings. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1553-A1, p. 2]
To provide meaningful comment on this aspect of the rule, ICCT purchased the ACT
Research report. Due to licensing limitations, we cannot comment on the specifics of the report.
Based on our thorough review, we conclude that the report contains no empirical basis for
equation 2-61 and cannot be used as the basis for the standards EPA proposes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1553-A1, p. 2]
We consulted with several other research groups cited by EPA as the source of alternative
technology adoption curves. We conclude and recommend that EPA adopt the TEMPO model,
developed by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), as the basis for projecting
ZEV technology adoption rates. This model overcomes key deficiencies of the ACT Research-
based curve by being based on validated empirical data, subject to peer-review, and freely
available to the public. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2022-0985-1553-A1, p. 2]
Adoption of the TEMPO model would change the stringency of the proposed rule. All else
being equal, we find replacing the EPA curve with a TEMPO-based curve would project a 37%
ZEV market share in model year 2027 and a 60% market share in model year 2032. These
estimates reflect the average share across all vehicle categories. We conclude that the selection
of the TEMPO model, or a similarly robust and transparent model, is necessary for EPA to not
only maintain traditional standards of transparency necessary to defend and support its
rulemaking but to also utilize the best available data to project zero-emission vehicle sales. As a
co-benefit, the rule will ensure greater benefits to public health and welfare. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1553-A1, p. 2]
Another element of the proposal that deserves reconsideration is the treatment of state zero-
emission vehicle sales requirements in setting the stringency of the proposed standards.
California and at least eight other states (Oregon, Washington, New York, New Jersey,
Massachusetts, Vermont, Colorado, and Maryland) to-date have adopted the Advanced Clean
Trucks (ACT) regulation, which sets minimum zero-emission truck sales requirements that
exceed the ZEV technology adoption rate of the proposal. The stringency of the proposed
692
-------
standards does not take into consideration these higher state-mandated sales of zero-emission
vehicles, but the proposal would nevertheless allow manufacturers to use these higher ZEV sales
to demonstrate compliance. This compliance approach deviates from the approach taken in the
Phase 2 standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1553-A1, p. 2]
Treating ZEV sales in manufacturer compliance determinations differently than for standard
setting as EPA has proposed will result in adverse impacts. The higher ZEV sales in the nine
states could be used by manufacturers to reduce the sales volume of ZEVs in the other states to a
level far less than EPA's current market projection, potentially impeding investment in ZEV
fleets and infrastructure in non-ACT states. Another result could be the higher ZEV sales in the
nine states could allow manufacturers to certify and sell ICE vehicles with higher C02 emissions
in the non-ACT states. Either outcome could result in fewer zero-emission vehicles and less
efficient ICE vehicles deployed in non-ACT states, which would generate an inequitable
distribution of benefits among states. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1553-A1, p. 3]
This inconsistency can be resolved in one of two ways. The first and simplest way is for EPA
to retain the Phase 2 provision that would exclude vehicle sales in the ACT states when
determining compliance with the EPA standards. The second way is for EPA, in determining the
stringency of its greenhouse gas (GHG) standards, to proportionally weight the higher sales of
ZEVs in the nine states with its revised market-based projection of sales in the other 41 states. As
an example, we conclude that a national weighted average 2032 ZEV sales for Class 4-8
vehicles would be 33% using data given in Table 5 instead of 27% as projected in EPA's
proposal. EPA would set a corresponding numerical lower average national GHG standard based
on this weighted average. The adoption of one of these two approaches would ensure greater
overall benefits and a greater distribution of benefits from the rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1553-A1, p. 3]
ZEV TECHNOLOGY ADOPTION RATE This section responds to EPA's request for
comment on their approach to selecting technology adoption rates for battery electric and fuel-
cell electric vehicles based on payback period. While we support the approach in principle, we
have identified changes to the approach that we think would strengthen the rule. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1553-A1, p. 6]
First, the EPA's approach to estimating technology adoption rates can be improved by
reducing its reliance on a proprietary study. In section 2.7.9 of the Draft Regulatory Impact
Assessment, EPA cites the ACT Research report ChargeForward published in December
2021 (Mitchell, 2023). This report is the source of equation 2-61, which reflects a relationship
between the payback period and the technology adoption rates given in Table 2-72, and which
produces an adoption rate schedule for model years 2027 and 2032 in HD TRUCS given in Table
2-73. EPA cites other studies, including studies by CALSTART, NREL, and ICCT, but in our
view chooses to arbitrarily rely exclusively on the ACT Research study to produce Table 2-73.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1553-A1, p. 6]
Mitchell, G. (2023, April 7). ACT Research: "Charging Forward: 2020-2040 BEV & FCEV Forecast &
Analysis: Commercial Electric and Fuel Cell Vehicle Multi-Client Study" [Memorandum],
https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-0931
In light of the sensitivity of the EPA proposal to equation 2-61, ICCT sought to understand
the empirical basis of this formula by securing a copy of the study. The ACT Research
693
-------
ChargeForward report is not licensed for publication and is not available in the public docket or
in the EPA reading room (Mitchell, 2023). An ACT Research website lists the price of the full
North America version of the report at $25,000.2 This circumstance does not meet traditional
standards of transparency and public access that have historically been necessary to justify EPA
rulemakings. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1553-A1, p. 6]
2 https://www.actresearch.net/consulting/special-projects/commercial-vehicle-decarbonization-
forecastreports
Mitchell, G. (2023, April 7). ACT Research: "Charging Forward: 2020-2040 BEV & FCEV Forecast &
Analysis: Commercial Electric and Fuel Cell Vehicle Multi-Client Study" [Memorandum],
https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-0931 T
In order to provide comment on the empirical basis and technical underpinning of Equation 2-
61, ICCT purchased the report from ACT Research. In purchasing the report, ICCT accepted a
licensing agreement that restricts its ability to distribute or reproduce the report or selected data
outside of the organization under any circumstance. For the purposes of these comments, we are
limiting ourselves to generalizations of what we find in the report in order to honor the licensing
agreement with ACT Research. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1553-A1, p. 6]
We conclude that the ACT Research report provides no data or any other empirical basis to
support Equation 2-61. The equation is contained in a total-cost-of-ownership model provided
with the report. This equation generates a projected share of ZEV sales in each calendar year that
is applied equally across twelve vehicle categories selected to represent class 4-8 vehicles. The
report is 200 pages in length and contains a one-paragraph description of the equation. This
paragraph contains no citations, data or analysis. The paragraph points to the experience of the
authors as the source of the equation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1553-A1, p. 6]
Considering how fundamental this equation is to the stringency of the rule, we find its
justification to be wholly inadequate, out of step with traditional standards of scientific rigor, and
not representative of the deep technical research and scientific knowledge we know is available
to support this rule. We do not support this equation as the basis for defining technology
adoption rates. We are very concerned about the viability of the rule without a change in
approach. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1553-A1, p. 6]
Furthermore, EPA claims that the considered technology adoption curve follows an S-shape
curve. While ICCT takes no issue with the shape of the curve, we disagree with the decision to
convert a smooth scurve into a step curve, where a discrete single value of adoption rate is
assigned to a bin of payback periods. A step curve is not conceptually consistent with technology
diffusion and should be revised. ICCT examined the impact of converting the s-curve into a step
curve on the total ZEV adoption rate and found the s-curve shows a 7% higher total ZEV
adoption rate by 2032. ICCT recommends using a smooth s-curve to represent technology
adoption rates. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1553-A1, pp. 6-7]
Moreover, EPA has modified the ACT research technology adoption curve to a seemingly
arbitrary maximum adoption rate of 80%, a value below what we find in the ACT Research
report. To justify this cap, EPA assumes that not all truck owners and fleets will have the
financial and technical capacity to install and access chargers at their convenience. The proposal
does not present an analysis of infrastructure needs to support this assumption. ICCT supports a
90% cap, which aligns with the assumption EPA makes that the energy storage system of the
694
-------
vehicle is sized to meet the 90th percentile of the truck's daily mileage. ICCT finds this
assumption reasonable and a more appropriate basis for the cap. To support this point and
respond to EPA's request for comment on infrastructure availability, we discuss trucks'
infrastructure needs and the progress in fulfilling them in other sections of these
comments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1553-A1, p. 7]
Our view is the EPA rule can be strengthened through the adoption of an alternative
technology adoption curve derived from empirical data, free to access, and open to public
scrutiny. We propose EPA select a technology adoption curve which we refer to here as the
TEMPO curve. The curve was derived by the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) from the
Transportation Energy & Mobility Pathway Options (TEMPO) Model (Muratori et al., 2021) and
shared with the ICCT.3 The curve is capped at 90%, in line with our recommendation. The EPA
curve, TEMPO curve, and combined EPA and TEMPO curves are presented in Figure 2 and
tabulated in the appendix in Table A. 1. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1553-A1, p. 7] [Refer to
Figure 2, Summary of the different Technology Adoption Curves, on p. 7, and Appendix Table
A.I., Technology Adoption Curves Data, on p. 27 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1553-A1]
Muratori, M., Jadun, P., Bush, B., Hoehne, C., Vimmerstedt, L., Yip, A., Gonder, J., Winkler, E., Gearhart,
C., & Arent, D. (2021). Exploring the future energy-mobility nexus: The transportation energy & mobility
pathway options (TEMPO) model. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 98,
102967. https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.trd.2021.102967
EPA has applied a faster adoption rate in comparison to the ACT research rates for the high
payback periods bins due to the impact of the proposed regulation. ICCT supports this
assumption. The proposed TEMPO curve doesn't take into account the impact of the proposed
regulation on technology adoption. We develop another variant of the TEMPO curve considering
EPA's adoption rates for payback periods above 6 years in 2027, and above 4 years in 2032.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1553-A1, pp. 7-8]
We then examined the impact of the three different technology adoption curves on the total
ZEV adoption rates: (1) EPA rates schedule, (2) TEMPO curve, and (3) TEMPO curve modified
to include the impact of the proposed regulation (TEMPO+EPA). The total ZEV adoption rates
are presented in Figure 3 for different technology adoption curves. The total ZEV adoption rate
in 2027 is more than doubled when using the TEMPO curve, reaching 37%. In 2032, the total
ZEV adoption rate reaches 60% under the TEMPO s-curve versus 46% under EPA's curve. In
addition, when considering the impact of the proposed regulation on the technology adoption for
the TEMPO curve (TEMPO + EPA), higher adoption rates are obtained, reaching 66% in 2032.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1553-A1, p. 8] [Refer to Figure 3, Total ZEV Adoption, on p. 8 of
docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1553-A1]
Based on the analysis presented in this section, ICCT recommends that EPA consider
different technology adoption rates than the ones presented in Table 2-73 in the draft regulatory
impact analysis and consider technology adoption curves that are derived from empirical data
and follow a smooth s-curve such as the ones proposed by ICCT in this section (TEMPO and
TEMPO+EPA curves). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1553-A1, p. 8]
SENSITIVITY OF ZEV ADOPTION RATES OF VOCATIONAL VEHICLES TO LEVEL 2
CHARGING ASSUMPTIONS EPA assumes that each Level 2 charging station (AC charging up
to 19.2 kW in this context) will not be shared by more than one truck. EPA explicitly states that
695
-------
this is a conservative assumption. Level 2 charging is considered the main charging technology
for step vans, box trucks, shuttle and school buses, and utility trucks. Given the long dwell times
of these vehicles and their relatively smaller battery sizes, it is technically possible to share
charging ports between at least two trucks, and fleets will take advantage of port sharing among
several trucks to reduce their capital investment. ICCT modified this assumption in the HD
TRUCS model to investigate the impact on the payback period and adoption rates. The total ZEV
adoption rate of vocational vehicles increased by 6% in 2027 and 4% in 2032 under this new
assumption. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1553-A1, p. 8]
BENEFITS OF A RULE REFLECTING ICCT PROJECTIONS OF TECHNOLOGY
FEASIBILITY, COST AND COMPLIANCE
The ICCT estimated the benefits of EPA's proposed ZEV uptake proposal and compared it
against three more ambitious scenarios. In total, the four scenarios modeled were:
• EPA proposal: This assumes EPA's projected ZEV uptake for different classes of heavy-
duty vehicles and no additional ICE technology improvement beyond the requirements to
meet Phase 2 standards.
• EPA proposal + Cost-effective ICE technology improvements: This scenario combines
EPA's projected ZEV uptake with ICE technology improvement outlined in Table 4 of
this document.
• EPA proposal + Cost-effective ICE technology improvements + ICCT projected ZEV
market growth including state ACT adoption: This scenario has more aggressive ZEV
uptake until 2032 compared to EPA proposal in vehicle segments such as refuse trucks,
Class 4-7 single unit short haul trucks, and Class 4-7 single unit long-haul trucks. This
scenario considers market conditions in combination with state ACT rule adoption and
federal subsidies under the Inflation Reduction Act (Slowik et al., 2023) This means that
there is further increase in ZEV adoption beyond 2032, leading to 66% of the new HDV
sales being ZEVs by 2045. The ICE technology improvements are carried over from the
previous scenario.
• National ACT aligned ZEV pathway + Cost effective ICE improvements +100% ZEV
sales in 2040: This scenario assumes every state adopts California's ACT, i.e. 100% new
HDV sales being ZEVs by 2040 (Ragon, Buysse, et al., 2023). This scenario also aligns
with the Global HDV MoU (Drive to Zero, 2021) that the United States is a signatory to.
The ICE technology improvements are carried over from the previous scenario. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1553-A1, p. 19]
Slowik, P., Searle, S., Basma, H., Miller, J., Zhou, Y., Rodriguez, F., Buysse, C., Minjares, R., Kelly, S., &
Pierce, L. (2023). Analyzing the impact of the Inflation Reduction Act on electric vehicle uptake in the
United States. International Council on Clean Transportation, https://theicct.org/publication/ira-impactevs-
us-jan23/
Ragon, P.-L., Buysse, C., Sen, A., Meyer, M., Benoit, J., Miller, J., & Rodriguez, F. (2023). Potential
benefits of the U.S. Phase 3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Regulation for Heavy-Duty Vehicles. International
Council on Clean Transportation, https://theicct.org/publication/hdv-phase3-ghg-standards-benefits-apr23/
Drive to Zero. (2021). Global Memorandum of Understanding on Zero-emission Medium- and Heavy-duty
Vehicles, https://globaldrivetozero.org/mou-nations/
In 2032, the ZEV market growth scenario projects a 46% ZEV sales share of Class 4-8 HDVs,
compared to 27% estimated by EPA's proposal. (See Table 5.) The National ACT scenario's
696
-------
ZEV sales share is almost double that of EPA's projection in 2032, at 53%. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1553-A1, p. 19] [Refer to Table 5, ZEV Sales Shares for Class 4-8, on p. 20 of
docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1553-A1]
EPA's proposal is estimated to reduce tank-to-wheel (TTW) C02 emissions 9% compared to
2019 levels by 2032 and 20% by 2050. EPA's proposal combined with cost effective ICE
technology improvements results in an 11% TTW C02 emission reduction compared to 2019 by
2032 and a reduction of 28% by 2050. The EPA proposal and ICE improvements combined with
additional ZEV market growth potential projected by ICCT in previously published work leads
to a 19% TTW C02 emission reduction compared to 2019 by 2032 and a reduction of 48% by
2050. A final scenario aligned with a National ACT schedule would deliver a 21% TTW C02
emission reduction compared to 2019 by 2032. The addition of a 100% zero-emission sales
milestone to this scenario by 2040 would deliver a reduction of 91% by 2050. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1553-A1, p. 20]
In terms of cumulative emissions reductions between 2023 and 2050 compared to the EPA
proposal, the addition of cost-effective ICE technology improvements alone reduces cumulative
TTW C02 emissions by 537 million tonnes. A scenario that includes these additional ICE
efficiency improvements and additional ZEV sales in line with previously published ICCT
projections would deliver a reduction of over 1.8 billion tonnes compared to the EPA proposal.
And a scenario that reflects a National ACT schedule plus a 100% zero-emission sales milestone
in 2040 would deliver a reduction of over 3.8 billion tonnes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1553-
Al, p. 21] [Refer to Figures 5 on p. 21 and 6 on p. 22 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1553-A1]
Organization: Moving Forward Network (MFN) et al.
The IRA included a first-ever federal purchase incentive for ZE MHDVs, which helps to
bridge the cost gap between ZEV and ICE models in many cases today. A recent study by ICCT
examined the impact of IRA funding on the MHDV market. 155 The study found that, even
before IRA incentives, ZE models are approaching upfront purchase price parity. By 2030,
battery-electric Class 4-7 rigid trucks, refuse trucks, and transit buses will have favorable sticker
prices, according to the study. When considering IRA incentives, this list grows substantially
(see Table 6). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 75.] [See Table 6, Year of Retail Price
Preference for HD BEV vs. ICE with IRA Qualified Commercial Clean Vehicles Tax Credit
located on p. 76 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1.]
155 Slowik, P. et al. Analyzing the Impact of the Inflation Reduction Act on Electric Vehicle Update in the
United States. The International Council on Clean Transportation. (January 2023).
https://theicct.org/publication/ira-impact-evs-us-jan23/
156 Id.
Total cost is perhaps even more relevant when considering MHDVs, given that they are
crucial capital assets to businesses and must provide a meaningful return on investment. Due in
large part to the significant fuel and maintenance savings offered by ZEVs, many studies
estimate a total-cost preference for ZEVs over ICE models in the coming years, if not today (See
Table 7). Notably, much of the literature on ZE MHDV total cost was published pre-IRA,
meaning that lifetime cost parity would be reached sooner in many cases. However, post-IRA
697
-------
studies on total cost are emerging. One from ICCT examined the total cost of ownership of
various propulsion technologies for long-haul Class 8 tractor trucks in seven key freight states:
Georgia, California, Florida, Illinois, New York, Texas, and Washington. The study estimated
that battery-electric long-haul Class 8 tractors would have a preferred total cost of ownership
before 2030 in each of these states, and in Texas as soon as 2027. 157 The most recent
BloombergNEF Electric Vehicle Outlook corroborated ICCT's results, finding that all classes of
ZE MHDVs - even long-haul tractors - would have a preferred total cost of ownership in the
U.S. by 2030. 158 Our analysis on incremental savings to fleets in Section 8.8 of this letter
further confirms these findings. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, pp. 76 - 77.] [See Table 7,
Earliest TCO Advantage for BEV Trucks over Fossil-fueled Trucks located on p. 77 of docket
number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1.]
157 Basma, H. et al. Total Cost of Ownership of Alternative Technologies for Class 8 Trucks. The
International Council on Clean Transportation. (April 2023). https://theicct.org/wp-
content/uploads/2023/04/tco-alt-powertrain-long-haul-trucks-us-apr23.pdf
158 BloombergNEF. Electric Vehicle Outlook 2023. Bloomberg Finance L.P. (June 2023).
https://about.bnef.com/electric-vehicle-outlook/
159 California Air Resources Board. Draft Advanced Clean Fleets Total Cost of Ownership Discussion
Document. (September 2021). https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021-08/210909costdoc_ADA.pdf
160 Eamonn Mulholland. Cost of electric commercial vans and pickup trucks in the United States through
2040. The International Council on Clean Transportation. (January 2022). https://theicct.org/wp-
content/uploads/2022/01/cost-ev-vans-pickups-us-2040-jan22.pdf
161 Hunter, C. et al. Spatial and Temporal Analysis of the Total Cost of Ownership for Class 8 Tractors
and Class 4 Parcel Delivery Trucks. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. (2021).
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/Iy21osti/71796.pdf
162 Nair, V. et al. Technical Review of: Medium and Heavy-Duty Electrification Costs for MY 2027-
2030. Prepared for Environmental Defense Fund by Roush Industries, Inc. (February 2022).
https://blogs.edf.org/climate411/files/2022/02/EDF-MDHD-Electrification-vl.6_20220209.pdf
Other clean air regulators are taking note of this. In April 2023, CARB adopted the Advanced
Clean Fleet rule, which will require the largest truck fleets operating in California to
begin transitioning to ZE MHDVs in 2024. This rule is anticipated to save California commercial
fleets nearly $48 billion through 2050. 163 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, pp. 77 - 78]
163 California Air Resources Board. Appendix B: Updated Costs and Benefits Analysis. (2023).
https://ww2.arb. ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2022/acf22/acf 15db .pdf
Although aspects of both upfront cost and total cost of ownership were considered in the
proposal, we find it particularly arbitrary that the ZEV Adoption Rates in no way reflects recent
economic projections in the literature. 164 For example, while battery-electric refuse haulers
have both preferred upfront and total costs today, the current proposal would only affect a 36
percent market-wide ZEV adoption rate in 2032 - nearly a decade after purchase price parity.
The same is true across the board for this proposal. EPA anticipates that the ZEV adoption rate
under the proposal for daycab tractors, a truck type that bears significant responsibility for
pollution in port- and warehouse-adjacent communities, would be merely 12 percent the year
they are expected to reach purchase price parity. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 78]
698
-------
164 U.S. EPA. Proposed Rule: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles - Phase 3.
(2023). p. 210 https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/proposed-rule-greenhouse-
gas-emissions-standards-heavy
When faced with the overwhelming economic upsides for ZE MHDVs, opponents of clean
trucks often suggest that long-haul electric trucks will either have penalized revenue or increased
fleetwide VMT due to payload capacity loss from battery weight. These arguments, however, are
undercut by recent studies showing that advancements in battery efficiency and density will
close the payload capacity gap in the coming years. 165 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1,
p. 78]
165 Ricardo Strategic Consulting. E-Truck Virtual Teardown. Prepared for The International Council on
Clean Transportation. (June 2022). https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Final-Report-eTruck-
Virtual-Teardown-Public-Version.pdf
Lastly, as EPA notes, there are several tax credits from the Inflation Reduction Act (including
the §48C Advanced Manufacturing and the §45X Advanced Manufacturing Production tax
credits) available to battery manufacturers that will reduce costs below what is represented in
EPA's and our own analyses. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 104]
Organization: National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA)
C. EPA's assessment of upfront HDV costs and payback is incomplete and inaccurate.
After accounting for the IRC Section 45W HDV tax credits provided for in the Inflation
Reduction Act (IRA), EPA estimates that the typical buyer of a new HDV ZEV would:
• Pay an average of between $900 and $11,000 more in upfront costs for a MY 2032
vocational ZEV HDV than for a comparable ICE HDV but would recoup those costs in 3
years or less through yearly operational savings.
• Pay an average of $17,000 more in upfront costs for a MY 2032 day-cab tractor ZEV
HDV than for a comparable ICE HDV and would recoup these costs in 3 years or less
though yearly operational savings.
• Pay an average of $15,000 more in upfront costs for a MY 2032 sleeper cab tractor ZEV
HDV than for a comparable ICE HDV but would recoup these costs in 7 years or less
though yearly operational savings. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1592-A1, p. 6]
These estimates were built using HD TRUCS. To develop HD TRUCS, EPA relied on
literature to determine the cost of components and technology packages, and then applied TCO
calculations and other data assumptions. EPA then used HD TRUCS to perform payback period
calculations to determine the number of years it will take for the TCO of a ZEV HDV to be equal
to that of a comparable ICE HDV. While HD TRUCS is a strong tool for the assessment of ZEV
technologies in the marketplace, ATD submits that there are several aspects of HD TRUCS and
the underlying data or assumptions that are incomplete and inaccurate. EPA must rectify these
issues finalizing its Phase 3 GHG mandates to ensure that forecasted payback periods and
adoption rates reflect reality. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1592-A1, p. 6]
ATD defers to the comments submitted by the Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association
(EMA) and its members regarding HDV and technology package pricing and feasible timelines.
Today, new ZEV HDV sales prices are approximately 3-5 times that of comparable ICE HDV
prices, before any tax incentives or grants. Industry studies that align with this observation report
699
-------
that the cost of a 450-kWh ZEV HDV battery would be between $144,000 and $243,000 before
taxes and fees, which pushes the base price of a Class 8 BEV tractor to $350,000 to $500,000 or
three to five times the price of a new diesel HDV.l 1 While it is projected that battery prices may
come down over time, it makes no sense to suggest that the prices of new ZEV HDVs will
average a mere 10-20% above the price of new ICE HDVs in 2032. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1592-Al,pp. 6-7]
11 Sustainable Fleets 2023: The Road from Diesel to ZEVs, HEAVY DUTY TRUCKING, (May 22,
2023); See also, Claire Buysse, How Much Does An Electric Semi Really Cost?, ICCT (Feb. 24, 2022).
Organization: RMI
Overall, the total cost of ownership (TCO) for electric vehicle ownership is less than that of
diesel vehicle ownership. Electric drivetrains, the vehicle components that connect the engine to
the wheels, are simpler than diesel drivetrains. These simpler mechanics result in significant
reductions in maintenance costs. Additionally, electric vehicles are more energy-efficient than
their diesel counterparts. Coupled with the price of electricity, EVs benefit from dramatic
reductions in fueling costs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1529-A1, p. 6]
IRA credits can dramatically shift the TCO parity for heavy-duty (HD) ZETs: for the long-
haul segment, parity is expected in 2027, but not until 2038 without the credits. For urban and
regional segments, the IRA credits enable the TCO for HD ZETs to be lower than that of HD
diesel trucks today. Without the credits, the TCO parity would occur between 2026 and
2028.13 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1529-A1, p. 6] [Refer to Figure on p. 6 of docket number
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1529-A1]
13 Marie McNamara et al., How Policy Actions Can Spur EV Adoption in the United States, RMI, 2023,
https://rmi.org/insight/how-policy-actions-can-spur-ev-adoption-in-the-united-states/.
The overall sales penetration of HD ZETs is projected to reach 59% without IRA credits and
78%) with IRA credits. This penetration translates to an additional cumulative sales of 428,216
HD ZETs between 2022 and 2032.15 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1529-A1, p. 6] [Refer to
Figure on p. 7 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1529-A1]
15 Marie McNamara et al., How Policy Actions Can Spur EV Adoption in the United States, RMI, 2023,
https://rmi.org/insight/how-policy-actions-can-spur-ev-adoption-in-the-united-states/.
Economic modeling of IRA incentives by both RMI and the International Council on Clean
Transportation have projected that battery electric vehicles will reach cost parity with internal
combustion engine vehicles within the next few years for most HDT duty cycles. If vehicle costs
come down as expected and fleets can both procure and charge their vehicles, electric trucks
could be 50% of sales in many locations by 2030.17 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1529-A1, p. 7]
17 Peter Slowik, et al., Analyzing the Impact of the Inflation Reduction Act on Electric Vehicle Uptake in
the United States, The International Council on Clean Transportation, 2023, https://theicct.org/wp-
content/uploads/2023/0 l/ira-impact-evs-us-jan23 .pdf.
A fleet's purchase decision can be based on environmental commitments, fueling access,
financial resources, and operating requirements, but for most fleets, cost is the driving concern;
once electric trucks make the most economic sense for fleets, they increasingly adopt them. By
getting to cost parity sooner, the IRA jumpstarts a virtuous cycle. Fleets start adding charging to
their depots and look for e-trucks that meet their operational needs. Truck manufacturers and
700
-------
charger manufacturers respond to this demand with new and better products further improving
electric truck costs and operational viability, driving even more adoption. Because of this, RMI
projects that the IRA will lead to far greater electric truck sales, market constraints such as grid
electricity supply, e-truck availability, and the time it takes to introduce new vehicle
models. 18 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1529-A1, p. 7]
18 Kahn et Al, The Inflation Reduction Act Will Help Electrify Heavy-Duty Trucking, RMI, 2022,
https://rmi.org/inflation-reduction-act-will-help-electrify-heavy-duty-trucking/
Organization: State of California et al. (2)
1. Evidence Suggests Robust Zero-Emission Vehicle Adoption Rates in the Heavy-Duty
Sector
Heavy-duty electrification technologies already exist today, and sales of these electric
vehicles are expected to grow significantly in the coming years due to municipal, state, and
national policies, manufacturer commitments, and growing industry demand. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1588-A1, p.20]
As of 2019, when the California Air Resources Board ("CARB") promulgated its Advanced
Clean Trucks ("ACT") regulations, discussed in more detail below, nearly one hundred models
of zero-emission trucks and buses were commercially available in California, with many more
projected to be added to the market in the near future. 147 As of 2022, the number of models
available in the United States was closer to 200 and that number continues to grow. 148 Original
equipment manufacturers have made robust projections about the future of ZEVs in this sector.
These manufacturers project that between 50 to 70 percent of their heavy-duty truck sales will be
ZEVs by 2030 and 100 percent by 2040:
• Navistar's executives expect 50 percent heavy-duty ZEV sales by 2030 and 100 percent
electric vehicle ("EV") or fossil free by 2040; 149
• Daimler Truck has stated ZEVs will make up 60 percent of its sales by 2030 and 100
percent of sales by 2040; 150
• Volvo Trucks set a global target of 50 percent of all new trucks sales to be battery or fuel
cell electric in 2030, and 100 percent by 2040;151 and
• PACCAR predicts electric vehicle production in the U.S. will ramp up exponentially in
the coming years to 100 percent by 2040.152 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1588-A1,
pp.20-21]
147 ACT ISOR at ES-2.
148 ZETI Data Explorer, https://globaldrivetozero.org/tools/zeti-data-explorer/ (last accessed June 9,
2023); see also 88 Fed. Reg. at 25,961 (describing over 170 models produced by over 60 manufacturers
that cover a broad range of applications, including school buses, transit buses, straight trucks, refuse
haulers, vans, tractors, utility trucks, and others, available to the public through model year 2024).
149 Alan Ohnsman, Big Rigs Going Electric As Navistar, Cummins, Daimler Rev Up Next-Generation
Trucks, Forbes.com (May 13, 2022), https://www.forbes.eom/sites/alanohnsman/2022/05/13/big-rigs-
going-electric-as-navistar-cummins-daimler-rev-up-next-generation-trucks/?sh=60de4269419d.
150 Nick Carey, Daimler Truck 'all in' on green energy as it targets costs, Reuters (May 20, 2021),
https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/daimler-truck-all-in-green-energy-shift-targets-
costs-2021-05-20/.
701
-------
151 Seth Clevenger, Volvo Trucks Outlines Next Steps Toward Carbon-Free Transport Vision, Transport
Topics (Oct. 24, 2021), https://www.ttnews.com/articles/volvo-trucks-outlines-next-steps-toward-carbon-
free-transport-vision; see also Volvo Group North America, Volvo Lights: Bringing Battery-Electric
Freight Trucks to Market (May 18, 2022), https://cdn.lightsproject.com/collateral/volvo-lights-lessons-
learned-guidebook.pdf.
152 Global Commercial Vehicle Drive to Zero, Analysis of Public Sales Commitments of Medium- and
Heavy-Duty Vehicle Manufacturers and Expected Volumes (Dec. 2021) at 8,
https://globaldrivetozero.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/OEM-Analysis-Paper_December_2021.pdf.
And businesses that purchase heavy-duty vehicles are creating a robust demand for these
vehicles—with many major companies making significant commitments in recent years towards
electrifying their heavy-duty fleets. Some examples include:
• Walmart has committed to a 100 percent zero-emission vehicle fleet globally, including
long-haul trucks, by 2040; 153
• Amazon has pledged that half of its deliveries globally will be carbon neutral by
2030,154 and has purchased 100,000 battery-electric delivery vans with an eye towards
that goal; 155
• DHL Group has committed to a 60 percent electric last-mile delivery fleet by 2030
globally; 156
• FedEx has projected that battery-powered vehicles will make up half of all of its van
purchases by 2025, and 100 percent by 2030;157
• Ingka Group (parent company of Ikea) has committed to 100 percent zero-emission
customer deliveries and services by 2025 globally; 158
• PepsiCo has committed to reducing its direct emissions by 75 percent by 2030, which
includes a wide-scale rollout of electric vehicles for its vehicle fleet; 159 towards this
goal, FritoLay (a division of PepsiCo) announced it will deploy over 700 electric delivery
vehicles in the United States by the end of 2023; 160
• Sysco Co. committed to electrify 35 percent of its fleet by 2030, and signed a letter of
intent in 2022 to deploy up to nearly 800 battery electric Class 8 tractors by 2026; 161
• And a significant number of companies, including Bayer, Biogen, ClifBar, DeLoitte,
Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, HP Inc., Lyft, and Siemens have joined the EV100
coalition, whereby they commit to fully electrify their fleets by 2030.162 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1588-A1, pp.21-22]
153 Jason Mathers, Environmental Defense Fund, Walmart commits to 100% zero-emission trucks by
2040, signaling electric is the future (Sept. 22, 2020),
https://blogs.edf.org/energyexchange/2020/09/22/walmart-commits-to-100-zero-emission-trucks-by-2040-
signaling-electric-is-the-future/.
154 Karen Weise & Neal E. Boudette, Can Anyone Satisfy Amazon's Craving for Electric Vans?, New
York Times (Jan. 18, 2022), https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/18/technology/amazon-electric-vans.html.
155 Press Release, Amazon, Amazon's electric delivery vehicles from Rivian roll out across the U.S. (July
21, 2022), https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/transportation/amazons-electric-delivery-vehicles-from-
rivian-roll-out-across-the-u-s.
156 Press Release, DHL, How DHL Is Embracing Electric Vehicles (EVs) For a Greener, Sustainable
Future (July 21, 2022), https://www.dhl.com/discover/en-sg/logistics-advice/sustainability-and-green-
logistics/reasons-dhl-embraces-electric-vehicles.
702
-------
157 Press Release, FedEx, Charging Ahead: FedEx Receives First All-Electric, Zero-Tailpipe Emissions
Delivery Vehicles from BrightDrop (Dec. 17, 2021),
https://newsroom.fedex.com/newsroom/global/brightdropev600.
158 Press Release, Ingka, Ingka Group accelerates towards 100% zero emission cars and vans (Nov. 10,
2021), https://www.ingka.com/news/ingka-group-as-a-member-of-evlOO-signs-global-declaration-on-
accelerating-the-transition-to-100-zero-emission-cars-and-vans/.
159 PepsiCo, Climate Change Action Strategy, https://www.pepsico.com/our-impact/esg-topics-a-
z/climate-change (last accessed June 14, 2023).
160 Press Release, Frito-Lay, Frito-Lay Expedites 2040 Net-Zero Emissions Goal with Over 700 Electric
Delivery Vehicles (April 20, 2023), https://www.fritolay.com/frito-lay-expedites-2040-net-zero-emissions-
goal-with-over-700-electric-delivery-vehicles.
161 Jason Morgan, How Sysco Corp. plans to deploy 800 battery electric Class 8 trucks (and that's just the
beginning), FleetEquipmentMag.com (Nov. 14, 2022), https://www.fleetequipmentmag.com/sysco-battery-
electric-trucks/.
162 EV100 Members, theclimategroup.org, https://www.theclimategroup.org/evlOO-members (last
accessed June 16, 2023); see also Climate Group launches EV100+ to tackle world's most polluting road
vehicles, theclimategroup.org (Sept. 20, 2022), https://www.theclimategroup.org/our-work/press/climate-
group-launches-evlOO-tackle-worlds-most-polluting-road-vehicles.
Indeed, in a comprehensive analysis of class 2b-8 fleet announcements, the Environmental
Defense Fund found that there had been a nearly 8,500 percent increase in zero-emission
deployments and commitments in commercial fleets in the United States between 2017 and
2022, with investments made by over 280 entities. 163 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1588-A1,
p.22]
163 Environmental Defense Fund, The ZEV future is here: An 8,500% increase in truck deployments,
commitments is proof (July 12, 2022), https://blogs.edf.org/energyexchange/2022/07/12/the-zev-future-is-
here-an-8500-increase-in-truck-deployments-commitments-is-proof/; see also BYD, More Game Day
Cheers, Less Emissions: Anheuser-Busch Delivers New Era of Beer with Innovative Zero-Emission Fleet
(Feb. 11, 2022), https://en.byd.com/news/more-game-day-cheers-less-emissions-anheuser-busch-delivers-
new-era-of-beer-with-innovative-zero-emission-fleet/ (explaining Anheuser-Busch's initial efforts to
transition its entire long-haul dedicated fleet to zero-emission vehicles); BYD, BYD and Einride Sign
Largest-Ever Order for Heavy-Duty Battery Electric Trucks Outside of Asia (Feb. 22, 2022),
https://en.byd.com/news/byd-and-einride-sign-largest-ever-order-for-heavy-duty-battery-electric-trucks-
outside-of-asia/ (Swedish freight technology company Einride purchases 200 Class 8 electric trucks);
Maersk, Maersk orders 110 Volvo VNR Electric trucks for North America (March 29, 2022),
https://www.maersk.eom/news/articles/2022/03/29/maersk-orders-110-volvo-vnr-electric-trucks-for-north-
america (Maersk announces purchase of 110 electric Class 8 trucks).
In April 2023, EPA issued a Notice of Decision granting CARB's requested waivers of
preemption under Section 209 of the CAA for several regulations governing heavy-duty vehicles
in California, including the ACT regulations. 164 The ACT regulations aim to accelerate the
widespread adoption of ZEVs in the medium- and heavy-duty vehicle sector,165 and, to that end,
set manufacturer ZEV sales requirements for vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating
("GVWR") greater than 8,500 pounds, commonly referred to as medium- and heavy-duty
vehicles. 166 ACT specifies that by 2035, zero-emission truck/chassis sales would need to be 55
percent of Class 2b - 3 truck sales, 75 percent of Class 4-8 straight truck sales, and 40 percent
of truck tractor sales. California also received a waiver for its Zero Emission Airport Shuttle
(ZEAS) regulation, which will accelerate the adoption of ZEV technology in California airport
shuttles. 167 Under the ZEAS regulation, by December 31, 2027, at least 33 percent of each
703
-------
regulated airport shuttle fleet must be ZEVs. 168 By December 31, 2031, the requirement goes up
to 66 percent, and by December 31, 2035, 100 percent of each fleet must be ZEVs. 169 [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1588-A1, p.23]
164 88 Fed. Reg. 20,688 (April 6, 2023) (granting waivers of preemption under CAA Section 209 for
California's Heavy-Duty Vehicle and Engine Emission Warranty Regulations and Maintenance Provisions,
the Advanced Clean Trucks Regulation, the Zero Emission Airport Shuttle Regulation, and the Zero-
Emission Power Train Certification Regulation).
165 ACT ISORatES-1, V-l.
166 The requirements specify percentages of ZEVs and near-zero emission vehicles (NZEVs). CARB
Waiver Request Support Document for ACT, ZEAS, and ZEP Regulations (Dec. 20, 2021) at 2 & n.2
("Waiver Request for ACT") (EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0331-0003). ACT ISOR at ES-3, ES-4; Cal. Code
Regs., tit. 13, §§ 1963, et sec. The ACT regulation implements the ZEV sales requirement through a "credit
and deficit system," which allows manufacturers to "determine the vehicle types that are most cost
effective for them to produce and to serve the [vehicle category] markets they choose and to make
adjustments as the market expands." Manufacturers can generate a "ZEV credit" by "producing and selling
a ZEV into California." Starting with the 2024 model year, truck manufacturers subject to the ACT
regulation will "annually incur deficits based on the manufacturer's annual sales volume of on-road
vehicles produced and delivered for sale in California." The deficits increase incrementally each year from
model year 2024 (with required ZEV sales percentages ranging from 5% to 9% depending on weight class)
to model years 2035 and beyond (ranging from 40% to 75%). For each model year, manufacturers must
comply by retiring credits to offset their deficits. The ACT regulation also allows manufacturers to "bank"
and trade credits. Manufacturers are subject to civil penalties if they fail to "retire an appropriate amount of
ZEV. . . credits" and then fail to "make up those deficits" by the end of the next model year.
167 ZEAS ISORatES-1.
168 Waiver Request for ACT at 12.
169 Id. at 12.
And California is far from the only state to implement policies promoting innovative
technologies, including electrification in the medium- and heavy-duty vehicle sectors. To date,
eight other states have adopted California's ACT regulations: Massachusetts, New Jersey,
New York, Oregon, Washington, 170 Vermont,171 Colorado,172 and Maryland.173 In addition,
17 States and the District of Columbia have signed a Memorandum of Understanding
establishing goals to support widespread electrification of the HD vehicle sector. 174 These states
represent over 36 percent of the market for heavy-duty vehicles in the United States. 175 [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1588-A1, pp.23-24]
170 88 Fed. Reg. at 25,939 n.77.
171 Sierra Club, Vermont Adopts Rules for Cleaner Cars and Trucks (Dec. 1, 2022),
https://www.sierraclub.org/vermont/vermont-adopts-rules-cleaner-cars-and-trucks.
172 Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Colorado adopts new measures to increase
availability of zero-emission trucks that offer lower operating and fuel costs (April 21, 2023),
https://cdphe.colorado.gov/press-release/colorado-adopts-new-measures-to-increase-availability-of-zero-
emission-trucks-that.
173 The Maryland Department of the Environment is required to adopt regulations that incorporate by
reference California's ACT regulations, taking effect starting with model year 2027. See Calstart, By
Paving the Way for Clean Trucks, Maryland Reaffirms Its Position as a Climate Leader,
https://calstart.org/calstart-applauds-maryland-for-adopting-clean-truck-legislation/ (last accessed June 16,
2023).
704
-------
174 Multi-State Medium- and Heavy-Duty Zero Emission Vehicle Memorandum of Understanding (July
2020), https://www.nescaum.org/documents/mhdv-zev-mou-20220329.pdf/.
175 Claire Buysse et al., Racing to Zero: The Ambition We Need for Zero-Emission Heavy-Duty Vehicles
in the United States, The International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) (Apr. 8, 2022),
https://theicct.org/racing-to-zero-hdv-us-apr22/.
Numerous state governments have also passed electric vehicle purchase mandates for state
and local heavy-duty fleets, including California, 176 Connecticut, 177 Maine, 178
Maryland,179 Massachusetts, 180 New Jersey,181 New York,182 and Rhode Island.183 Further,
numerous states and localities have implemented programs that provide purchase incentives or
price relief to spur the replacement of conventional heavy-duty vehicles with zero-emission or
alternative fuel vehicles, including Alabama, 184 California, 185 Idaho, 186 Indiana, 187 Iowa, 188
Louisiana, 189 Maryland, 190 Michigan, 191 Nebraska, 192 New Jersey, 193 Utah, 194 and
Washington. 195 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1588-A1, pp.24-26]
176 California Code of Regulations Title 13, Section 2023.1 (By 2040, all public transit agencies must
transition to 100% zero-emission bus fleets); California Public Resources Code 25722.5-25722.11, 25724
(By 2025, at least 15% of the state's fleet of new vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 19,000
pounds or more must be zero-emission vehicles, and at least 30% must be by 2030).
177 Connecticut General Statutes § 14-164o, Senate Bill 4, 2022 (Beginning January 1, 2035, school
districts may only purchase zero-emission school buses; by 2040, all school buses in Connecticut must be
zero emission. School districts in environmental justice communities must transition to zero-emission buses
by January 1, 2030).
178 Maine Revised Statutes Title 20-A M.R.S. § 5401(15-A) (by 2035, to the extent practicable 75% of
school bus acquisitions must be zero-emission buses); P.L. 2022, ch. 693, § 3.
179 Maryland Statutes, Transportation Code 7-406 (Beginning in 2023, the Maryland Transit
Administration may only purchase zero emission buses for the state transit bus fleet.); Maryland Statutes,
Environmental Code 2-1505 (Beginning in fiscal year 2025, county Boards of Education may only
purchase zero-emission school buses unless certain conditions are met.).
180 Executive Order 594, 2021 (By 2030, all vehicles with a GVWR of 14,000 lbs. or more must be
ZEVs.); House Bill 5060, 2022; Session Law Chapter 448, Section 6A, 2016 (By December 21, 2030, all
passenger buses purchased or leased by the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority must be ZEVs. By
December 31, 2024, all passenger buses operated by the MBTA must be ZEVs.)
181 New Jersey Statutes § 48:25-3 (10% of new buses purchased by the New Jersey Transit Corporation
must be ZEVs by December 31, 2024, and 100% by December 31, 2032); New Jersey Statutes § 27:lB-22
(All buses purchased by the New Jersey Transit Corporation must be 1) equipped with improved pollution
controls that reduce particular emissions, or 2) powered by a fuel other than conventional diesel. Qualifying
vehicles include hybrid electric vehicles and fuel cell vehicles).
182 New York Senate Bill 8006, 2022 (Beginning July 1, 2027, school districts entering new purchase or
lease contracts may only purchase or lease zero-emission school buses powered by electricity or
hydrogen.); Executive Order 22, 2022; Senate Bill 2838, 2022 (For state fleet medium- and heavy-duty
vehicles, 10% must be ZEVs by 2026, 25% must be ZEVs by 2031; and 100% of MHDVs must be ZEVs
by 2041.).
183 Rhode Island Public Transit Authority, Electric Bus Pilot Program, https://www.ripta.com/electric-bus/
(Funds from the Volkswagen Mitigation Trust are being used to replace older diesel buses with all-electric,
zero-emission buses.).
184 State of Alabama, Department of Economic and Community Affairs, Volkswagen Environmental
Mitigation Trust Beneficiary Mitigation Plan (Feb. 28, 2019), https://adeca.alabama.gov/wp-
content/uploads/Beneficiary-Mitigation-Plan.pdf (making grants available for the replacement of qualified
705
-------
medium- and heavy-duty vehicles, including freight trucks, port drayage trucks, buses, ferries, tugs,
forklifts, and airport ground support equipment).
185 Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District, Clean Air Grants for On-Road Vehicles,
https://www.ourair.org/grants-for-on-road-vehicles/ (The Santa Barbara Air Pollution Control District
offers grants for the replacement of existing heavy-duty vehicles with zero-emission or near-zero-emission
vehicles.) (last accessed June 16, 2023).
186 Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, Volkswagen and Diesel Funding,
https://www.deq.idaho.gov/air-quality/improving-air-quality/volkswagen-and-diesel-funding/ (Funds from
the Volkswagen Mitigation Trust and the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act grant are used to replace eligible
vehicles or equipment with new engines, including in some cases electric engines, and to install EV supply
equipment throughout Idaho.) (last accessed June 16, 2023).
187 Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Volkswagen Environmental Mitigation Trust
Program, https://www.in.gov/idem/airquality/volkswagen-mitigation-trust/ (Funds from the Volkswagen
Mitigation Trust Agreement may be used to pay some or all of the cost to repower or replace eligible
diesel-powered vehicles with new diesel, alternative fuel, or all-electric engines or vehicles.) (last accessed
June 16, 2023).
188 Iowa Department of Transportation, Diesel Emissions Reduction Act, https://iowadot.gov/dera/ (Part
of Iowa's funds from the Volkswagen Mitigation Trust Agreement are used for projects that reduce diesel
emissions, including diesel engine replacement with a zero-emission power source.) (last accessed June 16,
2023).
189 Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, Volkswagen Environmental Mitigation Trust,
https://deq.louisiana.gov/page/louisiana-volkswagen-environmental-mitigation-trust (Funds from
Louisiana's portion of the Volkswagen Mitigation Trust were provided for, among other purposes, all-
electric repower or replacement of airport ground support equipment, forklifts, and port cargo handling
equipment, and the purchase, installation, and maintenance of EV charging stations.) (last accessed June
16, 2023).
190 Maryland House Bill 1391, 2022 (The Maryland Energy Administration is authorized to administer a
program providing grants for the purchase of medium- and heavy-duty ZEVs, EV charging stations, or
medium- and heavy-duty non-road equipment.).
191 Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy, Fuel Transformation Program,
https://www.michigan.gov/egle/about/Organization/Materials-Management/fuel-transformation-program
(This program offers grants for eligible on- and off-road vehicles and equipment, including school buses
and medium- and heavy-duty trucks, that reduce NOx emissions, improve air quality, and increase adoption
of zero emission or alternative fuel vehicles and equipment.) (last accessed June 16, 2023).
192 Nebraska Department of Environment, Volkswagen Environmental Mitigation Trust Fund,
http://deq.ne.gov/NDEQProg.nsf/OnWeb/AirVW (Funds from the Volkswagen Mitigation Trust have been
used to replace diesel buses, including with electric buses; to replace diesel equipment, including with
electric replacements; and to acquire and install EV charging stations.) (last accessed June 16, 2023).
193 New Jersey School Boards Association, Grants Available to Replace Diesel Vehicles with Electric,
https ://www.njsba.org/news-publications/school-board-notes/july-l 3 -2021 -vol-xlv-no- 1/grants-available-
to-replace-diesel-vehicles-with-electric/ (The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection offered
funds to replace medium- and heavy-duty diesel vehicles with electric.) (last accessed June 16, 2023); New
Jersey Economic Development Authority, New Jersey Zero-Emission Incentive Program (NJ ZIP),
https://www.njeda.gov/njzip/ (offers vouchers for the purchase of new medium- and high-duty ZEVs
registered in New Jersey) (last accessed June 16, 2023).
194 Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Alternative Fuel Heavy-Duty Vehicle Tax Credit
Program, https://deq.utah.gov/air-quality/incentive-programs-aq/alternative-fuel-heavy-duty-vehicle-tax-
credit-program (income tax credits are available for the qualified purchase of a natural gas, electric, or
hydrogen-electric heavy duty vehicle) (last accessed June 16, 2023).
706
-------
195 Revised Code of Washington §§ 82.16.0496, 82.04.4496 (Businesses are eligible to receive tax credits
for purchasing new or used medium- and heavy-duty alternative fuel vehicles and installing alternative
fueling infrastructure. Alternative fuels include electricity and hydrogen.).
Recent incentive programs and commitments made at the federal level further underscore the
changing landscape for ZEVs in the heavy-duty sector since EPA finalized the Phase 2 GHG
Standards. The International Council on Clean Transportation projects the Inflation Reduction
Act ("IRA") alone will cause HD ZEV sales to increase significantly, from 10 percent sales for
the business-as-usual case to roughly 25 percent of sales in 2030 with the IRA in place. 196 In
November 2022 the Biden Administration added the United States as a signatory to the Global
Memorandum of Understanding on Zero-Emission Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles, which
commits the United States to a goal of 100 percent zero-emission truck and bus sales by 2040,
with an interim goal of 30 percent new sales by 2030,197 commitments that the federal
government confirmed in its Blueprint for Transportation Decarbonization.198 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1588-A1, p.27]
196 ICCT White Paper, Analyzing the Impact of the Inflation Reduction Act on Electric Vehicle Uptake in
the United States (Jan. 31, 2023), https://theicct.org/publication/ira-impact-evs-us-jan23/.
197 Global Commercial Vehicle Drive to Zero, Global Memorandum of Understanding on Zero-Emission
Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles, https://globaldrivetozero.org/mou-nations/ (last accessed June 16,
2023).
198 U.S. Department of Energy, The U.S. National Blueprint for Transportation Decarbonization: A Joint
Strategy to Transform Transportation (Jan. 2023), https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2023-01/the-
us-national-blueprint-for-transportation-decarbonization.pdf.
Organization: Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
ACTResearch's Payback-based Adoption Function
In the DRIA Section 2.7.9 "Technology Adoption", the EPA references its use of ACTR's
technology agnostic zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) adoption function based on payback period.
ACTR's payback-based adoption function is one-half of what ACTR uses to calculate the
financially driven adoption rates of ZEVs. We also use a TCO savings-based adoption formula
(described more fully in a later section). Each factor, payback and TCO savings, is equally
weighted in its contribution towards our final ZEV adoption rate. First, it should be noted that the
EPA has now redacted the ACTR's payback-based adoption function and the corresponding
binned adoption rate table from the DRIA upon ACTR's request as the specific formula is
ACTR's copyrighted proprietary information. However, since EMA viewed the formula before
the EPA updated the DRIA, we will discuss the exact equation here. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
2668-A3, p. 3]
[FORMULA REDACTED]
ACTR's payback-based adoption formula was correctly written in the DRIA. We think of
adoption in terms of "steps". The first step is essentially the minimum threshold, which in our
modeling is 10 years. This means that adoption share points are only granted when the payback
period is under 10 years. The way the formula above can be understood is as followsl:
• Step 1: The threshold. If under the 10-year threshold, "A" share point is awarded for
every year under 10.
707
-------
• Step 2: An additional "B" points are awarded for every year under seven years.
• Step 3: An additional "C" points are awarded for every year under four years.
• Step 4: An additional "D" points are awarded for every year under two years.
• Step 5: An additional "E" points are awarded for every year under one year. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A3, p. 3]
1 Formula described with the exact share point values omitted and instead substituting "A, B, C, D, E".
For example, if the payback period is 1.5 years, the payback-based adoption share points
would be 32% (FORMULA REDACTED). Our payback period only starts to grant 100%
adoption based on payback when the net manufacturing and infrastructure cost is less than the
net operating cost. In other words, with respect to payback criteria, we apply 100% adoption
when payback is immediate and there is upfront price parity. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-
A3, p. 3]
EPA's Use of ACTR's Payback-based Adoption Function
The EPA uses ACTR's payback-based adoption function with some modifications as
described below.
The EPA imposes a maximum ZEV adoption rate of 80 percent for any given vehicle
application. The EPA's basis for this rate cap is that its HDTRUCS model is based on its use of
the 90th percentile of average VMT data to size batteries and needs for each of its vehicle types.
In this way, EPA is acknowledging that the assumptions in its model are not applicable to 100
percent of applications due to the myriad of operating characteristics that exists. EPA also notes
that its 80 percent cap recognizes that some owners will have a hard time installing necessary on-
site charging infrastructure. ACTR doesn't take issue with the EPA placing the 80 percent cap on
its adoption rates in this scenario. Typically, ACTR is supportive of applying measured,
conservative assumptions when assessing adoption rates or new technologies, particularly when
the expected benefits are based on assumed improvements over an extended timeframe. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A3, p. 4]
On the other hand, the EPA also applies a faster adoption rate compared to ACTR's
methodology for payback periods greater than four years "due to the assumed impact of this
proposed regulation and the additional 80 percent constraint" (DRIA p. 232). While the 80
percent cap on payback-based adoption rates makes sense to ACTR and shows an effort to factor
in real-world variability, the decision to increase adoption rates for payback periods over four
years is certainly a less conservative approach and would minimize the effects of the 80% cap.
ACTR does not impose an assumed maximum ZEV adoption target when we perform our TCO
analysis and ZEV forecasting. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A3, p. 4]
The result of the EPA's decision to increase adoption rates for payback periods of over four
years means that EPA is expecting higher payback-based adoption rates for those payback years
than ACTR would forecast. The specific ways in which the EPA increased adoption rates for
payback periods greater than four years, as compared to ACTR, are further described below.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A3, p. 4]
708
-------
ACTR's payback-based adoption formula does not account for any amount of payback-based
adoption if the payback period is 10 years or greater. Not only has the EPA increased its
payback-based adoption rates for years 5-10, it has also added in additional bins for 10-15-year
payback period and >15-year payback period (which indicates that the EPA has modified
ACTR's formula to include additional steps). In ACTR's payback and TCO modeling, the useful
life of our various vehicle applications ranges from 12-20 years - 12 years for higher mileage
applications such as long-haul truck load and 20 years for lower mileage applications like school
bus. Commercial vehicles are not typically held by one owner over their useful life and often
change owners multiple times. Payback is an important factor in the decision to purchase a
vehicle, and the aim for the original owner is typically to recover payback before or when
reselling it. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A3, p. 4]
While ACTR concedes that our first payback step for payback period below 10 years will not
fit that criterion for every application, we make sure that the first step at 10 years is, at the very
least, not longer than the assumed useful life of any of our commercial vehicle applications. In
our experience, granting any shares of adoption based on payback periods that are longer than 10
years is not prudent, based on the inherent risk of adopting new technology for first purchasers.
ACTR disagrees with the EPA's methodology in this regard. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-
A3, pp. 4-5]
The table below compares ACTR's binned adoption rates based on payback period and the
EPA's 2027 and 2032 binned adoption rates based on payback period.
[See TABLE, EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A3, p. 5]
The EPA's payback-based adoption rates for payback periods greater than four-years are
higher, compared to ACTR in its 2027 assumptions for BEV adoption. The EPA's model
increases those adoption rates, as well as the adoption rate for payback periods of 1-2 years, in
2032. The EPA assumes that in 2032, FCEVs will be widely available, in addition to BEVs, and
has modified the adoption rate criteria on the assumption that increased model availability will
drive significantly higher adoption rates for the same payback timeframe. ACTR's adoption rate
assumptions are propulsion system agnostic, so the wider availability of FCEVs would not
change our formula in the outer years of our forecast. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A3, p. 5]
Again, we will reiterate here that ACTR does not agree with the EPA's modification to
ACTR's formula where payback-based adoption is granted for payback periods greater than 10
years. We would especially like to note the EPA's 2032 payback-based adoption rate for its >15
years payback bin. It is highly unlikely that any ZEV adoption would occur if solely based on a
payback period of >15 years. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A3, p. 5]
The EPA states in the DRIA that the MY 2032 schedule applies higher adoption rates than in
MY 2027 due to the assumption that "ZEV technology will be more mature; fleet owners and
drivers will have had more exposure to ZEV technology.. .and infrastructure to support ZEV
technologies will have had more time to expand" (DRIA p. 232). ACTR does not inherently
disagree with the assumption that there will be more infrastructure to support ZEVs and that
fleets will have more exposure and comfort with these new technologies. However, we would
not agree that those factors would specifically change payback-based adoption behavior. The
decision to choose a ZEV vehicle based on payback is quantitative. The decision to choose a
709
-------
ZEV vehicle based on having more exposure to ZEV technology is qualitative. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-2668-A3, p. 5]
Missing Piece of the ZEV Adoption Equation
While the EPA is correct that payback period is an important factor in considering the
adoption of ZEVs, we think that the EPA is failing to consider the impact that TCO has on
adoption rates. ACTR uses both the payback-based adoption function as well as an adoption
function based on TCO savings to determine ZEV adoption rates. Each criteria receives an equal
weighting in determining our ZEV adoption rate. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A3, p. 6]
It is interesting that the EPA does not make use of a TCO savings-based adoption function
when the DRIA does include broad discussion of its expectations for ZEV TCO and purchaser
behavior in Section 6.2 "Purchaser Acceptance". The EPA does expect that the ZEV options will
have lower TCO compared to comparable ICE vehicles (DRIA p. 417). The EPA also recognizes
that there is an interplay in purchasing decisions between upfront costs and TCO. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-2668-A3, p. 6]
ACTR uses a TCO savings-based adoption formula similar to our payback-based adoption
formula. It works similarly - a certain number of adoption share points are awarded based on the
incremental percentage of TCO savings compared to the determined threshold. It follows a
similar step design to the payback-based function. The formula can be expressed as follows:
TCO Savings:
• If TCO delta < X% = 0 share points attributed towards adoption
• If TCO delta > X% = threshold share points, plus additional points depending on the
magnitude of the incremental TCO savings beyond the threshold value [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-2668-A3, p. 6]
As mentioned previously, we give equal weight to our payback-based function and TCO
savings-based function when determining ZEV adoption rates. This is our recognition that these
two important decision-making factors should not be considered as stand-alone sole criteria,
when, in fact, both considerations determine adoption rates. While some may favor payback to
TCO-savings (and vice versa), our model looks at what the ZEV adoption rate would be, on
balance, when considering both. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A3, p. 6]
The result of not utilizing both criteria for adoption rates would yield potential scenarios
where a payback only based criteria would suggest higher adoption on its own than when both
the payback and TCO savings function results are combined. The opposite can also be true, in
cases where the combination of TCO savings and payback would suggest higher adoption rates.
We think it is important to highlight that our resulting ZEV adoption rates based on both payback
and TCO savings are often less aggressive than payback-based rates alone. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-2668-A3, p. 6]
Our research has shown that more than one single quantitative factor is used in the decision-
making to switch to a ZEV, and the method for determining adoption rates based on financial
assumptions should be reflected as such. ACTR disagrees with the EPA's decision to base its
ZEV adoption rates solely on payback periods. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A3, p. 6]
710
-------
In conclusion, there are multiple ways in which the EPA has modified ACTR's payback-
based adoption equation that are not aligned with our view of how the function should be used.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A3, p. 6]
• The EPA has increased the rate of ZEV adoption for payback periods greater than four
years. Our quantitative and qualitative analyses do not support those increased
adoption rates.
• The EPA has added adoption based on payback periods greater than 10 years and
greater than 15 years (longer than most of ACTR's prescribed vehicle applications'
useful lives). We would not expect payback-based adoption to occur if the payback
period is greater than 10 years, particularly in the hands of the first purchaser.
• The EPA further increases the rate of ZEV adoption based on payback period again in
2032. While ACTR agrees that many improvements in infrastructure and familiarity
with vehicles will occur, those are not always purely financial decisions. For this
reason, ACTR's formula does not change over time.
• The EPA only considers a payback-based function for technology adoption. The
absence of the addition of a TCO-based adoption function used in conjunction with the
payback-based adoption function shows a lack of full consideration for all factors
owners utilize when making truck buying decisions, especially when related to
switching technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A3, p. 6]
Ultimately, a payback-period calculation is performed in HD TRUCS to determine the
number of years it will take for the TCO of the ZEV technology/vehicle to be equal to that of the
corollary ICE technology/vehicle for each of the 101 vehicle types. The payback period
considers the differential powertrain costs, the EVSE costs, annual maintenance, repair and
operation costs, along with tax and other credits from IRA and BIL to determine the number of
payback years. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 22]
EPA then uses the calculated number of payback years to determine the associated ZEV-truck
adoption rate for each vehicle type. HD TRUCS uses a table that correlates payback years with
percentage-of-sales-based adoption rates for ZEV trucks. EPA claims that the table is based on
work performed by ACT Research Company (ACT). However, EPA modified the table to
include adoption rates for payback years beyond those used by ACT, and EPA also assigned
higher adoption rates for certain payback periods based on its "good engineering judgment."
Later in these comments, EMA will discuss ACT's detailed critique of EPA's use of ACT's
work. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 22]
In that regard, and as further detailed in Ricardo's infrastructure needs assessment, installing
the requisite ZEV-truck infrastructure over the next decade is a massive undertaking with a
massive price tag. Because of the magnitude of that challenge, there is a significant risk that not
all or even close to all of the required battery-recharging and hydrogen-refueling stations will be
in place when and where needed, such that some significant numbers of anticipated ZEV-truck
purchases and deployments will not be feasible. To account for that substantial likelihood,
a suitable discount factor needs to be applied to the adoption rates and GEM-based standards
derived through EMA HD TRUCS. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, pp. 41 - 42.]
711
-------
The discount factor is one that should be large enough to cover the risk that a fully sufficient
ZEV-truck infrastructure will not be developed on-time. Accordingly, the scope of the
percentage discount should equate to the percentage of the necessary infrastructure that might
reasonably be expected to not be fully operational during the 2027-2032 regulatory time period.
This is especially likely given the finite resources available in the ZEV market and the
concurrent ZEV infrastructure build-out that is occurring in the LD sector. More specifically, if it
is reasonable to expect that 25% of the required numbers of ZEV-truck recharging and refueling
stations may not be in place and operational on-time, then a corresponding 25% discount should
be applied to the ZEV-truck adoption rates and resultant GEM-based standards generated
through EMA HD TRUCS. EMA believes that such a discount is warranted given the magnitude
of the infrastructure challenge, as detailed in Ricardo's report (Exhibit "1"). [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 42] [See the Exhibit 1, Ricardo Report, at docket number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-2668-A2.]
An additional discount is necessary from the starting-point adoption rate percentages
calculated through EMA HD TRUCS to account for the fact that EPA has misapplied the
payback-based adoption function that ACT Research Company (ACT) developed and that the
Agency purports to have relied on. (See DRIA, Section 2.7.9.) In that regard, ACT has prepared
a written critique of how EPA has misused ACT's payback-based adoption function. A copy of
that written critique is attached to these comments as Exhibit "3." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
2668-A1, p. 42] [See the Exhibit 3, ACT Report, at docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
2668-A4.]
As ACT explains, EPA: (i) has failed to include the TCO savings-based adoption formula that
equally informs ACT's calculated adoption rates, and instead has solely utilized ACT's payback-
based adoption function; (ii) has improperly utilized inflated adoption rates for payback periods
greater than four years; and (iii) has improperly included payback-based adoption rates for
payback periods beyond ten years, which is beyond the reasonable payback period that would be
assessed and experienced by the original purchaser of a ZEV truck. Thus, ACT concludes in its
written critique that "there are multiple ways in which EPA has modified ACT's payback-based
adoption equation that are not aligned with ACT's view of how the function should be used."
(ACT Response to DRIA, p. 7.) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 42]
ACT has prepared the following table depicting how EPA's overstated and overextended
adoption rates differ from ACT's: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 42] [See the
Exhibit 3, Payback-based Binned Adoption Rates, at docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
2668-A4.]
Given the material discrepancies between ACT's analyses and EPA's misapplication thereof,
an additional corresponding discount will need to be applied to the starting-point adoption rate
percentages that EMA has generated through its revised and corrected version of HD
TRUCS. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 43.]
Organization: Truck Renting and Leasing Association (TRALA)
EPAs methodology within its Heavy-Duty Technology Resource Use Case Scenario (HD
TRUCS) also assumes that all customers will choose minimal on-site charging power to keep
capital costs low. 27 The agency's assumption for 19-50KW charging across many vehicle
712
-------
applications in medium heavy-duty vehicles seems fundamentally incorrect based on what
TRALA is hearing from end-users about intentions to install 150KW-350KW charging on-site.
This assumption does not match many end-users plans to future-proof their charging
infrastructure to enable use across more vehicles and opportunity charging for multi-shift or peak
operational periods. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1577-A1, p. 19]
27 EPA's Heavy-Duty Technology Resource Use Case Scenario (HD TRUCS) was specifically developed
by EPA to evaluate HD ZEV technologies and costs under Phase 3.
Some MD truck applications, such as Class 4-8 box trucks, port drayage tractors, Class 4-7
step vans, and Class 6-7 flatbed trucks are used for routes similar to those of regional haul
tractors which are projected in HD TRUCS to need 150-350KW charging. However, in HD
TRUCS the applications mentioned above are only assumed to require 19-50KW chargers.
TRALA recommends EPA issue a request for information (RFI) to end-users to acquire
information on charging power needs for commercial vehicle operations and test these sensitive
up-front cost assumptions that are used to project end-user willingness to adopt ZEVs. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1577-A1, p. 19]
To demonstrate the importance of testing this assumed critical input, EPA should run a
sensitivity analysis to project the payback for all vehicle applications that are assumed to require
19-50KW charging if they require higher power DC charging. If, as many in industry suspect,
most medium heavy-duty end-users require higher power charging in the 150-350KW and
beyond range to maintain 1:1 productivity, this will change HD TRUCS model payback and
ZEV projections. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1577-A1, p. 19]
Organization: Volvo Group
• The agency's payback vs. adoption rate table (RIA 2.7.9, Table 2-73), shows fleets
purchasing BEVs and FCEVs at payback periods of up to 15 years in 2027, and beyond
15 years in 2032. This is unrealistic, as most fleets look for a payback period of two years
or less.
Organization: Zero Emission Transportation Association (ZETA)
b. Electric HDVs Have Lower Total Cost of Ownership than Comparable ICE Vehicles
HDEVs can offer substantial economic advantages to fleet operators. Fuel and maintenance
costs, in particular, are areas with substantial cost reduction potential. In a survey of fleet
managers, the most commonly cited motivation for electrifying their fleets was to meet
sustainability goals (83%); lower total cost of ownership (TCO) was the second-most common
reason (64%).39 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 10]
39 Steven Nadel and P. Huether, "Electrifying Trucks: From Delivery Vans to Buses to 18-Wheelers,"
ACEEE, (June 2021) https://www.aceee.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/t2102.pdf
Fleet managers are particularly sensitive to costs, and economics drive the majority of their
business decisions. Currently, evaluating the upfront cost—rather than lifecycle—of vehicle
acquisition is standard practice for both private and public fleet managers. When analyzed this
way, fossil fuel-powered vehicles often outcompete HDEVs; however, TCO analyses regularly
demonstrate that HDEVs are significantly cheaper than their ICE counterparts. Transitioning
713
-------
from an upfront cost-based decision-making model to one that considers the vehicle's entire
lifespan—including purchase cost, depreciation, financing, fuel costs, insurance costs,
maintenance costs, taxes, fees, and operational expenses—provides a more accurate picture of
the true costs incurred via vehicle ownership. Under such considerations, HDEVs like transit
buses, school buses, and vocational vehicles are already cost competitive with equivalent
ICEVs.40 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 10]
40 Id.
Even before the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), the International Council on
Clean Transportation (ICCT) found that HDEVs have a TCO advantage over ICEVs in some
U.S. regions and they are expected to reach cost parity nationally by 2035.41 That should be
expected to accelerate with the passage of the IRA's 45 W commercial clean vehicle tax credit, as
discussed further below. ICCT also found that TCO savings hold even assuming lower-than-
expected oil prices or higher electricity rates in the future. Even without the IRA tax credits,
most classes of HDVs will have a payback period of less than 5 years by 2025. Considering most
HDVs today have an average lifespan of 15 years, these cost savings make a strong economic
case for fleet operators to make the switch to electric technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
2429-A1, p. 10]
41 "Purchase Costs of Zero-Emission Trucks in the United States to Meet Future Phase 3 GHG Standards"
ICCT, March 2023 https://theicct.org/publication/cost-zero-emission-trucks-us-phase-3-mar23/
These savings are expected to grow in the coming years. By 2030, an electric day cab is
expected to lower the TCO by more than 31% for savings of $239,000 over a vehicle's
lifetime.42 Fleets that experience the highest fuel and maintenance costs from their diesel trucks
would see the greatest cost reductions from an EV transition. Class 8 electric trucks with trips
fewer than 500 miles will see the greatest TCO savings, largely when operating in environments
with higher fuel prices and relatively low electricity prices.43 Because the upfront cost is paid
back via savings on operations mile-by-mile, fleets with higher VMT would see the greatest
reductions, which bodes well for long-haul trucking.44 See Figure 1 for a breakdown of the
average yearly VMT by different HD vehicle classes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p.
11.] [See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, page 11, for Figure 1]
42 "Advanced Clean Fleets Total Cost of Ownership Discussion Document," California Air Resources
Board, (September 9, 2021) https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021-08/210909costdoc_ADA.pdf
43 Chad Hunter et al. "Spatial and Temporal Analysis of the Total Cost of Ownership for Class 8 Tractors
and Class 4 Parcel Delivery Trucks," National Renewable Energy Laboratory, (September 2021)
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/Iy2 losti/71796.pdf
44 Robert Prohaska, et al. "Medium-Duty Plug-in Electric Delivery Truck Fleet Evaluation," IEEE, (2016)
https://doi.org/10.1109/ITEC.2016.7520262
EPA Summary and Response:
Summary:
Note that much of this material is summarized in RTC 2.4 above, and responded to there as
well.
There were many comments regarding EPA's use of a payback metric at proposal as a means
of developing a compliance pathway predicated on use of ZEVs. DTNA and EMA said,
714
-------
considered alone, payback is an incomplete metric. Commenters stated that other factors to
consider are reluctance to utilize a new technology, effects of inflation, vehicle suitability, resale
value, end of the IRA and other price incentives, critical material availability, and, most
importantly, availability of supportive electric infrastructure. Commenters stated that in costing
out payback, projecting fuel, raw material, and electricity costs far out into the future is
problematic (noting, for example, the overall effect of decarbonization efforts on electricity
prices and how uncertain that effect will be).
NGO commenters advocated for more stringent standards (see section 2.4 in this document).
ACEEE discussed the length of a payback period, asserting that payback well within vehicle
lifetime should be sufficient, noting especially that vocational fleets may own vehicles "for many
years." They also questioned the relatively low percentages of projected ZEVs where EPA had
estimated payback periods of 1-2 years. MFN noted that EPA's projected compliance path
showed less ZEV utilization than many estimates in the literature, citing BloombergNEF, various
of the ICCT White Papers, as well as the California ACF levels. RMI noted generally that total
cost of ownership of BEVs would necessarily be less than for ICE vehicles due to their simpler
drivetrains, which would occasion less maintenance costs.
Other NGO commenters were more specific. A number of commenters questioned the 80
percent cut off EPA had proposed as a cap on consideration of ZEV adoption in the NPRM's
potential compliance pathway. Both EDF and Energy Innovation found some merit to EPA's
premise that a cap reflected that ZEVs would not be suitable for all applications, but both of
these commenters maintained that this would be less and the less the case over time.
Consequently, they assert that EPA's methodology should at the least reflect a declining cap in
the standard's out years. Both of these commenters also maintained that 80 percent was too
conservative even for MY 2027, especially when coupled with the 90th percentile sizing VMT
for the battery. EDF also argued that a cap makes no sense for those instances where EPA
projects lower upfront costs for ZEVs than for their ICE vehicle counterparts. ICCT, on the
other hand, supported a cap of 90 percent. DTNA challenged the 80 percent cap both because it
is inconsistent with DTNA's telematics data, and also because the sales requirements for various
HD vehicle categories in the ACT legislation are less than 80 percent. DTNA questioned why
EPA's cap for those categories can be higher, that is, less restrictive, than the applicable ACT
sales requirement.
As noted here and in RTC 2.4 above, commenters criticized EPA's use at proposal of the
ACT Research payback equation. The comments pertained to alleged lack of transparency -
stating that the equation was proprietary and so did not appear in the DRIA making comment
difficult without getting access - as well as comments about the ACT Research payback
equation. ICCT obtained the equation and alleged there was no substantive basis for it. ACT
Research itself stated that EPA had misapplied the equation by leaving out various factors,
including consideration of total cost of ownership.
Energy Innovation preferred an alternative method for assessing a ZEV-based compliance
pathway. Their model uses a logit function less sensitive to price, developed by the Pacific
Northwest National Laboratory, and also uses a 15 percent discount rate. They also removed the
80 percent cap where their model showed immediate payback. Under this alternative
methodology, the commenter projected higher ZEV penetration for many of the vehicle classes:
715
-------
2-4, 6-7, refuse trucks, and almost all bus segments. Moreover, the commenter stated that these
estimates did not consider the effects of the IRA.
Both EDF and ICCT agreed that technology adoption follows an S-shape, as EPA posited.
DRIA at 231. However, they believed the TEMPO model (developed by NREL, and noted by
EPA at proposal, id.) was a better way to assess that shape. They posited standards of
significantly increased stringency using this model.
These commenters also noted that the effect of the IRA, considered along with this different
methodology, would justify standards more stringent still, based on price parity achieved in even
earlier model years. EDF maintained that "An updated study by Roush Industries for EDF in
May 2023 assessed and quantified, where possible, the key impacts of the IRA on the cost of
electrifying medium- and heavy-duty vehicles that have access to overnight recharging at a
central location (assessing the same vehicle classes from the earlier 2022 report, including Class
8 transit buses, Class 7 school buses, Class 3-7 shuttles and delivery vehicles, and Class 8 refuse
haulers), using the previous study costs as a baseline.41 The analysis found that IRA credits help
absorb the near-term higher upfront cost of battery electric vehicles (BEVs) and will accelerate
the purchase parity with the segments analyzed. According to the research, all segments analyzed
will now meet purchase price parity with their diesel counterparts ifpurchased as early as MY
2024, assuming reasonable economies of scale for BEV production." See Att. M to the EDF
comment. They continued that "As a result of the IRA, the purchaser of a BEV in MY 2024
could save an estimated $18,000 on a Class 3 delivery van and $500,000 on an urban transit bus
over the life of the BEV compared to a comparable diesel vehicle (Figure 1). If we assume that
diesel fuel prices return to the prices occurring during the summer of 2022 ($5.18/gallon versus
$3.25/gallon the lifetime savings due to switching to a BEV would increase to $33,000 for a
Class 3 delivery van and $700,000 for an urban transit bus)." Citing H. Saxena, S. Pillai. 2023.
Impact of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 on Medium- and Heavy- Duty Electrification on
MYs 2024 and 2027, Roush for EDF.
Energy Innovation maintained that the IRA would accelerate electrification in the heavy-duty
sector by 39-48% by MY 2030, and 44-52% by MY 2032 (using their suggested methodology
and then modeling various estimates (low, medium, and high) for IRA effects, plus effects of
ACT).
TRALA expressed concern that EPA's assumption of 19-50kW charging for certain
applications of vehicles in HD TRUCS may be inaccurate. They stated that since box trucks, port
drayage tractors, step vans, and flatbed trucks are more like "Regional Haul" tractors, HD
TRUCS should apply the same 150-350 kW charging to those applications. They indicate that
the difference would impact upfront costs, which would affect customers' willingness to adopt
ZEVs. They requested EPA obtain more information from end-users and perform a sensitivity
analysis for the impact on payback and ZEV projections.
DTNA provides an example of a BEV with a payback period in the 3 - 6 year range, but states
that they are currently experiencing Class 8 BEV tractor uptake of less than 1% in California,
despite additional regulatory drivers for fleet adoption. DTNA also believes 73% should be the
maximum Class 4-7 adoption rate and 36% should be the maximum Class 8 adoption rate.
ICCT noted that manufacturers' compliance with the ACT rule in California and the at least
eight other states who have adopted ACT would allow manufacturers to sell fewer ZEVs and/or
716
-------
more-emitting ICE vehicles in non-ACT states than ACT states while maintaining compliance
with the proposed standards (since the proposed standards are less stringent than ACT). This
could impede investment in ZEV fleets and infrastructure in non-ACT states and generate an
inequitable distribution of benefits among states.
The State of California et al. (2) noted numerous considerations that support HD ZEV
adoption including the ACT regulation (and EPA's granting of waivers of preemption for
CARB's ACT and Zero Emission Airport Shuttle regulation), manufacturer goals for ZEV sales,
businesses' commitments towards electrifying their heavy-duty fleets, states' policies to promote
electrification of the HD vehicle sector, and federal actions including the IRA and the federal
government's Blueprint for Transportation Decarbonization.
Response:
We evaluated the comments regarding the appropriateness of ACT Research payback and
adoption rate relationship, and we agree with commenters that the approach developed by NREL
for use in the TEMPO model is more transparent and its methodology otherwise appropriate.
For the final rule, we are continuing to use the same payback period method we used in the
proposal, but have revised the adoption rates that correspond to the payback period bins based on
data from NREL's TEMPO model instead from the ACT Research-based model. See RIA
Chapter 2.7 for additional details.
Regarding EMA's request for a discount factor and DTNA's requests for certain maximum
adoption rates, we note that the final rule assessment of payback includes a cap that simulates a
discount factor (e.g., in the MY 2027 payback table at 20% and 37% cap in 2030). We also note
that we are committing to post-rule implementation monitoring, including monitoring of
infrastructure deployment, as discussed in Preamble II.B.2.iii.
We have retained the caps on adoption rates in our modeled potential compliance pathway.
As explained in Preamble Section II.G.5 and RTC section 2.4, the caps serve as proxies for
uncertainties that can affect feasibility of the standards, including timing of infrastructure
deployment, purchaser risk aversion and other unwillingness to invest in new technology,
availability of critical minerals and associated supply chains, and adequacy of battery
manufacture. EPA has necessarily had to make predictive judgments as to all of these factors
and believes there are reasoned solutions to all of them. At the same time, EPA is allowing for
potential constraints posed be these uncertain factors and has done so by means of the caps,
consistent with EPA's structuring of the standards to carefully phase in the stringency of the
standards in the earliest years of the Phase 3 rule. EPA thus does not accept the comments of
Energy Innovation and others that adoption rates in the modeled compliance pathway should be a
function of payback alone. That would ignore the effects of all of these considerations, which
EPA believes must be or are appropriate to account for and which EPA has thus done in a
balanced and measured approach to support the stringency of the final standards. For a similar
reason, we consider ICCT's suggested cap of 90% to reflect insufficient consideration of these
potentially constraining factors.
The cap levels reflect EPA's best engineering judgment, consistent with these principles.
Rather than the undeviating 80% cap which EPA proposed, 88 FR at 25992, we revised our final
approach so that the cap level varies by model year, starting at a much lower adoption cap of
20% in MY 2027, and increases to a 70% adoption cap in MY 2032. See RIA Chapter 2.7.2.
717
-------
These cap levels fall within the range suggested by a number of commenters. The maximum
cap of 70% in 2032 reflected consideration of the noted range of comments from DNTA that
suggested 36% for Class 8 vehicles. DTNA suggested that Class 4-7 ZEVs with payback rates
of <0 years would have an adoption rate of 72 percent, and Class 8 ZEVs with payback rates of
<0 years would have an adoption rate of 36 percent, noting that these rates are consistent with
CARB's 2019 initial market assessment for the ACT rule for vehicles that scored a 1 or a 2 in
their suitability assessment. However, we note that for the final ACT program, CARB increased
the ZEV requirements compared to those that were initially proposed. In addition, for purposes
of responding to this commenter's comparison to CARB's assessment and the ACT rule, we note
that the category 1 and 2 suitability totals in CARB's 2019 assessment are aggregated totals and
are therefore not directly comparable to the 101 vehicle-type level of aggregation to which we
have applied the 70 percent cap in 2032 (and 20 percent cap in 2027) in HD TRUCS; the 2019
CARB market assessment report's category 1 and 2 totals would be more appropriate to compare
to our final adoption rates by regulatory grouping. We note that our 70 percent cap for MY 2032
is consistent with the 70% of Class 4-7 ZEVs with suitability scores of 1-2 and therefore the
ZEV adoption rates in any subcategory will necessarily be below that level as well (see RIA
Chapter 2.10, for the percentage of ZEVs in the modeled potential compliance pathway by
regulatory grouping and MY). We also note that our HHD vocational and sleeper cab tractor
adoption rates in the modeled compliance pathway do not reach 36 percent. While the day cab
subcategory adoption rate reaches 40 percent in MY 2032, we note that CARB's final regulation
order requires 40 percent for all tractors starting in MY 2032.
Energy Innovation's payback versus adoption rate curves by vehicle segment allowed for 100
percent adoption if the payback was negative, with which we disagree for the reasons stated
above. Our cap level is within the commenter's suggested adoption rate of 55 percent to 70
percent for payback that is less than one year.
With respect to DTNA's comment that they are currently experiencing Class 8 BEV tractor
uptake of less than 1% in California, despite additional regulatory drivers for fleet adoption, this
is not consistent with what California is experiencing in the heavy-duty market. California found
that 7.5%) of the medium- and heavy-duty vehicle sales in MY 2022 (two years prior to the first
year of ACT implementation) in California were ZEVs.358
In addition, see RIA Chapter 2.7 and section 2.4 of the RTC, for further discussion of our
consideration of comments that informed the final numeric values of the caps.
After considering comments from EMA, TRALA and others relating to on-site charging
power, we have updated our consideration of EVSE costs as described in RTC section 6.3.
Regarding the effect of the IRA, we discuss this topic and respond to comments in RTC
Section 2.7, preamble Section II.E.4, and RIA Chapter 2.
Energy Innovation, regarding estimates of HD ZEV adoption that would occur in the absence
of the Phase 3 rule (i.e., the baseline), see RTC Section 3.11.1. This includes comments related
358 California Air Resources Board. "Advanced Clean Trucks Compliance and Incentives Update." Last accessed on
March 18, 2024. Available online: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/advanced-clean-trucks-compliance-
and-incentives-update.
718
-------
to inclusion of the following factors in the baseline: the IRA and its estimated impacts (see also
RTC Section 2.7), the ACT rule.
Regarding the impact of compliance with ACT on compliance with the Phase 3 standards, we
agree that manufacturers may sell fewer ZEVs in non-ACT states than ACT states as shown in
RIA Chapter 4. However, as discussed in RTC Section 2.4, the final standards are based on our
feasibility assessment as explained in preamble Section II, which assesses ZEV adoption across
the entire United States and not in each individual state. Some states may experience above-
average ZEV sales while others experience below-average ZEV sales, but our feasibility
assessment stands when considering the United States market as a whole. The possibility of
state-to-state differences in technology adoption is a fundamental characteristic of federal
standards, such as the Phase 3 standards. See also RTC Section 10.2.2 regarding U.S.-directed
production volume.
Regarding the many considerations mentioned by the State of California et al. (2), see RTC
Section 2.7. Additionally, our feasibility assessment supporting the final standards is explained
in preamble Section II and is independent of many of these factors (notably, those which are not
enforceable). Our baseline and its consideration of these items is described in RIA Chapter 4 and
RTC Section 3.11.1.
3.12 General Errors and Missing Information
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
a) Corrections
EMA identified five corrections that are needed in HD TRUCS and as a result, are
incorporated into EMA HD TRUCS. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 23]
Annual BEV Electricity Cost in A3a_Cost worksheet - HD TRUCS calculates the annual cost
of electricity based on the energy that is consumed by the vehicle from the batteries rather than
from the electricity that is used to recharge the batteries. The latter includes the wall-to-battery
loss factor for the charging process. The current formula in HD TRUCS underestimates the
annual electricity cost by approximately 11%. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 23]
Battery Width Limitation Factor in A4a_Adoption Rates (BEV) worksheet - The formula
used for the 2027 and 2032 adoption rates includes an assessment of the battery width as
calculated by HD TRUCS. The limitation on the width for a BEV is 8.5 feet per the Draft RIA
(p. 234). The formula incorrectly uses 13 feet rather than 8.5 feet in assessing the viability of the
needed battery space fitting within the allowable vehicle space. This error allows various tractors
to be included as BEVs when, in fact, there is insufficient space for the required battery. Those
vehicles should be treated as FCEVs instead. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, pp. 23 - 24]
Battery Length Calculation in 2 BEV Tech worksheet - EPA included an assessment of
battery volume in the NPRM (see Draft RIA Section 2.4.2, p. 166). The volume assessment
drives the calculation of the width of the battery based on the battery volume that is determined
for each vehicle type within HD TRUCS. The calculation divides the battery volume by the
719
-------
presumed battery height (110% of the frame rail height) and by the battery length (wheelbase) of
each vehicle type to calculate a battery width. However, if this entire rectangle is used for
batteries on a BEV, there will be no room for the front or rear tires, since the prescribed
dimensions violate the space envelope required for the tires. EMA recommends that the battery
length factor be reduced to allow for a more realistic volume requirement for the batteries in HD
TRUCS. Specifically, EMA reduced the length by 26 inches for non-tractors to allow space for
the front tire. The overlap with the rear tire may be able to go between the frame rails behind the
axle, since trucks have more frame extended behind the rear axle(s). For Class 7 tractors, which
are a 4x2 axle configuration, the length should be reduced by 26 inches for both the front and
rear axle, for a total reduction of 52 inches. The after-frame on tractors is very short to provide
clearance for the landing gear of a trailer, so there is no space behind the axle for additional
batteries. On Class 8 tractors, which have a tandem rear axle (6x4), the battery length needs a
reduction of 26 inches for the front axle and 52 inches for the rear axle. The wheelbase on 6x4
configurations is measured to the centerline of the two rear axles, which necessitates additional
reductions over Class 7 tractors. These battery-length errors allow HD TRUCS to include various
tractors as BEVs when, in fact, there is insufficient space for the required battery. Those vehicles
should be treated as FCEVs instead. The space needed for the frame rails also needs to be
considered. Each of the two rails are about 3.5 inches wide. EMA believes this is a less
significant issue in the battery width limitation evaluation, so it is not included in the corrections
to EMA HD TRUCS. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 24]
Operation VMT (50%) in Ala VMT ID worksheet - Operation VMT (50th percentile) for
many vehicles is calculated as the average of the 50th percentile data from NREL's fleetDNA
data and NREL UCR's data. For six (6) vehicle types, the formula in HD TRUCS has an
inconsistency versus other vehicle types, resulting in the average VMT being incorrectly
calculated. Vehicle IDs 11 through 16 use the fleetDNA data 50th percentile along with the
NREL UCR maximum daily mileage value to determine the daily average operation VMT value.
This gives an inflated average daily VMT. This error increases the electricity cost and impacts
other factors used in determining payback years and adoption rates. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
2668-A1, p. 24]
Absolute Sizing VMT (90%) in Ala_VMT_ID worksheet - Absolute Sizing VMT (90th
percentile) for many vehicles is calculated as the average of the 90th percentile data from
NREL's fleetDNA data and NREL UCR's data. For six (6) vehicle types, the formula in HD
TRUCS has an inconsistency versus other vehicle types, resulting in the average VMT being
incorrectly calculated. Vehicle IDs 11 through 16 use the fleetDNA data 90th percentile along
with a text cell to calculate the average mileage value for this data element. This gives an inflated
average absolute sizing VMT. This error increases the battery size, battery weight, battery cost
and impacts other factors used in determining payback years and adoption rates. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 25]
As stated earlier, all the above corrections are incorporated into the EMA HD TRUCS
tool. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 25]
Adoption Rate and Stringency Calculations - The Draft RIA provided details on EPA's
methodology for using the ascribed ZEV adoption rates for the 101 vehicle types to generate the
adoption rates at the vehicle regulatory subcategory level, but EMA was unable to find a
spreadsheet or tool in HD TRUCS or in the docket that actually performed those calculations.
720
-------
Also, no tool or spreadsheet was found that carried out the conversion of ZEV adoption rates to
the calculation of the GEM-based GHG stringencies. Therefore, EMA has included its version of
those spreadsheets in EMA's version of HD TRUCS. Multiple new worksheets are involved in
the EMA approach to replicating the EPA results on stringencies, and modifications to an
existing worksheet were needed for the summation process. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-
Al, p. 33]
EMA's summation of the 101 vehicle types into the regulatory subcategories matches all EPA
values. The conversion to stringencies also is a 100% match for 2027 and 2032, while the
interpolation for the intervening years are close but not exact. EPA has included special rules for
incorporating Custom Chassis vehicles into the vocational stringencies. Although an outline of
the process is in the Draft RIA, it was not found to be clear enough to allow EMA to replicate the
EPA calculations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 33]
EPA Summary and Response
Summary:
EMA stated that they identified five corrections or omissions in the NPRM version of HD
TRUCS. These included: (1) the annual electricity cost is underestimated because charger and
battery efficiency are not included in the formulas; (2) there is a formula error in the NPRM
version of HD TRUCS for the maximum battery width; (3) EPA's assessment of packaging
battery volume did not account for wheels and tires when determining the length of the battery;
(4) incorrect calculation of the 90th percentile VMT on six HD TRUCS vehicle types; and (5)
EMA stated that HD TRUCS did not include formulas for the aggregation of the 101 vehicles
into regulatory subcategories, calculation of the proposed standards, nor the interpolation of
model years between MY 2027 and MY 2032, though EMA acknowledges those calculations
were described in the DRIA and that EMA was able to replicate the calculation of the standards
for MY 2027 and MY 2032 and was able to come close to replicating the calculation for the
intervening model years.
Response:
We appreciate EMA's thorough analysis of HD TRUCS which included some errors in our
formulas and calculations. The NPRM version of HD TRUCS did include both the battery and
charger efficiency in the annual electricity cost in A3a_Cost. These values were calculated
earlier in the spreadsheet and were used to calculate the operating energy of a BEV on a daily
basis. We have continued to use both the battery efficiency and charger efficiency to calculate
the annual electricity cost for the final rule, though we have updated our methodology. For
further detail on how the battery and charger efficiencies were used in the FRM for annual
electricity cost, see RIA 2.8.8.1. The battery volume assessment (related to the battery width and
length comments) has been updated in the final rule; please see Section 3.10.3 of this RTC for
more information. EPA agrees with EMA that we had errors in the calculation of the 90th
percentile VMT for six vehicles; therefore, in the FRM version of HD TRUCS we have rectified
the error in the 90th percentile VMT formula for those six vehicles which had the effect of
reducing their sizing VMT. For the final rule, in addition to describing the calculations in the
RIA, we have also included in HD TRUCS all of the calculations for the standards for all model
years.
721
-------
4 BEV Technologies
4.1 Technology Readiness and Model Availability
4.1.1 Model Availability
Comments by Organizations
Organization: American Trucking Associations (ATA)
A significant point of frustration is the need for more specification options available for
battery electric truck chassis. There is no such thing as a generic truck in the U.S. Heavy-duty
vehicles produced for the U.S. market are highly customized to meet fleets' unique duty cycles
and maximize ROI. Customizations can include nearly every critical vehicle component, such as
its body, suspension, engine, transmission, and axles. ZEVs present unique economic and
engineering challenges when integrated into an existing fleet. Because the ZEV market is
nascent, customization options will not be available at scale under EPA's proposed adoption
timelines. Specifications and customizations will continue to be important as fleets incorporate
ZEVs into their operations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1535-A1, p. 8]
While most battery electric vocational and short-haul vehicles follow a similar configuration
and design, there are trade-offs on battery capacity, range, and wheelbase size, which can still
greatly impact operations. One company invested in a startup partner to acquire a large number
of highly customized electric delivery vans to meet its last-mile delivery needs, which are
scheduled to be fully delivered in 2030. This level of customization is generally not available to
all fleets purchasing vehicles, even in vocational and short-haul segments. Another company
initially focused on electrifying last-mile vehicles but pursued another technological solution
instead of ZEV because of the limited options. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1535-A1, p. 8-9]
Product availability
EPA's proposed and alternative adoption cases, Tables 1 and 2, assume OEM-announced
product availability will be a major driver of the ZEV transition. However, product availability
alone is insufficient to enable heavy-duty ZEVs at scale. In 2021, over 150 HD BEV models
were available; but they accounted for less than 0.1 percent of Class 7 & 8 sales, which does not
suggest an adoption rate that can accommodate the industry's needs from MY 2027 to 2032.10
ZEVs must meet a highly customized set of performance requirements and product specifications
to scale. Said one fleet, "allow more time for unproven technologies to be real-world tested,"
which in the fleet context means—verify that ZEVs meet the current operational duty cycle
vehicles are assigned to perform.
One truck leasing and rental company we spoke with noted that some light-duty commercial
products are available for operations needing only 100 miles of range, but significantly fewer in
heavier weight class applications requiring 200 miles or more. OEMs are currently developing
and testing medium- and heavy-duty vehicles under varying specifications; however, options
remain limited. For example, the introduction of electric power take-off systems is a recently
available technology that utilizes an electric motor to power auxiliary equipment. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1535-A1, p. 8]
722
-------
Organization: BorgWarner Inc.
BorgWarner sees strong growth in certain HD weight classes of the BEV market.
We see strong growth of BEVs in several commercial heavy-duty vehicle segments (CV).
EPA's forecasts appear in line with industry experts for Class 2 through 6. BorgWarner
recognizes that CV BEV forecasts are rapidly shifting. Industry forecasts increasingly expect
more CV BEVs and consequently we believe that, even with adjustments, EPA is
underestimating the level of ZEV penetration at certain weight classes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1578-A1, p. 3]
Organization: CALSTART
The ZE-MHDV space is constantly changing, and the numbers of models increases as new
OEMs enter the market as well as add additional models (Figure 1). For instance, Mack Trucks
in the United States offered essentially one model at the beginning of 2023, the Electric LR
product for refuse applications. However, at the recent ACT Expo, Mack launched two
additional electric models, the Class 6 and Class 7 MD electric.8F9 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1656-A1, p. 6.] [See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1656-A1, page 6, for Figure 1]
9 https://electrek.co/2023/03/08/mack-trucks-first-medium-duty-electric-truck/
The number of models globally has grown by nearly 40 percent since 2021. As of June 2023,
there were more than 840 total ZE-MHDV models worldwide, 444 of which were specifically
MHD trucks and 128 specifically heavy-duty (Class 7-8) trucks. In the U.S. and Canada alone,
there are nearly 210 models, 86 of which are MHD trucks and 37 specifically heavy-duty.
Interestingly, while the total number of models is highest in China, the U.S. and Canada rank
second and ahead of Europe in total models and lead the world in growth of OEMs appearing in
the region (Figure 2). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1656-A1, pp. 6 - 7.] [See Docket Number
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1656-A1, page 7, for Figure 2]2023 ZET market update: While
overall volumes remain low compared to the full on-road inventory, the rate of growth of ZET
sales reflects the rapid growth of available models and vehicle capability. According to the May
2023 edition of CALSTART's Zeroing in on Zero-Emission Trucks report, the cumulative
deployment of new ZETs (January 2017-December 2022) has now reached nearly 5,500
vehicles with more than 3,500 ZETs deployed in 2020 alone (Figure 4). The year-over-year sales
growth shows strong and accelerating momentum for the technology, growing by 397 percent in
2021 and 163 percent in 2022. These numbers are for deployed vehicles and do not include the
large backlog of orders for trucks that are yet to be delivered. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1656-
Al, p. 8.] [See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1656-A1, page 9, for Figure 4]
As new vehicle models are steadily being introduced, so too are vehicle capabilities
increasing. ZETI tracks range, energy storage, and payload and has seen significant increases
year-over-year in all categories (Figure 3). For instance, in 2020, the longest-range trucks were at
the 200-mile mark, and those with highest payload limited to 150 miles. In 2023, a full payload
Class 8 battery-electric tractor has reached 500 miles of range, and the median range across the
category is more than 150 miles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1656-A1, p. 7.] [See Docket
Number EPA-HQ-0AR-2022-0985-1656-A1, page 8, for Figure 3]
723
-------
Interestingly, 59 percent of these deployed vehicles were in states that have adopted the ACT
regulation, though regulatory requirements have not yet gone into effect in these states. Seven
percent of the deployments were in states that have signed the Multi-State MOU for ZE-
MHDVs, while a meaningful 34 percent were in the remaining states. These trends continued
with the 2022 deployments: 44 percent were in ACT-adopting states; 10 percent were in MOU
states that have yet to enact ACT; and 46 percent were in non-MOU states. The non-MOU states
with the highest numbers of deployed ZETs include Texas, Florida, Michigan, New Hampshire,
Illinois, Ohio, and Georgia. 10 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1656-A1, p. 9]
State of the Zero-Emission Industry
As the preamble and contextual portion of the EPA Phase 3 NPRM establishes very well,
zero-emission technology for MHDVs has made significant strides since the Phase 2 rulemaking
and is now a real option for deployment and rapid scaling. Indeed, ZEVs are the declared and
primary strategy for the major original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) to reach their
commitments to carbon neutrality by 2040. While some OEMs include a mix of fossil-free
vehicles in the 2040 timeline, they are predominately planning on battery-electric vehicles
(BEVs) and fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1656-A1, p. 6]
Zero-Emission Technology Inventory (ZETI) overview and projections: As part of its role
supporting global governments, fleets, and industry in tracking the progress and momentum
toward this goal, CALSTART and its Drive to Zero program operate and maintain the ZETI tool,
which tracks existing and planned ZEV (BEV and FCEV) model offerings in all primary
commercial vehicle classes (including cargo vans and shutles but not pickups). It currently tracks
vehicle offerings across seven geographic regions (U.S.-Canada, Europe, China, India, Mexico,
South America, and Oceania), 10 vehicle application classes, 63 OEMs, and hundreds of vehicle
models through 2024. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1656-A1, p. 6]
Global industry impacts on the United States: The rapid pace of change in ZE-MHDV
capability, production, and sales is part of a global trend with significant implications and
benefits for the U.S. market. Most of the major truck makers in the United States are part of
global OEM groups and as such are able to tap global engineering and supply chain assets and
therefore enact more rapid technology transfer and product development. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1656-A1, p. 9]
As an example, Navistar and its International Trucks brand are part of the global Traton
Group (Volkswagen Truck and Bus). Scania, a key brand of the group, has announced a long-
haul bate ry-electric tractor for the 2024 model year capable of moving 80,000 pounds (40 tons)
for four and a half hours, then recharging in 45 minutes. 11 Scania has recently tested megawat
charging standard (MCS) chargers from ABB and can already offer MCS-capable trucks. The
plan is to introduce the next generation of MCS by late 2024.12 As part of the group, these
common powertrain components are all available to Navistar International, which has signaled
its own long-range bate ry-electric truck could be available in the United States as soon as
2025.13 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1656-A1, pp. 9 - 10]
11 https://www.scania.com/group/en/home/newsroom/news/2021/Scanias-electrifica..on-roadmap.html
12 https://new.abb.com/news/detail/103008/abb-e-mobility-and-scania-successfully-undertake-first-test-in-
development-of-megawat-charging-system
724
-------
13 https://www.forbes.com/sites/alanohnsman/2022/05/13/big-rigs-going-electric-as-navistar-cummins-
daimler-rev-up-next-genera. .on-trucks/? sh= 19d47132419d
This is not an isolated example. Daimler Trucks, the global parent of Freightliner, Freightliner
Custom Chassis, and Thomas Built Buses, among many others, recently unveiled its long-haul
version of the E-Actros electric truck with an 80,000 pound range (40 tons) of 310 miles. 14
Several major firms including Amazon and Rhenus have agreed to pilot the truck as it prepares
for series production in 2024.15 As with other groups, the Freightliner E-Cascadia shares a
common architecture and similar components with all Daimler ZETs including the E-Actros, 16
and E-Actros long-haul capabilities could be expected in the U.S. market by 2025. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1656-A1, p. 10]
14 https://www.electrive.com/2022/09/20/daimler-truck-presents-eactros-longhaul-prototype/
15 https://www.ajot.com/news/db-schenker-goes-electric-for-the-long-haul
16 https://www.freightwaves.com/news/daimler-will-package-own-components-for-electric-trucks
Volvo has used a similar strategy to share a common electric powertrain and bate ry
configuration among its European and North American truck models to reach market more
quickly, sharing a common architecture. 17 Volvo also recently added two new electric trucks to
its North American Mack brand by procuring powertrains from SEA Electric under a five-year
agreement for its MD6 and MD7 Class 6 and Class 7 vocational trucks. 18 This partnership
allows Volvo to more rapidly extend electric offerings into medium-duty truck segments. SEA
Electric also provides powertrains to Hino Trucks in North America and converts multiple OEM
trucks on its own in eight countries, including the United States, Canada, Australia, New
Zealand, Indonesia, and India. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1656-A1, p. 10]
17 https://www.sae.org/news/2020/06/volvo-batery-electric-trucks
18 https://www.sea-electric.com/sea-electric-partners-with-mack-trucks/
PACCAR has used a similar approach in the near term to speed its production of electric
products, partnering with both Meritor (now a part of Accelera by Cummins) and Dana to
provide electric powertrains for its Kenworth and Peterbilt brands. 19 20 Kenworth has also
announced a partnership to use Toyota fuel cell assemblies and electric powertrains in its Class 8
T680 tractor.21 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1656-A1, p. 10]
19 https://www.meritor.com/en/meritor-today/news/2022/20220202B
20 https://kenworth.com/about-us/news/ces/
21 https://landline.media/kenworth-peterbilt-fcev-hydrogen-fuel-cell-trucks-coming-soon/
The ability to transfer technology from the light-duty (passenger car) realm to MHDVs is an
additional factor that has enabled a much faster pace for commercial truck electrification. It can
be seen in the Tesla Semi, which uses multiple passenger car motors to build up its truck
system.22 General Motors (GM) and Ford have both rapidly entered the commercial electric
vehicle space, Ford with the eTransit electric delivery van23 and GM with its "spinoff
BrightDrop electric van.24 This tech transfer capability is also spurring unusual partnerships that
connect and leverage global capabilities. In late May 2023, Daimler Trucks and Toyota Motors
agreed to merge their Mitsubishi Fuso and Hino Motors groups to produce future trucks and
buses with a shared vision of how to achieve carbon neutrality. The goal of the merger was to
725
-------
focus on zero emissions and advanced capabilities (i.e., connected/autonomous and
automated/shared/electric).24F25 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1656-A1, pp. 10-11]
22 https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-semi-production-specs-
released/#:~:text=The%20Tesla%20Semi%20features%20a,installed%20on%20the%20rear%20axle.
23 https://www.fleet.ford.com/showroom/commercial-trucks/e-
transit/2023/?gclid=CjwKCAjwhJukBhBPEiwAniIcNTksRJjRcigOZsYD4AFhvTIYbCtbb2tH8AtKItQICv
Mwv9cmmobk7RoCALoQAvD_BwE&searchid=15905657649|138026271971|1020273926068|&ef_id=Cj
wKCAjwhJukBhBPEiwAniIcNTksRJjRcigOZsYD4AFhvTIYbCtbb2tH8AtKItQICvMwv9cmmobk7RoC
ALoQ AvDBwE: G: s&s_kwcid=AL !2519!3!617879648806!e!!g!! ford%20e-
transit! 15905657649! 138026271971&gclsrc=aw.ds
24 https://www.gobrightdrop.com/products/brightdrop-
zevo?utm_source=google&utm_medium=paid&utm_term=zevo&utm_campaign=brand_awareness
25 https://www.carscoops.eom/2023/05/toyota-and-daimler-to-merge-hino-and-fuso-truck-businesses-into-
a-single-unit/
These observations illustrate that EPA needs to revise its assumption that ZET penetration
rates into Class 8 long haul will be delayed until fuel cell platforms are at scale. EPA's
assumption of the battery size and weight needed to enable Class 8 long haul and the minimum
distances required specifically need to be revised. The reality is heavy regional transport and
point-to-point priority corridor operation, a key part of the changing long-haul application, are
fully capable with products already in the market or arriving in the U.S. market by 2025 and
improving over the course of the proposed regulation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1656-A1,
p. 11]
The key takeaways are:
• The pace of the OEM strategy shift to electrification is staggering and accelerating.
• Year-over-year sales of zero-emission products are rapidly expanding at a non-linear
pace spurred by a steadily growing portfolio of models from global and North American
manufacturers.
• This portfolio includes expanding capabilities, including heavy-duty tractors capable of
hundreds of miles of travel. TCO parity between battery-electric and diesel tractors could
come by 2030 for most payloads.26
• European designers are balancing smaller battery loads with faster-charge opportunities
that match driver break periods and will enable high-utilization freight movement on
priority corridors. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1656-A1, p. 11]
26 https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/tco-alt-powertrain-long-haul-trucks-us-apr23.pdf
Organization: MEMA
EPA recognizes ZEV deployment in commercial vehicle will have an added challenge
compared to Light Duty due to the necessity for manufacturers to efficiently allocate capital
expenditures (CAPEX) towards the highest market segment opportunities, and release BEV
chassis according to resources available and prioritized business case. Therefore, EPA should
expect that serial production of specialized vocational applications will take longer due to diffuse
volume across many vehicle configurations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1570-A1, p. 17]
726
-------
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
C. Projected Technologies for Meeting Standards
1. ZE Technologies
Affected pages: 25961-25974
Although CARB staff generally concurs with U.S. EPA's assessment of ZE technologies,
U.S. EPA's findings regarding BEV and FCEV technology may be conservative and
underestimate the status of the ZEV market. As discussed extensively in the ACF regulation's
rulemaking documents, ZE technologies are commercially available today, and the market is
developing rapidly.62 As of October 2022, 148 ZE medium-duty vehicles (MDV) and HDV
models are available to purchase, with 135 models having already reached customer hands.
These vehicles are available in all weight classes and a variety of configurations. Today, these
models are somewhat focused on higher volume applications, while more specialized
applications are being demonstrated across a wide array of applications. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1591-A1, p.28]
62 CARB, Public Hearing to Consider the Proposed Advanced Clean Fleets Regulation Staff Report: Initial
Statement of Reasons, 2022. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2022/acf22/isor2.pdf
EPA Summary and Response:
Summary:
ATA was concerned about the currently available models of ZEVs and their ability to cover
the diversity of the heavy-duty industry. They argued that vehicles need to be heavily
customizable to be able to meet the specific needs of each fleet and that the ZEV industry is new,
such that customization will not be broad enough during the timeframe of the rule to support the
adoption rates set out in the proposed compliance pathway. ATA also expressed concern about
the current rate of uptake of BEVs and how that is projected to the timeframe of the rule. They
stated that of the 150 available BEV models, they accounted for less than 0.1 percent of class 7
and 8 vehicle sales and suggests that industry's needs will not be met between MY 2027 to 2032.
ATA expressed concern over the lack of available ZEV models to choose from especially for
MD and HD applications that require 200+ miles of range. Borg Warner expressed concerns
about the estimated ZEV adoption at specific weight classes from classes 2-6. Borg Warner
commented that EPA forecasts match industry expert forecasts, but that they believe we are
underestimating ZEV penetration in LHD and MHD segments. CALSTART commented about
the availability of ZEVs. Their comments indicated that the number of models available is
increasing as is the number of OEMs entering the ZEV market. Their comment stated that the
number of models available in the U.S and Canada is second only to China. CALSTART also
discussed the number of sales of HD ZEVs and that the year over year growth in ZEV
deployments is a strong indicator of accelerating momentum for ZEVs. CALSTART also talked
about the increasing capabilities of ZEVs and how range, energy storage, and payload have all
seen significant increases year over year. They also discussed where the sales of ZEVs are
occuring, whether in states that have adopted the California ACT regulation, states that have
signed the Multi-State MOU for ZE-MHDVs, or any of the remaining states. Their comment
states that sales of ZEVs are split almost evenly between ACT states and non-MOU states
indicating that the number of ZEVs deployed will increase in all states, not just in ACT states.
727
-------
CALSTART also pointed out that most major truck manufacturers in the United States are part
of global OEM groups and are therefore able to access to global engineering and supply chains
which allow them to be more capable of rapid technology transfer and product development.
MEMA expressed concern about the order in which different vehicle types would become
electrified. Their comment argued that since manufacturers have limited budgets for product
development, the vehicles that have the highest market segment and that benefit the most from
GHG-saving technology will be the highest priority for electrification while specialized
vocational applications will take longer to electrify since volumes are smaller and more vehicle
customization is required. They further suggested that CO2 standards should be set lower for
high volume applications that require less specialization and operate in moderate environments
and the standards for low volume highly specialized vehicles should be set higher to account for
the differences in electrification priority from manufacturers.
Response:
ATA asserts that HDV applications are typically highly customized, and that this degree of
customization is not (and, in their view, probably cannot be) fully reflected in either HD TRUCS
or in OEM announcements about planned ZEV introductions. EPA understands that the market
for battery electric trucks is still developing and that, at present, they account for a small fraction
of the overall sales in the HD industry. Based on this information, we have changed the approach
from the proposal to more gradually increase the stringency of the standards to address concerns
about vehicle availability as well as infrastructure build out, particularly in the initial years of the
Phase 3 standard. We have modified the stringency of the standards in those initial years from
that proposed. These changes will allow manufacturers more lead time to ramp up production for
MY2032 to meet the stringency of the final rule. We also note that the Phase 3 program includes
compliance flexibilities, including changes from those proposed.
We agree with ATA that HDV applications are diverse. This fact, however, does not only
pertain to ZEVs but also to ICE HD vehicles. That is to say, any HD vehicle emissions rule must
be evaluated in light of the diverse uses of these vehicles. EPA has done so in this rule, as
described in RIA Chapter 2 with our evaluation of 101 vehicle types in HD TRUCS. Among
other things, we have carefully considered the suitability and lead-time for various vehicle types,
and we have adopted feasible and appropriate standards for each regulatory subcategory
supported by technology penetrations in each subcategory under the modeled potential
compliance pathway. For instance, we are not establishing new Phase 3 standards for certain
subcategories (e.g., HHD vocational vehicles and day cab tractors) until later years of the
program; we are also leaving in place the Phase 2 standards for certain optional custom chassis
vehicles. In addition, for all subcategories, our modeled potential compliance pathway includes
ICE vehicles in all years of the program; as such, purchasers who require ICE vehicles to
perform specific tasks (e.g., those with extreme daily VMT requirements) can continue to do so.
We also note that, as discussed further in RIA Chapter 2.11, while our modeled potential
compliance pathway includes HD ZEVs, we also assessed several additional example potential
compliance pathways that support the feasibility of the standards relative to the reference case
without the use of HD ZEVs . Manufacturers may choose to follow one of the pathways
evaluated by EPA or may choose their own compliance strategy to meet the standards and may
do so without HD ZEVs. We further address the diversity of the HDV market in RTC 4.1.2.
728
-------
There are currently 22 class 6-8 straight truck BEVs available from 13 different
manufacturers through the California's Hybrid and Zero-Emission Truck and Bus Voucher
Incentive Project (HVIP) program with battery ranges from 100-250 miles.359 We expect
additional models with ranges meeting or exceeding 200 miles to become available during the
timeframe of our rule. A list of BEVs available through MY 2024 can be found in RIA Chapter
1.5.5.
Borg Warner suggested that the EPA underrepresented the number of ZEVs that would be
present in the market during the timeframe of the rule. We are taking a balanced and measured
approach to setting the final standards, which reflects consideration of the statutory and other
relevant factors and uncertainties such as those concerning availability of infrastructure
(distributive infrastructure buildout in particular). Compared to the proposed Phase 3 standards,
in general, after further consideration of the lead times necessary for the standards (including
both the vehicle development and the projected infrastructure needed to support the modeled
potential compliance pathway that supports the feasibility of the standards), we are finalizing
CO2 emission standards for heavy-duty vehicles that, compared to the proposed standards,
include less stringent standards for all vehicle categories in MYs 2027, 2028, 2029 and 2030
than those proposed. For further discussion on critical minerals, see Preamble Section II.D.2.ii
and RTC section 17.2, and see RTC 7 (Distribution) and 7.1 for further discussion on
infrastructure deployment. The standards we have set in MY2032 reflect EPA's consideration of
Borg Warner's suggestion that we underrepresented LHD and MHD ZEVs in the modeled
compliance pathway at proposal. Upon further analysis in HD TRUCS, we have found that the
payback of LHD and MHD vehicles is quicker than projected in the proposal and have therefore
increased standard stringency for the relevant subcategories to reflect that a more stringent
standard is feasible at reasonable cost.
CALSTART commented that the availability and deployment of ZEVs has been increasing
year over year and represents an increasing momentum in the deployment of ZEVs in the
marketplace. They also commented that the performance of ZEVs has been increasing year over
year and that the sales of ZEVs have been nationwide and not just in ACT states or MOU states.
As discussed in the previous paragraph, we have tailored our phase-in approach of the final
standards to allow for a more gradual ramp up compared to the proposed standards. See further
responses regarding standard stringency in RTC 2.4. We appreciate the point CALSTART raised
about truck manufacturers in the United States being part of global OEM groups which allows
increased access to engineering and supply chain assets. Even though we expect OEM groups to
share information and resources across their brands, we have no way of quantifying how this will
affect the speed at which manufacturers will be able to produces ZEVs. Because of this, we have
kept our analysis focused on inputs that are quantifiable in nature based on information received
in comments on the proposal, research reviews, and stakeholder outreach.
MEMA commented that the order of vehicle electrification should be considered based on
vehicle customization when setting the standards as well as the volume of each vehicle type and
operating conditions. When setting standards for this rulemaking, we took a balanced and
measured approach which considered the resources of manufacturers as well as infrastructure
and decreased the level of the stringency of the standards in the early years of the Phase 3
program compared to the proposal, especially for the heavy heavy-duty vocational vehicles.
359 https://californiahvip.org/vehicle-category /straight-truck/?size=247,261,230&t_type=378
729
-------
Furthermore, as discussed in preamble Section II.F, we are not finalizing new emission standards
for several of the optional custom chassis subcategories. This change allows more time for
manufacturers to complete development of different ZEV models. . We set our standards based
on best available data for inputs into HD TRUCS received from comments, literature review, and
stakeholder outreach. We used a VMT weighted temperature distribution to represent miles
traveled across the nation at different temperatures and modeled our vehicles accordingly rather
than creating different standards based on zones of operation to create a cohesive program
applied evenly across the country. We note further that a transitional flexibility introduced in
Phase 3 allows compliance to be averaged across all of the HDV averaging sets, so that
performance of the types of harder-to-optimize vocational vehicle applications can have their
performance offset by any of the easier-to-optimize HDV applications.
4.1.2 Technology Readiness
Comments by Organizations
Organization: American Trucking Associations (ATA)
Performance is key to whether heavy-duty ZEVs meet a given duty cycle's range,
performance, and battery capacity requirements. Drivers regularly run short and long-haul routes,
often including regional and interstate journeys. For example, a carrier transporting perishable
agricultural products to and from a West Coast port runs routes to inland destinations like
Colorado, St. Louis, Reno, and California's Central Valley. This operation's range and battery
performance needs differ significantly from shorter hauls primarily within ten miles of a point of
origination. Battery weight is a crucial factor. A bulk agricultural hauler moving mixed
commodities to and from a facility can easily come up against weight limits with added
batteries. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1535-A1, p. 10]
In addition to range and battery capacity, other performance factors also play a role in heavy-
duty ZEVs. Power output, acceleration, and overall vehicle performance are crucial to ensuring
vehicles can meet the demands of their duty cycles, regardless of climate or topographical
conditions. ZEVs must be capable of the same payload while climbing steep inclines,
maintaining high speeds on highways, and handling challenging extreme temperatures in a way
that compares favorably with ICEVs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1535-A1, p. 10]
Organization: American Petroleum Institute (API)
d. Technical Feasibility
i. Vehicle readiness
1. Technology readiness
The proposed rule identified various HD ZEVs available in the marketplace or in production,
as well as select manufacturer goals and commitments to producing HD ZEVs by a certain
timeframe. However, given the nascent technology, there is significant uncertainty regarding
EPA's expectation for rapid availability of ZEV powertrains. Further, it should be noted that
these vehicles are small in number, some are not able to perform the work that a comparable
730
-------
ICEV would perform (due to charging, range, and duty-cycle constraints), and all are for
localized operations; long-haul ZEVs are in the pilot stage and have significant challenges. OEM
goals and commitments, coupled with IRA/BIL funding may help to increase the availability of
HD ZEVs; however, it will be extremely challenging to meet the proposal's implementation
schedule. We have concerns that vehicles may not be available at the rates that EPA is projecting
for the 2027-2032 timeframe. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1617-A1, p. 10.]
Even with a fully stocked HD ZEV market, key barriers to entry include customer uptake,
capital costs to purchase vehicles, and infrastructure readiness. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1617-A1, p. 10.]
Organization: Daimler Trucks North America
EPA Request for Comment, Request #19: We request comment on our approach that focuses
primarily on BEVs, which currently are more prevalent in the HD vehicle market, and whether
there are additional vehicle types that should be evaluated as FCEVs along with BEVs.
• DTNA Response: DTNA agrees in principle with EPA's primary focus on BEVs at this
time, as these vehicles are more prevalent in the market. EPA should not consider FCEVs
until at least MY 2032, due to the current state of the technology and refueling
infrastructure. EPA also should not project ZEV uptake for any vehicle types outside of
the BEV and FCEV categories included in the Proposed Rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1555-A1, p. 161]
Organization: Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association (MECA)
Future BEV/FCEV Powertrain Efficiency Standards
Today, vehicle manufacturers are deploying the first generation of electric and fuel cell
commercial vehicles. On the other hand, suppliers are already looking ahead and developing the
next generation of advanced efficient powertrain components such as batteries, power
electronics, transmissions, e-motors and integrated drive units. Technology innovation has
strived for greater efficiency and power for the past 50 years of combustion engines and
similarly, electric component suppliers continue to innovate electric technology. Some of these
innovations will be revealed in the five funded projects under the DOE's SuperTruck III
program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1521-A1, pp. 12 - 13.]
As such, it is important that EPA begins to consider ways to incentivize and reward more
efficient vehicles just as it has for combustion engine technology. In the light-duty sector, where
EVs have been around for much longer, we are already seeing significant differences in the
energy efficiency of similarly sized vehicles. This is a result of some manufacturers deploying
more advanced technology and investing in efficient powertrain integration which reduces the
impact on the environment across the vehicle life-cycle from manufacturing to recycling and
disposal. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1521-A1, p. 13.]
731
-------
EPA Summary and Response:
Summary:
Several commenters alleged ongoing technical difficulties in ZEV performance reflecting
their views of the current state of the market ("nascent" in a commenter's terminology). For
example, EPA received a comment from ATA that raised concerns about the performance
characteristics of ZEVs; the performance characteristics included power, range, payload, battery
weight, acceleration, gradeability, maintaining highway speeds, and performance in extreme
temperature. API described uncertainties surrounding ZEV technology and that long-haul
vehicles are in pilot stage. On the other hand, MECA expressed that the first generation of ZEVs
have already been deployed, and they also believe there will be efficiency improvements and that
it is important to incentivize more efficient vehicles.
Response:
Both EPA and manufacturers360 themselves project that by 2027 vehicle applications of ZEV
technologies will be significantly more mature and suitable for performing work compared to a
comparable ICE vehicle. EPA's assessment includes consideration of comments on the proposed
rule, meetings with stakeholders, and our analysis using HD TRUCS discussed in detail in RIA
Chapter 2. See also comments from Tesla citing an EDF report on the "rapidly declining costs of
ZEV trucks and buses".361 HD TRUCS is designed precisely to allow for analysis of each of the
101 applications considered there and whether each application can perform comparable work to
its ICE vehicle equivalent, as noted more fully in the following paragraph.
In the analysis conducted for this rulemaking, EPA found that commercial BEVs and FCEVs
have similar performance and durability characteristics to ICE vehicles in most instances. In
performing our analysis for the modeled compliance pathway, we benchmarked ICE vehicle
performance characteristics such as vehicle activity, payload capacity, acceleration from 0-30
mph and 0-60 mph, gradeability, and peak power during the regulatory test cycles. This
information was used to size BEVs and FCEVs to determine the suitability of each technology
for different commercial vehicle applications. These calculations were performed in HD TRUCS
and can be found in RIA Chapter 2.
We carefully undertook this assessment, and note that we did not find that ZEVs would be
suitable for all HDV applications during the timeframe of the Phase 3 standards. Reasons for this
for certain applications include prohibitively large battery sizes to do comparable work on a
single charge, issues of diminished payload, and for those applications (and portions of
applications) that it is relevant to, the ability to operate in extreme weather conditions. For
vehicle types that we considered not suitable for ZEVs during the timeframe of the Phase 3
standards in our analysis, as described in more detail in preamble Section II and RIA Chapter 2,
we do not project use of ZEVs in our modeled potential compliance pathway for the final rule.
Our modeled potential compliance pathway supporting the feasibility of the final standards
thus includes a mix of technology to meet the final standards, including BEVs, FCEVs, and ICE
360 See, e.g., Miller, Neil. Memorandum to the Docket EPA-HQOAR-2022-0985. "Stakeholder Meeting Log".
March 2024 for a complete list of stakeholder meetings.
361 EDF, New Study Finds Rapidly Declining Costs for Zero-Emitting Freight Trucks and Buses (Feb. 10, 2022)
Available online: https://www.edf.org/media/new-study-finds-rapidly-declining-costs-zero-emitting-freight-
trucks-and-buses
732
-------
vehicles. With respect to projected ZEV suitability, generally, vehicles with shorter range and
stop and go type of operation are most suited for depot-charged BEVs while vehicles with higher
VMT and constant speeds are more suitable for en-route charged BEVs and FCEVs. Current
ZEV market offerings meet many ICE baseline performance metrics, and through our analysis
we predict that future models will continue to meet or exceed ICE performance metrics.
4.2 Upfront ZEV Cost
Comments by Organizations
Organization: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE)
Additionally, California's TCO assessment of six different vehicle types shows that, even
before accounting for cost reductions that will likely come from the ZEV sales requirements in
the states that have adopted ACT, BEVs and FCEVs will be cost-competitive with ICEVs as
soon as 2025 thanks to the declining cost of batteries and fuel cell components.20 ACEEE
supports EPA's consideration of ACF levels of ZEV penetration nation-wide to set appropriate
targets in the final rule.
20 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2022/acf22/appg.pdf
Organization: American Highway Users Alliance
Consistent with that recent testimony, ATA has advised the Highway Users that it estimates
the cost of a new EV truck at $450,000, and the cost of a comparable new diesel truck at
$165,000. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2022-0985-1550-A1, p. 7]
Further, for truck operators that finance the acquisition of a new EV, the added interest cost
will be significant and a factor in whether to make a purchase (not to mention that such higher
costs will then be passed on to consumers).
Consistent with the information from the American Trucking Associations, above, ATD
stated that truck costs are much higher for a new Class 8 electric truck than for its diesel
counterpart. Importantly, ATD noted that new tax incentives, if available for a model, would
represent just a 'fraction' of the cost differential between an EV model and a diesel counterpart.
Organization: American Petroleum Institute (API)
2. ZEV penetration/customer uptake and adoption rates
HD ZEVs are currently not available in sufficient quantities or at affordable levels to
significantly displace ICEVs. Further, the cost to purchase a ZEV is currently prohibitive - not
only is the purchase price currently higher than that of an ICEV, some fleet owners and operators
are finding that HD ZEVs result in more work or trips needed to accomplish the same task as
with an ICEV. This is largely due to battery range and charging, but can also be affected by
temperature, road grade, and other factors. A study by ATA noted vehicle and fleet owner
concerns with regard to total cost of ownership, despite IRA and BIL funding. 13 14 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1617-A1, p. 10.]
733
-------
13 Advanced Clean Transportation (ACT) Expo 2023 Mainstage - Monday - 2023 State of Sustainable
Fleets: https://vimeo.com/824774094.
14 Advanced Clean Transportation (ACT) Expo 2023 Keynote Address: https://vimeo.com/824772504.
Owners may choose to continue to use and extend the life of ICEVs, along with lower carbon
fuels and/or other low carbon technologies, to avoid these issues. And at lower costs than those
of ZEVs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1617-A1, p. 10.]
3. Capital cost to purchase vehicles
The average cost of a HD tractor is about $180,000, while the electric version of the same
vehicle can be nearly $400,000. Expending this additional capital for a vehicle that may not meet
the duty-cycle, is significantly heavier (and thus reduces the payload of the vehicle), and may
require additional vehicles to achieve the same job, creates massive challenges that may not be
able to be overcome. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1617-A1, pp. 10-11.]
Organization: Banks, Ben
Electric trucks cost in excess of three times the amount we currently pay for a new Peterbilt
day cab. Those additional expenses would be passed along in transportation expenses,
astronomically impacting our already existing inflation issues related to supply chain
constraints.
Organization: State of California et al. (2)
And similar patterns are observed in the supply chain for fuel-cell electric vehicles, an
alternative vehicle technology that can be used to meet stringent GHG emission standards,
especially for long-haul trucks.222 The technology for hydrogen-powered electric trucks is
already available, with buy-in from industry,223 and costs associated with these vehicles are
expected to fall.224 Moreover, businesses are investing in the manufacture of hydrogen to power
these vehicles.225 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1588-A1, p.31]
222 Thomas Walker, Zero Emission Long-Haul Heavy-Duty Trucking, Clean Air Task Force (Mar. 13,
2023), Executive Summary, https://www.catf.us/resource/zero-emission-long-haul-heavy-duty-trucking/.
223 See, e.g., Press Release, Premiere: Volvo Trucks tests hydrogen-powered electric trucks on public
roads, Volvo (May 8, 2023), https://www.volvotrucks.com/en-en/news-stories/press-
releases/2023/may/volvo-trucks-tests-hydrogen-powered-electric-trucks-on-public-roads.html; Today's
Trucking, AMTA orders Nikola Tre battery-electric, and hydrogen fuel cell trucks for demonstrations,
AMTA (Apr. 25, 2023), https://www.trucknews.com/sustainability/amta-orders-nikola-tre-battery-electric-
and-hydrogen-fuel-cell-trucks-for-demonstrations/1003174531/; Press Release, Amazon, Amazon adopts
green hydrogen to help decarbonize its operations (Aug. 25, 2022),
https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/sustainability/amazon-adopts-green-hydrogen-to-help-decarbonize-
its-operations; Lewin Day, Toyota Gets OK From California to Sell Hydrogen-Electric Semi-Truck
Powertrains (Apr. 24, 2023), https://www.thedrive.com/news/toyota-gets-ok-from-california-to-sell-
hydrogen-electric-semi-truck-powertrains; Michelle Lewis, SEA Electric just added a hydrogen power
option for electric trucks (April 28, 2023), https://electrek.co/2023/04/28/sea-electric-just-added-a-
hydrogen-power-option-for-electric-trucks/.
224 IRENA, Making the breakthrough: Green hydrogen policies and technology costs, International
Renewable Energy Agency (2021), Green hydrogen cost reduction (irena.org); Emily Beagle et al., Fueling
the Transition: Accelerating Cost-Competitive Green Hydrogen, RMI.org (2021),
https://rmi.org/insight/fueling-the-transition-accelerating-cost-competitive-green-hydrogen.
734
-------
225 Rod Walton, Cummins starting up its first U.S. Hydrogen Electrolyzer Manufacturing site in the U.S.,
Energy Tech (Oct. 11, 2022), https://www.energytech.com/energy-efficiency/article/21252555/cummins-
starting-up-first-us-hydrogen-electrolyzer-manfacturing-site-in-the-us; Airswift, 5 US Green hydrogen
projects starting in 2023 (Feb. 7, 2023), https://www.airswift.com/blog/green-hydrogen-projects-usa;
Kirsten Korosec, Bosch to invest $200M in US fuel cell production for electric commercial trucks,
TechCrunch (Aug. 31, 2022); Press Release, Toyota to Assemble Fuel Cell Modules at Kentucky Plant in
2023, Toyota (Aug. 25, 2021), https://pressroom.toyota.com/toyota-to-assemble-fuel-cell-modules-at-
kentucky-plant-in-2023/; U.S. National Clean Hydrogen Strategy and Roadmap,
https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/us-national-clean-hydrogen-strategy-roadmap.pdf.
Organization: Chevron
Chevron is concerned that the rapid increases in forecasted BEV sales rate are optimistic and
may overstate the benefits of the proposals. The proposals may limit choices and increase costs
for consumers, including those in economically disadvantaged groups and smaller businesses. A
study by the American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI8) found zero tailpipe emission
vehicle costs will be a strong barrier to entry and customer acceptance. While a new Class 8
diesel truck tractor may cost roughly $135,000 to $150,000, the purchase price of a new Class 8
BEV can be as much as $450,000. The same issue will likely impact the FCEV. Estimates for
fuel cell truck costs range from $200,000 to $600,000 with 60 percent of the overall cost solely
credited to the fuel cell propulsion system. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1552-Al,pp.6-7]
8 American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI). Understanding the C02 Impacts of Zero-Emission
Trucks. 2022. Available here: https://truckingresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/ATRI-
Environmental-Impacts-of-Zero-Emission-TrucksExec-Summary-5-2022.pdf
Organization: Lynden Incorporated
Electric trucks cost roughly three times as much as a diesel truck, the chargers themselves
cost as much as a diesel truck and the electrical upgrades needed to power the chargers cost
millions of dollars.
We are the leading bulk milk hauler in the Pacific Northwest, responsible for picking up 2
million gallons of milk per day on rural roads for dairy farms. Any disruption in reliability of
service would be catastrophic to dairy farmers and the milk supply chain and any increase in
operating costs will quite literally raise the price of a gallon of milk and other necessities for
American families. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1470-A1, p. 3]
Similarly, we provide transportation for most of the food, medicine, and other essential goods
that reach Alaskan communities, including rural and Native Alaskan communities. This will
exacerbate the inflationary impact on food prices that we have seen in the last few years for the
people who can afford it least. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1470-A1, p. 3]
Organization: NTEA - The Association for the Work Truck Industry
EPA NOx Rule
The EPA recently promulgated regulations that could add as much as $40,000 to the cost of a
new truck. The regulations aim to further reduce NOx (nitrogen oxides) emissions from heavy
duty engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1510-A1, p. 2]
735
-------
Heavy duty truck emissions are already 98% cleaner than in 2010 and truck manufacturers are
diligently working on the development of ZEV's (zero emission vehicles) that will eliminate
tailpipe emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1510-A1, p. 3]
Unintended Consequences
This proposal would once again increase the cost of a new truck. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1510-A1, p. 3]
As indicated, today's trucks that are already 98% cleaner than older trucks. Currently, more
than 50% of the trucks operating are pre-2010. An old (pre-2010) truck emits some 30 times
more emissions than today's engines. EPA should be incentivizing the sale of current trucks not
making them more expensive and creating a disincentive to the replacement of old trucks. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1510-A1, p. 3]
Community Based Air Quality
Many localities that face significant air quality concerns are in and around areas of heavy
truck traffic, such as ports, warehouses, terminals and urban areas. Because of the economic
challenges in many of these places the trucks operating locally are often older. As mentioned,
pre-2010 trucks emit significantly more tailpipe emissions than newer trucks. The best and
fastest way to improve air quality in these areas is to replace the numerous older trucks with
newer and cleaner ones. Unfortunately, regulations that make new trucks marginally cleaner but
dramatically more expensive than existing post 2010 trucks will only serve to keep those much
older (pre-2010) trucks in operation longer. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1510-A1, p. 3]
What is needed from these regulations are trucks that are affordable, durable and meet the
customer's vocational needs. The regulations must not act as a financial barrier to cleaner trucks
and ultimately ZEV's. Rather, federal regulations should focus on reducing the current high costs
associated with new trucks and ZEV development while building the infrastructure needed to
operate the next generation of work trucks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1510-A1, p. 3]
Organization: Tesla, Inc. (Tesla)
Medium- and Heavy-Duty BEV Costs Are Rapidly Declining
Tesla agrees with the agency that the feasibility of BEV deployment in the medium and
heavy-duty sector is more cost-competitive than ever. 125 In addition to the marketplace
announcements, regulatory environment, and federal fleet adoption driving significant
electrification, cost-related issues will ensure that electrification of the heavy-duty sector occurs
rapidly. As one analysis sums up, 'Electrification is also making inroads into heavier vehicles. In
urban duty cycles, battery electric trucks of any size become the cheapest option for several use
cases in the 2020s.'126 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1505-A1, p. 18]
125 88 Fed. Reg. at 25930.
126 BNEF, Electric Vehicle Outlook 2021 available at https://about.bnef.com/electric-vehicle-outlook/
Similarly, other studies find that when considering upfront purchase price alone, by 2027
electric freight trucks and buses will be less expensive than their combustion engine counterparts
in almost all categories. 127 As the agency finds, the new federal commercial vehicle purchase
736
-------
incentive enacted under the IRA - Section 45W - will further reduce upfront purchase costs up
to $40,000 per vehicle. 128 This incentive should drive down costs significantly more than many
predicted. For example, Rhodium has modeled that by 2030, a modest 10% investment tax credit
for medium- and heavy-duty BEVs and an excise tax exemption for such vehicles would drive
BEVs to or below TCO parity with conventional vehicles in some smaller vehicle classes and
reduce the gap in others.129 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1505-A1, p. 18]
127 EDF, New Study Finds Rapidly Declining Costs for Zero-Emitting Freight Trucks and Buses (Feb. 10,
2022) available at https://www.edf.org/media/new-study-finds-rapidly-declining-costs-zero-emitting-
freight-trucks-and-buses
128 Id. at Section 13403.
129 Rhodium, Pathways to Build Back Better: Investing in Transportation Decarbonization (May 13, 2021)
available at https://rhg.com/research/build-back-better-transportation/
Organization: Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF)
Electric trucks typically have a higher upfront purchase price compared to traditional diesel
trucks. The HD Tailpipe Rule will effectively bar diesel trucks from sale, forcing trucking
companies seeking to replace their fleet to take on more costs to do so. This will strain the
financial resources of some companies, especially smaller ones. Shifting from diesel trucks to
electric ones will also require adapting to new technologies and training drivers to effectively
operate electric vehicles. This transition period will likely lead to disruptions in the supply chain
and additional costs — both temporal and monetary — for trucking companies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1488-A1, p. 5]
Finally, EPA should assess impacts to the national economy as a result of potentially
accelerating ZEV freight transport that would cease to be reliable or functional outside of a
geographically confined network of charging/fueling infrastructure and support systems. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1488-A1, p. 7]
Organization: Valero Energy Corporation
HD ZEVs are more expensive than their ICEV counterparts. The International Council on
Clean Transportation's ("ICCT's") literature survey of purchase costs for zero-emission trucks
found the cost to purchase new battery-electric tractor trucks ranged from $200,000 to $800,000,
and similarly, the cost of new hydrogen fuel cell trucks ranged from $200,000 to
$600,000.117,118 Even considering tax credits established under the Inflation Reduction Act for
new commercial vehicles (26 U.S.C. 45W), there is still a significant cost difference between
ICEV and their ZEV counterparts.
In addition, vehicle costs are often too high for the HD payback period (the length of time
required for an investment to recover its upfront costs). 119 Battery packs for HDVs must be
specifically suited for high lifetime mileage, deeper discharges per cycle, overall ruggedness,
resistance to temperature extremes, and for production at low sales volumes. These
characteristics push costs for HDV battery packs toward the uppermost end of cost-range. The
relatively high daily range needed by commercial vehicles results in battery costs that drive
vehicle incremental costs as high as 50%-100% of the price of a conventional truck. 120 [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, pp. 25 - 26.]
737
-------
117 ICCT Working Paper 2022-09, A Meta-Study of Purchase Costs for Zero-Emission Trucks, at 4
(February 2022) https ://theicct.org/publication/purchase-cost-ze-trucks-feb22/.
118 Per CARB's own estimate, final capital costs for a hydrogen fuel cell Class 8, day cab tractor used in
regional operation were $629,189 in 2018 compared with $134,000 for an analogous diesel vehicle. In
2024, CARB estimates that a hydrogen fuel cell tractor truck will cost $431,480 compared to $ 144,101 for
a new diesel tractor. CARB, Appendix H: Draft Advanced Clean Trucks Total Cost of Ownership
Discussion Document at 1 (October 22, 2019)
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2019/act2019/apph.pdf. Consistent with CARB's
estimates, the ICCT recently forecast that composition costs for a hydrogen fuel cell tractor-truck in 2025
will exceed $400,000. CARB has also recognized that operating costs for a regional-hydrogen tractor in
2024 will exceed those for tractor trucks powered by diesel or battery electric. Sharpe, Ben & Basama,
Hussein, ICCT Working Paper 2022-09, "A meta-study of purchase costs for zero-emission trucks" at 12
(February 2022), https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/purchase-cost-ze-trucks-feb22-l.pdf.
119 U.S. DOE, Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicle Electrification: An Assessment of Technology and
Knowledge Gaps, at 35 (December 2019), https://www.osti.gov/biblio/1615213.
120 Id. at 24.
Organization: Westport Fuel Systems
The EPA has asked for comments on the incremental vehicle cost and IRA incentives
The cost of compliance in the Phase 3 Rule is estimated at $6 billion for manufacturers after
accounting for an estimated $3 billion from battery tax credits from the Inflation Reduction Act
(IRA). Given the state of technologies in the heavy-duty class 8 sleeper cab segment, the
incentives listed at in the IRA at $40,000 per "qualifying" ZEVs such as BEVs and FCEVs are
not significant enough to warrant purchasing and will require matching funds from other
jurisdictions. The incremental costs7 are suggested to be on average $15,0008 (including the
IRA Advanced Manufacturing and Production Credit and the Qualified Commercial Clean
Vehicle Credit) more for a ZEV MY 2032 sleeper cab compared to a conventional vehicle. These
costs are expected to be recouped over 7 years or less in operational cost savings. Given the
current costs of fuel cell vehicles in the class 8 category, these estimates seem at face value to be
underestimated. Even if this figure is accurate, that leaves 75% of the market requiring
alternative technology and fuel solutions (RNG, H2 combustion) or continue to operate diesel
vehicles powered by ICE engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1567-A1, p. 11]
7 See Phase 3 Rule, page 25998 - Incremental costs include 2 IRA incentives, lower operating costs and
calculated payback period
8 Proposed Standards to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Heavy-Duty Vehicles for Model Year
2027 and Beyond - Regulatory Announcement (EPA-420-F-23-011, April 2023)
The average incremental cost listed in the table below is very ambitious compared to current
market pricing and payback periods. For comparison, the estimated cost of an H2 HPDI powered
vehicle is likely to be closer to that of an LNG powered vehicle, which will have additional costs
for fuel storage, compared to diesel vehicles. Current pricing for lighter duty FCEVs is orders of
magnitude higher. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1567-A1, p. 11.] [See Docket Number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1567-A1, page 11, for Table 3.]
738
-------
EPA Summary and Response:
Summary:
EPA received comments from multiple stakeholders that were concerned that the initial
purchase price of a ZEV was too high relative to its ICE counterpart to be economically feasible,
regardless of payback period (AHUA, API, Ben Banks, Chevron, Lynden Inc., NTEA, Valero,
TPPF). Various commenters pointed to large difference in current ZEV tractor prices versus the
price of a comparable diesel vehicle. EPA received a comment from API that raised concerns
about an additional cost for multiple trucks to make up for the payload loss due to battery weight
in BEVs. EPA received comments from AHUA and Valero that the current tax incentives are not
high enough to make up for the increase in initial purchase price from an ICEV to a ZEV (plus
comments from many other entities, including EMA, that the federal excise tax would offset
those IRA savings). AHUA also commented that any interest payments made on ZEVs would be
much higher than for ICEVs due to the increased upfront cost. Lynden Inc. commented that the
cost of upgrading infrastructure and the cost of battery chargers was too high to be economical.
We received comments from Tesla saying that most freight trucks and buses would reach cost
parity with ICEVs by 2027.362 Tesla also cited a paper from Rhodium group that stated a 10%
tax credit and excise tax exemption for BEVs would drive BEV TCO to parity with ICEVs in
smaller vehicle classes and reduce the gap in others. ACEEE cited California's TCO assessment
of six different vehicle types that they will be cost-competitive with ICE vehicles as soon as
2025 due to declining battery and fuel cell costs. Ben Banks commented that additional expenses
for upfront purchase price would be passed on to consumers and impact inflation. TPPF and
Chevron raised concerns about the impact of high initial purchase price on small companies, the
cost of training drivers, as well as the impact of the rule on the national economy due to
infrastructure concerns. NTEA commented that the increased cost of new trucks would decrease
customer acceptance and slow fleet turnover keeping older higher emitting trucks on the road.
They stated that this, in turn, would cause EJ concerns as these higher emitting trucks would
remain in service rather than be replaced by cleaner vehicles.
Response:
First, the commenters sometimes conflate the separate issues of purchaser price and the
various components of purchaser costs. In assessing payback in our modeled potential
compliance pathway for both the proposal and the final rule (as well as TCO in the final rule),
we consider cost to the purchaser, not merely the vehicle price. See RIA Chapters 2.7, 2.9 and
2.12. Purchaser price is generally equivalent to the upfront cost of the vehicle in our analysis;
however, as we explain in preamble Section V we do not attempt to estimate how manufacturers
will price their products. Purchaser costs in our analysis include that upfront vehicle cost as well
as other upfront costs (e.g., EVSE upfront costs) and operating costs, which we analyze both in
our HD TRUCS analysis (see RIA Chapter 2 for a full discussion) and for our program costs
analysis (see RIA Chapter 3 for a full discussion). In RIA Chapter 2.7 and 2.12, we assessed
payback and total cost of ownership with regard to such purchaser costs. We project the ZEV
upfront vehicle purchaser cost to be similar to or lower than the price of comparable ICE
vehicles for some vehicle types. See, e.g., RIA Chapter 2.9.2. See also various studies cited by
362 EDF, New Study Finds Rapidly Declining Costs for Zero-Emitting Freight Trucks and Buses (Feb. 10, 2022)
Available at: https://www.edf.org/media/new-study-finds-rapidly-declining-costs-zero-emitting-freight-trucks-and-
buses
739
-------
EDF (summarized in RTC 2.4) projecting price parity for many HDV ZEV applications, in some
cases, before Phase 3 even commences. Additionally, the upfront cost to a purchaser for many
BEVs under the modeled potential compliance pathway would also include supporting depot
charging infrastructure, namely the cost to purchase and install EVSE. Purchaser costs for ZEVs
also include consideration of other operating costs. We also included consideration of tax credits,
as applicable within these various purchaser costs.
Part of the basis for these commenters' assertions is pricing, but they are quoting current HD
ZEV prices, which reflect the prices of primarily initial model years of HD ZEV vehicles. Some
commenters document persuasively that these prices (in our analysis, in RIA Chapter 2,
manufacturer costs and then correspondingly purchaser upfront vehicle costs) will come down
sharply when production volumes increase and later iterations of ZEVs reflecting learning reach
the market in the rule's time frame. The costs that we have used in the proposal and updated for
the final rule analysis come from assessing the best projections currently available including
DOE values as well as values received in comments from manufacturers and manufacturer trade
organizations. See RIA Chapter 2.7 and Preamble Section II.E.6 for further discussion on
payback and payback calculations used in the final rule. Also see RTC Section 19.5 for
additional discussion on purchaser acceptance.
The commenters' assertion that higher purchase "price" (Valero, API, Chevron) and therefore
interest payments (AHUA) of vehicles would by themselves dissuade purchases regardless of
payback is not borne out in the literature. Similarly, Chevron raised concerns about the impact of
high initial purchase price on small companies. In response to comments received on the
proposal, we included financing costs as part of our TCO analysis to reflect that not all vehicles
are purchased outright. See RIA Chapter 2.12. The results of our analysis show that costs for
owning and operating a ZEV will be lower than a comparable ICE vehicle for all MY 2032
BEVs and FCEVs in our technology packages to support the modeled potential compliance
pathway. In fact, all vehicles show several thousands of dollars in net TCO savings at the five-
year point. As EPA has explained in this rulemaking and in previous rulemakings, even where
initial purchase cost is higher, overall purchaser costs can be considered as non-constraining or
supportive when those costs are recovered in a reasonable amount of time. See generally, 81 FR
at 73621-22 (Phase 2 tractor standards) and 73719 (Phase 2 vocational vehicle standards). Long
term payback or savings within the period of first ownership, and positive TCO in that period,
can lead to decisions to purchase, which was also emphasized in many of the public comments.
See Comments of ACEEE and Tesla as well as RIA Chapters 2.7 and 2.12.
The comment that some HD ZEVs will be less effective due to limited range and payload also
reflects current (pre-2024) conditions for some vehicles. This is not reflective of the state of
technology reasonably projected by EPA (and reflected in some manufacturers' comments)
during the rule's timeframe. See, e.g., Tesla's comments that it has already introduced a tractor
with a 500 mile range. See EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1505-A1, p.6. We analyze issues of
payload capacity (see RIA Chapter 2.9.1 and RTC 4.3.2) and range (see RTC 4.3 below) during
the rule's timeframe and find that most vehicles in HD TRUCS would incur a payload loss of
less than 10% as shown in RIA Chapter 2.9.1.1 and that the vehicle types analyzed have a battery
sized to perform one day's worth of work as detailed in RTC 4.3 below. See also our response to
comments on payload in RTC section 3.10.1.
740
-------
With respect to financial incentives in the IRA, EPA does not maintain that these offset all
differences for all vehicle types in purchaser upfront cost, or overall costs. But they certainly
partially defray those costs in instances where they do not offset all differences. As described in
RIA Chapters 2.4.3.5, 2.5.2.3, and 2.6.2.1.2 EPA has appropriately considered that purchasers
will make use of these incentives as applicable, (see also RIA Chapter 2.4.3.1 regarding battery
costs and associated IRA tax credit for manufacturers). Therefore, our manufacturer and
purchaser cost analyses, including payback analysis, for the modeled potential compliance
pathway, reflect some utilization of the applicable tax credits. See RTC 2.7 and sources there
cited.
With respect to federal excise tax, as explained in RIA Chapters 2.4 and 2.5, the final rule
accounts for federal excise tax and state taxes in our costs analysis and continues to find payback
and significant operational savings under the modeled potential compliance pathway.
With respect to whether the upfront purchase price would be passed by HD vehicle purchasers
onto consumers, the final rule does not regulate how and whether any specific fleet operator
passes costs to consumers. However, given the assessment of payback and operational savings,
we expect that the rule will reduce the economic costs of HD vehicle fleets and the work they
perform, such as the cost to transport goods via truck.
NTEA commented with respect to the possibility of delayed purchase of vehicles that comply
with the standards due to their higher cost relative to owners continuing to use a current vehicle.
As discussed in RIA Chapter 6.1.1, this is referred to as "low-buy," a scenario in which there
would be a decrease in HD vehicle sales after the regulation becomes effective. In a low-buy
scenario, sales of HD vehicles would decrease in the months after the regulation becomes
effective, compared to what would have happened in the absence of the regulation, due to
purchasers either pre-buying or delaying a planned purchase. We expect low-buy, to the extent it
might occur, to be mitigated under the same circumstances discussed in RIA Chapter. 6.1.1,
including our payback analysis which shows that any increases in upfront incremental costs to
purchasers will be offset through operational savings in relatively short periods of time (within a
few years of ownership, and within the period of first ownership). We also note that low-buy,
were it to occur, is a short-term phenomenon. With respect to possible purchaser anxiety over
being unable to purchase an ICE vehicle after promulgation of the regulation, we note that these
final standards do not mandate the production or purchase of any particular technology in
vehicles, but rather require that the manufacturer comply with performance-based emission
standards. As described in Preamble Section II.F, we modelled a potential compliance pathway
to meet the standards with a diverse mix of ICE vehicle and ZEV technologies, and also
assessed additional example potential compliance pathways to meet the standards that do not
include increasing utilization of ZEV technologies relative to the reference case. In addition, the
phasing-in of the standards will allow ample time for purchasers to make decisions about their
vehicle of choice and the potential compliance pathway modeled for this rule reflects that the
majority of vehicles will remain ICE vehicles, even in MY 2032. See further discussion in the
preamble for the final rule.
EPA expects the costs of driver training for BEVs to be minimal because for the most part
driving a BEV is very similar to driving an ICE vehicle. The driving methods that help improve
the efficiency of ICE vehicles are the same as the driving methods to extend range of a BEV.
The difference is in the refueling process, but recharging vehicles is conducted successfully by
741
-------
millions of EV drivers daily. Furthermore, the BEV driver benefits from quieter driving
conditions, which should reduce driver fatigue. We also noted the persuasive comments of the
Clean Air Task Force (pp. 71-72) documenting positive driver response to HD BEVs:
"ZEVs have many additional attributes that appeal to drivers and operators. RMI has
recognized that "[a] truck is also an office," explaining that "[t]he operator has to be happy being
in the cab, or else they just quit. Driver retention is a huge problem in trucking." But research by
RMI and NACFE has made clear that "drivers love electric trucks." NACFE research sponsored
by PepsiCo, Cummins, and Shell found that electric trucks are quieter ("no need to crank up the
radio and drivers can hear what's going on around them"); offer better visibility and cleaner,
simpler operation; have smoother torque; have superior air conditioning; and "djriving in traffic
seems easier and safer" Members of the trucking industry have made the following positive
comments about HD ZEV operation:
• "They don't vibrate, they don't smell, they accelerate properly, so you're not constantly
the slow one in traffic off a red light. Drivers don't come home at the end of the day and
feel exhausted or feel like they've been operating a jackhammer for the past eight
hours."
• "The truck is so quiet, everything is smooth. It gives you time to focus on what's going
on around you. With the diesel trucks there's rattling, there's driver fatigue, things you
don't even know are going on. But as soon as I got in the electric truck, I realized this is
the way of the future."
• "EVs won't tow your boat? This beast will actually tow a bloody big boat, and a gross
load of up 44 tonnes. And it will do so with ease. It will also do it in relative silence, with
no crunching of gears, no loud braking, and no emissions .... These huge machines are
remarkably simple to drive. First of all, they are quiet. If you are outside, the noise
reduction is 50 per cent [sic]. If you are inside, the noise reduction is nearly one-third.
That means a lot for the community, and for the well-being and working conditions of the
driver."
• "I've had a positive experience and enjoyed driving the truck. It's a whole different
experience and it's a step up ... . Driving the electric truck is smooth, quiet and it doesn't
shift, so it's smooth from the take off.... The only noise you hear is the little whine
from the motors, the tires rolling down the road and your radio. You kind of get used to it
after a while and have to get back in the diesel to really notice the difference again ....
You're helping the environment and the electric is definitely smoother and quicker.
• "The guys love it, because it's like a Tesla. The truck is quiet."
• "I can't help but think that EVs may be a great way to attract the next generation of both
drivers and technicians. The fact that EVs are 'clean' is a big plus; the fact that they are
'cool' might just be the boost we need to put the driver and technician shortages to bed."
(Citations omitted)
Comments concerning vehicle and upstream emissions are addressed in RTC 17.1 and
Preamble Section II.G.
742
-------
4.3 Range
4.3.1 General EV Range
Comments by Organizations
Organization: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE)
To demonstrate that ACF is realistically achievable, California uses findings from their one-
time fleet reporting requirement for ACT to highlight that most fleets of MDVs and HDVs can
be serviced by ZEV models on the market today. 18 The Initial Statement of Reasons (ISOR)
issued by the Air Resources Board for the ACF regulation finds that the majority of trucks
operating in California drive, on average, less than 100 miles a day and most of the ZEVs
available today have batteries and energy storage systems big enough to satisfy those driving
requirements. 19 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1560-A1, pp. 6 - 7]
Organization: American Highway Users Alliance
Vehicle range is short. Vehicle range for one EV was reported at 150 miles, compared to
1,000 miles and up for a diesel vehicle; the shortage of public charging for EVs and other
alternate fueled vehicles was also cited. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1550-A1, p. 7]
Organization: American Trucking Associations (ATA)
One truck leasing and rental company we spoke with noted that some light-duty commercial
products are available for operations needing only 100 miles of range, but significantly fewer in
heavier weight class applications requiring 200 miles or more. OEMs are currently developing
and testing medium- and heavy-duty vehicles under varying specifications; however, options
remain limited. For example, the introduction of electric power take-off systems is a recently
available technology that utilizes an electric motor to power auxiliary equipment. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1535-A1, p. 8]
Organization: Banks, Ben
Most of the freight we haul is international intermodal, with gross weight ranging from
70,000 to 90,000. With current electric truck capacity, we would have a service radius of 125
miles vs. a current radius of 250+ miles. Additional relay points would be required, and with the
50% reduction in service radius, we would need twice the number of trucks to service lanes that
exist today.
Organization: Lynden Incorporated
An electric truck's range is l/5th that of a diesel truck. This means additional fueling stops,
additional driver time, and in many cases, additional trucks to do the job that a single diesel truck
can do.
Even if the trucks were operationally feasible, they are not economically viable.
743
-------
• Even with generous state and federal subsidies, our analysis shows an increase in
operating costs of between $1 and $4 per mile with an electric truck. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1470-A1, p. 3]
The additional cost associated with the capital investment, loss of payload, reduced range, and
increased labor costs far exceeds any fuel savings that might be achieved with electric trucks,
even with significant subsidies and especially for rural communities. These additional costs will
be passed down to the consumer in the cost of delivered freight which will have a significant
damaging inflationary impact on our customers, small businesses, individuals, and the overall
economy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1470-A1, p. 3]
Recommendations:
• Consider the additional weight of emission reduction options and associated impact on
payload on overall emissions. In other words, trucks that weigh more haul less freight and
must make additional trips producing additional emissions to accomplish the job.
• Create exemptions for applications where 'Zero-Emission Vehicles' are not feasible,
including extreme cold or hot weather, long-range routes, gravel roads, steep grade, rural
communities, and high-horsepower heavy-haul applications. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1470-A1, p. 5]
Organization: Valero Energy Corporation
Current BEV technology is not suitable for long-haul trucks. Considering the present lithium-
ion battery technology, to achieve a range of 600 miles, a battery pack on a long-haul truck
would need to store 1,200 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of energy, weigh 6,300 kilograms (13,900
pounds), have a volume of 2,700 liters (95 cubic feet), and cost about $180,000.107 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 24]
107 Assumes a battery pack energy density of 170 Wh/kg. Burke, Andrew, Assessment of Requirements,
Costs, and Benefits of Providing Charging Facilities for Battery-Electric Heavy-Duty Trucks at Safety
Roadside Rest Areas: A Research Report from the National Center for Sustainable Transportation, at page I
(Feb. 2022) https://ncst.ucdavis.edu/research-product/assessment-requirements-costs-and-benefits-
providing-charging-facilities-battery.
At a range of 150 miles, a long-haul BEV truck would need to stop three times to recharge
over a 600-mile day. Even if a network of 350-kilowatt (kW) fast-chargers was widely available,
charging time would reduce a driver's effective work day by over 2 hours, further requiring an
increase in the number of trucks to maintain the pace and demand of freight services. 109 [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 24]
109 Based on the Volvo Class 8 Box truck, having a range of 150 miles and an energy capacity of 1.75
kWh/mi. Id at 3.
B. EPA has failed to adequately address critical on-road implications of requiring heavy-duty
trucks to be zero emission.
EPA fails to adequately address critical on-road implications of the proposed rule, including
the impact of decreased payload capacity and decreased range resulting in a significant increase
in the number of trucks on the road, increased road wear and congestion, and the increased risk
744
-------
of crash-related fatalities to the motoring public. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, pp. 30 -
31]
1. EPA fails to address the impact of HD ZEV's lower payload capacities and decreased range
resulting in a significant increase in the number of heavy-duty trucks on U.S. roadways.
As described in the Biden-Harris Administration Trucking Action Plan to Strengthen
America's Trucking Workforce, 72 percent of goods in the U.S. are moved by truck, placing the
industry at the center of critical supply chains and economic competitiveness. 150 Heavy duty
trucks are used in a wide variety of applications across the US economy, many of which operate
on multi shift schedules and/or 24-7 operations. While today's fleet of heavy-duty vehicles can
fuel up in as little as 15 minutes and can achieve as much as 1,200 miles on a single fueling
event, current HD BEVs have a typical range of 150 to 380 miles, with the very largest battery
systems touting 500-mile ranges, however these systems require 10 or more hours to recharge
before being able to re-engage in the business of hauling freight. 151 Moreover, the batteries
powering HD-BEVs typically weigh 8,000 pounds per battery pack, with a typical configuration
requiring at least two, if not four, packs to achieve the 150 to 380 mile ranges indicated
above. 152 Actual drive time aside, the reduced range coupled with the exorbitant recharge time
required, results in an HD BEV requiring additional transit time of 3.3 to 1.3 days, depending on
range, to cover the same 1,200 miles achieved in only 15 minute of refueling in an ICE heavy-
duty truck. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 31]
150 The Biden-Harris Administration Trucking Plan to Strengthen America's Trucking Workforce, The
White House (Dec. 16, 2021)
151 Verbal testimony of Andrew Boyle before the Unites States Senate Committee on Environment and
Public Works Subcommittee on Clean Air, Climate, and Nuclear Safety, Hearing on "Cleaner Vehicles:
Good for Consumers and Public Health", April 18, 2023
152 Id.
HD BEVs' decreased range (increased transit time due to charging) coupled with the
decreased cargo capacity will result in significant increases (3:2 or even 2:1 increasesl54) in the
number of HDVs required to be on the road to haul the same quantity of cargo, weakening our
critical supply chains and economic competitiveness. The increase in number of trucks will
burden the U.S. roadways and increase risks to all road users, including the commuting public
who transit the nation's highways in LDVs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, pp. 31 - 32]
154 ATA written statement of Andrew Boyle before the Unites States Senate Committee on Environment
and Public Works Subcommittee on Clean Air, Climate, and Nuclear Safety, Hearing on "Cleaner
Vehicles: Good for Consumers and Public Health", April 18, 2023, Page 4
Organization: Zero Emission Transportation Association (ZETA)
A common misconception is that range anxiety continues to pose a significant barrier to
adoption across all vehicle classes. This concern is particularly acute for HDEV operators, as the
average MHDV travels over 100 miles per day. 117 Likewise, trucks with the longest routes drive
a maximum of 600 miles but average closer to 300 miles per day. 118 Figure 6 provides the
average range of various vehicle classes; as many EV models have a similar range, the MHDV
models currently available can meet up to 60% of operational needs. 119 Trucks capable of
traveling longer distances (370 miles) are being produced today and those with ranges greater
745
-------
than 620 miles are expected after 2023.120 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 28.]
[See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, page 28, for Figure 6]
117 "Medium- & Heavy-Duty Vehicles: Market structure, Environmental Impact, and EV Readiness,"
EDF, (July 2021)
http://www.edf.org/sites/default/files/documents/EDFMHDVEVFeasibilityReport22jul21.pdf
118 Id.
119 Id.
120 How Zero-Emission Heavy-Duty Trucks Can Be Part of the Climate Solution," CALSTART, (May
2021) https://calstart.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/How-Zero-Emission-Heavy-Duty-Trucks-Can-Be-
Part-of-the-Climate-Solution.pdf
EPA Summary and Response:
Summary:
EPA received many comments about the range of electric vehicles. Two commenters
expressed support for the ranges of current vehicles and the ability of current BEVs to meet the
majority of operational needs: ACEEE commented that the average VMT in California is just
over 100 miles, and that this mileage can be met by currently available BEVs. They also
commented that the market for BEVs will only improve over time with additional models and
more options for range. ZETA commented that the average MHDV travels over 100 miles per
day and current BEVs can meet 60% of operational needs, and that BEVs with 370 miles of
range already exist and BEVs with ranges in excess of 620 miles are expected after 2023.
EPA received comments from multiple stakeholders expressing concern about the range of
current HD BEVs and how the range of these current BEV applications fail to match the range of
corresponding ICEVs (AHUA, ATA, API, Chevron, Ben Banks, Lynden Inc, SD DANR, and
Valero). AHUA raised a concern that range for one EV was reported at 150 miles when
compared to a comparable diesel vehicle with a range of 1,000 miles. ATA was concerned about
the availability of different models with 200 miles of range. API was concerned about additional
trips or more work required due to limited battery range and long charging times which can be
affected by ambient temperature and road grade among other factors. Chevron was concerned
about the increased downtime for electric vehicles due to battery charging which is caused by
limited range. They were also concerned about the effect of cold ambient temperatures having a
negative impact on the rate of charge and vehicle range. They also stated that these factors
contribute to reduced efficiency in the trucking industry requiring additional trucks, drivers, and
trips to deliver the same amount of freight.
Ben Banks was concerned that current electric trucks would halve his service radius from
250+ miles to 125 miles and this would lead to double the relay points and double the number of
trucks to continue their current operations. Lynden Inc. and Valero were concerned that the range
of an electric truck range is significantly less than that of a comparable diesel truck which would
require additional fueling stops, driver time, and additional trucks to complete the same amount
of work as a diesel truck. The South Dakota Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources
was also concerned with the range of electric trucks. They cited an unnamed study that purported
EVs consistently do not achieve EPA range estimates. They also cited an unnamed report that
claimed EV batteries will degrade between 10 and 40 percent over 10 years which leads to depth
of discharge limitations further decreasing battery range. They expressed further concern over
746
-------
the effect of ambient weather conditions saying vehicle range can be reduced between 20 and 40
percent as well as reduce the reliability of EVs.
Response:
EPA appreciates the additional sources provided by ACEEE and ZETA on daily VMT that
support that, even today, several vehicle applications are suitable for BEVs based on VMT and
available models and that the operating range of the most recently released HD BEVs is higher
than previous models.
EPA appreciates the comments that raised concern about the range of BEVs and the effects
this could have on the trucking industry. We note that many of these comments referenced pre-
2024 models which are not reflective of projected (and more recent) HDV applications. We note
as well that the comments assume depot charging in all cases, reflecting EPA's proposal;
however, in response to consideration of comments, as described in RIA Chapter 2, EPA is now
including consideration of en route charging for certain applications with the highest daily VMT
in the HD TRUCS analysis. In the analysis performed for this rulemaking on the payback of
BEVs, for the majority of the vehicles, we sized the battery to meet the 90th percentile daily
VMT. Further discussion on the 90th percentile VMT can be found in RIA Chapter 2.2.1.2.2. and
Section 3.3.1 of the RTC. Battery sizing also accounts for the depth of discharge as well as
battery degradation through the number of cycles each battery will see over 10 years (see Section
3 of the RTC responding to the issue of how our cycling metric reasonably accounts for battery
degradation without needing battery replacement under the HD TRUCS analysis.)
For the longest range day cabs and sleeper cabs that are assessed using public charging, on
days when these vehicles are required to travel longer distances, we find that less than 30
minutes of mid-day charging at 1 MW is sufficient to meet the HD TRUCS 90th percentile VMT
assuming vehicles start the day with a full battery. For further discussion on en-route charging,
see RIA Chapter 2.6.3 and Section 3.4.3 of the RTC. For further discussion on slip seating see
our response in section 4.3.3 below.
Since issuance of the NPRM, EPA has completed further analysis on the effects of payload
caused by a change in powertrain weight between a BEV and ICE vehicle.363 This analysis was
undertaken to show that under the modeled potential compliance pathway impacts on payload
are minimal and will not require additional trips for a BEV to complete the same amount of work
as ICE vehicles. For a comprehensive discussion on this topic see RIA Chapter 2.9.1.1.
We address comments regarding the effects of ambient weather conditions in section 4.3.2
below.
363 See Landgraf, Michael. Memorandum to docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985. "HD GHG Phase 3 Rule BEV Payload
Analysis". February 29, 2024.
747
-------
4.3.2 Effects of Ambient Temperature on Range
Comments by Organizations
Organization: American Petroleum Institute (API)
HD ZEVs are currently not available in sufficient quantities or at affordable levels to
significantly displace ICEVs. Further, the cost to purchase a ZEV is currently prohibitive - not
only is the purchase price currently higher than that of an ICEV, some fleet owners and operators
are finding that HD ZEVs result in more work or trips needed to accomplish the same task as
with an ICEV. This is largely due to battery range and charging, but can also be affected by
temperature, road grade, and other factors. A study by ATA noted vehicle and fleet owner
concerns with regard to total cost of ownership, despite IRA and BIL funding. 13 14 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1617-A1, p. 10.]
Organization: Chevron
Trucking utilization is also affected by the increased downtime required for recharging battery
electric vehicles. A BEV truck may be idle for several hours while recharging the batteries and
may have to recharge more frequently due to range limitations. Cold ambient temperatures can
also affect the rate of charge and available range. All of these factors will have a negative impact
on efficiency, requiring more trucks, drivers, and trips to deliver the same quantity of
cargo. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1552-A1, p.5]
Organization: Lynden Incorporated
Lynden operates in some of the harshest conditions in Alaska and the Pacific Northwest
where reliability is a safety issue for both drivers and customers who depend on delivery of
critical goods and services. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1470-A1, p. 2]
For example, a routine Lynden route between Fairbanks and Prudhoe Bay, Alaska traverses
the Dalton Highway: a 414-mile-long treacherous, mostly gravel road, with grades of more than
12%, limited resources and only three fuel stops. A truck running out of battery in minus 50
degrees Fahrenheit on this route is not an option. The extreme temperatures combined with
auxiliary heating needs, would reduce the range by at least 30%2, increase charging time, and
diminish battery life3. To provide electric charging facilities in these remote, off-grid conditions
would prove completely unrealistic and would require diesel generators to produce the electricity
- a process that is far less efficient than a diesel-powered truck. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1470-A1, p. 2]
2 Study: Winter & Cold Weather EV Range Loss in 7,000 Cars (December 2022).
https://www.recurrentauto.com/research/winter-ev-range-loss
3 Extreme temperatures affect Electric Truck Batteries. (April 2019).
https://www.ttnews.com/articles/extreme-temps-affect-electric-truck-batteries
748
-------
Organization: Morales, Jorge
How will these EVs retain charge in extreme climate States or when traveling through
multiple different climates on one trip? Have you ever used a battery charged device in the
extreme cold winter of North Dakota or Minnesota? Or tried to start anything outside when there
is a Polar Vortex reaching through the entire Midwest? It's quite challenging for batteries to
retain charge during extreme cold or heat. When that happens, how will Evs allow people to get
to work? Sounds like people living paycheck to paycheck will no longer have the means to
reliably get to work if they don't have access to a garage. I understand its not requiring people in
the blink of an eye to purchase EVs, however these are the unintended consequences and the
concerns that are not being addressed while EPA/individual States/certain political
administrations push a hot button item to "look good". [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1691.html, p.
1]
Organization: National Association of Convenience Stores (NACS), NATSO, and SIGMA
Further, ambient temperatures can influence the battery performance of electric vehicles. In
northern states, fleets that operate in cold weather conditions will have to account for slowed
chemical and physical reactions in truck batteries, leading to significantly longer charging times
and a temporary reduction in range.13 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1603-A1, p. 6]
13 See AMERICAN TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE, 'Understanding the C02 Impacts of
Zero-Emission Trucks,' (May 3, 2022) available at https://truckingresearch.org/2022/05/understanding-the-
co2-impacts-of-zero-emission-trucks/. Evs lose significant range in cold weather and Consumer Reports
has found that driving short trips with frequent stops in cold weather can reduce EV range by as much as 50
percent. See also Jeff S. Bartlett and Gabe Shenhar, Consumer Reports, 'How Temperature Affects Electric
Vehicle Range' (Aug. 22, 2022) available at https://www.consumerreports.org/cars/hybrids-evs/how-
temperature-affects-electric-vehicle-range-a4873569949/.
Organization: South Dakota Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources (DANR)
Electric Vehicle Battery and Range Limitations
South Dakota is a large state with significant driving distance between many of our
communities. Although several new electrical vehicles indicate they have a 200 mile or greater
range (note - it is 224 miles one way from Pierre to Sioux Falls), a recent study shows electric
vehicles (Evs) do not consistently achieve EPA's range estimates. In addition, all batteries
degrade over time. Reports indicate EV vehicle batteries will degrade between 10 and 40 percent
over a 10-year life span. To maintain the battery's life, manufactures recommend batteries are
not frequently depleted below 10 percent capacity or charged above 90 percent capacity. This
means that an electrical vehicle should be limited to 80 percent of its capacity range to maintain
the battery's life. In addition, cold, hot, and windy weather conditions may reduce an EV
vehicle's range between 20 to 40 percent and may further impact the reliability of EV. South
Dakota is known to have cold and windy winters and hot and windy summers, which, with
current EV ranges, batteries conditions, and availability of charging stations, makes widespread
use of EV s impractical in South Dakota. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1639-A2, p. 2]
Public Safety
749
-------
This past year South Dakota had a long, harsh winter. During the previous two winters the
South Dakota Department of Transportation (DOT) maintenance crews covered about 1.4
million miles and used about 540,000 gallons of diesel fuel. This past winter, DOT totaled 3.2
million miles, used about one million gallons of fuel, and clocked approximately 178,000 man-
hours to keep our roads safe. DANR is concerned the proposed emissions standards and push to
heavy-duty vehicle EV use could significantly limit DOT's and South Dakota municipalities'
ability to keep our roads safe during winter conditions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1639-A2,
p. 2]
Organization: The Sulphur Institute (TSI)
One last area we would like to address is that many refineries and gas plants are located in
areas not well suited for electric vehicles, especially in states that are rural, are at high altitude, or
both. Long distance travel and extreme temperature ranges can significantly impact EV range
and the ability of the sulphur truck fleets to access refineries for sulphur loading and
transport. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1624-A1, p. 2]
Organization: Valero Energy Corporation
Extreme climate conditions have been shown to significantly reduce the battery range and
efficiency of BEVs.122 In the proposal, EPA acknowledges that "[c]old temperatures, in
particular, can result in reduced mobility of the lithium ions in the liquid electrolyte inside the
battery; for the driver, this may mean lower range." Further, battery thermal management is also
necessary "during hot ambient temperatures to keep the battery from overheating." 123 In fact, a
yearlong study conducted by the Gunnison County Electric Association using a Chevrolet Bolt
found that at temperatures of 1 to 32 degrees Fahrenheit, the Bolt performed at only 80% of the
EPA estimated average battery range; at -8 degrees Fahrenheit, the Bolt performed at only 37%
of the EPA estimated average battery range. 124 Although this study examined a smaller batter
used in light-duty vehicle, the results at minimum suggest that the cold-weather performance of
larger batteries used in heavy-duty vehicles warrants further study. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1566-A2, pp. 27]
122 See Jon Witt, Winter & Cold Weather EV Range Loss in 7,000 Cars; RECURRENT, Dec. 12, 2022,
https://www.recurrentauto.com/research/winter-ev-range-loss; see also 20 popular Evs tested in Norwegian
winter conditions, NORWEGIAN AUTOMOBILE FEDERATION, Mar. 12, 2020,
https://www.naf.no/elbil/aktuelt/elbiltest/ev-winter-range-test-2020/.
123 EPA's HD Phase 3 GHG Proposal at 25961.
124 See https://energynews.us/2019/08/12/in-colorado-electric-vehicle-ambitions-meet-extreme-peaks-and-
weather/.
EPA Summary and Response:
Summary:
Several commenters were concerned about the effects of extreme weather conditions on
battery range due to temperature and environmental effects such as elevation and high wind.
These commenters also raised the issue of effect on batteries of HVAC systems used for cabin
heating (API, Chevron, Jorge Morales, Lynden Inc., NACS, SD DANR, TSI, and Valero Energy
750
-------
Corp). They asserted that the already limited range of BEVs would also be impacted by the low
number of chargers in remote locations.
Response:
As EPA noted at proposal, temperature can have an influence on the performance of the
battery. DRIA at 29. We acknowledge concerns about the effects of low temperatures on battery
range, including due to the additional use of heaters, as well as the effect of low temperatures on
charging speed. In the analysis performed for the NPRM using HD TRUCS, we took into
account the mileage weighted ambient temperature for commercial vehicles in the United States
and used these values to estimate the additional energy required to condition both the cabin and
batteries of each vehicle in HD TRUCS. This method accounts for the temperature variation
vehicle miles traveled for heavy duty vehicles; while some miles are traveled in the 30 F and
below or 80 F and above, most vehicle miles traveled for heavy duty vehicles are in the milder
temperatures, following a bell-curve shape. Energy consumption from HVAC systems follows
the inverse shape, where highest consumption occurs at the higher and lower temperatures.
Temperature-weighting over the nation accounts for the higher energy consumption from high
and low ambient temperature as well as the limited miles traveled in those climate extremities.
This methodology did not include the effects of windy weather on the energy consumption of
ZEVs. Based on the literature that we reviewed and comments we received, no data was found
on the effects of wind on the range of ZEVs so this effect was not a part of our analysis.
This method of analysis is maintained for the FRM with an adjustment for HVAC use and
battery conditioning in higher temperatures. While the energy consumption calculated in HD
TRUCS differs from the value estimated for the extremes of heating and cooling, it represents
the majority of vehicles on the road today. We expect that fleets operating in the extremes of the
of the United States, whether it be temperature, altitude, or remoteness, will adopt ZEVs more
slowly than most areas of the country where the extremes are more moderate, and our modeled
potential compliance pathway includes ICE vehicles for all subcategories in all model years.
Furthermore, as explained in preamble Section II.F.l, the composition of the overall HD on-road
fleet in future years with the final rule under our modeled potential compliance pathway and
accounting for ZEVs in the reference case, is projected to include the following:
• In 2027: 1 percent of the on-road fleet are ZEVs
• In 2032: 7 percent of the on-road fleet are ZEVs
• In 2040: 22 percent of the on-road fleet are ZEVs
This leaves a significant portion of the HD fleet as ICE vehicles. Under this analysis, there
would be ample opportunities for ICE vehicles to be utilized in those certain areas with
temperature and environmental extremes. See RIA chapter 2.4.1.1.1 (effects of HVAC) and
2.4.1.1.2 (effects of temperature generally).
We disagree with the comment regarding high altitudes having a negative effect on ZEVs.
ZEVs provide multiple benefits compared to ICE vehicles at high elevations. ZEVs do not
require combustion for tractive power so they maintain full power at any elevation. When
transporting commodities from high elevation to low elevation, ZEVs can take advantage of
regenerative braking systems while transporting goods from the refineries and use that energy
while returning to the original or different location with potentially no load.
751
-------
4.3.3 Hours of Service and Slip-Seating
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Banks, Ben
We currently operate 320 day cab tractors in the southeast, with 434 drivers. So, we 'slip-seat'
trucks, assigning a day shift and night shift driver in many trucks. With BEV's, we would need
down time to charge, so we would need to purchase an additional 114 trucks to provide a tractor
for every driver.
Organization: Hill Bros. Inc.
Subject: Battery powered trucks will not work for expedited team freight
1. Surface transportation truck lanes that require team operations due to time constraints
cannot wait for battery charging. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1461-A1, p. 1]
Organization: Valero Energy Corporation
EPA's proposed HD GHG Phase 3 rule will not only require an increase in the number of
trucks to accommodate HD EV charging, but an increase in the number of truck drivers as well
in order to comply with federal hours-of-service regulations. The United States Department of
Transportation's Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration ("FMCSA") regulates the number
of hours commercial drivers may drive and work per day and week. According to the 11-hour
driving limit, a property-carrying driver may drive a maximum of 11 hours after 10 consecutive
hours off duty. 110 And per the 14-hour rule, a property-carrying driver may not drive beyond the
14th consecutive hour after coming on duty, following 10 consecutive hours off duty. 111 Given
the time intensity of EV charging, additional drivers will be needed to ensure HD fleets'
charging needs are satisfied while complying with the applicable hours-of-service regulations.
For independent operators, the time spent charging will directly impact their revenues. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 24]
110 See https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/regulations/hours-service/summary-hours-service-regulations.
111 Id.
EPA Summary and Response:
Summary:
A few commenters stated that the need for long haul BEVs to recharge could significantly
reduce range available when slip-seating. (Ben Banks and Hills Bros. Inc.) Ben Banks also
commented that his company would have to purchase additional trucks to be able to provide a
tractor for every driver in their operation to allow for operation with vehicles that perform both
day and night shift operation. Valero also expressed concerns about how the time to charge
electric vehicles would interfere with hours of service regulations and reduce driving time which
would necessitate additional trucks and drivers to perform the same amount of work as ICE
vehicles.
752
-------
Response:
Three commenters challenged EPA's assumption at proposal that tractor daily range for a
single shift is inherently limited by the need for drivers to operate a specified number of hours.
See DRIA at 117. Two commenters noted that drivers can "slip-seat" - that is, a second driver
takes the place of the first so that the vehicle can operate more or less continuously. We note that
in our analysis for the proposal, we predicted that the first adopters of HD ZEVs would be single
shift operations and generally be able return to base for depot charging. DRIA at 209. However,
in response to comments, in developing a potential compliance pathway for tractors for the final
rule, EPA is now projecting en route charging for certain applications with the highest daily
VMT, including long-haul tractors.
Specifically, we have assumed that certain BEV tractors would use en-route charging. In our
analysis in HD TRUCS, we have calculated the amount of time it would take to charge these
vehicles, and with less than 30 minutes of charge time, would be able to increase their
operational range to the 90th percentile daily VMT. For the longest range day cabs and sleeper
cabs, on days when these vehicles are required to travel longer distances, we find that less than
30 minutes of mid-day charging at 1 MW is sufficient to meet the HD TRUCS 90th percentile
VMT. The cost of en route charging infrastructure has been included in our analysis by using a
higher electricity price for en route charging than for depot charging. See RIA Chapters
2.2.1.2.2, 2.4.2.2, and 2.6.3.
For fleets that utilize slip seating and are unable to meet their daily operational requirements
with ZEVs even with en-route charging as outlined in the previous paragraph, we expect that
they will continue to operate ICE vehicles. Commenters did not provide data on the number of
fleets that use slip seating, and it is our understanding that only a portion of fleets, specifically a
portion of tractors, use this type of operational model. To reflect this our modeled compliance
pathway is based on a mix of ZEV and ICE vehicles, and we project in this technology package
that the majority of sleeper cabs and day cabs will remain ICE vehicles. In MY 2027, the
modeled pathway projects that 5% of day cabs will be ZEVs while the Phase 2 standards for
sleeper cabs will be unchanged until MY 2030 when the Phase 3 standards will take effect. We
project that ZEV technology will have matured by MY2032 and project 40% day cabs and 25%
of sleeper cabs will be ZEVs under the modeled potential compliance pathway. We consequently
have not included a cost for lost operating time where slip seating is utilized. Furthermore, as
explained in preamble Section II.F. 1, the composition of the overall HD on-road fleet in future
years with the final rule under our modeled potential compliance pathway and accounting for
ZEVs in the reference case, is projected to include the following:
• In 2027: 1 percent of the on-road fleet are ZEVs
• In 2032: 7 percent of the on-road fleet are ZEVs
• In 2040: 22 percent of the on-road fleet are ZEVs
This leaves a significant portion of the new HDV fleet as ICE vehicles, even without taking
into account the overwhelming percentage of HD ICE vehicles in the current on-highway heavy
duty fleet.
For a response to additional vehicles being required to perform the same amount of work as
comparable ICE vehicles, see RTC 4.3.1.
753
-------
4.3.4 Alternative Battery Chemistry
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Moving Forward Network (MFN) et al.
11.1.3.2. Technological advancements resulting in decreased mineral demand can also further
decrease battery costs
In addition to the substitution of lithium discussed above, advanced lithium-ion batteries, such
as solid-state or lithium-air batteries, could decrease the amount of lithium required to provide
the same kWh and miles. Innovation will increase battery specific energy and energy density,
therefore reducing the amount of materials needed as well as battery cost. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 93]
Solid-state battery startups such as QuantumScape 196 are already partnering with automakers
to ensure the technology is suitable for EVs. Quantumscape has partnered with Ford and BMW
and begun shipping their batteries for trial in 2022. 197 Solid-state batteries have increased
specific energy, with Quantumscape reporting their Li-Metal NMC batteries having up to 400
Wh/kg or 1,100 Wh/L depending on the anode. This increase is graphically represented in Figure
25 below, which was produced by QuantumScape. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 93.]
[See Figure 25 Energy Density Improvements as Projected by QuantumScape located on p. 94 of
docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1.]
196 QuantumScape. Delivering on the promise of solid-state technology. (2023).
https://www.quantumscape.com/technology/
197 Steve Hanley. Solid Power & QuantumScape Begin Shipping Solid-State Batteries For Trials.
CleanTechnica. (2022). https://cleantechnica.com/2022/12/22/solid-power-quantumscape-begin-shipping-
solid-state-batteries-for-trials/
198 Ding, Y., Cano, Z.P., Yu, A. et al. Automotive Li-Ion Batteries: Current Status and Future
Perspectives. Electrochem. Energ. Rev. 2, 1-28 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41918-018-0022-z
199 Yang, Xiaofei, et al. "Recent advances and perspectives on thin electrolytes for high-energy-density
solid-state lithium batteries." Energy & Environmental Science 14.2 (2021). p. 643-671.
Sodium-ion batteries are also making their way to the market and providing an alternative to
lithium minerals and potentially reducing future lithium demand. CATL, the world's largest EV
battery maker, invested in the technology in 2021 200 and in China the batteries go on sale later
this year in the Chery iCAR. Globally there are 20 sodium battery factories under construction or
planned around the world, demonstrating the uptake of this technology. 201 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 94]
200 Magdalena Petrova. Here's why sodium-ion batteries are shaping up to be a big technology
breakthrough. CNBC. (2023). https://www.cnbc.eom/2023/05/10/sodium-ion-batteries-shaping-up-to-be-
big-technology-
breakthrough.html#:~:text=The%20technology%20is%20now%20getting,supply%20chain%20by%20this
%20year.
201 Steve Hanley. The Sodium-Ion Battery Is Coming To Production Cars This Year. CleanTechnica.
(2023). https://cleantechnica.com/2023/04/22/the-sodium-ion-battery-is-coming-to-production-cars-this-
year/
754
-------
Organization: Volvo Group
iii. Alternative chemistries
As battery manufacturing and recycling ramps up, so too does the development of innovative
alternative battery chemistries that will transform the range, durability, and cost of HDEVs. One
chemistry with particular promise is that of lithium iron phosphate (LFP) batteries, touted for its
potential application in MHD contexts. 111 LFP batteries do not require nickel or cobalt,
reducing cost, and reportedly generate 15% less emissions during manufacturing. 112
Importantly, LFP batteries have twice as many charge cycles in their useful vehicle
life. 113 [EPA-HQ-0AR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 27]
111 "Driving Sustainability with Evolving Battery Chemistries," Chris Nevers, accessed May 18, 2023
https://www.zeta2030.org/insights/driving-sustainability-with-evolving-battery-chemistries
112 Id.
113 Id.
Another potentially promising technology is sodium-ion batteries. In April 2023,
Contemporary Amperex Technology Co. Limited (CATL)—the world's largest battery
producer—said its first sodium-ion battery would power electric vehicles built by Chinese brand
Chery. 114 Because they substitute lithium for sodium, sodium-ion batteries tend to be cheaper
and may have significant applications for lower-range EVs. However, their commercial viability
will likely be determined by lithium prices going forward. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2022-0985-2429-A1,
p. 27]
114 "What If Your Tesla Could Run on Sodium?" Wall Street Journal, (April 19, 2023) accessed May 17,
2023 https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-if-your-tesla-could-run-on-sodium-3cl8df30
The Department of Energy's SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory 115 and Stanford
University recently announced the launch of a new joint battery center at SLAC. 116 It will bring
together the resources and expertise of the national lab, the university, and Silicon Valley to
accelerate the deployment of batteries and other energy storage solutions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-2429-A1, p. 28]
115 "SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory," DOE Office of Enterprise Assessments, accessed May 17,
2023 https://www.energy.gov/ea/slac-national-accelerator-laboratory
116 "New Battery Center Launches In USA," CleanTechnica, (April 13, 2023)
https://cleantechnica.com/2023/04/13/new-battery-center-launches-in-usa/
iv. Range and durability
In the LDV segment, a recent study found that a majority of EVs retain at least 90 percent of
their original range capacity left even after driving more than 100,000 miles—a testament to
battery durability. 122 While HDVs operate under different duty cycles and applications, there is
good reason to believe advances in LDV battery technologies and durabilities will extend into
other vehicle classes. CATL—recently announced a new "condensed" battery with 500 Wh/kg.
CATL expects to start mass production of the model in 2023,123 and such an increase in battery
capacity will benefit HDEVs in an outsized way. Bloomberg recently reported that the average
range for a U.S. EV in the U.S. has quadrupled since 2011. In 2022, it stood at 291 miles and
today is a third higher than the global average. 124 Policies such as EPA's emissions standards
755
-------
are critical to helping maintain the U.S.'s position as a global leader. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-2429-A1, p. 29.]
122 "New Study: How Long Do Electric Car Batteries Last?" Recurrent Auto, (March 27, 2023)
https://www.recurrentauto.com/research/how-long-do-ev-batteries-last
123 "World's largest battery maker announces major breakthrough in energy density," TheDriven, (April
21, 2023) https://thedriven.io/2023/04/21/worlds-largest-battery-maker-announces-major-breakthrough-in-
battery-density
124 "US Electric Cars Set Record With Almost 300-Mile Average Range," Bloomberg, (March 9, 2023)
https://www.bloomberg.eom/news/articles/2023-03-09/average-range-for-us-electric-cars-reached-a-
record-291 -miles#xj 4y 7vzkg
EPA Summary and Response:
Summary:
At least two commenters, including MFN and Volvo Group, noted other battery chemistries
including lithium iron phosphate, sodium-ion and a new "condensed" battery will improve the
range of electric vehicles, lower cost, increase durability and reduce critical minerals required for
battery production.
Response:
We agree with the commenters that battery chemistry and technology will continue to
improve from today's reported values. This could have positive implications not only for specific
energy and energy density, but for critical mineral utilization as well, since some of these
chemistries are less dependent on minerals currently evaluated as critical. See Preamble Section
II.D.2.ii.c and RTC 17.2. The final rule projects a 50/50 mix of nickel-based (NMC) and iron-
phosphate based (LFP) battery chemistries for 2027-2032 to analyze cost, specific energy, and
energy density as parameters for demonstrating reasonableness and feasibility, since both
chemistries are widely used for transportation applications today. We recognize that future
chemistries under development, such as sodium-ion, may prove advantageous to the existing,
commercial-scale chemistries we considered, so they may result in improvements to cost,
specific energy, and energy density beyond what we anticipate in this final rule.
4.3.5 Towing Capacity
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Morales, Jorge
Have you researched towing capacity of EVs? How are people supposed to be expected to
transport horses, cows, sheep, etc. What would take an 8hr drive towing would almost triple the
drive due to needing to stop and recharge. You're unintentionally driving the economy
backwards to local markets only, because the EVs don't have long enough battery charge to
sustain long distance driving. Or will we all be required to bring back up batteries while driving?
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1691.html, p. 1]
756
-------
EPA Summary and Response:
Summary:
Jorge Morales expressed concern over the range of a BEV when towing and how that will
affect the trucking industry.
Response:
First, we note that Class 2b and 3 complete pickups and vans are not included in this Phase 3
rulemaking. In the analysis for HD vehicle at issue in this rule, each vehicle had an assumed
payload that corresponds to the value used in the GEM 2 compliance tool and can be found in the
Tables in RIA Chapter 2.2.2.1.1. These values were used in the proposal and have been retained
for the final rule. The vehicles covered in this rule are engine certified vehicles from class 2b-3
through class 8. Since we used the GEM values for payload, we model tractors towing trailers.
The payload used for these vehicles includes additional mass from the curb weight of the vehicle
to simulate commercial use. For example, LHD vehicles have an assumed mass of 16,000
pounds. This is about 8,000 pounds more than a typical Class 4 dual rear wheeled pickup truck
that has a curb weight of about 8,000 pounds.364 This could reflect, for instance, the vehicle
towing a significant load nearing 8,000 pounds. As long as the combined weight of the vehicle,
trailer, and cargo is at or below the assumed mass of the vehicle modeled for the rule, the vehicle
should perform as well as or better than the modeled vehicle with respect to energy consumption.
The assumptions we used in our analysis for daily VMT will not be the same for every fleet or
operator. Most vehicles were sized to accommodate the 90th percentile VMT based on the
datasets we used. See RIA Chapter 2.2.1.2 for more information on how the VMT was calculated
for each vehicle type. Since we did not take into account every possibility for daily range, our
modeled potential compliance pathway projects that ICE vehicles will still be sold during the
timeframe of the rule, including at a rate of 40% for LHD vehicles in MY 2032.
4.4 Intentionally Left Blank
4.5 Intentionally Left Blank
4.6 Vehicle Weight
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Bradbury, Steven G.
Increasing highway infrastructure costs. Similarly, the cost of increased wear and tear on
highway infrastructure, including the cost of increased frequency of required repairs, should also
be recognized in the proposals. If, as EPA envisions, EVs were to comprise more than half of
new light-duty vehicle sales, and if a large percentage of new medium- and heavy-duty trucks
were battery powered, that would have a definite negative impact on highway infrastructure. The
batteries in EVs are heavy, and, as a consequence, EVs tend to be considerably heavier than
comparably sized ICE vehicles. The greater weight of EVs would cause faster wear and tear on
364 https://www.ford.com/trucks/super-duty/models/f450-xlt/
757
-------
highways if the number of EVs on the road were to increase significantly. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-2427-A2, p. 19]
Organization: Clean Air Task Force et al.
While batteries add weight to vehicles, that incremental weight is unlikely to meaningfully
affect HD BEVs' safety performance or their impact on roads and road safety infrastructure.
Heavy-duty vehicles, no matter their powertrain type, are just that: heavy. Weight-related safety
issues are universal to all heavy-duty vehicles. And federal interstate highway laws already
prohibit BEVs from weighing more than 2,000 pounds in excess of comparable vehicles, capping
their maximum weight at 82,000 pounds (compared to 80,000 pounds for combustion
vehicles).257 As heavy-duty BEVs come onto the market in increasing numbers, federal, state,
and local authorities can further modify vehicle weight and other road safety standards as
appropriate. Furthermore, anticipated developments in solid state batteries258 and other weight-
reducing technologies259 hold promise for achieving future reductions in BEV weight. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985- 1640-A1, p. 60]
257 23 U.S.C. § 127(s).
258 See generally Sebastian Blanco, The Future ofSolid-State Batteries, J.D. Power (Apr. 3, 2023),
https://www.jdpower.com/cars/shopping-guides/the-future-of-solid-state-batteries; Chris Teague, What You
Need To Know About Solid-State Batteries, Autoweek,
https://www.autoweek.com/news/technology/a36189339/solid-state-batteries/ (last visited June 15, 2023).
259 See generally Michael Bull, Mass Reduction and Performance of PEV and PHEV Vehicles (undated),
https://www-esv.nhtsa.dot.gov/Proceedings/22/files/22ESV-000346.pdf; Stanley, How Electric Vehicle
Light-weighting is Changing the Automotive Industry,
https://www.stanley engineeredfastening.com/en/News%20and%20Stories/How%20Electric%20 Vehicle%2
0Light-weighting%20is%20Changing%20the%20Automotive%20Industry (last visited June 15, 2023).
Organization: Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA)
OOIDA has consistently opposed increases to federal truck size and weight standards. The
U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) has long studied the impact of various longer and
heavier truck configurations on interstate and U.S. highways and found that the additional cost of
damage to both roads and bridges would require billions of dollars in new federal spending. As
BEV development evolves, we are learning that battery components can be much heavier than
traditional combustion engine parts. Federal regulations limit CMVs to 80,000 pounds; we've
seen reports that truck batteries can weigh up to 16,000 pounds. For example, the Freightliner
eCascadia electric semi-truck, which was released in 2022, weighs up to 4,000 pounds more than
a regular diesel truck.7 On the other hand, permitting higher weight allowances would shift
freight from other modes onto American highways, worsening congestion rather than helping to
alleviate it. DOT has also found thousands of bridges on our Interstate system that would be
overstressed by heavier CMVs, causing damage to many spans that are already considered
structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1632-A1, p. 4]
Organization: Volvo Group
The frame rail packaging not only impacts the trailer gap, but also our ability to protect for
bodybuilders' 'clean back of cab' requirements. While the NPRM expects us to move away from
758
-------
carbon-based products, the electrification of multi-purpose vehicles and refuse trucks classified
in the urban subcategory complicates our ability to close the immense power gap required to
drive the bodybuilder functions. Additional battery packs take away from customer payload
while simultaneously creating new concerns around front axle loading to ensure we meet federal
bridge laws. Some body builders have started to incorporate batteries into the body to power all
the hydraulic features, but this is not yet available for all applications within the multipurpose
and urban subcategories. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1606-A1, p. 13]
Similarly, as we look to develop concepts for hydrogen fuel cells and/or internal combustion
engines (ICE), we will face similar space constraints associated with battery electric vehicles.
Heavier weights on the front axle will need to be balanced with limits to customer payload to
ensure bridge law compliance. In this case the weight studies are focused on the hydrogen fuel
tank assemblies and the structure required to mount and protect the tanks in the event of an
accident. With the utmost interest in the safety of our drivers and the surrounding environment,
we must ensure designs can pass the standard frontal crash test. This requires simulation efforts
to ensure all hydrogen is evacuated and properly vented within a fraction of a second upon front
impact. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1606-A1, p. 13]
Organization: Truck Renting and Leasing Association (TRALA)
With respect to infrastructure concerns, the American Society of Civil Engineers' (ASCE)
2021 Infrastructure Report Card gave the nation's roads a 'D' grade and its bridges a 'C'
grade.22 Roads and bridges need continual repair, rebuilding, and investment. Added vehicle
weights and the high torque rates of ZEVs has the potential to accelerate the degradation of our
nation's road networks. TRALA requests further analysis be undertaken to ensure that the
increased use of all on-road ZEVs will not result in any detrimental impacts and unanticipated
costs related to maintaining our nation's existing highway infrastructure. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1577-A1, pp. 15-16]
EPA Summary and Response:
Summary:
Several commenters raised concerns about the weight of BEVs. A number of commenters
maintain that the battery packs needed for heavy-duty applications invariably add considerable
weight, and that these heavier vehicles (in comparison to their ICE counterparts) will necessarily
damage highways and bridges at a rate greater than comparable ICE vehicles. (OOIDA, citing a
Department of Transportation study without identifying it, Steven Bradbury). Other commenters
disputed this, pointing to a maximum weight differential of 2,000 lbs. for the heaviest
applications, plus the financial incentive of BEV OEMs to reduce vehicle weight. (CATF.)
Several commenters expressed concerns over the increased tare weight of ZEVs. The concern
was that the additional weight of the vehicles themselves and the torque from the electric motors
would increase the rate of deterioration of the nation's roads and bridges.
Certain commenters further maintained that added weight of BEVs adversely affect front
axles, with one commenter raising the issue that added weight from the BEV powertrain could
exceed (or pose the potential of exceeding) gross axle ratings and therefore could potentially
violate federal bridge standards. (Volvo) TRALA commented about the impact of the additional
759
-------
torque that ZEVs produce at low motor speeds. The commenter stated that the additional torque
will accelerate roadway deterioration.
Response:
In response to comments concerning the increased tare weight of ZEVs, we note that in our
analysis for this rule, we have targeted ZEVs to perform the same amount of work in a single
shift as comparable ICE vehicles. To this point, not all vehicles in our analysis increased in tare
weight due to the daily VMT requirements of the vehicles we analyzed. See the results of our
payload analysis which calculates the difference in weight between ICE vehicles and BEVs in
RIA Chapter 2.9.1.1. What we have concluded from our analysis is that the tare weight of
vehicles analyzed in HD TRUCS can be both higher or lower than a comparable ICE vehicle
depending on the application and the daily VMT. Most trucks on the road contain some amount
of freight which increases the weight of the vehicle above the tare weight. Because most trucks
do not drive at their tare weight and not all BEVs have a higher tare weight than comparable ICE
vehicles, we can infer that BEVs would not significantly increase the deterioration rate of our
country's roads and bridges and, as shown in the response in section 4.3.1 above, we do not
generally anticipate additional trips will be required for BEVs to perform the same work as
comparable ICE vehicles. As also discussed in RIA Chapter 2.9, we also note that there is a
2000 pound upper bound on the amount a BEV vehicle's maximum gross weight can exceed that
of an ICE vehicle. This is a small relative increase as a percent of the HD vehicle, as HD
vehicles are already heavy. See 23 USC section 127(s). Issues of the relation of weight to
payload are addressed in RIA Chapter 2.9.1.
In response to the comment alleging that the higher torque of electric motors over diesel
engines would deteriorate roadways at a higher rate, we acknowledge that electric motors
generally have more torque than diesel engines at low rpm which allows electric vehicles to
accelerate more quickly, especially when loaded, providing a benefit to the vehicle operator.
Diesel engines, moreover, can also have more or less torque depending on their specifications.
In addition, the electric motors are computer controlled and the amount of torque delivered to the
road can be tailored by software to match that of existing ICE vehicles. The final rule does not
regulate the manufacturer's decisions regarding how they choose to control electric motor
torque. It is up to the manufacturer to decide how much torque is applied by BEVs and by what
rate.365 We lack data to reasonably estimate how different manufacturers will control electric
motor torque, and commenters raising this concern did not provide any such data. Therefore, it
would not be practical for the EPA to estimate roadway deterioration due to the torque of electric
motors.
In response to the comment asserting that the increased front axle weight due to batteries
would necessitate payload reduction to comply with federal bridge laws, we disagree with Volvo
that the federal bridge laws will be a concern, Chapter 1.5.3 of the RIA describes the different
configurations of current BEVs. The elimination of the combustion engine and fuel system will
likely reduce the amount of weight on the front axle and many existing designs for BEVs show
the addition of battery pack spread along the ladder frame, again reducing weight on the front
axle. In addition, Chapter 1.5.5 of the RIA includes a comprehensive list of 180 HD BEV models
expected to be on the market by 2024, ranging from class 3-8 as well as many of the vehicle
365 Dorsch, C., Wang, X. & Kiiciikay. F. Objective Rating of the Launch Behavior of Conventional, Hybrid and
Electric Vehicles. Automot. Innov. 4, 70-80 (2021). Available online: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42154-020-00131-z
760
-------
types covered in HD TRUCS. This shows that there are BEVs available in the near future that
meet federal bridge laws, and we expect this trend to continue through the timeframe of the rule.
EPA appreciates and agrees with the comment from CATF stating that laws already exist that
limit the additional mass that ZEVs can weigh over comparable ICE vehicles. See 23 USC
127(s) noted above. HD trucks are limited by manufacturer GVWR rather than their tare weight
and so will not weigh significantly more than ICE vehicles while loaded, meaning that any effect
on infrastructure will be insignificant. Responses pertaining to payload concerns can be found in
RTC 3.10.1 andRIA Chapter 2.9.1.
4.7 Recycling and Environmental Issues
Comments by Organizations
Organization: American Free Enterprise Chamber of Commerce (AmFree) et al.
EPA asserts that the United States will be able to bolster supply significantly by recycling
minerals from spent batteries that enter the domestic market. See 88 Fed. Reg. at 25,968-69.
That hope is also misplaced, especially given the proposed rule's compressed timeline. Electric-
vehicle batteries cannot be recycled until they are retired. According to the International Energy
Agency, based on "the dates of expected retirement of EV fleets and their battery chemistry
compositions," recycled minerals will be able to supply less than 1 percent of projected global
demand for lithium, less than 1 percent of global projected demand for nickel, and only 2 percent
of global projected demand for cobalt by 2030. Global Supply Chains at 60. And even if those
numbers increase over time, many steps will need to be taken before American companies can
effectively enter the recycling space. That includes establishing "protocol or industry best
practices" on how to collect and transport spent batteries to a recycling center, navigating the
"increasingly complex disassembly" process, and entering earlier phases of the manufacturing
cycle where the recycled materials can actually be used. White House Report at 106, 109-11.
"[WJithout critical material refining and processing and battery manufacturing capacity, the
captured materials from recycling end-of-life batteries will be exported for processing at foreign
facilities and re-imported in the form of processed or manufactured products." Id. at 111. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1660-A1, p. 41]
Organization: American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)
Another critical aspect of the Proposed Rule not comprehensively considered is that recycling
of the battery and related electrical components of BEV is in a state of infancy and poses unique
materials handling and safety challenges. EPA should consider the environmental profiles of
both BEVs and ICEVs in light of the production, operation, and disposal of the vehicle (its useful
life). The following list provides just some of the electric battery disposal-related issues that are
likely to impact the environment and need to be addressed by EPA in the Proposed Rule: [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1659-A2, p. 28]
Battery packs could contribute 250,000 metric tons of waste to landfills for every 1 million
retired BEVs. 103 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1659-A2, p. 28]
103 Kelleher Environmental, "Research Study on Reuse and Recycling of Batteries Employed in Electric
Vehicles: The Technical, Environmental, Economic, Energy and Cost Implications of Reusing and
761
-------
Recycling EV Batteries", (September 2019) available at https://www.api.org/oil-and-natural-gas/wells-
toconsumer/fuels-and-refining/fuels/vehicle-technology-studies.
Less than five percent of lithium-ion batteries, the most common batteries used in BEVs, are
currently being recycled "due in part to the complex technology of the batteries and cost of such
recycling." 104 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1659-A2, p. 28]
104 Gavin Harper, Roberto Sommerville, et al., NATURE, "Recycling lithium-ion batteries from electric
vehicles" (Jan. 21, 2020) available at https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1682-5.
Economies of scale will play a major role in improving the economic viability of recycling.
Currently, cost is the main bottleneck. Increasing collection and sorting rates is a critical starting
point. 105 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1659-A2, p. 28]
105 IEA Report 2022.
The cathode is where the majority of the material value in a lithium-ion battery is
concentrated. Currently, there are numerous cathode chemistries being deployed. Each of these
chemistries needs to be known, and then the appropriate method of recycling identified, which
poses a challenge, as batteries pass through a global supply chain and all materials are not well
tracked. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1659-A2, p. 28]
Lithium can be recovered from existing lithium-ion recycling practices but is not economical
at current lithium prices. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1659-A2, p. 28]
Benchmark forecasts suggest that near-term recyclers are likely to use scrap material from the
increasing number of gigafactories coming online versus used electric vehicle batteries. Scrap is
anticipated to account for 78 percent of recyclable materials in 2025.106 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1659-A2, p. 28]
106 Benchmark Minerals Intelligence, "Battery production scrap to be main source of recyclable material
this decade" (Sept. 5, 2022) available at https://source.benchmarkminerals.com/article/battery-production-
scrap-to-be-main-source-of-recyclable-material-this-decade.
In 2022, Benchmark expected over 30 gigawatt hours of process scrap to be available for
recycling, growing ten-fold across the next decade. Loss rates vary by region and tend to be
higher in earlier years of a gigafactory. 107 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1659-A2, p. 28]
107 Id.
EV batteries are high-cycle batteries and are made to function for approximately 10 years for
a light-duty vehicle, and a shorter time for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1659-A2, p. 29]
EV batteries lose approximately 3 percent of their charging capacity and associated range per
year of operation. These percentages likely are higher for higher mileage utilization for typical
heavy-duty vehicles. EPA has not made any effort to account for battery degradation, and
associated reductions in charging efficiency, charging capacity, customer impacts and
accelerated battery replacement and costs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1659-A2, p. 29]
Many 'spent' EV batteries still have 70-80 percent of their capacity left, which is more than
enough to be repurposed into other uses such as energy storage and other lower-cycle
applications. 108 This will extend the time that batteries and raw materials remain in use and
762
-------
therefore increase the demand for virgin critical minerals. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1659-A2,
P- 29]
108 Engel, H., Hertzke, P., & Siccardo, G. (2019, April). Second-life EV batteries: The newest value pool
in Energy Storage. McKinsey Center for Future Mobility.
https://www.mckinsey.eom/~/media/McKinsey/Industries/Automotive%20and%20Assembly/Our%20Insig
hts/Second%201ife%20EV%20batteries%20The%20newest%20value%20pool%20in%20energy%20storag
e/Second-life-EV-batteries-The-newest-value-pool-in-energy-storage.pdf
Clear guidance on repackaging, certification, standardization, and warranty liability of spent
EV batteries would be needed to overcome safety and regulatory challenges reuse poses at
scale. 109 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1659-A2, p. 29]
109 IEA Report 2022.
Recycling BEV batteries to recover high-value metals has not been proven to a commercial
scale. The majority of analysts are aligned that recycling will not become an integral supplier of
raw materials until the 2030's, and at that point, it only will provide approximately 20 percent of
demand. 110 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1659-A2, p. 29]
110 Benchmark Minerals Intelligence, supra at n. 105.
Acknowledging the fire risks posed by lithium-ion batteries, EPA has recently stated that
ZEV batteries should be handled as hazardous waste in accordance with RCRA universal waste
requirements, further driving up the cost of such recycling efforts and limiting the facilities
qualified to manage used batteries. Ill [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1659-A2, p. 29]
111 Letter from Carolyn Hoskinson, Director, EPA Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery,
"Lithium Battery Recycling Regulatory Status and Frequently Asked Questions," (May 24, 2023).
EPA must, therefore, conduct a full lifecycle analysis to compare all environmental impacts
caused by the proposal. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1659-A2, p. 29]
Organization: American Petroleum Institute (API)
V. Recycling of batteries and related electrical components is in its infancy.
Another critical aspect to be considered with this proposal is that recycling of the battery and
related electrical components of BEVs are in a state of infancy and poses unique materials
handling and safety challenges. The environmental profiles of both BEVs and ICEVs should be
considered in light of the production, operation, and disposal of the vehicle (its useful life).
Electric battery disposal-related issues are likely to impact the environment and need to be
addressed in EPA's proposal:
• Battery packs could contribute 250,000 metric tons of waste to landfills for every 1
million retired BEVs.44
• Less than five percent of lithium-ion batteries, the most common batteries used in BEVs,
are currently being recycled "due in part to the complex technology of the batteries and
cost of such recycling."45
• Economies of scale will play a major role in improving the economic viability of
recycling, which currently cost is the main bottleneck. Increasing collection and sorting
rates is a critical starting point.46
763
-------
• The cathode is where the majority of the material value in a Lithium-ion battery is
concentrated. Currently, there are numerous cathode chemistries being deployed. Each of
these chemistries needs to be known, and then the appropriate method of recycling
identified, which poses a challenge, as batteries pass through a global supply chain and
all materials are not well tracked.
• Lithium can be recovered from existing Lithium-ion recycling practices, but it is not
economical at current lithium prices. Cobalt, one of the highest supply risk materials for
BEV in the short- and medium-term, is currently being profitably recovered.
• Benchmark forecasts near-term recyclers are likely to use scrap material from the
increasing number of gigafactories coming online versus used electric vehicle batteries.
Scrap material is anticipated to account for 78 percent of recyclable materials in 202547
• In 2022, Benchmark expected over 30 gigawatt hours of process scrap to be available for
recycling, growing ten-fold across the next decade. Loss rates vary by region, and tend to
be higher in earlier years of a gigafactory.48
• EV batteries are high-cycle batteries and are made to function for approximately 10
years, shorter time for a mid-duty vehicle.
• Many 'spent' EV batteries still have 70-80 percent of their capacity left, which is more
than enough to be repurposed into other uses such as energy storage and other lower-
cycle applications.49 This will extend the time that batteries and raw materials remain in
use.
• Repurposing used EV batteries could generate significant value and help bring down the
cost of residential and utility-scale energy storage to bring forth further penetration of
renewable power to electricity grids. Initial trials are underway.50
• Clear guidance on repackaging, certification, standardization, and warranty liability of
spent EV batteries would be needed to overcome safety and regulatory challenges reuse
poses at scale. 51
• Recycling BEV batteries to recover high-value metals has not been proven at commercial
scale. The majority of analysts are aligned that recycling will not become an integral
supplier of raw materials until the 2030s, and at that point, only will provide
approximately 20 percent of demand.52 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1617-A1, pp. 27 -
29]
44 Kelleher Environmental, "Research Study on Reuse and Recycling of Batteries Employed in Electric
Vehicles: The Technical, Environmental, Economic, Energy and Cost Implications of Reusing and
Recycling EV Batteries," September 2019 (Kelleher Environmental Study). See https://www.api.org/oil-
and-natural-gas/wellstoconsumer/fuels-and-refining/fuels/vehicle-technology-studies.
45 Harper, G., Sommerville, R., Kendrick, E. et al. Publisher Correction: "Recycling lithium-ion batteries
from electric vehicles." Nature 578, E20 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1862-3.
46 "The Role of Critical Minerals in Clean Energy Transitions", International Energy Agency World
Energy Outlook Special Report: https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/ffd2a83b-8c30-4e9d-980a-
52b6d9a86fdc/TheRoleofCriticalMineralsinCleanEnergyTransitions.pdf.
47 BMI: https://source.benchmarkminerals.com/article/battery-production-scrap-to-be-main-source-of-
recyclable-material-this-decade, (See Chart 8).
48 BMI: https://source.benchmarkminerals.com/article/battery-production-scrap-to-be-main-source-of-
recyclable-material-this-decade.
764
-------
49 Engel, H., Hertzke, P., & Siccardo, G. (2019, April). Second-life EV batteries: The newest value pool in
Energy Storage. McKinsey Center for Future Mobility.
https://www.mckinsey.eom/~/media/McKinsey/Industries/Automotive%20and%20Assembly/Our%20Insig
hts/Second%201ife%20EV%20batteries%20The%20newest%20value%20pool%20in%20energy%20storag
e/Second-life-EV-batteries-The-newest-value-pool-in-energy-storage.pdf.
50 "The Role of Critical Minerals in Clean Energy Transitions", International Energy Agency World
Energy Outlook Special Report: https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/ffd2a83b-8c30-4e9d-980a-
52b6d9a86fdc/TheRoleofCriticalMineralsinCleanEnergyTransitions.pdf.
51 Ibid.
52 BMI: https://source.benchmarkminerals.com/article/battery-production-scrap-to-be-main-source-of-
recyclable-material-this-decade.
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
The recycling of lithium-ion batteries is also increasing to ensure that minerals are recovered
and reused instead of discarded.83 Batteries that power vehicles will be recycled at recycling
facilities, where they will be transformed into valuable scrap commodities like cobalt, copper,
nickel, and lithium carbonate, which can then be used to produce another battery more
efficiently. Battery recycling can also reduce the demand for virgin materials used in the
production of new batteries. Circularity has the potential to contribute to an 8 to 44 percent
reduction in the global resource use associated with lithium-ion batteries in 2050.84 On average,
Redwood Materials can recover greater than 95 percent of the critical battery elements in an end-
of-life battery (including lithium, nickel, cobalt, manganese, and copper), and then use those
metals to manufacture anode and cathode components domestically for U.S. battery cell
manufacturers.85 U.S. EPA could support battery materials recycling through battery pack
labelling of battery chemistry and charge capacity. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1591-A1, p.32-
33]
83 Redwood Materials, Inc. California Electric Vehicle & Hybrid Battery Recycling Program. 2022 (web
link: https://www.redwoodmaterials.com/california-recycling-program, last accessed August 2022).
84 Kosai, S.; Takata, U.; Yamasue, E. Global Resource Circularity for Lithium-Ion Batteries up to 2050:
Traction and Stationary Use. Mining. 449-462. June 30, 2022 (web link:
https://doi.org/10.3390/mining2030024, last accessed August 2022).
85 U.S. DoE. Loan Programs Office. February 9, 2023. Press Release announcing a conditional loan
commitment of $2 billion to Redwood Materials for the construction and expansion of a battery materials
campus in McCarran, Nevada, February 9, 2023 (web link: https://www.energy.gov/lpo/articles/lpo-offers-
conditional-commitment-redwood-materials-producecritical-electric-vehicle, last accessed February 2022).
Organization: Delek US Holdings, Inc.
d. BEVs cannot be recycled at the same level of ICE-powered vehicles.
EPA asserts that "minerals become part of the vehicle and have the potential to be recovered
and recycled."40 This not only ignores the recycling capabilities of lead-acid batteries used in
ICE HDs, but also the limited capabilities to recycle lithium-ion batteries. The Proposed Rule
once again relies on vague predictions of the future to support its unrealistic standards. For
example, EPA asserts that a "growing number of private companies are entering the battery
recycling market," "manufacturers are already reaching agreements to use these recycled
765
-------
materials for domestic battery manufacturing," and that "Panasonic has contracted with
Redwood Materials Inc. to supply domestically processed cathode material."41 But this is hardly
sufficient to support EPA's proposal to entirely overhaul the ICE HD market in as few as four-
seven years. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2022-0985-1561 - A 1, p. 9]
40 Proposed Rule at 25,969.
41 Id.
In reality, only five percent of lithium-ion batteries for BEVs are currently recycled.42 In
contrast, 99% of lead-acid batteries are currently recycled.43 Despite recognizing the novel
nature of lithium-ion battery recycling (as well as other critical minerals used for ZEVs),44
EPA's analysis falls short in examining the broader impacts of its proposal—on energy
independence, national security, and emissions of criteria pollutants. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2022-
0985-1561-A1, p. 9]
42 Robert Rapier, FORBES, "Environmental Implications of Lead-Acid and Lithium-Ion Batteries" (Jan.
19, 2020) available at https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2020/01/19/environmental-implications-of-
lead-acid-and-lithium-ion-batteries/?sh=67ec3fe57bf5.
43 Id.
44 Proposed Rule at 26,969.
Organization: MEMA
Recommendation: Battery recycling and disposal costs should be added to EPA's analysis as
part of a sustainable BEV deployment to better address scarcity of critical minerals, provide a
more resilient domestic supply chain, and over time reduce the added carbon impact of battery
manufacturing and associated multi-national logistics. 7 [EPA-HQ-0AR-2022-0985-1570-A1,
p. 7]
Organization: Moving Forward Network (MFN) et al.
11.1.2. Recycled content can provide additional domestic mineral supply
The current oil-dependent system not only impacts the climate and health of the U.S.
population, it also requires continual drilling, production, and importing of fuel. This is in stark
contrast to the use of materials needed for electrified transportation, which can be continually
recycled to produce the next generation of more efficient vehicles. This results in the continued
growth of U.S. material stock even when importing minerals not mined domestically. As the
Proposed Rule states, in 2050, 25 to 50 percent of lithium EV material demand can be met with
recycled content. 184 This finding has been highly studied and documented by additional
academics to the two listed in the report (Sun et al., 2022; Ziemann et al., 2018), including
findings by Xu et al. 185 and Dunn et al. 186 Xu et al. demonstrate the material demand, which
could be met by retiring and recycled supply, is highly impacted by innovation and advancing
energy density. As batteries become more advanced and energy-dense, either through innovation
of chemistries used (e.g., the progress made in NMC), or through different chemistries (e.g.,
lithium-sulfur or lithium-air batteries), the mineral demand decreases to meet the same energy
storage needs. This means that a high percentage of material demand can be met with the retiring
supply of less material-efficient and lower density batteries, as is demonstrated in Figure 22
766
-------
below. 187 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, pp. 87 - 88.] [See Figure 22 Closed-loop
recycling potential of battery materials in a STEP scenario located on p. 88 of docket number
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1.]
184 Sun et al. Surging lithium price will not impede the electric vehicle boom. Joule, doi: 10.1016/j.joule.
2022.06.028 (https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/jjoule.2022.06.028); Ziemann et al. Modeling the potential impact
of lithium recycling from EV batteries on lithium demand: a dynamic MFA approach. Resour. Conserv.
Recycl. V. 133. (2018). p. 76-85. https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.01.031.
185 Xu, C., Dai, Q., Gaines, L. et al. Future material demand for automotive lithium-based batteries.
Commun Materials. V.l. No. 99. (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43246-020-00095-x
186 Jessica Dunn, Margaret Slattery, Alissa Kendall, Hanjiro Ambrose, and Shuhan Shen. Circularity of
Lithium-Ion Battery Materials in Electric Vehicles. Environmental Science & Technology. V. 55. No.8.
(2021). p. 5189-5198. DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.0c07030
187 Xu, C., Dai, Q., Gaines, L. et al. Future material demand for automotive lithium-based batteries.
Commun Materials. V.l. No. 99. (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43246-020-00095-x
Dunn et al. 188 demonstrate that the choice of cathode materials can also highly increase
potential circularity. Figure 23 below shows that a future with high lithium-iron-phosphate (LFP)
market concentration can significantly increase the amount of lithium, cobalt, manganese, and
nickel demand met with recycled content. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 88.]
[See Figure 23 Circularity potential of materials as additional years are added to battery lifespan
located on p. 89 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1.]
188 Jessica Dunn, Margaret Slattery, Alissa Kendall, Hanjiro Ambrose, and Shuhan Shen. Circularity of
Lithium-Ion Battery Materials in Electric Vehicles. Environmental Science & Technology. V. 55. No.8.
(2021). p. 5189-5198. DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.0c07030
189 Id.
The recycled content also varies based on the collection rate and the material recovery rate.
There is potential for high material recovery due to the 95 percent recovery rate of lithium,
nickel, cobalt, and manganese by commercial-scale hydrometallurgical recyclers in the U.S. such
as Lithion, Redwood Materials, Licycle, and Cirba Solutions. In addition, direct cathode
recycling, which can recover a cathode without breaking it down into separate materials, is under
development by several startups as well as the National Lab research group, ReCell. Direct
recycling currently has a recovery rate of 40% for lithium, but increasing the lithium recovery
rate is a priority area for ongoing research. 190 The Argonne National Lab model, BatPaC, lists
the following recovery rates shown in Table 8. 191 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, pp. 89
- 90.] [See Table 8 Recovery Rates of Battery Materials from Different Recycling Processes
located on p. 90 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1.]
190 Kendall, A., Slattery, M., Dunn, J. Lithium-ion car battery recycling advisory group report. (2022).
https://calepa.ca.gov/lithium-ion-car-battery-recycling-advisory-group/
191 Argonne National Laboratory. BatPaC: battery manufacturing cost estimation. (2022).
https://www.anl.gov/partnerships/batpac-battery-manufacturing-cost-estimation
Recycling facilities are operational and under development in the US. Table 9 from Atlas
Public Policy attempts to capture all these developments. 192 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-
Al, p. 90.] [See Table 9 EV Battery Recycling Facilities in the U.S. located on p. 91 of docket
number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1.]
767
-------
192 Atlas Public Policy. The EV Transition: Key Market and Supply Chain Enablers. (2022).
https://atlaspolicy.com/the-ev-transition-key-market-and-supply-chain-enablers/
Appropriately representing higher specific energies that align with today's technologies and
forecasts also has implications for vehicle range and weight. Batteries with higher specific
energies can provide the same amount of power while weighing less than batteries with lower
specific energies. This means that vehicles with more efficient batteries can travel farther with
the same amount of energy because the battery significantly impacts the weight, and therefore,
efficiency of BEVs. Lower battery weight has additional implications for heavy-duty BEVs by
allowing for additional freight per trip since the battery would contribute less weight towards the
total vehicle weight allowance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 101]
11.1.3.4. Design for disassembly
Battery design parameters discussed in the Proposed Rule include "considerations related to
cost and performance including specific energy and power, energy density, temperature
impact, durability, and safety." 220 A key design parameter not included in this is the design for
disassembly (Dfd), also referred to as design for recycling or design for reuse. Dfd is the
factoring in of the end of life into the design of the vehicle, meaning that the battery is designed
to be taken apart so that cells and modules can be refurbished, reused, or replaced, or so that the
battery can be more efficiently and safely disassembled for recycling. 221 This disassembly is
typically a difficult, lengthy, and therefore expensive process because Dfd is not included in the
design phase. 222 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, pp. 101 - 102]
220 U.S. EPA. Proposed Rule: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles - Phase 3.
88 Fed. Reg. 25926, 26074 (Apr. 27, 2023). NPRM, 2.i Battery Design Parameters, pg 112.
https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/proposed-rule-greenhouse-gas-emissions-
standards-heavy
221 Kendall, A., Slattery, M., Dunn, J. Lithium-ion car battery recycling advisory group report. (2022).
https://calepa.ca.gov/lithium-ion-car-battery-recycling-advisory-group/
222 Baazouzi S, Rist FP, Weeber M, Birke KP. Optimization of Disassembly Strategies for Electric
Vehicle Batteries. Batteries. V. 7. No.4. (2021). p. 74. https://doi.org/10.3390/batteries7040074
As reuse and recycling become more prevalent and policies begin to require it, we expect that
Dfd will also be more common. If Dfd occurs, it is assumed that more reuse, refurbishment, and
replacement will occur. As a result, batteries will have a longer lifespan and the amount of new
batteries necessary for electrification will be reduced. 223 The disassembly of a battery from a
vehicle and down to the cell level currently represents approximately a third of light duty vehicle
recycling costs. 224 If Dfd occurs, these recycling costs will also lessen, therefore leading to
more prevalent recycling and more availability of recycled supply. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1608-A1, p. 102]
223 Koroma MS, Costa D, Philippot M, Cardellini G, Hosen MS, Coosemans T, Messagie M. Life cycle
assessment of battery electric vehicles: Implications of future electricity mix and different battery end-of-
life management. Sci Total Environ. V. 20. (2022).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9171403/
224 Jessica Dunn, Alissa Kendall, Margaret Slattery. Electric vehicle lithium-ion battery recycled content
standards for the US - targets, costs, and environmental impacts. Resources, Conservation and Recyclin. V.
185 No. 106488. (2022). p. 0921-3449. https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2022.106488
768
-------
Organization: State of California et al. (2)
Spurred both by public incentives, and "business opportunity" presented by "the need for
increased domestic production capacity," private industry is also taking steps to increase
domestic supply of critical minerals.214 As of March 2023, "at least $45 billion in private-sector
investment has been announced across the U.S. clean vehicle and battery supply chain."215 This
includes "new and expanded commercial-scale domestic facilities to process lithium, graphite
and other battery materials, manufacture components, and demonstrate new approaches,
including manufacturing components from recycled materials."216 Companies, such as
Volkswagen of America, Audi, and Toyota, have committed to developing recycling programs
for end-of-life EV battery packs, which will recover more than 95 percent of the metals found in
existing batteries.217 These efforts aim to "create a circular supply chain for EV batteries in the
United States that will eventually reduce the cost of batteries and offset the need for mining
precious metals."218 Particularly taking into consideration these investments in recycling
programs, there are sufficient mineral resources to meet industry needs, both now and in the
future.219 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1588-A1, p.30]
214 88 Fed. Reg. at 25,962.
215 U.S. Department of the Treasury, Treasury Releases Proposed Guidance on New Clean Vehicle Credit
to Lower Costs for Consumers, Build U.S. Industrial Base, Strengthen Supply Chains (March 31, 2023),
https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jyl379.
216 U.S. Department of Energy, Bipartisan Infrastructure Law Battery Materials Processing and Battery
Manufacturing & Recycling Funding Opportunity Announcement (Oct. 19, 2022),
https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2022-10/DOE%20BIL%20Battery%20FOA-
2678%20Selectee%20Fact%20Sheets%20-%201_2.pdf; Jason Hidalgo, Tesla to build $3.6 billion battery,
electric semi truck manufacturing facility in Northern Nevada, Reno Gazette Journal (Jan. 24, 2023),
https://www.rgj.eom/story/news/money/business/2023/01/24/tesla-to-build-3-6b-battery-electric-nevada-
semi-truck-manufacturing-facility/69837346007/; Press Release, Proterra Announces EV Battery Factory
in South Carolina as Demand for Commercial Electric Vehicles Grows, Proterra (Dec. 14, 2021),
https://www.proterra.com/press-release/proterra-sc-battery-factory/; Lion Electric, Lion Electric
Inaugurates its Battery Manufacturing Factory for Medium and Heavy-Duty Vehicles, prnewswire.com
(April 17, 2023), https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/lion-electric-inaugurates-its-battery-
manufacturing-factory-for-medium-and-heavy-duty-vehicles-301799083.html.
217 Kirsten Korosec, Volkswagen, Audi tap Redwood Materials to recycle old EV batteries in US,
TechCrunch.com (July 12, 2022), https://techcrunch.com/2022/07/12/redwood-materials-volkswagen-audi-
ev-battery-recycling/; Rebecca Bellan, Redwood Materials partners with Toyota to recycle batteries in US,
TechCrunch.com (June 21, 2022), https://techcrunch.com/2022/06/21/redwood-materials-partners-with-
toyota-to-recycle-batteries-in-us/.
218 Id. (Redwood Materials).
219 Jessica Dunn, Are There Enough Materials to Manufacture All the Electric Vehicles Needed (Nov. 15,
2022), https://blog.ucsusa.org/jessica-dunn/are-there-enough-materials-to-manufacture-all-the-electric-
vehicles-needed/.
Organization: Tesla, Inc. (Tesla)
EPA should also consider that recycling of battery material will play a vital role in alleviating
some pressure on the need to develop new critical mineral resources. To that end, Tesla seeks to
reduce its reliance on primary mined materials and contribute to a more positive environmental
footprint through battery and cell recycling - including ensuring that none of our batteries
769
-------
(manufacturing scrap or fleet returns) go to landfills and deploying equipment to recycle 100%
of on-site generated manufacturing scrap across manufacturing facilities. In comparison to BEV
batteries, it should also be noted the energy source for ICE vehicles - fossil fuels used in
combustion - is not recyclable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1505-A1, pp. 33-34]
Organization: Truck Renting and Leasing Association (TRALA)
If sourcing concerns are addressed, questions persist regarding disposal of used batteries and
its environmental impact. Nearly all lead batteries are recycled.9 In contrast, the U.S.
Department of Energy estimates that less than 5% of lithium-ion batteries are collected and
recycled. 10 This low rate of recycling furthers dependence on imported critical minerals and
raises additional lifecycle impact concerns for our members who have comprehensive programs
to divert waste from landfills and recycle/reuse most other vehicle waste streams. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1577-A1, p. 6]
9 Durable Goods: Product-Specific Data | US EPA.
10 112306-battery-recycling-brochure-June-20192-webl50.pdf (energy.gov).
Organization: Zero Emission Transportation Association (ZETA)
ii. Recycling
A key element of meeting the coming demand for EV batteries and critical minerals will be
recycling existing batteries at their end-of-life (EOL). As shown in Figure 5, North American
battery recycling capacity is growing rapidly. Available EOL battery feedstocks are projected to
increase in tandem as EVs on the road today approach the end of their useful life. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, pp. 24 - 25.] [See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-
Al, page 25, for Figure 5]
In recognition of the potential solutions that battery recycling can provide, the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law requires EPA to develop battery recycling best practices and battery labeling
guidelines by September 30, 2026. Congress allocated $10 million and $15 million to each issue
respectively. 101 While there will likely be more work needed, potentially through voluntary
consensus standards bodies, a framework is beginning to take shape to ensure increased
recycling capacity is built out in the coming years. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 25]
101 Public Law 117-58
The global market for EV battery recycling alone is estimated to reach $17.1 billion by
2030.102 By 2025, Benchmark Minerals Intelligence forecasts that scrap will account for 78% of
the pool of recyclable materials. 103 This growth is largely driven by the growing number of EVs
approaching EOL. The volume of EOL batteries from EVs and large storage applications is less
than 2 GWh today but could reach 100 GWh by 2030 and 1.3 TWh by 2040.104 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, pp. 25 - 26]
102 "Battery Recycling Market Size, Share & Trends Analysis Report By Chemistry (Lithium-ion, Lead
Acid, Nickel), By Application (Transportation, Industrial), By Region (Europe, Asia Pacific, North
America), And Segment Forecasts, 2023 - 2030, Grand View Research, (April 2023)
https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/battery-recycling-
770
-------
market?utm_source=prnewswire&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=CMFE_10-April-
23&utm_term=battery_recycling_market&utm_content=rd
103 "Benchmark Minerals: Battery production scrap will be the main source of recyclable material this
decade," (September 16, 2022) https://chargedevs.com/newswire/benchmark-minerals-battery-production-
scrap-will-be-the-main-source-of-recyclable-material-this-decade/
104 "The Role of Critical Minerals in Clean Energy Transitions - Reliable supply of minerals," IEA, (2021)
https://www.iea.org/reports/the-role-of-critical-minerals-in-clean-energy-transitions/reliable-supply-of-
minerals
Below is a list of recently-announced investments in EV battery recycling, all of which will
help support the transition to an electrified transportation sector:
• In October 2022, ZETA member Princeton NuEnergy Inc. (PNE) opened a new 500 t/a
plant capable of direct recycling lithium-ion consumer electronics and EV batteries with
its strategic partner, Wistron GreenTech in McKinney, Texas. 105 This end-to-end facility
ingests end of life batteries fully separating copper, aluminum, plastics, electrolyte,
cathode and anode materials. Cathode materials are cleaned by surface etching with low-
temperature plasma (LPAS™) and reformed into new cathode materials equivalent to
OEM specifications that can be directly reused in battery production. The factory will be
certified and commissioned in 2023.
• In April 2023, PNE launched a US Department of Energy $12MM R&D grant to expand
and enhance PNE's battery recycling production processes through 'up-cycling' of legacy
spent cathode chemistries into newer formulations, scaling processes for direct recycling
of anode materials, and enhancing recycling/reuse of all other battery components. 106
• In April 2023, ZETA member Redwood Materials announced a pair of partnerships to
collect EOL battery feedstocks. Rad Power Bikes will provide Redwood with e-bike
batteries when they reach the end of their lifespan. 107 Redwood and Volkswagen of
America expanded their partnership to collect more EOL batteries from consumer
electronics. 108 Both announcements come following a historic announcement of a $2
billion conditional loan from the Department of Energy to support Redwood's McCarran,
NV recycling facility. 109 At full production capacity, the McCarran project's anode
copper foil and cathode active material output is anticipated to support the production of
more than 1 million EVs per year.
• In May 2023, ZETA member Li-Cycle announced a partnership with Glencore to build a
battery recycling hub in Portovesme, Italy, with construction expected to commence
between late 2026 and early 2 Once completed, the Portovesme Hub is expected to have a
processing capacity of up to 50,000 to 70,000 tons of black mass annually, or the
equivalent of up to 36 GWh of lithium-ion batteries. 110 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
2429-A1, pp. 26 - 27]
105 "Update: Princeton NuEnergy launches end-to-end LIB recycling production line," RecyclingToday,
(October 25, 2022) https://www.recyclingtoday.com/news/princeton-nuenergy-launching-end-to-end-lib-
recycling-production-line/
106 "Princeton Nuenergy teams up with scientists to improve its LIBs recycling technology,"
RecyclingToday, (April 3, 2023) https://recyclingtoday.com/news/princeton-nuenergy-teams-up-with-
scientists-aided-by-doe-grant/
771
-------
107 "Rad Power Bikes links up with Redwood Materials for e-bike battery recycling," Verge, (April 24,
2023) https://www.theverge.com/2023/4/24/23695767/rad-power-bikes-redwood-materials-ebike-battery-
recycle
108 "VW and Redwood want to turn your old laptops into EV batteries," TechCrunch+, (April 4, 2023)
accessed May 17, 2023 https://techcrunch.com/2023/04/04/vw-and-redwood-want-to-turn-your-old-
laptops-into-ev-batteries/
109 "LPO Offers Conditional Commitment to Redwood Materials to Produce Critical Electric Vehicle
Battery Components From Recycled Materials," Department of Energy, (February 9, 2023)
https://www.energy.gov/lpo/articles/lpo-offers-conditional-commitment-redwood-materials-produce-
critical-electricvehicle
110 "Li-Cycle and Glencore unveil plans for recycling hub in Italy," Reuters, (May 9, 2023)
https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/li-cycle-glencore-unveil-plans-recycling-hub-italy-
2023-05-09/
There is also a substantial effort to construct new copper recycling facilities, which often
require different sources of feedstocks beyond EOL batteries, as demand for copper is expected
to increase with increased deployment of EVs. A complete list of existing recycling projects can
be found in Appendix Figure A.2. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 27.] [See Docket
Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, page 58, for Figure A.2]
EPA Summary and Response:
Summary:
Some commenters stated that recycling will not be a substantial source of critical materials in
the near term due to lack of available supply of spent batteries (e.g. too few batteries, batteries
being repurposed rather than scrapped), difficulties posed by a wide variety of cathode types (the
source of the recoverable metals), and sorting difficulties. The commenters stated that the result
of these issues is that lithium and other critical metal recycling from spent Li-ion batteries has
not yet been demonstrated at commercial scale and is presently uneconomic and might remain so
past MY 2032. (Chamber of Commerce, API (although API notes that it is presently economic
to recover cobalt). Chevron questions the technical feasibility of recovering metals other than
lithium.
Commenters including AFPM, API, Delek and TRALA indicated that only 5% of lithium-ion
batteries are recycled today, compared to 99% of lead acid batteries. Furthermore, commenters
say it will be a long time until the transportation batteries reach their end-of-life (10 years+) and
it will take time for there to be a sufficient supply of spent lithium-ion batteries for these to be a
major source of recycling supply.
American Fuel and Petroleum Manufacturers and API noted that most of the recoverable
metals are found in the cathode, but that there are so many different cathode chemistries that
sorting and analytic difficulties impede the viability of the recycling process.
Some commenters (Valero, AFPM, API) contend that EPA has ignored safety issues posed by
management and disposal of spent lithium-ion batteries. In addition, they state that mining of raw
critical materials poses environmental risks, and has led to degradation and worker abuses, such
as in mining of cobalt in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
772
-------
Response:
For our response on recycling lithium-ion batteries and associated 1 issues relating to their
management (including applicable EPA regulatory standards), see Preamble II.D.2.ii.c and RTC
17.2. The issue is also addressed (in less detail) in the following section 4.8.
4.8 Safety
Comments by Organizations
Organization: American Bus Association
We also note from the current unified agenda published by the Administration
(https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaMain), that standards are not yet fully formed for
safe hydrogen battery technology and are still under development (RIN 2127-AM40). Similarly,
safety standards are still being developed and adopted for heavy-duty electric batteries as well
(RIN 2127-AM43). Between a lack of safe or reliable technology development or operational
standards, a lack of existing infrastructure, unreliable projections for future infrastructure, it
seems prudent to delay a selection of any particular low or zero-emission technology strategy
and any fleet requirements or projections should be set aside. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1634-
Al, p. 3]
Organization: American Free Enterprise Chamber of Commerce (AmFree) et al.
d. Serious Safety Concerns Remain Unresolved
Finally, battery-electric and fuel-cell vehicles implicate significant, well-documented safety
concerns that could materially impede deployment of heavy-duty electric vehicles. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1660-A1, p. 50]
To begin, spontaneous fires involving battery-electric vehicles have been reported across the
country, and major manufacturers have reported battery defects and issued recalls due to fire-
related risks. See Joce Sterman et al., Ignition: Spontaneous Electric Vehicle Fires Prompt
Recalls, But Some Owners Stalled Waiting on Repairs, WBTV (Sept. 26, 2022),
https://tinyurl.com/bddjbbw6. In addition, the National Transportation Safety Board conducted
an investigation of electric-vehicle crashes and found that, "[i]n each case, emergency responders
faced safety risks related to electric shock, thermal runaway, battery ignition and reignition, and
stranded energy." Safety Risks to Emergency Responders from Lithium-Ion Battery Fires in
Electric Vehicles, Nat'l Transp. Safety Bd. (Nov. 13, 2020), https://tinyurl.com/4b9bw869.
Electric vehicles also are frequently heavier than conventional vehicles, and their greater weight
could exacerbate injuries in the case of an accident. See Raul Arbelaez, As Heavy EVs
Proliferate, Their Weight May Be a Drag on Safety, Ins. Inst, for Highway Safety (Mar. 9, 2023),
https://tinyurl.com/txwb5wtn. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1660-A1, pp. 50-51]
EPA must consider these safety concerns as part of its feasibility analysis. See Sierra Club v.
EPA, 325 F.3d 374, 378 (D.C. Cir. 2003) ("The statute also intends the agency to consider many
factors other than pure technological capability, such as costs, lead time, safety, noise and
energy."). But in the proposed rule, it simply brushed them aside. With respect to battery-electric
vehicles, the agency merely stated that "standards have already been developed by the industry
773
-------
and are in place for manufacturers to use today to develop current and future products." 88 Fed.
Reg. at 25,962; see also Draft RIA at 36-39. Those existing "standards" provide little assurance
given the safety problems that have arisen already, and the likely increase in similar incidents if
use of electric vehicles substantially increases, as the proposed rule not only anticipates but
affirmatively intends. And with respect to fuel-cell vehicles, the agency notes only that
"[hjydrogen has been handled, used, stored, and moved in industrial settings for more than 50
years," and that there are "established methods," "federal oversight and regulation," and
"standards" in place to ensure safe use. 88 Fed. Reg. at 25,972; Draft RIA at 75-76. These
existing protocols, like those for battery-electric vehicles, are plainly inadequate in light of the
documented disasters that have occurred in the United States and elsewhere. Even EPA
acknowledges that "[a]s hydrogen demand increases, additional codes and standards at all levels
of government are likely going to be needed to accommodate heavy-duty FCEVs and fueling
station development." Draft RIA at 76. Those codes and standards must be established and
proven effective before the agency adopts a rule that would require manufacturers to produce,
and consumers to use, fuel-cell vehicles, not after. EPA cannot—and should not—put the
American public in danger to advance its agenda on electric vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1660-A1, pp. 52 - 53.]
Organization: American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)
Notably, EPA does not consider that ZEVs—particularly BEVs—are heavier than equivalent
ICEVs and, therefore, may result in more severe accidents given the additional mass of the
battery. As recognized by National Highway Transportation Safety Authority ("NHTSA")
Administrator Ann Carlson, "[bjigger is safer if you don't look at the communities surrounding
you and you don't look at the other vehicles on the road . . . [i]t actually turns out to be a very
complex interaction."50 Yet EPA has not considered this interaction, on safety directly or the
associated increase in insurance costs,51 which is all the more critical to the Proposed Rule as
commercial trucks are involved in 13 percent of all fatal crashes on U.S. roadways and these
trucks will be heavier and faster under the Proposed Rule.52 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1659-
A2, p. 14]
50 Reuters, "U.S. NTSB chair raises safety concerns about heavy electric vehicles," David Shepardson
(January 11, 2023) available at https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/us-ntsb-chair-raises-
safety-concerns-about-heavy-electric-vehicles-2023-01-11/.
51 Jason Metz & Michelle Megna, Electric Car Insurance: Why It Costs More (Jan. 4, 2023),
https://www.forbes.com/advisor/car-insurance/electric-vehicle/ (explaining that electric vehicles are
costlier to insure)
52 U.S. DOT, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, "2020 Pocket Guide to Large Truck and Bus
Statistics," available at https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/sites/fmcsa.dot.gov/files/2020-
10/FMCSA%20Pocket%20Guide%202020-v8-FIN AL-10-29-2020.pdf.
The greater prevalence of heavy-duty batteries will also pose additional risks to first and
second responders as battery fires burn hotter and longer than similar fires in ICEVs. As
documented by the National Transportation Safety Board, these responders face two major risks:
(1) shock from damaged high-voltage electrical components and (2) battery reignition after
initial fire suppression due to uncontrolled increases in temperature and pressure retained in the
battery.53 Moreover, insufficient information exists from manufacturers on procedures for
mitigating the risks of stranded energy to emergency responders. Additionally, storing an EV
774
-------
with a damaged high-voltage lithium-ion battery inside the recommended 50-foot-radius clear
area may be infeasible at tow or storage yards. 54 And beyond safety concerns, fighting a battery
fire demands 30-40 times more water than a fire from an ICEVs.55 The Proposed Rule fails to
even acknowledge these issues. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1659-A2, p. 14]
53 NTSB, "Risk to Emergency Responders from High-Voltage, Lithium-Ion Battery Fires Addressed in
Safety Report," (Jan. 13, 2021), available at https://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-
releases/Pages/NR20210113.aspx. (See also Watch This Severe Electric Car Fire And Explosion At A
Charging Station (insideevs.com)).
54 Id.
55 Fire Technology, "A Review of Battery Fires in Electric Vehicles," Peiui Sun, et. al, (2020) available at
https://maritimesafetyinnovationlab.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Academic-A-review-of-battery-fires-
in-electric-vehicles-2020.pdf; Independent, "Tesla in fireball crash needs 40 times the water as regular car
to put out flames, says fire crew," Graeme Massie, (August 12, 2021), available at
https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/tesla-crash-driver-arrested-fire-bl901603.html.
Organization: American Highway Users Alliance
Concerns of Truck Dealers
The American Truck Dealers Division (ATD) of the National Automobile Dealers
Association also presented testimony at EPA's May 3 public hearing on the proposed rule. Key
points presented include the following.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1550-A1, p. 7]
Repair and servicing of the EV was reported as costly because 'danger' in servicing the EV
requires two technicians rather than one. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1550-A1, p. 7]
Organization: Arizona State Legislature
The proposed rule is arbitrary and capricious because it fails to consider safety issues. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1621 -Al, p. 24]
EPA understands that when acting under Section 202(a) it should consider relevant factors
such as impacts on safety. 88 Fed. Reg. 25,949. EPA devotes just two paragraphs of the
preamble to assessing the safety of heavy-duty battery electric vehicles, which largely consist of
summarizing general design standards. Id. at 25,962. EPA devotes only one paragraph to address
the safety risks posed by hydrogen in fuel-cell electric vehicles. Id. at 25,972. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1621-A1, p. 24]
EPA's preamble does not consider or respond to serious safety issues presented by electric
trucks. The National Transportation Safety Board has warned that '[f]ires in electric vehicles
powered by high-voltage lithium-ion batteries pose the risk of electric shock to emergency
responders from exposure to the high-voltage components of a damaged lithium-ion battery.'30
The National Transportation Safety Board also found that '[t]hermal runaway and multiple
battery reignitions after initial fire suppression are safety risks in high-voltage lithium-ion battery
fires.'31 [EPA-HQ-0AR-2022-0985-1621 - A 1, p. 24]
30 National Transportation Safety Board, Safety Risks to Emergency Responders from Lithium-Ion Battery
Fires in Electric Vehicles, NTSB/SR-20/01, Nov. 13, 2020, viii, available at
https://www.ntsb.gOv/safety/safetystudies/Documents/SR2001 .pdf.
775
-------
31 Id. at 63.
EPA's draft regulatory impact analysis hints at this fire risk. EPA notes that first responders
need 'large amounts of water'—2,600 gallons for a 600-pound lithium-ion battery—'to cool the
batteries and eliminate the risk of fire.' Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis, 38. EPA also suggests
that fire remains a risk days after a crash: 'Safe storage of crashed vehicles is critical as internal
battery failure reactions may occur days after the crash and reignite.' Id. EPA recommends
standard maintenance and safety training to mitigate these risks. Id. EPA does not estimate the
cost or timetable for the safety training or the potential cost from fires and other damage. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1621 -A1, p. 25]
Increased weight is another safety concern. The head of the National Transportation Safety
Board has expressed concern about the increased weight of electric vehicles: 'I'm concerned
about the increased risk of severe injury and death for all road users from heavier curb weights
and increasing size, power, and performance of vehicles on our roads, including electric
vehicles.'33 The executive director of the Center for Auto Safety warned, 'These bigger, heavier
batteries are going to cause more damage. It's a simple matter of mass and speed.'34 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1621-A1, p. 25]
33 NTSB head warns of risks posed by heavy electric vehicles colliding with lighter cars, THE
ASSOCIATED PRESS, Jan. 11, 2023, available at https://www.npr.org/2023/01/ll/1148483758/ntsb-
heavy-electric-vehicles-safety-risks.
34 Id.
Heavier electric trucks increase the risk of fatal crashes. A 2011 study by the National Bureau
of Economic Research found that 'a 1,000-pound increase in striking vehicle weight raises the
probability of a fatality in the struck vehicle by 47%.'35 Converting this increased fatality risks
into external costs, 'total external costs of vehicle weight from fatalities alone are estimated at
$93 billion per year.'36 A study by the University of California - Davis estimated that by 2030,
heavy duty long haul trucks will have 5,328 extra pounds of weight.37 EPA does not estimate the
cost from the increased fatalities or more severe injuries from crashes caused by electric trucks.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1621-A1, p. 25]
35 Michael Anderson and Maximilian Auffhammer, Pounds That Kill: The External Costs of Vehicle
Weight, National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 17170, June 2011, 3, available at
https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/wl7170/w 17170.pdf.
36 Id.
37 John Harvey et al., Effects of Increased Weights of Alternative Fuel Trucks on Pavement and Bridges,
University of California - Davis Institute of Transportation Studies, Nov. 2020, 10, available at
https://aboutblaw.com/Xa7.
EPA's failure to adequately consider safety issues is arbitrary and capricious. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1621-A1, p. 25]
The proposed rule is arbitrary and capricious because it fails to adequately consider weight
limit issues. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1621-A1, p. 26]
EPA acknowledges that commenters on a previous proposal raised concerns about 'the weight
impact of batteries.' 88 Fed. Reg. 25,955. EPA does not identify what those concerns were,
however. EPA implicitly acknowledges that the weight of electric batteries limits payload
776
-------
capacity. Id. at 25,969 ('This allows FCEVs to perform periods of service between fueling events
that batteries currently cannot achieve without affecting vehicle weight and limiting payload
capacity.'). EPA later acknowledges that 'heavy-duty vehicles are sensitive to increases in
vehicle weight and carrying volume.' Id. at 25,978. EPA found that extra battery weight in
'coach buses and tractors that travel long distances could have an impact on operations of these
vehicles as [battery electric vehicles].' Id. If battery weight impacted payload capacity by more
than 30%, then EPA assessed fuel cell technology instead. Id. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1621-
Al, p. 26]
Organization: Bradbury, Steven G.
• Increasing the costs and burdens of first responders. There is no mention in EPA's
NPRMs or in the accompanying DRIAs of the impact these rules would have on first
responders. If EVs come to comprise a greatly increased percentage of the nation's
auto fleet, as EPA's proposals are intended to achieve, state and local first responders
will inevitably incur significantly higher costs and burdens in the form of specialized
fire-suppression chemicals and equipment and additional hazardous response training
requirements. Lithium-ion battery fires are a common occurrence with EVs, and these
fires generate intense heat and toxic fluoride gas emissions, making them more
difficult to extinguish than conventional vehicle fires and increasing the costs and
management challenges of maintaining effective first responder capabilities. 56 [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2427-A2, pp. 19-20]
56 See Fredrik Larsson, et al., "Toxic fluoride gas emissions from lithium-ion battery fires," Scientific
Reports, Nature, August 30, 2017, https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-09784-z (corrected March
22, 2018) (also available at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5577247/).
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Regarding the safety of ZEV technologies, CARB staff is not aware of any studies indicating
ZEVs are more dangerous than ICE vehicles. To the contrary, the data available suggests for
LDVs, ZEVs are significantly less likely to catch on fire than gasoline-powered vehicles or
hybrids.79 Per the data, ZEVs catch fire at a rate of 25.1 instances per 100,000 ZEVs sold versus
1,529 instances per 100,000 gasoline vehicles and 3,474 instances per 100,000 hybrid vehicles.
Manufacturers have a strong incentive to produce safe vehicles, and ZEVs are no different in this
regard. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1591-A1, p.31]
79 Autoinsuranceez: Gas vs. Electric Car Fires [2023 Findings], November 11, 2022.
https://www.autoinsuranceez.com/gas-vs-electric-car-fires/
Organization: Clean Air Task Force et al.
d. BEV safety should not be a constraining factor in this rulemaking.
We agree with EPA's assessment that "HD BEVs can be designed to maintain safety." 88
Fed. Reg. at 25962. While some have put forward misguided arguments about the safety of
BEVs as a reason for EPA to set weak standards in this rulemaking, those claims miss the mark
for many reasons. BEVs have been on the road in appreciable numbers for more than a decade
already, and BEV sales will continue to grow due to market forces alone. Original equipment
777
-------
manufacturers (OEMs), trade and professional associations, and safety authorities at all levels
have long been studying, planning for, and responding to BEV safety matters.252 With or
without the Phase 3 rulemaking, the number of BEVs will continue to grow, and safety research,
planning, and design efforts will continue apace. Thus, safety should not act as a constraining
factor in this rulemaking. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 59]
252 Indeed, these efforts began more than a decade ago. For example, in 2010, the National Fire Protection
Association and SAE International hosted a summit on EV safety standards. Am. Nat'l Standards Inst.
(ANSI), U.S. National Electric Vehicle Safety Standards Summit Report Released (Jan. 5, 2011),
https://www.ansi.org/news/standards-news/all-news/2011/01/us-national-electric-vehicle-safety-standards-
summit-report-released-05. And in 2011, ANSI convened a workshop on behalf of the U.S. DOE "to
consider current and future U.S. domestic, regional, and international standards, codes, and conformity
assessment activities needed to facilitate the introduction and widespread deployment of grid-connected
electric vehicles." ANSI, ANSI Workshop: Standards and Codes for Electric Drive Vehicles (Apr. 5-6,
2011),
https://share.ansi.org/Shared%20Documents/Meetings%20and%20Events/EDV%20Workshop/EDVSpons
orship.pdf
As EPA notes, numerous standards and codes govern BEV safety. 88 Fed. Reg. at 25962;
DRIA Ch. 1.5.2. BEVs must meet the same federal safety requirements and undergo the same
safety testing as combustion vehicles.253 In the light-duty sector (where BEVs have been on the
road in greater numbers and for a longer period of time), evidence shows that BEVs "are at least
as safe" as combustion vehicles in terms of crashworthiness test performance, while "injury
claims are substantially less frequent" for BEVs than for combustion vehicles.254 And on some
safety metrics, BEVs perform substantially better than combustion vehicles. Due to their battery
architecture, for example, BEVs typically have a lower center of gravity than combustion
vehicles, which increases stability and reduces the risk of rollovers255 (the cause of up to 35
percent of accident deaths).256 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, pp. 59 - 60]
253 DOE, Maintenance and Safety of Electric Vehicles, Alternative Fuels Data Center,
https://afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_maintenance.html (last visited June 15, 2023).
254 Insurance Inst, for Highway Safety, With More Electric Vehicles Comes More Proof of Safety (Apr.
22, 2021), https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/with-more-electric-vehicles-comes-more-proof-of-safety.
255 DOE, Maintenance and Safety of Electric Vehicles.
256 CleanTechnica, The EV Safety Advantage 4 (2018),
https://cleantechnica.com/files/2018/07/CleanTechnica-EV-Safety-Advantage-Report.pdf.
257 23 U.S.C. § 127(s).
258 See generally Sebastian Blanco, The Future of Solid-State Batteries, J.D. Power (Apr. 3, 2023),
https://www.jdpower.com/cars/shopping-guides/the-future-of-solid-state-batteries; Chris Teague, What
You Need To Know About Solid-State Batteries, Autoweek,
https://www.autoweek.com/news/technology/a36189339/solid-state-batteries/ (last visited June 15, 2023).
259 See generally Michael Bull, Mass Reduction and Performance of PEV and PHEV Vehicles (undated),
https://www-esv.nhtsa.dot.gov/Proceedings/22/files/22ESV-000346.pdf; Stanley, How Electric Vehicle
Light-weighting is Changing the Automotive Industry,
https://www.stanleyengineeredfastening.com/en/News%20and%20Stories/How%20Electric%20 Vehicle%2
0Light-weighting%20is%20Changing%20the%20Automotive%20Industry (last visited June 15, 2023).
Fire risk and emergency response can also be managed effectively. BEVs are significantly
less likely to catch fire than combustion vehicles in the first place.260 While BEVs can behave
778
-------
differently in fires than combustion vehicles, emergency responders have been gaining
experience in BEV fire response as the number of BEVs on the road has grown. Numerous
agencies and associations, including the National Transportation Safety Board,261 National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration,262 and National Fire Protection Association,263 have
established fire safety and emergency response recommendations for BEVs. The National Fire
Protection Association and other organizations offer BEV fire response trainings,264 as do
OEMs, which also produce emergency response guides for their vehicles.265 Volvo Trucks has
even released an augmented reality safety app that allows first responders "to observe the scene
of the emergency through an iPad or tablet camera, and which will then overlay graphics and
instructions that enable ... a full, detailed view of where potentially dangerous components are
located, as well as the steps required to make them safe."266 The National Institute for
Automotive Service has also developed safety-related standards and a testing and certification
program for automotive technicians who service BEVs.267 Expected future use of solid state
batteries will further reduce BEV fire risk.268 Other research efforts have identified battery
designs that can improve thermal management,269 as well as improved methods of
extinguishing battery fires.270 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, pp. 60 - 61]
260 See Rachel Bodine, Gas vs. Electric Car Fires [2023 Findings], AutoinsuranceEZ (Nov. 11, 2022),
https://www.autoinsuranceez.com/gas-vs-electric-car-fires/ (calculating rate of car fires using National
Transportation Safety Board data).
261 See, e.g., NTSB, Risks to Emergency Responders from High-Voltage, Lithium-Ion Battery Fires
Addressed in Safety Report (Jan. 13, 2021), https://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-
releases/Pages/NR20210113 .aspx.
262 See, e.g., NHTSA, Interim Guidance for Electric and Hybrid-Electric Vehicles Equipped With High
Voltage Batteries (2012),
https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/interimguide_emergencyresponse_012012_v3 .pdf.
263 See, e.g., R. Thomas Long Jr., et al., Best Practices for Emergency Response to Incidents Involving
Electric Vehicles Battery Hazards: A Report on Full-Scale Testing Results (2013), https://www.nfpa.org/-
/media/Files/News-and-Research/Fire-statistics-and-reports/Electrical/EV-BatteriesPart-l.ashx.
264 See generally Nat'l Fire Protection Ass'n, Training that Helps Keep You Protected,
https://www.nfpa.org/EV (last visited June 15, 2023).
265 DOE, Maintenance and Safety of Electric Vehicles.
266 Volvo Trucks, World's first AR safety app for electric trucks launched by Volvo (May 30, 2023),
https://www.volvotrucks.com/en-en/news-stories/stories/2023/may/volvo-launches-worlds-first-ar-safety-
app-for-electric-trucks.html.
267 FleetMaintenance, ASE unveils new EV standards, testing, and certification (May 4, 2023),
https ://www.fleetmaintenance .com/equipment/safety-and-technology/article/53059346/national-institute-
for-automotive-service-excellence-ase-ase-unveils-new-ev-standards-testing-and-certification.
268 Blanco, at 3; Teague, at 5.
269 See generally Chuanbo Yang et al., Compressible battery foams to prevent cascading thermal runaway
in Li-ion pouch batteries, J. Power Sources, Sept. 1, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1016/jjpowsour.2022.231666.
270 See, e.g., Int'l Ass'n Fire & Rescue Services, New revolutionary method tested extinguishes lithium-
Ion EV fires in ten minutes with minimal water use (Mar. 22, 2023), https://www.ctif.org/news/new-
revolutionary-method-extinguishes-lithium-ion-ev-fires-ten-minutes-minimal-water.
779
-------
In sum, the public and private sectors have been working diligently to address BEV safety
considerations, and those efforts will continue as the number of BEVs on the road grows. Heavy-
duty BEVs can be designed and operated safely and EPA is correct in not treating safety as a
constraining factor in this rulemaking. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 61]
Organization: Daimler Truck North America LLC (DTNA)
EPA Request for Comment, Request #13: We request comment on our assessment that HD
BEVs can be designed to maintain safety.
• DTNA Response: Based upon DTNA's extensive experience in ZEV product
development, there is no question that HD BEVs can be designed to maintain
safety. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 160]
Organization: Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA)
BEV fires are another safety concern. Lithium-battery fires can be unpredictable, difficult to
extinguish, and can inflict a tragic toll. According to experts, BEV fires require different
firefighting techniques. The biggest difference is that an BEV fire cannot be put out with the type
of firefighting foam used to smother other fires. Instead, the battery must be cooled to stop the
fire and end thermal runaway.8 Currently, there is insufficient training for consumers, first
responders, and certainly professional truck drivers about how to protect themselves and the
public should a fire occur. BEV fires involving commercial vehicles could be particularly
dangerous given the weight of the batteries and/or if the fire occurs on or near highway
infrastructure. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1632-A1, p. 4]
8 https://www.usatoday.eom/story/money/cars/2022/10/26/electric-vehicle-fires-florida-flooding-what-
happened/10553207002/
Organization: The Sulphur Institute (TSI)
One key concern not addressed in this NPRM and one from TSI, is how refineries and gas
plants will adapt, or can adapt, to having electric vehicles operate "inside the fence line" (i.e., is
it safe to operate an electric battery or hydrogen vehicle in such a highly flammable
environment). The National Transportation Safety Board has documented (2) the safety risks to
emergency responders from lithium-ion battery fires. While occurrence of a fire may be low,
there could be catastrophic consequences of such an incident inside a refinery, for example. To
date, TSI has not seen a process hazard analysis (PHA) conducted in accordance with EPA's risk
management plan (RMP) or OHSA's process safety management (PSM) standards that supports
the use of EV or hydrogen vehicles in a highly flammable environment. TSI encourages the EPA
to engage energy industry stakeholders to research and conclude if it is safe to operate these
vehicles in refineries before a mandate from this NPRM takes effect. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1624-A1, pp. 1 -2]
(2) NTSB Safety Report NTSB/SR-20/01 PB2020-101011 Safety Risks to Emergency Responders from
Lithium-Ion Battery Fires in Electric Vehicles
780
-------
Organization: Truck Renting and Leasing Association (TRALA)
Safety Concerns
Safety advocates have raised concerns over the increased weight of ZEVs. The National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has also expressed concern about the safety risks that
heavy EVs pose if they collide with lighter vehicles. 14 Little research has been done on the
safety risks of increasing vehicle weights and the interfacing between lighter vehicles with
heavier trucks. In 2011, the National Bureau of Economic Research published a paper that said
being hit by a vehicle with an added 1,000 pounds increases by 47% the probability of being
killed in a crash. 15 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1577-A1, p. 12]
14 'NTSB head warns of risks posed by heavy electric vehicles colliding with lighter cars,' The Associated
Press (January 11, 2023).
15 'Why the 'significant' weight of electric vehicles is sparking new safety fears,' Global News (April 12,
2023).
Increased weight is not the only issue of concern for safety advocates. ZEVs also afford
drivers unprecedented engine power and acceleration if not governed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1577-A1, p. 12]
ZEVs may also increase road congestion as more vehicles may be needed to fulfill hauling
needs due to reductions in drive times (See Hours-of-Service discussion below) and reduced
payloads resulting from the thousands of pounds of added weight to trucks from ZEV
technologies (See Weight Exemption discussion below). More truck-to-car interactions will
increase the potential for more highway accidents. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1577-A1, p. 12]
The national shortage of truck parking spaces has reached historic levels. The increasing
number of trucks parked on the shoulders of highways, in retail parking lots, and along on- and
off-ramps are the consequence of inadequate rest areas for truckers. Parked trucks in
undesignated or unauthorized areas jeopardize the safety for both drivers and the public alike.
(See Truck Parking discussion below). Unless the nation's truck parking shortage is addressed,
ZEVs stand to potentially exacerbate the current situation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1577-A1,
p. 12]
Emergency responders anticipate the need to prepare for fires in crashes and incidents from
lithium-ion battery-powered trucks. EVs present new challenges for first responders and safety
concerns from energy stored in battery packs. Proper EV towing is critical and the
ignition/reignition of fires several weeks into BEVs being stored in tow yards needs to be
carefully monitored and assessed. While much experience is being gained from incidences
involving light-duty vehicles, the same cannot be said for EV vehicles at the other end of the
spectrum. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1577-A1, p. 12]
Organization: Valero Energy Corporation
Conversely, EPA should consider whether the increased costs resulting from the proposed
rule cause shippers to turn to rail. Rural communities with limited highway access are already
experiencing unreasonable delays for emergency responders to reach patients due to extremely
781
-------
long trains that may take hours to clear; in some cases, these delays have resulted in
fatalities. 155 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 32]
155 https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/interactive/2023/long-trains-block-intersections-paramedics/
2. EPA fails to consider threats to human health and safety created by transition to heavy-duty
ZEV.
The proposed rule fails to address the real-world safety implications of increasing the number
of heavy-duty trucks on America's roadways by as much as 33 to 50 percent. In fact, the head of
the National Transportation Safety Board recently warned that the heavier weight of electric
vehicles poses increased risk of severe injury or death to passengers in lighter vehicles. 156
While her comments were centered on the multi-thousand pound weight differential between
battery electric LDVs and their much lighter conventional ICE LDV counterparts, the HDV
proposal carries the same risk, but at a much higher HDV to LDV weight differential of tens of
thousands of pounds, compounded by the need to increase the sheer number of HDV on U.S.
roadways to meet EPA's proposed standards and the cargo demands of the country. In work
performed by the National Bureau of Economic Research, Pounds that Kill: The External Cost of
Vehicle Weight, showed that "controlling for own-vehicle weight, being hit by a vehicle that is
1,000 pounds heavier results in a 47% increase in the baseline fatality probability." 157 EPA's
proposal fails to account for the resulting increase in the number of heavier heavy-duty vehicles
on U.S. roads and the associated increase in risk of fatalities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-
A2, p. 32]
156 See Id.
157 National Bureau of Economic Research, Pounds That Kill: The external costs of Vehicle Weight, June
2011
Further, EPA's proposal lacks coordination with the National Transportation Safety Board
and the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) to address safety issues created directly from
EPA's proposed rule. "The DOT has a responsibility to research and ensure vehicle and roadway
design and safety standards meet the challenges and demands of our future transportation system.
This Administration continues to push policies that will result in more BEVs on our roadways,
but has failed to plan from a safety and infrastructure perspective. The sequence of proposals is
misguided; vehicle and roadway design and safety standards should have been under
development and deployed well before the EPA proposed a rule to force consumer adoption of
heavier EVs. This type of research and development, including vehicle, roadway lifespan, and
guardrail and work zone safety equipment testing all will require years to undertake. If these
proposals move forward without the appropriate safeguards in place, backed by sound science,
the vehicle and infrastructure investments being made today may miss the mark on safety and
longevity in the years to come." 158 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 32]
158 Letter from the United States Senate to EPA Administrator, May 25, 2023
Moreover, EPA fails to address the increase in fire hazards posed by lithium-ion batteries. On
May 24, 2023, EPA's Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery issued a memo clarifying
applicability of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA") universal waste and
recycling requirements to lithium-ion batteries, stating that these batteries "are likely hazardous
waste at end of life." 159 A FAQ appended to the memorandum stated that "Given the number of
fires from lithium batteries, EPA is evaluating universal waste battery management
782
-------
standards." 160 Until this analysis is complete and any necessary regulatory changes are made,
these risks likely will remain. Further, since RCRA does not apply to products that are in use and
have not been deemed a waste, any standard EPA may develop to mitigate risks from used
batteries will not apply to batteries that are in use or have not yet been deemed a waste. EPA
therefore should, but to date has not, consider the increased fire hazard presented by additional
heavy-duty vehicles with large batteries. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 33]
159 "Lithium Battery Recycling Regulatory Status and Frequently Asked Questions," Carolyn Hoskinson,
EPA Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, May 24, 2023.
160 Id. at p. 7.
Organization: Volvo Group
Packaging Challenges
The proposed rulemaking requests comment on stringency adjustments based on the
suitability of electrification/alternative fuels for various duty cycles. The Volvo Group would
presumably register vehicles among 16 of the 101 vehicle categories listed. As we shift our
platforms toward more C02-neutral products, greater packaging challenges will drive new
initiatives to ensure we remain compliant with the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1606-A1, p. 12]
EPA Summary and Response:
EPA discusses the issue of BEV safety considerations extensively in RIA Chapter 1.5.2. In
addition to the detailed discussion there, we add the following summary of comments and
response thereto.
Summary:
The American Highway Users Alliance claims that EV servicing danger drives the need for
two technicians rather than one. NADA-ATD shared that dealerships would require workplace
safety and emergency response training to safely work with and around high voltage systems.
The Arizona State Legislature asserted that the "proposed rule is arbitrary and capricious
because it fails to consider safety issues," and continues that EPA's discussion of safety issues in
the preamble was cursory, even as it acknowledged and also stated that EPA is obliged to
consider safety issues "under Section 202 (a)" The Clean Fuel Development Coalition asserts (in
a footnote) that "the proposal also arbitrarily ignores the underdeveloped industry standards and
safety protocols that exist today for heavy-duty BEVs and FCEVs that it must consider under
Section 202(a)(4)(A) that specifically prohibits the use of an emission control device, system or
element of design that will cause or contribute to an unreasonable risk to public health, welfare,
or safety."
The Arizona State Legislature also stated that the preamble to the proposed rule failed to
"consider or respond to serious safety issues presented by electric trucks." The commenter
quotes materials from the National Transportation Safety Board which warn that "'[f]ires in
electric vehicles powered by high-voltage lithium-ion batteries pose the risk of electric shock to
emergency responders from exposure to the high-voltage components of a damaged lithium-ion
battery".' and that "'[t]hermal runaway and multiple battery reignitions after initial fire
783
-------
suppression are safety risks in high-voltage lithium-ion battery fires.'" Other commenters raising
similar concerns were AmFree, AFPM, Steven Bradbury, DTNA, Owner Operator Independent
Drivers Ass'n (OOIDA), TRALA, and Valero. DTNA also commented that there is insufficient
training on fire protection for first responders and HD BEV users. CARB shared LD data
showing that the ZEV rate of fire occurrence is much lower than that of gasoline vehicles. The
Clean Air Task Force shared the same fire incidence trend. They also noted the many agencies
that provide fire and emergency response recommendations and training. NADA commented that
some dealers were educating first responders on proper battery safety when responding to
crashes. Steven Bradbury and the Arizona State Legislature shared concern that first responders
would have higher operational costs. Also concerning fire risk, TSI raised concern with HD BEV
operating "within the fence line" of a refinery.
The American Free Enterprise arm of the Chamber of Commerce maintains that "existing
'standards' provide little assurance given the safety problems that have arisen already, and the
likely increase in similar incidents if use of electric vehicles substantially increases, as the
proposed rule not only anticipates but affirmatively intends." Similarly, The American Bus
Association and Valero claim that there is currently insufficient safe operational standards.
Volvo shared that they would have packaging challenges to meet existing Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) that would drive
initiatives to remain compliant.
The Arizona State Legislature, as well as AmFree, TRALA, National Ass'n of Chemical
Distributors, AFPM, and Valero, claim that there will be increased fatalities resulting from
crashes between HD BEVs and lighter weight ICE vehicles due to the extra weight attributable
to the battery. Some of these comments cited a 2011 study for the proposition that "'a 1,000-
pound increase in striking vehicle weight raises the probability of a fatality in the struck vehicle
by 47%.'" The Arizona legislature comment states that EPA should monetize these additional
fatalities as a cost of the rule. AFPM adds that the increased speed of the BEV will be a safety
issue while TRALA suggests a risk due to ZEV providing "unprecedented engine power and
acceleration."
Valero indicates states that spent lithium-ion batteries are hazardous wastes under federal law
and that their recycling and other management could therefore pose risks for which EPA has
failed to adequately account.
Commenters like Valero and TRALA maintained that BEVs would lead to additional traffic
congestion due to a 33 to 50% increase in HD trucks. Certain commenters (including Valero,
National Ass'n of Chemical Distributors and the Sulphur institute) maintained that ZEVs would
contribute to increased traffic, the assumption being that due to limited range, more trips would
be required. TRALA expanded the concern of additional trucks to theorize that parking could
become such an issue that it would cause safety concerns. TRALA also shared that the increased
power of HD BEVs could cause safety concerns.
Valero maintains that EPA failed to coordinate with relevant federal safety agencies in issuing
its proposed rule.
Response:
EPA's assessment at proposal was that HD BEV systems must be, and are, designed "to
always maintain safe operation." 88 FR at 25962. EPA reiterates that conclusion here. As EPA
784
-------
explained at proposal, and as noted by certain commenters, there are industry codes and
standards for the safe design and operation of HD BEVs. The operation of BEV extends to
service as well as to emergency response. In addition, HD BEVs are subject to, and necessarily
comply with, the same federal safety standards and the same safety testing as ICE heavy-duty
vehicles. Commenters challenging the safety of HD BEVs failed to address the existence of these
protocols and federal standards.
For HD BEVs to uphold battery/electrical safety during and after a crash, they are designed to
maintain high voltage isolation, prevent leakage of electrolyte and volatile gases, maintain
internal battery integrity, and withstand external fire that could come from the BEV or other
vehicle(s) involved in a crash. The internal battery integrity is important to prevent fire risk from
developing within the battery over time. Standards driving design and process for optimizing
crash and post-crash safety have been completed by IEC and ISO as well as:
• National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) FMVSS 305, electrolyte
spillage and electrical shock protection
• NHTSA DOT HS 812 789, post-crash stranded energy tools and procedures
• SAE J1766, crash integrity testing
• SAE J2990, first and second responder recommended practice
Moreover, empirical evidence from the light-duty sector (where BEVs have been on the road
in greater numbers and for a longer period of time), shows that BEVs "are at least as safe" as
combustion vehicles in terms of crashworthiness test performance, and "injury claims are
substantially less frequent" for BEVs than for combustion vehicles.366 On some safety metrics,
BEVs perform substantially better than ICE vehicles. Due to their battery architecture, for
example, BEVs typically have a lower center of gravity than combustion vehicles, which
increases stability and reduces the risk of rollovers (the cause of up to 35 percent of accident
deaths).367
Similarly, the record for NHTSA's 2023 proposal to revise Corporate Average Fuel Economy
standards for all light passenger vehicles includes estimates of the safety impacts of EV weight
and found that, "Change in vehicle mass affects the prevalence of injuries and fatalities on
roadways. Increases in vehicle mass might confer additional safety to vehicle occupants while
also reducing safety for pedestrians, cyclists, and other vulnerable road users, as well as for road
users with lower mass vehicles." But this light passenger vehicle Preliminary RIA goes on to
say, "Across all alternatives, mass changes relative to the baseline result in small reductions in
overall fatalities, injuries, and property damage. These results may seem counterintuitive given
the agency's previous analyses. This outcome amounts to noise around zero."368
366 See Insurance Inst, for Highway Safety, "With More Electric Vehicles Comes More Proof of Safety" (Apr. 22,
2021), https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/with-more-electric-vehicles-comes-more-proof-of-safety.
367 DOE, "Maintenance and Safety of Electric Vehicles,"
https://afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_maintenance.html.
368 US Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. "Preliminary Regulatory
Impact Analysis. Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards for Passenger Cars and Light Trucks for Model Years
785
-------
Fire risk and emergency response can also be managed effectively. There is evidence
(discussed more fully below) that EVs are less likely to catch fire than internal combustion
engine vehicles. Although BEVs can behave differently in fires than ICE vehicles, emergency
responders have been gaining experience in BEV fire response as the number of BEVs on the
road has grown, and there are protocols and guidance at the federal and private levels in support
of first responders. See individual response below.
In sum, the public and private sectors have been working diligently to address BEV safety
considerations, and those efforts will continue as the number of BEVs on the road grows. Heavy-
duty BEVs can be, and are designed and operated safely and EPA, after study and consideration,
is therefore not considering safety as a constraining factor in this rulemaking.
In regards to the comment that ZEVs would need two technicians rather than one, requiring
two technicians for BEV servicing should not be and is not the preferred or even acceptable
safety methodology for BEV. The two-technician proposal suggests one should be an observer.
Observing and reacting to an accident after harm is done is much less desirable than preventing
the accident altogether. Creating service procedures that require two technicians is not acceptable
safety practice and is not seen in service procedure articles.369 Per these articles, safety is
accomplished with proper personnel protective equipment (PPE) and proper procedures, many of
which involve deactivating or disconnecting high voltage systems. Proper PPE procedures, and
training are all currently required for ICEV just as they are for BEV. Also consistent in the
literature is the expectation that BEV will require less maintenance.370
Comments that EPA failed to properly consider issues of safety in regards to ZEVs are
unfounded. Issues of safety are certainly proper for EPA to consider under section 202(a)(1) and
(2), and EPA has done so since the inception of its motor vehicle emission control programs.
See, e.g., 81 FR at 73512/2 (Oct. 25, 2016). CAA Section 202(a)(4) indeed mandates EPA to
consider whether emission control devices, systems, or design elements pose an "unreasonable
risk to public ... safety." EPA also considers issues of safety when determining whether to issue
a vehicle a certificate of conformity. See section 206(a)(3)(A). EPA thus discussed and assessed
potential safety issues associated with BEV and FCEV at length in the DRIA as well as in the
proposed rule preamble, noting potential safety issues and means of securely managing those
issues. See DRIA at pp. 37-39 (BEVs), 69 (depot charger installation), and 74-76 (FCEVs). See
also RIA Chapter 1.5.2 and 1.7.4. Nor does EPA consider the multiple binding federal safety
standards, and industry protocols to be ineffective. The commenters' claim that EPA arbitrarily
failed to consider safety issues is consequently incorrect.
Commenters are also incorrect in their assertion that the EPA did not consider the potential
risk of fires in electric vehicles. First, as the commenter Arizona State legislature acknowledges,
EPA did discuss these issues in the DRIA. DRIA at 38. EPA stated, and reiterates, that large
2027 and Beyond and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Heavy-Duty Pickup Trucks and Vans for Model Years 2030
and Beyond. July, 2023. Available online: https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/2023-08/NHTSA-2127-
AM55-PRIA-tag.pdf
369 https://www.vehicleservicepros.com/collision-repair/on-the-shop-floor/article/21232411/powering-up-safety-
basics-ev-repai
https://www.fleetmaintenance.com/equipment/battery-and-electrical/article/21231765/preparing-for-bev-
maintenance-and-safety-training
370 https ://afdc .energy. gov/vehicles/electric_maintenance .html
786
-------
amounts of water can be needed to put out fires which may result from large batteries, and that
first responders can and should be trained to deal with fires of electrical origin (as they are
trained to deal with fires from other chemical, ignitable, or flammable origins). Empirical studies
in fact indicate that fire rates from BEVs are lower than fire rates from ICEs or hybrid vehicles.
While some aspects of suppressing BEV fires may increase first responder costs, lower fire
incidence will keep operational costs down. See AutoinsuranceEZ: Gas vs. Electric Car Fires
[2024 Findings], Dec. 19, 2023 (rate of fires from BEV light duty vehicles is one-and-a-half to
over two orders of magnitude less than rate for gasoline or hybrid vehicles). Fire-related recalls
for BEVs are likewise considerably lower than for their ICE or hybrid counterparts. Id. The
same source and AFPM note, as EPA did at proposal, that battery fires are of a different
character, can pose different and more difficult challenges to extinguish, and the vehicles may
have stranded electrical power, such that first responder training is desirable. Numerous
agencies and associations, including the National Transportation Safety Board, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and National Fire Protection Association, have
established fire safety and emergency response recommendations for BEVs. See Rachel Bodine,
Gas vs. Electric Car Fires [2023 Findings], AutoinsuranceEZ (Nov. 11, 2022),
https://www.autoinsuranceez.com/gas-vs-electric-car-fires/ (calculating rate of car fires using
National Transportation Safety Board data); see, e.g., NTSB, Risks to Emergency Responders
from High-Voltage, Lithium-Ion Battery Fires Addressed in Safety Report (Jan. 13, 2021)371.
See also Comments of Clean Air Task Force, summarizing additional actions of public and
private entities regarding emergency preparedness. Although these data are from light duty
vehicles, EPA's assessment is that it is appropriate to give weight to them in its consideration of
battery safety issues (and, in addition, we note the absence of data from HD BEV applications).
Although HD BEVs are seen as safe with respect to fire risk, operation within a refinery as
posed by TSI could be a special case. EPA does not claim to have the knowledge to address
refinery risk and safe operating procedures. As not all HD vehicles are projected to be ZEVs in
EPA's modeled potential compliance pathway, refineries, like other purchasers, will have
choices regarding what vehicle type is best for their special circumstances.
EPA thus has considered the issue of HD and FCEV battery fire safety, and accounted for
potential risks and means to mitigate them.
As noted above, BEV fire rates have been historically less than for ICE and hybrid vehicle
types. And many of the "standards" (commenter's air quotes) are the same federally applicable
safety standards to which ICE vehicles likewise are subject. EPA thus does not accept the
commenters' contention that existing standards serve as no guarantee of safety. RIN: 2127-
AM43 adds safety requirements for propulsion batteries in electric-powered vehicles and extends
the applicability of FMVSS No. 305 to heavy vehicles (vehicles with a gross vehicle weight
rating greater than 10,000 pounds) to align the standard with global technical regulation (GTR)
No. 20, Electric vehicle safety. The proposed additional FCEV requirements (RIN: 2127-AM40)
align with those specified in global technical regulation (GTR) No. 13, Hydrogen and fuel cell
vehicles. Both AM40 and AM43 are planned for publication in early 2024. EPA notes further
that the heavy-duty manufacturing industry is investing enormous amounts of capital into
371 https://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/NR20210113.aspx.; see 262 See, e.g., NHTSA, Interim
Guidance for Electric and Hybrid-Electric Vehicles Equipped With High Voltage Batteries (2012),
https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/interimguide_emergencyresponse_012012_v3 .pdf.
787
-------
developing and marketing HD BEVs, and it is obviously in their interest that these vehicles be
safe in operation. See Comments of Daimler at 160 stating unequivocally that HD BEVs do not
pose a safety risk, as well as Volvo's comment that it adheres strictly to all applicable safety
standards in designing its HD BEVs.
The comments claiming increased fatalities due to crashes between HD BEVs and lighter
weight ICE vehicles due to extra weight are overstated given that the weight of Class 8 BEVs is
capped by law at 82,000 lbs, which is only 2,000 pounds (2.5%) more than the maximum weight
of a Class 8 ICE vehicle. See, e.g., Comments of Clean Air Task Force at 60; 23 USC section
127s. For other weight classes, the vehicle weight is restricted to the same maximum GVWR for
BEV and ICE. In addition, our HD TRUCS analysis took a close look at weight and payload (as
further described in RIA Chapter 2.9.1), and there are a number of applications (per HD TRUCS)
where the optimized vehicle weight is less than that of the comparable ICE vehicle. Also, per our
HD TRUCS analysis, almost 50% of the 101 vehicle types studied had a 2% or less weight gain
for BEVs versus a comparable ICE vehicle. We also note that this final rule does not mandate
use of ZEVs. The modeled potential compliance pathway is but one example of how
manufacturers may choose to meet the standards at reasonable cost within the lead time afforded.
See generally our responses in RTC section 2.1 above. As such, certain applications for vehicle
types requiring the largest batteries and possibly increasing weight the most will be the most
expensive and least likely to improve TCO and the correspondingly manufacturers are most
likely to use ICEVs for those applications as a compliance strategy. Moreover, there is every
incentive for OEMs to reduce weight of BEV vehicles in order to improve BEV efficiency and
vehicle range. Llighter weight battery alternatives are readily available and battery weight can
decrease as specific energy increases as expected by ANL/DOE372. DRIA at 40; see generally
Sebastian Blanco, The Future of Solid-State Batteries, J.D. Power (Apr. 3, 2023).373 Finally, the
comment by AFPM that the HD BEV will have increased speed is not substantiated nor is there
reason to think (TRALA) that the acceleration performance of ZEV is a safety concern. Vehicle
speeds are governed on our roadways and there is no reason for BEV to be moving faster.
EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertion that spent lithium-ion batteries pose risks that
the EPA has not accounted for. The fact that spent lithium-ion batteries may be hazardous wastes
is a factor favoring their safe management, not the reverse. As the commenter indicated, most
lithium-ion batteries are likely to be hazardous waste when discarded due to potential ignitability
(D001) and reactivity (D003) characteristics, which are two of four hazardous waste
characteristics that identify any given waste as hazardous. See 40 CFR Part 261 subpart C.
Persons who generate wastes that are defined as hazardous under Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) are referred to as "hazardous waste generators." While EPA has
determined that most lithium-ion batteries on the market today are likely to be hazardous waste
when they are disposed of, it is the responsibility of the generators (persons who generate
wastes) to make an accurate hazardous waste determination per 40 CFR 262.11. If the battery is
a hazardous waste, then the battery must be managed properly from point of generation to point
of final disposition under various EPA regulations implementing subtitle C of RCRA.
372 https://publications.anl.gov/anlpubs/2024/01/187177.pdf. Cost Analysis and Projections for U.S.-Manufactured
Automotive Lithium-ion Batteries
373 https://www.jdpower.com/cars/shopping-guides/the-future-of-solid-state-batteries; Chris Teague, What You
Need To Know About Solid-State Batteries, Autoweek,
https://www.autoweek.com/news/technology/a36189339/solid-state-batteries/ (last visited June 15, 2023).
788
-------
Spent electric vehicle batteries are likely to be recycled, as the commenter seems to
acknowledge. See RTC 17.2. Safe recycling of hazardous waste batteries is encouraged under the
RCRA hazardous waste regulations. Hazardous waste batteries of all chemistries may be
managed under the Universal Waste battery regulations found in 40 CFR Part 273. These
regulations are designed to encourage resource recovery while ensuring adequate protection of
human health and the environment. See 60 FR at 25501-02 (May 11, 1995). Requirements for
battery handlers (defined in 40 CFR section 273.9) include but are not limited to: notification to
EPA and obtaining an EPA identification number, labeling of containers of batteries, employee
training, limits on battery accumulation time, plus recordkeeping and record retention.
Ultimately the universal waste batteries must go to a destination facility that has a RCRA subtitle
C permit if it stores batteries that are hazardous waste, or otherwise satisfies conditions set out in
40 CFR section 261.6(c) for certain recyclers. These regulatory provisions are intended ensure
proper management at end-of-life for lithium-ion batteries. In addition, EPA has further clarified
how hazardous lithium batteries are regulated when recycled at end of life in the memorandum
from Carolyn Hoskinson, Director, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, "Lithium
Battery Recycling Regulatory Status and Frequently Asked Questions" (EPA Office of Land and
Emergency Management, May 24, 2023) (cited by the commenter). Should hazardous waste
batteries be disposed rather than recycled, their management is comprehensively regulated from
point of generation to point of final disposition under the RCRA subtitle C regulations (40 CFR
Parts 261-265 and 267). Among the requirements are a prohibition on land disposal of the
batteries until they are pretreated so as to minimize any threats to human health and the
environment posed by their land disposal. RCRA section 3004 (m) and 40 CFR Part 267
(treatment standards).
In addition, the Department of Transportation regulates end-of-life batteries under its
Hazardous Material Regulations. Manufacturers are required to meet requirements related to
altitude, thermal test, overcharge, and shock. Upon passing this test, batteries can be transported
but are subject to additional safety requirements, such as being placed in outer packaging that
can resist atmospheric pressure, loadings, and shocks that typically occur during transportation.
See generally 49 CFR Parts 171-180 generally and 49 CFR section 173.185 for hazardous
material regulation for lithium batteries.
EPA consequently does not accept the commenter's assertion that EPA is unaware of
potential issues relating to management of spent lithium-ion batteries, or that management of
these batteries poses risks for which EPA has not accounted for in this rulemaking.
EPA's responses to issues of BEV range and payload are found at RTC Section 4.4, RIA
Chapter 2.9.1, and sources there cited. For the reasons there stated, EPA does not accept the
premise that traffic congestion or parking problems will increase as a result of the final
standards. Moreover, as stated previously, this final rule is not a ZEV mandate, and considers
ZEVs in one modeled potential compliance pathway for meeting the standards to support the
feasibility of the final standards. Other methods of compliance are available. See, e.g., preamble
Section II.F.4; see also our responses in RTC section 2.1. Under our modeled potential
compliance pathway, fleet owners are not expected to utilize BEVs, nor manufacturers to
produce them, for applications (to the extent there are any) that would require more than one HD
ZEV to replace a comparable ICE vehicle. As explained throughout this response, EPA does not
accept the assertion that HD BEV power will cause safety concerns. Moreover, RMI notes in its
789
-------
comments that HD drivers have commented that "driving in traffic seems easier and safer" in a
BEV due to superior torque, better visibility, and smoother ride.
EPA has a long history of coordinating safety issues with the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA) and did so prior to the proposal and throughout the rulemaking
process for the final rule here. See Memorandum from Michael Landgraf "Summary of NHTSA
Safety Communications During LD and HD GHG Rulemaking" (February 14, 2024). EPA has
also met extensively with the Joint Office of Energy and Transportation, of which NHTSA is a
member, throughout this entire rulemaking process. Information included by EPA in EPA's
rulemaking record on pending NHTSA rulemakings pertaining to BEVs and FCEVs, as well as
documentation of existing NHTSA research pertaining to electrified vehicles, is a product of that
consultation.
4.9 BEV Mounting Systems and Tires
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Lynden Incorporated
Batteries and electric motors on rubber mountings are not robust enough to handle the impact
of gravel roads, which would make transporting critical supplies and supporting the remote
Alaskan and rural agricultural communities in the Pacific Northwest unreliable, if not
impossible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1470-A1, p. 2]
Organization: Truck Renting and Leasing Association (TRALA)
Tires, tubes, liners, and valves for truck businesses are the number one repair and
maintenance expense comprising 43% of all such costs. 13 (See Figure 3). [Refer to Figure 3 on
p. 11 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1577-A1] ZEV tires will cost even more as
the added weight and extra torque of a ZEV will cause greater and quicker tire wear. It also
remains unclear whether the new generation of tires for ZEVs will maintain the same tire and
casing integrity for retread purposes - a must for today's truck maintenance shops and a key
strategy for maximizing tire recovery and reuse. TRALA asks EPA to address increased ZEV
tire costs and performance in the final rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1577-A1, p. 10]
13 'Transportation Fleets Lowering Tire Costs Through Data, Business Intelligence and Lifecycle
Management,' Waste Advantage Magazine (November 30, 2019).
Organization: U.S. Tire Manufacturers Association (USTMA)
Additionally, as electric commercial vehicles continue to be introduced into the marketplace,
their heavier weight and negative impact on tire wear merits careful consideration. Ensuring tires
can handle the increased load of the vehicle can mitigate any unintended consequences
impacting driver safety and tire performance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1635-A1, p. 4]
790
-------
EPA Summary and Response:
Summary:
EPA received a comment from Lynden Inc. that the mounting systems for electric motors and
batteries are not robust enough for extended use on gravel roads and this makes delivering
critical supplies in harsh conditions unreliable.
TRALA and USTMA expressed concern over tire performance due to heavier weight EVs
and the potential for increased tire wear. TRALA suggested that EPA should consider the cost of
any increased maintenance for tires and USTMA noted a need for tires to "handle the increase
load" to ensure driver safety.
Response:
We expect that manufacturers will build ZEVs to meet or exceed the reliability requirements
of manufacturers' current ICE vehicle portfolio. Moreover, as noted above when considering
similar comments regarding ZEV suitability for operation in extreme weather conditions, we
expect that fleets operating in extreme conditions (be it ambient temperature or unpaved
highways) will adopt ZEVs more slowly than in less harsh areas and, as explained further in our
response in RTC Section 4.3.2, there would be ample opportunities under these standards for
ICE vehicles to be utilized in those conditions.
We do not have data to suggest tires are underperforming for current EV customers in the
heavy-duty sector as explained in Section 13 of RTC. Furthermore, heavy-duty vehicles,
regardless of their propulsion technology or tare weight, are limited by their gross vehicle weight
rating (GVWR) and tire manufacturers currently offer a wide selection of tires for the entire
range of weights legally permissible for heavy-duty vehicles. We expect tire manufacturers will
continue to research vehicle trends and design tires that meet the durability and performance
needs of their customers. Commenters did not provide data or references from which we could
update our analysis for the final rule. See Section 13 of this RTC document, for a description of
how heavy-duty vehicle tire wear was factored into our emission impacts analysis for this rule.
4.10 Fuel Operated Heaters
Comments by Organizations
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
d. Fuel Operated Heaters
Affected page: DRIA 43
In the DRIA, U.S. EPA suggests fuel operated heaters (FOH) may be needed in ZEV
applications to provide for cabin heating in extreme cold temperatures, or where a reduction in
driving range is unacceptable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1591-A1, p.38]
FOHs use diesel or gasoline fuel to provide heat and have associated criteria pollutant as well
as GHG emissions. They are widely used in HDVs with ICEs to provide cab heating during
idling and for pre-heating the engine block during cold start in cold ambient conditions. As a
result, since 2008, CARB has been regulating emissions from FOHs installed in HDVs equipped
791
-------
with aftertreatment systems such that emissions from FOHs do not exceed emissions from idling
diesel fueled HDVs equipped with aftertreatment systems. 115 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1591-
Al, p..38]
115 Title 13, California Code of Regulations, section 2485.
Recent studies raise concern about FOH emissions. One study has shown that PM emissions
from unregulated FOHs can be up to a thousand times higher than the particulate emissions of
idling gasoline vehicles. 116 Another study of 64 buses across eight types and five FOH
manufacturers reports that FOHs exceeded Euro VI standards for PM on 11 percent of units
tested and particle number standards for 54 percent of units tested. 117 The same study found
higher emitter examples without correlation between high CO and high PM that may suggest
multiple mechanisms for creating high emissions conditions. A report on FOH emissions
measurement methods reports their observation of PM emissions that appeared driven by cold
combustion chamber conditions which are often and recurrently associated with the start of each
"fired" period in the on/off duty-cycle of the FOH. 118 This can cause emissions rates to be
uncorrected with average FOH power drawn, but instead affected by vehicle/FOH
implementation details affecting cycling event frequency that determines the number of start of
firing emissions bursts. These results indicate that the use of FOHs in otherwise HD ZEVs can
have a significant impact on air quality and would significantly undermine the emissions benefits
expected from these vehicles. The high values reported for in-use unregulated FOHs contrast
with emissions data submitted for CARB certification of FOHs and some recently reported
emissions data U.S. EPA has received from FOH manufacturers. These high levels together with
anecdotal reports of frequent required FOH maintenance and user reported run-to-failure
maintenance practicesl 19 raise questions about in-use emissions durability, the ability of the
FOH industry to self-policy in the absence of U.S. EPA emissions standards and enforcement,
and the variability of emissions rates across manufacturers and FOH models. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1591-A1, pp.38-39]
116 Karjalainen, Panu, M. Nikka, M. Olin, S. Martikainen, A. Rostedt, A. Arffman, gand S. Mikkonen.
2021. "Fuel-Operated Auxiliary Heaters are a Major Additional Source of Vehicular Particulate Emissions
in Cold Regions" Atmosphere 2021, 12(9), 1105. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmosl2091105
117 Measurement of emissions from diesel fired heaters, January - March 2021.
https://cleanbusplatform.eu/storage/files/measurement-of-emissions-from-diesel-heaters-ti-2021-1143767-
l.pdf
118 Energies | Free Full-Text | Testing Method for Electric Bus Auxiliary Heater Emissions, 2023.
https://www.mdpi.eom/1996-1073/16/8/3578
119 Measurement of emissions from diesel fired heaters, January - March 2021.
https://cleanbusplatform.eu/storage/files/measurement-of-emissions-from-diesel-heaters-ti-2021-1143767-
l.pdf
School buses are often cited as an example in support of FOHs as a 'cost effective' means to
extend battery range. CARB staff point out that PM "self-pollution" is a documented serious
issue with conventional diesel buses.120,121,122,123 U.S. EPA has recognized school buses as a
target sector for turnover to ZE technologies and Congress has allocated an additional $5 billion
for direct funding incentives to replace existing school buses with ZE and low emission models
to reduce the exposure to harmful pollutants experienced by school children. 124 The addition of
FOHs to otherwise ZE school buses would be anticipated to be subject to these same cabin
792
-------
penetrating exhaust re-entrainment physical processes delivering PM and any other FOH exhaust
pollutants to the passengers, counteracting the purpose of the program. The discussion above of
FOH emission rate issues further underscores the potential harms from such an ill-conceived
configuration. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1591-A1, p.39]
120 Full article: Measuring In-Cabin School Bus Tailpipe and Crankcase PM2.5: A New Dual Tracer
Method, https://www.tandfonline.eom/doi/full/10.3155/1047-3289.61.5.494
121 Characterizing The Range Of Children's Pollutant Exposure During School Bus Commutes.
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/research/apr/past/00-322.pdf
122 Emissions From School Buses Increase Pollution Levels Inside the Bus.
https://www.edf.org/sites/default/files/5342_School_bus_pollution_studies.pdf
123 A Multi-City Investigation of the Effectiveness of Retrofit Emissions Controls in Reducing Exposures
to Particulate Matter in School Buses, https://www.catf.us/wp-
content/uploads/2019/02/CATF_Pub_School_Bus_Particulate_Matter_Study .pdf
124 U.S. EPA's Clean School Bus Program, https://www.epa.gov/cleanschoolbus
As discussed in the NPRM and DRIA, alternative technologies such as positive temperature
coefficient electric resistance heater or a full heat pump system can be used to provide cabin
heating. A wide array of technologies are available to reduce the vehicle heating load, thus
lessening the perceived need for FOHs. Passive means of heating load reduction include design
choices for passenger compartment insulation, battery pack insulation and vehicle glazing, as
well as active means including shore power pre-heat, and directing heat more efficiently to the
occupants via the use of heated seats, steering wheels, interior surfaces and floors. 125,126 The
energy cost of the remaining heat delivery itself can be reduced using heat pumps that have
become increasingly capable at low temperatures. C02 based R744 heat pump systems maintain
efficiency as low as -20 degrees Celsius. 127 Already 60 percent of German electric buses are
equipped with heat pumps. 128 Most major mobile air conditioning (A/C) system suppliers
already have a passenger bus heat pump offering, with the low temperature capable R744
systems being quite common among them.129,130,131,132,133 A number of these commercial
vehicle oriented heat pump systems already simultaneously incorporate both outside air heat
sourcing and liquid coolant heat sourcing to flexibly optimize integration with the powertrain
thermal management and maximize waste heat recovery for use in cabin heating. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1591-A1, pp.39-40]
125 Letenda announces its first order for electric buses in the United States.
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/letenda-announces-its-first-order-for-electric-buses-in-
theunited-states-301619434.html
126 Ford test proves efficiency of surface heaters inBEVs. https://www.electrive.com/2023/02/22/ford-
test-proves-efficiency-of-surface-heaters-in-bevs/
127 C02 Heat Pump Found to Outperform Electric Heaters in Electric Buses, https://r744.com/co2-heat-
pumps-found-to-outperform-electric-heaters-in-electric-buses/
128 Konvekta supplies 60% of German e-buses with C02 technology. https://www.sustainable-
bus.com/components/konvekta-german-e-buses/
129 Guchen's Novel Bus Heating and Air-Conditioning System, https://www.guchen.com/company-
news/guchen-bus-ac-innovative-design-with-integrated-heatpump.html
130 Siberian-HP. https://www.mcc-hvac.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Siberian-HP.pdf
793
-------
131 Bus & Coach Thermal Management: Eberspacher. https://www.eberspaecher.com/en/press/media-
service/pictures/air-conditioning-systems/bus-coachthermal-management
132 Valeo Thermal Bus. https://www.valeo-thermalbus.com/eu_en/Products/Air-Conditioning/Buses-over-
12-m/REVO-E
133 Thermo King Unveils New Bus HVAC Heat Pump with Natural Refrigerant - Thermo King.
https://europe.thermoking.com/mediaroom/thermo-king-unveils-new-bus-hvac-heat-pump-with-
naturalrefrigerant
While CARB does not ban FOHs and has emissions standards for FOHs installed on diesel
HDVs set 18 years ago,134 CARB also has since taken actions that have had a limiting effect on
certain types of FOH deployment in California. For example, CARB's ICT regulation does not
recognize FOH equipped buses as ZE buses for credit toward transit agencies obligations. 135 On
the incentive side, CARB's Implementation Manual for the HVIP states its Zero Emission
Vehicle definition "means a vehicle that itself produces no emissions of pollutants (including
carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, oxides of nitrogen (NOx), and particulates)
when stationary or operating" in determining funding amounts for purchase vouchers. 136 [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1591-A1, pp.40-41]
134 CARB Board Book October 20, 2005.
https://ww2.arb.ca.gOv/sites/default/files/barcu/board/books/2005/102005/start.pdf
135 ICT Clean Final Reg. Order. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2019-10/ictfro-Clean-
Final_0.pdf
136 HVIP-FY21-22-Implementation-Manual, March 15, 2022. https://californiahvip.org/wp-
content/uploads/2022/03/H VIP-FY21-22-Implementation-Manual-03.15.22.pdf
Therefore, CARB staff believes that FOH use in HD ZEVs is not justified. To mitigate the
driving range reduction in extreme cold temperatures, a combination of the above technologies
and sizing batteries to meet anticipated remaining loads could be used to meet the need for cab
and battery heating. FCEVs as well could both utilize waste heatl37,138 as well as size
hydrogen storage to account for the remaining heat energy that may be needed for cabin
heating. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1591-A1, p.41]
137 New Approach To Increasing The Range And Comfort In Fuel Cell-Powered Rail Transport.
https://fuelcellsworks.com/news/new-approach-to-increasing-the-range-and-comfort-in-fuel-cellpowered-
rail-transport/
138 Technical-note—bus-cold-weather-operation, https://www.ballard.com/docs/default-source/motive-
modules-documents/technical-note—bus-coldweather-operation—final.pdf? sfvrsn=4&slvrsn=4
CARB staff regards as overly optimistic the U.S. EPA's expectation that buyer preferences
and OEM sustainability goals will make "unlikely FOH will be the primary solution for cabin
heat." That stated expectation does not appear to be borne out in the current North American
market. FOHs are typically chosen as a 'least expensive option' to lower the purchase cost of
vehicles. There are perverse motivations to bid the lowest purchase cost vehicle to capture
solicitations even if the resulting vehicle increases operating costs, GHG and criteria emissions.
If the ready option remains FOH, there is little motivation to design additional insulation, direct
heat delivery, heat pumps and install sufficient energy storage all at a first cost premium over a
competitor's FOH upfitted off-the-shelf vehicle. Especially so long as public solicitations remain
"least cost" driven—the better designed and integrated vehicle would go unpurchased without a
much more sophisticated solicitation spec that values emissions and TCO considerations. U.S.
794
-------
EPA has the jurisdiction, technical ability and responsibility for FOHs which should not be
punted to myriad purchasing entities in the vain hope that each might reach the same
sustainability conclusion in each of their series of procurement decisions to avoid a
cheaper/dirtier tradeoff merely on the basis of sustainability goals. CARB staff is already aware
of industry floated ideas pushing for allowing FOHs to emit higher than the 18 year old CARB
standard due to high emissions of current offerings at higher power ratings, as well as proposing
'workaround' strategies to effectively double or triple the existing CARB FOH standard by
dividing a vehicle's FOH demand across multiple separate FOH units each with an individual
CARB certification. These dubious suggestions seem diametrically opposite of an industry on
the verge of abandoning FOHs as a primary means of cabin heat as U.S. EPA statements in the
DRIA appear to suggest. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1591-A1, p.41]
CARB staff recommends that U.S. EPA carefully evaluate the emission rates of in-use FOHs
including continued collaboration with and incorporation of data from ongoing studies of in-use
FOHs underway in neighboring jurisdictions. CARB staff recommends U.S. EPA evaluate the
ZE alternatives to FOHs and encourage these alternatives use in lieu of FOHs everywhere
possible. CARB staff recommends U.S. EPA to restrict the use of FOHs in HD ZEVs for heating
from being the default approach to passenger space heating on electrified vehicles and only allow
their use in those narrow range of applications U.S. EPA may deem them actually necessary,
since combustion FOHs undermine the purpose of the Phase 3 GHG regulation and confound
U.S. EPA's other efforts to control direct and regional exposure to criteria pollutant emissions.
U.S. EPA could also consider issuing requirements that FOHs not be used above the ambient
temperatures that necessitate their use in well system integrated ZE vehicles. CARB staff further
recommends U.S. EPA act on their own existing efforts to quantify the harmful criteria pollutant
and GHG emissions from FOHs by setting stringent emissions standards regulating FOH
emissions. CARB staff recommends that U.S. EPA clearly define their FOH standard as also
applying to the vehicle level, i.e., that stacking multiple units to game the FOH standard is not
appropriate. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1591-A1, p.42]
Organization: ROUSH CleanTech
OMISSIONS OBSERVED IN PROPOSED RULE
We believe that the EPA proposed rule fails to address a significant regulatory gap related to
national deployment of heavy-duty BEV/FCEV's, specifically, the anticipated widespread use of
fuel-fired heaters in buses and other large cabin vehicles in the Midwest and northern states. EPA
touches on this problem a bit in the discussion of battery sizing and energy use in Section II. The
Basma study cited on page 160 is excellent, but by design it only focused on Paris, France, and
thus assumed a minimum temperature of-10C (14°F), which is a far warmer minimum
temperature than is found in large parts of the US. Moreover, the proposed dual heat pump
system becomes ineffective as temperatures drop, resulting in significantly worse heat energy
requirements. In practice, if BEV/FCEV deployment is desired, the buses must be able to support
their routes every day—we don't think it is acceptable to ever cancel school because the buses
were only designed for 90th percentile use. Practically, these buses will have to be equipped with
a supplementary heating device (typically, a fuel-fired heater, as has been used to supplement
diesel engine heat output for years). We suggest that EPA should include specific guidance in the
Phase 3 rule allowing the use of manufacturer-installed fuel systems and heaters, including
requirements and guidance for refueling, evaporative, and tailpipe emissions, as well as a method
795
-------
for accounting for the carbon emissions expected over the vehicle life. We believe existing
vehicle refueling and evaporative standards are sufficient, but tailpipe standards would need to
be defined. This will help ensure that these systems are certified, subject to emissions warranties,
and integrated into the vehicle, and that gross polluting systems are not used in the aftermarket.
We believe that anticipating and including this key enabling technology in the rule will prove
highly valuable, especially as a contributing basis for future rules that are likely to focus more on
the efficiency and climate impact of BEV's and FCEV's (where the small carbon emissions from
a fuel-fired heater are likely far less than the carbon emissions associated with excessive battery
sizing). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1655-A1, p.5]
EPA Summary and Response:
Summary:
EPA received two comments that expressed concern about the use of Fuel Operated Heaters
(FOH) and the lack of federal regulation on them. Both commenters suggested ways to regulate
FOHs and were concerned that the use of FOHs would be more widespread than was predicted in
the proposal. (Roush and CARB)
Response:
EPA did not propose to include standards or requirements for FOHs in the NPRM and
therefore is not taking final action to address emissions from FOHs in the FRM. We understand
that our current 40 CFR part 1037 regulations address FOH in the context of extended-idle only
(see 40 CFR 1037.520(j)(4)). EPA understands that FOHs are emitters of both GHG and non-
GHG pollutants and we intend to further assess the level of potential emissions from FOHs and
may address them in a future rulemaking. We note that non-GHG emission standards for HD
vehicles are outside the scope of this current rulemaking. We also note that EPA incentive and
grant programs are outside the scope of this current rulemaking.
We note further that these types of heating devices are already in operation on HDVs
(including in existing HD ICE vehicles) to aid in cabin heating and engine block warming in low
ambient temperature operating conditions, and to heat cabins during overnight hoteling. In our
assessment for BEVs, we were able to size the battery with extreme temperature (very hot or
very cold) considerations. For discussion on the temperature effects on battery sizing and how
this phenomenon was taken into account in our analysis, see RTC 3. We recognize that the
temperatures used for our assessment are temperature-vehicle mile weighted, therefore the
battery size may not be feasible at extreme temperatures. However, the limited number of vehicle
miles traveled indicates that these miles are driven less compared to more moderate
temperatures. Therefore, while there will be occasions of high energy consumptions from the
battery for HVAC and battery conditioning purpose, the batteries are as oversized for durability,
depth of discharge, and high daily milage vehicles. We also recognize that there is limited
number of studies available to understand the prevalence and impact of emissions from FOH.
We are aware that studies are being conducted on FOHs, especially with respect to FOHs as
supplemental heat in ZEVs, and this data may inform our future analysis.374
We also recognize that there may be conditions where these conservative approaches for
battery sizing are still not sufficient for some applications, therefore we limited ZEV technology
374 Pettinen, R., Anttila, J., et al. "Testing Method for Electric Bus Auxiliary Heater Emissions." Energies, 2023.
796
-------
adoption to 70% adoption in MY 2032 and we therefore expect ICE vehicles to continue to meet
the needs of such applications under the modeled potential compliance pathway. See RIA
Chapter 2.7 for further discussion. We stand by our assertions that FOHs will likely only be
used in environments with extremely low temperatures or where a reduction in driving range is
unacceptable, and that adoption of this technology will likely be kept to a minimum because
FOHs do not meet the sustainability goals of fleets and OEMs.
797
-------
5 FCEV Technologies
Comments by Organizations:
Organization: Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association (MECA)
Future BEV/FCEV Powertrain Efficiency Standards
Today, vehicle manufacturers are deploying the first generation of electric and fuel cell
commercial vehicles. On the other hand, suppliers are already looking ahead and developing the
next generation of advanced efficient powertrain components such as batteries, power
electronics, transmissions, e-motors and integrated drive units. Technology innovation has
strived for greater efficiency and power for the past 50 years of combustion engines and
similarly, electric component suppliers continue to innovate electric technology. Some of these
innovations will be revealed in the five funded projects under the DOE's SuperTruck III
program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1521-A1, pp. 12 - 13.]
As such, it is important that EPA begins to consider ways to incentivize and reward more
efficient vehicles just as it has for combustion engine technology. In the light-duty sector, where
EVs have been around for much longer, we are already seeing significant differences in the
energy efficiency of similarly sized vehicles. This is a result of some manufacturers deploying
more advanced technology and investing in efficient powertrain integration which reduces the
impact on the environment across the vehicle life-cycle from manufacturing to recycling and
disposal. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1521-A1, p. 13.]
Organization: Truck Renting and Leasing Association (TRALA)
Securing National Weight Exemptions for BEVs and FCEVs Will be Difficult
Battery electric or fuel cell trucks will incur a substantial weight penalty that can put truck
gross vehicle weights over their allotted federal limits. Roughly 10-15% of truckloads hit their
maximum federal weight limits due to the types of payloads they carry. Federal legislation
passed in 2019 allows a 2,000-pound weight exemption for battery powered heavy-duty trucks.
The problem is the additional battery weight for a Class 8 BEV could add up tol6,000 pounds
depending on the battery configuration. This is one of the primary reasons why Class 8 trucks
will rely upon the development and advancement of Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles (FCEVs). Fuel
cell vehicles will also experience additional weight issues but not to the extent of BEVs. OEMs
estimate the additional weight of an FCEV compared to a comparable ICE vehicle will be
somewhere in the range of 8,000 pounds. The longer the vehicle range the more battery cells or
fuel cell modules required which in turn has a direct correlation to overall added vehicle weight.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1577-A1, p. 15.]
Federal legislation was introduced in May to secure a 2,000-pound weight exemption for
hydrogen-powered trucks. However, a 2,000-pound weight allowance for either BEVs or FCEVs
is a mere drop in the bucket. Federal legislation to acquire additional weight exemptions to offset
added ZEV technology weight will be extremely difficult given strong opposition from select
industry, safety, and infrastructure interests. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1577-A1, p. 15.]
798
-------
With respect to infrastructure concerns, the American Society of Civil Engineers' (ASCE)
2021 Infrastructure Report Card gave the nation's roads a 'D' grade and its bridges a 'C'
grade.22 Roads and bridges need continual repair, rebuilding, and investment. Added vehicle
weights and the high torque rates of ZEVs has the potential to accelerate the degradation of our
nation's road networks. TRALA requests further analysis be undertaken to ensure that the
increased use of all on-road ZEVs will not result in any detrimental impacts and unanticipated
costs related to maintaining our nation's existing highway infrastructure. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1577-A1, pp. 15-16]
EPA Summary and Response:
Summary:
MEMA acknowledged that the first generation of FCEVs are being deployed and that next
generation components are under development, including through DOE's SuperTruck 3 program.
They called for incentives for the use of more energy-efficient ZEVs, as EPA has done for ICE
vehicles.
TRALA, on the other hand, commented on weight penalties associated with BEV and FCEV
technology. They said that weight is one reason why Class 8 trucks may be FCEVs—because a
FCEV has about half the weight penalty of a BEV. They stressed that impact of the additional
weight of ZEVs on road networks should be further analyzed, asserting that it has the potential to
accelerate the degradation of our nation's road networks.
Response:
Please also refer to the additional summary and response to the same comments in RTC
Section 4.1.2 (MEMA) and Sections 4.6 and 3.10.1 (TRALA).
With respect to FCEV weight concerns, we recognize that the weight of hydrogen tanks is a
mass driver—the more tanks onboard a FCEV to store fuel for longer ranges, the heavier the
vehicle. However, we did not find a compelling reason to evaluate the weight of FCEVs in HD
TRUCS, as our review of existing literature did not identify weight as a potential constraint.
Basma et. al relied on a teardown analysis by Ricardo to evaluate truck weights. They found a
similar payload capacity for HD FCEVs relative to diesel counterparts for current (2022) and
future (2035) technologies.375'376 Also, DOE conducted preliminary analysis to determine the
payload capacity of Class 8 long-haul FCEVs relative to a comparable diesel truck and
determined there is no loss in payload capacity, even without factoring in exemptions available
for alternative fuels and engines.377'378 RIA Chapter 2.9.1 explains how FCEVs were included in
the modeled potential compliance pathway for limited vehicle applications where the volume or
375 Basma, et. al. "White Paper: Total Cost of Ownership of Alternative Powertrain Technologies for Class 8 Long-
Haul Trucks in the United States". The International Council on Clean Transportation. April 2023. Available online:
https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/tco-alt-powertrain-long-haul-trucks-us-apr23.pdf.
376 Ricardo. "E-Truck Virtual Teardown Study: Final Report". ICCT. June 11, 2021. Available online:
https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Final-Report-eTruck-Virtual-Teardown-Public-Version.pdf.
377 The analysis is specific to trucks using hybrid platforms with 175- and 275-kW fuel cell systems.
378 U.S. Department of Energy. "The #H2IQ Hour. Today's Topic: Heavy-Duty Vehicle Decarbonization".
September 21, 2023. Available online: https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2023-10/h2iqhour-09212023.pdf.
799
-------
weight of a BEV battery may adversely impact payload for a BEV, given that payload concerns
associated with larger and heavier batteries are more notable in the literature.
In general, if a ZEV resulted in a battery that was too large or heavy, it was not included in the
modeled potential compliance pathway for that vehicle application's technology package
because of its potential impact on payload. Thus, we did not find a need to evaluate potential
impacts of added vehicle weights on road degradation.
5.1 FCEV Technology Readiness
Comments by Organizations:
Organization: American Petroleum Institute (API)
While still in the early stages of development and prove out, hydrogen-based vehicles
(FCEVs and H2-ICE) are a promising technology that many stakeholders are considering. API
members are engaged in hydrogen projects to support development of hydrogen focused
technology. Companies are partnering with HD OEMs to explore commercial business
opportunities to build demand for commercial vehicles and industrial applications powered by
hydrogen. Demonstration projects target hard-to-abate applications like rail and marine, with a
goal to develop viable large-scale businesses and advance a thriving hydrogen economy. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1617-A1, p. 8.]
As noted by the American Trucking Associations (ATA), in testimony before the U.S. Senate
Committee on Environment and Public Works8:
When battery electric vehicles are not the answer, federal support should refrain from playing
favorites, and instead assist in the buildout of alternative fuel facilities. Proposals for hydrogen
infrastructure for trucks need to ensure that the infrastructure is in place where that technology
best fits in supply chains. Where lifecycle emissions can be reduced by deploying renewable
diesel and renewable natural gas, those fuel stocks need to be available for trucking. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1617-A1, p. 8.]
8 U. S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, hearing on "The Future of Low Carbon
Transportation Fuels and Considerations for a National Clean Fuels Program", February 15, 2023
(https://www.epw.senate.gOv/public/index.cfm/2023/2/the-future-of-low-carbon-transportation-fuels-and"
considerations-for-a-national-clean-fuels-program).
d. Technical Feasibility
i. Vehicle readiness
1. Technology readiness
The proposed rule identified various HD ZEVs available in the marketplace or in production,
as well as select manufacturer goals and commitments to producing HD ZEVs by a certain
timeframe. However, given the nascent technology, there is significant uncertainty regarding
EPA's expectation for rapid availability of ZEV powertrains. Further, it should be noted that
these vehicles are small in number, some are not able to perform the work that a comparable
ICEV would perform (due to charging, range, and duty-cycle constraints), and all are for
localized operations; long-haul ZEVs are in the pilot stage and have significant challenges. OEM
800
-------
goals and commitments, coupled with IRA/BIL funding may help to increase the availability of
HD ZEVs; however, it will be extremely challenging to meet the proposal's implementation
schedule. We have concerns that vehicles may not be available at the rates that EPA is projecting
for the 2027-2032 timeframe. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1617-A1, p. 10.]
Even with a fully stocked HD ZEV market, key barriers to entry include customer uptake,
capital costs to purchase vehicles, and infrastructure readiness. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1617-A1, p. 10.]
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Currently, there are a number of MD and HD FCEVs being demonstrated in the class 6 and 8
weight classes.63,64,65,66,67 Class 8 fuel cell tractors produced by Hyzon Motors, Hyundai,
and Nikola are currently commercially available with warranty and service support, as evidenced
by CARB eligibility determinations for the Hybrid and Zero- Emission Truck and Bus Voucher
Incentive Project (HVIP) catalog.68 Several other manufacturers including Volvo, Cummins
with Daimler, Daimler, Paccar, Hino with Toyota, Isuzu with Honda, Navistar with GM,
Navistar's fellow Traton company Scania with Cummins, and Quantron are in the process of
developing class 8 fuel cell trucks or have announced plans and partnerships to do
so.69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1591-A1, pp.29-30]
63 CARB, LCTI: NorCAL Zero-Emission Regional and Drayage Operations with Fuel Cell Electric
Trucks, 2022 (web link: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/lcti-norcal-zero-emission-regional-and-drayage-operations-
fuel-cell-electrictrucks last accessed August 2022).
64 CARB, LCTI: Fast-Track Fuel Cell Truck, 2022 (web link: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/lcti-fast-track-fuel-
celltruck last accessed August 2022).
65 CARB, LCTI: Fuel Cell Hybrid Electric Delivery Van Deployment, 2022 (web link:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/lcti-fuel-cell-hybrid-electric-delivery-van-deployment last accessed August 2022).
66 CARB, LCTI: Next Generation Fuel Cell Delivery Van Deployment, 2022 (web link:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/lcti-next-generation-fuel-cell-delivery-van-deployment last accessed August 2022).
67 CARB, LCTI: Port of Los Angeles "Shore to Store" Project, 2022 (web link:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/lcti-port-los-angeles-shore-store-project last accessed August 2022).
68 California HVIP, Incentives for Clean Trucks and Bus, 2022 (web link: https://californiahvip.org last
accessed August 2022).
69 PACCAR and Toyota Expand Hydrogen Fuel Cell Truck Collaboration to Include Commercialization,
May 2, 2023. https://www.paccar.com/news/current-news/2023/paccar-and-toyota-expand-hydrogen-fuel-
cell-truckcollaboration-to-include-commercialization/
70 Daimler Truck North America and Cummins Collaborate to drive Hydrogen Fuel Cell Trucks forward in
North America, May 11, 2022. https://www.cummins.com/news/releases/2022/05/ll/daimler-truck-north-
america-and-cumminscollaborate-drive-hydrogen-fuel
71 Volvo Group, The Volvo Group and Daimler Truck form Joint Venture for Large Production of Fuel
Cells, 2020 (web link: https://www.volvogroup.com/en/news-and-media/news/2020/apr/news-
3640568.html, last accessed August 4, 2022).
72 Development milestone: Daimler Truck tests fuel-cell truck with liquid hydrogen, June 27, 2022.
https://media.daimlertruck.com/marsMediaSite/en/instance/ko/Development-milestone-Daimler-
T rucktests-fuel-cell-truck-with-liquid-hy drogen. xhtml?oid=51975637
801
-------
73 Isuzu Selects Honda as Partner to Develop and Supply Fuel Cell System for its Fuel Cell-Powered
Heavy-duty Truck Scheduled to be Launched in 2027, May 15, 2023.
https://global.honda/newsroom/news/2023/c230515aeng.html
74 Trucks.com, Hino Debuts XL8 Fuel Cell Heavy-Duty Truck Prototype, 2021 (website:
https://www.trucks.com/2021/08/31/hino-xl8-fuel-cell-truck-prototype/ last accessed August 2022)
75 Navistar Collaborates with General Motors And OneH2 To Launch Hydrogen Truck Ecosystem,
January 27, 2021. https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/navistar-collaborates-with-general-motors-
and-oneh2-tolaunch-hydrogen-truck-ecosystem-301216246.html
76 Scania to deliver fuel cell trucks to Switzerland, November 8, 2022.
https://www.scania.com/group/en/home/newsroom/news/2022/scania-to-deliver-fuel-cell-trucks-
toswitzerland.html
77 Quantron US Receives Order for 500 Class 8 Hydrogen Fuel Cell Powered Trucks, October 12, 2022.
https://fuelcellsworks.eom/news/quantron-us-receives-order-for-500-class-8-hydrogen-fuel-cellpowered-
trucks/
CARB staff has received detailed fleet and vehicle usage information from nearly 2,000 fleets
representing 400,000 vehicles in California. Based on data collected, 90 percent of non-tractor
vehicles travel below 150 miles per day, and 60 percent of day cab tractors travel below 200
miles per day, indicating typical operation of a large fraction of non-tractor vehicles and day cab
tractors can be readily electrified with the existing range performance of vehicles available on
the market today.78 This data is presented in more detail in Figure 1. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1591-Al,p.30] [Figure 1 can be found on pg. 31 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1591-A1]
78 CARB Large Entity Fleet Reporting: Statewide Aggregated Data.
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-02/Large_Entity_Reporting_Aggregated_Data_ADA.pdf
Organization: Clean Air Task Force et al.
a. EPA's projected penetration of FCEVs into fleets is conservative.
EPA's proposal does not consider the availability of FCEV technology for fleets until MY
2030. 88 Fed. Reg. at 25973. EPA cites the need for "additional lead time to allow manufacturers
to design, develop, and manufacture HD FCEV models." Id. Yet the FCEV market is expected to
grow rapidly over the next several years, heralded by several announcements that, in aggregate,
support a growing FCEV fleet before 2030. Given the many announced plans to incorporate
FCEVs into fleets earlier than 2030, EPA should consider even modest inclusion of FCEVs in its
technology packages starting in MY 2027 and should tighten its overall standards
accordingly. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 62]
First, FCEVs have already been successfully deployed as transit buses. For example, a long-
running FCEV deployment program in the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit)
has shown that FCEV transit buses meet durability, reliability, and performance requirements,
making them well-positioned for accelerated deployment in transit fleets. A report released in
December of last year shows that during the January-June 2022 period, a total of 122,721 miles
were covered by fuel cell buses within the AC Transit service area.272 This number nearly
matched the diesel and hybrid bus workload (146,788 miles). During the most recent month in
the report, June 2022, the newest FCEVs achieved the second highest uptime at 89 percent,
coming in just behind the 96 percent uptime achieved by the diesel drivetrain. Looking at the
802
-------
manufacturing date of the earliest fuel cell buses (2010), recent uptime, and total miles driven,
FCEVs are already a viable drivetrain for this transit bus fleet in 2023. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1640-A1, p. 62]
272 Jimmy Chen et al., AC Transit & Stanford Pecourt Inst, for Energy, Zero Emission Transit Bus
Technology Analysis 10 fig. 7, 14 fig. 15 (2022), https://www.actransit.org/sites/default/files/2023-
01/0430-22%20Report-ZEBTA%20v4_FNL_012423.pdf
There are other examples of hydrogen fuel cell transit bus adoption as well. In California,
thirteen transit agencies have committed to initiate or expand fuel cell bus deployments with a
goal of deploying at least 1,000 fuel cell electric buses. Known as the "1,000 Bus Initiative,"273
the program looks to establish a market to help commercialize FCEV technology for the entire
transit industry. The Center for Transportation and the Environment is heavily involved in this
effort and is also looking to aid with the deployment of thousands of Class 8 fuel cell trucks and
supporting infrastructure as part of hydrogen hub development in the state.274 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 62]
273 Kate Mason, CTE Supports ARCHES: California Hydrogen Hub, Ctr. for Transp. & Env't (May 15,
2023), https://cte.tv/cte-supports-arches-california-hydrogen-hub/
274 Id.
In addition to growing adoption of FCEV transit buses, there are a number of examples of
recent announcements for FCEV heavy-duty trucks. The Alberta Motor Transport Association is
set to receive two Nikola trucks as part of its Hydrogen Commercial Vehicle Demonstrations
Project.275 There will be one BEV and FCEV delivered, with the goal of validating these trucks
on real-world load and duty cycles. In a press release, Nikola Energy president Carey Mendes
announced "plans for 300 metric-tons of hydrogen supply, with 60 hydrogen stations planned for
across North America by 2026." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 63]
275 Today's Trucking, AMTA orders Nikola Tre battery-electric, and hydrogen fuel cell trucks for
demonstrations, AMTA, Truck News (Apr. 25, 2023), https://www.trucknews.com/sustainability/amta-
orders-nikola-tre-battery-electric-and-hydrogen-fuel-cell-trucks-fordemonstrations/1003174531/.
Furthermore, in December 2022, Houston, Air Liquide, Hyzon Motors, and the TALKE
Group began a demonstration of a hydrogen fuel cell electric truck in the Port of Houston.276
The article outlining this demonstration notes the importance of having the option of hydrogen as
it allows for an acceleration toward clean fuel, especially for heavy-duty vehicles. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 63]
276 Air Liquide, Air Liquide fuels first hydrogen fuel cell truck demonstration at Port of Houston (Jan. 12,
2023), https://usa.airliquide.com/hyzon-port-of-houston.
In early May 2023, Hyundai Motor Company premiered its new XCIENT fuel cell tractor for
commercial Class 8 vehicles at the Advanced Clean Transportation Expo.277 The vehicle is
capable of over 450 miles of range when fully loaded, making it ideal for long-haul operations.
Ken Ramirez, Executive Vice President and Head of Global Commercial Vehicle and Hydrogen
Fuel Cell Business at Hyundai Motor, said, "We firmly believe that hydrogen is one of the most
powerful and pragmatic solutions for achieving our vision of 'Progress for Humanity' with
emission-free mobility as a fundamental pillar for a sustainable society." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1640-A1, p. 63]
803
-------
277 Hyundai Motor Co., Hyundai Motor Premieres Commercialized Model of Its XCIENT Fuel Cell
Tractor and Vision for Hydrogen Mobility in US, PR Newswire (May 2, 2023),
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/hyundai-motor-premieres-commercialized-model-of-its-
xcient-fuel-cell-tractor-and-vision-for-hydrogen-mobility-in-us-301812728.html.
In late May 2023, Volvo Trucks, working together with Daimler Truck, reported successes
they have seen testing FCEVs in arctic conditions.278 "Trucks are operating seven days a week
and in all types of weather," said Helena Alsio, VP of powertrain product management at Volvo
Trucks. "The harsh conditions on public roads in northern Sweden, with ice, wind, and lots of
snow, make an ideal testing environment. I am pleased to say that the tests are going well."
Volvo is looking to have hydrogen fuel cell trucks in production for long-haul freight
applications later this decade. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 63]
278 Josh Fisher, Volvo finding fuel cell success in Arctic conditions, Fleet Owner (May 30, 2023),
https://www.fleetowner.com/emissions-efficiency/article/21266721/volvo-testing-fuel-cell-tech-in-arctic-
conditions.
At the ACT Expo transportation conference in 2023, several other OEMs announced plans for
expansion of their FCEV offerings.279 Kenworth and Peterbilt are now planning to offer fuel
cell trucks in 2025. Kenworth is of particular note, as it collaborated with Toyota on a successful
demonstration pilot in the Port of Los Angeles involving 10 FCEVs. Now that the project has
ended, Kenworth is planning to introduce a commercial T680 FCEV that will travel more than
450 miles between ftll-ups. Kevin Baney, Kenworth general manager stated, "With quick
refueling, this broadens our zero-emission product offering to include round-the-clock operations
in regional haul and demonstrates FCEV potential for long haul." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1640-A1, pp. 63 - 64]
279 Alan Adler, ACT Expo a coming of age for hydrogen-powered trucking, Freight Waves (May 3, 2023),
https://www.freightwaves.com/news/act-expo-a-coming-of-age-for-hydrogen-powered-trucking.
Finally, announcements of HDV FCEVs sales well before 2030 continue to pour in. For
example, Performance Food Group announced in June 2023 that it agreed to buy at least five
FCEV trucks from Hyzon Motors, and that it "could be up to 50."280 The first five trucks "are
expected to be delivered in 2023 and 2024." Parker Meeks, Hyzon's chief executive officer,
noted of the agreement of Performance Food Group: "This agreement for up to 50 hydrogen-
powered trucks demonstrates how Hyzon intends to build customer familiarity with a new
technology as the hydrogen infrastructure accelerates."281 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1,
p. 64]
280 Truckinginfo, Performance Food Group Plans to Buy Hyzon Fuel Cell Trucks (June 9, 2023),
https://www.truckinginfo.com/10200499/performance-food-group-to-purchase-hyzon-fuel-cell-trucks.
281 Id.
These recent FCEV-related announcements and demonstrations show the early successes of
the drivetrain, both for heavy-duty trucks and transit buses. In addition, the enthusiastic
statements from those in the industry show that there is a real push from relevant OEMs to get
the technology ready to provide another zero-emission technology option, alongside BEVs.
Based on these examples, we expect continued growth in FCEV technology for the HDV market
before MY 2030. Rather than underestimating the presence of FCEVs in fleets (again, EPA
incorporates no FCEVs into technology packages until MY 2030), EPA's standards should go
beyond what is already occurring in the industry. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 64]
804
-------
In addition to on-the-ground announcements that suggest short-term FCEV market growth,
recently released studies model the growth of the FCEV market over a longer time frame. One
such report published by the University of California at Davis in April 2023 ("the UC Davis
report") projects the number of FCEVs that will be on the road by 2030.282 The report is
focused exclusively on California, but given that California is currently the only state with a
functioning hydrogen economy, using the rich data sets from that state is one of the best ways to
project future growth nationwide. The three paragraphs below focus on the HDV-related
sections, but the report is comprehensive, modeling multiple end use sectors and providing a
detailed analysis of renewable electricity systems in a hydrogen-oriented context. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 64]
282 Lewis Fulton et al., UC Davis, Inst. Transp. Stud. (ITS), California Hydrogen Analysis Project: The
Future Role of Hydrogen in a Carbon-Neutral California: Final Synthesis Modeling Report, at fig. 19
(2023), https://escholarship.org/uc/item/27m7g841. See also id. at Executive Summary figs. 5, 19, 45.
The UC Davis report takes advantage of three tools. Two are in-house tools from UC Davis,
GOOD (Grid Optimized Operation and Dispatch Model)283 and STIEVE (Spatial
Transportation Infrastructure, Energy, Vehicle and Emissions).284 In addition, the study uses a
tool from the NREL, known as SERA (Scenario Evaluation and Regionalization Analysis).285
STIEVE was used to project potential FCEV sales, stocks, hydrogen demand, and the number of
hydrogen stations, sizes, and locations out to 2050. GOOD is an economic dispatch electric
grid model that was used to model the electricity system with higher renewable penetration and
with electrolytic hydrogen production. Lastly, SERA is a hydrogen supply chain model that was
used to optimize the siting of hydrogen supply locations to meet future demand and to estimate
cost along the supply chain, resulting in hydrogen prices at the pump. All three tools were
calibrated with California data, some of which were from prior surveys and analyses.286 The
result of the UC Davis report's modeling was a characterization of a growing hydrogen system,
starting today and projecting out to 2050, for the state of California. These results include a
"base" and "high" projection for FCEV penetration, in terms of stocks, which is depicted in
Figure 19 of the report. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, pp. 64 - 65]
283 See generally Alan Jenn, ITS, Plug-in electric vehicles and the electricity grid (2020),
https://www.dvrpc.org/energyclimate/alternativefuelvehicles/evchargingsummit/pdf/17-alan-jenn.pdf
284 Tri D. Acharya et al., ITS, New UC Davis Model Shows Promise in Identifying Optimal Locations of
Hydrogen Refueling Stations for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Trucks in California (2021),
https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2qw8464c.
285 Mark Chung, NREL, SERA: Scenario Evaluation and Regionalization Analysis Model,
https://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/sera-model.html (last visited June 6, 2023).
286 Jeffrey Reed et al., UC Irvine Advanced Power & Energy Program, Roadmap for the Deployment and
Buildout of Renewable Hydrogen Production Plants in California (2020),
https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/getdocument.aspx?tn=233292; Sarah E. Baker et al., Lawrence Livermore
Nat'l Lab'y, Getting to Neutral: Options for Negative Carbon Emissions in California (2020),
https://doi.org/10.2172/1597217; CARB, Hydrogen Station Self-Sufficiency Report (2021),
https://ww2.arb. ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021-10/hy drogen_self_sufficiency_report.pdf.
For purposes of these comments, we have extrapolated the California hydrogen market
growth projections to the rest of the country, differentiating among states that have adopted the
ACT Rule287 under Section 177 of the Clean Air Act ("Other ACT States"), states that have yet
to adopt the ACT but have adopted other California vehicle regulations ("Non-ACT Section 177
805
-------
States), states that have signed on to the NESCAUM multi-state MOU, and state-specific heavy
duty vehicle registration numbers288 from the U.S. Department of Transportation (see Table 6).
The specific assumptions used for the nationwide FCEV penetration analysis are shown in the
table below in terms of a fraction of FCEV adoption relative to California in 2030. Note that the
UC Davis report assumes 100 percent ZEV sales by 2040 in California, a standard that is more
stringent than ACT. While this is reasonable for California considering other recently passed
regulations like the ACF, it is more aggressive than regulations other states have adopted to date.
For this reason, "Other ACT States" are assumed to move more slowly than California in the
table below. In addition, the FCEV penetration analysis was scaled by the number of registered
trucks and buses in each state relative to California. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 65.]
[See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, pages 65-66, for Table 6]
287 CARB, States that have Adopted California's Vehicle Standards under Section 177 of the Federal
Clean Air Act, (Aug. 19, 2019), https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2019-03/177-states.pdf.
288 Highway Statistics 2021, U.S. DOT (Mar. 2023),
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2021/mvl.cfm.
For HDVs, this calculation results in a "base" scenario where 29,927 FCEVs are on the road
nationwide by 2030 and a "high" scenario where 87,783 FCEV are part of U.S. fleets. This is a
small percentage of overall stocks across the country (roughly 0.2-0.6 percent); however, it
represents a notable increase compared to today and shows that FCEVs are likely to benefit from
rapid market growth, signaled by the announcements and company pledges described earlier and
backed by this modeling, such that we will likely see tens of thousands of HDVs with FCEV
technology on the road by 2030. FCEV technology is viable, and widespread availability is
expected before 2030 due to baseline market forces, IRA incentives, and state regulations alone.
As a result, EPA should incorporate FCEVs into its technology packages beginning in MY 2027
and strengthen its proposed rule accordingly. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 66]
Organization: Daimler Truck North America LLC (DTNA)
EPA Request for Comment, Request #15: We request comment on our assessment and data to
support our assessment of FCEV technology for the final rule.
• DTNA Response: FCEV technologies are one part of the roadmap to reducing GHG
emissions, and DTNA is actively involved in developing this technology. FCEV
technology has not, however, matured sufficiently for EPA to predict its price, range, or
operational characteristics. Most importantly, there is little basis for accurately projecting
infrastructure availability for FCEVs in MY 2030+. DTNA discusses this issue in more
detail in Section II.B.3 of these comments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1,
pp. 160-161]
EPA Request for Comment, Request #19: We request comment on our approach that focuses
primarily on BEVs, which currently are more prevalent in the HD vehicle market, and whether
there are additional vehicle types that should be evaluated as FCEVs along with BEVs.
• DTNA Response: DTNA agrees in principle with EPA's primary focus on BEVs at this
time, as these vehicles are more prevalent in the market. EPA should not consider FCEVs
until at least MY 2032, due to the current state of the technology and refueling
infrastructure. EPA also should not project ZEV uptake for any vehicle types outside of
806
-------
the BEV and FCEV categories included in the Proposed Rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1555-A1, p. 161]
Organization: Lubrizol Corporation (Lubrizol)
Lubrizol believes that vehicle owners and fleets in the heavy-duty vehicle sector will use a
range of fuels and technologies to meet their future operational and environmental needs. Thus,
we are pleased to see EPA acknowledge that it expects to see Original Engine Manufacturers
("OEMs") use an array of technologies to meet the requirements of the Final Rule. Lubrizol
strongly encourages EPA to promulgate a Final Rule that will advance all three strategies
highlighted in the Biden administration's Transportation Decarbonization Blueprint (the
"Blueprint"), i.e., Sustainable Liquid Fuels ("SLFs"), Battery-Electric Vehicles ("BEVs"), and
Hydrogen.2 While there is exciting progress being made to develop heavy-duty engines and
vehicles that will operate on electricity and hydrogen, the majority of new heavy-duty vehicles
will continue to use internal combustion engines ("ICE") for many years to come. This will be
especially true in the heavier vehicle classes in the heavy-duty vehicle market.3 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1651-A2, p. 2.]
2 The U.S. National Blueprint for Transportation Decarbonization: A Joint Strategy to Transform
Transportation (the "Blueprint"). Accessed on June 11, 2023 at The U.S. National Blueprint for
Transportation Decarbonization: A Joint Strategy to Transform Transportation | Department of Energy.
See, e.g., page 5, Figure B and similar references elsewhere in the Blueprint.
3 Lubrizol notes that, even in California and the other states that adopt California's Advanced Clean
Transportation ("ACT") rule (collectively, the "ACT States"), most new trucks sold in 2035 will still be
ICE vehicles fueled by petroleum diesel fuel, absent any further changes in state or federal fuel policy.
More specifically, manufacturers who certify Class 2b-8 chassis or complete vehicles with combustion
engines will be required to sell zero-emission trucks as an increasing percentage of their annual sales in the
ACT States from 2024 to 2035. By 2035, zero-emission truck/chassis sales will need to be 55% of Class 2b
- 3 truck sales, 75% of Class 4-8 straight truck sales, and 40% of truck tractor sales in the ACT States.
Organization: Valero Energy Corporation
E. ZEVs are not fit for purpose as HDVs.
EPA's presumptions regarding consumer acceptance of ZEVs overlook these vehicles'
unsuitability for the purpose of long-haul freight transport. Factors EPA has not fully considered
that are material to HD ZEV feasibility include, among other things: reduced payload capacity;
battery weight requirements; range; impacts to trucking industry jobs; charging/re-fueling
infrastructure availability; the rate of infrastructure buildout; permitting challenges; upstream
environmental impacts inherent to ZEV production; upfront ZEV costs; the HD payback period;
electricity price projections; and battery efficiency in different climate conditions. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 23.]
Regarding "fitness for purpose," while ZEVs may provide options to help reduce GHG
emissions, neither BEV nor FCEV technology is compatible with the full range of use, duty
and demand required by the HD transportation sector, and therefore neither one is suitable to
replace the ICEV and adequately serve the nation's freight and transit needs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1566-A2, pp. 23 - 24.]
807
-------
Current FCEV technology facilitates larger and heavier vehicles due to its higher energy
storage capacity than BEVs, and it offers drivers a refueling experience much like conventional
vehicles, with the fuel tank capable of being refilled in a matter of minutes. However, adoption
of the technology and particularly commitment to developing fueling infrastructure has been
limited within the U.S.—currently the nation has 72 active public and private FCEV hydrogen
fueling stations, with all but one of these being located in California. 112 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1566-A2, p. 25]
112 U.S. DOE Alternative Fuels Data Center, Hydrogen Fueling Station Locations,
https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/hy drogen_locations.html#/analyze?region=US-CA&fuel=HY&country=US,
accessed March 21, 2023.
EPA Summary and Response:
Summary:
The commenters offered a range of opinions about the readiness of FCEV technology. Most
commenters agreed that hydrogen-based technologies are promising and offer business
opportunity. API pointed to American Trucking Association testimony that expressed concern
about considering only hydrogen for sectors where BEVs are not the answer—stating that there
may be other renewable fuel options that can limit lifecycle emissions, and Federal support
should focus on ensuring that alternative fuel infrastructure and feedstocks are available where a
given technology or fuel fits best.
At least two commenters support EPA's assertion that FCEVs are technologically feasible
now. Both CARB and CATF listed several examples of FCEV demonstrations, announcements
and partnerships, and active transit bus and truck deployments that demonstrate early success and
market growth potential. CARB noted that three OEMs are producing Class 8 fuel cell trucks in
California. CATF cited OEM plans to expand FCEV offerings before 2030. CATF said that
additional lead time for FCEVs is not necessary, and that EPA's projected adoption rates are too
conservative. They extrapolated the results of a UC Davis study that projected the number of
FCEVs on the road in 2030 to the rest of the country and found there could be a notable increase
in FCEV stocks nationwide compared to today. To strengthen the proposed rule, they believe
that EPA should incorporate FCEV adoption into technology packages beginning in MY 2027
(and include a corresponding increase in stringency in the standards).
At least three commenters were less optimistic about FCEV readiness in the timeframe of the
rule. Daimler agreed that BEV technologies are more prevalent now, which justifies the rule's
current focus on BEVs in the technology packages for the modeled potential compliance
pathway. They contend that FCEV technology is still nascent and should not be considered until
at least MY 2032 due to the current state of the technology and infrastructure readiness. Daimler
stated that the number of FCEVs in the marketplace is small. They say that long-haul ZEVs still
have significant challenges, and they are hesitant to make projections about future FCEV-related
costs or characteristics. Lubrizol believes that most vehicles will continue to use internal
combustion engines for years to come, particularly in heavier use cases. Valero stated that while
the technology can work, adoption has been limited in the U.S. and there has not been sufficient
commitment to developing refueling infrastructure. They question the "fitness" of ZEV
technologies to meet the full range of needs in the HD transportation sector.
808
-------
Response:
As described in the preamble and RIA, we continue to find that FCEV technologies can be
ready for select vehicle applications in early market volumes by MY 2030. We used the HD
TRUCS tool (see RIA Chapter 2) as part of our analysis to evaluate numerous operational
characteristics and costs to estimate HD technology feasibility and suitability, and the analysis
for the final rule shows that a diverse range of HD vehicle technologies, including but not limited
to BEV and FCEV technologies, are feasible and may be used to comply with the final standards
to reduce GHG emissions. This flexibility in the nature of performance-based standards offers
opportunity to identify where each technology fits best so that emissions can be reduced
efficiently and effectively.
With respect to FCEV technologies specifically, our analysis evaluates FCEV technology
costs considering early market volumes that correspond to our adoption rates that include
roughly 10,000 HD FCEVs by MY 2032. This approach is reasonable because FCEV component
costs tend to vary based on manufacturing volumes, as described further in RTC Section 3.4.3.
We agree with commenters who noted that HD FCEV demonstrations and deployments are
underway today, suggesting there is sufficient lead time to develop the necessary technologies
for the MY 2030 to MY 2032 timeframe. As indicated in RIA Chapter 1.7.5 and 1.7.6, for
example, Nikola produced 42 Class 8 FCEVs in 2023.379 They have a production capacity in
their Arizona facility of 2400 BEV or FCEV trucks, with about 200 HD FCEVs on order.380
Meanwhile, Toyota is starting to develop 160 kW fuel cell modules for Class 8 trucks. They have
business offers to support the production of about 100,000 fuel cell systems in 2030, including
about 35 percent for heavy-duty trucks.381'382 And there are projects under DOE's SuperTruck 3
program through 2028 to further develop Class 8 FCEV technologies. Fleets are already
purchasing HD FCEVs such as Performance Food Group, for example, who received four Class
8 FCEVs at a facility in Fontana, CA, in February 2024.383
Though some FCEV models may be available by MY 2027, as suggested by CATF, we are
also balancing other factors like timing to accommodate initial hydrogen infrastructure buildout
for HD FCEVs. Likewise, we do not believe that it is necessary to wait until MY 2032, as
Daimler asserts, to project utilization of FCEV technologies for select vehicle applications in
early market volumes in our HD TRUCS analysis, given that the hydrogen market is heavily
incentivized to make initial progress on clean hydrogen production starting by MY 2030. Please
see preamble Section II and RIA Chapter 2 for more discussion on our inclusion of FCEV
379 Nikola Corporation. "Successful Launch: Nikola Produces 42, Wholesales 35 Hydrogen Fuel Cell Electric
Trucks for Customers in U.S. and Canada in 2023". PR Newswire: January 4, 2024. Available online:
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/successful-launch-nikola-produces-42-wholesales-35-hydrogen-fuel-
cell-electric-trucks-for-customers-in-us-and-canada-in-2023-302026028.html.
380 Nikola Corporation. "Nikola Corporation Reports Second Quarter 2023 Results" PR Newswire: August 4, 2023.
Available online: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/nikola-corporation-reports-second-quarter-2023-
results-301893419.html.
381 Ismail, Adam. "Toyota's Going All In On Hydrogen Fuel-Cell Trucks in Kentucky". Jalopnik: July 11, 2023.
Available online: https://jalopnik.com/toyotas-going-all-in-on-hydrogen-fuel-cell-trucks-in-ke-1850626040.
382 If one assumes that there are roughly three luel cell systems per truck, then this implies there could be enough
fuel cell production to supply more than 10,000 trucks in 2030.
383 Brasher, Jade. "Hyzon helps fleet cover its bases before implementing hydrogen fuel cell EVs". FleetOwner.
February 8, 2024. Available online: https://www.fleetowner.com/emissions-efficiency/article/21282331/hyzon-
helps-fleet-cover-its-bases-before-implementing-hydrogen-fuel-cell-evs.
809
-------
technology for select vehicle applications in early market volumes starting in MY 2030 in our
HD TRUCS analysis. Hydrogen infrastructure readiness and lead time are addressed in RTC
Section 8.
Please see RTC Section 9 for a discussion about the use of other alternative fuels. We
emphasize that this final rule does not require use of any particular technology or technology
mix, and the final standards are performance-based standards. We include FCEVs in a modeled
potential compliance pathway to support the feasibility of the final standards, but there are
numerous potential compliance pathways for the final standards, including ones that do not
include FCEVs or ZEVs (see preamble Section II.F for further discussion and additional example
potential compliance pathways, as well as RIA Chapter 2.11). See RTC Section 2 for additional
response to comments on the final standards and the final standards' stringency.
5.2 FCEV & Hydrogen Safety
Comments by Organizations:
Organization: American Bus Association
We also note from the current unified agenda published by the Administration
(https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaMain), that standards are not yet fully formed for
safe hydrogen battery technology and are still under development (RIN 2127-AM40). Similarly,
safety standards are still being developed and adopted for heavy-duty electric batteries as well
(RIN 2127-AM43). Between a lack of safe or reliable technology development or operational
standards, a lack of existing infrastructure, unreliable projections for future infrastructure, it
seems prudent to delay a selection of any particular low or zero-emission technology strategy
and any fleet requirements or projections should be set aside. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1634-
Al, p. 3]
Organization: American Free Enterprise Chamber of Commerce (AmFree) et al.
In addition, the hydrogen used in fuel-cell vehicles presents serious safety risks. As EPA
acknowledges, hydrogen molecules are small and "challenging to contain," which means that
"[e]ven with properly designed systems, small leaks are common." Draft RIA at 75. Leaks, in
turn, lead to dangerous—even fatal—accidents. If hydrogen escapes, "it can form a combustible
mixture with air," and ultimately, an "explosion[] " Id.; see also Hao Li et al., Safety of
Hydrogen Storage and Transportation, 8 Energy Reports 6258, 6259 (May 2022) ("Hydrogen
can easily cause material failure, which in turn can lead to leakage. Hydrogen leakage is
followed by a mixture of air in a certain space to form a gas cloud; if it encounters an ignition
source at this time, hydrogen cloud explosions easily occur. Even without ignition sources, high-
pressure hydrogen leakage may cause spontaneous combustion and explosion."). This risk is
greater with hydrogen than with "other common fuels" because hydrogen has a "much greater"
flammability range and "will ignite more easily." Draft RIA at 75. And to make matters worse,
"[hjydrogen is colorless, odorless, and tasteless," so detecting leaked hydrogen—and therefore
the risk of an explosion—"is difficult." Id. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1660-A1, p. 51]
The inherent danger of hydrogen has already resulted in catastrophic accidents. In 2019,
"there were several hydrogen explosions in Norway, the United States and South Korea." Li et
810
-------
al., Safety of Hydrogen Storage, supra, at 6259. In Norway, an "assembly error" involving a
hydrogen tank caused an explosion at a fueling station near Oslo, injuring three people. Norway
Fines Nel Units $3 Million over 2019 Blast at Hydrogen Fuel Station, Reuters (Feb. 16, 2021),
https://tinyurl.com/3twp99k4. In the United States, leaking hydrogen at a silicone products plant
led to a "massive explosion and fire that fatally injured four workers and seriously injured
another." CSB Releases AB Specialty Silicones Factual Update, U.S. Chem. Safety Bd. (Dec.
18, 2019), https://tinyurl.com/yc4pyz4c. The Chemical Safety Board reported that "[t]he force
from the explosion was felt up to 20 miles away in neighboring communities and damaged
surrounding businesses." Id. The same year, there was also an explosion at a chemical plant in
Santa Clara, California, that "shook buildings and residents at least five miles away" and resulted
in evacuations and shelter-in- place orders for residents and businesses in the area. Luz Pena,
Hydrogen Explosion Shakes Santa Clara Neighborhood, ABC7 NEWS (June 2, 2019),
https://tinyurl.com/mr3r3yxe. The explosion injured two plant employees and caused "extensive
damage." Report on the June 2019 Hydrogen Explosion and Fire Incident in Santa Clara,
California, H2 Hydrogen Safety Panel, at 7 (June 2021), https://tinyurl.com/yeyu28bj. In South
Korea, a hydrogen storage tank at a government research project exploded, "destroy[ing] a
complex about half the size of a soccer field, killing two and injuring six." Hyunjoo Jin & Jane
Chung, Hydrogen Hurdles: A Deadly Blast Hampers South Korea's Big Fuel Cell Car Bet,
Reuters (Sept. 24, 2019), https://tinyurl.com/yx93d5c9. "One victim was blown away by
pressure and then killed after being hit by rock." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). And just
this year, there have already been two road accidents in the United States involving the
transportation of hydrogen. Agnete Klevstrand, "Explosion After Explosion," Hydrogen Insight
(Feb. 7, 2023), https://tinyurl.com/ypea2at8. In one of the accidents, a pickup and trailer,
belonging to a domestic hydrogen fuel manufacturer and distributor, collided with a passenger
vehicle, caught fire, and led to a "wave of explosions" that sent "balls of flames" ten meters into
the air. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). A witness reported that there was "[ejxplosion
after explosion after explosion and it just didn't stop." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
"The two occupants of the truck and the driver of the Toyota were taken to [the] hospital with
minor injuries" and "traffic lights and utility lines were damaged by the flames." Id. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1660-A1, pp. 51 - 52]
EPA must consider these safety concerns as part of its feasibility analysis. See Sierra Club v.
EPA, 325 F.3d 374, 378 (D.C. Cir. 2003) ("The statute also intends the agency to consider many
factors other than pure technological capability, such as costs, lead time, safety, noise and
energy."). But in the proposed rule, it simply brushed them aside. With respect to battery-electric
vehicles, the agency merely stated that "standards have already been developed by the industry
and are in place for manufacturers to use today to develop current and future products." 88 Fed.
Reg. at 25,962; see also Draft RIA at 36-39. Those existing "standards" provide little assurance
given the safety problems that have arisen already, and the likely increase in similar incidents if
use of electric vehicles substantially increases, as the proposed rule not only anticipates but
affirmatively intends. And with respect to fuel-cell vehicles, the agency notes only that
"[h]ydrogen has been handled, used, stored, and moved in industrial settings for more than 50
years," and that there are "established methods," "federal oversight and regulation," and
"standards" in place to ensure safe use. 88 Fed. Reg. at 25,972; Draft RIA at 75-76. These
existing protocols, like those for battery-electric vehicles, are plainly inadequate in light of the
documented disasters that have occurred in the United States and elsewhere. Even EPA
acknowledges that "[a]s hydrogen demand increases, additional codes and standards at all levels
811
-------
of government are likely going to be needed to accommodate heavy-duty FCEVs and fueling
station development." Draft RIA at 76. Those codes and standards must be established and
proven effective before the agency adopts a rule that would require manufacturers to produce,
and consumers to use, fuel-cell vehicles, not after. EPA cannot—and should not—put the
American public in danger to advance its agenda on electric vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1660-A1, pp. 52 - 53.]
Organization: American Trucking Associations (ATA)
EPA further notes that hydrogen-related fuel cell vehicles carry additional risks that can be
mitigated through:30
• proper no/low leak designs for infrastructure, hydrogen fill equipment, vehicle
connectors, and vehicle storage and supply;
• ambient hydrogen concentration monitoring and alarm;
• hydrogen pressure monitoring in the vehicle and infrastructure to indicate leaks;
• proper ventilation in and around hydrogen fueling equipment and fuel cell vehicles;
• vehicle controls to ensure the vehicle cannot be driven while fueling equipment is
attached; and
• vehicle controls that isolate hydrogen storage in the case of an accident. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1535-A1, p. 20-21]
30 Ibid, pg. 76
Fleets will need to expand existing technician safety training and education to manage these
potential risks. Maintenance facilities upgrades will also be needed to accommodate BEV and
FCEV vehicles. For example, because hydrogen is lighter than air, shop ventilation and
monitoring will be needed for fleets servicing FCEVs. For BEVs, isolating high-voltage service
bays has been mentioned as a potential maintenance strategy. Fleets are in the initial stages of
understanding how to adapt existing maintenance shops to accommodate BEVs and/or FCEVs.
As many fleets conduct in-house maintenance on their vehicles, EPA should further investigate
the proposed rule's impact on maintenance practices and facilities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1535-A1, p. 21]
Organization: Arizona State Legislature
EPA does not estimate the cost or timetable for the safety training or the potential cost from
fires and other damage.
The risk is greater for hydrogen-powered vehicles. EPA recommends flame detectors since
hydrogen flames are "almost invisible"; ventilation for vehicles stored indoors or under a roof to
avoid hydrogen accumulation; safety training for first responders to turning the vehicle off or
physically interrupting the power supply; and storage in "an isolated area" after a crash. Id. at 74-
75. One study simulating a vehicle's hydrogen tank explosion in an underground parking garage
and road tunnel found fatality distances from 1-3.2 meters and 3-9.5 meters, respectively,
depending on the size of the tank.32 Again, EPA does not estimate the cost or timetable for the
safety training or the potential cost from fires, explosions, and other damage. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1621-A1, p. 25]
812
-------
32 Jinouk Park et al., Study on the Explosion of the Hydrogen Fuel Tank of Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles in
Semi-Enclosed Spaces, ENERGIES 2023 16(1), 241 (Dec. 2022), available at
https://www.mdpi.eom/1996-1073/16/l/241; see also Shaoqi Cui et al., Analysis of the fire hazard and
leakage explosion simulation of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, 41 THERMAL SCIENCE AND
ENGINEERING PROGRESS 101754 (June 2023).
Organization: Daimler Truck North America LLC (DTNA)
EPA Request for Comment, Request #17: We request comment on our assessment that HD
FCEVs can be designed to maintain safety.
• DTNA Response: Based upon DTNA's extensive experience in ZEV product
development, there is no question that HD FCEVs can be designed to maintain
safety. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 161]
EPA Summary and Response:
Summary:
Comments were received on the safety of FCEVs and hydrogen. American Bus Association
shared concern that there are planned additional federal safety standards yet unpromulgated and
stated that FCEV implementation should not happen until such standards exist. The American
Trucking Association noted that training will need to be expanded to manage risks and facilities
will need to be upgraded to maintain HD FCEVs. The Arizona State Legislature commented that
the fire and damage risk is greater with hydrogen powered vehicles than with BEV. They
discussed explosion risk in enclosed areas such as underground parking garages and tunnels.
Arizona State Legislature stated that EPA should estimate the costs and timing for safety training
and the potential costs of fires and explosions. AmFree expressed concern about "serious safety
risks" and said that leaks are common due to the nature of a hydrogen molecule and are difficult
to detect. They cited several examples of accidents: two accidents were tank explosions, one at a
fueling station in Oslo; two massive explosions at industrial facilities; and two incidents related
to road accidents involving the transportation of hydrogen. AmFree insisted that EPA must
consider safety concerns as part of its feasibility analysis. They asserted that existing codes and
standards are inadequate and must be established and proven effective before the Phase 3 rule
drives the use of FCEVs.
Daimler, a manufacturer working to develop FCEVs, stated that there is no question that the
technology can be designed to maintain safety.
Response:
EPA is required to consider safety when establishing motor vehicle emission standards. CAA
section 202(a)(4). EPA has done so, as further described in Preamble II.D.3.iv and RIA Chapter
1.7.4. EPA found at proposal that HD FCEV systems must be, and are, designed to always
maintain safe operation. EPA reiterates that conclusion here. See RIC Chapter 1.7.4. As EPA
explained there, and as noted by DTNA, there are industry codes and standards for the safe
design and operation of HD FCEVs. The Hydrogen Industry Panel on Codes, International Code
Council, and National Fire Protection Association work together to develop stringent standards
813
-------
for hydrogen systems and fuel cells.384 The FCEV codes and standards extend to service as well
as emergency response. In addition, HD FCEVs are subject to, and necessarily comply with, the
same federal safety standards and the same safety testing as ICE heavy-duty vehicles.
Commenters challenging the safety of HD FCEVs failed to address the existence of these
protocols and federal standards. EPA does not consider the multiple binding federal safety
standards, and industry protocols to be ineffective and considers them to support the conclusion
that HD FCEV can be utilized safely. When considering safety for the NPRM, EPA coordinated
with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) on safety regarding
comments and updates for the final rulemaking.385
This is not to say that there is no room for further investigation and potential strengthening of
safety measures. The concern with hydrogen transport in tunnels, for example, is in the process
of additional evaluation. In the interim, safety is maintained by existing restrictions. For
example, DOT Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)'s Technical Manual for Road Tunnels
states, "Road tunnels, especially those in urban areas, often have cargo restrictions. These may
include hazardous materials, flammable gases and liquids, and over-height or wide vehicles.
Provisions should be made in the approaches to the tunnels for detection and removal of such
vehicles."386 DOE/Sandia National Laboratories is working with other authorities to evaluate
safety in tunnels, as described further in RIA Chapter 1.7.4. Additionally, FCEVs including their
storage systems, like ICE vehicles, are required to meet the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards (FMVSS) for crash safety so that the systems will maintain their integrity after the
specified crash conditions.
Most if not all fuels, due to their nature of transporting energy, can do harm or be unsafe if not
handled properly. Although hydrogen incidents (not with FCEVs) were noted in AmFree's
comment, it is important to note that there has not been a FCEV accident due to leaking
hydrogen.387 Although smaller in output than a HD FCEV, the Toyota Mirai has similar
components. Retail US sales started in late 2015. When compared to other fuels, hydrogen is
nontoxic and lighter than air, so it quickly disperses upwards unlike gas vapors that stay at
ground level, and has a lower radiant heat so surrounding material is less likely to ignite.388
Thus, we reasonably have taken into consideration that further steps are being taken and by 2030
these processes will have moved forward to continue to ensure safety in operation.
Two commenters noted additional training needs. One stated that EPA should estimate the
cost and timing for safety training and the potential costs of fires and explosions. Safety training
384 Tae, Christian. "Hydrogen Safety: Let's Clear the Air". NRDC. January 14, 2021. Available online:
https://www.nrdc.org/bio/christian-tae/hydrogen-safety-lets-clear-air.
385 Landgraf, Michael. Memorandum to Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985. Summary of NHTSA Safety
Communications During LD and HD GHG Rulemaking. February 14, 2024.
386 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. "Technical Manual: Design and
Construction of Road Tunnels—Civil Elements". December 2009. Available online:
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/tunnel/pubs/nhi09010/tunnel_manual.pdf.
387 CARB. "Hydrogen Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle 101: Learn the Basics of Hydrogen Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles,
Including How Fueling Works, the Benefits, and the Limitations". Available online: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-
work/programs/truckstop-resources/zev-truckstop/zev-101/hydrogen-fuel-cell-electric-vehicle-
101#:~:text=Hydrogen%20fuel%20cell%20electric%20vehicles%20are%20safe.,fire%2C%20and%20is%201ess%2
Oexplosiv.
388 Tae, Christian. "Expert Blog. Hydrogen Safety: Let's Clear the Air". NRDC. January 14, 2021. Available online:
https://www.nrdc.org/bio/christian-tae/hydrogen-safety-lets-clear-air.
814
-------
occurs for a variety of reasons for all HD vehicle types. A review of possible safety training for
technicians and mechanics as well as safety training for first responders shows appropriate
training to be eight hours or less.389'390 This time is seen as appropriate for ongoing training
required of technicians, mechanics, and first responders and does not merit the addition of costs
in our analysis. As noted in RIA 2.3.4, after consideration of comments stating that ZEV
technicians may initially require additional training, EPA has phased in the ZEV maintenance
and repair scaling factors to address this potential transition period. One commenter also noted a
potential need to upgrade maintenance facilities to accommodate FCEVs. Please refer to RTC
Section 3.7 for a response to comments such as this one regarding maintenance and repair.
We do not agree that costs associated with unfortunate accidents such as fires or explosions
are a necessary consideration for our analysis.
5.3 H2 Storage Tank Packaging
Comments by Organizations:
Organization: Daimler Truck North America LLC (DTNA)
EPA Request for Comment, Request #16: We request comment and data related to packaging
space availability associated with FCEVs and projections for the development and application of
liquid hydrogen in the HD transportation sector over the next decade.
• DTNA Response: To enable FCEV range comparable to that of a conventional vehicle
today, HD transportation must rely on liquid hydrogen due to the volume required to
achieve the desired -500 mile range. There is no liquid hydrogen infrastructure suitable
for HD vehicles (HDVs) today, and very little suitable gaseous hydrogen infrastructure
available. It is unclear how much infrastructure will be developed over the next
decade. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 161]
EPA Summary and Response:
Summary:
DTNA believes that onboard liquid hydrogen is required for long-range HD FCEVs (e.g., to
achieve a desired ~500-mile range). They note that little gaseous hydrogen infrastructure is
suitable for HD FCEVs today, and no liquid hydrogen infrastructure, and they point to
uncertainty about infrastructure development over the next decade.
Response:
Please see RTC Section 8 for more response to comments about hydrogen infrastructure. We
note that, regarding uncertainty about infrastructure development over the next decade, this rule
offers some degree of certainty, as it provides a signal supporting industry development of the
technology and supporting infrastructure for manufacturers utilizing this technology to comply.
389 AIChE Institute for Learning & Innovation. "Fundamental Hydrogen Safety Credential". Available online:
https://www.aiche.org/ili/academy/courses/elp200/fundamental-hydrogen-safety-credential.
390 Redwood Coast Energy Authority. "FCEV Resources for Emergency Responders". Available online:
https://redwoodenergy.org/fcev-resources-for-emergency-responders/.
815
-------
As DTNA suggests, liquid hydrogen technology may prove beneficial in the longer-term.
However, gaseous hydrogen is predominantly used today, including for light-duty vehicles,
forklifts, and buses. As explained in RIA Chapter 1.7.3, the readiness of liquid storage and
refueling technologies is still relatively low compared to compressed gas technologies, so
onboard liquid storage tanks are not included as part of the technology package under the
modeled potential compliance pathway that supports our rule.
For the final rule, we contracted FEV to independently conduct a packaging analysis for Class
8 long-haul FCEVs that store 700-bar gaseous hydrogen onboard to see if space would be
sufficient to accommodate hydrogen fuel for longer-range travel. EPA conducted an external
peer review of the final FEV report. 391 FEV found ways to package six hydrogen tanks (77 kg of
hydrogen) to deliver up to a 500-mile range with a sleeper cab using a common 265-inch
wheelbase. All of the tanks could be at the back of the cab in a zig-zag arrangement and the
batteries inside the frame rails, or four of the tanks could be behind the cab with two tanks
mounted to the outside of the frame rails under the cab and the batteries inside the frame rails.
Figure 1 FEV High-Level FCEV Packaging Concept392
The FEV analysis was based on the use of high-power lithium titanium oxide (LTO) batteries,
which are long-lasting cells that are currently more expensive than the FCEV battery estimates in
the rule. Lithium iron phosphate (LFP) batteries could be used instead of LTOs but would
require a battery pack with higher energy capacity. LFPs have a lower c-rate rating (i.e., a slower
charge or discharge rate) compared to LTOs: LFPs are expected to have 3C c-rate whereas LTOs
have a IOC c-rate.393. However, one could accomplish similar power output during discharge or
power input from regenerative braking using either a smaller LTO or a larger LFP battery. Since
we limit our motor power output to 400 kW for tractors, we find LFP batteries sufficient to
capture the required regenerative braking. The volumetric energy density of a LFP battery pack
391 p£v Consulting. "Heavy Duty Commercial Vehicles Class 4 to 8: Technology and Cost Evaluation for
Electrified Powertrains—Final Report". Prepared for EPA. March 2024.
392 pEY's c.AD images are based on volumetric energy density of key powertrain components. All engineering
aspects of feasibility were not verified.
393 Toshiba. "High-power type cells". Available online: https://www.global.toshiba/ww/products-
solutions/battery/scib/product/cell/liigh-power.html.
816
-------
is about 1.8 times higher than a LTO pack, so the packaging study with LTO packs can be used
as a surrogate for the LFP pack.394 In addition, the analysts found that batteries can be packaged
along the side rails, which could provide two or three times the packaging volume for the battery
pack, as shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2 FEV High-Level FCEV Packaging Concept395
The potential to store six onboard hydrogen storage tanks would allow a long-haul tractor to
meet a daily operational VMT requirement of at least 420 miles. Daimler shared data based on
18 days of telematics data from their fleet, and they identified a 90th percentile VMT of 484
miles for Class 8 day cabs and 724 miles for Class 8 sleeper cabs. If a HD FCEV refuels once
en-route, then it could cover a 90th percentile VMT requirement of at least as far as 724 miles in
a day. A refueling event during the day should not be an unreasonable burden, given that
refueling times are as short as 20 minutes or less and are considered a key benefit of HD
FCEVs.396
Based on our review of the literature for the NPRM and after consideration of the comments
received and additional information, our assessment is that most HD vehicles have sufficient
physical space to package hydrogen storage tanks onboard.397 This remains the case for long-
haul sleeper cabs if they refuel en-route. See also RIA Chapter 2.9.1.2.
394 Figure 1 shows that a 58 kWh LTO battery could fit between the rails. This means that a 110 kWh LFP battery
could also fit between the rails.
395 pEY's c.AD images are based on volumetric energy density of key powertrain components. All engineering
aspects of feasibility were not verified.
396 U.S. Department of Energy. "The #H2IQ Hour". September 21, 2023. Available online:
https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2023-10/li2iqhour-09212023.pdf.
397 Kast, James et. al. "Designing hydrogen fuel cell electric trucks in a diverse medium and heavy duty market".
Research in Transportation Economics: Volume 70. October 2018. Available online:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0739885916301639.
817
-------
6 Electric Charging Infrastructure
6.1 Charging Infrastructure Availability
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Advanced Energy United
IV. Conclusion
By providing a predictable business and regulatory environment, EPA's proposed vehicle
rules can help not only decarbonize US transportation, but also bolster a critical segment of the
American economy: automakers. EVs present a critical lifeline for the U.S. automotive industry,
as total car sales have declined since 2017. As industry analysts have noted, "[EVs] are the only
growth area in the automotive market."12 The EPA's rule can simultaneously sustain this growth
and accelerate EV adoption, revitalizing automakers and creating good paying, high-skilled jobs
in the process. As such, EPA's proposed rules complement key parts of the Inflation Reduction
Act (IRA) - namely the 30D and 45W tax credits that incentivize the purchase of electric
vehicles, and the host of industry incentives, such as the manufacturing tax credit (45X) that
support the buildout of a domestic EV industry. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1652-A2, p. 6]
12 Carreon, A. (5 May, 2023). The EV Battery Supply Chain Explained. Rocky Mountain Institute.
https://rmi.org/the-ev-battery-supply-chain-explained/
However, it is crucial to build the EVSE infrastructure to meet this changing automotive
landscape. Simply put, consumers and businesses can only take advantage of the 30D and 45 W
tax credits if the infrastructure is there to satisfy demand. Ensuring this infrastructure buildout
will enable effective implementation of the EPA's rule and accelerate the transition to 100%
electrified transportation. Fortunately, the IRA's companion legislation - the Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) - can help in this effort. IIJA included $7.5 billion in funding as a
part of the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) formula program, which provides
states with resources to deploy charging stations. The pieces are in place to make the transition
from the internal combustion engine to EVs, we just need to put them together. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1652-A2, p. 6]
Organization: Alliance for Vehicle Efficiency (AVE)
We are concerned that the lack of charging and refueling infrastructure will undermine ZEV
adoption by fleet owners. In support of the Proposal, EPA states that it expects most BEV heavy-
duty trucks to travel an estimated daily range of about 200 miles, allowing fleet owners to rely on
private charging infrastructure and not depend on public charging stations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1571-A1, p. 7]
Meanwhile, the IRA does not provide fleet owners with any incentives to install charging
stations. The timeline for publicly-available stations along major interstate corridors, typically
used by heavy-duty trucks, is unclear. In other words, fleet owners investing in BEV trucks will
also need to assume the cost of charging on their own or risk that public charging will be
818
-------
available in the future. As a result, it will be challenging for fleet owners to use BEV trucks for
longer haul transport. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1571-A1, p. 7]
A recent study by the Environmental Defense Fund, found:
"... when including the cost of charging infrastructure, only one of the five fleets [in the State
of New Jersey] was able to maintain fuel cost savings. Without financial support for private fleet
infrastructure, these additional costs make it difficult to break even for most use cases. This is
especially true for smaller fleets. Fleets of less than 10 trucks are particularly vulnerable to
charging infrastructure costs and will require greater support to realize fuel cost savings."
19 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1571-A1, p. 7]
19 https://blogs.edf.org/energyexchange/2022/10/14/charging-infrastructure-is-key-for-new-jersey-fleets-
to-electrify/
Organization: American Free Enterprise Chamber of Commerce (AmFree) et al.
Charging Infrastructure. If the proposed rule were adopted, commercial fleets in many
segments of the heavy-duty industry would need access to a "robust and accessible network of
highway stations that provides on-route fast-charging." Electric Highways at 1; Sam Pournazeri,
Criteria to Consider When Siting EV Charging Infrastructure for Medium- and Heavy-Duty
Vehicles, ICF (Apr. 28, 2022), https://tinyurl.com/4z7k6z29 ("Criteria for EV Charging").
Vehicles that travel long distances or carry heavy loads, such as long-haul trucks and transit
buses, need to charge during their shift or on the way to their next location. See Draft RIA at 63;
Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicle Electrification at 11. And almost half of all heavy-duty
vehicles are purchased by independent owner-operators "who will be more likely to recharge on
route than install an expensive charging station at home." Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicle
Electrification at 11. To date, however, "little attention has been paid to how and where these
trucks will charge their batteries, and it's no small problem." Emily Ayshford, Calculating the
Cost of E-Trucking, Univ. of Chi. Off. of Sci., Innovation, Nat'l Lab'ys & Glob. Initiatives,
https://tinyurl.com/yckmpkd5 ("Calculating the Cost of ETrucking"). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1660-A1, pp. 42 -43]
According to the Department of Energy, today there are only approximately 54,000 public
charging stations nationwide, offering just under 140,000 ports. See Dep't of Energy, Alternative
Fuels Data Ctr., Alternative Fueling Station Counts by State (Public),
https://tinyurl.com/385e5nk2 ("Alternative Fueling Station Counts - Public") (last accessed June
14, 2023). 5 The available data do not identify how many of those stations can accommodate
heavy-duty vehicles, but when taking into account charging speed, interoperability, and site
design, the number appears to be miniscule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1660-A1, p. 43]
5 There are also approximately 3,700 private en-route stations. See Dep't of Energy, Alternative Fuels Data
Ctr., Alternative Fueling Station Counts by State (Private), https://tinyurl.com/4xc8jfcs (last accessed June
14, 2023). They are not generally accessible to the public.
Charging stations can offer up to three kinds of equipment, all of which provide different
ranges and speeds. Level 1 charging provides approximately five miles of range per hour; Level
2 charging provides approximately 25 miles of range per hour; and "direct-current" or "DC" fast
charging provides approximately 100 to 200 or more miles of range per thirty minutes. See Dep't
of Energy, Alternative Fuels Data Ctr., Developing Infrastructure to Charge Electric Vehicles,
819
-------
https://tinyurl.com/3buv474m ("Developing Infrastructure"); see also Draft RIA at 61. Unless a
heavy-duty vehicle can stop for overnight charging, its operator will typically need DC fast
charging to stay on schedule. See Dep't of Energy, Alternative Fuels Data Ctr., Electric Vehicles
for Fleets, https://tinyurl.com/msv8va9d ("All-electric vehicles that drive more than 100 miles in
a day may require DCFC for in-shift recharging."); Marie Raj on Bernard et al., Deploying
Charging Infrastructure to Support an Accelerated Transition to Zero-Emission Vehicles, ZEV
Transition Council, at 6 (Sept. 2022) ("Deploying Charging Infrastructure"). But only a small
fraction of public charging stations offer that capability. Nationwide, there are a mere 7,406
stations with DC fast charging ports. See Dep't of Energy, Alternative Fuels Data Ctr.,
Alternative Fueling Station Locator, https://tinyurl.com/4xjsc3x6 (last accessed June 14, 2023).
That amounts to roughly 14 percent of public stations. Id. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1660-A1,
p. 43]
Even among that small group of stations, there are three different types of DC fast charging
connectors (the equipment that is "plugged into a vehicle"). Developing Infrastructure. As EPA
acknowledges, that "may limit the EVSE ports and stations a particular vehicle may use," which
in turn "may pose a challenge for . . . drivers who may need to travel longer distances to find a
station with the right connector type." Draft RIA at 68. And "[pjhysical connectors are only one
aspect of interoperability." Id. at 69. There are also "[communication protocols between the
network and chargers and between the charger and vehicle [that] facilitate the flow of key
information important for charging and billing." Id. Without standardization, heavy-duty vehicle
operators may pull up to a DC fast charging port only to realize that they cannot use it. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985- 1660-A1, pp. 43 - 44]
Finally, even if a station has charging capabilities and equipment compatible with a particular
heavy-duty vehicle, the site design may not be able to accommodate that vehicle's size. Many
stations are constructed with light-duty passenger cars in mind, and as a result, will not have
enough space for large vehicles to enter and exit, high enough canopies or roofs, or long enough
charging cords. See Draft RIA at 63. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1660-A1, p. 44]
Given these numerous obstacles, recent studies conclude that public charging stations for
heavy-duty vehicles today are scarce at best or even practically nonexistent. See Medium- and
Heavy-Duty Vehicle Electrification at 19 ("Public charging stations set up for MHEDVs,
however, are scarce today."); Deploying Charging Infrastructure at 6 ("There is essentially no
public charging infrastructure in place for HDVs right now."). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1660-
Al, p. 44]
Both the lack of adequate charging infrastructure and potential electric-vehicle owners'
concerns about whether adequate stations would be available where and when needed have
already impeded the uptake of heavy-duty electric vehicles. The American Trucking
Associations, for example, recently explained in a Senate hearing that, "[w]ithout the required
infrastructure, motor carriers cannot properly plan and invest in battery-electric trucks." A Heavy
Dose of Reality. The president of one transportation service in Pennsylvania submitted a
comment in this rulemaking to emphasize that "[t]he infrastructure required to support the
widespread adoption of charging of EV Coaches is nonexistent." John Bailey, President of
Bailey Coach, Dkt. No. EPA-HQ-OAR- 2022-0985 (May 2023). And Volvo Group North
America testified that customers have delayed and even canceled electric truck purchases in
California "because of delayed infrastructure." Volvo Grp. N. Am., Dkt. No. EPA-HQOAR-
820
-------
2022-0985 (May 2, 2023). According to that manufacturer, its customer base "will not purchase
zero emission trucks unless both the vehicles and the fuels are cost-effective and readily
available so as not to negatively impact their business operations." Id. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1660-A1, pp. 44 -45]
These concerns show that the Nation's charging infrastructure must substantially improve
before fleet owners would consider replacing their conventional vehicles with electric ones. EPA
does not attempt to estimate the number of new public charging stations that would be needed,
but available studies— including some that the agency discusses—suggest that this would be an
enormous endeavor. Atlas Public Policy, for example, projects that there would need to be
between $100 and $166 billion in cumulative infrastructure investments to support a 2030 fleet
of over one million battery-electric heavy-duty vehicles and begin building infrastructure for
future years. See Draft RIA at 67. That estimate includes $30 billion for depot charging ports,
"with most of the remaining investment supporting on-road charging." Id. Attaining even a
fraction of that investment is likely impossible under the proposed rule's compressed
timeline. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1660-A1, p. 45]
EPA concludes otherwise based primarily on the availability of tax incentives, federal
funding, and plans that manufacturers, charging network providers, and energy companies have
announced. See 88 Fed. Reg. at 25,933. But the agency overstates the contribution that each of
those sources will make. First, the tax incentive that the agency relies on—called the
"Alternative Fuel Refueling Property Credit"—provides a credit of up to 30 percent of the cost
of charging equipment, but only when the charging equipment is located within low-income or
non-urban area census tracts, and only up to $100,000. See Draft RIA at 19-20, 65. Considering
that "installing one charging site [that] could supply 100 e-trucks at a time . . . could run costs
higher than $21 million," this $100,000 credit will provide little incentive to construct charging
stations throughout the country. Calculating the Cost of E-Trucking. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1660-A1, p. 45]
Second, although the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law ("BIL") provides $7.5 billion in federal
funding to build out a national network for charging infrastructure, jurisdictions are "not
required" to use any of that money "to build stations specifically for heavy-duty vehicles." 88
Fed. Reg. at 25,930, 25,944; Draft RIA at 16, 65. And even if all of those funds were used for
heavy-duty charging infrastructure, it still would not be enough. As explained above, developing
sufficient charging infrastructure will cost tens of billions of dollars. Indeed, one study found that
the BIL funding would not even cover the cost of the infrastructure needed in California alone,
which only has "15% of the U.S. MD/HD vehicle market." Criteria for EV Charging ("In
California alone, which has 15% of the U.S. MD/HD vehicle market, there will be a need for
more than 157,000 DCFCs by 2030 to support the upcoming wave of electric MD/HD vehicles.
According to our estimates, such a network of charging infrastructure could cost more than $15
billion over the next 10 years. That is twice the amount of funding the federal government
allocated through the [BIL]."). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1660-A1, pp. 45 - 46]
Third, the private investments that EPA identifies are small, and their effects are uncertain.
According to the agency, there has been "over a billion dollars for recently announced projects to
support electric truck or other commercial vehicle charging in the United States and Europe." 88
Fed. Reg. at 25,934. The source it cites shows that almost half that amount is entirely for Europe.
See Zero-Emission Vehicles Factbook. And the domestic projects that the agency discusses are
821
-------
so preliminary that it is unclear how many stations they will actually provide. For example, EPA
asserts that Daimler Truck North America is partnering with NextEra Energy Resources and
Blackrock Renewable Power to invest $650 million in a nationwide charging network for
commercial vehicles. 88 Fed. Reg. at 25,934; Draft RIA at 65. But less than two months ago, the
companies had only announced the name of their joint venture and unveiled renderings of the
site layout. See Introducing Greenlane: Daimler Truck North America, NextEra Energy
Resources and BlackRock Forge Ahead with Public Charging Infrastructure Joint Venture,
NextEra Energy (Apr. 28, 2023), https://tinyurl.com/ms2xm43k. It remains to be seen how many
charging stations they will be able to construct by the time the proposed rule takes effect. EPA
also states that "Volvo Group and Pilot recently announced their intent to offer public charging
for medium- and heavy-duty BEVs at over 750 Pilot and Flying J North American truck stops
and travel plazas." 88 Fed. Reg. at 25,934; Draft RIA at 65. But those companies have not
announced a plan to construct "over 750" public charging stations; instead, the companies
announced a plan to install stations "at selected Pilot and Flying J travel centers across the U.S."
Volvo and Pilot Company Partner to Build a National Public Heavy Duty Charging Network,
Volvo Trucks USA (Nov. 15, 2022), https://tinyurl.com/hcfw35cp (emphasis added). Here too, it
is not yet clear how many stations these companies will develop. And finally, many of the other
projects EPA points to are based solely in California, see Draft RIA at 65-66, which already has
the most public charging stations in the country, see Alternative Fueling Station Counts -
Public. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1660-A1, p. 46]
In sum, the Nation's charging infrastructure cannot even support the existing, small customer
base for heavy-duty electric vehicles. The number of available stations would need to increase
exponentially to service the hundreds of thousands of new electric vehicles that EPA anticipates
will be sold—and that would need to be in use to achieve EPA's proposed emission standards.
The agency has not provided a reasonable basis for assuming that such an expansion is possible,
let alone plausible, within less than a decade. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1660-A1, p. 47]
Organization: American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)
While a significant percentage of the charging installations deployed today are Level 2
EVSEs, dual charging installations to enable the flexibility of light-duty as well as medium-duty
and HDV charging will become increasingly important. Direct current fast charging equipment
("DCFCs") will enable broader market coverage, even for LDVs used in applications where they
cannot sit for 6 hours and charge during off-peak, lower-cost electricity periods. As utility
companies gear up to provide infrastructure installations, EPA should not minimize the impact of
supply chain shortages/strains on the cost of materials necessary for installing supporting
charging infrastructure in the short time ahead to 2032. Beyond EVSE chargers, the cost of grid
upgrade projects needed to support the incremental electricity demand growth from
transportation is not insignificant and can be quite variable. A particular case study of Southern
California illustrated in IOPscience notes: "the total cost of these upgrades will be at least $1
billion and potentially more than $10 billion." These costs need to be taken into consideration
with expected demand growth, within detailed rate base calculations, and in concert with
appliance upgrade costs to fully understand their ultimate impacts on annual ratepayer
expenditures." 81 We agree with and support the Proposed Rule's acknowledgement that "a
recent study found power needs as low as 200 kW could trigger a requirement to install a
distribution transformer." Other anecdotal evidence discussed within an RMI report highlights
822
-------
the expensive mistakes that can emerge from insufficient planning and engagement in details.82
Demand charges can be particularly punishing, and in some cases make or break the business
case for transition from ICEVs to BEVs, particularly for fleets and vehicles that require DCFC
charging. Other considerations for high-reliability use cases should include provisional back-up
power system considerations, which likely depend upon back-up generators or expensive
stationary energy storage batteries. Absent comprehensive understanding of the dynamics
between increased ZEV use and charging infrastructure needs, vehicle manufacturers—as well as
consumers—are left in a vulnerable position. Regardless of whether manufacturers even could
comply with the Proposed Rule, they would likely be left in a position where there is no
consumer demand, and fleet turnover declines because the infrastructure necessary to support the
new ZEVs is either at capacity or nonexistent. Indeed, at least one study to date has concluded
that, upon ZEVs becoming the norm in California, it could push the total demand for electricity
beyond the existing capacity of the state's grid—turning ZEVs into zero electricity vehicles.83
Even more important, meeting the demand in California would likely require construction of new
power plants, or electricity purchases from neighboring states—further adding to the
infrastructure needs with increased transmission and distribution capabilities.84 Or, in the short
term, electricity may come from generators, in which case it makes more sense to leave the ICE
in the truck rather than beside it. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1659-A2, pp. 22 - 23]
81 Salma Elmallah et al., IOP SCIENCE, "Can distribution grid infrastructure accommodate residential
electrification and electric vehicle adoption in Northern California?" (Nov. 9, 2022) available at
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2634-4505/ac949c
82 Alessandra R. Carreon, et al., RMI, "Increasing Equitable EV Access and Charging" (2022) available at
https://rmi.org/insight/increasing-equitable-ev-access-charging/.
83 Beth Daley, THE CONVERSATION, "Switching to electric vehicles could save the US billions, but
timing is everything" (Dec. 4, 2018), available at https://theconversation.com/switching-to-electric-
vehicles-could-save-the-us-billions-but-timing-is-everything-106227.
84 Id.
Despite the potential for increased demands on domestic energy generation and generation
capacity,85 EPA offers little to no support that these demands will be sufficiently met. Similarly,
EPA's draft Regulatory Impact Analysis86 provides little to no analysis regarding the costs
associated with meeting these increased infrastructure and energy generation/capacity needs
beyond the flawed reliance on various legislative actions, such as the BIL and IRA.87
Consequently, EPA is pushing a technology at a pace that cannot be adopted within the
timeframe of its own proposal. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1659-A2, p. 23]
85 See, e.g., U.S. DRIVE, "Summary Report on EVs at Scale and the U.S. Electric Power System" (Nov.
2019), available at https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/summary-report-evs-scale-and-us-
electric-power-system-2019 (summarizing impacts of light-duty vehicles on energy generation and
generation capacity alone and acknowledging several potential challenges without including analysis of
medium- and heavy-duty ZEVs).
86 DRIA at 15-17, 20-21.
87 See, e.g., Salma Elmallah et al., Can distribution grid infrastructure accommodate residential
electrification and electric vehicle adoption in Northern California? (Nov. 9, 2022), available at
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2634-4505/ac949c (projecting upgrades needed solely for the
PG&E service area in Northern California, which serves 4.8 million electricity customers and is subject to
823
-------
aggressive targets for both EV adoption and electrification of residential space and water heating will add
at least $1 billion and potentially $10 billion to PG&E's rate base).
Organization: American Trucking Associations (ATA)
5. Infrastructure Will Be a Key Driver Towards the Adoption of ZEV Technology
EPA recognizes that infrastructure availability will be a key enabler to adopting ZEVs. The
agency's proposed GHG 3 regulation includes BEV and FCEV vehicles, each with different
infrastructure requirements and investment costs. While EPA estimates the additional cost of
providing electrical infrastructure to charge BEVs, this does not ensure that infrastructure is
available or suitable for most heavy-duty applications. Without adequate infrastructure,
increasing percentages of ZEV sales, both BEVs and FCEVs, will be unachievable, and the
industry will not hit the annual milestone targets in EPA's ZEV adoption table. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1535-A1, p. 15]
EPA cites the Department of Energy's Alternative Fuels Data Center Station Locator for
providing the number of chargers available for publicly and privately held locations to justify the
expansion of battery electric vehicles throughout the United States. The agency acknowledges
that the station counts of over 53,000 are not broken out by light- or heavy-duty capable charging
capacities or site configurations. In our discussions with fleets, ATA is aware that a small
number of heavy-duty accessible public charging stations are available nationwide. EPA cites the
federal funds available to states to support the construction of charging networks under the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) and the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), but the
programs included in the legislation do not robustly support commercial vehicle
electrification. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1535-A1, p. 15]
The National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) grant program, included in IIJA,
provides federal funds to states to begin to build a nationwide charging network to support
transportation electrification in all highway segments. The authorizing legislation qualified
medium duty commercial charging as eligible projects, but initial guidance from the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) in February 2022 discouraged states from providing truck
charging capacity and did not require specific design requirements that would co-locate medium-
and heavy-duty charging infrastructure support. ATA commented on the NEVI program and
pushed FHWA to provide funds to immediately support commercial-scale electrification
projects. 19 We were pleased to see the agency issue new guidance clarifying the eligibility of
medium- and heavy-duty charging infrastructure, but unfortunately, ATA is unaware of any state
directing their NEVI state block grant funds toward it. California, Oregon, and Washington
provided a competitive grant submission to fund a portion of their joint 1-5 charging network,
which would include heavy-duty charging stations and are awaiting an award
announcement. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1535-A1, p. 15]
19 American Trucking Associations, Comments on the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Formula
Program, FHWA-2022-0008-0339, August 23, 2022
Organization: BorgWarner Inc.
BorgWarner appreciates the Administration's support for EV charging and hydrogen
infrastructure.
824
-------
BorgWarner applauds the Administration's support for EV charging and hydrogen
infrastructure. More infrastructure support is needed, however, for the HD, MD, and other
commercial vehicles to help these segment's shift to an electrified and hydrogen-powered future.
We urge federal agencies to align resources and goals to leverage the shared endeavors to
decarbonize the transportation sector. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1578-A1, p. 4.]
A key factor for expanding infrastructure is private sector charging support. Fleet owners will
need to not only bear higher costs for new ZEV vehicles, but also the charging and refueling
equipment as well. More support for these commercial facilities is crucial. Many products are
available to help fleet owners navigate this transition and we hope more federal and state
incentives will be forthcoming. BorgWarner is currently working with customers to install
needed charging stations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1578-A1, p. 4.]
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
The NPRM provides several excellent examples of times the nation has adapted to new
electrical load including the adoption of AJC and the rapid growth of data centers. The
implementation of fleet charging infrastructure is much the same and, it should be noted, not
expected to happen overnight. The phase in schedule proposed by U.S. EPA provides ample time
for fleets and utilities to plan for and implement charging solutions that meet truck electrification
needs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1591-A1, p.45]
The NPRM requests comment on time considerations for all levels of HD charging
infrastructure, including Level 2 up to 350-kilowatt direct current fast charger (DCFC) systems.
NPRM states that 2027 provides adequate timing to establish initial levels of depot charging with
the expectation that charging capacity will grow over the remainder of the decade. With current
CEC MD/HD infrastructure projects, staff are seeing projects take about two to three years from
inception to operations. Equipment shipping delays have made up a significant portion of the
delays. Those can be expected to improve over time, and, in any event, even with permitting
process requirements in California, there is sufficient time to meet U.S. EPA's 2027 and beyond
timeframe. With planning, the lead times identified here should be sufficient to support the
stringency of the proposed standard and more stringent alternative i.e., values that would reflect
the level of ZEV adoption in CARB's ACT regulation. A number of truck OEMs and private
companies are already working to provide both depot charging solutions as well as corridor
infrastructure solutions. Daimler is leading the Greenlane $650 million investment in West
Coast, Southeast Coast and Texas corridors. 149 Volvo has a truck-stop agreementl50 and is also
working on a dealership-based California corridor. 151 Hyundai is working to establish a San
Pedro ports to Texas southwest hydrogen corridor. 152 TerraWatt is working on a similar fast
charging network along I-10 from California to Texas. 153 Nikola has an agreement with Voltera
to build 50 hydrogen stations. 154 Voltera, 155 Zeem,156 Electrify America, 157 Forum
Mobility,158 WattEV,159 and TerraWattl60 among others are developing depot charging
projects. Private companies dependent on transportation services have announced both
electrification plans as well as vehicle and infrastructure projects moving them toward those
goals. USPS has announced 66,000 BEV delivery vehicles by 2028 with all electric purchases
from 2026 and an initial order of 14,000 chargers. 161,162 Walmart has announced its own
network of DCFCs aimed at lighter vehicles, 163 an order of 4,500 delivery vehiclesl64 and a
fleetwide 100 percent electrification. 165 Amazon has ordered 100,000 BEV delivery vehiclesl66
with "thousands" of chargers already installed 167 including reports of sizable charging depot
825
-------
installations. 168,169 Amazon is backing class 8 drayage truck charging depotsl70,171 and has
ordered 329 BEV terminal tractors. 172 FedEx has committed to ZE delivery vehicles reaching
50 percent by 2025 and 100 percent by 2030 with a 100 percent ZE full delivery fleet by
2040.173,174 UPS has a 10,000 BEV delivery vehicle orderl75 and has participated in
showcasing innovative charging technologies. DHL Supply Chain has cancelled further orders of
diesel terminal tractors, ordered 50 BEV terminal tractors toward a 100 percent ZE fleet by 2025
and ordered BEV semi tractors on their way to a 30 percent ZE on-road fleet by 2030.176 [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1591-A1, pp.45-48]
149 Introducing Greenlane: Daimler Truck North America, NextEra Energy Resources and BlackRock
Forge Ahead with Public Charging Infrastructure Joint Venture, April 28, 2023.
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/introducing-greenlane-daimler-truck-north-americanextera-
energy-resources-and-blackrock-forge-ahead-with-public-charging-infrastructure-joint-venture-
301811101.html
150 Pilot Company and Volvo Group Partner to Build Charging Network for Medium- and Heavy-Duty
Electric Trucks, November 15, 2022. https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/pilot-company-and-
volvo-group-partner-to-build-chargingnetwork-for-medium~and-heavy-duty-electric-trucks-
301678542.html
151 Volvo Trucks Constructing California Electrified Charging Corridor for Medium- and Heavy-Duty
Electric Vehicles, July 14, 2022. https://www.volvotrucks.us/news-and-stories/press-
releases/2022/july/constructing-california-electrifiedcharging-corridor-for-medium-and-heavy-duty-
electric-vehicles/
152 Transport Topics: New Mexico to be Part of 'Clean Freight Corridor', September 26, 2022.
https://www.ttnews.com/articles/new-mexico-be-part-clean-freight-corridor
153 Business Wire: TeraWatt Developing 1-10 Electric Corridor, the First Network of Electric Heavy-Duty
Charging Centers, October 20, 2022.
https://www.businesswire.eom/news/home/20221020005252/en/TeraWatt-Developing-I-10-Electric-
Corridor-the-First-Network-of-Electric-Heavy-Duty-Charging-Centers
154 Nikola Partners With Voltera To Build Up To 50 Stations For Hydrogen Trucks, May 2, 2023.
https://www.forbes.eom/sites/alanohnsman/2023/05/02/nikola-partners-with-voltera-to-build-up-to-50-
stations-for-hydrogen-trucks/?sh=6ce0eea8fb0d
155 EV Truck Charging Station Garden City https://www.savannahnow.eom/story/news/2023/05/29/ev-
truck-charging-station-gardencity/70254024007/
156 Zeem Solutions Launches First Electric Vehicle Transportation-As-A-Service Depot, March 30, 2022.
https://zeemsolutions.com/zeem-solutions-launches-first-electric-vehicle-transportation-as-a-servicedepot/
157 Electrify America: Business Solutions, last accessed June 13, 2023.
https://www.electrifyamerica.com/business-solutions/
158 East Bay Community Energy and Forum Mobility Announce Innovative Financing for First of Its Kind
Electric Truck Charging Depot in Livermore, June 13, 2023. https://www.prnewswire.com/news-
releases/east-bay-community-energy-and-forum-mobility-announceinnovative-financing-for-first-of-its-
kind-electric-truck-charging-depot-in-livermore-301849030.html
159 WattEV Breaks Ground on 21st Century Truck Stop, December 16, 2021.
https ://www.wattev.com/post/wattev-breaks-ground-on-21 st-century-truck-stop
160 Terawatt Infrastructure, Ideas: TeraWatt Raises Over $1 Billion to Scale Commercial EV Charging
Centers Across America, September 13, 2022. https://terawattinfrastructure.com/ideas/terawatt-raises-over-
1 -billion/161 USPS Intends To Deploy Over 66,000 Electric Vehicles by 2028, Making One of the Largest
826
-------
Electric Vehicle Fleets in the Nation, December 20, 2022. https://www.prnewswire.com/news-
releases/usps-intends-to-deploy-over-66-000-electric-vehicles-by-2028~making-one-of-the-largest-
electric-vehicle-fleets-in-the-nation-301707407.html
162 USPS Moves Forward with Awards to Modernize and Electrify the Nation's Largest Federal Fleet -
Newsroom - About.usps.com, February 28, 2023. https://about.usps.com/newsroom/national-
releases/2023/0228-usps-moves-forward-with-awards-tomodernize-and-electrify-nations-largest-federal-
fleet.htm
163 Leading the Charge: Walmart Announces Plan To Expand Electric Vehicle Charging Network, April 6,
2023. https://corporate.walmart.com/newsroom/2023/04/06/leading-the-charge-walmart-announces-plan-
toexpand-electric-vehicle-charging-network
164 Walmart To Purchase 4,500 Canoo Electric Delivery Vehicles To Be Used for Last Mile Deliveries in
Support of Its Growing eCommerce Business, July 12, 2022.
https://corporate.walmart.com/newsroom/2022/07/12/walmart-to-purchase-4-500-canoo-electricdelivery-
vehicles-to-be-used-for-last-mile-deliveries-in-support-of-its-growing-ecommerce-business
165 Greenbiz: Walmart drives toward zero-emission goal for its entire fleet by 2040, September 23, 2020.
https://www.greenbiz.com/article/walmart-drives-toward-zero-emission-goal-its-entire-fleet-2040
166 The Verge: Amazon says it has 'over a thousand' Rivian electric vans making deliveries in the US,
November 7, 2022. https://www.theverge.eom/2022/l 1/7/23443995/amazon-rivian-electric-delivery-van-
fleet-ev
167 Amazons-Custom-Electric-Delivery-Vehicles-from-Rivian-Start-Rolling-Out-Across-the-U.S, July 21,
2022. https://press.aboutamazon.eom/2022/7/amazons-custom-electric-delivery-vehicles-from-rivian-
startrolling-out-across-the-u-s
168 Journal Times: Amazon prepares to go electric in a big way with delivery vans at Racine County hub,
June 28, 2022. https://journaltimes.com/news/local/amazon-prepares-to-go-electric-in-a-big-way-
withdelivery-vans-at-racine-county/article_a89d3c0e-f342-l Iec-823f-0f3f5e4a7dea.html
169 Dallas News: Amazon begins installing charging stations in North Texas for electric delivery fleet,
May 10, 2022. https://www.dallasnews.com/business/energy/2022/05/10/amazon-begins-installing-
charging-stationsin-north-texas-for-electric-delivery-fleet/
170 AJOT: Backed by Amazon & CBRE, Forum Mobility is building harbor truck charging stations in
California, April 4, 2023. https://www.ajot.com/insights/full/ai-backed-by-amazon-cbre-forum-mobility-is-
building-harbor-truckcharging-stations-in-california
171 AJOT: Backed by Amazon & CBRE, Forum Mobility is building harbor truck charging stations in
California, April 4, 2023. https://www.ajot.com/insights/full/ai-backed-by-amazon-cbre-forum-mobility-is-
building-harbor-truckcharging-stations-in-california
172 GAUSSIN Group receives an order from AMAZON for 329 electric yard tractors, December 14, 2022.
https://www.gaussin.com/news/gaussin-group-receives-an-order-from-amazon-for-329-electric-
yardtractors
173 UPS: Electrifying our future, May 23, 2022. https://about.ups.com/us/en/social-
impact/environment/sustainable-services/electric-vehicles—aboutups.html
174 The Buzz EV News: BrightDrop produces 150 electric delivery vans for FedEx Fleet, August 10, 2022.
https://www.thebuzzevnews.com/brightdrop-electric-vans-fedex/
175 UPS: UPS and DP World delivering world firsts, October 4, 2021. https://about.ups.com/us/en/our-
stories/innovation-driven/delivering-world-firsts.html
176 DHL Supply Chain Advances Sustainability Efforts With 50 Electric Yard Trucks, May 1,
2023. https://www.dhl.com/us-en/home/press/press-archive/2023/dhl-supply-chain-advances-
827
-------
sustainabilityefforts-with-50-electric-
yardtrucks.html#:~:text=The%20company%20is%20also%201ooking,of%20its%20fleet%20by%202030
Organization: CALSTART
Infrastructure Considerations
One of the major concerns EPA cites as possibly limiting faster ZE-MHDV adoption is the
pace of electric charging and hydrogen fueling infrastructure moving to the scale required.
Specifically, EPA raises concerns about fleets being able to install sufficient charging at their
depots to meet their deployment rate and asks for comment. We believe the approach EPA takes
to address infrastructure seriously limits the assumed penetration of key vehicle segments,
including regional tractors and an initial percentage of long-haul operations. Addressing these
assumptions is critical. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1656-A1, p. 16]
In terms of infrastructure needed and the availability to meet this faster rate, several studies
have investigated the ability to meet the pace of change needed. ICCT performed a strong
analysis that looked at infrastructure needed to meet a national ACT-based timeline. 35
CALSTART has also performed an infrastructure needs assessment based on the Drive to Zero
market penetration projections (which exceed ACT). This assessment has been structured to
build on and further detail the implementation roadmap Drive to Zero developed to reach 100
percent ZE-MHDVs by 2040. The 2040 roadmap's core strategy breaks up the activity needed to
reach full sales penetration into six overlapping stages, with smart infrastructure phasing as a
critical enabling component of five of the stages (Figure 8).35F36 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1656-A1, pp. 16 - 17.] [See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1656-A1, page 17, for
Figure 8]
35 https://theicct.org/publication/infrastructure-deployment-mhdv-may23/
36 https://globaldrivetozero.org/publication/global-roadmap-for-reaching-100-zero-emission-medium-and-
heavy-duty-vehicles-by-2040/
Phased approach: Building the next level of implementation detail into this strategy, the
infrastructure needs assessment illustrates that infrastructure, while a near-term challenge, will
not be the limiting factor on meeting steeper penetration rates. This is due to the unique phased
and geographically targeted way infrastructure is most likely to deploy. Indeed, CALSTART's
findings show the network benefits of this clustered and phased rollout, which matches ZE-
MHDV penetration volumes with first-launch regions, will create charging network efficiencies
in deployment volume and utilization that can support more ZE-MHDVs than EPA's approach
assumes.37 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1656-A1, p. 18.]
37 Phasing In U.S. Charging Infrastructure, CALSTART, June 2023
The analysis considers that deployment will first occur where it makes sense, not
everywhere.38 That is, priority areas will be a focus of most private investment in the near term,
and prioritization will inform the coordination of several of the factors critical in reducing lead
times for the installation of infrastructure, developing the grid, and making costs more
predictable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1656-A1, p. 18.]
38 https://nacfe.Org/research/electric-trucks/#electric-trucks-where-they-make-sensehigh-poten..al-regions-
for-electric-truck-deployments
828
-------
The assessment first identified the critical metrics to determine where focused and phased
infrastructure clusters will first grow. This is based on four primary priority factors in Table 1:
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1656-A1, p. 19.] [See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1656-A1, page 19, for Table 1]
These priorities—generally acknowledged by industry as important and serving as a
framework where infrastructure development has been coordinated—identify and generate the
needs and opportunity "heatmap" matching the first deployment locations satisfying vehicle use
needs, infrastructure capability, and investment profiles. By assigning vehicle penetration pacing
to these regions, the assessment generated required charger volumes and power levels and
projected how they would grow over the ramp-up period to create the hubs, corridors, and
networks that can match faster penetration timing. These locations deeply align with where
project development, placement, investment, and industry transition toward zero-emission freight
movement is already underway. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1656-A1, p. 19]
The analysis does not consider deployment as a uniform process, where charging
infrastructure is used irrespective of its general priority for fleets. Rather, it considers utilization
in terms of the deployment prioritization of each location, which would introduce effects of the
clustering of investment and the acceleration of infrastructure availability (Figures 9-11). Areas
identified as priorities for rapid and concentrated deployment can focus investment and
shift forward in time. There are multiple co-benefits to not treating deployment as spatially
uniform and linearly increasing with a relatively simple vehicle penetration. This infrastructure
has the potential to be utilized more in the near term and possibly more efficiently overall than if
deployed sporadically. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1656-A1, p. 19.] [See Docket Number EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1656-A1, pages 20-21, for Figures 9-11]
Phased infrastructure deployment exceeds EPA penetration rate needs: This stage-based,
phased implementation model matches a much faster rate of ZE-MHDV penetration than either
the EPA preferred option or even the ACT-aligned option. It matches a pace closer to that set by
the Advanced Clean Fleet (ACF) rule combined with ACT, and specifically aligns with the pace
needed to match 100 percent sales by 2040. What it clearly illustrates is that the implementation
of national infrastructure deployment will occur at a regionally differentiated rate where priority
geographies support the earlier use of vehicles and installation of infrastructure ecosystems.
Notably, the locations in CALSTART's assessment and ICCT's analysis show very strong
regional alignment on timing and rate. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1656-A1, p. 21]
Among other considerations, the assessment factors in charger utilization as a consideration,
whereas the EPA assessment limits its assumptions primarily to one charger per vehicle and a
charging rate limited to an assumed duty-cycle. This limitation has serious implications for
restricting capabilities—such as longer-haul operations—that do not match the
assumptions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1656-A1, p. 21]
For example, by assuming that certain bat ery pack sizing and associated weight penalties are
needed to achieve EPA's definition of long haul, EPA then projects that no long haul is possible
until much later in the rule timeline. However, by adjusting bat ery sizing to the opportunities for
using regional charging hubs and early corridor charge locations, critical segments of priority
long-haul operations can be achieved much earlier than is assumed. This is a critical—and we
believe unintended—flaw. These assumptions do not match the real-world plans already
underway for depots by several carriers, manufacturers, and infrastructure service providers. The
829
-------
prioritization of key areas reflects real-world strategy and coordinated investment trends by
major industries around high-potential regions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1656-A1, p. 21]
Highly instructive announcements have been made by major companies increasing the
electrification of their facilities/operational territories or signaling investments in targeted areas.
Corridor investment examples include:
• Blackrock, Daimler, and NextEra have announced GreenLane, a $650 million joint
venture to build out key corridors breaking ground this year.39
• TeraWatt announced that it would use $1 billion in seed funding to build charging
stations from Los Angeles to Texas.40
• BP Pulse has made commitments and investments of over $1 billion to move toward its
goal of installing and operating 100,000 sites globally.
• Voltera has committed several billions to developing sites in the United States.41 [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1656-A1, pp. 21 - 22]
39 https://newsroom.nexteraenergy.com/news-releases7iteiiFl23840
40 https://terawattinfrastructure.com/ideas/i-10-electric-corridor/
41 https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2022/08/09/2495043/0/en/Voltera-Launches-as-Turnkey-
Charging-Infrastructure-Solution-for-Companies-Operating-EVs-With-Plans-for-Multibillion-Dollar-
Investment.html
Recent state and federal government funding has also assisted, and many industry players are
leveraging the funding to realize the next stage in their charging infrastructure buildout
strategy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1656-A1, p. 22]
This strategy also aligns broadly with utility strategies for investments to support charging
infrastructure. Research shows that efficiencies within energy infrastructure investment beyond
the site are possible in areas where playbooks are created and new service processes emerge. The
models developed by Lawrence Berkeley National Lab for the California Energy Commission's
Charging Infrastructure Assessment shows remarkably different overall load profiles given
deployment scenarios in which managed charging takes place at sites, or in which charging takes
place in short distance travel patterns that can be operationally coordinated for opportunity
charging.42 Other studies by NREL show that managed charging can even create, at the grid
scale, megawatt-scale resources using aggregated electric vehicle behavior.43 Managed load
profiles are reflected in our analysis. We assume the overall load profile on the utility can change
drastically if deployment supports these trips clusters, leading to possible charge management
scenarios and also larger grid management opportunities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1656-A1,
p. 22]
42 https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and-topics/programs/electric-vehicle-charging-infrastructure-
assessment-ab-2127
43 https://www.nrel.gov/docs/ly22osti/83404.pdf
The major takeaway from the prioritization of areas is twofold:
• First, by shifting investment into priority regions, more ZE-MHDVs can be supported
earlier and more economically.
830
-------
• Second, by prioritizing key areas and regions, those areas come to be integrated and can
realize connected utilization efficiencies. Relatedly, this provides an opportunity to
streamline workforce development (e.g., engineers, construction), utility make-ready
programs, etc., which have the potential to reduce costs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1656-A1, p. 22]
This overall network effect and its benefits are fully missing from the EPA assumptions,
which primarily consist of linear, one-to-one vehicle to charger relationships and therefore limits
pacing and efficiency. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1656-A1, p. 22]
Organization: Clean Air Task Force et al.
b. Charging and grid infrastructure is capable of supporting HD BEVs in volumes aligned
with and in excess of EPA's proposed standards.
Deployment of BEVs is well underway across the U.S. and is already requiring the electric
power sector to make plans to reliably and safely integrate these vehicles. The electric power
industry is well situated to maintain safe and reliable service that can power an increasing
deployment of HD BEVs; utilities, aided significantly through investments from the BIL and
IRA, are making important upgrades to the system to integrate higher penetrations of BEVs.
Additional third party private investments and public investments are also already committed to
building a robust HD BEV charging network. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 45.]
When considering infrastructure buildout, it is important to remember that HD ZEVs will
enter the total on-road HD fleet gradually and in volumes that pale in comparison to in-use HD
combustion vehicles. Modeling using HD TRUCS and MOVeS3.R3188 shows that EPA's
proposal, if finalized, would likely result in ZEVs comprising just 1 percent of the total on-road
HD fleet by 2027, gradually reaching 8 percent in 2032 and 23 percent in 2040. See Table 4,
infra. In other words, a relatively small portion of the HD fleet will be tapping into charging and
grid infrastructure over the next decade, and even by 2040, HD ZEVs would comprise less than a
quarter of the on-road fleet under this proposal. Infrastructure needs for HD ZEVs will
accordingly grow gradually overtime. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 45. See Docket
Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, pages 45-46, for Table 4.]
188 HD TRUCS was used to develop ZEV adoption rates (by vehicle classification). MOVES3.R3 was
used to translate HD TRUCS-derived ZEV adoption rates to ZEV sales and in-use curves.
For the final rule, we urge EPA to model how the Phase 3 standards will likely affect the
composition of the entire on-road HD fleet, not just HD ZEVs' share of new sales. That
information would better help the Agency and the public consider infrastructure issues related to
this rulemaking. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 46.]
i. Economic theory and historical precedent show that infrastructure buildout will occur at the
pace and scale needed to support vehicle electrification.
EPA should reject arguments that the buildout of charging and grid infrastructure cannot
occur at the pace and scale needed to support expanded vehicle electrification, which are
unreasonably pessimistic and inconsistent with both economic theory and historical precedent.
These arguments rely on the classic "chicken-and-egg" scenario said to be presented by ZEV
sales and charging infrastructure, where each side of the market waits for the other. But EPA
831
-------
need not and should not wait for infrastructure to fully mature before finalizing strong Phase 3
standards. Instead, EPA's standards themselves will send a strong signal to the market to
undertake the infrastructure investments needed to accommodate a gradual rise in
vehicle electrification, 189 such that increased ZEV sales and infrastructure buildout will occur in
relative tandem and reinforce each other. As one analyst sums it up: "The chicken-and-egg
conundrum is being solved. Investments in the space and the adoption of EVs [a]re happening
much faster than many analysts expected, and this is also accelerating the build-out of the
charging network."190 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, pp. 46 - 47.]
189 Environmental regulation itself, of course, can lead to technology innovation and market development.
See generally Jaegul Lee et al., Forcing Technological Change: A Case of Automobile Emissions Control
Technology Development in the US, 30 Technovation 249 (2010); Margaret R. Taylor, Edward S. Rubin,
& David A. Hounshell, Regulation as the Mother of Innovation: The Case of S02 Control, 27 Law &
Policy 348 (2005); James Lents et al., Chapter II: The regulation of automobile emission: A case study, in
Environmental Regulation and Technology Innovation: Controlling Mercury Emissions from Coal-Fired
Boilers (Marika Tatsutani & Praveen Amar eds., 2000)
https://www.nescaum.org/documents/rpt000906mercury_innovative-technology.pdf.
190 Gabriela Herculano, Chicken-and-Egg Problem: EV Adoption and Buildout of Charging Networks,
Nasdaq (Apr. 18, 2022), https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/chicken-and-egg-problem%3A-ev-adoption-and-
buildout-of-charging-networks.
The economic literature on indirect network effects and two-sided markets shows that an
increase in BEV sales—a likely effect of the Phase 3 standards, particularly if they are
strengthened in the final rule—can be expected to stimulate associated infrastructure
development. In a study on flex-fuel vehicles fueled by E85 (85 percent ethanol), Corts (2010)
found that growth in sales of flex-fuel vehicles due to government fleet acquisition programs led
to an increase in the number of retail E85 stations. 191 That relationship held true across all six
Midwestern states analyzed, despite differences in those states' E85 subsidies and tax credits. 192
The author concluded that the results "confirm the basic validity" of the theory underlying
government fleet purchase requirements: that increasing the "base of alternative fuel vehicles can
spur the development of a retail alternative fuel distribution infrastructure." 193 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 47.]
191 Kenneth S. Corts, Building out alternative fuel retail infrastructure: Government fleet spillovers in E85,
59 J. Env't Econ. & Mgmt. 219, 219-20 (2009).
192 Id.
193 Id. at 231.
Recent economic research has confirmed this relationship in the context of ZEVs and
charging infrastructure specifically. An influential study by Li et al. (2017) found that "EV
demand and charging station deployment give rise to feedback loops" and that "subsidizing
either side of the market will result in an increase in both EV sales and charging stations." 194
Similarly, Springel (2021) found "evidence of positive feedback effects on both sides of the
market, suggesting that cumulative EV sales affect charging station entry and that public
charging availability has an impact on consumers' vehicle choice." 195 The BIL and IRA
subsidize both sides of the market, offering significant incentives for both HD ZEV purchases
and the construction of charging infrastructure. Economic theory therefore supports the
proposition that strengthened Phase 3 standards, particularly in combination with the BIL and
832
-------
IRA's large financial incentives, will facilitate expansion of charging and grid
infrastructure. 196 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 47.]
194 Shanjun Li et al., The market for electric vehicles: indirect network effects and policy design, 4 J.
Ass'nEnv't. & Resources Econ. 89, 128 (2017).
195 Katalin Springel, Network Externality and Subsidy Structure in Two-Sided Markets: Evidence from
Electric Vehicle Incentives, 13 Am. Econ. J.: Econ. Pol'y 393, 426 (2021).
196 See id. at 394 (noting that "the presence of positive feedback amplifies the impact of both types of
subsidies"), 415 ("positive feedback loops between the charging station network and total all-electric
vehicle sales amplify the impact of both types of subsidy").
Economic theory has in fact played out in Norway, where ZEV sales and infrastructure both
expanded rapidly over the span of about a decade. There, the "path to charging point saturation
started by stimulating more demand for EVs."197 In other words, Norway did not wait for
infrastructure to fully mature before beginning its transition to cleaner cars. Rather, rising ZEV
sales themselves "helped trigger a spike in demand for charging stations." 198 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 48.]
197 Whitney Bauck, How Norway Became the World's Electric Car Capital, Nexus Media News (Mar. 7,
2023), https://nexusmedianews.com/how-norway-became-the-worlds-electric-car-capital/.
198 McKinsey & Co, What Norway's Experience Reveals About the EV Charging Market 3 (2023),
https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/automotive-and-assembly/our-insights/what-norways-experience-
reveals-about-the-ev-charging-market#/.
The concept that charging infrastructure will adequately scale up over time also finds support
in an analogous historical example: the buildout of roads and gasoline refueling infrastructure in
the early 20th century to serve the United States' growing fleet of automobiles. The country's
exponential growth in automobile sales—first exceeding 1,000 in 1899 and growing to 1 million
by 1916199—preceded the establishment of an extensive network of both suitable roads200 and
filling stations.201 Instead, the buildout of road and refueling infrastructure unfolded over long
time horizons and in a variety of ways, adapting to the needs of the automobile fleet as it
changed and grew. Paving and other road improvement efforts began on a small scale in cities,
where automobiles were initially concentrated; efforts to improve rural roads and construct
highways happened a decade or more later, as motorists began to expand their driving beyond
cities.202 Similarly, in the case of refueling infrastructure, a network of modern filling stations
did not spring up until well after automobiles had grown in popularity.203 Before that, refueling
needs were met through varied and dispersed "non-station" methods such as cans of gasoline
sold at general stores, barrels at repair garages, mobile fuel carts, curb pumps, and home
refueling pumps, which emerged at various times as the demand for gasoline increased.204 Road
and refueling infrastructure therefore exhibited a "long-term, adaptive and portfolio
approach"205 that, over the span of several decades, satisfied the shifting needs of the growing
ranks of automobile owners. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 48
199 Roads, Encyclopedia.com (May 29, 2018), https://www.encyclopedia.com/science-and-
technology/technology/technology-terms-and-concepts/roads.
200 See id. (noting that around 1904, "[o]nly a few hundred miles of roads in the entire country were
suitable for motor vehicles"); see also F.W. Geels, The Dynamics of Transitions in Socio-technical
Systems: A Multi-level Analysis of the Transition Pathway from Horse-drawn Carriages to Automobiles
(1860-1930), 17 Tech. Analysis & Strategic Mgmt. 445, 460, 467-68 (2005) (discussing the gradual
833
-------
expansion and improvement of road infrastructure in the 1910s and 1920s to accommodate growth in and
changes to automobile travel).
201 Marc W. Melaina, Turn of the century refueling: A review of innovations in early gasoline refueling
methods and analogies for hydrogen, 35 Energy Pol'y 4919, 4922 (2007) (noting that "the takeoff period
for gasoline stations occurred between 1915 and 1925, but exponential growth in vehicles began around
1910, so the rise of gasoline filling stations followed rather than preceded the rise of gasoline vehicles").
202 Geels, at 467-68.
203 Melaina, at 4922.
204 Id. at 4924-27.
205 Id. at 4932 (discussing refueling infrastructure).
That approach holds important lessons for this rulemaking. As detailed above, the
introduction of HD ZEVs into the total on-road fleet will occur gradually and, for the first
decade or more, in relatively low volumes. As explored in a recent white paper by ICCT,206
successfully meeting the needs of this gradually expanding fleet of heavy-duty ZEVs will not
require the overnight nationwide buildout of infrastructure that some have misleadingly claimed.
Instead, economic theory and historical precedent show that growth in heavy-duty ZEV sales and
infrastructure buildout will occur in relative tandem, with infrastructure responding over time
commensurate with the evolving needs of the ZEV fleet. And in finalizing its Phase 3 standards,
EPA will send a strong market signal that will facilitate infrastructure development at the pace
and scale needed to support compliance with the standards. As explained in the sections below,
the nation's infrastructure is already well-positioned to adapt to increased vehicle electrification.
EPA must reject unfounded chicken-and-egg arguments questioning whether infrastructure will
respond to rising demand. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, pp. 48 - 49
206 See generally Pierre-Louis Ragon et al., ICCT, Near-Term Infrastructure Deployment to Support Zero-
Emission Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles in the United States (2023), https://theicct.org/wp-
content/uploads/2023/05/infrastructure-deployment-mhdv-may23.pdf.
iii. Charging infrastructure development is in line with needs to support higher deployment of
HD BEVs.
EPA also correctly identifies that there has been "rapid growth in the broader market for
charging infrastructure serving cars or other electric vehicles." 88 Fed. Reg. at 25934. New
charging infrastructure announcements are occurring every week, showing the public and private
sectors' commitment to building out infrastructure to support vehicle electrification. An analysis
of announced but not yet deployed charging infrastructure investments compiled by Atlas Public
Policy found that over $29.5 billion of funding has been committed specifically to medium- and
heavy-duty vehicle charging, with another $4.3 billion available to medium- and heavy-duty
vehicle charging as well as light-duty vehicle charging (see Table 5).232 These totals include
public sector (e.g., Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Discretionary Grant funding, state
funding commitments, and modeled estimates of 26 U.S. Code § 30C tax credit payments),
private sector (e.g., automaker and charging service provider), and utility program
investments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 55.] [See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1640-A1, pages 55-56, for Table 5]
232 Atlas Pub. Pol'y, Announced EV Infrastructure Funding (June 15, 2023).
834
-------
These totals are likely a significant underestimate of total investment, particularly of private
sector commitments. A few recent announcements on investments and technological
advancements include:
• Daimler, NextEra, and BlackRock announced the Greenlane joint venture to design,
develop, install, and operate a US-wide, BEV public charging and hydrogen fueling
network for medium- and heavy-duty BEVs and hydrogen FCEVs.233
• DOE announced the award of $7.4 million to seven projects to develop medium and HD
BEV charging and hydrogen corridor infrastructure plans that will benefit millions of
drivers across 23 states.234
• Cummins and Heliox announced a deal to bring two innovative fleet charging solutions
to market.235
• Scania successfully tested a megawatt charging system from ABB E-Mobility with a
next-generation electric truck; ABB intends to launch the next version of that charging
technology in late 2024 or early 2025.236 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 56]
233 Michelle Lewis, Daimler just announced a $650M US-wide EV charging network for trucks, electrek
(Apr. 27, 2023), https://electrek.co/2023/04/27/daimler-just-announced-a-650m-us-wide-ev-charging-
network-for-trucks/.
234 DOE, Biden-Harris Administration Announces Funding for Zero-Emission Medium- and Heavy-Duty
Vehicle Corridors, Expansion of EV Charging in Underserved Communities (Feb. 15, 2023),
https://www.energy.gov/articles/biden-harris-administration-announces-funding-zero-emission-medium-
and-heavy-duty-vehicle.
235 Cummins, Inc., Cummins and Heliox to Partner On Electric Vehicle Charging Solutions for Fleet
Customers, Cummins Newsroom (May 16, 2023),
https://www.cummins.eom/news/releases/2023/05/16/cummins-and-heliox-partner-electric-vehicle-
charging-solutions-fleet.
236 Nora Manthey, Scania tests ABB's megawatt charging system for next-gen electric trucks, Electrive
(May 10, 2023), https://www.electrive.eom/2023/05/10/scania-tests-abbs-megawatt-charging-system-for-
next-gen-electric-trucks/.
Even more private sector announcements and investments should be expected, as private
sector actors often do not announce their investment plans and are especially unlikely to do so if
they are investing in depot charging (as opposed to public charging), which will constitute a
large proportion of heavy-duty charging. Nevertheless, the scale of these announced investments
reflects a strong and growing deployment of public and private charging infrastructure that,
even in advance of the finalization of the Phase 3 standards, has begun to set the stage for a
robust charging network. Additional analyses have emphasized the growing momentum in
infrastructure deployment; for example, an International Energy Agency report noted "there has
been a substantial upswing in investment in EV charging infrastructure, which has doubled in
2022 compared to the previous year."237 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, pp. 56 - 57]
237 IEA, World Energy Investment 2023, at 50 (2023), https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/54a781e5-
05ab-4d43-bb7f-752c27495680/WorldEnergyInvestment2023.pd.
Organization: Clean Fuels Development Coalition (CFDC) et al.
F. There will not be enough charging infrastructure to persuade skeptical consumers to adopt
battery electric vehicles in the numbers EPA projects.
835
-------
Another reason the proposal is not feasible is a dearth of charging infrastructure. The proposal
acknowledges that a lack of charging infrastructure is one of the "top barriers" customers
identify to fleet electrification. 88 Fed. Reg. 25,943. This is unlikely to change anytime
soon. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1585-A1, p. 26]
Currently, the general electric vehicle charging infrastructure is "inadequate and plagued with
non-functioning stations." Dan Zukowski, EV charging infrastructure is "inadequate and plagued
with non-functioning stations": J.D. Power, SmartCitiesDive (Feb. 22, 2023),
https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/news/ev-charginginfrastructure- inadequate-non-functioning-
stations/643148/. An on-going study by J.D. Power found that charge point unreliability has
increased 50% from 2021 to January 2023, from 14% to 21%. Id. This unreliability has led to
high rates of dissatisfaction with public charging stations among electric vehicle owners. Id. This
dissatisfaction is worse in states with higher numbers of electric vehicles and in large cities with
high-density housing. Id. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1585-A1, p. 27]
This is likely to get worse. While light-duty electric vehicle sales are increasing rapidly, "the
rate of EV adoption is growing at a rate that is almost double that of charger installation growth
rates" and "the construction of new charging stations is not keeping up with the demand."
Id. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2022-0985-1585- A 1, p. 27]
And if the US electric vehicle charging infrastructure is already not enough for the rapidly
increasing number of electric cars being bought and used, it is woefully inadequate for heavy-
duty vehicles. Heavy-duty vehicles require much larger and more powerful chargers than their
light-duty cousins. This is because heavy-duty vehicles need more power and need to receive it
faster than a light-duty vehicle to meet rigorous commercial on-road operating schedules. The
majority of nonresidential electric passenger vehicle charging stations have fast charging at
around 150 kWs. To charge fast enough, a large heavy-duty vehicle would need nearly 1,000
kW. One recent study from the electricity and gas utility National Grid projects that by 2030, the
typical passenger plaza along a highway will demand as much power— with all the wiring,
transformer, and substation upgrades that requires—as a sports arena during its busiest times.
Electric Highways Study, National Grid (2022), https://www.nationalgrid.com/us/EVhighway.
By 2035, a single larger truck stop charging station could need to provide 19 megawatts of peak
power, roughly what a small town uses. Id. And by 2045, that kind of truck stop may require 30
megawatts of capacity, approaching the peak usage of a large industrial plant. Id. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1585-A1, p. 27]
Heavy-duty electric vehicle charging stations also need more physical space. Because heavy-
duty trucks are large and because electric charging takes longer than refilling with liquid fuel,
truck recharging stations will need to be expanded and undergo enormous grid-interconnection
processes just so trucks can recharge. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1585-A1, p. 27]
Many heavy-duty electric vehicle manufacturers point to the lack of charging infrastructure as
the single biggest limiting factor in deploying electric heavy-duty vehicles. "Daimler, the leading
US heavy-duty truck manufacturer, unveiled the Class 8 Freightliner eCascadia, its first fully
electric semi-truck, in May of 2022. Its current production capacity is around 2000 trucks per
year and it wouldn't be hard to double that number to 4000, [CEO John] O'Leary said in a recent
media briefing.... But there are only around 100 electric trucks out on the streets." Bianca
Giacobone, Electric Semi-Trucks Are Ready to Be Deployed, But There Aren't Near Enough
Plugs to Charge Them, Business Insider (Feb. 4, 2023),
836
-------
https://www.businessinsider.com/electric-tmcks-charging-infrastmcture-tmckingmanufacturer-
daimler-ecascadia-2023-2. "Overwhelmingly, infrastructure is slowing us down in terms of EV
deployment," O'Leary explained. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1585-A1, pp. 27 - 28]
The proposal appears to be aware of this fact. Indeed, heavy-duty charging infrastructure is so
comically small that the DRIA must point out the obscure fraction of level two chargers with an
arrow. See DRIA at 64. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1585-A1, p. 28. See DRIA Chart, Private
Fleet EVSE Ports, on page 28 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1585-A1.]
The proposal suggests that if enough money is thrown at the problem, it will go away. 88 Fed.
Reg. 25,943. The proposal explains that it expects the BIL to "help build out a national network
of EV charging" because it provides "$2.5 billion in discretionary grant programs for charging
and fueling infrastructure along designated alternative fuel corridors and in communities
(Section 11401) and $5 billion for the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) Formula
Program (under Division J, Title VIII)." Id. at 25,943-94. But these funds are "not required" to
be used to "build stations specifically for heavy-duty vehicles." Id. And in any event, it is not
only money that is a problem. "Siting, permitting, constmction delays - all that means current
lead times [for charging stations] are measured in years, not weeks or months." John G. Smith,
Broad EV rollouts constrained by infrastructure challenges: Daimler Truck CEO,
Tmcknews.com (Jan 31, 2023), https://www.trucknews.com/sustainability/broad-ev-rollouts-
constrained-by-infrastructure-challenges-daimler-truck-ceo/1003172321/. The proposal provides
no evidence that this will change anytime soon. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1585-A1, pp. 28 -
29]
Organization: Colorado Department of Transportation et al.
• With respect to EPA's request for comment on charging infrastructure availability, our
state is working hard to analyze, plan for, and fund needed charging infrastructure by
leveraging federal, state, and utility resources. Last month, the Colorado Energy Office
launched its first round of grants for medium- and heavy-duty fleet vehicle charging, a
program that it expects to grow over time. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1530-A1, p. 2]
Organization: Consolidated Edison, Inc. (Con Edison)
Con Edison supports advancing EV charging infrastructure buildout today while planning
proactively to meet the fast ramp in future customer needs to achieve emissions reduction
targets. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1661-A1, p.4]
Organization: Daimler Truck North America LLC (DTNA)
Electrical infrastructure buildout pace is a barrier to significant ZEV adoption that should be
factored in to Phase 3 C02 standard levels.
The pace of electrical infrastructure buildout remains the biggest barrier for customer
adoption of HD BEVs and poses the greatest threat to successful implementation of the Proposed
Rule. As EPA observes, BEV infrastructure is critically important for the success of increasing
development and adoption of BEV technologies. 108 DTNA thus appreciates the opportunity to
respond to EPA's request for comment on the concerns that have already been expressed to EPA
regarding the slow growth of ZEV charging and refueling infrastructure. This Proposed Rule is
837
-------
unique in that compliance will rely heavily on the development of infrastructure that
manufacturers have no control over, and providers are not obligated to expand infrastructure to
support the scope and timing of the Proposed Rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 45]
108 See Proposed Rule, 88 Fed. Reg. at 26,000.
DTNA—in partnership with Portland General Electric—is proud to have built the first-of-its-
kind public charging island for commercial ZEVs in Portland, Oregon. In addition, DTNA's
expert eConsulting team is dedicated to supporting fleets on all aspects of the ZEV transition,
including site design and interfacing with utilities. Therefore, DTNA is uniquely positioned to
offer insight into the challenges associated with commercial ZEV infrastructure development.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 45]
DTNA has concerns about EPA's treatment of electric infrastructure in the Proposed Rule,
and the Agency's assumptions that all suitable vehicle applications and willing customer
adopters will have charging infrastructure available, or that such infrastructure can be made
available within the timeframes that EPA assumes and at the costs projected in HD TRUCS. In
this section, DTNA highlights the unique challenges with HD charging infrastructure (especially
with respect to electricity transmission and distribution); explains why EPA significantly
underestimates infrastructure costs; discusses specific timing challenges; and highlights case
studies from its customer fleets. Finally, DTNA concludes by recommending that EPA use an
electric infrastructure scalar to ensure that infrastructure development pace is adequately factored
in to EPA's adoption rate projections, as discussed in more detail on Section II.C of these
comments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 45]
EPA projects that modest increases in electric power generation will be required to support
the Proposed Rule. Specifically, the Agency estimates that Proposed Rule requirements would
increase HD BEV electric power end use by 0.1% over 2021 levels in 2027, increasing to 2.8%
over 2021 levels in 2055.109 EPA notes, however, that these figures do not include the
electricity increase required to produce hydrogen.110 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1,
pp. 45-46]
109 Id. at 25,983; DRIA at 430, Table 6-1.
110 See DRIA at 431 (noting that EPA's projected electricity consumption increases attributable to the
Proposed Rule do 'not include changes in electricity generation to produce hydrogen').
EPA's figures appear to underestimate the increase in electric power generation that will be
required to support implementation of the Proposed Rule. As discussed below, according to the
Company's calculations, 45 gigawatts of installed charging capacity will be required to support
the vehicle volumes in the Proposed Rule from 2027 - 2032. Based on EIA's estimate that there
was 1,143,757 megawatts (MW) of total utility-scale electricity generating capacity in the United
States at the end of 2021,111 Proposed Rule implementation will require a 3.9% increase in
domestic generation capacity (over the 2021 level) by 2032, conflicting with EPA's projection
that only a 2.8% increase will be required by 2055. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 46]
111 See U.S. Energy Information Administration, 'Electricity explained: Electricity generation, capacity,
and sales in the United States,' https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-in-the-us-
generation-capacityand-sales.php.
838
-------
Further, DTNA is concerned that EIA's commercial vehicle forecast does not align with
EPA's ZEV market projections in the Proposed Rule. EIA's AEO 2022 commercial vehicle
projections are summarized in Table 15 below. EIA projects zero commercial vehicle BEV sales
through 2050, and minimal FCEV penetration up to 1,600 vehicles per year per category. It is
critical that federal agencies are aligned on these commercial vehicle projections and
communicate them clearly to the electric utility industry. Given the misalignment with EIA on
ZEV uptake rates, it is likely that EPA underestimates the electricity generation increase needed
to support HD BEVs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 46] [Refer to Table 15 on p. 46 of
docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1]
EPA points to the adoption of residential air conditioners and growth of power-intensive data
centers as historical evidence of the electric utility industry's ability to deliver additional power
to customers. 113 Residential air conditioners provide a reasonable comparison for light-duty
vehicle electricity demand levels, as they represent a relatively low load that is evenly distributed
across utility service territories. The electricity demands associated with medium- and heavy-
duty electrification will, however, be fundamentally different and must be treated as such. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 46]
113 See Proposed Rule, 88 Fed. Reg. at 25,983.
Unlike light-duty vehicles, most HD ZEVs cannot charge using existing 120-volt and 240-volt
AC electrical infrastructure, and they require dedicated DC infrastructure. HD ZEVs are also
disproportionally located in concentrated urban areas, creating highly localized grid capacity
addition needs in constrained spaces (see Figure 3 below, showing heat maps of potential future
loads). [EPA-HQ-0AR-2022-0985-1555- A 1, p. 47] [Refer to Figure 3 on p. 47 of docket
number EP A-HQ-0 AR-2022-098 5 -15 5 5 - A 1 ]
Power-intensive data centers and server farms were rapidly constructed across the United
States in the last 20 years and were largely greenfield projects that had the flexibility to be sited
where grid capacity was available or could be made available relatively easily. By contrast, the
commercial transportation industry is already entrenched and invested in existing logistics
facilities. Most of these are located in or around high density urban population centers, often
clustered tightly together, where grid capacity is not available, and the process of acquiring land
and rights-of-way for upgrades is complex. The use of data centers and server farms as anecdotal
examples of electric utility adaptability suggests that EPA is significantly underestimating the
demand presented by commercial transportation charging infrastructure. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2022-
0985-1555-A1, p. 47]
DTNA generally agrees with EPA's assertion that scale-up of electric power generation is not
likely to significantly limit the development of BEV electric vehicle charging infrastructure.
Rather, the challenge for medium- and heavy-duty charging lies in distribution of that power. As
ICCT observed in a recent white paper on near-term medium- and heavy-duty ZEV
infrastructure development, 'Most uncertainties regarding infrastructure buildout concern the
capacity of distribution systems to bring that energy to the right place in a timely manner and
accommodate the highly localized power requirements of [medium- and heavy-duty vehicle]
charging.' 114 Accordingly, DTNA recommends that EPA engage with electric utilities and their
trade associations to further understand the unique challenges that HD ZEVs charging will pose
839
-------
for distribution systems, and how those factors should be accounted for in this
rulemaking. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 47]
114 See ICCT, 'Near-Term Infrastructure Deployment to Support Zero-Emission Medium- and Heavy -
Duty Vehicles in the United States (May 2023) at I, https://theicct.org/wp-
content/uploads/2023/05/infrastructure-deployment-mhdv-may23.pdf (ICCT ZEV Infrastructure White
Paper).
Finally, as described in more detail in Sections I.B.3 and II.C. of these comments, EPA
should incorporate a scalar to be used in its calculations of appropriate C02 standard stringency
levels, designed (and regularly updated) to reflect actual installed capacity of HD-accessible
charging equipment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 58]
EPA Request for Comment, Request #5: EPA requests comment on this concern, both in the
Phase 3 rulemaking process, and in consideration of whether EPA should consider undertaking
any future actions related to the Phase 3 standards, if finalized, with respect to the future growth
of the charging and refueling infrastructure for ZEVs.
• DTNA Response: EPA should factor in heavy-duty (HD) infrastructure availability by
applying an infrastructure scalar to its projected ZEV adoption rates, as discussed in
Section II.C of DTNA's comments on the Proposed Rule. DTNA also encourages EPA to
pursue the supporting policies outlined in Section I.B.4. of these comments. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 159]
EPA Request for Comment, Request #6: EPA requests comment on what, if any, additional
information and data EPA should consider collecting and monitoring during the implementation
of the Phase 3 standards; we also request comment on whether there are additional stakeholders
EPA should work with during implementation of the Phase 3 standards, if finalized, and what
measures EPA should consider to help ensure success of the Phase 3 program, including with
respect to the important issues of refueling and charging infrastructure for ZEVs.
• DTNA Response: EPA should collect data on available HD ZEV refueling infrastructure
to inform stringency increases throughout implementation of the Phase 3 program,
including hydrogen fueling stations and installed HD-accessible electric vehicle supply
equipment (EVSE) capacity. DTNA also encourages EPA to work proactively with
electric utilities to drive the buildout of HD ZEV support infrastructure, and to pursue the
supporting policies set forth in Section I.B.4 of these comments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1555-A1, p.159]
EPA Request for Comment, Request #77: We request comment on data and methods that
could be used to estimate the effect of this action on the HD BEV vehicle charging infrastructure
industry.
• DTNA Response: HD BEV vehicle charging infrastructure in the U.S. is inadequate to
support the ZEV adoption rates that EPA projects as the basis for the C02 emission
standards in the Proposed Rule. Infrastructure is the most significant limiting factor for
HD ZEV adoption. DTNA discusses this issue in detail in Section II.B.3 of its comments
and proposes a mechanism for adjusting the stringency of the rule to account for the lack
of adequate infrastructure in Section II.C.2. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1,
pp. 172-173]
840
-------
Organization: Edison Electric Institute (EEI)
Electric Company Policies and Programs Can Help Reduce Capital and Operational Costs for
Fleet Electrification Customers.
Many EEI members over the last decade have sought regulatory approval from their state
regulatory commissions to accelerate transportation electrification by reducing customer barriers
to adoption. As of March 2023, and as mentioned supra, electric transportation filings from 62
electric companies in 35 states and Washington, D.C. have totaled more than $4.2 billion. The
majority of these investments support the deployment of EV charging infrastructure at customer
locations, and a significant portion is targeted to fleet customers. These programs can help
reduce the cost that the customer would otherwise pay for the installation of EV charging
infrastructure, which is a commonly cited barrier to EV charging infrastructure deployment.25
Further, electric companies can work with fleet customers to help manage their EV charging to
occur at non-peak times. This can reduce operational costs for the fleet customer and improve
utilization of the electric system, which puts downward pressure on rates for all
customers.26 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1509-A2, pp. 16-17]
25 An oft cited barrier to adoption for some customers is the low utilization of EV charging stations.
Traditional electric rates for commercial customers include a demand component designed to recover the
fixed costs of delivery electricity. With low utilization (such as a public EV charging station or some fleet
charging use cases), the effective electric price can be higher than a customer with the same demand but
higher utilization. Many electric companies offer or are exploring commercial rates or other programs that
reduce some of the demand charge exposure for these low utilization customers. See Cappers, et al., A
Snapshot of EV-Specific Rate Designs Among U.S. Investor-Owned Electric Utilities,
https://emp.lbl.gov/publications/snapshot-ev-specific-rate-designs.
26 See, e.g., Metz, et al., Distribution System Investments to Enable Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicle
Electrification - A Case Study of New York, https://www.edf.org/media/worth-investment-report-finds-
utilities-fleet-owners-consumers-benefit-when-utilities-cover.
Organization: Electrification Coalition (EC)
We suggest the EPA work collaboratively with the National Labs and the DOE on solutions
that speed the installation of EV charging infrastructure, such as with the utility pre-planning for
HD charging infrastructure, the energization process and permitting process. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1558-A1, p. 11]
The EPA specifically requests comments on the concerns from HD vehicle manufacturers
over slow growth in HD EV charging infrastructure deployment, and asks whether EPA should
consider undertaking any future actions related to Phase 3 standards with respect to the future
growth of HD EV charging infrastructure.32 While not necessarily in the jurisdiction of EPA, the
agency should nonetheless work collaboratively with the National Labs and DOE on solutions
that will ensure a timely installation of HD EV charging infrastructure. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1558-A1, p. 11]
32 See page 25934 of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposed rule for Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles-Phase 3 in the Federal Register:
https://www.govinfo.gOv/content/pkg/FR-2023-04-27/pdf/2023-07955.pdf
The private sector has begun making investments in expanding public and en-route charging
for HD vehicles. For example, TeraWatt Infrastructure announced that it will be developing a
841
-------
network of charging centers for HD trucks along the I-10 corridor between the ports of Long
Beach and Los Angeles, California and El Paso, Texas. Additionally, The Volvo Group and Pilot
Company announced that they have signed a Letter of Intent to build a 'national, public charging
network' for heavy duty trucks across the U.S. at Pilot and Flying J travel centers. These stations
will be available for all brands of electric heavy-duty trucks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1558-
Al, p. 13]
Organization: Energy Innovation
IV. THE COMBINED IMPACT OF FEDERAL, STATE, AND PRIVATE INVESTMENTS
ON INFRASTRUCTURE DEPLOYMENT WILL HELP MEET THE NEEDS OF AN
INCREASINGLY ELECTRIFIED HDV FLEET OVER THE NEXT DECADE.
The EPA notes that "[uncertainty about ZEV technology, charging infrastructure technology
and availability for BEVs, or hydrogen refueling infrastructure for FCEVs, may affect ZEV
adoption rates. As ZEVs become increasingly more affordable and ubiquitous, we expect
uncertainty related to these technologies will diminish over time."42 We concur with this
assessment and recognize that vehicle adoption must occur apace with infrastructure
deployment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1604-A1, p. 19]
42 U.S. EPA, 26072.
Estimates vary on the level of investment needed to support widespread transportation sector
electrification, including for HDVs, depending on the timeframe and percentage of BEVs
assumed. For example:
• Analysis by Atlas Public Policy suggests the U.S. will need to commit between $100 and
$166 billion in charging infrastructure investments this decade to support an acceleration
in electric truck adoption (100 percent electric new medium- and heavy-duty truck sales
by the end of 2040).43
• The 2035 2.0 study's DRIVE Clean Scenario estimates the U.S. would require
approximately 270,000 public charge-points for LDVs and 35,000 MDV/heavy-duty
truck charge-points each year for the next 30 years, which would cost approximately $6.5
billion per year between now and 2050.44
• According to the ICCT, the U.S. needs to spend roughly $30 to $35 billion on public
charging infrastructure by 2030 to achieve the widespread adoption of light- and heavy-
duty ZEVs as described in the ZEV Declaration and the Global Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) on Zero- Emission Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles.45 [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985- 1604-A1, pp. 19 - 20]
43 Lucy McKenzie et al., "U.S. Medium- and Heavy-Duty Truck Electrification Infrastructure
Assessment" (Atlas Public Policy, November 12, 2021), https://atlaspolicy.com/u-s-medium-and-heavy-
duty-truck-electrification-infrastructure-assessment/.
44 "Public Charging for Electric Cars and Trucks Can Be Built Quickly and Cost-Effectively," 2035 2.0,
n.d., https://www.2035report.com/transportation/public-charging/.
45 Slowik et al., "Analyzing the Impact of the Inflation Reduction Act on Electric Vehicle Uptake in the
United States," 11.
842
-------
Fortunately, a combination of federal, state, utility, and private investments is already filling
the need for HDV charging infrastructure. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1604-A1, p. 20]
At the federal level, the BIL contains $7.5 billion to develop a nationwide EV charging
network, targeting rural and underserved areas.46 To date, all 50 states are moving forward with
plans to develop over 75,000 miles (as of July 2022) of EV charging corridors, via funding
allocated through the National Electric Infrastructure Program. In addition to the BIL, several
federal funding opportunities specifically target infrastructure for the HDV sector. For example:
• The Clean School Bus Program offers school districts $5 billion over 5 years to replace
existing school buses with clean and zero-emission models, and recipients can use funds
for charging infrastructure for up to $13,000 or $20,000 per bus.47
• The Clean Heavy-Duty Vehicle Program will provide $1 billion in funding to replace
dirty HDVs with clean ZEVs, support ZEV infrastructure, and train and develop
workers. 4 8
• The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)
are funding $7 million for new projects to accelerate decarbonization of medium- and
heavy-duty freight transportation.49 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1604-A1, p. 20]
46 "UPDATED FACT SHEET: Bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act," The White House
Briefing Room, August 2, 2021, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-
releases/2021/08/02/updated-fact-sheet-bipartisan-infrastructure-investmentand-jobs-act/.
47 "Clean School Bus Program," U.S. EPA, n.d., https://www.epa.gov/cleanschoolbus.
48 "Clean Heavy-Duty Vehicle Program," U.S. EPA, n.d., https://www.epa.gov/inflation-reduction-
act/clean-heavy-duty-vehicle-program.
49 "Biden-Harris Administration Announces Funding for Zero-Emission Medium- and Heavy-Duty
Vehicle Corridors, Expansion of EV Charging in Underserved Communities," U.S. Department of Energy,
February 15, 2023, https://www.energy.gov/articles/biden-harrisadministration-announces-funding-zero-
emission-medium-and-heavy-duty-vehicle.
The IRA extended for 10 years the Alternative Fuel Refueling Infrastructure tax credit (30C)
for private investments in qualified clean-vehicle infrastructure, with a commercial tax credit of
30 percent up to $100,000 per charger (up from the prior $30,000-per-location cap). This tax
credit for EV charging infrastructure will help support private investments in a more robust
national HDV charging network. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1604-A1, p. 20]
States are also playing a leading role. According to the State of Sustainable Fleets' 2023
Market Brief, "funding commitments have increased in California and within a handful of other
states, thus driving up the average annual funding that will target the clean fuel market to
approximately $32 billion on average per year during the next four to five years,"50 far
exceeding expectations of funding before BIL and IRA. See Figure 13. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1604-A1, p. 20.] [See Figure 13, Annual Funding for Clean Fuel and Vehicle
Technologies, on page 21 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1604-A1.]
50 "The State of Sustainable Fleets: 2023 Market Brief' (Gladstein, Neandross & Associates (GNA), May
2023), https://cdn.stateofsustainablefleets.com/2023/state-of-sustainable-fleets-2023-market-brief.pdf, 15-
16.
State-funded programs aimed at EV charging deployment, including among the largest state
ZEV markets (many of which are ACT states), are well on their way to meeting future charging
843
-------
infrastructure demand. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1604-A1, p. 21.] [See Figure 14, State-
Funded Programs, on page 21 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1604-A1.]
The private sector and charging companies are also moving quickly to take advantage of new
incentives and funding. According to Atlas Public Policy, private investment in public EV
charging has increased considerably in the last 5 years, rising from under $200 million in 2017 to
nearly $13 billion by early 2023.51 For example:
• Pilot Company and Volvo Group signed a letter of intent to co-develop a charging
network across Pilot and Flying J travel centers, catered specifically toward medium- and
heavy-duty EVs. Pilot has more than 750 locations across 44 states and six Canadian
provinces.52
• A $400 million investment by Forum Mobility, CBRE Investment Management, and
Homecoming Capital will help build EV charging infrastructure to support the drayage
industry, and a $650 million investment by BlackRock will build chargers along freight
routes. 5 3
• Cumulative private investments in EV charging by different infrastructure providers,
including the auto industry, totaled just over $13 billion as of March 2023.54 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1604-A1, p. 22]
51 Nick Nigro, "Investment in Publicly Accessible EV Charging in the United States (2023)" (Atlas Public
Policy, May 2023), https://atlaspolicy.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Investment-in-Publicly-
Accessible-EV-Charging.pdf.6.
52 Scooter Doll, "Pilot Co. Will Expand Charging Network to Heavy-Duty EVs with Help of Volvo
Group," Electrek, November 15, 2022, https://electrek.co/2022/ll/15/pilot-co-expand-charging-network-
heavy-duty-evs-with-volvo-group/.
53 Lisa Baertlein, "California's Port Truck-Charging Plan Gets a Jolt from Big Investors," Reuters, April
17, 2023, https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/big-investors-amp-up-californias-port-
truck-charging-plan-2023 -04-17/.
54 Nigro, "Investment in Publicly Accessible EV Charging in the United States (2023)," 24
Utilities are also investing in EV charging at scale, and more states are authorizing utility
investments to support widespread and equitable access to more customers. Total approved
utility investments for transportation electrification totaled $5,230 billion as of December 2022.
See Figure 15. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1604-A1, p. 22. See Figure 15, States with Approved
Utility Investments in Public Charging, on page 22 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1604-A1.]
In summary, national trends combined with historic investments are poised to fill the charging
gap and meet the need for increased HDV adoption resulting from more stringent EPA tailpipe
rules. In addition, the sizable investment needed will be shared across federal, state, and local
governments, the private sector, and utilities, ensuring a more cost-effective charging network
for future HDV drivers and fleet owners. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1604-A1, p. 22]
Organization: Environmental Defense Fund (EPF)
IV. Sufficient infrastructure, electric grid capacity, and policies exist to support strong
standards.
844
-------
EPA reasonably considered additional factors, including ZEV infrastructure, in projecting
ZEV deployment in its proposal. Recent analyses indicate that buildout of EV infrastructure and
the electric grid distribution capacity are sufficient to support even more protective standards.
Significant federal, state, and private investments are already being made to grow the HDV
infrastructure. States and utilities are initiating processes to ensure adequate infrastructure to
meet demand. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 61]
a) Federal, state, local and private investments support fast-growing infrastructure
Investment in the infrastructure required to support rapid medium- and heavy-duty ZEV
proliferation has already begun. Federal, state, and private parties have directed substantial
resources into developing widespread charging networks and driving technological innovation.
Together, these investments are laying the groundwork for protective standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 61]
The federal government has made significant investments towards building the infrastructure
necessary for a ZEV future with The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and Bipartisan Infrastructure
Law (BIL). Both laws are putting billions of dollars towards building out charging networks and
updating the grid to support the transition to light-, medium- and heavy-duty ZEVs. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 61]
Multiple provisions of the IRA will boost the development of infrastructure to support
medium- and heavy-duty ZEVs. The Alternative Fuel Refueling Property Credit will directly
fund charging infrastructure in low-income and rural areas. Qualifying businesses and
individuals can be reimbursed for up to 30 percent of the cost of installing charging equipment in
these areas, substantially reducing the costs of this equipment. 146 The Congressional Joint
Committee on Taxation estimates this credit will cost almost $2 billion over its lifetime,
demonstrating the sizeable impact it will make in driving additional investments from private
parties. 147 The Advanced Energy Project Credit allocates $10 billion for facilities
manufacturing advanced energy technologies, which includes manufacturing of charging and
refueling infrastructure for ZEVs as well as grid modernization components. 148 Other
provisions allocate funding that can help build infrastructure at ports, 149 fund grants for
infrastructure buildout in nonattainment areas, 150 and fund improvements to electricity
generation and transmission. 151 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 62]
146 Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, P.L. 117-169, § 13404.
147 Joint Committee on Taxation, Estimated Budget Effects of the Revenue Provisions of Tile I—
Committee on Finance, of an Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 5376, "An Act to Provide
for Reconciliation Pursuant to Tile II of S. Con. Res. 14," as Passed by the Senate on August 7.2-22, and
Scheduled for Consideration by the House of Representative on August 12, 2022, JCX-18-22,
https://www.jct.gov/publications/2022/jcx-18-22/.
148 Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, P.L. 117-169, § 13501.
149 Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, P.L. 117-169, § 60102.
150 Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, P.L. 117-169, § 60101.
151 Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, P.L. 117-169, § 50144, 50145, 50151, 50152.
The BIL is another source of considerable federal investment in infrastructure development.
Through its National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) and Charging and Fueling
845
-------
Infrastructure (CFI) discretionary grant programs, the law allocates $7.5 billion in funding
explicitly towards building out ZEV charging and refueling infrastructure. 152 The NEVI
program directs the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to provide funding to states to
deploy EV charging stations to build an interconnected and reliable charging network. The
FHWA has already announced its first set of plans under the program, which includes investment
in all 50 states plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. 153 This first round of NEVI
investment is set to bring EV charging to 75,000 miles of highway across the country. 154 The
CFI program provides additional funding for FHWA administered grants to state and local
authorities for development of publicly accessible charging infrastructure. 155 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 62-63]
152 Infrastructure, Investment and Jobs Act of 2021, P.L. 117-58, 135 Stat. 445, 1421.
153 U.S. Department of Transportation, Historic Step: All Fifty States Plus D.C. and Puerto Rico Greenlit
to Move EV Charging Networks Forward, Covering 75,000 Milles of Highway (Sep. 27, 2022),
https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/historic-step-all-fifty-states-plus-dc-and-puerto-rico-greenlit-
move-ev-charging.
154 U.S. Department of Transportation, Historic Step: All Fifty States Plus D.C. and Puerto Rico Greenlit
to Move EV Charging Networks Forward, Covering 75,000 Milles of Highway (Sep. 27, 2022),
https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/historic-step-all-fifty-states-plus-dc-and-puerto-rico-greenlit-
move-ev-charging.
155 U.S. Department of Transportation, Biden-Harris Administration Opens Applications for First Round
of $2.5 Billion Program to Build EV Charging in Communities & Neighborhoods Nationwide,
https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/biden-harris-administration-opens-applications-first-round-
25-billion-program-build.
On top of these programs, an additional $2.5 billion each year through FY 2026 could be
allocated towards charging infrastructure through the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
Management (CMAQ) program, which the BIL amended to include the purchase of medium-
and heavy-duty ZEV charging equipment. 156 Additional funding from the BIL is directed
towards reducing truck emissions at portsl57 and funding grants to states and local governments
for reducing transportation carbon pollution, 158 both of which will fund additional infrastructure
investments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 63]
156 Infrastructure, Investment and Jobs Act, P.L. 117-58, § 1115.
157 Infrastructure, Investment and Jobs Act, P.L. 117-58, § 11402, 11403.
158 Infrastructure, Investment and Jobs Act, P.L. 117-58, § 114023.
The ambition of these federal investments is being matched by infrastructure funding in many
states, especially in states that have adopted, or are planning to adopt, California's Advanced
Clean Trucks (ACT) rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 63]
For example, in California, the California Energy Commission's (CEC) Clean Transportation
Program announced a $2.9 billion investment plan to accelerate ZEV charging and refueling
availability that includes $1.7 billion of funding for medium-and heavy-duty ZEV
infrastructure. 159 The CEC estimates the plan will result in 90,000 new EV chargers across
the state. 160 The state has also approved its three major-investor owned utilities to invest $686
million over five years in medium- and heavy-duty infrastructure projects to support
electrification. 161 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 63-64]
846
-------
159 California Energy Commission, CEC Approves $2.9 Billion Investment for Zero-Emission
Transportation Infrastructure (Dec. 14, 2022), https://www.energy.ca.gov/news/2022-12/cec-approves-29-
billion-investment-zero-emission-transportation-infrastructure.
160 California Energy Commission, CEC Approves $2.9 Billion Investment for Zero-Emission
Transportation Infrastructure (Dec. 14, 2022), https://www.energy.ca.gov/news/2022-12/cec-approves-29-
billion-investment-zero-emission-transportation-infrastructure.
161 State of California Air Resources Board, Advanced Clean Trucks Initial Statement of Reasons, I-16
(Oct. 22, 2019), https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2019/act2019/isor.pdf.
Colorado has likewise made significant investments in preparing for a transition to ZEVs. The
state's Community Access Enterprise provides funding and support to operators of medium- and
heavy-duty fleets by installing charging infrastructure and providing public fast charging capable
of supporting medium- and heavy-duty vehicles. The Community Access Enterprise is expected
to receive approximately $310 million in its first decade. 162 Colorado also has the Clean Transit
Enterprise, which includes grant programs towards purchase and installation of charging
infrastructure. 163 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 64]
162 Colorado Energy Office, Community Access Enterprise, https://energyoffice.colorado.gov/about-
us/boards-commissions/community-access-enterprise.
163 Colorado Department of Transportation, Clean Transit Enterprise,
https://www.codot.gov/programs/innovativemobility/cte. See also https://energyoffice.colorado.gov/zero-
emissions-vehicles/dcfc-plazas; https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/2023a_1272_signed.pdf.
Investments by state and local governments are being matched and exceeded by private
investments. Multiple companies have announced expansive plans for developing charging
networks for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles. For example, Greenlane is a joint venture
between Daimler, NextEra Energy Resources, and BlackRock Alternatives, which will put $650
million towards designing, developing, and installing, charging and hydrogen-fueling
infrastructure along various freight routes. 164 Volvo and Pilot Group have also announced
an intent to offer public charging for medium- and heavy-duty BEVs at over 750 Pilot and Flying
J travel center locations. 165 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 64-65]
164 Electrek, Daimler Just Announced a $650M US-Wide EV Charging Network for Trucks,
https://electrek.co/2023/04/27/daimler-iust-announced-a-650m-us-wide-ev-charging-network-for-trucks/
(Apr. 27, 2023).
165 Cision, Pilot Company and Volvo Group Partner to Build Charging Network for Medium and Heavy -
Duty Electric Trucks (Nov. 15, 2022), https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/pilot-company-and-
volvo-group-partner-to-build-charging-network-for-medium~and-heavy-duty-electric-trucks-
301678542.html.
i. Utilities and states have already begun to implement programs to support HD ZEV charging
Using data provided by Atlas that tracks public utility commission filings, 29 investor-owned
utilities (IOUs) in 17 states have already gotten programs approved to support HDV
charging infrastructure build out which account for $1.6 billion in investment. 168 These utilities
account for 34% of IOU electricity sold in the U.S. and 40% of IOU customers. Since
municipally owned and cooperative utilities are not subject to the same rate making processes
that IOUs go through, this represents a conservative estimate of the investment by utilities that is
already underway. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 67-68]
847
-------
168 Database of approved utility programs tagged with "MHDV Charging" from Atlas Public Policy's
EVHub provided by Atlas Public Policy on June 2, 2023.
Additionally, states have begun implementing HD charging infrastructure funding programs.
Six states, California, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Colorado, New York, and New Jersey, all have
statewide funding programs for HD charging infrastructure, with all except California and New
York being finalized in the last year. 169 170 171 172 173 174 Five of these states have adopted
the Advanced Clean Trucks Rule. And both New York and New Jersey have ongoing
proceedings to further address barriers to HDV electrification. 175 176 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1644-A1, p. 68]
169 Energy Infrastructure Incentives for Zero-Emission, https://www.energiize.org/
170 https://www.oregon.gov/deq/aq/programs/Pages/OZEF.aspx
171 https://www.ahs.dep.pa.gov/NewsRoomPublic/articleviewer.aspx?id=22232&typeid=l
172 https://energyoffice.colorado.gov/fleet-zero
173 https://documents.dps.ny.gov/public/Common/ViewDoc.aspx?DocRefId={6238DD07-3974-4C4E-
9201-3E339E311916}
174 https://njcleanenergy.com/files/file/EV/RGGI_MHD_Application_Final_l_12.pdf
175 https://documents.dps.ny.gov/public/MatterManagement/CaseMaster.aspx?MatterCaseNo=23-E-
0070&CaseSearch=Search
176 https://publicaccess.bpu.state.nj.us/CaseSummary.aspx?case_id=2110570
c) EPA must design the final rule to limit infrastructure related off-ramps
EPA has sought comment on whether the agency "should consider undertaking any future
actions related to the Phase 3 standards, if finalized, with respect to the future growth of the
charging and refueling infrastructure for ZEVs"195 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 75]
195 88 Fed. Reg. 25934.
As discussed above and shown in EPA's own assessment in the proposal and supporting
technical documents, the record supports the feasibility of standards that will result in significant
ZEV deployment. Indeed, as these standards provide a clear market signal of future
infrastructure needs and as ZEV deployment ramps up over a period of five years beginning in
2027, so too will the necessary charging infrastructure and the foregoing discussion and separate
report from the Analysis Group both demonstrate that generation and transmission do not pose
challenges for heavy-duty ZEV deployment and solutions related to distribution enhancements
either already are or are being developed. 196 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 75]
196 See supra note 166
Including an offramp in the rule is inconsistent with this record evidence and would frustrate
the important pollution reductions outcomes the rule will deliver. EPA has regularly considered
issues related to the success of its standards on an ongoing basis, including, for example, periodic
technical progress reviews. EPA could similarly here consider the development of infrastructure
at future intervals to ensure it is continuing to develop at a pace and scale consistent with
EPA's projections. However, we strongly encourage EPA not to attempt to directly integrate
848
-------
infrastructure related reviews in its standards setting. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p.
75-76]
Organization: Environmental Protection Network (EPN)
Sufficient Infrastructure Should Not Be A Problem
A recent paper by ICCT assessed the near-term charging and refueling infrastructure needs for
Class 4-8 HDV at the national and sub-national levels. Charger needs in 2025 and 2030 are
projected based on ZEV market growth, and priority locations for the deployment of charging
and refueling infrastructure are identified in key areas.8 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1523-A1,
p. 4]
8 'Near-Term Infrastructure Deployment To Support Zero-Emission Medium- And Heavy-Duty Vehicles
In The United States', Pierre-Louis Ragon et al. (May 11, 2023).
Building the charging and refueling infrastructure required to support an accelerated transition
to zero-emission HDVs requires timely investments and policy support. A full network of
charging infrastructure covering the entire United States is not needed in the near term. To best
manage resources, infrastructure deployment in the near term should be prioritized in areas that
are expected to see the highest energy needs from HDV traffic flows in 2025 and 2030. The
ICCT analysis finds that, in the near term, a few U.S. states are expected to experience the
highest energy needs from medium- and heavy-duty vehicle charging. Those include states that
have adopted California's Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT) rule, as well as states with the largest
industrial activity. Industrial areas in the largest metropolitan areas—including Boston, Chicago,
Dallas, Houston, Los Angeles, New York, and Phoenix—are expected to require most of the
charging needs, driven first by the energy needs of short- and regional-haul trucks and buses.
California and Texas are standout priorities, accounting for a combined 19% of the projected
nationwide charging needs in 2030. Seven of the top ten counties by absolute charging needs in
2030 will be in these two states. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1523-A1, p. 4]
As the zero-emission HDV market develops, charging needs are expected to expand along
freight corridors that connect those industrial nodes. Deploying charging infrastructure along
National Highway Freight Network (NHFN) corridors can accommodate up to 85% of the
charging needs from long-haul trucks by 2030. Those charging needs can be satisfied by setting
traffic-based targets for the deployment of charging stations every 50 miles, in line with the
Federal Highway Administration's Alternative Fuel Corridors, as well as introducing additional
criteria for HDV compatibility, including pull-through lanes and wide ingress and egress
requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1523-A1, p. 4]
Projections of the total energy consumption of the electric HDV fleet in 2030 represent less
than 1% of the national electricity retail market in 2021, suggesting that HDV electrification will
not be limited by electric power generation capacity. There are immediately actionable options to
optimize the use of existing grid capacity, including smart charging, load rebalancing, and
making use of non-firm capacity. In parallel, modifications to existing policy frameworks are
needed to enable utilities to incorporate projections of future charging load when planning for
near- and long-term grid capacity building. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1523-A1, p. 4]
The Private Sector Is Stepping Up On Infrastructure Daimler Truck North America (DTNA),
NextEra Energy Resources and BlackRock Alternatives, through a fund managed by its Climate
849
-------
Infrastructure business (BlackRock), announced Greenlane, a more than $650-million joint
venture to design, develop, install, and operate a nationwide, high-performance, zero-emission
public charging and hydrogen fueling network for medium- and heavy-duty battery-electric and
hydrogen fuel cell vehicles.9Greenlane's initial focus will be on battery-electric medium- and
HDV, followed by hydrogen fueling stations for fuel cell trucks, with plans to expand access to
light-duty vehicles in the future to serve the greater goal of electrifying mobility. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1523-A1, pp. 4-5]
9 'Daimler Truck North America and partners move ahead with public charging infrastructure', JV:
Greenlane, Green Car Congress (April 28, 2023).
Greenlane addresses the need for a publicly available, nationwide electric charging
infrastructure for commercial vehicles, especially for long-haul freight operations, and is a major
step toward developing a sustainable ZEV ecosystem across North America. The network of
charging sites will be built on critical freight routes along the east and west coasts and in Texas.
Where synergistic, Greenlane will leverage existing infrastructure and amenities while also
adding complementary greenfield sites to fulfill anticipated customer demand. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1523-A1, p. 5]
Organization: International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT)
We support the agency's conclusions regarding infrastructure lead time for battery-powered
vehicles. Our research shows a very strong business case exists for investment in charging
infrastructure to enable these trucks, especially tractor-trucks that consume the most fuel.
According to Atlas Public Policy, $20 billion in announced and awarded investments in publicly
accessible charging infrastructure for all on-road vehicles have been made through 2023. As
soon as 2027, battery-powered tractor-trucks will be cheaper to own and operate than diesel-
powered trucks, according to our own published analysis. Billions of dollars are already being
deployed to establish a multi-state network of electric truck charging depots and long-distance
fast charging corridors. The strong business case for these investments is reflected in companies
such as GreenLane, Terrawatt Infrastructure, Forum Mobility, WattEV, Voltera, Tesla, and many
others. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1553-A1, p. 3]
PRIVATE SECTOR INVESTMENTS IN CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE This section
responds to the EPA's request for comment on whether development in ZEV charging
infrastructure will hinder the adoption of ZEVs and the ability to meet the proposed GHG
standards. According to Atlas Public Policy, $20 billion in announced and awarded investments
in publicly accessible charging infrastructure for all on-road vehicles have been made through
2023 (Gabriel, 2023). Vehicle manufacturers, charging-as-a-service companies, and utilities,
together with public sector agencies, are together investing in this space. In support of the EPA's
proposed standards, the ICCT has compiled below selected information on private and utility
investments into charging infrastructure. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1553-A1, p. 9]
Gabriel, N. (2023, January 12). $210 Billion of Announced Investments in Electric Vehicle Manufacturing
Headed for the U.S. Atlas EVHub. https://www.atlasevhub.com/data_story/210-billion-ofannounced-
investments-in-electric-vehicle-manufacturing-headed-for-the-u-s/
Truck manufacturers are among the leading investors in charging infrastructure. Daimler
Trucks, together with NextEra Energy and Blackrock Renewable Power, announced a $650M
joint venture in January 2022 to construct a nationwide network for powering battery electric and
850
-------
hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (Daimler Truck North America, 2022). Greenlane, the company
established under this joint venture (Nextera Energy, 2023), will initially focus on battery
electric trucks and will build a network of publicly accessible charging sites along critical freight
routes on the west and east coasts of the U.S., and in Texas. Navistar plans to offer full
infrastructure design and construction services for its customers. Navistar is partnering with
Quanta Solutions, one of the largest electric grid infrastructure companies in North America,
who will provide site selection, engineering, and construction services. (Navistar, 2023). Tesla,
who delivered its first electric semitrucks in December 2022, currently owns the nation's largest
network of publicly accessible charging stations, albeit serving primarily passenger vehicles. Its
existing V3 architecture uses 1MW power cabinets that support up to 250kW of charging per
vehicle (Tesla, 2019). GM and Ford have announced plans to adopt Tesla's charging standard,
giving their vehicles access to the Tesla Supercharger Network and benefitting trucks in the
lighter weight classes (Shepardson & White, 2023). Ford already offers its Ford Pro depot
charging service, which will build, operate, and maintain a charging depot for a fleet (Depot-
Charging-Brochure.Pdf, n.d.). Based on publicly available information, we expect Tesla to
release a V4 architecture with megawatt charging capability to support the Tesla Semi (Kane,
2022). Reports from the first Tesla Semi deployment in Modesto, CA suggest the capacity of
installed dispensers is 750kW (Seabaugh, 2023). These investments and partnership illustrate the
extent to which vehicle manufacturers are investing capital and establishing strategic
partnerships to deliver the necessary charging infrastructure. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1553-
Al, p. 9]
Daimler Truck North America. (2022a, January 31). Daimler Truck North America, NextEra Energy
Resources and BlackRock Renewable Power Announce Plans To Accelerate Public Charging Infrastructure
For Commercial Vehicles Across The U.S. MarsMediaSite. 24
https://media.daimlertruck.com/marsMediaSite/en/instance/ko/Daimler-Truck-North-America-NextEra-
Energy-Resources-and-BlackRock-Renewable-Power-Announce-Plans-To-Accelerate-Public-Charging-
Infrastructure-For-Commercial-Vehicles-Across-The-US.xhtml?oid=51874160
Nextera Energy. (2023, April 28). Introducing Greenlane: Daimler Truck North America, NextEra Energy
Resources and BlackRock Forge Ahead with Public Charging Infrastructure Joint Venture. NextEra Energy
Newsroom. https://newsroom.nexteraenergy.com/2023-04-28-Introducing-Greenlane-Daimler-Truck-
North-America,-NextEra-Energy-Resources-and-BlackRock-Forge-Ahead-with-Public-Charging-
Infrastructure-Joint-Venture
Navistar. (2023, May 3). Navistar Partners With Infrastructure Solutions Provider Quanta Services.
Navistar News Releases. https://news.navistar.eom/2023-05-03-Navistar-Partners-With-Infrastructure-
Solutions-Provider-Quanta-Services
Tesla. (2019, March 6). Introducing V3 Supercharging. Tesla. https://www.tesla.com/blog/introducing-v3-
supercharging
Shepardson, D., & White, J. (2023, June 9). GM embraces Tesla's EV charging system, Wall Street cheers.
Reuters, https://www.reuters.com/technology/gm-ceo-discuss-future-ev-charging-with-musk-twitter-2023-
06-08/
Kane, M. (2022, December 5). Tesla Semi Will Charge At 1+ MW Using New V4 Charging Cable.
InsideEVs. https://insideevs.com/news/624881/tesla-semi-lmw-v4-charging-cable/
Seabaugh, C. (2023, January 25). Go Inside the New Tesla Semi: Features, Screens, Seats, and More.
MotorTrend, https://www.motortrend.com/reviews/tesla-semi-interior-review/
Depot-Charging-Brochure.pdf. (n.d.). Retrieved June 9, 2023, from
https://content.fordpro.com/content/dam/fordpro/us/en-us/pdf/charging/Depot-Charging-Brochure.pdf
851
-------
Charging-as-a-service companies finance, design, construct, operate, and maintain publicly
accessible charging depots. Forum Mobility recently announced a $415 million investment,
including funds from the Amazon Climate Pledge and commercial real estate company CBRE, to
construct electric truck depot charging to support zero-emission port trucks (CBRE Investment
Managament, 2023). Terawatt infrastructure has secured at least $lbillion in investment capital
to construct a multi-state charging network for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles, beginning with
an 800-mile corridor that extends from the Port of Long Beach to El Paso at 150-mile intervals
(TeraWatt Developing I-10 Electric Corridor, the First Network of Electric Heavy-Duty
Charging Centers, 2022). The investments come from Vision Ridge Partners, Keyframe Capital,
and Cyrus Capital (Terawatt Infrastructure, 2022). WattEV is constructing a 200-vehicle truck
charging depot in Bakersfield, CA as part of a network of charging depots along the 1-5 corridor
in California (WattEV, 2021). The company recently opened the first of four charging depots in
Southern California at the Port of Long Beach, capable of serving 26 trucks with CCS chargers
capable of 360kW (WattEV to Open Charging Depot at Port of Long Beach, 2023) The power
cabinets are rated at 1.2 MW and CEO Salim Youssefzadeh tells ICCT these will be converted to
megawatt charging once a megawatt charging standard is finalized in 2025. Voltera Power,
launched in 2022, builds, identifies and acquires real estate, procures power, designs and
constructs charging facilities, and deploys operates and maintains charging infrastructure. The
company draws experience from data center siting, design and construction through a partnership
with EdgeConneX (EdgeconneX, 2022). And Amply Power, whose fleet solutions include
charging equipment procurement, installation, operation, maintenance, and smart charging, will
also provide mobile and nonpermanent charging solutions to overcome temporary physical and
operational constraints to accessing charging infrastructure ('Products and Services,'
n.d.). [EPA-HQ-0AR-2022-0985-1553- A 1, p. 9]
CBRE Investment Management. (2023, January 17). Forum Mobility and CBRE Investment Management
Announce $400 Million Joint Venture and $15 Million Series A Targeting Equitable Electrification of
Heavy-Duty Port Transit, https://www.cbreim.com/press-releases/forum-mobility-cbreim-announce-400m-
jvtargeting-equitable-heavy-duty-port-transit-electrification
TeraWatt Developing 1-10 Electric Corridor, the First Network of Electric Heavy-Duty Charging Centers.
(2022, October 20). https://www.businesswire.eom/news/home/20221020005252/en/TeraWatt-Developing-
I-10-Electric-Co rridor-the-First-Network-of-Electric-Heavy-Duty-Charging-Centers
Terawatt Infrastructure. (2022, September 13). TeraWatt Raises Over $1 Billion to Scale Commercial EV
Charging Centers Across America | Terawatt Infrastructure.
https://terawattinfrastructure.com/ideas/terawattraises- over-1 -billion/
WattEV. (2021, December 16).
WattEV Breaks Ground on 21st Century Truck Stop. WattEV. https://www.wattev.com/post/wattev-
breaks-ground-on-21st-century-truck-stop WattEV to Open Charging Depot at Port of Long Beach. (2023,
May 5). https://www.truckinginfo.com/10198218/wattev-to-open-charging-depot-at-port-of-long-beach
Products and Services. (n.d.). Bp Pulse for Fleets. Retrieved June 9, 2023, from
https://bppulsefleet.com/fleet/products/
EdgeconneX. (2022, August 9). EdgeConneX Continues Legacy of Innovation; Launches Voltera, Which
Plans to Provide Charging Facilities for Companies Operating Electric Vehicles. EdgeConneX.
https://www.edgeconnex.com/company/news-and-pr/edgeconnex-continues-legacy-of-innovationlaunches-
voltera/
852
-------
Fleet owners and operators are also investing in charging infrastructure at their facilities.
Schneider, which will have a fleet of 92 battery-electric class 8 tractors in operation by the end of
this year, recently opened a 32-vehicle charging depot in South El Monte to support its fleet of
Freightliner eCascadias operating in Southern California. The site includes 16 350 kW dual-
corded dispensers (Schneider Opens Large- Scale Zero Emission Electric Charging Depot in
Southern California, 2023). Sysco, who has announced plans to take delivery of up to 800
battery-electric tractors by 2026, is investing in charging infrastructure in their Riverside, CA
facility (Daimler Truck North America, 2022b). And FedEx, who has purchased 150 electric
delivery vehicles from BrightDrop, a subsidiary of GM, has invested in a network of 500
chargers in California with additional purchases planned (FedEx, 2022). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1553-A1, p. 10]
Schneider opens large-scale zero emission electric charging depot in Southern California. (2023, June 7).
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20230606006108/en/Schneider-opens-large-scalezero-
emission-electric-charging-depot-in-Southern-California
Daimler Truck North America. (2022b, November 11). Transforming the Future of Foodservice Delivery:
Sysco Receives First Battery Electric Freightliner eCascadia.
https://www.prnewswire.com/newsreleases/transforming-the-future-of-foodservice-delivery-sysco-
receives-first-battery-electricfreightliner-ecascadia-301675939.html
FedEx. (2022, June 21). FedEx Continues Advancing Fleet Electrification Goals with Latest 150 Electric
Vehicle Delivery from BrightDrop. https://newsroom.fedex.com/newsroom/global/fedex-continues-
advancing-fleetelectrification-goals-with-latest-150-electric-vehicle-delivery-from-brightdrop
Recent announcements by major retailers demonstrate that significant investments in charging
infrastructure are underway at their facilities. As part of its planned deployment of 100,000
electric delivery vehicles by 2030, Amazon has added thousands of charging stations at its
delivery stations across the country and will continue to build out charging infrastructure
(Amazon, 2022). Recognizing the need to make charging infrastructure smaller, cheaper, and
more flexible, Amazon has invested in Resilient Power, who is developing solid state
transformers that can significantly reduce the cost and space requirements of distribution
infrastructure of high-capacity charging depots (St. John, 2021). IKEA, whose goal is to achieve
zero-emission home deliveries by 2025, has partnered with Electrify America and Electrify
Commercial to install delivery vehicle charging to 25 IKEA retail locations, including 225
chargers with up to 350kW capacity across locations in 18 states (Sickels, 2022). WalMart,
whose goal is to achieve zero emissions across their global operations by 2040, has announced
plans to construct its own fast charging network at thousands of WalMart and Sam's club
locations where delivery vehicles will have the opportunity to charge (Kapadia, 2023). [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1553-A1, p. 10]
Amazon. (2022, July 21). Amazon's electric delivery vehicles from Rivian roll out across the U.S. US
About Amazon, https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/transportation/amazons-electric-delivery-vehicles-
fromrivian-roll-out-across-the-u-s
St. John, J. (2021, November 2). Why Amazon is investing in a startup that's shrinking the footprint....
Canary Media, https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/ev-charging/why-amazon-is-investing-in-a-startup-
thatsshrinking-the-footprint-of-ev-charging
Sickels, D. (2022, September 29). Ikea U.S. to quadruple EV chargers via Electrify America. The Buzz -
Electric Vehicle News, https://www.thebuzzevnews.com/ikea-electrify-america/
853
-------
Kapadia, V. (2023, April 6). Leading the Charge: Walmart Announces Plan To Expand Electric Vehicle
Charging Network. Corporate - US. https://corporate.walmart.com/newsroom/2023/04/06/leading-
thecharge-walmart-announces-plan-to-expand-electric-vehicle-charging-network
Utilities are also making significant investments in charging infrastructure. In 2022, The
California Public Utilities Commission approved $1 billion in transportation electrification
infrastructure investments by utilities over the period 2025-2029, with 70 percent earmarked for
medium- and heavy-duty charging infrastructure (California Public Utilities Commission, 2022).
Up to $750 million has already been made available through the period 2020-2024 (California
Public Utilities Commission). The California Energy Commission has made an additional $1.7
billion available for medium-and heavy-duty infrastructure for the period 2022-2026 (California
Energy Commission, 2022). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1553-A1, p. 10]
California Energy Commission. (2022, December 14). CEC Approves $2.9 Billion Investment for Zero-
Emission Transportation Infrastructure. California Energy Commission; California Energy Commission.
https://www.energy.ca.gov/news/2022-12/cec-approves-29-billion-investment-zero-emissiontransportation-
infrastructure
California Public Utilities Commission. (2021). Charging Infrastructure Deployment and Incentives.
https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/industries-and-topics/electrical-
energy/infrastructure/transportationelectrification/charging-infrastructure-deployment-and-incentives
California Public Utilities Commission. (2022, November 17). CPUC Adopts Transportation Electrification
Program To Help Accelerate Electric Vehicle Adoption, https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/news-and-updates/all
Based on this review, we find there is considerable ongoing activity and investment to address
both present and future charging infrastructure demand. We support EPA's conclusion that
charging infrastructure can be made available to nearly all trucks that need it in the next decade.
We also take the view that the proposed rule further strengthens the market signal for private
sector investment. In addition, we encourage EPA's active participation in infrastructure
planning with federal, state, and tribal agency partners. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1553-A1,
p. 10]
SCOPE OF CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ICCT analysis supports the view
taken in the 'Lead time assessment' of the proposal preamble that there is sufficient time for
charging infrastructure to gradually increase over the remainder of this decade to levels that
support the stringency of the proposed standards for the timeframe they would apply. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1553-A1, p. 10]
In May 2023, ICCT published an assessment of where, when, and how much charging
infrastructure needs to be available to support the deployment of zero-emission class 4-8 vehicles
in the contiguous United States (Ragon, Kelly, et al., 2023). We conclude that charging
infrastructure needs this decade will be concentrated in a sub-set of states and counties where
freight activity is concentrated. This pattern of infrastructure development limits the geographic
scale of infrastructure needs during this period and reinforces the business opportunity in the
most active freight zones. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1553-A1, p. 10]
Ragon, P.-L., Kelly, S., Egerstrom, N., Brito, J., Sharpe, B., Allcock, C., Minjares, R., & Rodriguez, F.
(2023). Near-term infrastructure deployment to support zero-emission medium- and heavy-duty vehicles in
the United States. International Council on Clean Transportation.
https://theicct.org/publication/infrastructuredeployment-mhdv-may23/
854
-------
The study finds total energy demand from all Class 4-8 vehicles will be approximately
139,865 MWh. This amount of energy is equivalent to around 1 percent of national electric retail
sales in 2021, and we do not expect this share to significantly change in light of the ongoing
electrification of other sectors. This relatively small share of national electricity demand suggests
to us that the availability of new generating capacity will not be a significant constraint on
electrification of this sector. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1553-A1, pp. 10-11]
The overriding infrastructure needs of zero emission class 4-8 vehicles will be concentrated in
a subset of U.S. states and major metro areas. This leads us to conclude that the nation's
deployment of charging infrastructure will be constructed in stages and not all at once. (See
Figure 4.) [Refer to Figure 4, Projected Daily Energy Needs, on p. 11 of docket number EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1553-Al].The study estimates that 49% of national charging needs in 2030
will exist in ten states led first by Texas and second by California. Texas and California alone
will account for 19% of national charging needs in 2030. The study also finds that out of more
than 3,079 counties, the top 1% will account for 15% of national charging needs. Among the top
ten counties, four of these are located in Southern California (led by Los Angeles then by San
Bernardino, San Diego, and Riverside counties) and three are in the Texas triangle (led by Harris
and then Dallas and Bexar counties). Other prominent counties that make the top ten include
Maricopa, AZ, SaltaLake, UT, and Cook, IL. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1553-A1, p. 11]
While these counties will experience the largest aggregate energy demand, it is also important
for planning purposes to consider counties with the largest concentration of energy demand per
unit area. From this perspective, nine of the top ten counties are located in the Northeast,
including five counties in New York State (the Bronx, New York, Queens, Kings, and
Richmond), Suffolk, MA, Philadelphia, PA, and Hudson, NJ. These projections suggest that the
infrastructure does not need to be deployed everywhere all at once. A sub-set of states governing
these counties and a sub-set of utilities serving them will be responsible for critical charging
infrastructure delivery through 2030. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1553-A1, p. 11]
Organization: International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America (UAW)
B. Charging Infrastructure
Adequate charging infrastructure is crucial to support electrification and the heavy-duty truck
industry presents a unique set of challenges. The EPA must incorporate a more realistic
projection of charging infrastructure build-out in the proposed standards. We are concerned that
the EPA relies too heavily on the projected federal investment that is intended to support ZEV
infrastructure 18, and instead, should take the sentiment of heavy-duty manufacturers into greater
consideration. At least one OEM with a union workforce has expressed concerns about charging
infrastructure availability being insufficient under the proposed standards' ZEV adoption
rates. 19 According to the DOE's most recent report on EV charging infrastructure trends, there
are only 166 private fleet heavy-duty EV charging ports in the country.20 The report also found
that the rate of charging infrastructure deployment is not paced to meet the Biden
Administration's goal of 500,000 charging ports by 2030.21 This uncertainty highlights the need
for flexibility. For example, in response to challenges in the pace of infrastructure development,
CARB's Advanced Clean Fleet program includes and has expanded infrastructure delay
855
-------
extensions for fleet owners if ZEV infrastructure is impacted by construction or utility
del ays. 22 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1596-A1, p. 7]
18 See id. at 65 ("While dedicated HD charging infrastructure may be limited today, we expect it to expand
significantly over the next decade").
19 See Comment submitted by Volvo Group North America, https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1437
20 Brown, Abby, Jeff Cappellucci, Emily White, Alexia Heinrich, and Emma Cost. 2023. Electric Vehicle
Charging Infrastructure Trends from the Alternative Fueling Station Locator: Fourth Quarter 2022 at 24.
Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. NREL/TP-5400-85801.
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/ty23osti/85801 .pdf
21 See id. atviii.
22 California Air Resources Boards. April 26, 2023. "ACF Proposed Changes":
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/fact-sheets/acf-proposed-changes
The proposed standards should better reflect that federal investment and incentives will take
time to reach maturity and that the market and consumer demand will lag further behind. This is
particularly important in larger truck segments, as well as truck segments used in long-haul
applications or requiring mid-shift charging. To put it simply, commercial customers of heavy
trucks will not purchase BEV trucks unless infrastructure and energy costs fit their business
models, no matter what vehicles manufacturers offer customers. Given this uncertainty, GHG
standards could also incorporate flexibilities for manufacturers should national charging
infrastructure and grid capacity for heavy-duty trucks not meet the necessary levels to support
compliance. We strongly encourage the EPA to modify the standards to better reflect the
availability of charging infrastructure. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1596-A1, p. 8] [See Figure 19
on p. 8 of Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1596-A1]
Organization: Morales, Jorge
Where will the recharge stations be? And will those be from green energy, such as
wind/solar/water, or will it be through coal?
Organization: MEMA
Infrastructure Success is Critical
While MEMA urges EPA to consider other propulsion systems, we believe it is imperative to
address infrastructure challenges that will limit the success of a zero-emission vehicle
fleet. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2022-0985-1570-A1, p. 8.]
There is currently insufficient infrastructure for EV charging and refueling of MHDV
vehicles. While government incentives exist for consumer vehicle systems, there are few
comparable programs for heavy and medium-duty trucks. Similar to passenger cars, heavy duty
and fleet vehicle EV adoption success will be dependent on positive operator experiences with
the EV Charging infrastructure. The government needs to incentive and partner with fleet owners
to establish this infrastructure. Without significant federal incentives to expand the MHDV
charging and refueling infrastructure, a reliable network with sufficient access to energy and
fuels will not be available through the numerous transit corridors along U.S. roads. Likewise,
856
-------
urban, industrial centers will need focused buildout while rural areas will need thoughtful
rollouts to achieve sustainable GHG reductions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1570-A1, p. 8]
MEMA applauds the EPA's leadership on its Clean School Bus program. Federal programs
such as the FTA grant programs for Transit bus and IRA Grants to Reduce Air Pollution at Ports
are also critical to building better, more future-proofed EVSE that can later support a higher
quantity of ZEV vehicle deployment during GHG Phase 3 MY2028+. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1570-A1, p. 9]
Although the recommended EVSE outlay is a significant investment upfront, public funds
used for high capacity EVSE will offer the highest return on investment by futureproofing this
public investment. Publicly funded DC fast charging will also provide useful lessons to the Joint
Office of Energy and Transport on the challenges and opportunities for MHDV applications,
including building sufficient ZEV infrastructure in both urban and rural environments, which can
prioritize Justice40 communities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1570-A1, p. 10]
Additionally, we propose EPA purchase ACT Research8 reports for these early adopter
segments because upon checking EPA's projection based on MOVES MY 2019 data, we note a
significant >30% difference in EPA's projected volume for school bus compared to forecasts for
MY 2027 based on market sizing from ACT Research, and an even larger difference >75% in
market sizing for other bus (Coach, transit, and shuttle). A specific segmentation report of CL5-7
bus markets can be purchased at this link to inform EPA HD TRUCS projections for these ZEV
early adopter segments for better alignment with industry and modeling of emissions benefits for
the final GHG Phase 3 rule. ACT Research is a trusted industry information source. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1570-A1, p. 10]
8 Example: https://www.actresearch.net/reports-data/state-of-the-industry-reports/north-americaclasses-5-
7-bus-market.
Recommendations:
1) EPA futureproof EVSE purchased with public funds, to enable DCFC and vehicle-togrid
interactions like bi-directional charging.
2) EPA pursues other sources of useful information for the regulatory impact analyses, to
include ACT Research reports. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1570-A1, p. 10]
To provide helpful feedback to the EPA's question about stakeholders that must be involved
and metrics that should be tracked to ensure the success of GHG Phase 3 targets, MEMA
recommends EPA work with industry, end-customers, and other sources to understand MHDV
unique charging requirements and require the Joint Office of Energy and Transportation to
develop a dashboard for transparent reporting for the public to track the maturity of infrastructure
needed for net-neutral transportation technology. MEMA has prepared a few charts and high-
level takeaways from MHDV infrastructure needs in the U.S., Cybersecurity risks for Fast
Charging stations, emerging EU Alternative Fuel Infrastructure Regulations, and a comparison
of California State vs. U.S. federal actions to coordinate infrastructure readiness. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1570-A1, p. 10]
A smooth transition will require that infrastructure coverage mature along with projected
advanced technology vehicle adoption. Otherwise, payback assumptions on capital are
in question. Without sufficient charging availability and capacity, EV cannot reach operational
857
-------
parity with Diesel ICE. Without sufficient renewable fuels infrastructure and supply, advanced
ICE vehicles cannot be deployed at scale and existing fleets cannot reduce their carbon footprint
in operation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1570-A1, pp. 10-11]
Recommendations:
1) Federal government coordinate infrastructure action with state and local stakeholders
specifically to address commercial vehicle needs in metro areas and along interstate corridors.
2) Due to long-lead times for capital improvements, utilities are compelled to begin building
out capability ahead of demand from transportation.
3) Workforce development and incentives be aligned with capital planning for MHDV end-
users to accelerate advanced vehicle adoption.
4) Coordinate standardization efforts to deliver national standards for the installation,
operation, and maintenance of EV charging stations.
5) Standards EV and EVSE Cybersecurity policies, especially for areas of the grid where high
peak load events need to be addressed for grid reliability. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1570-A1,
p. 11]
A recent International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) white paper9 reveals that MD
and HD vehicles have different infrastructure requirements than light duty and passenger car,
which will need to be addressed for end-users to be willing to adopt net-neutral technology such
as ZEV and H2ICE. These include:
a) Energy and higher peak load requirements are concentrated in certain areas and states.
(i) 10 counties in metro areas will have the highest peak load, up to 132MW.
(ii) California and Texas are expected to represent 19% of load requirements for MHDV
charging by 2030.
(iii) The states with the highest energy demands are expected to come from a mix of CARB
Advanced Clean Truck (ACT) adopting and non-ACT adopting states. Texas, Illinois, and
Florida have high industrial activity, but are not ACT adopting states.
b) Local and state legislation and coordination of utilities are needed to support MHDV
charging needs.
c) Utilities need to be compelled to begin building out for future demand.
d) Rural areas have other unique charging difficulties.
e) Incentives are difficult to stack and align with capital planning needs.
f) The report assumes that end-users will choose to follow minimum charging protocols to
support typical daily energy needs at 19-50KW for most vehicles. Based on our anecdotal
experience we disagree with this assumption and think more MHDV end-users will plan for
higher DC charging needs to maintain productivity and futureproof on-site infrastructure.
858
-------
g) Hydrogen needs support to reach Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) parity with conventional
technology. Hydrogen is not expected to have good TCO unless it gets to $5/gal and then it will
need deployment at stations.
h) Cybersecurity risks of fast charging stationslO. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1570-A1,
pp. 11 - 12]
9 https://theicct.org/publication/infrastructure-deployment-mhdv-may23/
10 https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1607113
The European Union Alternative Infrastructure Regulation has made significant requirements
on member states in making the necessary infrastructure investment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1570-A1, p. 12]
As an example of how EPA might compel State and Regional infrastructure buildout, we note
below how the European Union has approached this challenge:
1) European Union Alternative Fuel Infrastructure Regulation (AFIR) as part of EU's "Fit for
55" package the EU has agreed on a direction forward March 2023 that ensures fast charging
availability at distance-based intervals along the trans-European transport network (TENT).
1) Member States will be required to ensure publicly available chargers with power output
capable to support BEV deployment;
2) The AFIR established targets for urban nodes for trucks and busses.
3) Member States will be required to ensure installation of a fast-charging pool every 60km in
each direction along the TEN-T (Trans-European Transport Network) with milestones for
completion in 2025, 2027, and 2030. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1570-A1, p. 12]
Additionally, we refer the reader to Appendix 2, in which MEMA has prepared a chart that
reviews current CA state and federal actions to support ZEV transition. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1570-A1, p. 12.] [See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1570-A1, pages 24-26,
for Appendix 2.]
Organization: Moving Forward Network (MFN) et al.
12.2. A More Complete Inventory Reveals $67 billion in Announced Investments in Charging
Infrastructure, Including $30 Billion Dedicated to Medium and Heavy-Duty Vehicles and $4
Billion that Could Support Medium and Heavy-Duty Vehicles
The Proposed Rule's description of recently announced investments in charging infrastructure
underscores the fact that significant progress is being made. 233 However, this narrative should
be supplemented by a more comprehensive inventory of the public, private, and utility sectors.
As of March 31, 2023, Atlas Public Policy (Atlas) estimates $67 billion dollars in charging
infrastructure investments that have been announced by the public, private, and utility sectors but
not yet installed as charging ports in the ground. Table 14 provides a summary of tallied
investment amounts, which include:
• $33 billion in announced, unspent investments for light-duty vehicle (LDV) charging,
859
-------
• $30 billion in announced, unspent investments for medium- and heavy-duty (MDHD)
vehicle charging, and
• $4 billion in announced, unspent investments for use across any vehicle class. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 105.] [See Table 14 Estimated U.S. Charging Infrastructure
Investments Announced but Not Yet In the Ground, as of March 31 2023 located on p.
105 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1.]
233 U.S. EPA. Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis: RFS Standards for 2023-2025 and Other Changes.
(November 2022). Chapter 1.6.2. https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-12/420d22003.pdf
Public funding programs included are those that cover only EV charging infrastructure, or for
which EV charging infrastructure is expected to comprise the vast majority of funding. This
includes the federal National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) formula and Charging and
Fueling Infrastructure (CFI) Discretionary Grant funding, state funding commitments, and
modeled estimates of 26 U.S.C. § 30C tax credit payments consistent with an EV adoption
trajectory that meets President Biden's goal of 50 percent ZEV sales share by 2030 (for LDVs)
and an electric vehicles sales trajectory matching EPA's proposed emissions regulations for
medium- and heavy-duty vehicles. 234 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 106]
234 Note that these figures do not include any funding amounts for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. Regarding
the 30C tax credit, Atlas assumes that 1) all qualifying projects receive the tax credit, 2) on average,
qualifying projects will receive tax credits worth 18% of covered costs, and 3) that the U.S. Department of
the Treasury will classify a census tract as not urban if more than 10% of the blocks within the census tract
are designated as rural census blocks (as recommended by Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC),
Alliance for Automotive Innovation, American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE), Ample,
CALSTART, ChargePoint, Clean Energy Works, Earthjustice, Elders Climate Action, Electrification
Coalition, Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), EV Charging for All, EVBox, Forth Mobility, Green
Latinos, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), International Parking & Mobility
Institute, Itselectric, League of Conservation Voters, National Association of Convenience Stores (NACS),
National Consumer Law Center, NATSO, Navistar, Plug in America, Representing America's Travel
Plazas and Truck Stops, Rivian, Sierra Club, SIGMA: America's Leading Fuel Marketers, TeraWatt,
Transportation for America, Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), Volvo Group North America). The
estimated Low Carbon Fuel Standard value is based on modeling from Dean Taylor Consulting for
California, Oregon, and Washington and does not include capacity credits. It uses a 2023 - 2032 EV
adoption trajectory for those three states that meets President Biden's LDV goal of 50% ZEV sales share by
2030 (which is lower than the trajectory modeled in the EPA's proposed vehicle emission standards), an
MDHD EV adoption curves modeled on the EPA's proposed emissions regulations for MD and HD
vehicles, and modeling from Atlas's INSITE tool of MWh demanded by MDHD vehicles. Utility program
investments include approved investor-owned utility programs with an EV charging element. Amounts are
unspent program dollars as of the most recent program report available as of March 31, 2023. If no
program report was available, Atlas used the percentage of time remaining in the approved program
schedule to estimate the unspent proportion of program funding.
Even Atlas's tally of private sector commitments is likely incomplete. Private sector actors
often do not announce their investment plans, and are especially unlikely to do so if they are
investing in home, depot, or workplace charging. Investments here include announced
commitments to public charging network developments made after January 1, 2022, by
companies including Tesla, Electrify America, BP, General Motors, Daimler, and Mercedes. For
MDHD vehicles, private sector commitments are taken largely from Environmental Defense
Fund's Electric Fleet Deployment & Commitment List. 235 Tallied private sector commitments
exclude an estimated $3.0 billion in capital raised by charging companies (including
ChargePoint, EVgo, Blink, and Volta), some percentage of which is expected still to be invested
860
-------
in charging hardware and installation. In sum, there are $34 billion in announced infrastructure
investments not yet in the ground that could support strong HDV standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 107]
235 Available at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/110m2DolmjSemrb_DT40YNGou4o2m2Ee-
KLSvHC-5vAc/edit#gid=2049738669. MDHD fleet vehicle counts are multiplied by charging ports per
vehicle and costs per port modeled in Atlas's Investment Needs of State Infrastructure for Transportation
Electrification (INSITE) tool
12.3. Barriers to the installation of charging infrastructure identified in the Rule are being
actively addressed
The Proposed Rule identifies significant investments in charging infrastructure:
... we expect significant increases in HD charging infrastructure due to a combination of
public and private investments. This includes Federal funding available through the BIL and the
IRA. As discussed in DRIA Chapter 1.6.2.2, states, OEMs, utilities, EVSE providers and others
are also investing in and supporting the deployment of charging infrastructure. For example,
Daimler Trucks North America, Volvo Trucks, Navistar, and PACCAR are a few of the HD
manufacturers investing in EVSE, sometimes packaging the sale of EVSE with the vehicle.
Because of these projected increases and the funding available through the BIL and IRA, and as
we are proposing more stringent standards that begin in MY 2027, our assessment supports that
there is sufficient time for the infrastructure, especially for depot charging, to gradually increase
over the remainder of this decade to levels that support the stringency of the proposed standards
for the timeframe they would apply. 236 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, pp. 107 - 108]
236 U.S. EPA. Proposed Rule: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles - Phase 3.
88 Fed. Reg. 25926, 26074 (Apr. 27, 2023). p. 228. https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-
and-engines/proposed-rule-greenhouse-gas-emissions-standards-heavy
The Proposed Rule also states:
EPA has heard from some representatives from the heavy-duty vehicle manufacturing
industry both optimism regarding the heavy-duty industry's ability to produce ZEV technologies
in future years at high volume, but also concern that a slow growth in ZEV charging and
refueling infrastructure can slow the growth of heavy-duty ZEV adoption, and that this may
present challenges for vehicle manufacturers ability to comply with future EPA GHG standards.
237 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 108]
237 U.S. EPA. Proposed Rule: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles - Phase 3.
88 Fed. Reg. 25926, 26074 (Apr. 27, 2023). p. 28-29. https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-
and-engines/proposed-rule-greenhouse-gas-emissions-standards-heavy.
Both the statement that identified significant investments warrants more stringent standards
and the statement that the pace of installing charging infrastructure needs to accelerate are true.
There are barriers to the timely installation of charging infrastructure that need to be removed to
allow investments to be made at an even greater pace and scale, but those challenges are already
being actively addressed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 108]
Most of the challenges that vehicle manufacturers have raised associated with energizing
charging infrastructure for HDVs in a timely manner are being faced in California, where most
electric HDVs are currently being deployed. Thankfully, a state law enacted in 2022 provides
861
-------
California's investor- and publicly-owned utilities with data necessary to inform grid planning to
accommodate high levels of EV charging, requires those utilities to propose proactive grid
investments in their General Rate Cases to comply with ZEV regulations (as well as a long list of
other laws, standards, and requirements), and directs the California Public Utilities Commission
(CPUC) and local utility governing boards to ensure the proposed investments are consistent
with achieving the state's goals and regulations. 238 In May 2023, Southern California Edison
(SCE) filed its General Rate Case, which includes such proactive investments. 239 And the
CPUC recently launched a "Zero-Emission Freight Infrastructure Planning" initiative designed
to address the mid- to long-term challenges associated with constructing necessary supporting
grid infrastructure in a timely manner to accommodate electric HDVs. 240 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1608-A1, pp. 108 - 109]
238 California Assembly Bill 2700 Transportation electrification: electrical distribution grid upgrades.
(2021-2022). https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB2700
239 Southern California Edison. 2025 General Rate Case, WP SCE-02. V. 07. Bk. A, TEGR Forecast
Development Workpaper.
240 California Public Utilities Commission. Draft Staff Proposal: Zero-Emissions Freight Infrastructure
Planning. (2023). https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/industries-and-topics/electrical-
energy/infrastructure/transportation-electrification/freight-infrastructure-planning
Fundamentally, the charging infrastructure challenges identified by vehicle manufacturers that
caused EPA to solicit comment on this issue can be overcome, as evidenced by the progress
described above. We are not starting from scratch and do not need to replicate the gas and diesel
refueling network to electrify vehicles. The electric grid is already nearly ubiquitous; it only
needs to be extended at the fringes. And because it benefits utility shareholders and customers
alike to remove barriers to investment in charging infrastructure, we have reason to be optimistic.
America's utilities have a long history of accommodating significant growth. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 110]
In sum, the private and federal infrastructure investments EPA has identified justify strong
standards, and the challenges it has identified are being addressed. Furthermore, as noted above,
the EPA's inventory of federal, public, and private investments that already justifies increasingly
stringent vehicle standards is incomplete. Critical to the implementation of the infrastructure is
the coordination with frontline/fenceline communities to ensure that infrastructure does not
increase the burden in these communities. 244 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 110]
244 Moving Forward Network. Letter to Administrator Regan. (Oct 2021).
https://www.movingforwardnetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/ll/MFN-Zero-Emission-in-Freight-
Letter-to-EPA-10_26_21.pdf "Decisions on siting the new electricity infrastructure must be coordinated
with environmental justice leaders, address cumulative impacts and support mandatory emissions
reductions."
Organization: National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA)
EPA also requests comment on the readiness of ZEV charging and refueling infrastructure.
Specifically, EPA writes in the proposal that'. . .important early actions and market indicators
suggest strong growth in charging and refueling ZEV infrastructure in the coming years.
Furthermore, as described in Section II of this document, our analysis of charging infrastructure
needs and costs supports the feasibility of the future growth of ZEV technology of the magnitude
862
-------
EPA is projecting in this proposal's technology package. EPA has heard from some
representatives from the heavy-duty vehicle manufacturing industry both optimism regarding the
heavy-duty industry's ability to produce ZEV technologies in future years at high volume, but
also concern that a slow growth in ZEV charging and refueling infrastructure can slow the
growth of heavy-duty ZEV adoption, and that this may present challenges for vehicle
manufacturers ability to comply with future EPA GHG standards. Several heavy-duty vehicle
manufacturers have encouraged EPA to consider ways to address this concern both in the
development of the Phase 3 program, and in the structure of the Phase 3 program itself. EPA
requests comment on this concern, both in the Phase 3 rulemaking process, and in consideration
of whether EPA should consider undertaking any future actions related to the Phase 3 standards,
if finalized, with respect to the future growth of the charging and refueling infrastructure for
ZEVs.' 16 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1499-A1, p. 6]
16 Supra note 1, at 25,934
For reasons we explain earlier in these comments, NACAA does not share the concerns
expressed by some representatives of the heavy-duty vehicle manufacturing industry about the
ability of electric utilities and/or charging equipment and service providers to continuously meet
the incremental rollout needs for ZEV charging and refueling infrastructure. NACAA firmly
opposes an 'off-ramp' from the standards or any similar measure. Likewise, anything akin to a
mid-term evaluation is unnecessary and inappropriate given the program will begin in just a few
years, span the course of only five years and starts from a demonstrated baseline of vehicle and
charging technology. NACAA strongly urges EPA to reject any such provisions. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1499-A1, p. 6]
There is a great deal of evidence, including what NACAA provides at the beginning of this
section on our comments and recommendations, that points to the coming readiness of the
charging and fueling infrastructure needed to support strong Phase 3 standards. The federal
government has demonstrated its deep commitment to accelerating the transition to ZEVs by
providing historic levels of funding and monetary incentives including for timely infrastructure.
NACAA notes that given the importance of this federal funding to achieving meaningful
nationwide reductions in GHG emissions, including from heavy-duty vehicles and engines, EPA
should ensure that these funds are allocated equitably across the country. In addition to federal
action, states and local areas are demonstrating leadership by undertaking their own
infrastructure initiatives. These are helping to drive private investment to capitalize on these
opportunities. The following a few examples. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1499-A1, pp. 6-7]
Organization: National Association of Convenience Stores (NACS), NATSO, and SIGMA
Robust Charging Infrastructure is Necessary to Support Heavy-Duty Electrification
The Proposed Rule would result in electrifying 50% of new vocational trucks, 35% of new
short-haul tractors, and 25% of new long-haul tractors by 2032.5 These estimates are divorced
from the reality of the current ZEV market: for MY21, only 0.2% of all HD vehicles certified by
the Agency were electric.6 The extraordinary pace of HD electrification that is effectively
mandated under this rulemaking is incompatible with the reality of long-haul trucking in the
United States. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1603-A1, p. 4]
5 Proposed Rule at 25,932 (Table ES-3).
863
-------
6 Id. at 25,940.
These comments focus primarily on long-haul HD trucks, which are the vehicles typically
serviced by our members. The challenges to electrifying the HD sector cannot be overstated and
will require a gradual and unprecedented effort irrespective of regulatory mandates. One major
challenge is a lack of HD charging infrastructure. Currently, there is no U.S. network where
over-the-road trucks can stop for rest breaks and recharging at the same time. In fact, recent
estimates indicate there are fewer than 3,000 HD truck chargers across the entire United States.7
Such chargers are expensive and specialized, as long-haul trucks require two 8,000-pound
batteries to operate. 8 Given the size of their batteries, HD trucks cannot use light-duty charging
infrastructure. It could take up to ten hours to charge those trucks and that would only provide
them with a few hundred miles of range. 9 By contrast, a diesel truck can refuel in about 15
minutes and get 1,200 miles of range. Dwell times will increase significantly as a result of
recharging needs, which will impact scheduling and have implications for Hours-of-Service
limits. Prolonged recharging periods will also further exacerbate challenges related to truck
parking availability and capacity. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1603-A1, pp. 4-5]
7 Vivian Lebbon, et al., WOOD MACKENZIE, 'US electric truck sales set to increase exponentially by
2025' (Aug. 10, 2020) available at https://www.woodmac.com/press-releases/us-electric-truck-sales-set-to-
increase-exponentially-by-2025/.
8 See AMERICAN TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE, 'Understanding the C02 Impacts of
Zero-Emission Trucks' (May 3, 2022) available at https://truckingresearch.org/2022/05/understanding-the-
co2-impacts-of-zero-emission-trucks/.
9 Jasmin Melvin, S&P GLOBAL, 'Trucking industry worries US EPA put 'cart before the horse' with
emissions proposal,' (April 19, 2023); available at
https://www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights/en/market-insights/latest-news/oil/041923-trucking-
industry-worries-us-epa-put-cart-before-the-horse-with-emissions-proposal.
Organization: National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA)
3. Projections suggest that there will not be enough public charging infrastructure available to
support EPA forecasted adoption rates.
Several studies have assessed the scale of the refueling infrastructure that will be needed to
meet projected ZEV adoption rates. A 2022 utility industry estimate on the charging
infrastructure needed to support the projected 2030 EV marketplace points to an alarming and
growing infrastructure gap. According to the report from the Edison Electric Institute (EEI),
more than 2.6 million charge ports in workplaces and public locations will be needed by 2030.20
EEI states: "The significant difference between the current availability of charging infrastructure
and the expected charging infrastructure needed suggests a growing "infrastructure gap" that
must be addressed."21 EEI goes on to state that "the number of DCFC ports needed in 2030 to
meet demand is more than double the planned DCFC ports."22 The DCFC planned investments
include those investments planned by state and federal governments under relevant incentive
programs, automakers, electric companies, and the National Electric Highway Coalition. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1592-A1, p. 11.] [See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1592-
Al, page 11, for figure.]
20 Charles Satterfield et al., Electric Vehicle Sales and the Charging Infrastructure Required Through 2030,
EDISON ELECTRIC INSTITUTE (June 2022).
864
-------
21 Id. at 12.
22 Id. at 15.
Even more alarming is that EEI's conclusions are based solely on an estimated 32 percent of
total light-duty vehicle sales in 2030.23 Since then, the EPA has issued sweeping regulatory
proposals that together estimate that by MY 2032 new vehicle sales will include:
• Nearly 70 percent ZEV penetration across the light-duty sector;
• Nearly 40 percent ZEV penetration across the combined medium-duty van and pickup
truck categories;
• Some 50 percent ZEV penetration for vocational vehicles;
• Some 34 percent ZEV penetration for day cab tractors; and
• Some 25 percent ZEVs for sleeper cab tractors. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1592-A1,
p. 12]
23 Government and private support of EV charging has traditionally been focused on light -duty charging
as light-duty EVs were introduced to the market first. Medium- and heavy-duty EV charging woes are
compounded by the fact that most publicly available EV chargers are not physically accessible to larger
vehicles. Chargers are often located in parking lots designed only to accommodate light-duty EVs
excluding most medium- and heavy-duty buses and trucks from accessing the growing network of public
chargers.
On May 11, 2023, the ICCT released a report entitled, "Near-Term Infrastructure Deployment
to Support Zero-Emission Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles in the United States" (ICCT
Report). This report directly addresses commercial infrastructure predictions and confirms
industry infrastructure concerns. The ICCT Report states that by 2030, 522,000 overnight
chargers, 20,500 fast chargers, and 9,540 ultrafast chargers will be needed to support the
estimated 1.1 million ZEV trucks.24 These numbers are over and above those necessary for light
duty ZEVs. Further, the ICCT Report states that the "most recent TCO analysis for the United
States shows no case of positive TCO for hydrogen trucks relative to battery-electric
trucks."25 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1592-A1, p. 12]
24 Pierre-Louis Ragon et al., Near-Term Infrastructure Deployment to Support Zero-Emission Medium-
And Heavy- Duty Vehicles in The United States, ICCT (May 2023).
25 Id. at 3.
New investments in charging infrastructure are being announced daily26 and ATD is hopeful
EPA's GHG proposals and other government incentive programs will provide investors with the
reassurance they need to build necessary infrastructure. Reliable refueling infrastructure is
critical to the successful adoption of ZEV HDVs and must be accounted for by EPA. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1592-A1, p. 12]
26 See e.g., Michelle Lewis, Daimler just announced a $650M US-wide EV charging network for trucks,
ELECTREK (April 27, 2023) and Vishal Kapadia, Leading the Charge: Walmart Announces Plan To
Expand Electric Vehicle Charging Network, Walmart (April 6, 2023).
4. Recommendations
Dealerships are doing their part to sell and service commercial ZEVs. However, without
adequate assurances that the appropriate infrastructure will be in place in time, customers will
simply not purchase ZEV HDVs. Infrastructure represents the most complex, expensive,
865
-------
and longest lead time challenge to transition our industry. For a Phase 3 GHG rule to be
successful, an "all-in" approach by the government is required. Consequently, ATD recommends
the following:
• That EPA work with purchaser stakeholders to ensure that that purchaser costs and lead
time associated with EVSE equipment and charging are accurate.
• That EPA work with other agencies to establish clear data and related benchmarks for
assessing the deployment of essential ZEV HDV refueling infrastructure.
That EPA ensure that forecasted adoption rates are supported by available infrastructure. EPA
must monitor necessary infrastructure investments and modifications to the Phase 3 rule should
be made if they fall short. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1592-A1, pp. 12 - 13]
Organization: National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA)
Critical Role of Electric Cooperatives as Heavy-Duty Highway Vehicles are Electrified
Electrification of the transportation sector creates both opportunities and challenges for the
electric sector, and electric cooperatives will play a critical role in the success of the
transformation now underway. As such, electric cooperatives welcome the opportunity to partner
with state and local entities on implementing the programs dedicated to building out the nation's
electric vehicle (EV) charging network in the bipartisan infrastructure law (BIL) and through
other opportunities. The funding in the BIL is an important down payment in the federal support
required to electrify the transportation sector, particularly in rural areas that could otherwise be
left behind. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1515-A1, pp. 1-2]
To support the electrification of heavy-duty highway vehicles as laid out in EPA's proposed
rule, electric cooperatives and other utilities must be involved from the very beginning of
planning for the charging infrastructure these vehicles will require. There are already examples
of 1 MW charging stations being built to support these fleets. Electric cooperatives and other
utilities need to be integrated at the very beginning of planning for such facilities by the project
developers, or other relevant planning authorities where applicable, to avoid unintended
consequences. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1515-A1, p. 2]
Organization: Navistar, Inc.
Navistar's ability to meet its stated ZEV goals is dependent on the buildout of necessary
public and depot charging infrastructure.
Navistar stated its ambition to have 50% of its US-directed new vehicle sales be zero emission
vehicles by 2030 and 100% of its US-directed new vehicle sales by 2040. With the proper
support of public policy, state and local governments and other industries, these ambitions are
possible. One key requirement is that the current infrastructure and vehicle incentives remain in
place. The provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act and Bipartisan Infrastructure Law are
important in supporting this transition. The second requirement is that, overall, infrastructure
develops in a way to support a national ZEV fleet of 50% by 2030 and 100% by 2040. There are
well-known challenges that operators face in building out their own charging infrastructure for
depot charging as well as the public charging infrastructure that is important for long-haul
866
-------
applications. Current and future assistance for operators to help with this transition is required
for our goals. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1527-A1, p. 2]
The transition to commercial ZEVs is a paradigm shift. That is Navistar's path in the coming
years. The move toward zero emissions mobility cannot, however, happen without the successful
buildout of charging infrastructure. Navistar's ZEV goals are dependent on the continued
expansion of charging infrastructure sufficient to support public and depot charging of at least
50% of the national commercial trucking fleet by 2030. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1527-A1,
p. 3]
Diesel-powered vehicles will continue to serve specific applications in our transportation
system for some time. The key is to find the right balance that allows diesel technology to
become cleaner in a way that is affordable for customers, while simultaneously encouraging
ZEV development and charging infrastructure buildout. Charging and refueling infrastructure
will serve as an early proof point for our customers that investment in an electric vehicle is
possible. A robust charging network will be needed to support the various applications of
commercial vehicles due to their significant duty cycles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1527-A1,
p. 3]
Importantly, much of the infrastructure funding to date, such as the NEVI funding, is largely
focused on light-duty infrastructure. It is imperative that, as we go forward, heavy-duty needs are
explicitly incorporated. There are considerable differences between commercial heavy-duty and
light duty infrastructure needs in the amount of energy required, the space required for parking
vehicles while they are charged, the locations in which charging will occur, among others. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1527-A1, p. 3]
Recognition of the headwinds associated with creating an entire new vehicle market and
infrastructure support must be understood to bring a zero-emission future a reality. It is necessary
to ensure that supply chain issues are smoothed, utilities are nimble enough to respond to
customer requests for build-out of charging capabilities and resiliency issues are addressed for
future needs. Navistar supports the federal and state governments rapidly developing and
implementing a national charging master plan that identifies dedicated corridors and areas for
future charging and needs. These plans will need to include both lightduty and commercial
heavy-duty vehicle operations, with the deep understanding of the unique use cases for
commercial vehicles on location, charging downtime allowed and electricity needs to support
commercial vehicle operations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1527-A1, p. 3]
Simply stated, commercial vehicle manufacturers will not be able to sell an increasing number
of ZEVs on an economically viable basis unless a robust ZEV infrastructure is assured and in
place. For this rule, and the industry, to succeed in this effort we need a reasonable, flexible rule
and the right incentives in place to allow the ZEV ecosystem to grow. As provided below,
because this kind of transition is unprecedented in the transportation space in living memory, we
need the kind of flexibility that will allow for success. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1527-A1,
p. 3]
EPA should link the phase-in of the Phase 3 GHG standards to the availability of sufficient
infrastructure. Navistar recommends that EPA revise the proposed rule to include appropriate
regulatory mechanisms to monitor and correct for infrastructure availability to support ZEVs.
Specifically, EPA should add regulatory language that would temporarily extend the proposed
867
-------
rule's compliance determination requirements in advance of their respective deadlines if
adequate ZEV infrastructure installations are not forecasted to be in place by 2027. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1527-A1, p. 5]
EPA's proposed rule is predicated on several assumptions regarding infrastructure costs, as
further described in the Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) (Document EPA-HQOAR-
2022-0985-1428). EPA acknowledges that more infrastructure will be needed as ZEV adoption
grows. For example, EPA cites an Atlas analysis, which estimates that it will cost $100 to $166
billion by the end of 2030 to install the necessary infrastructure to support 1 million Class 3
through 8 vehicles and future expansion. That would cover 500,000 depot-charging ports, and
over 100,000 public en-route DCFC ports for long-haul trucks. See Draft RIA, p. 67.1 [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1527-A1, p. 5]
1 Navistar has previously estimated that the minimum investment required to develop a focused public
charging network just to support long haul operations on key major freight corridors alone would likely
exceed $20 billion.
EPA further acknowledges that the timeline to complete both permitting and utility
interconnection will likely be longer for larger, more complex, and/or higher-power charging
stations. EPA stated that '[i]f upgrades to the electricity distribution system are required, this
could further extend the timeline.' On that point, EPA notes that new charging loads of several
megawatts or higher 'could take months to several years to implement.' Draft RIA, pp. 69-70.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1527-A1, p. 5]
Based on the foregoing, EPA should include a regulatory mechanism in the rule to monitor
the progress of the development of the necessary ZEV infrastructure against annual benchmarks.
Based on that monitoring, if it is determined by EPA that sufficient infrastructure development
has not occurred, EPA would temporarily extend the rule's compliance determination
requirements in advance of their respective deadlines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1527-A1,
p. 5]
Organization: Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA)
BATTERY EMISSION/ZERO-EMISSION VEHICLE TECHNOLOGIES
We oppose EPA's proposal to implement Phase 3 beginning in Model year 2028 given the
lack of necessary infrastructure necessary to support BEVs for the long-haul trucking sector.
EPA notes, "the potential for the application of zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) technologies in the
heavy-duty sector presents an opportunity for significant reductions in heavy-duty GHG
emissions over the long term," and that, "Major trucking fleets, HD vehicle and engine
manufacturers, and U.S. states have announced plans to increase the use of heavy-duty zero-
emissions technologies in the coming years." However, our members are skeptical about the
effectiveness of BEV mileage capabilities as well as access to commercial BEV charging
stations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1632-A1, p. 5]
OOIDA members routinely make trips over 1,000 miles and can rely upon a nationwide
network of truck stops and other locations to fill up on gas whenever and wherever they need to
refuel their tank. There are numerous unanswered questions about how a nationwide BEV
charging network will be implemented and it's difficult to estimate when such a network would
be readily accessible for CMV drivers. Therefore, we question EPA's proposed BEV production
868
-------
timelines without a reliable charging infrastructure in place. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1632-
Al, p. 5] [Refer to table 4 on page 5 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1632-A1]
For comparison, a truck parking crisis has existed for decades. DOT has found that the truck
parking shortage is a major problem in every state and region of the country, and these shortages
exist at all times of the day, week, and year. Unfortunately, the parking shortage continues to
worsen with only 1 parking spot available for every 11 trucks on the road, resulting in drivers
wasting an average of one hour every day trying to secure parking. States and local communities
across the U.S. are struggling to maintain existing capacity, let alone keep pace with increasing
demand. While Congress and DOT have prioritized funding for expanding truck parking
capacity, drivers have yet to see tangible results that would help address the parking
shortage. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1632-A1, p. 5]
EPA relies upon the confidence that recently enacted legislation will expedite BEV
development. The proposed rule states, "the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
(commonly referred to as the "Bipartisan Infrastructure Law" or BIL) and the Inflation
Reduction Act of 2022 ("Inflation Reduction Act" or IRA) together include many incentives for
the development, production, and sale of ZEVs, electric charging infrastructure, and hydrogen,
which are expected to spur significant innovation in the heavy-duty sector." We anticipate there
will be a number of legislative, regulatory, and economic/market factors that will impact ZEV
production and sales along with other challenges before the completion of a fully deploy a
reliable nationwide commercial ZEV infrastructure. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1632-A1, p. 5]
Organization: PACCAR, Inc.
PACCAR is working diligently to develop ZEVs for the future, but the necessary supporting
infrastructure must be in place before widespread ZEV market penetration and adoption.
Planning, developing, and implementing the charging infrastructure required to support battery
electric trucks is a major initiative. The hydrogen refueling infrastructure is also not well
developed. EPA's proposed standards are premised on the infrastructure being established and
functional. EPA should facilitate the feasibility of the regulation by including a mechanism to
adjust the applicable standards to correlate with the progress of the necessary infrastructure
development and readiness. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1607-A1, p. 2]
Organization: State of California et al. (2)
2. Significant Investments Are Being Made in Charging Infrastructure and Grid Reliability
There is substantial financial support to build out medium- and heavy-duty truck charging
stations at both the national level and in our States and Cities. On the federal level, the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act includes $7.5 billion for grant programs administered by
U.S. Department of Transportation ("DOT") for EV charging infrastructure to expand
Alternative Fuel Corridors and a National Electric Vehicle formula grant program at the DOT to
provide additional funding to states to support EV charging infrastructure. 199 The National
Electric Vehicle Infrastructure ("NEW) Formula Program is expected to help build EV chargers
covering approximately 75,000 miles of highway across the country.200 Many of the State Plans
submitted through the NEVI Program address infrastructure needs for freight specifically.201
Moreover, the INFRA Grants Program has $8 billion to award competitive grants for multimodal
869
-------
freight and highway projects of national or regional significance to improve the
safety, efficiency, and reliability of the movement of freight and people in and across rural and
urban areas.202 In November 2022, California committed $1 billion of funding to the
development of charging infrastructure. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1588-A1, pp.27-28]
199 Environmental Defense Fund, Electric Vehicle Market Update (April 2022),
https://blogs.edf.org/climate411/files/2022/04/electric_vehicle_market_report_v6_april2022.pdf.
200 International Energy Agency, Global EV Outlook 2023,
https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/dacfl4d2-eabc-498a-8263-9f97fd5dc327/GEVO2023.pdf.
201 See, e.g., Mississippi Dep't of Transportation, Mississippi Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Deployment
Plan (Aug. 1, 2022), https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/nevi/ev_deployment_plans/ms_nevi_plan.pdf;
Missouri Dep't of Transportation, Missouri Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Deployment Plan (Sept. 2022),
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/nevi/ev_deployment_plans/mo_nevi_plan.pdf; Nebraska Dep't of
Transportation, State Plan for Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Deployment (Aug. 1, 2022),
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/nevi/ev_deployment_plans/ne_nevi_plan.pdf.
202 Global Commercial Vehicle Drive to Zero, Global MOU Policy Tracker Dashboard,
https://globaldrivetozero.org/progress-dashboard/ (last accessed June 16, 2023).
There is also substantial private investment in developing charging infrastructure in the
United States, including both hydrogen and electric-vehicle charging stations. For example,
Daimler, NextEra, and BlackRock announced a joint venture, and $650 million initial
investment, to design, develop, install, and operate a nationwide charging network for medium-
and heavy-duty battery electric vehicles and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, construction of which is
set for 2023.203 And other private efforts to expand heavy-duty charging infrastructure are
already underway.204 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1588-A1, p.28]
203 Ryan Kennedy, Daimler, NextEra, and BlackRock to deploy nationwide US electric trucking network,
pv magazine (Jan. 31, 2022), https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2022/01/31/daimler-nextera-and-blackrock-to-
deploy-nationwide-us-electric-trucking-network/.
204 See, e.g., DTNA opens first heavy-duty electric truck charging site, Fleet Owner (April 21, 2021),
https://www.fleetowner.com/emissions-efficiency/press-release/21161913/dtna-opens-first-heavyduty-
electric-truck-charging-site; Alan Adler, Forum Mobility in $400M JV for electric truck infrastructure,
Freight Waves (Jan. 17, 2023), https://www.freightwaves.com/news/forum-mobility-enters-400m-joint-
venture-for-electric-truck-infrastructure; Navistar Forging Ahead on Electric-Truck Development, Heavy
Duty Trucking Truckinginfo (May 4, 2023), https://www.truckinginfo.eom/10198173/navistar-forging-
ahead-on-electric-truck-development; Michelle Lewis, This EV charging depot can charge up to 96 electric
semi-trucks at once, electrek (June 13, 2023), https://electrek.co/2023/06/13/electric-truck-charging-
oakland/; Seth Clevenger, Navistar Expands Electric Truck Offerings, Transport Topics (May 5, 2023),
https://www.ttnews.com/articles/navistar-partners-quanta; TeraWatt Developing 1-10 Electric Corridor, the
First Network of Electric Heavy-Duty Charging Centers, Business Wire (Oct. 20, 2022),
https://www.businesswire.eom/news/home/20221020005252/en/TeraWatt-Developing-I-10-Electric-
Corridor-the-First-Network-of-Electric-Heavy-Duty-Charging-Centers; Scooter Doll, Schneider opens own
depot in SoCal capable of charging 32 Freightliner electric trucks at once, electrek (June 7, 2023),
https://electrek.co/2023/06/07/schneider-opens-depot-socal-charging-32-freightliner-electric-trucks-
california-ev/; Lisa Baertlein, California's port truck-charging plan gets a jolt from big investors, Reuters
(April 17, 2023), https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/big-investors-amp-up-californias-
port-truck-charging-plan-2023 -04-17/.
870
-------
Organization: Stellantis
The proposed HD GHG targets are incredibly challenging and will require electrification at an
unprecedented level in a market segment that demands payload and towing capability. Stellantis
is committed to electrification and plans to have products in place that will meet consumer needs.
However, it will take much more than manufacturing HD EVs and aggressive GHG standards in
the proposed rule to create a successful HD electric vehicle market. There is concern that the
proposed rule seeks such a rapid and transformative nationwide shift to electrification that it
exceeds what the HD sector or market can withstand. Meeting the goals of the Phase 3 program
will require a very significant build out of infrastructure along with a broad willingness from
fleets and other customers to buy electrified HD vehicles. As noted in EMA comments, these HD
vehicles have more demanding infrastructure needs than the LD segment because they are
primarily work trucks with a vast array of vehicle uses that are essential for their business
operations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1520-A1, p. 2]
Organization: Tesla, Inc. (Tesla)
Moreover, as manufacturers begin deploying their heavy-duty vehicles, they will similarly be
deploying charging infrastructure in parallel, as recognized in the Draft RIA. For example, Volvo
has announced joining a partnership to build a publicly accessible medium- and heavy-duty
electric vehicle charging network that connects several of California's largest metropolitan
areas.206 In partnership with the Department of Energy, Cummins is developing extensive plans
for battery-electric charging and hydrogen fueling stations along the stretch of 1-80 that crosses
Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio. The planned network of charging and fueling stations will be focused
on transitioning 30% of the region's medium- and heavy-duty fleets to zero-emission
technologies by 2035.207 Similarly, National Grid has undertaken a project to examine freight
corridors in Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New
York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey, with a goal of informing a blueprint for future commercial
EV charging.208 Intensive planning is also ongoing to develop infrastructure deployment plans
for zero-emission medium- and heavy-duty vehicles along the 1-95 freight corridor, which
stretches from Savannah, Georgia, to Newark, New Jersey.209 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1505-A1, p. 28]
206 Volvo, Volvo Trucks Constructing California Electrified Charging Corridor for Medium- and Heavy-
Duty Electric Vehicles (July 14, 2022) available at https://www.volvotrucks.us/news-and-stories/press-
releases/2022/july/constructing-california-electrified-chargingcorridor- for-medium-and-heavy-duty-
electric-vehicles/
207 U.S. DOE, Biden-Harris Administration Announces Funding for Zero-Emission Medium- and Heavy -
Duty Vehicle Corridors, Expansion of EV Charging in Underserved Communities (Feb. 15, 2023) available
at https://www.energy.gov/articles/bidenharris-administration-announces-funding-zero-emission-medium-
and-heavy-duty-vehicle
208 Id.
209 Id.
Likewise, Daimler Trucks North America partnered with NextEra Energy Resources and
BlackRock Alternatives in a joint venture called Greenlane to design, develop, install, and
operate a U.S. nationwide, high-performance zero-emission public charging and hydrogen
871
-------
fueling network for medium- and heavy-duty battery-electric and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles.210
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1505-A1, pp. 28-29]
210 Commercial Carrier Journal, Establishing heavy-duty EV charging infrastructure was a key theme at
ACT Expo (May 11, 2023) available at https://www.ccjdigital.com/alternative-
power/article/15447477/heavyduty-ev-charginginfrastructure-key-theme-at-act-
expo?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Issue%3A+2023-05-
ll+Transport+Dive+%5Bissue%3A50409%5D&utm_term=Transport+Dive
All of these projects are indicative that manufacturers, utilities, and other investors are
bringing to bear an extensive investment in this area and will rapidly develop medium and
heavy-duty charging capacity commensurate with the level of BEV deployment stimulated by
the Phase 3 rulemaking. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1505-A1, p. 29]
Further, recent analysis has confirmed that heavy-duty charging infrastructure does not all
need to be built at once and that focused deployment can support rapid electrification of the
sector. For instance, ICCT has found that the corridors of the National Highway Freight Network
are projected to comprise 85% of the charging needs from long-haul trucks by 2030.211 [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1505-A1, p. 29]
211 ICCT, Near-Term Infrastructure Deployment To Support Zero-Emission Medium- And Heavy-Duty
Vehicles In The United States (May 11, 2023) available at https://theicct.org/publication/infrastructure-
deployment-mhdv-may23/
Rapid and Expansive Investment in Charging Infrastructure Supports Stringent Phase 3
Emission Standards
s EPA notes, a number of new Congressionally enacted policies will also facilitate greater and
rapid deployment of charging infrastructure sufficient to support more robust Phase 3
standards.212 The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (IIJA) created the Charging and Fueling
Infrastructure Discretionary Grant Program to deploy publicly accessible charging and fueling
infrastructure and provides for $2.5 billion over five years for the program.213 At the end of
March 2023, FHWA issued a notice of funding opportunity to solicit applications for grants
totaling up to $700 million to deploy charging and alternative fueling infrastructure projects.
Half of the $700 million is allocated for electric vehicle and other infrastructure located on
public roads or in other publicly accessible locations, while the other half is allocated for
charging and alternative fueling infrastructure located along designated alternative fuel corridors.
These funds can be used to build charging infrastructure for medium- and heavy-duty
trucks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1505-A1, p. 29]
212 88 Fed. Reg. at 25928.
213 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, P.L 117-58 (Nov. 15, 2021), Section 11401.
In addition to the federal investments in charging facilitated by the IIJA, the Inflation
Reduction Act Section 30C provides significant tax incentives for the deployment of private
capital into charging infrastructure for both light and heavy-duty vehicles.214 It allows for up to
$100,000 for each charger with no limit on how many chargers a fleet can purchase and install at
one site; this can help fleets commit to larger investments in heavy duty BEVs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1505-A1, p. 29]
214 Id. at Section 13404.
872
-------
Additionally, utility investment in charging infrastructure will accrue over the next several
years as evidenced by active proceedings in many jurisdictions.215 Investment in charging
infrastructure will be further enhanced by state rebates and incentive programs. Numerous
incentives that will also facilitate MHDV infrastructure have been established and
enacted.216 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1505-A1, p. 29]
215 See e.g., New York State Department of Public Service, Proceeding on Motion of the Commission to
Address Barriers to Medium- and Heavy-Duty Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure, Case No. 23-E-
0070 available at
https://documents.dps.ny.gov/public/MatterManagement/CaseMaster.aspx?MatterSeq=69967&MNO=23-
E-0070E
216 See generally, N.C. Clean Energy Technology Center (NCCETC), The 50 States of Electric Vehicles:
State ZEV Targets, Managed Charging, & LMI Access Prioritized in 2022 (Feb. 8, 2023) available at
https://nccleantech.ncsu.edu/2023/02/08/the-50-states-of-electric-vehicles-state-zev-targets-managed-
charging-lmiaccess- prioritized-in-2022/
Recent estimates already peg that the heavy-duty charging segment investment is expected to
reach over $534.7 million, while the other type, AC Charger, is projected to be worth more than
$237.6 million by 2024.217 The combination of the IIJA funding, federal IRA incentives, state
incentives, private and utility investments, and a robust Phase 3 standard will push an
exponential growth in this investment leading up to MY 2027. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1505-
Al, p. 30]
217 Statista, Projected heavy-duty electric vehicle charging infrastructure market size in the United States
between 2018 and 2024, by type (May 11, 2023) available at
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1282171/us-heavy-duty-electric-vehiclecharging-infrastructure-market-
size-forecast-type/
Organization: Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF)
Moreover, the availability of charging stations for electric trucks is currently poor and still
developing. It is certainly not as extensive as refueling stations for diesel trucks, and retrofitting
existing truck stops for electric charging will place immense strain on electrical infrastructure
and the national grid, especially in rural communities often frequented by truckers traveling the
nation's highways, causing prices to skyrocket for average Americans. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1488-A1, p. 5]
The resulting chaos will limit the range and flexibility of electric trucks for long-haul
journeys. Electric trucks already have limited range compared to diesel trucks, particularly when
fully loaded. This will mean more frequent charging, adjustment to trucking routes, and overall
shipping delays, negatively affecting operational efficiency. And even if the myriad
infrastructure issues involved in getting power to truck refueling stations were solved or
mitigated, the electricity used to charge electric trucks would still primarily come from
America's most reliable and abundant power source: fossil fuels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1488-A1, p. 5]
In effect, the HD Tailpipe Rule will force truckers to spend substantial financial and human
resources to comply with ultra vires government regulations that fail to make even a marginal
dent in global issue of changing climate. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1488-A1, p. 5]
873
-------
Organization: Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
v. ICCT and Ricardo have assessed the magnitude of the ZEV-truck infrastructure challenge
Following the release of the Phase 3 NPRM, both the International Council on Clean
Transportation (ICCT) and Ricardo LLC (Ricardo) have assessed the scope of the
recharging/refueling infrastructure that will need to be installed and made operational on a
nationwide basis over the next seven years to support the implicitly (and explicitly) mandated
numbers of ZEV trucks. The scope of the HDOH infrastructure challenge is daunting. In fact, the
challenges associated with the recharging/refueling infrastructure needed for the envisioned
numbers of light-duty vehicles are minor in comparison to those associated with the HDOH
infrastructure. Consequently, and as noted, the implicit ZEV-truck sales mandates included in
EPA's Phase 3 program will need to be linked to the pace of progress that is made over the next
seven years to install the requisite recharging/refueling infrastructure (as assessed by ICCT,
Ricardo, and others) for the envisioned numbers and types of ZEV trucks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-2668-A1, p. 11]
On May 11, 2023, ICCT released a report entitled, "Near-Term Infrastructure Deployment to
Support Zero-Emission Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles in the United States" (ICCT Report).
The ICCT Report is directly on point and includes the following relevant findings and
conclusions:
• To support the conversion of long-haul trucks to ZEVs, high-capacity charging stations
will need to be sited every 50 miles along the National Highway Freight Network
(NHFN) by 2030. Some of those charging stations will need capacities up to 22MW,
which will require extensive upgrades to grid interconnections.
• The average minimum charging station size for long-haul vehicles along the NHFN will
need to be 10MW, a charging capacity size that is roughly half of what is required to
power a small town.
• By 2030, approximately 1.1 million ZEV trucks will be deployed, including
approximately 130,000 long-haul combination trucks.
• By 2030, 522,000 overnight chargers, 20,500 fast chargers, and 9,540 ultrafast chargers
will be needed to support the estimated 1.1 million ZEV trucks.
• Ten key states will comprise roughly half of the energy needed for the anticipated
numbers of ZEV trucks by 2030. Within those 10 states, the top 15 counties will account
for 11% of the projected energy needs, meaning that targeted infrastructure deployment
plans will be required.
• ICCT does not foresee a case for positive TCO for hydrogen trucks relative to battery-
electric trucks.
• Table 3 from the ICCT Report (reproduced below) lists the ZEV-charging infrastructure
needs for ZEV trucks in the top 10 counties and for the nation as a whole as of
2030: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, pp. 11-12.] [See Table 3 on page 12 of
docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1]
On June 16, 2023, Ricardo issued its own comprehensive needs assessment report regarding
the ZEV-truck infrastructure that will be required by 2032 under EPA's Phase 3 proposal (and
under CARB's overlapping ACT regulations). The Ricardo Report (a copy of which is attached
as Exhibit "1") includes the following key findings and conclusions:
874
-------
• More than 1.5 million MHD BEV trucks and more than 120,000 FCEV trucks will be on
the road by 2032 if EPA's implicit ZEV-truck mandates, as proposed, (and CARB's
express ACT ZEV-truck mandates in California and the Section 177 opt-in states) are
fully implemented. By way of comparison, only approximately 600 HD ZEVs and zero
(0) HD FCEVs were sold in the U.S. in 2021. Eighty percent (80%) of those HD ZEV
sales in 2021 were for public transit, shuttle and school bus applications.
• The envisioned level of deployment of ZEV-trucks under EPA's Phase 3 proposal will
require the construction of nearly 1.5 million MHD BEV charging ports by 2032. Of that
number, approximately 110,000 charging ports will need to be DCFC rated at 150kW or
350kW. The relatively low number of anticipated DCFC chargers stems from Ricardo's
utilization of EPA's assumptions regarding the predominance of depot-charging, and the
availability of charging times in excess of 8 hours for all trucks in all BEV applications.
More realistic assumptions would yield higher estimates for the necessary numbers of
DCFCs rated at 50kW or more.
• In order to have 1.5 million MHD BEV chargers installed by 2032, approximately
187,500 chargers will need to be sited, installed and made operational each year over the
next 8 years. That equates to the installation of approximately 15,625 MHD BEV
chargers every month. Obviously, that is not happening.
• The aggregate cost to construct the necessary number of MHD BEV charging ports under
EPA's NPRM will be approximately $21 billion. By way of comparison, the directly
available federal funding for the installation of MHD BEV charging ports is
approximately $1 billion. The relatively low aggregate cost that Ricardo has calculated
stems from utilizing the same EPA assumptions regarding fleets' exclusive reliance on
depot-charging and the universal availability of overnight charging. Different
assumptions regarding the need for greater numbers of higher-power DCFCs would
increase the resultant aggregate cost estimates significantly.
• As a point of reference, the total number of operational DCFS charging stations in
California today is approximately 9,200. By 2032, California alone will need more than
60,000 DCFC ports.
• The ZEV-truck infrastructure demands and timelines imposed by the underlying Phase 3
regulatory mandates, as proposed, are likely unworkable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
2668-A1, pp. 12 - 13] [see docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A2 for
Exhibit 1]
5. The Critical Importance of Infrastructure Readiness
Even if the more reasonable outputs from EMA's HD TRUCS are used to frame the final
Phase 3 standards, there is no doubt that the infrastructures to power the ZEVs must be in place
for any Phase 3 rule to be implementable. For trucking fleets to operate BEVs or FCEVs,
whether a few or many, adequate battery-recharging or hydrogen-refueling infrastructures will be
needed to power the ZEVs. Without sufficient infrastructures in place in time to meet the needs
of the ZEVs implicitly required by EPA's GHG Phase 3 regulation, the rule will be destined to
fail. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 43]
Based on the data in the NPRM, more than 140,000 battery chargers must be in place by 2027
and 1,400,000 (10-times more) by 2032 to power the MHD BEVs that EPA proposes to
indirectly mandate through the Phase 3 rule. More specifically, the following graph depicts the
number of chargers needed for the MHD BEVs that manufacturers would be required to sell
875
-------
under the proposed GHG Phase 3 rule: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 43] [See the
Chargers Needed Table on page 44 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1.]
To establish more than 1,400,000 battery chargers needed by 2032 to support the mandated
MHD BEVs, approximately 15,000 chargers must come online each and every month over the
ensuing eight years between now and 2031. Additionally, utilities will have to make extensive
upgrades to the distribution capabilities of the electricity grid to provide those chargers with the
more than 250 gigawatt-hours of aggregate daily power needs. Needless to state, nothing like
that necessary infrastructure transformation is yet underway or even adequately planned
for. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 44]
Moreover, due to their size and power demands, MHD ZEVs will not be able to utilize the
charging infrastructure that is being developed for passenger ZEVs. As envisioned in the NPRM,
all of the battery-recharging stations for commercial vehicles will be located at trucking depots
and terminals where trucks park overnight. Under that scenario, chargers will need to be
concentrated at those locations, requiring significant upgrades to the electricity transmission lines
and substations to support the new high electricity demands at each depot location. However,
contrary to EPA's core assumption, many experts believe that MHD ZEVs also will need to be
recharged en route, at public battery-recharging stations, in addition to depot-charging. But
public battery-recharging stations for MHD BEVs are not even considered in EPA's HD
TRUCS, and adding that expanded infrastructure demand - which needs to be taken into account
- will require changing many of the fundamental assumptions and data inputs to EPA's version
of HD TRUCS. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 44]
Unlike passenger cars, commercial vehicles are purchased by trucking businesses for the sole
purpose of providing a financial return on the investment. If a new MHD BEV cannot
perform the work needed by the fleet, at a lifecycle cost equal to or lower than other available
technologies, it will not make financial sense for the fleet to invest in purchasing the BEV.
Therefore, the charging infrastructure needed to power a new BEV must be in place before the
fleet takes delivery of the ZEV-truck. Without that infrastructure in place in time, fleets simply
will not purchase ZEVs, making it impossible for manufacturers to sell them. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-2668-A1, pp. 44 - 45]
We acknowledge that utilities may be waiting for the electricity demands associated with
increasing numbers of MHD ZEVs to materialize before they commit to undertake the needed
investments to upgrade the electricity grid. Unfortunately, however, that wait-and-see approach
likely will, in effect, doom the GHG Phase 3 rule. If the recharging infrastructure is not in place
before a fleet is expected to take delivery of a BEV, the fleet operator will cancel the order to
avoid acquiring a stranded asset that is unable to generate revenue. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
2668-A1, p. 45]
In light of the foregoing, a whole-of-government initiative is needed to ensure that the
necessary battery-recharging infrastructure will be in place in time to power the annually
increasing numbers of MHD BEVs implicitly required by the GHG Phase 3 rule. That initiative
will need to determine: (i) the sufficiently-sized locations where battery-recharging stations need
to be installed, (ii) the needed power ratings of those stations to meet the specific charging
demands of the diverse types of commercial vehicles, and (iii) the "behind the meter" grid
upgrades needed to deliver sufficient power to each location. Most importantly, that coordinated
initiative must include mechanisms to ensure that the necessary battery-recharging infrastructure
876
-------
will be in place in time to meet the needs of the MHD ZEVs required by the GHG Phase 3 rule.
Ricardo's need assessment report provides a useful overview of what will be required, and at
what cost. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 45]
Regarding the types of battery-recharging station that will be needed, below is our estimate of
the minimum power ratings and typical daily energy needs of different types of commercial
BEVs. Please note that the estimates assume some BEVs will need to be recharged en route,
something the NPRM and EPA's HD TRUCS assume will not be the case. Among other crucial
issues, the required whole-of-government initiative should assess which MHD ZEVs are likely to
be exclusively depot-charged, which may need to be recharged en route, and which will need to
utilize both options. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 45.] [See the Estimate of Minimum
Power Ratings Table on page 45 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1.]
The NPRM and HD TRUCS incorrectly assume that all commercial BEVs will be depot-
charged at night, and that any commercial ZEVs that need to operate further from home will be
FCEVs. The NPRM also assumes that trucking fleets will be able to devote up to 30% of each
vehicle's cargo carrying capacity for batteries large enough to provide enough power for the
vehicle's entire daily work. If a commercial vehicle cannot carry enough batteries to complete its
daily work, or if it must travel too far from its home terminal, the NPRM assumes that a FCEV
will be used instead of a BEV. Of course, those FCEVs will require an entirely separate
infrastructure of hydrogen-refueling stations, which still needs to be designed and developed.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, pp. 45 - 46]
EPA has established as a foundational premise of the NPRM that the necessary battery-
recharging and hydrogen-refueling infrastructures will be developed in time to meet the needs of
the MHD ZEVs that the GHG Phase 3 rule will require manufactures to sell. However, there is a
significant chance that EPA's key premise - what really amounts to little more than a stated
aspiration - may prove fundamentally wrong, a prospect that would completely undermine this
rulemaking. Accordingly, a massive and focused whole-of-government initiative must come
together very quickly to ensure the development of the necessary ZEV-truck infrastructures in
time. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 46]
The current lack of the much-needed whole-of-government initiative already may be chilling
investments in the development of necessary battery-recharging and hydrogen-refueling
infrastructures. Without clarity about whether long-distance commercial vehicles will be BEVs
or FCEVs, investors may be hesitant to commit capital to develop the infrastructure for one of
the technologies. For example, clarity is needed regarding whether the required public stations
will deliver electricity or hydrogen. Without a long-term technology path identified, investors
may be sitting on the sidelines. Similarly, if hydrogen will be part of the solution, clarity is
needed to identify whether it will be a compressed gas or cryogenic liquid. Until that hydrogen
infrastructure direction is clear, more investors may stay on the sidelines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-2668-A1, p. 46]
Truck manufacturers are doing their part by developing all of the potential ZEV technologies:
BEVs, compressed hydrogen-fueled FCEVs, cryogenic hydrogen-fueled FCEVs, compressed
hydrogen-fueled H2-ICEs, and cryogenic hydrogen-fueled H2-ICEs. However, without adequate
assurances that the appropriate infrastructures will be in place in time, fleets simply will not
purchase any of those types of ZEVs. Thus, developing the necessary infrastructures represents
the most complicated, most expensive, and longest lead-time challenge to transition the U.S.
877
-------
trucking industry to ZEVs. Without an effective whole-of-government initiative focused on
understanding, developing and ensuring those infrastructures, there may be little chance that the
GHG Phase 3 rule will be successful. Consequently, clear links between the phase-in of the
Phase 3 rule and the phase-in of the requisite infrastructure must be established, monitored, and
acted on if misalignment among the respective phase-ins is detected. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-2668-A1, pp. 46-47]
In that regard, EMA recommends that EPA work with other agencies, departments and
stakeholders to establish clear annual benchmarks for assessing progress in the deployment of
the necessary ZEV-truck infrastructures. For example, using the data developed by ICCT,
Ricardo, NREL and others, EPA could determine the top 100 counties across the country where
the greatest numbers of ZEV-trucks will be deployed under the Phase 3 and ACT regulations by
2032. For each of those counties, benchmarking assessments could be made of the number of
BEV-recharging and FCEV-refueling stations that will need to be installed on an annual basis to
support the annually increasing deployment of the anticipated numbers of ZEV-trucks in each of
those counties. Each year, evaluations could be made on a county-by-county basis to determine
whether and how the actual pace of installation of ZEV-truck recharging/refueling stations is
keeping up with the benchmark numbers of necessary recharging/refueling stations. If it is
determined that the aggregate actual progress in infrastructure development is falling behind the
benchmark rates of progress by, for example, 20% or more, the phase-in schedule of the Phase 3
standards could be deferred by one or more years as deemed appropriate by EPA, perhaps in
consultation with other agencies and departments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 47]
The foregoing is just an example of the type of direct linkage that needs to be made between
the implementation of the Phase 3 rule and the implementation of the fundamentally necessary
ZEV-truck infrastructure. Without that type of linkage, there is no real prospect for the proposed
rule to stand. To the contrary, much like a one-legged stool, it will be preordained to collapse.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 47]
Organization: Truck Renting and Leasing Association (TRALA)
While Battery Electric Vehicle (BEV) charging infrastructure is expanding, much of it is not
accessible or practical for commercial fleet use. Short-term rental fleets are highly transient and
serve many small businesses that may not have access to ZEV charging and fueling
infrastructure. Our members also report that many first-generation charging solutions are
unreliable and need frequent repairs. Hydrogen fueling infrastructure is virtually non-existent
given the laggard in the design and advancement of hydrogen fuel cell trucks. In addition, not all
50 states are created equal in terms of ZEV fueling infrastructure planning and assistance. Since
trucks by nature are not bound to local, state, or international borders, ZEV vehicle travel - aside
from hub-and-spoke operations - will be limited to the reach of the nation's fueling
infrastructure. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1577-A1, p. 4]
Return-to-Base Operations Without On-Site Charging Will be Placed in a Precarious
Predicament
As previously noted, many TRALA members - and other trucking companies - will not have
the luxury of on-site charging installation due to tenant improvement restrictions under their
facility lease agreements. If depot charging is not an option, trucking companies will be required
878
-------
to use the public charging network or contract with entities that have surplus charging ports to
utilize. However, both scenarios pose problems in that company assets would be required to be
parked off-site for extended periods of time in potentially unsecured areas. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1577-A1, p. 6]
Contracting with entities to charge fleet equipment on their property raises several issues
involving property access as well as insurance, security, and liability concerns. TRALA
asks EPA to address these concerns in the final rule. A regulation is only as feasible as the ability
to comply with the requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1577-A1, pp. 6-7]
TRALA requests EPA conduct annual reviews to ascertain whether charging infrastructure,
power demands, and hydrogen fuel (when/if available), will satisfy the needs for all ZEVs in
every state to meet trucking's charging and hydrogen needs. If the status of charging or hydrogen
fueling infrastructure identifies significant gaps that would impede truck mobility in any state,
EPA should not implement subsequent milestone year requirements until identified fueling gaps
are operational in keeping pace with vehicle needs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1577-A1, p. 8]
Incentive Use Overestimates ZEV Market Penetration Rates for Trucks
The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL)25 included a total of $7.5 billion for EV chargers
and other alternative fueling facilities. Five billion of that was assigned to the National Electric
Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) Formula Program. Under the NEVI program, states can receive
funding from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for up to 80% of eligible project
costs. NEVI requires charging stations receiving assistance be publicly available or available to
commercial drivers from more than one company and be installed along designated FHWA
Alternative Fuel Corridors (AFCs). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1577-A1, p. 18]
5 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58).
The freight industry needs dedicated charging capabilities for both Medium-Duty (MD) and
Heavy-Duty (HD) trucks near or within the properties of major warehouses, ports, rail yards, and
industrial facilities. These sites can serve multiple companies through an agreement with the site
operator but won't necessarily allow 'public' access. In comments filed on behalf of the trucking
industry to FHWA on its National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Formula Program Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (Federal Register, June 22, 2022), FHWA was asked to direct states to
dedicate specific funding levels towards the build-out charging infrastructure for the trucking
sector. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1577-A1, p. 18]
In its final rule, the FHWA addressed this request as follows:
'FHWA understands that the MD/HD charging industry is very nascent and rapidly evolving;
as such, FHWA has not modified the language in this final rule to specifically accommodate
MD/HD needs so as not to preempt the pace of the technological innovation. The rule does not
preclude MD/HD charging infrastructure and FHWA strongly encourages project sponsors to
consider future MD/HD needs. The FHWA will continue to monitor the technological
advancements in the MD/HD industry for consideration as to whether further regulation is
needed to provide applicable minimum standards and requirements at a future date.' 26 [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1577-A1, p. 19]
26 Federal Register, Vol. 88, No. 39, Page 12731 (February 28, 2023).
879
-------
Given the fact that truck charging infrastructure under NEVI was and remains an afterthought,
TRALA is less optimistic than EPA in assuming the BIL will address the tremendous financial
needs for powering truck ZEVs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1577-A1, p. 19]
Organization: Valero Energy Corporation
C. EPA's consideration of HD ZEV infrastructure is inadequate and insufficient.
In order to evaluate HD ZEV infrastructure readiness, EPA relies on projections as evidence-
in-fact to support the proposed rulemaking while ignoring the material conditions and limitations
disclosed in EPA's own sources. By way of example, EPA states that "[i]n the United States,
there was $200 million or more in mergers and acquisition activity in 2022 according to the
capital market data provider Pitchbook, indicating strong interest in the future of the charging
industry."161 But EPA's source material further provides as follows:
Yet charging companies face plenty of challenges. Even with funding, building EV-charging
infrastructure remains extremely costly and time-consuming.
Because of these struggles, not every company will make it — some smaller companies are
betting that larger ones will gobble them up and take on their assets through mergers and
acquisitions. Global M&A activity in the charging space this year hit at least $900 million across
25 deals as of this week, according to PitchBook. That includes at least $200 million across
seven deals in the US.
"For the smaller companies, it's hard to scale up on their own. They really need larger
partners," Steve Hilfinger, a partner and senior business counselor with the law firm Foley &
Lardner, said. "This is going to take a lot of capital." 162 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2,
p. 33]
161 EPA's HD Phase 3 GHG Proposal at 25934 (citing to St. John, Alexa, and Nora Naughton.
"Automakers need way more plug-in stations to make their EV plans work. That has sparked a buyer
frenzy as big charging players gobble up smaller ones." Insider, November 24, 2022. Available online:
https://www.businessinsider.com/evcharging-industry-merger-acquisition-meet-electricvehicle-demand-
2022-1).
162 Id.
The above excerpt suggests that much of the mergers and acquisitions is related to smaller
companies being absorbed by larger ones, not an overall growth in the marketplace for charging
infrastructure. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 34]
EPA also states that "[r]ecent findings from Phadke et al. suggest that BEV TCO [total cost of
ownership] could be 13 percent less than that of a comparable diesel ICE vehicle if electricity
pricing is optimized." 163 But the Phadke article also cautions that "major barriers need to be
addressed to fully realize [the] potential" of electric trucks. 164 These include "[electricity
prices, especially demand charges" as well as "higher cost of new [electric HD] vehicles and
slow return on charging infrastructure". 165 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 34]
163 EPA's HD Phase 3 GHG Proposal at 25942 (emphasis added).
164 Phadke, A., et. al. (2021) "Why Regional and Long-Haul Trucks are Primed for Electrification Now".
https://eta-publications.lbl.gov/sites/default/files/updated_5_final_ehdv_report_033121.pdf
880
-------
165 Id. at 6.
Additionally, per EPA, "[t]he Rocky Mountain Institute found that because of the [Inflation
Reduction Act] IRA, the TCO of electric trucks will be lower than the TCO of comparable diesel
trucks about five years faster than without the IRA". 166 The Rocky Mountain Institute, however,
also provides that:
"[E]-truck manufacturers will have to ramp up production by a factor of 20 by 2035 while
meeting new North American final assembly requirements, both of which will be challenging.
Utilities and regulators will have to prepare for an unprecedented amount new electric load that
can range from as large as a skyscraper to greater than a central business district. By 2035 our
grid must be prepared to add 230 TWh of new truck electricity demand, including power for
nearly 150,000 fast public chargers and 860,000 depot chargers." 167 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1566-A2, p. 34]
166 EPA's HD Phase 3 GHG Proposal at 25942.
167 Kahn, Ari, et. al. ' 'The Inflation Reduction Act Will Help Electrify Heavy-Duty Trucking''. Rocky
Mountain Institute. August 25, 2022. https://rmi.org/inflation-reduction-act-will-help-electrify-heavy-duty-
trucking/
EPA also cites to an article detailing DC Metro's plans to shift to a ZEV bus fleets over the
next 20 years. 168 Yet EPA ignores comments made by a federal representative on DC Metro's
Board in the same article:
"[V]ehicle procurements, [are] easy to understand, but it's much less sexy to talk about the
infrastructure and what needs to happen behind the scenes... [W]ithout the infrastructure for
charging, Metro would have vehicles on their hands that they couldn't run." He cited concerns
about load capacity during a hot summer day trying to charge dozens of buses while everyone is
also running air conditioners in their homes. "A Metro garage would need 9 megawatts of high-
capacity electric connection to support 150 buses in a garage — and so far no garage has that.
That amount of electricity is the equivalent needed to power 6,000 homes." [Further,] "Metro
would also have to retrain a maintenance workforce to work on electric buses. 'The goals are
certainly something we need to establish, but we need to figure out how we're going to execute
them,' he said. 169 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, pp. 34 - 35]
168 EPA's HD Phase 3 GHG Proposal at 25943.
169 Pascale, Jordan. "Metro Approves Plans For Fully Electric Bus Fleet By 2045". DCist. June 10, 2021.
https://dcist.com/story/21/06/10/metro-goal-entirely-electric-bus-fleet-2045/
EPA argues that ZEV obstacles can be overcome through "federal incentive programs like
those in the BIL and IRA to offset ZEV purchase costs, as well as state and local incentives and
investments... with improvements in BEV and FCEV component costs playing an increasing role
in reducing costs in the longer term." 170 But EPA ignores factors outside the control of
regulators and OEMs alike that will be material to the feasibility of EPA's proposal and are
highlighted in one of the very sources EPA cites to in support of its assertion. 171 EPA glosses
over and obfuscates these obstacles in FN 148, stating "[o]ther barriers that fleet managers
prioritized for fleet electrification included: [inadequate charging infrastructure—our facilities,
inadequate product availability, inadequate charging infrastructure—public" etc. 172 Indeed, the
American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy White Paper that EPA cites to discusses
challenges facing electric truck deployment in-depth, including model availability, greater
881
-------
upfront cost, range, charging, and other challenges. Yet these discussions are absent from EPA's
analysis, including the white paper's proposition that "in some cases, EVs may not be the
solution." 173 Further, the White Paper provides:
"Existing infrastructure at these sites may not be capable of serving such [fleet] loads.
Meeting this demand could require upgrades to or the build-out of new infrastructure, often at
considerable cost. For example, a Southern California facility had to install a $470,000
transformer after the meter to meet the demand of deploying 20 electric trucks. Installing several
chargers at a depot, truck stop, or filling station involves many players to obtain permits,
undertake construction, and work with the utility to ensure that adequate power is available when
and where needed."174 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 35]
170 EPA's HD Phase 3 GHG Proposal at 25943.
171 See id.
172 Id.
173 Nadel, S. and Junga, E. (2020) "Electrifying Trucks: From Delivery Vans to Buses to 18-Wheelers".
American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy White Paper, https://www.aceee.org/white-
paper/electrifying-trucks-delivery-vans-buses-18
174 Id. at 27 (internal citations omitted).
Collectively, these issues illustrate the neglected assumptions underpinning EPA's central
trajectory for HD ZEV sales and supporting infrastructure. These issues are central to EPA's
proposal and make EPA's proposal unreasonable, arbitrary and contrary to law. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 35]
Organization: Volvo Group
Infrastructure Implications
Because of these complications customers have been reluctant to take truck deliveries, leading
to extension requests for many of our Hybrid and Zero-Emission Truck and Bus Voucher
Incentive Project (HVIP) vouchers in California. While supply chain challenges have contributed
to some delivery delays, 70% of the extension requests are due to problems with infrastructure
projects and site planning. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1606-A1, p. 8]
Commercial vehicle owners engaged in freight hauling for profit are very different from
passenger car owners. Uptime is critical to maximize miles traveled and minimize Total Cost of
Ownership (TCO). Commercial trucks are capital assets that customers buy or lease to do a
certain job and provide a return on investment. Fleet owners need flexibility in their operations
and stability in the availability and cost of electricity to keep their customers satisfied. Fleets can
face significant variability in the cost of charging based on the season and the time of day, not to
mention the threat of complete unavailability in the case of extreme weather or blackouts. This
complicates the ZEV transition experience for fleets, impacting dealership business, and
negatively affecting sales. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1606-A1, p. 8-9]
Organization: Zero Emission Transportation Association (ZETA)
d. HDEV Charging Infrastructure
882
-------
A commonly cited barrier to HDEV adoption is the lack of available charging infrastructure.
It is important to note that charging needs for fleet-owned HDEVs can be much different than
consumer-owned LMDEVs. HDEVs tend to have higher capacity batteries requiring faster
charging rates or longer charge times, or a combination of both. While most electric HD fleet
vehicles have shorter, scheduled routes and can rely primarily on depot charging overnight, some
fleets may require on-route charging to supplement longer trips. While a public HDEV charging
network is still in the early stages of deployment, electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE)
manufacturers and operators are already investing the necessary resources to ensure multiple
methods of charging are available and reliable for the 2027-2032 model years affected by these
emissions standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 47]
75% of fleet owners surveyed cite concerns about the cost of installing HDEV-specific
charging as one of the greatest barriers to adoption. 143 Indeed, an ultra-fast charger capable of
350kW can cost up to $140,000.144 However, the amount of power needed is not the same
across all classes of vehicles and smart charging software can optimize power distribution among
vehicles according to their charging capabilities and needs. To ensure upfront capital is spent on
the appropriate equipment, installation projects will benefit from a customized analysis of a
fleet's charging needs based on fleet size and type, average VMT, duty cycles, and time of
charging. While the investment in charging infrastructure will be returned via lower lifetime
operating costs associated with EV ownership, the upfront investment presents a real but
surmountable barrier. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 47]
143 Id. at Page 10
144 Michael Nicholas, "Estimating Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Costs across Major U.S.
Metropolitan Areas," The International Council on Clean Transportation (August 2019)
https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/ICCT_EV_Charging_Cost_20190813 .pdf
As discussed previously, the need for increased HDEV charging also creates significant
economic opportunities. The charging infrastructure necessary to accommodate the transition to
an electrified HD fleet has the potential to create more than 29,000 jobs. 145 Considering the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law's Buy America Build America requirements for light-duty
charging infrastructure under the NEVI Formula Programl46 and CFI Discretionary
Grant Program,147 it is reasonable to expect that many of the high-quality jobs in HD EVSE
manufacturing will be domestic as manufacturers build increasingly robust domestic supply
chains. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, pp. 47 - 48]
145 The Commanding Heights of Global Transportation - Quantifying the Employment Effects (March
2021) https://safe2020.wpenginepowered.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/The-Commanding-Heights-Of-
Global-Transportation-Quantifying-The-Employment-Effects.pdf
146 National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Formula Program, US Department of Transportation, accessed
May 12, 2023. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bipartisan-infrastructure-law/nevi_formula_program.cfm
147 Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Discretionary Grant Program, US Department of Transportation,
accessed May 12, 2023. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/cfi/
While the buildout of HDEV charging infrastructure is still in the nascent stages, so too is
HDEV deployment. It is also important to remember that just as HDEV deployment will not
occur all at once, neither will HD EVSE deployment. Initial strategic buildout of depot-based
charging in high-priority areas will help ensure EVSE manufacturing capacity can scale while
continuing to support a more rapid HDEV transition. This is already under way at certain
883
-------
locationsl48, 149 and HD EVSE product offerings are increasing rapidly. 150,151,152 [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 48]
148 "Electric Island: First US Charging Station for Electric Semis is Ready for Megawatt Fast-Charging,"
Green Car Reports, (April 22, 2021) accessed May 24, 2023
https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1132019_first-charging-station-electric-semis-megawatt-fast-
charging
149 "WattEV breaks ground on nation's first electric truck stop charging station in Bakersfield,"
KGET.com, (December 17, 2023) accessed May 24, 2023 https://www.kget.com/news/business/wattev-
breaks-ground-on-nations-first-electric-truck-stop-charging-station-in-bakersfield/
150 "Siemens Unveils Fast and Flexible Charging Solution for Electric Buses, Trucks, and Heavy-Duty
Vehicles at ACT Expo," Siemens e-Mobility, (August 31, 2021) accessed June 8, 2023
https://www.siemens.com/us/en/company/press/press-releases/smart-infrastructure/siemens-launches-
sicharge-uc-inthe-united-states.html
151 "ChargePoint Express Plus," Chargepoint, accessed June 8, 2023
https://www.chargepoint.com/fleet/stations/express-plus
152 "EVgo Fleet Charging Solutions," EVgo, accessed June 8, 2023 https://www.evgo.com/charging-
solutions/evgo-fleet-solutions/
i. EVSE operator statements on EPA emissions standards
As discussed previously, EPA's proposed rule setting GHG emissions standards for heavy-
duty vehicles provides much needed certainty throughout the supply chain, including EVSE
manufacturers and operators. A clearer picture of future EVSE demand enables manufacturers
and operators to plan and allocate capital accordingly. The statements mentioned below by
ZETA's EVSE manufacturers and operators in response to EPA's announcement of these
standards indicate as much:
• "EVgo applauds the EPA for proposing ambitious tailpipe emissions standards. These
standards would accelerate the transition to electric vehicles and result in cleaner air,
healthier communities, and create jobs across the country. More EVs demands more EV
charging and we will continue to expand our fast charging network to provide the
infrastructure to support the growing EV market." 153
• "ChargePoint is pleased to see USEPA's tailpipe emission proposal, which will shift the
electric mobility revolution into high gear. These rules will undoubtedly lead to more
investment in heavy-duty EVs. We are actively building a national network of charging
infrastructure to support the increased adoption of EVs, including heavy-duty vehicles,
and deploying the hardware and software needed to effectively support heavy-duty
vehicle charging in depots. Over our 15 year history, we have ensured charging
infrastructure deployment kept pace with EV adoption, and we are well-positioned to
meet the increased demand these standards will generate." 154 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-2429-A1, pp. 48 -49]
153 EVgo onLinkedln, accessed May 10, 2023 https://www.linkedin.com/posts/evgo_biden-
administration-proposes-toughest-auto-activity-7054487813681025024-
gCcO/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_android
154 Chargepoint on Linkedln, accessed June 14, 2023 https://www.linkedin.com/posts/chargepoint_epa-
proposes-ground-breaking-new-vehicle-activity-7074468492602667008-0G5F/
884
-------
ii. Depot-based applications will satisfy the majority of HDEV charging needs
As studied by the International Council on Clean Transportation, the majority of class 4-8
HDEV charging will occur at depots, with the exception of single unit long-haul trucks. 155
Depot charging is ideal for minimizing cost and maximizing battery health, whereas on-route
charging prioritizes convenience. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 49]
155 Near-Term Infrastructure Deployment to Support Zero-Emission Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles
in the United States, International Council on Clean Transportation, (May 2023) https://theicct.org/wp-
content/uploads/2023/05/infrastructure-deployment-mhdv-may23.pdf
Depot charging stations are structures where charging infrastructure is co-located with off-
duty HDEV storage facilities. Often located at warehouses, logistic hubs, or public stations in
industrial areas, fleet owners and operators typically own the charging infrastructure and can use
it for overnight charging of vehicles. 156 Deploying this method saves fleet operators money:
they install the chargers at a pre-existing facility, charge their vehicles during scheduled
downtime (which means they do not have to stop during typical hours spent on the road), and
pay less for the electricity that they use (per-mile public charging rates are often
higher). 157 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 49]
156 Alana Aamodt, Karlynn Cory, & Kamyria Coney, "Electrifying Transit: A Guidebook for
Implementing Battery Electric Buses," National Renewable Energy Laboratory (April 2021)
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/Iy21osti/76932.pdf
157 Charles Satterfield and Nick Nigro, "Assessing Financial Barriers to Adoption of Electric Trucks,"
Atlas Public Policy (February 2020) http://atlaspolicy.eom/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Assessing-
Financial-Barriers-to-Adoption-of-Electric-Trucks.pdf
Given its centralized nature, depot charging is also well-suited for electricity load
management. Depots can allow for easier coordination with grid operators to distribute charging
activity to off-peak load times and facilitate tracking up-time fleet charging metrics. In an
analysis conducted by Atlas Public Policy, more than 98% of cost-competitive scenarios for
HDEV fleets included depot charging. 158 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 49]
158 Id.
Companies may also look into bulk charging negotiations through purchase agreements.
Fleets that traditionally run short-haul delivery operations may be attuned to applied charging
strategies to flatten the load profile and save money through off-peak charging incentives.
Further opportunities for cost-savings may overlap with retail energy designs and could align
charging with cheaper renewable energy sources. 159 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1,
p. 50]
159 Brennan Borlaug, et al. "Heavy-duty truck electrification and the impacts of depot charging on
electricity distribution systems," Natural Energy (June 21, 2021) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-021-
00855-0
iii. Ensuring strategic HD EVSE buildout
While depot charging will be suitable for most HDEV applications, a national highway freight
network (NHFN) will be necessary to ensure adequate charging access for long-haul trucking
applications. A typical highway site will eventually need more than 20 fast-chargers to serve
expected traffic. 160 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 50]
885
-------
160 "Electric Highways: Accelerating and Optimizing Fast-Charging Deployment for Carbon-Free
Transportation," National Grid, (November 2022)
https ://www. nationalgrid. com/document/148616/download
Setting targets for charging station deployment along key NHFN corridors can accommodate
up to 85% of long-haul charging needs by 2030.161 As discussed in ICCT's May 2023 white
paper on MHDV infrastructure deployment, 844 charging stations will be needed along the
Federal Highway Administration's Alternative Fuel Corridors to accommodate 50-mile spacing
intervals between chargers along the entire length of the NHFN. 162 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
2429-A1, p. 50]
161 Id. at Page 45
162 Id. at Page 45
Under federal regulations, the number of hours drivers can travel per day is limited, with
drivers required to take a 30-minute break within an eight-hour driving period and restricting
drivers to a limit of 11 hours of driving per day, after which they are required a 10-hour rest
break. 163 During these mandatory rest times, drivers may be able to charge at individual stations
or charging depots. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 50]
163 Id. at Page 8
Work is already underway to install HD EVSE at high-traffic freight locations, 164,165 and
NREL is working to electrify four key freight corridors across the United States: 166
• In collaboration with CALSTART, NREL researchers will launch an intensive planning
effort to develop infrastructure deployment plans for zero-emission medium- and heavy-
duty vehicles along the 1-95 freight corridor, which stretches from Savannah, Georgia, to
Newark, New Jersey.
• Led by a Cummins Inc. team, NREL researchers will help develop extensive plans for
battery-electric charging and hydrogen fueling stations along the stretch of 1-80 that
crosses Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio.
• In collaboration with a Utah State University team, NREL researchers will assist in
developing a community-, state-, and industry-supported action plan for corridor
electrification along Utah's Wasatch Front.
• Led by a National Grid team, NREL researchers will help create a detailed model of truck
operations along New England's freight corridors and then use that data to simulate
future electric truck operations, ideal charging locations, and the amount of energy those
charging stations will use. The project will examine freight corridors in Maine,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York,
Pennsylvania, and New Jersey, with a goal of informing a blueprint for future
commercial EV charging. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, pp. 50-51]
164 California installs first battery charger for heavy trucks, (March 28, 2023), accessed May 12, 2023
https://www.ccjdigital.com/alternative-power/battery-electric/article/15380695/california-installs-first-
battery-charger-for-heavy-trucks
165 "EV Charging Hub in Riverside Will Power 40 Sysco Trucks," The Press Enterprise, (April 20, 2023)
accessed May 17, 2023 https://www.pressenterprise.com/2023/04/20/sysco-building-a-massive-ev-
charging-hub-for-its-fleet-trucks-in-riverside/
886
-------
166 NREL Tapped To Help Electrify 4 Major Freight Corridors, (April 18, 2023), accessed May 12, 2023
https://www.nrel.gov/news/program/2023/nrel-tapped-to-help-electrify-4-major-freight-corridors.html
Despite both the public and private sector investments to build out HDEV charging capacity,
more support will be needed in the coming years to ensure the expected growth of HDEVs is
complemented with adequate charging infrastructure. Policies such as EPA's proposed GHG
emissions standards for heavy-duty vehicles provide the regulatory certainty needed to support
those investments by creating more clarity on expected HD EVSE demand. The lead time
provided by the standards' MY 2027-2032 time frame also aids in ensuring HDEV charging
infrastructure manufacturers and operators can make the investments necessary today to meet
anticipated charging needs of tomorrow. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 51]
EPA Summary and Response:
Summary:
Vehicle manufacturers and others raised concerns about the lack of charging infrastructure,
asserting that it is inadequate today and that the pace of deployment is not on track to meet levels
needed if the standards are finalized. Commenters cited a variety of recent studies that estimate
future heavy-duty infrastructure needs. For example, EMA cited a Ricardo study (submitted as
Exhibit 1 of EMA's comments), which found that by 2032 about 1.5 million EVSE ports would
be needed to support the approximately 1.5 million BEVs it estimates will be on the road if the
proposed standards are finalized (along with CARB's ACT program and its adoption by Section
177 states). EMA notes this is equivalent to over 15,000 new ports deployed each month over the
next 8 years, which it characterizes as infeasible. Multiple commenters (e.g., EMA, NADA)
cited a recent ICCT paper (Ragon et al. 2023), which found a mix of over 550,000 chargers
serving medium- and heavy-duty vehicles would be needed in 2030. EMA also highlighted
ICCT's modeling of long-haul BEV charging needs in 2030, noting that high-power public
charging stations would be needed on the National Highway Freight Network (National Highway
Freight Network) at 50-mile intervals and that the stations would need to have high charging
capacities that may necessitate some grid upgrades.
Some commenters highlighted what they claim are the high cost of future infrastructure needs
estimated in the literature, asserting that current funding streams for heavy-duty charging are far
short of what will be needed. For example, citing the same Ricardo study noted above, EMA
said, "The aggregate cost to construct the necessary number of MHD BEV charging ports under
EPA's NPRM will be approximately $21 billion. By way of comparison, the directly available
federal funding for the installation of MHD BEV charging ports is approximately $1 billion."
NADA referenced a 2022 EEI report that examined 2030 charging infrastructure needs (focused
on LD vehicles) and found that the amount of DCFC ports from planned investments will be
under half of those estimated as needed in the study. NADA further noted that the study failed to
account for charging demand associated with EPA's proposed rulemakings for light-, medium,
and heavy-duty vehicles, implying the actual gap between investments and needs would be even
higher. Navistar noted that in the NPRM, EPA cited an ATLAS study, which estimated that
between $100 and $166 billion in cumulative investments in charging infrastructure would be
needed by 2030 to support HD BEVs. Am Free et al. referenced the same study, to support its
conclusion that a public charging network of sufficient scope cannot be completed within the
timeframe of a Phase 3 rule.
887
-------
Multiple commenters (e.g., AmFree et al., ATA, CFDC et al., EMA, and NACS, NATSO,
and SIGMA) emphasized the different charging needs of heavy-duty vehicles relative to light-
duty vehicles, for example that HD vehicles may need higher power DCFC ports and that
charging sites must be designed to accommodate larger vehicles and be located to meet freight
needs. Several commenters noted that very few public charging stations that can accommodate
heavy-duty vehicles are available today. UAW made a similar point about private stations, citing
a recent DOE report that listed 166 private EVSE ports serving HD fleet vehicles. In its
comments, CFDC et al. described reliability as an additional barrier to infrastructure availability
citing a recent news article about work by J.D. Power on non-functioning public stations and
consumer dissatisfaction. A variety of commenters (e.g., AmFree et al., AVE, EMA, Navistar,
and UAW) asserted that either fleets will not buy, or customers will cancel orders for, BEVs if
infrastructure is not available.
Several commenters asserted the EPA overestimated the impact of BIL and IRA investments.
For example, while Navistar noted the importance of these laws to support infrastructure, it
stated that so far funding has had a light-duty focus. Other commenters had a similar concern,
noting the lack of requirement that any of the $7.5 billion in dedicated infrastructure funding in
BIL be used for heavy-duty charging, with AmFree et al. also noting that even if it were, the total
would still be insufficient. TRALA commented that FHWA had failed to provide specific
guidance to States to dedicate some of the funding received through the National Electric
Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) program to heavy-duty infrastructure. ATA wrote that it's not
aware of states using NEVI funds for heavy-duty charging though it did note that CA, OR, and
WA applied for a competitive grant to support heavy-duty charging buildout on 1-5. Appendix B
to the DTNA comments summarizes each State's infrastructure plan submitted to FHWA for
2022-2023, noting that few had specific commitments regarding using BIL funds for HD BEV
infrastructure, and that some failed to mention HD BEV infrastructure.
AVE cited an EDF study noting that small fleets may have a particular difficulty absorbing
the cost of charging infrastructure without support, and separately stated, "the IRA does not
provide fleet owners with any incentives to install charging stations." AmFree et al. said EPA
overstates the potential benefit of the IRA tax credit, given that it is capped at $100,000, far less
than the cost of a large-scale charging site intended to serve many vehicles. TRALA noted that
many of their customers may not be eligible for IRA tax credit due to census tract restrictions
and other requirements (see RTC Chapter 6.3.2).
In its comments, AmFree et al. stated that the private investments cited in the NPRM are
uncertain as it's unclear how many announced stations will actually be built. The commenter
also noted that private investment amounts are small compared to the amount needed.
DTNA expressed concern that infrastructure availability is largely out of the control of
manufacturers but will be critical to complying with proposed standards if finalized.
Manufacturers (DTNA, EMA, PACCAR, Navistar) along with NAD A, and UAW all requested
that EPA monitor infrastructure deployment after the final rulemaking and adjust the stringency
or timeline of the standards if it is not keeping pace with needs. EMA suggested that EPA
develop annual infrastructure benchmarks in collaboration with other agencies and stakeholders.
DTNA recommended that EPA directly incorporate a scalar reflecting installed infrastructure
compared to infrastructure needs in its estimates of CO2 stringency levels whereas Navistar
888
-------
suggested that EPA extend the compliance determination for 2027 standards if sufficient
infrastructure is not available.
Several commenters pointed to other regulations as positive examples of how EPA could
address infrastructure availability concerns. For example, MEMA noted that EU's "Alternative
Fuel Infrastructure Regulation" requires member states to deploy public heavy-duty charging
stations at designated intervals along a specified transit network. UAW pointed to provisions in
CARB's Advanced Clean Fleet program that allows compliance extensions for fleets if
infrastructure is delayed.
We also received comments from non-governmental organizations electrification groups,
electric vehicle manufacturers, States and utilities (e.g., CARB, CALSTART, Colorado
Department of Transportation et al., Con Edison, DTNA, EEI, Electrification Coalition, Energy
Innovation, the EDF, EPN, ICCT, MFN et al., State of California et al., Tesla, and ZETA)
highlighting the many public and private investments and plans in charging infrastructure that
have been announced or are underway. The Clean Air Task Force (CATF) et al. and Moving
Forward Network et al. said that almost $30 billion specifically for medium-and heavy-duty
charging infrastructure has been committed according to Atlas Public Policy, noting that actual
totals could be higher in light of recent announcements, and given that private depot charging
investments may not be fully captured. Some commenters (e.g., ICCT, and CALSTART as
shown in RTC Chapter 6.2) also flagged innovative charging solutions such as charging-as-a-
service and mobile charging that can help meet the needs of fleets that experience delays
installing EVSE or for which there are other barriers to depot charging.
Citing their own recent studies, CALSTART and ICCT noted that public charging needs will
be geographically concentrated in early years, allowing for a phased approach for public
infrastructure deployment starting with areas likely to have the most initial demand. The Clean
Air Task Force et al. also noted that infrastructure could phase in gradually over time, pointing to
estimates in EPA's NPRM analysis that ZEVs may represent only one percent of the entire on-
road HD fleet in 2027 and eight percent in 2032 if the proposal is finalized, and still less than 25
percent in 2040.
Some commenters noted that EPA finalizing stringent standards would provide certainty to
manufacturers, EVSE providers and others and spur further investments in charging
infrastructure. For example, the Clean Air Task Force et al. addressed the 'chicken-and-egg
conundrum' (i.e., that EVSE providers will not build out infrastructure without having assurance
of demand, but vehicle purchasers will not buy without initial assurance of adequate supporting
charging infrastructure) saying EPA should not wait on finalizing standards. CATF et al. cited
historical precedent in other areas (e.g., E85 stations to support flex-fuel vehicles) and economic
theory to support the point that sufficient charging infrastructure will be built to meet demand.
Several commenters—EDF and NACAA- explicitly recommended that EPA reject any "off-
ramps" to the stringency of the rule based on infrastructure availability.
Response:
EPA agrees that expanding charging infrastructure is important for enabling greater BEV
adoption. How much infrastructure will be needed in future years will depend on a number of
factors, including not just the number and distribution of BEVs on the road, but also vehicles'
duty cycles and daily energy needs, as well as the charging preferences and behaviors of owners.
889
-------
Indeed, the significant differences in estimates for how many EVSE ports will be needed to
support HD vehicles among the studies highlighted by commenters underscores this point. As
discussed in RIA Chapter 2.6 and RTC 6.3.1, we project that the majority of BEVs in the
modeled potential compliance pathway for the final rule will charge at depots. However, we have
updated our final rulemaking analysis to account for the public charging needs for certain vehicle
types, such as long-haul trucks, starting in MY 2030. We discuss infrastructure needs for depot
and public charging below.
As discussed in RIA Chapter 2.10.3, EPA estimates that about 520,000 EVSE ports will be
needed at depots to support MY2027-MY2032 depot-charged BEVs. This is similar to estimates
of depot or overnight charging needs from several studies highlighted by commenters. For
example, the ICCT study (Ragon et al. 2023)398 estimated that 522,000 EVSE ports could meet
overnight charging needs of Class 4 to 8 BEVs in 2030 (along with about 38,0000 ports for
opportunity charging)399 while the ATLAS study (McKenzie et al. 2021)400 estimated that
between 470,000 and 564,000 EVSE ports would be needed at depots in the same timeframe
(along with significant on-road charging infrastructure). A CRC study401 published after the
close of the comment period estimated that 432,000 EVSE ports would be needed at depots to
support medium- and heavy-duty BEVs in 2030, growing to just over 700,000 depot ports in
2032 (along with 46,000 and 92,000 public charging ports, respectively). It is important to note
that the scope of these studies, including the years covered and number and types of battery
electric vehicles, varies significantly. However, the assumed number of BEVs—one of the
biggest factors driving charging needs—for the estimates shown in these studies was generally at
least as high or higher402 than the number of BEVs underlying our estimates of the number of
EVSE ports needed at depots (see RIA Chapter 1.6 for more information on these studies.)
The Ricardo study (Kuhn et al. 2023)403 submitted with EMA's comment estimated that about
1.5 million depot ports would be needed through 2032, almost three times higher than EPA's
estimate. There are several reasons for this difference.404 The largest is that Kuhn et al. projected
significantly more depot-charged BEVs (about 1.5 million) by 2032 compared to the
approximately 630,000 depot-charged BEVs in EPA's FRM analysis. Part of this difference is
398 Ragon, Pierre-Louis et al. "Near-term Infrastructure Deployment to Support Zero-Emission Medium- and Heavy -
Duty Vehicles in the United States." May 2023. Available online: https://theicct.org/wp-
content/uploads/2023/05/infrastructure-deployment-mhdv-may23.pdf.
399 For this discussion, we present ICCT's estimates of overnight and opportunity chargers. However, ICCT notes
some opportunity charging may take place at depots while overnight charging for long-haul vehicles is expected at
public charging stations.
400 McKenzie, Lucy, James Di Filippo, Josh Rosenberg, and Nick Nigro. "U.S. Vehicle Electrification Infrastructure
Assessment: Medium- and Heavy-Duty Truck Charging." Atlas Public Policy. Available online:
https://atlaspolicy.eom/wp-content/uploads/2021/l 1/2021-11-
12_Atlas_US_Electrification_Infrastructure_Assessment_MD-HD-trucks.pdf.
401 Coordinating Research Council. "Assess the Battery-Recharging and Hydrogen-Refueling Infrastructure Needs,
Costs and Timelines Required to Support Regulatory Requirements for Light-, Medium-, and Heavy-Duty Zero-
Emission Vehicles." Prepared by ICF. September 2023. Available online: https://crcao.org/wp-
content/uploads/2023/09/CRC_Infrastructure_Assessment_Report_ICF_09282023_Final-Report.pdf.
402 The number of 2030 BEVs in the Atlas study was estimated from a graph on p. 13 of McKenzie et al. 2021.
403 Kuhn, Mark et. al. "Feasibility study of EPA NPRM Phase 3 GHG standards for Medium Heavy-Duty Vehicles,
Prepared for: Truck and Engine Manufacturers Associations." Ricardo. June 16, 2023. (Submitted with "Comments
of the Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association." June 16, 2023.)
404 We summarize a few key differences, but it is not intended to be a comprehensive list.
890
-------
that EPA's estimates are for BEVs sold in MY 2027 to MY 2032 only while the Ricardo study
also includes estimates for BEVs in 2022 to 2026, though BEVs in these earlier years are a small
share (under 10%) of the estimated 2032 on-road fleet. For 2027 and later, Kuhn et al. cites
EPA's estimated ZEV sales from the NPRM. However, as discussed in RIA Chapter 2.2.3, the
number of Class 2b-3 vehicles included in the NPRM version of HD TRUCS was much higher
than the number anticipated to be engine certified and within the scope of this rulemaking.
Chassis certified Class 2b-3 vehicles are included in the LMDV rulemaking. We project that
these Class 2b-3 vehicles have the greatest BEV adoption rates among vehicles within the scope
of this rulemaking and consequently contribute significantly to the total count of depot EVSE
ports in the NPRM. This has been updated for the FRM. Additionally, EPA made updates in the
final rule analysis that directly impacted EVSE needs. As discussed in RIA Chapter 2.6 and RTC
6.3.1, we have updated our analysis to model some long-range day cab tractors as relying on
public charging instead of depot charging starting in MY 2030, which reduces the overall
number of depot EVSE ports needed.405 We also adjusted other assumptions related to dwell
times and how many vehicles can share a port, for example, in response to comments and
updated information (see RIA Chapter 2.6). For these reasons, we do not think the estimates of
EVSE ports that will need to be deployed each year over the next 8 years cited by EMA based on
Ricardo's study are an appropriate reflection of the final rule.
As seen in comments, and discussed in RIA Chapter 1.6, estimates of future public charging
needs for HD BEVs also vary among studies. We did not directly estimate the number of public
EVSE ports that would be needed to support the BEVs that we project to use public charging in
our FRM analysis, but rather assumed (in agreement with some commenters, as noted in RTC
6.3.1) that hardware and installation costs for public charging infrastructure would typically be
passed onto BEV owners through the charging price. As such, we expect that public EVSE
stations will be built to meet demand, though we projected public charging in our FRM analysis
to begin with MY 2030 in order to allow several additional years for it to develop (see discussion
of lead time in RTC 7 (Distribution). We agree with commenters who said that finalizing strong
standards will itself spur investments in charging infrastructure to meet the coming demand—
both by fleet owners installing EVSE at depots and by OEMs, utilities, EVSE providers, and
others installing public charging stations. As noted in many of the public comments, such an
effect is well supported in the literature. See e.g., Comments of Clean Air Task Force at pp. 46-
47 and n. 189; and Comments of CARB (summarized in RTC Chapter 2.4).
We agree with ICCT and CALSTART that public charging infrastructure can be phased in
over time, starting with geographic areas that are likely to have the most BEV demand, and we
agree with ICCT that freight corridors are likely candidates within the standard's timeframe. As
EMA noted, ICCT's study (Ragon et al. 2023)406 projects that as much as 85% of the charging
needs for long-haul BEVs could be covered by building stations every 50 miles along the
National Highway Freight Network (NHFN) for a total of just 844 stations. In a supplemental
405 We also model sleeper cabs and coach buses as using public charging, but they were not modeled as using depot
charging in the NPRM and thus would not have contributed to the depot EVSE port count in the Ricardo study.
406 Ragon, Pierre-Louis et al. "Near-term Infrastructure Deployment to Support Zero-Emission Medium- and Heavy -
Duty Vehicles in the United States." May 2023. Available online: https://theicct.org/wp-
content/uploads/2023/05/infrastructure-deployment-mhdv-may23.pdf.
891
-------
analysis submitted to EPA407 that assumed 100-mile intervals between stations, ICCT estimated
that only between 100 and 210 electrified truck stops on priority corridors may be needed by
2030. See RTC 7 (Distribution) for a discussion on estimating increased demand on the grid in
certain high freight corridors.
While dedicated HD charging infrastructure may be limited today, we expect it to expand
significantly over the next decade. We appreciate the many comments we received highlighting
already announced plans and commitments for both depot and public infrastructure and we have
updated our summaries of public and private infrastructure investments in RIA Chapters 1.3 and
1.6, respectively. As commenters noted, Atlas Public Policy estimates that about $30 billion in
public and private investments has been committed specifically for charging infrastructure for
medium- and heavy-duty BEVs.408 The U.S. government is making large investments in
charging infrastructure through the BIL and the IRA. This includes extending and modifying a
tax credit (I.R.C. §30C) that could cover up to 30 percent of the costs for procuring and installing
charging infrastructure (subject to a $100,000 per item cap) in eligible census tracts, reducing
costs for both HD depot and HD public charging. We acknowledge the point made by TRALA
that not all fleets will be able to use or maximize the tax credit due to eligibility restrictions
including limitations to certain census tracts. However, a map developed by Argonne National
Laboratory shows that eligible census tracts cover a large majority of the U.S.409 In addition,
DOE conducted an analysis to assess the average value of this tax credit for charging equipment
that supports heavy-duty BEVs. It estimated that approximately 60 percent of depots and 90
percent of public EVSE may be located in qualifying census tracts.410 (See RIA Chapter
2.6.2.1.2 for a discussion of DOE's analysis and how we accounted for the tax credit in our
analysis of depot EVSE costs.)
In addition, there are billions of dollars in funding programs that could support HD charging
infrastructure either on its own or alongside the purchase of a HD BEV. As discussed in RIA
Chapter 1.3, this includes dedicated HD programs like the EPA-administered Clean School Bus
program, Clean Heavy-Duty Vehicle and Clean Ports programs, and DOT-administered Low or
No Emission Vehicle program. It also includes programs for which LD and HD charging are
eligible investments such as the NEVI and Charging and Fueling Infrastructure (CFI) programs
established under the BIL. In the first awards issued under CFI, there were at least five programs
that will explicitly support HD BEV charging, as indicated in Table l.411 It is possible that other
CFI projects along designated Alternative Fuel Corridors may also have stations that
accommodate larger vehicles.
407 ICCT. "Supplemental comments of the International Council on Clean Transportation on the EPA Phase 3 GHG
Proposal." January 3, 2023.
408 Lepre, Nicole. "Estimated $30 Billion Committed to Medium- and Heavy-Duty Charging Infrastructure in the
United States." Atlas Public Policy. EVHub. January 26, 2024. Available online:
https://www.atlasevhub.com/data_story/estimated-30-billion-committed-to-medium-and-heavy-duty-charging-
infrastructure-in-the-united-states/.
409 U.S. Department of Energy, Argonne National Laboratory, "30C Tax Credit Eligibility Locator." Available
online: https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/3f67d5e82dc64dl589714d5499196d4f/page/Page/.
410 U.S. Department of Energy. "Estimating Federal Tax Incentives for Heavy Duty Electric Vehicle Infrastructure
and for Acquiring Electric Vehicles Weighing Less Than 14,000 Pounds." March 11, 2024.
411 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. "Charging and Fueling Infrastructure
Program Grant Recipients: FY 2022 and 2023 Grant Award Recipients." Available online:
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/cfi/grant_recipients/.
892
-------
Table 6-1 CFI Grant Awards for EV Charging Corridors412
Lead Applicant State: Project Name
Amount
CA: City of Blvthc WattEV I-10 Truck Charging Terminal*
$19,635,156
CA: FY 2023 San Joaquin Valley 1-5 Electric Freight Corridor
(Valley EFC) Project*
$56,008,096
NM: New Mexico Clean Fuel Build-out Project for Medium -
and Heavy-duty Electric Corridors along Interstate 10
Unincorporated Hidalgo and Dona Ana Counties
$63,898,809
NY: Urban Area Strategies to Electrify Light - to Heavy - duty
Mobility in NYC - Corridor Component*
$15,000,000
WA: Catalyzing Zero-Emission Drayage Trucking
Infrastructure & Opportunities in the Seattle-Tacoma Region
$12,000,000
* Programs that indicate support for both LD and HD BEVs
Although we agree with commenters that states are not required to use NEVI funds for
deploying HD charging stations, as they note, FHWA's guidance encourages states to consider
station designs and power levels that could support heavy-duty vehicles.413 In particular, the
guidance states that, "Station designs should consider the potential for future expansions needed
to support the electrification and charging demands of medium- and heavy-duty trucks, including
station size and power levels."414 We also note that there are multiple rounds of NEVI formula
funding. The summary Daimler submitted in Appendix B of its comments, which it characterizes
as showing a lack of firm State commitments for HD charging in NEVI plans, only covered
FY2022 and 2023 funds. This represents about $1.5 billion of the total $5 billion to be
distributed.415 DOE has funded HD charging infrastructure plans that can help guide phased
investment.416 Significant utility investments of up to $1.7 billion in HD charging infrastructure
412 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. "Federal Highway Administrations'
Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Discretionary Grants Program: FY 2022- FY 2023 Grant Selections." Available
online:
https://highways.dot.gov/sites/fhwa.dot.gov/files/CFI%20Grant%20Awards%20Project%20Descriptions%20FY22-
23.pdf.
413 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. "Memorandum: National Electric Vehicle
Infrastructure (NEVI) Formula Program Guidance (Update)." June 2, 2023. Available online:
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/alternative_fuel_corridors/nominations/90d_nevi_formula_program_guidan
ce.pdf.
414 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. "Memorandum: National Electric Vehicle
Infrastructure (NEVI) Formula Program Guidance (Update)." June 2, 2023. Available online:
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/alternative_fuel_corridors/nominations/90d_nevi_formula_program_guidan
ce.pdf.
415 U.S. Department of Transportation. "Historic Step: All Fifty States Plus D.C. and Puerto Rico Greenlit to Move
EV Charging Networks Forward, Covering 75,000 miles of Highway." September 27, 2022. Available online:
https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/historic-step-all-fifty-states-plus-dc-and-puerto-rico-greenlit-move-
ev-charging.
416 U.S. DOE. "Biden-Harris Administration Announces Funding for Zero-Emission Medium- and Heavy-Duty
Vehicle Corridors, Expansion of EV Charging in Underserved Communities." February 15, 2023. Available online:
https://www.energy.gov/articles/biden-harris-administration-announces-funding-zero-emission-medium-and-heavy-
duty-vehicle.
893
-------
have been approved by state regulators.417 Additionally in March 2024, the Joint Office of
Energy and Transportation released the National Zero-Emission Freight Corridor Strategy which
aims to target public investment to amplify private sector funding and focus utility and
regulatory energy planning and align industry activity in order to prioritize deployment over four
phases encompassing infrastructure deployment 2024-2040.418
We agree with commenters who state that public charging needs for HD vehicles are different
than those for light- and medium-duty vehicles in certain respects. RIA Chapter 1.6.3.2 describes
some of the reasons that heavy-duty charging stations may differ from light-duty charging
stations; for example: stations that serve heavy-duty vehicles may require more ingress and
egress, higher canopies or roofs, and longer charging cords. That said, we also note that some
stations designed for light-duty vehicles may be able to accommodate (or be modified in the
future to accommodate) medium-duty or heavy-duty vehicles. See RIA Chapter 2.6 for a
description of our FRM analysis of charging infrastructure, including the EVSE power levels we
considered.
We agree with commenters that it's important for charging stations to be reliable. Our HD
TRUCS analysis considers EVSE maintenance costs at both depots and public stations (see RIA
Chapter 2.4.4.2). Separately, as described in RIA Chapter 1.3, there are many efforts underway
to advance infrastructure reliability in advance of the timeframe of this rule. In January 2024, the
first round of grants under FHWA's Electric Vehicle Charger Reliability and Accessibility
Accelerator Program were awarded, providing nearly $150 million for repairs or replacements of
non-operational BEV charging ports.419 This will complement efforts of the National Charging
Experience Consortium (ChargeX Consortium). Launched in May 2023 by the Joint Office of
Energy and Transportation (JOET) and led by U.S. DOE labs, the ChargeX Consortium will
develop solutions and identify best practices for common problems related to the consumer
experience, e.g., payment processing and user interface, vehicle-charger communication, and
diagnostic data sharing.420 Relatedly, in January 2024, JOET announced $46.5 million in federal
funding to support 30 projects to increase charging access, reliability, resiliency, and workforce
development.421
In their comments, manufacturers suggested that EPA establish mechanisms to reduce the
stringency of the CO2 standards if the infrastructure deployment falls short of the amount
necessary to support the rule while other stakeholders opposed this suggestion. After carefully
417 Lepre, Nicole. "Estimated $30 Billion Committed to Medium- and Heavy-Duty Charging Infrastructure in the
United States." Atlas Public Policy. EVHub. January 26, 2024. Available online:
https://www.atlasevhub.com/data_story/estimated-30-billion-committed-to-medium-and-heavy-duty-charging-
infrastructure-in-the-united-states/.
418 U.S. Joint Office of Energy and Transportation. "Biden-Harris Administration, Joint Office of Energy and
Transportation Release Strategy to Accelerate Zero-Emission Freight Infrastructure Deployment." March 12, 2024.
Available online: https://driveelectric.gov/news/decarbonize-freight.
419 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. "Electric Vehicle Charger Reliability and
Accessibility Accelerator." Available online: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/nevi/evc_raa/.
420 Joint Office of Energy and Transportation. "Joint Office Announces National Charging Experience Consortium."
May 18, 2023. Available online: https://driveelectric.gov/news/chargex-consortium.
421 U.S. Department of Energy. "Biden-Harris Administration Announces Over $46 Million to Enhance EV
Charging Reliability and Workforce Development." January 19, 2024. Available online:
https://www.energy.gov/articles/biden-harris-administration-announces-over-46-million-enhance-ev-charging-
reliability-and.
894
-------
assessing infrastructure needed for the modeled potential compliance pathway, we conclude that
the Phase 3 standards are feasible and appropriate. As described in Preamble II.B.2, EPA
commits to actively engaging with stakeholders and monitoring heavy-duty BEV infrastructure
deployment. In consultation with other agencies, EPA will issue periodic reports on
infrastructure buildout throughout the lead up to the Phase 3 standards in MYs 2027 through
2032. Based on these reports, as appropriate and consistent with CAA section 202(a) authority,
EPA may decide to issue guidance documents, initiate a rulemaking to consider modifications to
the Phase 3 rule, or make no changes to the Phase 3 rule program.
6.2 Charging Infrastructure Lead Time and Deployment
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Advanced Energy United
To fully unlock these investments, the U.S. will need to undertake permitting reform, to
streamline transmission projects and free up interconnection queues. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1652-A2, p. 5]
Digital permitting processes could also alleviate bottlenecks in EVSE infrastructure. The
Department of Energy's SolarApp+ is a model program that has saved customers and contractor
valuable time and money on solar installations by standardizing and streamlining permitting
processes in localities across the U.S. Policymakers across the country should consider a similar
approach to slash soft costs for the permitting of EV charging infrastructure. Investment alone
cannot satisfy new demand. We must enable streamlined permitting processes if we are to meet
the Biden Administration's goal of building 500,000 new charging stations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1652-A2, p. 6]
Organization: American Highway Users Alliance
With the two large-scale rules being advanced at the same time, the feasibility of the
proposals is more challenging. It is not as if manufacturing charging stations for heavy-duty,
light-duty, and medium-duty vehicles is unrelated. At least some supplies and components are
relevant to all; some manufacturers will try to manufacture for heavy-duty, light-duty and
medium-duty needs; the critical minerals and related processing are needed for all. But suppliers
and electric utilities can only gear up so quickly. This confluence of proposed regulations
(further combined with separate and significant regulatory actions by the California Air
Resources Board) compounds the challenges for relevant industries to comply. It makes it harder
to make favorable assumptions on how quickly changes can be made to facilitate marketplace
acceptance of heavy-duty EVs.4 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1550-A1, p. 3]
4 Given such complexity, we support the request of the American Petroleum Institute and the American
Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers for a 90-day extension of the comment deadline in this docket.
Set forth below are concerns of key stakeholders. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1550-A1, p. 5]
Concerns of An Original Equipment Manufacturer
895
-------
The Volvo Group North America presented at EPA's May 3 hearing on the proposed rule and
that May 3 statement is in the docket for this NPRM. Volvo made clear that, with respect to the
proposed rule, Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) —
• cannot do their part without assurance that charging station providers and utilities as well
as federal, state and local governments can deploy electric and hydrogen fueling
infrastructure at scale in a timeline that matches the regulation's requirements. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1550-A1, p. 5]
The statement explains that —
• Our customers will not purchase zero emission trucks unless both the vehicles and the
fuels are cost-effective and readily available so as not to negatively impact their business
operations (emphasis in original). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1550-A1, p. 5]
Noting that EPA had referenced Volvo in the NPRM for having strong goals for manufacture
of heavy-duty EVs, Volvo nonetheless found that it could not support the rule as proposed,
stating that it —
• look[ed] forward to working with EPA to develop a final rule that it could support which
addresses the interdependence of vehicle and infrastructure availability, and alleviates the
sole risk of noncompliance being borne by manufacturers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1550-A1, p. 5]
Testimony presented to the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on May 10,
2023 by the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) strongly made very
similar points:
• In April, the agency [EPA] released its Phase 3 greenhouse gas (GHG) proposal. ... With
these moves, our members are again facing higher projected costs for new vehicles and
insufficient lead-up time to properly implement manufacturing standards. The Phase 3
rule is also a blatant attempt to force consumers into purchasing electric vehicles while a
national charging infrastructure network remains absent for heavy-duty commercial
trucks. Professional drivers are skeptical of EV costs, mileage range, battery weight and
safety, charging time, and availability. It's baffling that the EPA is pushing forward with
more impractical emissions timelines without first addressing these overwhelming
concerns with electric CMVs.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1550-Al,[ p. 7]
Organization: American Petroleum Institute (API)
ii. Infrastructure
1. Leadtime and deployment
API, and many other stakeholders, are concerned about the lack of infrastructure for the HD
ZEV market. Even coupled with significant tax credits and incentives, fleet operators and vehicle
owners will not purchase new HD ZEVs without a reliable charging infrastructure. For the small
number of HD ZEVs that are currently availablel5, it appears most are utilizing depot charging
and the vehicles are largely being used for shorter trips. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1617-A1,
p. 11]
896
-------
15 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/news/california-approves-groundbreaking-regulation-accelerates-deployment-
heavy-duty-zevs-protect#:~:text=There%20are%20already%20about%20150%20existing%20medium-
%20and,that%20are%20commercially%20available%20in%20the%20U.S.%20today
EPA notes in the proposal various partnerships and plans to build battery manufacturing
plants in the U.S., taking advantage of incentives such as the IRA, one must view these as highly
complex projects - in addition to siting and construction, it will take time for these new battery
manufacturing facilities to ramp up to full production. Further, there is the probability that not all
announced projects will materialize. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1617-A1, p. 11]
Organization: American Trucking Associations (ATA)
Lead times are long
Onsite power availability limits the number of BEVs a site can charge. Regardless of location,
all fleets surveyed had similar feedback regarding conversations with utilities. Usually, these
conversations can begin years before an order is placed for a BEV. Among surveyed fleets, 40
percent indicated a lead time of 12 to 14 months, and 30 percent received quotes of over 36
months for additional electricity. As a fleet looks to acquire one electric vehicle, they begin to
assess the available power capacity available from the utility and on their physical site. Site-level
analysis, land use configuration, and long-term power usage planning and facility modifications
are all outside the typical competencies of most fleets, require learning by doing, and invariably
increase the amount of time it takes to adopt ZEV technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1535-A1, p. 15] [See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1535-A1, p. 15, for Figure 3]
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
The NPRM provides several excellent examples of times the nation has adapted to new
electrical load including the adoption of AJC and the rapid growth of data centers. The
implementation of fleet charging infrastructure is much the same and, it should be noted, not
expected to happen overnight. The phase in schedule proposed by U.S. EPA provides ample time
for fleets and utilities to plan for and implement charging solutions that meet truck electrification
needs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1591-A1, p.45]
The NPRM requests comment on time considerations for all levels of HD charging
infrastructure, including Level 2 up to 350-kilowatt direct current fast charger (DCFC) systems.
NPRM states that 2027 provides adequate timing to establish initial levels of depot charging with
the expectation that charging capacity will grow over the remainder of the decade. With current
CEC MD/HD infrastructure projects, staff are seeing projects take about two to three years from
inception to operations. Equipment shipping delays have made up a significant portion of the
delays. Those can be expected to improve over time, and, in any event, even with permitting
process requirements in California, there is sufficient time to meet U.S. EPA's 2027 and beyond
timeframe. With planning, the lead times identified here should be sufficient to support the
stringency of the proposed standard and more stringent alternative i.e., values that would reflect
the level of ZEV adoption in CARB's ACT regulation. A number of truck OEMs and private
companies are already working to provide both depot charging solutions as well as corridor
infrastructure solutions. Daimler is leading the Greenlane $650 million investment in West
Coast, Southeast Coast and Texas corridors. 149 Volvo has a truck-stop agreementl50 and is also
working on a dealership-based California corridor. 151 Hyundai is working to establish a San
897
-------
Pedro ports to Texas southwest hydrogen corridor. 152 TerraWatt is working on a similar fast
charging network along I-10 from California to Texas. 153 Nikola has an agreement with Voltera
to build 50 hydrogen stations. 154 Voltera, 155 Zeem,156 Electrify America, 157 Forum
Mobility,158 WattEV,159 and TerraWattl60 among others are developing depot charging
projects. Private companies dependent on transportation services have announced both
electrification plans as well as vehicle and infrastructure projects moving them toward those
goals. USPS has announced 66,000 BEV delivery vehicles by 2028 with all electric purchases
from 2026 and an initial order of 14,000 chargers. 161,162 Walmart has announced its own
network of DCFCs aimed at lighter vehicles, 163 an order of 4,500 delivery vehiclesl64 and a
fleetwide 100 percent electrification. 165 Amazon has ordered 100,000 BEV delivery vehiclesl66
with "thousands" of chargers already installed 167 including reports of sizable charging depot
installations. 168,169 Amazon is backing class 8 drayage truck charging depotsl70,171 and has
ordered 329 BEV terminal tractors. 172 FedEx has committed to ZE delivery vehicles reaching
50 percent by 2025 and 100 percent by 2030 with a 100 percent ZE full delivery fleet by
2040.173,174 UPS has a 10,000 BEV delivery vehicle orderl75 and has participated in
showcasing innovative charging technologies. DHL Supply Chain has cancelled further orders of
diesel terminal tractors, ordered 50 BEV terminal tractors toward a 100 percent ZE fleet by 2025
and ordered BEV semi tractors on their way to a 30 percent ZE on-road fleet by 2030.176 [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1591-A1, pp.45-48]
149 Introducing Greenlane: Daimler Truck North America, NextEra Energy Resources and BlackRock
Forge Ahead with Public Charging Infrastructure Joint Venture, April 28, 2023.
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/introducing-greenlane-daimler-truck-north-americanextera-
energy-resources-and-blackrock-forge-ahead-with-public-charging-infrastructure-joint-venture-
301811101.html
150 Pilot Company and Volvo Group Partner to Build Charging Network for Medium- and Heavy-Duty
Electric Trucks, November 15, 2022. https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/pilot-company-and-
volvo-group-partner-to-build-chargingnetwork-for-medium~and-heavy-duty-electric-trucks-
301678542.html
151 Volvo Trucks Constructing California Electrified Charging Corridor for Medium- and Heavy-Duty
Electric Vehicles, July 14, 2022. https://www.volvotrucks.us/news-and-stories/press-
releases/2022/july/constructing-california-electrifiedcharging-corridor-for-medium-and-heavy-duty-
electric-vehicles/
152 Transport Topics: New Mexico to be Part of 'Clean Freight Corridor', September 26, 2022.
https://www.ttnews.com/articles/new-mexico-be-part-clean-freight-corridor
153 Business Wire: TeraWatt Developing 1-10 Electric Corridor, the First Network of Electric Heavy-Duty
Charging Centers, October 20, 2022.
https://www.businesswire.eom/news/home/20221020005252/en/TeraWatt-Developing-I-10-Electric-
Corridor-the-First-Network-of-Electric-Heavy-Duty-Charging-Centers
154 Nikola Partners With Voltera To Build Up To 50 Stations For Hydrogen Trucks, May 2, 2023.
https://www.forbes.eom/sites/alanohnsman/2023/05/02/nikola-partners-with-voltera-to-build-up-to-50-
stations-for-hydrogen-trucks/?sh=6ce0eea8fb0d
155 EV Truck Charging Station Garden City https://www.savannahnow.eom/story/news/2023/05/29/ev-
truck-charging-station-gardencity/70254024007/
156 Zeem Solutions Launches First Electric Vehicle Transportation-As-A-Service Depot, March 30, 2022.
https://zeemsolutions.com/zeem-solutions-launches-first-electric-vehicle-transportation-as-a-servicedepot/
898
-------
157 Electrify America: Business Solutions, last accessed June 13, 2023.
https://www.electrifyamerica.com/business-solutions/
158 East Bay Community Energy and Forum Mobility Announce Innovative Financing for First of Its Kind
Electric Truck Charging Depot in Livermore, June 13, 2023. https://www.prnewswire.com/news-
releases/east-bay-community-energy-and-forum-mobility-announceinnovative-financing-for-first-of-its-
kind-electric-truck-charging-depot-in-livermore-301849030.html
159 WattEV Breaks Ground on 21st Century Truck Stop, December 16, 2021.
https://www.wattev.com/post/wattev-breaks-ground-on-21st-century-truck-stop
160 Terawatt Infrastructure, Ideas: TeraWatt Raises Over $1 Billion to Scale Commercial EV Charging
Centers Across America, September 13, 2022. https://terawattinfrastructure.com/ideas/terawatt-raises-over-
l-billion/161 USPS Intends To Deploy Over 66,000 Electric Vehicles by 2028, Making One of the Largest
Electric Vehicle Fleets in the Nation, December 20, 2022. https://www.prnewswire.com/news-
releases/usps-intends-to-deploy-over-66-000-electric-vehicles-by-2028~making-one-of-the-largest-
electric-vehicle-fleets-in-the-nation-301707407.html
162 USPS Moves Forward with Awards to Modernize and Electrify the Nation's Largest Federal Fleet -
Newsroom - About.usps.com, February 28, 2023. https://about.usps.com/newsroom/national-
releases/2023/0228-usps-moves-forward-with-awards-tomodernize-and-electrify-nations-largest-federal-
fleet, htm
163 Leading the Charge: Walmart Announces Plan To Expand Electric Vehicle Charging Network, April 6,
2023. https://corporate.walmart.com/newsroom/2023/04/06/leading-the-charge-walmart-announces-plan-
toexpand-electric-vehicle-charging-network
164 Walmart To Purchase 4,500 Canoo Electric Delivery Vehicles To Be Used for Last Mile Deliveries in
Support of Its Growing eCommerce Business, July 12, 2022.
https://corporate.walmart.eom/newsroom/2022/07/12/walmart-to-purchase-4-500-canoo-electricdelivery-
vehicles-to-be-used-for-last-mile-deliveries-in-support-of-its-growing-ecommerce-business
165 Greenbiz: Walmart drives toward zero-emission goal for its entire fleet by 2040, September 23, 2020.
https://www.greenbiz.com/article/walmart-drives-toward-zero-emission-goal-its-entire-fleet-2040
166 The Verge: Amazon says it has 'over a thousand' Rivian electric vans making deliveries in the US,
November 7, 2022. https://www.theverge.eom/2022/l 1/7/23443995/amazon-rivian-electric-delivery-van-
fleet-ev
167 Amazons-Custom-Electric-Delivery-Vehicles-from-Rivian-Start-Rolling-Out-Across-the-U.S, July 21,
2022. https://press.aboutamazon.eom/2022/7/amazons-custom-electric-delivery-vehicles-from-rivian-
startrolling-out-across-the-u-s
168 Journal Times: Amazon prepares to go electric in a big way with delivery vans at Racine County hub,
June 28, 2022. https://journaltimes.com/news/local/amazon-prepares-to-go-electric-in-a-big-way-
withdelivery-vans-at-racine-county/article_a89d3c0e-f342-l Iec-823f-0f3f5e4a7dea.html
169 Dallas News: Amazon begins installing charging stations in North Texas for electric delivery fleet,
May 10, 2022. https://www.dallasnews.com/business/energy/2022/05/10/amazon-begins-installing-
charging-stationsin-north-texas-for-electric-delivery-fleet/
170 AJOT: Backed by Amazon & CBRE, Forum Mobility is building harbor truck charging stations in
California, April 4, 2023. https://www.ajot.com/insights/full/ai-backed-by-amazon-cbre-forum-mobility-is-
building-harbor-truckcharging-stations-in-california
171 AJOT: Backed by Amazon & CBRE, Forum Mobility is building harbor truck charging stations in
California, April 4, 2023. https://www.ajot.com/insights/full/ai-backed-by-amazon-cbre-forum-mobility-is-
building-harbor-truckcharging-stations-in-california
899
-------
172 GAUSSIN Group receives an order from AMAZON for 329 electric yard tractors, December 14, 2022.
https://www.gaussin.com/news/gaussin-group-receives-an-order-from-amazon-for-329-electric-
yardtractors
173 UPS: Electrifying our future, May 23, 2022. https://about.ups.com/us/en/social-
impact/environment/sustainable-services/electric-vehicles—aboutups.html
174 The Buzz EV News: BrightDrop produces 150 electric delivery vans for FedEx Fleet, August 10, 2022.
https://www.thebuzzevnews.com/brightdrop-electric-vans-fedex/
175 UPS: UPS and DP World delivering world firsts, October 4, 2021. https://about.ups.com/us/en/our-
stories/innovation-driven/delivering-world-firsts.html
176 DHL Supply Chain Advances Sustainability Efforts With 50 Electric Yard Trucks, May 1,
2023. https://www.dhl.com/us-en/home/press/press-archive/2023/dhl-supply-chain-advances-
sustainabilityefforts-with-50-electric-
yardtrucks.html#:~:text=The%20company%20is%20also%201ooking,of%20its%20fleet%20by%202030
Organization: CALSTART
There are several other important considerations in this rapidly evolving infrastructure build
out that we believe is imperative that EPA consider. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1656-A1, p. 22]
Transitional and mobile infrastructure: EPA assumes that depot charging implementation will
be limited based on capacity expansion delays from utilities. While utility distribution capacity is
a limiting factor in today's early market, it is showing signs of improvement as utilities gain
experience and develop installation templates and frameworks. In the near term, the market has
created innovative solutions to these constraints in the form of mobile, temporary, and
transitional infrastructure options. CALSTART has recently assembled an inventory of
transitional infrastructure solutions which could assist in the deployment of vehicles. Some
vehicle manufacturers are coupling this mobile infrastructure with sales of new ZE-MHDVs to
bridge the gap between when vehicles are available for delivery and when energy supply system
upgrades can be performed, enabling vehicle deployment before permanent infrastructure is fully
deployed. Temporary and mobile charging solutions can usually be installed and inspected in
less than one month, currently cost under $200,000, and generally can be leased rather than
owned. The option saves fleet permitting and installation costs in the short term and enables
vehicle deployments to stay on pace. FreeWire, Dannar, Eaton, BP Pulse, Proterra, Veloce
Energy, Beam, GM, Lightning, XOS, and Voltera all manufacture systems. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1656-A1, pp. 22 - 23]
Infrastructure services: Additional strategies not being considered in EPA's scenarios are
Trucks-(or Transport)-as-a-Service (TaaS), Charging-as-a-Service (CaaS), and smart charging
and load management systems which can manage charging timing, sequencing, and facility
loads. At the depot level, several efforts are also underway to aggregate demand among multiple
fleets at a co-located site, or to coordinate one fleet across multiple locations. CaaS strategies are
expanding around freight facility clusters. Vendors have adopted reservation systems or per-
charge solutions which can be built out to supply a co-located set of fleets and, in many ways,
can be integrated into new facility design and construction, especially in the logistics and
warehousing space, shortening timelines and giving predictable coordination to utilities.44 In our
analysis, we find that even conservative estimates of the total amount of shared charging
arrangement in key areas can reduce the overall cost of total deployment compared to a
900
-------
maximum deployment scenario. Multiple companies offer these solutions, including but not
limited to BP Pulse, Forum Mobility, TeraWatt, WattEV, and Zeem Solutions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1656-A1, p. 23]
44 https://globaldrivetozero.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Taking-Commercial-Fleet-Electrification-
to-Scale-White-Paper.pdf
Organization: Daimler Truck North America LLC (DTNA)
• Streamlined Authorization Process for EVSE Installation. DTNA recommends that EPA
work with stakeholders to develop model building codes that can be adopted by state and
local governments to streamline authorizations for EVSE installation projects. Model
codes should address zoning reviews, standardize permit review and inspection
processes, run these processes in parallel, and make the processes transparent for fleets.
EPA should consider encouraging state and local governments to adopt these model
codes as a critical enabler for the rapid build-out of EVSE infrastructure that will be
needed to support implementation of the Proposed Rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1555-A1, p. 15]
• Educational and Training Programs for Municipal Governments. DTNA recommends
that EPA and DOE jointly develop educational and training programs for state and
municipal governments to prepare reviewers and inspectors who are unfamiliar with the
processes for EVSE project development (including direct current fast charging (DCFC)
projects), to ensure that state and local governments are adequately prepared to handle
project reviews and authorizations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 15]
Timing for Infrastructure Development
EPA implies that in the next five years, electric infrastructure will be sufficiently built out to
support the BEVs required by the Proposed Rule, and that buildout will continue to support
substantially higher fleet adoption rates by 2032. Without major regulatory and/or legislative
action, DTNA does not believe the infrastructure needed will materialize on the timeline required
to enable compliance with the Phase 3 C02 standards as proposed. New interconnection requests
are processed on a first-come-first-serve basis, and transportation electrification competes with
all other utility priorities, including decarbonization mandates, resiliency, and other residential
and commercial interconnection requests. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 50]
Utilities are noting extended timelines for installing critical hardware, both in front of and
behind the meter, due to supply chain and other constraints. During the ACF rulemaking process,
for example, one electric utility commented to CARB that the lead time for transformers was 40
weeks, and that the lead time customer side meter panels/switchgears was 70 weeks. 118 In the
Company's experience, utilities will wait for this hardware to be received to perform other
upgrades, and these types of sequential gating events can add significant time to transportation
electrification projects. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 50]
118 See Comments of Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Proposed Advanced Clean Fleets Regulation
(Oct. 17, 2022), https://www.arb.ca.gov/lists/com-attacli/370-acf2022-AXEFZFUxUFxRYlBl.pdf.
In a recent joint presentation by Southern California Edison (SCE), Pacific Gas & Electric
(PG&E), and San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) at a California Energy Commission (CEC)
workshop, the following table was presented reflecting the utilities' estimations of typical
901
-------
timelines for distribution capacity improvements: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p.
50] [Refer to Table 17 on p. 50 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1]
As the scope of the necessary distribution capacity improvements is often unknown until
detailed site planning is underway, predicting how long fleets will wait for
interconnection requests is challenging. DTNA believes many depot electrification projects may
require increases in substation capacity, sub-transmission improvements, or new substations to
serve the concentrated power demands. One of DTNA's customers cancelled a BEV deployment
because their utility returned a 5-8 year lead time for a new substation. Another fleet's initial
ZEV deployment at scale required construction of a 6 MW facility, able to charge 32 Class 8
drayage tractors simultaneously. 120 Providing these capacities to many sites clustered together,
as will be required to support concentrated freight hubs and logistics centers, is likely to require
substantial grid upgrades. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, pp. 50-51]
120 See 'Schneider's Electric Heavy-Duty Trucks Start Off on Regional Routes' (June 8, 2023)
https://www.truckinginfo.com/10200304/new-electric-heavy-duty-trucks-start-off-on-regional-routes.
Because of California's climate policies, including Executive Order N-79-20 requiring all
new passenger car and truck sales to be zero emission by 2035, and CARB's ACT and ACF
regulations, a number of transportation electrification planning procedures and make-ready
programs have already been implemented or have begun to develop in California. Thus, it is
important to keep in mind that electric utilities in other states may generally be less prepared to
respond to transportation electrification requests. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 51]
In the Company's experience, fleets typically purchase their vehicles 6-12 months ahead of
need, and often utilities require proof of purchase to show the fleet is committed to move
forward with infrastructure development. DTNA has experienced fleet customers cancelling
BEV orders when utilities respond to interconnection requests with multi-year lead times. Many
of these cancellations include the return of incentive program funds, such as HVIP or Clean
School Bus Program vouchers. Purchasers who apply for and are granted HVIP funds for
example, must redeem the voucher within 90 days, or apply for three-month extensions up to 540
total days. 121 It is not uncommon for infrastructure projects to exceed the 540 day timeline,
which would require the fleet to take delivery of BEVs with no charging infrastructure, resulting
in a stranded capital investment and no air quality improvements. One of DTNA's customers
cancelled an order and returned HVIP funding for 20 Class 8 tractors when their utility estimated
their site would take 3 years (1,095 days) to energize. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1,
p. 51]
121 See Implementation Manual for the Hybrid and Zero-Emission Truck and Bus Voucher Incentive
Project (HVIP) (March 15, 2022) at 20, https://californiahvip.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/HVIP-
FY 21 -22-Implementation-Manual-03.15.22.pdf.
Furthermore, it is unlikely that fleets will make major investments in long-term infrastructure
that require commitments longer than the vehicle trade cycle. For example, if a fleet plans for a
4-year vehicle product cycle, but the infrastructure lead time is 4 years for an increase in
substation capacity, by the time the infrastructure is available, the fleet will be working with the
next generation of vehicles, which may or may not have the same power needs. Similarly, where
utilities have made capital investments in infrastructure, fleets may be required to commit to a
certain utilization rates for 5 to 10 years. Fleets working with shorter trade cycles, contracted
routes, or leased properties are likely to see operational changes well before they are released
902
-------
from their utilization obligations. Committing to minimum utilization rates may be a major
financial risk for fleets, which is unaccounted for in the cost estimates in the Proposed Rule.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 51]
Fleets have also cited the lack of firm interconnection dates as a major deterrent to
committing to long-term infrastructure projects. DTNA appreciates that infrastructure buildout
projects are difficult to project, and may encounter unanticipated delays, but fleets are unable to
make fleet transition plans, place orders for electric vehicles, or apply for funding without firm
interconnection timelines. Some of DTNA's fleet customers committed to ZEV deployment have
sought temporary power solutions to address these timeline issues. However, temporary power
solutions incur additional costs and generally must be paid up front by the fleet. For instance,
SDG&E Rule 13 ('Temporary Service') provides that an applicant for temporary service 'shall
pay, in advance or otherwise as required by the utility, the estimated cost installed plus the
estimated cost of removal, less the estimated salvage of the facilities necessary for furnishing
service.' 122 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, pp. 51-52]
122 See SDG&E Rule 13, https://www.sdge.com/sites/default/files/elec_elec-rules_erulel3.pdf.
In addition to electrical interconnection complexities, fleets must navigate their local building
codes and permitting processes. As noted by the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use
Management (NESCAUM) in a 2019 paper on DCFC deployment, 'the permitting process for
DCFC stations is sometimes lengthy and fraught with delays due to unfamiliarity with the
technology, protracted zoning reviews, and undefined requirements for permitting DCFC. As a
result, the DCFC permitting process can be resource-intensive for both applicants and
[authorities having jurisdiction (AHJs)].' 123 Since the NESCAUM paper was published,
DTNA's eConsulting team has encountered many AHJs that lack defined processes for DCFC
installation projects and the expertise needed to move projects along quickly. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 52]
123 NESCAUM, 'Preparing Our Communities for Electric Vehicles: Facilitating Deployment of DC Fast
Chargers' (May 2019), https://www.nescaum.org/documents/dcfc-permit-streamlining-whitepaper-final-5-
14-19.pdf.
Fleets may encounter additional complications related to EVSE installation that impact BEV
technology adoption rates. For example, when converting vehicles to BEVs, the infrastructure
needed for charging equipment takes up physical space that could otherwise be occupied by
additional trucks. Figure 4 below illustrates the components needed for combined charging
systems (CCS). Megawatt Charging Systems (MCS) require additional space for installation as
well. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 52] [Refer to Figure 4 on p. 53 of docket number
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1]
Figure 5 below shows an overhead view of one such fleet operation in Southern California
where physical space will limit the number of BEVs that can be deployed. This site will require
additional power poles, new transformers, and new switchgears to support only a fraction of the
fleet. To convert additional tractors to BEVs, fleets working with constrained spaces like the site
shown below will likely be required to purchase additional real estate. Recently, Denver's
Regional Transportation District (RTD) announced the cancellation of an $18 million deal for
new electric buses, citing space constraints for charging and EVSE equipment. 124 RTD officials
estimated they would need an additional $85 million to construct a new building to support this
deployment. Space constraint issues of this type—and the associated costs—are not accounted
903
-------
for in EPA's cost estimates for the Proposed Rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p.
53] [Refer to Figure 5 on p. 53 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1]
124 See Denver Post, 'RTD cancels purchase of 17 electric buses it doesn't have space to maintain—and
orders fleet transition strategy' (April 26, 2023), https://www.denverpost.com/2023/04/26/regional-
transportation-district-battery-electric-buses-contract/.
DTNA's fleet customers have faced a number of similar challenges, which have resulted in
order cancellations or reductions, revealing the following issues :
• Fleet customers have been quoted 1.5-8 years for depot site electrification for
deployments that are modest compared to the scale of those discussed in the Proposed
Rule.
• Depot installation projects are complex and resource intensive for fleets, utilities, and
AHJs. DTNA often observes differing views of roles and responsibilities in transportation
electrification projects and a lack of expertise in this developing space.
• Infrastructure lead time is not synchronized with funding program lead time, leading
fleets to return vouchers they spent resources securing, highlighting that available
funding and the calculated TCO is only part of the adoption equation.
• Utilities and fleets sometimes cannot come to agreement on contractual terms, including
load restrictions, managed charging, and guaranteed utilization time periods. It is unlikely
these issues will be resolved without significant regulatory or legislative changes.
• State and municipal building codes and processes lack transparency and add significant
time to depot electrification projects. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 54]
EPA Request for Comment, Request #59: Because of these projected increases and the
funding available through the BIL and IRA, and as we are proposing more stringent standards
that begin in MY 2027, our assessment supports that there is sufficient time for the
infrastructure, especially for depot charging, to gradually increase over the remainder of this
decade to levels that support the stringency of the proposed standards for the timeframe they
would apply. We request comment on time considerations for all levels of HD charging
infrastructure, including Level 2 up to 350 kW DCFC systems.
• DTNA Response: As discussed in Section II.B.3 of these comments, DTNA is concerned
the BIL and IRA may not have as significant of an impact on the HD ZEV market and
infrastructure development as EPA is projecting. With respect to available electrical grid
distribution capacity, there is little transparency to understand what size projects will
trigger major distribution system upgrades, and how long these upgrades will take. In
working with early adopters, DTNA has had fleet customers with relatively modest initial
deployments quoted 5-8 years for the required grid upgrades. Other fleet customers have
been quoted 8-12 years for initial deployments that require major distribution system
upgrades. Further, EPA should consider the need for charging speeds up to 2 MW to
enable use in applications with short dwell times and high energy usage, and the buildout
of public charging infrastructure that is required to support small businesses and fleets
where depots cannot be constructed, as discussed in Section II.B.3 of these
comments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 169]
904
-------
Organization: Dana Incorporated
Charging Infrastructure and Grid Capacity
Another key issue in the success of the proposed rule is whether charging infrastructure,
power demands, and hydrogen fuel (when/if available) will satisfy the needs for all ZEVs in
every state to meet trucking's charging needs and vehicle adoption rates. A number of recent
studies have raised concerns about increased demand on the electricity grid driven by vehicle
electrification. EPA should conduct annual reviews to determine whether charging infrastructure
and grid capacity are expanding to meet growing needs in those states (such as California) where
electrification is likely to proceed most quickly. EPA should also conduct studies to analyze the
impact of new federal incentives on the cost of producing hydrogen, which could play an
important role for long-haul trucks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1610-A1, p. 2.]
Charging Infrastructure for Fleet Operations
Charging infrastructure will remain an issue for several reasons and Dana, like many firms in
the automotive industry, remains concerned that the charging infrastructure will not develop
quickly enough to support the projected ZEV adoption rates. First, there are backlogs of
suppliers to provide DC charging terminals for use in public applications, and much of the
current public-sector funding focuses more heavily on developing charging infrastructure for
light-duty vehicles rather than heavy-duty trucks. Second, the level of power needed at a service
center to adequately charge 30-50 HD BEVs would require investment beyond what a typical
fuel supplier can provide today. In addition, according to a study from the utility, National Grid,
a large service station designed to provide charging for both cars and trucks would need to
provide 19 megawatts of peak power by 2035 or 30 megawatts by 2045 — putting significant
strain on the grid and creating the potential for peak-demand surcharges. A 2022 study by the
American Transportation Research Institute found that electrification of the trucking sector
would put a heavy strain on the generating capacity of U.S. utilities. Additionally, HD BEV
battery packs will be significantly larger than what is required on light and medium duty
applications, which further presents a challenge for charging time required to make them useful
fleet vehicles with minimum downtime. A final complication is the potential need for hydrogen
fueling infrastructure for long-haul applications. The European Union, for example, has set a
target of having a network of hydrogen fueling stations along key European trunk routes by
2031. From Dana's viewpoint the pace of infrastructure development will have a significant
impact on the development pipeline and adoption rate of ZEVs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1610-A1, p. 2]
Organization: National Association of Chemical Distributors (NACD)
Current Electric Vehicle Infrastructure
A significant aspect of the proposed rule is the need for heavy-duty truck manufacturers to
adopt additional ZEVs into their fleets in order to meet emission requirements. While NACD
supports the adoption of new zero emission technologies to reduce the carbon footprint of the
trucking industry, the United States' charging infrastructure makes the mandating of rapid
adoption impractical. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1564-A1, p. 4]
905
-------
When examining the expected number of ZEVs on the road, S&P Global Mobility estimated
that the number of chargers will need to be increased four-fold by 2025 and eight-fold by 2030.7
Also, these estimates were made before the EPA's Phase 3 GHG emission proposals, meaning
the true need for additional charging stations will likely be much higher if the rules move
forward as written. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1564-A1, p. 4]
7 S&P Global Mobility, "EV Chargers: How many do we need?," spglobal.com, S&P Global Mobility,
https://www.spglobal.com/mobility/en/research-analysis/ev-chargers-how-many-do-we-need.html
It is not practical to expect the necessary charging stations to be built in time to handle the
increase in ZEV heavy-duty vehicles that would be required under this proposal. Constructing
these stations can take months or even longer when taking into account the necessary electrical
fittings. The California Air Resources Board acknowledged this in their Advanced Clean Fleets
rule, allowing for extensions of up to five years for certain truck carriers that have electrification
issues when building ZEV charging stations. It is not realistic to expect charging infrastructure to
accommodate the increase in heavy-duty ZEVs by Model Year 2027; more time is
needed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1564-A1, p. 4]
This complicated issue requires significant lead-time due to the amount of coordination
among states, those responsible for construction, and other stakeholders. NACD urges the EPA
to adopt less strict emission standards that adopt ZEVs more gradually in order to allow for the
United States charging infrastructure to develop the required capacity. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1564-A1, p. 4]
Organization: National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA)
1. HDV dealer and purchaser infrastructure costs and lead times.
As mentioned, dealerships are investing billions in the infrastructure and equipment to sell
and service ZEV HDVs. Customers will also require infrastructure at their facilities and an
existing and reliable public refueling infrastructure to support the effective use of ZEV HDVs. A
typical CMV dealership would require the following facility and infrastructure upgrades to sell
and service ZEV HDVs.:
• Two EV chargers (Level 2 or DCFC) to ensure availability for sales and service;
• Service lifts with higher weight capacity;
• Service bays that can accommodate additional lift heights of approximately six feet to
facilitate high-voltage battery maintenance and removal;
• Battery storage and quarantine containers 16; and
• Workplace safety and emergency response training to navigate the potential dangers
associated with vehicle high-voltage systems and components. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1592-A1, p. 9]
16 EV battery temperature must remain at approximately 70 to 75 degrees, depending on the manufacturer.
When a vehicle comes in for repair, a battery may be removed or disconnected from the low-voltage
system (12-volt) which maintains the battery temperature. For example, for any body work that requires
painting, a battery may need to be removed due to high temperatures achieved within a paint booth,
especially during the curing of the paint. Any removed battery requires special storage. The optimal
scenario would be a storage/building outside facility that is temperature-controlled and has a ventilation
system. Current National Highway Transportation Safety Administration guidelines suggest 50 feet of
separation between a stored battery and a building or another vehicle. Ventilation is very important for EV
906
-------
batteries; there must be ventilation around the battery, including underneath it. When a high-voltage battery
is damaged, it can leak fluoride gas, which is heavier than air, causing it to sink and not rise. This gas is
highly flammable, and this situation can be created by a chemical reaction in the battery cells before a
thermal runaway (or high-voltage battery fire) occurs.
The costs involved in these investments can easily exceed $1,000,000 per dealership.
Ultimately, the ability and timeline to make facility upgrades and install chargers will vary
significantly by dealership location, the utility upgrades necessary, and permitting lead times. In
an initial survey of ATD members, dealership charger installation timelines ranged from
less than one year to greater than three years. Some locations will need minimal to no utility
upgrades for charger installation, but in most cases, electrical infrastructure (e.g., trenches,
distribution transformers, switchboards, and conduit) will need to be upgraded or installed to
accept the high-power service necessary to support several chargers. EPA correctly notes power
needs as low as 200 kW could trigger a requirement to install a distribution transformer. 17
However, EPA fails to acknowledge that the electric sector is facing significant supply chain
issues for distribution transformers with the average lead time for transformer delivery at 12- 18
months (which is expected to increase). 18 Dealerships requiring distribution transformer
upgrades have stated that it has increased their charger installation lead times to between three
and five years. In effect, they will be unable to begin selling and servicing ZEV HDVs until
these upgrades are completed. Further, dealerships that rent or lease their buildings or property
are generally unable to even install chargers due to landlord restrictions on property and building
modifications. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1592-A1, pp. 9 - 10]
17 88 Fed. Reg. at 25,983.
18 Robert Walton, Utilities sound alarm over distribution transformer shortage as procurement times
surpass 1 year and costs triple, Utility Drive (Dec. 19, 2022). Further, the electric sector anticipating a final
rule from the Department of Energy which would increase the distribution transformer efficiency standards,
and shift production to an entirely different type of steel, for distribution transformers further exacerbating
this issue. See also Paul Ciampoli, Proposed efficiency standards for distribution transformers would
worsen shortages, POWER GRID INTERNATIONAL (March 31, 2023).
ZEV HDV fleets and owner/operators will also require facility and infrastructure upgrades.
Their needs will vary, but in many cases will meet or exceed those of HDV dealerships. This is
particularly true for fleets that perform their own service work or engage in depot charging
during off hours. For example, a local transit agency with 15 ZEV school buses may need several
ZEV-ready service bays, parking lot upgrades, and several chargers for fleet charging. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1592-A1, p. 10]
It's worth noting that dealership investments are being made now in preparation for an
expected future marketplace. But customers are asking whether ZEV HDVs will be affordable
and will meet their needs and expectations. Only when ZEV HDVs and related refueling
infrastructure costs "pencil out" will customers begin to adopt them. EPA must strive to
accurately assess the costs and timing of necessary ZEV HDV refueling infrastructure. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1592-A1, p. 10]
Organization: NTEA - The Association for the Work Truck Industry
MY 2027 Target - EV Infrastructure Needs
907
-------
The proposal calls for 20% of vocational trucks be a ZEV by MY 2027. This time frame does
not seem possible given the resources needed to achieve such a goal in a compressed amount of
time. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1510-A1, p. 4]
As an industry, companies involved in the manufacture and distribution of work trucks
(manufacturers of truck chassis, bodies, equipment and final assembly) will require EV charging
equipment and power that has not previously been required for their facilities. While these
producers of work trucks may not need the recharging capacity of a major truck fleet, they will
need to provide charging for all of the EV chassis at their facility for assembly or
alteration. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1510-A1, p. 4]
Much like truck dealers who will need EV charging infrastructure, anecdotally, NTEA has
been informed that one of the biggest initial challenges is the availability of electricity from local
utilities. In some cases, EV charging equipment is available but they can't yet be installed
without agreement for power from the utility company, which appears could in some cases be
multiple years away. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1510-A1, p. 4]
Based on the current statutory and regulatory landscape, it is assumed that the highest initial
energy needs for medium- and heavy-duty vehicle charging is likely to occur in those states that
have adopted California's Advanced Clean Trucks rule. While prioritizing charging
infrastructure along freight corridors within these states may be a prudent approach, many
vocational trucks are not necessarily involved in moving freight but rather accomplishing work
tasks at whatever location is required - whether it be along a freight corridor or on a side street
or in a rural area. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1510-A1, p. 4]
Given the long lead times involved in building power generation capacity and electric
transmission systems, the NTEA questions if the aggressive time frames being mandated for the
phase-in of medium and heavy-duty vocational trucks is possible. Will the operators of the wide
variety of work trucks have access to charging when and where they will need it in order to
complete their vocational missions within the existing timeframe? [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1510-A1, p. 4]
Organization: Schneider National Inc.
The EPA Proposed Rule makes no allowance for infrastructure lead time.
• As we experienced in building our first large-scale zero emissions electric charging depot
in southern California, lead times for infrastructure enhancements and ZEV
charging/filling equipment are long. The project process includes engineering, site
design, permitting, construction, installation and testing, all of which can take a
significant amount of time. There are also many elements of this process that are outside
the control of the party who is installing the infrastructure, all of which can negatively
affect the construction time (e.g., out of stock parts, utility improvement timelines,
approvals, etc.). Our experience is that the overall process can range from 24-48 months
per location for owned sites.
• Motor carriers generally have limited space available at owned and leased facilities. As
we have experienced at our southern California location, charging infrastructure takes up
a significant amount of space. Adding ZEV charging/filling capabilities will negatively
908
-------
impact the amount of usable space, requiring carriers to add additional property to their
real estate portfolios.
• Lead times for leased sites will likely be longer and add layers of complexity. Additional
time will be necessary to seek and obtain formal approvals from property owners to add
the infrastructure and equipment.
o In all likelihood, this could add 6-12 months to the lead time of an individual
project. Further, there will certainly be instances where the property owner does
not desire to add the infrastructure, thus requiring the carrier to find an alternate
location to charge/fill and incur additional real estate costs.
• As the deadline to meet the EPA's requirement comes closer, and as more companies
push to meet the deadline, lead times in general will become longer. The ability to meet
the deadline will become progressively more challenging due to substantial and
increasing competition for limited resources and equipment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1525-A1, p. 3]
Organization: South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD)
As mentioned in the comment above, zero emissions charging and fueling infrastructure poses
the most significant barrier to deployment of zero emissions heavy-duty vehicles at scale. The
difficulty in installing this infrastructure varies considerably from site to site. Our early
experience has shown that there are many factors that require improvement to speed the
transition to zero emissions. Regulations like the proposed Phase 3 rule are helpful, but
additional action is needed beyond requirements for vehicle and engine manufacturers. Much of
these improvements are best addressed at a local or state level, however the federal government
can be a critical partner to speed the transition too. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1575-A1, p. 3]
As a first example, states regulate their own utilities and building codes are often set at the
local level. However, most of these regulations and policies were not designed to address the
rapid buildout required with zero emission vehicles (e.g., the ability for third party-providers to
resell electricity for heavy duty charging stations, the role of demand charges, etc.). There are
many potential policy approaches to help streamline infrastructure buildout. At minimum, the
federal government can track the innovative solutions that different states and localities are
taking to speed the buildout of charging/fueling infrastructure and make the information readily
available for consideration in other areas. Key metrics should be tracked to see the effect these
policies have, such as the total time needed to install infrastructure for different kinds of sites.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1575-A1, p. 3]
Organization: Tesla, Inc. (Tesla)
Lead Time and Rapid Deployment Mean Other Factors Are Not Barriers to More Stringent
Standards
While Section 202(a)(3) directs the agency to give appropriate consideration to cost, energy,
and safety factors associated with the application of such technology, these considerations must
take place under the same technology forcing context utilized in assessing the vehicle
technology. Similarly, the substantial lead time provided to the deployment on new heavy-duty
technologies under the statute further favors a similar context for assessment of considerations
909
-------
such as the adequacy of the BEV charging infrastructure. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1505-A1,
P- 26]
Assessed under this rubric, any concerns about charging infrastructure adequacy should not
dampen the agency's move forward with a stringent heavy-duty rule. Economics dictate that
build out of charging infrastructure follows deployment of BEVs, as without adequate vehicles
on the road investment in such infrastructure risks becoming a stranded asset. Initial customers
will focus on operations that allow heavy-duty BEVs to return to the depot after a shift, thus the
focus will be on building out charging infrastructure at truck depots in the near future. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1505-A1, p. 27]
At the outset, nothing in the statute directs EPA to give great weight to infrastructure or
similar considerations in evaluating whether a standard can be implemented in a time period the
Administrator finds sufficient 'to permit the development and application of the requisite
technology, giving appropriate consideration to the cost of compliance within such period.' 194
This is in contrast to other portions of the statute, which specifically direct the agency to
consider, for example, 'the impact of renewable fuels on the infrastructure of the United States,
including deliverability of materials, goods, and products other than renewable fuel, and the
sufficiency of infrastructure to deliver and use renewable fuel.' 195 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1505-A1, p. 27]
194 42 U.S.C. 7521(a)(2).
195 42 U.S.C. 7545(o)(2)(B)(ii)(IV).
In any event, adequate charging infrastructure will be available. EPA's analysis of this issue
should focus on when the standards come into effect: to the extent EPA has authority to consider
infrastructure issues, it would be under its authority to have the regulation take effect 'after such
period as the Administrator finds necessary to permit the development and application of the
requisite technology,' 196 which necessarily entails a predictive judgment about what the
infrastructure capacities would be in the future (including in response to the proposed rule),
rather than being limited to the status quo. For example, in the past EPA has considered whether
technology would 'would be perfected early enough to allow its mass production and
installation.'197 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1505-A1, p. 27]
196 42 U.S.C. 7521(a)(2) (emphasis added).
197NRDCv. EPA, 655 F.2d 318, 324 (D.C. Cir. 1981).
Organization: Truck Renting and Leasing Association (TRALA)
Charging Infrastructure and Grid Capacity Challenges and Constraints
Fleets wanting to install charging infrastructure are confronted with permitting delays,
insufficient power, long installation periods, large monetary outlays, and parking space
reductions. TRALA members interested in installing chargers at rented or leased facilities are
subject to agreements that depending on the landlord, restrict these types of tenant
improvements. If facilities have inadequate power or layouts, real estate acquisition can add one
to two years onto many infrastructure development and construction projects. Further illustrating
the lengthy lead time to expand charging infrastructure, Pacific Gas and Electric indicated in
public comments to the ACF rule that the utility 'strives to interconnect projects in a timely
910
-------
manner, however mid-sized projects such as new distribution circuits or substation modifications
can take 2-3 years. Larger projects that require new substations or transmission lines requiring
licensing, permitting, or land rights acquisition can take 7 or more years.' 1 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1577-A1, pp. 3-4]
1 Pacific Gas and Electric, 2022 ACF Comments: https://www.arb.ca.gov/lists/com-attach/370-acf2022-
AXEFZFUxUFxRYlBl.pdf.
Organization: Volvo Group
Infrastructure
In 2007 and 2010, new Particulate Matter (PM) and NOx regulations required fueling related
changes to meet new regulatory standards (availability of Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel and Diesel
Exhaust Fluid respectively); however, these cases were far less onerous than requiring the
development and adoption of an entirely unfamiliar new fuel with unknown operational
implications. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1606-A1, p. 6]
In the case of EPA's Phase 3 proposal, the availability of fuel (and its requisite infrastructure)
is the most significant factor influencing the speed of ZEV penetration in the marketplace and
thus, OEMs' ability to comply with the regulation. Many factors including supply chain delays,
workforce training and high costs will all affect heavy-duty ZEV adoption; but fleets can't use
their vehicles if they can't fuel them, and if they can't use them, they won't buy them. Through
our Volvo LIGHTS project (Low Impact Green Heavy Transport Solutions) and experience
deploying BEVs across 12 different states and provinces, we've experienced a mix of factors
contributing to infrastructure delays ranging from permitting delays, incongruence between
infrastructure and vehicle funding programs, energization delays, and supply chain challenges
for charger and electrical components. These issues must be addressed if OEMs are to be held
responsible for meeting ZEV penetration levels on a national level. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1606-A1, p. 6]
Of all states, California is by far the best positioned to achieve its Heavy-Duty (HD) ZEV
penetration goals because of its financial and policy inducements. Yet several Volvo fleet
customers have had to wait over 18 months to have chargers built and energized at their sites.
This experience makes the California Energy Commission's AB2127 report estimate that "an
additional 157,000 chargers are needed to support 180,000 medium- and heavy-duty vehicles
anticipated for 2030" seem unrealistic. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1606-A1, p. 6]
It is important to note that these challenges can and will be addressed over time. Involvement
in the Volvo LIGHTS project and other ZEV deployments in the state have helped California
utilities better understand how to service this new market. Likewise, the California Air
Resources Board (CARB) and the California Energy Commission (CEC) began working in 2018
to develop a joint project solicitation that packaged incentives for vehicles and infrastructure
together to help fleets coordinate public funding needs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1606-A1,
p. 7]
For example, customers are routinely quoted 40 to 50-week lead times for transformers if site
upgrades are needed to support fleet electrification. In addition, lead times for electric vehicle
supply equipment (EVSEs, or "chargers") are often 30-50 weeks and ensuring everything shows
up at the same time is nearly impossible in today's environment.3 Many of the internal
911
-------
components of an EVSE are common with photovoltaic (PV, or solar) inverters, which means
that component supplies are further stressed from industries even outside of vehicle and charger
manufacturing. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1606-A1, p. 7]
3 Smith, G. (2023, May 8). Charging infrastructure delays temper rollouts of battery-electric trucks.
Trucknews.com. Accessed on 14 June 2023 at https://www.trucknews.com/sustainability/charging-
infrastructure-delays-temper-rollouts-of-battery-electric-
trucks/1003174982/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=newcom&utm_campaign=TruckNewsDaily&utm_
content=2023050902809&hash=b8dclbbe8cbdd5dclfa8f2d3d3026004.
The cost of charging infrastructure for fleets is another issue influencing ZEV penetration.
California has established an infrastructure incentive program and several utilities in the state
have established make-ready programs to help offset fleet concerns about long term
profitability/viability. While most early adopters have installed chargers at their own facilities,
many smaller fleets and independent owner-operators will need to rely on the availability of
public charging. Over the last two years, a handful of public chargers have been developed;
however, their number will likely remain low for some time since concern over long term
viability of the business model will continue as long as the utilization level needed to be
profitable remains unknown. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1606-A1, p. 7-8]
EPA Summary and Response:
Summary:
Vehicle manufacturers and others raised concerns about ongoing challenges to deploying
charging infrastructure and the associated lead times, which commenters said could impede
successful adoption of BEVs at levels they believe would be needed under the proposed
standards. In particular, they highlighted three ongoing challenges that could extend lead times:
permitting, supply chain issues, and utility interconnection. Additional concerns included space
constraints and competing demands. Other commenters asserted there is sufficient lead time to
deploy charging infrastructure.
Permitting was identified as a potential source of delays by Advanced Energy United, DTNA,
TRALA, Schneider and Volvo. Several commenters suggested that permitting reform was
needed to standardize and streamline the process. For example, Advanced Energy United
suggested digital permitting process could save time and costs, pointing to DOE's SolarAPP+ as
a positive example. DTNA suggested that EPA partner with others to help to advance this effort,
e.g., by creating model building codes and training programs for state and municipal employees
engaged in permitting and inspection. The SCAQMD likewise commented that building codes
and other relevant state and local policies should be examined with EVSE deployment in mind,
and that the federal government can help track and share best practices.
Several commenters discussed supply chain considerations. For example, CARB stated that
delays in shipping EVSE units contributed to an overall lead time of 2 to 3 years for recent
California Energy Commission medium- and heavy-duty projects but noted that it expects this
issue to improve. Dana Incorporated expressed concerns about supplier backlogs for DCFC
equipment while Volvo suggested a 30- to 50-week lead time is typical for EVSE. Commenters
also expressed concern about purported supply chain delays for power sector equipment,
particularly transformers. For example, NADA stated that current lead times of 12 to 18 months
for transformers could increase, while Volvo noted a 40- to 50-week lead times being given as
912
-------
estimates to customers. DTNA commented that in addition to transformers, panels and
switchgears may experience long lead times, providing one utility's estimate of 70 weeks as an
example.
Many commenters stated that utility interconnection—particularly when upgrades to the
distribution system are needed—extend lead times. For example, ATA conducted a survey of
fleets finding that, "Among surveyed fleets, 40 percent indicated a lead time of 12 to 14 months,
and 30 percent received quotes of over 36 months for additional electricity." TRALA cited a
Pacific Gas and Electric comment for a California rulemaking that interconnection times of two
to three years may be needed for mid-size projects with 7 or more years for projects involving
new transmission lines or substations. NTEA noted that agreements from utility companies to
install power can take multiple years in some cases. DTNA provided multiple examples of long
lead times experienced by its customers, noting they have been given quotes of 1.5 to 8 years for
electrifying depots that "are modest compared to the scale of those discussed in the Proposed
Rule." DTNA also discussed challenges connected to the uncertainty in interconnection times,
lack of experience among fleets and utilities, and other factors.
In addition, multiple commenters discussed space constraints as a barrier or source of delay
for infrastructure deployments as well as unique challenges for fleets that lease property for
depots. For example, Schneider National Inc. said it experienced overall lead teams of 2 to 4
years for depot charging station projects but posited that an additional 6-12 months may be
needed for projects on leased sites to factor in time to work with the property owner. DTNA
cited an announcement by Denver's Regional Transportation District to cancel an electric bus
project due to space constraints and related costs, which DTNA said were not accounted for in
the proposed rule.
Commenters also said that competing demands could further extend timelines for heavy-duty
BEV charging infrastructure buildout. For example, the American Highway Users Alliance noted
that both EPA's proposed light- and medium-duty vehicle rule and this heavy-duty proposal
would take effect at the same time (while California regulations are also in effect), increasing the
overall demand for new infrastructure from manufacturers and utilities.
Several commenters were generally cautious about the charging infrastructure deployment
tasks ahead. ATA mentioned there is a learning curve associated with aspects of deployment like
site-level analysis and planning for long-term power usage that can increase the time it takes to
adopt ZEV technologies. Dana Incorporated noted challenges related to the scale of charging
infrastructure and grid needs and suggested that EPA conduct annual reviews to determine
whether they are expanding at a sufficient pace, particularly in states where BEV adoption is
likely to be concentrated in early years. NACD suggested that it is not practical to build charging
stations to handle the proposed adoption levels by MY 2027 due in part to the levels of
coordination required among states and other stakeholders. Several commenters noted the high
costs of these investments and resources required, which they indicated are new for some
stakeholders.
On the other hand, both Tesla and CARB said that lead time for charging infrastructure
deployments would be sufficient to support BEVs under the stringency levels in EPA's proposal,
with Tesla stating the infrastructure would be available in time and CARB pointing to many
ongoing or planned depot charging projects. CALSTART acknowledged that distribution
upgrades can be a source of delay, but also stated that utilities are gaining experience and
913
-------
working to reduce lead times. CALSTART also highlighted temporary and mobile solutions that
fleets can use to support BEVs while depot charging is being deployed, noting that these can
typically be leased and deployed in under a month. They also encouraged EPA to consider
alternate business models such as charging-as-a-service, in which charging solutions (and any
associated lead times) are provided or handled by a third party or vendor as opposed to the fleet
customer and noting that shared charging facilities can also reduce total deployment costs
compared to individual depot station buildouts.
Response:
EPA recognizes that it takes time for individual or fleet owners to develop charging site plans
for their facility, obtain permits, purchase the EVSE, and have it delivered and installed. We
acknowledge, as we had in the NPRM,422 that the longest lead times will likely be for high-
power stations that require significant upgrades to the distribution system (such as to feeders or
substations). This is consistent with the comments we received. We also acknowledge comments
on supply chain challenges, in particular with respect to lead times for transformers. Lead times
associated with distribution system upgrades (including transformers), utility interconnection and
other grid topics are covered extensively in RTC Section 7 (Distribution). Here we discuss lead
time issues around permitting, EVSE supply, and charging infrastructure more broadly. As
further discussed in preamble Section II.D.2.iii and II.F.3, and RIA Chapters 1 and 2, and this
response, we assessed these lead time issues and based on that assessment took lead time into
account in a balanced and measured approach to setting the Phase 3 final standards.
With respect to permitting, we agree with commenters that streamlining the process and
promoting best practices could reduce infrastructure deployment times. As noted in RIA Chapter
1.6.3, permitting generally falls within state and local jurisdictions; specific policies to
streamline or standardize it are outside the scope of this rulemaking. While permitting times vary
based on applicable state or local jurisdiction, specifics of station sites, and other factors, we note
as one example that Electrify America reported that, in 2022, permitting took an average of 13
weeks for its U.S. "ultra-fast" DCFC stations.423
Though we recognize permitting is just one step in the deployment process, and that the
process could take longer for more complex sites, we don't think permitting times will pose a
barrier to the overall pace of infrastructure deployment supporting BEV adoption under the
modeled compliance pathway for the final rule. We conclude this for several reasons. The final
standards include a lower increase in stringency of standards compared to the proposal for many
HD vehicle categories in MY 2027, a slower phase-in of standards through MYs 2028 and 2029,
and a phase-in of standards from MYs 2030 through 2032 that, for many of the subcategories,
achieves similar levels of stringency in MY 2032 as those proposed. Also, as discussed in RIA
Chapter 2.10.3, most (approximately 88%) of our projected depot ports will be Level 2, and as
we explain in RTC section 7 (Distribution) we generally do not expect longer lead times being
needed for associated buildout for such EVSE ports (which would be an additional lead time
consideration to any permitting timelines). In addition, as discussed in RTC 6.3.1, while we
determined it was appropriate to incorporate some public charging into our analysis as part of the
422 DRIA at 70.
423 Electrify America. "2022 Annual Report to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency." April 2023. Accessed
March 11, 2024, at: https://media.electrifyamerica.com/assets/documents/original/1018-
2022NationalAnnualReport.pdf.
914
-------
modeled potential compliance pathway that supports the feasibility of the final standards, we do
so starting in MY 2030 to allow time for public infrastructure to develop. Thus, overall the final
standards provide greater lead time than proposal and adequate lead time taking into
consideration such concerns, among others.
In response to calls to support state and local agencies in the process, we note that federal
agencies already offer a variety of resources on charging infrastructure for stakeholders,
including information and best practices for permitting,424 EVSE project planning,425'426 building
codes and standards,427 and other topics.428 In addition, EPA, participates in the Electric Vehicle
Working Group established under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, along with DOE, DOT, and
a wide variety of other government, industry, and stakeholders participants.429 As noted by the
Joint Office of Energy and Transportation, the group was formed to make recommendations
"regarding the development, adoption, and integration of light-, medium-, and heavy-duty
electric vehicles (EVs) into the U.S. transportation and energy systems";430 its scope includes
permitting among other deployment issues.431
Another cause of delay identified by commenters was with deliveries of equipment
throughout the supply chain. We note generally that there have been disruptions to global supply
chains in recent years, and there are ongoing efforts to strengthen and diversify supply chains to
improve resiliency.432 We also acknowledge comments that competing demands for charging
infrastructure for light-, medium, and heavy-duty BEVs could extend deployment times.
However, as described in RIA Chapters 1.3.2 and 1.6.2, there are many ongoing and planned
investments in charging infrastructure through the BIL and IRA and from a wide variety of the
private sector participants, and there are indications that the market is already preparing to meet
the coming demand for EVSE. DOE estimates that about forty companies have already
announced over $500 million of investments in U.S. facilities to construct charging equipment,
with planned domestic production capacity of more than 1,000,000 chargers (including 60,000
424 U.S. Department of Energy, Alternative Fuels Data Center. "Permitting Processes for Electric Vehicle Charging
Infrastructure." Available online: https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/electricity_permitting_processes.html.
425 U.S. Department of Transportation. "EV Infrastructure Project Planning Checklist." Available online:
https://www.transportation.gov/rural/ev/toolkit/ev-infrastructure-planning/project-planning-checklist.
426 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Clean School Bus. "Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Resources."
Available online: https://www.epa.gov/cleanschoolbus/charging-and-fueling-infrastructure-resources.
427 U.S. Department of Energy, Alternative Fuels Data Center. "Building Codes, Parking Ordinances, and Zoning
Ordinances for Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure." Available online:
https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/electricity_codes_and_ordinances.html.
428 We note that the citations shown here are examples only, and not intended to be a comprehensive list. See for
example, additional resources and technical assistances offered by the Joint Office of Energy and Transportation.
(JOET. "Technical Assistances and Resources for States." 2024. Available online: https://driveelectric.gov/states.)
429 JOET. "Electric Vehicle Working Group Membership Balance Matrix." Available online:
https://driveelectric.gov/files/EVWG-Membership-Matrix.pdf.
430 Joint Office of Energy and Transportation. "Electric Vehicle Working Group." Available online:
https://driveelectric.gov/ev-working-group.
431 U.S. Department of Energy, Alternative Fuels Data Center. "Electric Vehicle Working Group (EVWG)".
Available online: https://afdc.energy.gov/laws/12739.
432 See, e.g., The White House. "Issue Brief: Supply Chain Resilience." November 30, 2023. Available online:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/written-materials/2023/ll/30/issue-brief-supply-chain-resilience/.
915
-------
DCFCs) annually.433'434 We reasonably predict that this will continue to expand as the market
grows. We also note that workforce development is on the rise (e.g., through training and
certification programs for those installing EV charging stations); see RIA Chapter 1.6.2 and RTC
Section 1.6.4 for additional information on this topic. As previously explained in this response,
in part after taking into account lead time considerations, including supply chain and deployment
timing, overall the final standards provide greater lead time than proposal. See Preamble Section
II.
We acknowledge comments on other implementation challenges for fleets and EVSE
developers such as space constraints. We note these and other aspects of station planning, siting,
and design considerations in RIA Chapter 1.6.3.2. However, as described in Preamble II.D.2.iii
and RIA Chapter 1.6.2, and as noted by commenters (see also comments in RTC Section 6.1),
there are a variety of solutions being offered for, and explored by fleets. Manufacturers (e.g.,
PACCAR, DTNA, Mack Trucks, Navistar, and Nikola) are providing EVSE solutions to their
customers either directly or in partnerships with charging providers and other companies.
Alternate business models such as transportation- or charging-as-a-service will provide options
for fleets that have challenges deploying infrastructure at their depots or otherwise prefer these
third-party operated stations. We also agree with CALSTART that mobile chargers (or other
transitional charging options) offer a temporary solution for fleets to deploy BEVs while depot
charging infrastructure is being installed, and note that some OEMs and fleets are already
pursuing this option (see RIA Chapter 1.6.2.).
As described in RIA Chapters 1.3.2 and 1.6.2, there are also many public and private
investments to support the buildout of a public charging network that can serve heavy-duty
BEVs. As discussed in RTC Section 6.1 and extensively in RTC Section 7 (Distribution), we
agree with findings of several recent assessments that charging needs will be geographically
concentrated in early years, and that this will allow a phased approach for public charging
infrastructure deployment starting with areas likely to have the most initial demand. In March
2024, the U.S. released a National Zero-Emission Freight Corridor Strategy435 that, "sets an
actionable vision and comprehensive approach to accelerating the deployment of a world-class,
zero-emission freight network across the United States by 2040. The strategy focuses on
advancing the deployment of zero-emission medium- and heavy-duty vehicle (ZE-MHDV)
fueling infrastructure by targeting public investment to amplify private sector momentum, focus
utility and regulatory energy planning, align industry activity, and mobilize communities for
clean transportation."436 The strategy has four phases. The first phase, from 2024-2027, focuses
on establishing freight hubs defined "as a 100-mile to a 150-mile radius zone or geographic area
centered around a point with a significant concentration of freight volume (e.g., ports, intermodal
433 U.S. Department of Energy, "Building America's Clean Energy Future". 2024. Available online:
https://www.energy.gov/invest.
434 U.S. Department of Energy, Vehicle Technologies Office. "FOTW #1314, October 30, 2023: Manufacturers
Have Announced Investments of Over $500 million in More Than 40 American-Made Electric Vehicle Charger
Plants". October 30, 2023. Available online: https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1314-october-30-
2023-manufacturers-have-announced-investments-over-500.
435 Joint Office of Energy and Transportation. "National Zero-Emission Freight Corridor Strategy." DOE/EE-2816
2024. March 2024. Available at https://driveelectric.gov/files/zef-corridor-strategy.pdf.
436 Joint Office of Energy and Transportation. "Biden-Harris Administration, Joint Office of Energy and
Transportation Release Strategy to Accelerate Zero-Emission Freight Infrastructure Deployment." March 12, 2024.
Available online: https://driveelectric.gov/news/decarbonize-freight.
916
-------
facilities, and truck parking), that supports a broader ecosystem of freight activity throughout
that zone."437 The second phase, from 2027-2030, will connect key ZEV hubs, building out
infrastructure along several major highways. The third phase, from 2030-2045, will expand the
corridors, "including access to charging and fueling to all coastal ports and their surrounding
freight ecosystems for short-haul and regional operations."438 The fourth phase, from 2035-2040,
will complete the freight corridor network. This corridor strategy provides support for the
development of HD BEV infrastructure that corresponds to the modeled potential compliance
pathway for meeting the final standards.
Taken together, and with conclusions in RTC Section 7 that there is sufficient time for any
needed distribution grid upgrades (and solutions available to mitigate the need for such buildout),
EPA agrees with CARB and Tesla that there is sufficient lead time for charging infrastructure to
be deployed to support the modeled potential compliance pathway for the final rule. In
consideration of lead time concerns raised by commenters (on both infrastructure and vehicle
developments), and to ensure the necessary infrastructure will be available, EPA applied
constraints (in a conservative approach in the earlier model years) such that the final standards
include a lower increase in stringency of standards for many HD vehicle categories in MY 2027,
a slower phase-in of standards through MYs 2028 and 2029, and a phase-in of standards from
MYs 2030 through 2032 that, for many of the subcategories, achieves similar levels of
stringency in MY 2032 as those proposed. In addition, as discussed in RTC 6.3.1, while we
determined it was appropriate to incorporate some public charging costs into our analysis as part
of the modeled potential compliance pathway that supports the feasibility of the final standards,
we do so starting in MY 2030 to allow time for public infrastructure to develop.
In sum, our assessment after considering the lead time challenges identified by commenters, is
that given the many public and private investments that will support both depot and public
charging, along with infrastructure solutions available to fleets, the ability to prioritize initial
public charging deployment in discrete freight corridors, and the extra lead time afforded for
BEV applications projected to utilize public charging under the modeled potential compliance
pathway, we conclude that there is sufficient time to plan and deploy both depot and public
charging infrastructure that will support HD BEV adoption in the modeled potential compliance
pathway in the MY 2027 to MY 2032 timeframe.
Finally, as noted in RTC 6.1 and described in Preamble II.B.2, EPA commits to actively
engaging with stakeholders and monitoring heavy-duty BEV infrastructure deployment. Based
on this monitoring, and as appropriate and consistent with CAA section 202(a) authority, EPA
may decide to issue guidance documents, initiate a future rulemaking to consider modifications
to the Phase 3 rule, or make no changes to the Phase 3 rule program.
437 Joint Office of Energy and Transportation. "National Zero-Emission Freight Corridor Strategy." DOE/EE-2816
2024. March 2024. Available at https://driveelectric.gov/files/zef-corridor-strategy.pdf. See page 3.
438 Joint Office of Energy and Transportation. "National Zero-Emission Freight Corridor Strategy." DOE/EE-2816
2024. March 2024. Available at https://driveelectric.gov/files/zef-corridor-strategy.pdf. See page 8.
917
-------
6.3 Charging Infrastructure Analysis
6.3.1 General
Comments by Organizations
Organization: American Trucking Associations (ATA)
Public charging will serve as a redundant power supply for fleets
Onsite "behind the fence" depot charging is preferred by early adopters. While public
charging could allow for defrayed investment costs for fleets, the unpredictability of electricity
prices and uncertain build out of public charging locations are forcing these fleets to invest
capital in on-site charging. Today, there is one truck parking space for every 11 drivers in the
industry, equating to 313,000 available spaces nationwide. Very few of those spaces have the
infrastructure or capacity to charge heavy-duty ZEVs.25 Fleets see public charging stations
needing to meet specific requirements to support electrification in the commercial vehicle
industry. Public charging stations and sites should be:
• Closely located to where trucks fill up today. Freight corridors are already built out for
optimal movement and charging stations will need to be located at or near sites where
trucks spend downtime.
• Able to charge trucks at the same rate or faster than the time it takes to refuel a diesel
truck today. Even one or two hours of charging downtime requires fleets to reconfigure
and reoptimize routes, hours-of-service, scheduled downtime, and delivery schedules.
• Be designed for pull-in-charging to allow for a truck with a trailer to fit properly. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1535-A1, p. 18-19]
25 U.S. Department of Transportation, Jason's Law Commercial Motor Vehicle Parking Survey and
Comparative Assessment, December 1, 2022.
Organization: Arizona State Legislature
EPA recognizes that '[m]ore charging infrastructure will be needed to support the growing
fleet of HD [battery electric vehicles].' 88 Fed. Reg. 25926, 25978. But in its regulatory impact
analysis, EPA only estimates costs for charging depots, not for en-route charging. 'We also do
not estimate upfront hardware and installation costs for public or other en-route electric vehicle
charging infrastructure because [battery electric vehicle] charging needs are met with depot
charging in our analysis.' Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis, 195. EPA also argues that public
and private funding 'will help meet future charging infrastructure needs.' Id. at 195-196. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1621 -A1, p. 27]
Contrary to EPA's assumptions, en-route charging is critical for long-haul trucking. A diesel
truck can travel more than 1,200 miles between refueling, which takes about 15 minutes.43
However, a two-hour charge of an electric battery only allows a truck to travel 200 miles.44
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1621-A1, p. 27]
43 Cleaner Vehicles: Good for Consumers and Public Health: Hearing before the Sen. Comm. On Env't
and Public Works Subcomm. On Clean Air, Climate, and Nuclear Safety, 118th Cong. 4 (Apr. 18, 2023)
(statement of Andrew Boyle, First Vice Chair of the American Trucking Associations and Co-President,
918
-------
Boyle Transportation), available at https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/0/d/0d62639d-9821-
4f0c-b4f5- 166ab4e7fb06/2DF4F5B6DD996B956650A34F09B92040.04-18-2023-boyle-testimony.pdf.
44 Id.
Chargers en route are required if battery electric vehicles will travel more than 200 miles.
Analysis of fleet data indicates that almost 70% of vehicle miles traveled by semis would need to
charge at public stations and not at company depots.45 The Department of Energy estimates that
40% of trucks travel between 250 and 750 average miles per workday.46 A study by the
International Council on Clean Transportation found that one-third of truck trips leaving Los
Angeles went to destinations more than 1,000 miles away.47 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1621-
Al, p. 27]
45 Will Sierzchula, Electrifying US long haul trucks will require 504 TWh a year. But that won't be the
hardest part, UTILITYDIVE, Dec. 1, 2022, available at https://www.utilitydive.com/news/electrifying-us-
long-haul-trucks-willrequire-504-twh-a-year-but-that-won/636684/.
46 Jason Marcinkoski et al., 'Hydrogen Class 8 Long Haul Truck Targets, 'U.S. Department of Energy,
Dec. 12, 2019, 3, available at
https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/19006_hydrogen_class8_long_haul_truck_targets.pdf.
47 Dale Hall and Nic Lutsey, Estimating the Infrastructure Needs and Costs for the Launch of Zero-
Emission Trucks, THE INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION, Aug. 2019, 5,
available at https://theicct.org/wpcontent/uploads/2021/06/ICCT_EV_HDVs_Infrastructure_20190809.pdf.
EPA has not considered availability of chargers. As the American Trucking Association
noted, diesel fueling stations can serve 4-5 trucks per hour, while charging stations only could
serve 2-3 trucks per day.48 The American Transportation Research Institute estimated that 'truck
charging needs at a single rural rest area . . . would require enough daily electricity to power
more than 5,000 U.S. households.'49 A study by the utility National Grid found that by 2035, the
necessary charging capacity for a large passenger and truck stop 'will be roughly equivalent to
the electric load of a small town.'50 Electricity loads needed to operate highway charging sites
'will begin to exceed distribution line capacity in the next 5-10 years.'51 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1621-A1, p. 27]
48 Statement of Andrew Boyle, supra note 43, at 4.
49 Cristina Commendatore, supra note 29.
50 National Grid, Electric Highways: Accelerating and Optimizing Fast-Charging Deployment for Carbon-
Free Transportation, Nov. 2022, 32, available at
https://www.nationalgrid.com/document/148616/download.
51 Id.
EPA also has not considered the cost of en-route chargers. The American Transportation
Research Institute estimates that' [i]nitial equipment and installation costs at the nation's truck
parking locations will top $35 billion.'52 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1621-A1, p. 28]
52 American Transportation Research Institute, supra note 42, at 2.
EPA also has not considered the time required by en-route chargers. Even top-of-the-line
chargers that cost $100,000 each would still take five hours to achieve the same range as the
current 15-minute diesel refueling, assuming a truck could even carry a battery of that size. 53
919
-------
Lost time would impact trucking companies' profitability and dramatically increase costs of
shipped goods. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1621-A1, p. 28]
53 Statement of Andrew Boyle, supra note 43, at 4.
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
U.S. EPA estimates depot charging will fulfill BEV daily charging needs. This approach
reflects U.S. EPA's expectation that many HD BEV owners will opt to purchase and install
EVSE at depots. Therefore, U.S. EPA does not estimate upfront hardware and installation costs
for public and other public electric charging infrastructure. U.S. EPA requests comment on this
analytical approach. 181 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1591-A1, p.50]
181 U.S. EPA's Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles—Phase 3, Proposed
Rules, 88 Fed. Reg., April 27, 2023, page 25978. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2023-04-
27/pdf/2023-07955.pdf
CARB staff believes this analysis approach is sound but could benefit from also considering
that some fleets will want to use pubic fueling. In California, staff are learning that small fleets
and independent operators may benefit from access to public overnight charging. Additionally,
assuming that all charging needs will be met at the fleet's depot limits the utility of a BEV fleet
that may occasionally need to broaden their range beyond the duty cycle that the vehicles and
depot charging is designed to handle. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1591-A1, p.50]
The U.S. EPA's analytical approach should include public charging. Given the available
information on the relative costs of depot and public charging, it is reasonable to assume that
they are similar and that including public charging would not materially affect the analysis.
However, the analytical approach would more closely reflect real-world conditions if it were to
accommodate public charging. The CEC's analysis shows a ratio of approximately one public
charger for every ten depot chargers. 182 The installation of depot charging will be less preferred
for certain fleets for reasons such as business model preferences, available parking and site
footprint, site-level electrical capacity constraints, or others. Public charging, including charging
during operational hours, will enable additional vehicles and fleets to electrify. Public charging
supports long haul trucking where driving distances exceed range. Public charging will
also support equitable access. Smaller independent owner-operators of vehicles such as drayage
trucks and goods movement may not have access to depot charging. With that said, under all of
EPA's proposed standards (including the most stringent alternative), ZEV penetration rises
gradually and never rises above 40/60 percent, which both means there is time to develop public
charging and that the fleets that do not need public charging can (if need be) make up the 40/60
percent, thus making public charging supportive but not required for successful implementation.
Both hardware and installation costs vary over time. U.S. EPA research indicates that hardware
cost would likely decrease over time due to economic scale and manufacturers learning. On the
other hand, research indicate installation cost will likely increase due to higher labor and material
costs over time. After considering the variation in how costs may change over time, U.S. EPA
combined hardware and installation cost into the EVSE. U.S. EPA requests comment on this
approach. 183 CARB staff agrees with this general approach. There are a range of costs to install
at any particular site even with the same hardware. Costs for hardware and some "balance of
system" costs are likely to decrease with scale and learning. On the other hand, material and
labor costs for installation may increase as they tend to do in general for construction and
920
-------
equipment installation (an effect not unique to EVSE and hydrogen stations), and the lowest-cost
sites (with sufficient ground level space and existing electrical capacity) may be occupied first
with higher-cost sites being put into use later. Combining these costs shows a cancellation effect
allowing costs to remain constant for modeling purposes. It will be important to continue to
monitor cost trends. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1591-A1, pp.50-51]
182 Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Assessment - AB 2127, last accessed June 4, 2023.
https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/reports/electric-vehicle-charging-infrastructure-assessment-ab-
2127
183 U.S. EPA's Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles—Phase 3, Proposed
Rules, 88 Fed. Reg., April 27, 2023, page 25982. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2023-04-
27/pdf/2023-07955.pdf
Organization: Clean Fuels Development Coalition et al.
C. The proposal underestimates the cost for charging infrastructure.
Charging infrastructure is the single largest expense accounted for in the proposal—$47
billion in "electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) costs." But this expense only accounts for
"depot" charging installation, or the cost to install heavy-duty chargers at an electric vehicle's
home base. This completely ignores "upfront hardware and installation costs for public or other
en-route electric vehicle charging infrastructure" because it assumes "BEV charging needs are
met with depot charging." 88 Fed. Reg. 25,978. This is unrealistic, particularly given the short
ranges of heavy-duty batteries and the long travel distances expected of heavy-duty vehicles. To
compound this error, the proposal makes unreasonable assumptions about how many of these
depot chargers are needed. EPA "assume[s] that up to two vehicles can share one DCFC port if
there is sufficient depot dwell time for both vehicles to meet their daily charging needs." DRIA
at 200. This allows, as EPA explains, "per-vehicle EVSE costs [to] decline by 50 percent or
more." Id. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1585-A1, p. 33]
Organization: Daimler Truck North America LLC (DTNA)
Importance of Public Charging Infrastructure
Because of the costs, complexities, and timelines discussed above, some depot-based fleets
will be unable to rely on depot-only charging and will be required to utilize publicly available
charging. Small business fleets are less likely to have dedicated depot locations and access to
capital for ZEVs and their associated infrastructure, and are more likely to rely on public
charging, consistent with today's retail station refueling model. Finally, we predict that some of
the vehicle applications and routes modeled in the HD TRUCS tool and assumed to be only
depot-charged may in fact require en-route opportunity charging. For example, the Class 8
Regional Day Cab with a 90th percentile daily VMT of 349 miles may exceed the range
capabilities of a BEV tractor on a single charge and need to utilize public charging. Estimating
the proportion of BEVs that will utilize public versus private charging needs further study as the
market develops. Figure 6 below from ICCT's ZEV Infrastructure White Paper may present a
reasonable approximation for consideration during this rulemaking process. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 55]
921
-------
Public charging sites will need to be equipped with a range of charging capacities to serve a
variety of needs from low-speed overnight charging to ultrafast charging to reenergize large
HDV batteries in a short period of time. In its April 2023 white paper on TCO for Class 8
alternative powertrain technologies, ICCT estimates the costs to develop electric infrastructure
for dually equipped public charging sites and presents projected public charging rates for select
states, as shown in Figure 7 below. 126 DTNA recommends that EPA consider incorporating a
public charging scenario in HD TRUCS, as the dollar per kilowatt-hour rate is significantly
different in this public charging scenario compared to EPA's projection for depot charging on
commercial rates. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 56] [Refer to Figure 7 on p. 56 of
docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1]
126 See ICCT, Total Cost of Ownership of Alternative Powertrain Technologies for Class 8 Long-Haul
Trucks in the United States (April 2023), https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/tco-alt-
powertrain-long-haul-trucks-us-apr23.pdf (ICCT TCO White Paper).
EPA Request for Comment, Request #30: In draft RIA Chapters 2.6 and 2.7.7 we describe
how we accounted for charging infrastructure in our analysis of HD BEV technology feasibility
and adoption rates for MYs 2027- 2032. For this analysis, we estimate infrastructure costs
associated with depot charging to fulfill each BEV's daily charging needs off-shift with the
appropriately sized electrical vehicle supply equipment. . . This approach reflects our
expectation that many heavy-duty BEV owners will opt to purchase and install EVSE at depots;
accordingly, we explicitly account for all of these upfront costs in our analysis. By contrast, we
do not estimate upfront hardware and installation costs for public and other en-route electric
charging infrastructure because the BEV charging needs are met with depot charging in our
analysis . . .We request comment on this analytical approach.
• DTNA Response: EPA's assumption that all BEVs will rely exclusively on depot
charging is mistaken. DTNA believes that many depots will not be able to install
adequate charging infrastructure and that many vehicles do not return to depots. DTNA
also believes that many vehicles do not have the 12-hour dwell time EPA projects,
necessitating much higher power demands for BEV charging. Many vehicles will exceed
EPA's projected power demands due to high VMT or accessory loads, and will require
opportunity charging that EPA does not account for. Additionally we expect many fleets,
especially small businesses, will rely exclusively on public charging. This lack of
infrastructure could undermine the feasibility of the Proposed Rule, as discussed in
Section II.B.3 and Appendix A to these comments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1,
p. 163]
Organization: Electrification Coalition (EC)
We concur with EPA that many HD EV owners will opt to utilize depot charging, particularly
in the near-term, but en-route charging will also be needed for long-term success in achieving
electrification across all HD classes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1558-A1, p. 13]
The EPA specifically requests comment on their approach to include costs associated with
depot charging in the draft RIA Chapters 2.6 and 2.7.7, as their expectation is that many HD EV
owners will opt to purchase and install EV charging infrastructure at depots versus utilize en-
route charging.36 The EC comments that while depot and en-route public charging will both be
922
-------
needed to scale HD vehicle electrification, we see a trend that depot charging will play a greater
role, particularly in the immediate term. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1558-A1, p. 13]
36 See page 25978 of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposed rule for Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles-Phase 3 in the Federal Register:
https://www.govinfo.gOv/content/pkg/FR-2023-04-27/pdf/2023-07955.pdf
During the New York and New Jersey MHDV Fleet Workshop in October 2022 hosted by the
Environmental Defense Fund and Atlas Public Policy, speakers representing fleets stated that
their preference is depot or at home charging, while noting that there will be an opportunity for
en-route public charging in the future. Speakers stated concerns that en-route public charging is
too cost prohibitive compared to depot charging, as en-route charging might subject the driver to
peak prices if charging during the day, whereas depot charging will likely offer lower overnight
rates. In addition, speakers shared concerns of en-route public charging not built out yet to meet
the current demands from industry. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1558-A1, p. 13]
We are seeing a trend of companies making investments into HD vehicle depot charging.
Prologis, for example, are making investments to provide depot charging for their fleet tenants at
their warehouses. Additionally, trucking-as-a-service companies provide customers with access
to both electric HD vehicles and depot charging. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1558-A1, p. 13]
To facilitate the long-term adoption of HD electric vehicles, public and en-route charging will
be necessary, particularly for long-haul trucking and to charge vehicles that may not have access
to depot charging. Where the concertation of depot versus public charging will be installed may
be dependent on the use cases for HD vehicles, particularly in the freight sector. The ICCT noted
in their report on near-term infrastructure needs of HD vehicle electrification that counties with a
greater percentage of urban and regional trucking will require a higher concentration of depot
charging whereas counties with a greater percentage of long-haul trucking will require more en-
route public charging.37 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1558-A1, pp. 13-14]
37 https://theicct.org/publication/infrastructure-deployment-mhdv-may23/
Organization: MEMA
BEV early adopter market segments with predictable daily routes and usage: Bus applications,
including school bus and transit, are early adopter segments for BEV. Even though Heavy Duty
BEV is still in early stages of deployment worldwide, school bus and transit bus have already
had more time to validate that BEV technology can be 1:1 with ICE for performing daily
missions for a larger percentage of fleets than the adoption currently projected in the HD TRUCS
model for these segments (0-32% in MY27 and 35-45% in MY32). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1570-A1, p. 22]
Segments that can reliably charge overnight in depot: School bus, transit bus, and port
drayage can take advantage of the flexibilities of overnight depot charging and opportunity
charging throughout the day when not in use. Although more costly EVSE is required to
maintain the fleet's business model, these three applications also have increased incentive
support to overcome initial cost barriers of vehicle and EVSE at the state and federal level. These
fleets can also participate in V2G bi-directional charging capabilities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1570-A1, p. 22]
923
-------
Port drayage fleets are more likely to require multi-shift operation during peak shipping
periods, which will need higher power EVSE to maintain productivity. Multishift operation can
challenge 1:1 productivity parity for BEV vs. conventional technology if minimum charging
infrastructure is assumed, as is currently reflected in HD TRUCS at 50KW. However, purchasing
high power EVSE (350KW+) as noted above can be part of the drayage fleet manager's and port
operator's plans for electrifying port operations due to domiciled operations allowing for re-
charging during 30-minute lunch breaks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1570-A1, pp. 22 - 23]
End-users with goals to minimize fuel costs and/or achieve progress towards ESG metrics
Pickup a delivery duty cycles served by Box trucks, Step-Vans, and Regional Haul tractors,
especially those purchased by fleets motivated by ESG goals, indicate fleet owner/operators with
more willingness to adopt new technology faster. Many of the early orders of BEV included in
EPA's GHG Ph 3 preambles come from packaging and consumer package goods fleets who have
aligned goals to reducing GHG from operations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1570-A1, p. 23]
Recommendations:
a) EPA and other Federal agencies consider how incentivized support for infrastructure can be
used to 1) future-proof DC charging needs, 2) allow faster ZEV deployment for early adopter
segments, 3) provide opportunity to leverage potential benefits in bi-directional charging for
school bus and other suitable municipal applications, resulting in 4) improved grid resiliency to
maintain critical services in case of casualty. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1570-A1, p. 23]
b) EPA reexamine the readiness for ZEV adoption for the three advanced applications noted
above and adjust the TRUCS model accordingly. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1570-A1, p. 23]
Organization: RMI
The EPA projects manufacturers will make a combination of internal combustion engine
(ICE) and zero-emission vehicle technologies in order to comply with the rules. Electric heavy-
duty trucks are a critical way to reduce transportation emissions and improve environmental
health. Electric trucks provide an economic, practical, and environmentally clean solution for our
increasing trucking demand. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1529-A1, p. 1]
RMI's analysis of trucking in California and New York found that almost 50% of heavy-duty
trucks can complete their routes using electric trucks commercially available today without the
need for public charging.2 RMI's partner organization, the North American Council for Freight
Efficiency (NACFE), has shown that trucks with routes less than 200 miles a day can be
electrified now, with adoption hinging on vehicle economics improving and available depot and
on-route charging extending the truck's range.3 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1529-A1, p. 1]
2 Jessie Lund et al., Charting the Course for Early Truck Electrification, RMI, 2022,
https://rmi.org/insight/electrify-trucking/.
3 Roeth et al,. Electric Trucks Have Arrived: The Use Case for Heavy-Duty Regional Haul Tractors,
NACFE, May 5, 2022, https://nacfe.org/wp-content/uploads/edd/2022/05/HD-Regional-Haul-Report-
FINAL.pdf
RMI recently released two reports on the benefits of EVs that the comments below pull from:
924
-------
• A report, Preventing Electric Truck Gridlock, which provides a background on electric
trucks, their market potential, and an overview of the challenges facing rapid
electrification of the industry.
• A report, How Policy Actions Can Spur EV Adoption in the United States, which
includes analysis on the market transforming Inflation Reduction Act EV
incentives [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1529-A1, pp. 1-2]
RMI is working to support the North American Council for Freight Efficiency in their 2023
biannual Run On Less - Electric DEPOT Event in September which will focus on fleet scaling
considerations such as charging infrastructure, engagement with utilities, total cost of ownership
management, driver and technician training, and more. This event will provide useful
information for the EPA on the truck industry. Current sponsors include PepsiCo, Cummins, and
Shell [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1529-A1, p. 2]
Organization: Truck Renting and Leasing Association (TRALA)
EPAs methodology within its Heavy-Duty Technology Resource Use Case Scenario (HD
TRUCS) also assumes that all customers will choose minimal on-site charging power to keep
capital costs low. 27 The agency's assumption for 19-50KW charging across many vehicle
applications in medium heavy-duty vehicles seems fundamentally incorrect based on what
TRALA is hearing from end-users about intentions to install 150KW-350KW charging on-site.
This assumption does not match many end-users plans to future-proof their charging
infrastructure to enable use across more vehicles and opportunity charging for multi-shift or peak
operational periods. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1577-A1, p. 19]
27 EPA's Heavy-Duty Technology Resource Use Case Scenario (HD TRUCS) was specifically developed
by EPA to evaluate HD ZEV technologies and costs under Phase 3.
Some MD truck applications, such as Class 4-8 box trucks, port drayage tractors, Class 4-7
step vans, and Class 6-7 flatbed trucks are used for routes similar to those of regional haul
tractors which are projected in HD TRUCS to need 150-350KW charging. However, in HD
TRUCS the applications mentioned above are only assumed to require 19-50KW chargers.
TRALA recommends EPA issue a request for information (RFI) to end-users to acquire
information on charging power needs for commercial vehicle operations and test these sensitive
up-front cost assumptions that are used to project end-user willingness to adopt ZEVs. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1577-A1, p. 19]
To demonstrate the importance of testing this assumed critical input, EPA should run a
sensitivity analysis to project the payback for all vehicle applications that are assumed to require
19-50KW charging if they require higher power DC charging. If, as many in industry suspect,
most medium heavy-duty end-users require higher power charging in the 150-350KW and
beyond range to maintain 1:1 productivity, this will change HD TRUCS model payback and
ZEV projections. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1577-A1, p. 19]
The uncertainty within FHWA's guidance for public charging infrastructure for medium
heavy-duty vehicles undermines end-user confidence that there will be sufficient public
infrastructure to support ZEV technologies. Therefore, it will benefit EPA, and all stakeholders
impacted under Phase 3, to define medium heavy-duty charging requirements for 1:1
productivity now so that HD TRUCS has correct Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE)
925
-------
costs modeled and FHWA has clear requirements for NEVI planning early in the program to
ensure public funding efficiently enables ZEV deployment across all targeted vehicle
applications. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1577-A1, p. 20]
Organization: Valero Energy Corporation
5. EPA's analysis inappropriately categorizes all HD EVSE as depot charging.
Regarding HD PEV charging, EPA states "we.. .do not estimate upfront hardware and
installation costs for public or other en-route electric vehicle charging infrastructure because
BEV charging needs are met with depot charging in our analysis."53 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1566-A2, p. 12]
53 DRIA at 195.
However, EPA separately acknowledges that "certain vehicles, such as long-haul trucks, may
depend on these [en-route] stations for a significant fraction of their daily electricity needs."54
EPA cites to studies by ICCT, Atlas Public Policy, and the Goldman School of Public Policy that
project future infrastructure needs and costs for HD EVSE. But these studies do not support
EPA's assumption that all BEV charging needs will be met with depot charging - in fact, they
directly contradict EPA's assumption:
• A "depot charging approach limits freedom of movement of the vehicle, so additional
infrastructure investments will be necessary. Some trips will require more power than one
overnight depot charging event can provide." 55
• A "reasonable share of vehicle owners, particularly independent owner-operators, will
not have the resources to install a private network of charging points and will depend on
chargers installed by others."56
• "In 2030, internal combustion engines will continue to power 96% of tractor-trailers
operating in the United States," and while "around 75% of charging points will provide
overnight private depot charging, an additional 14% will provide overnight publicly
accessible depot charging, and 11% will provide publicly accessible charging speeds of
350 kW or greater."57
• Personally-owned Class 4-8 trucks and all long-haul trucks will use on-road charging
exclusively; and personally-owned Class 3 trucks and Class 3-8 fleet vehicles (excluding
long-haul) use depot/home charging 75 to 90 percent of the time and on-road charging 10
to 25 percent of the time. 5 8
• For heavy-duty trucks, "the combination of 125-, 350-, and 1,000-kW HDT chargepoints
will be spread across about 2,700 truck stops."59 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2,
p. 12]
54 DRIA at 63.
55 ICCT Working Paper 2021-33, "Infrastructure to support a 100% zero-emission tractor-trailer fleet in
the United States by 2040" at 2 (September 2021).
56 ICCT Working Paper 2021-33, "Infrastructure to support a 100% zero-emission tractor-trailer fleet in
the United States by 2040" at 2 (September 2021).
57 ICCT Working Paper 2021-22, at 9.
926
-------
58 Atlas Public Policy, "U.S. Vehicle Electrification Infrastructure Assessment: Medium- and Heavy-Duty
Truck Charging" at 15, (November 12, 2021).
59 Goldman School of Public Policy, University of California Berkeley, "Plummeting Costs and Dramatic
Improvements in Batteries can Accelerate our Clean Transportation Future" at 31 (April 2021).
Despite EPA's statement that its EVSE and operating costs represent "estimated costs
incurred by users and society more generally of MY 2027 and later HD vehicles,"60 EPA fails to
account for the hardware and installation costs for en-route PEV charging in its overall program
costs. Rather, EPA anticipates "that a variety of public and private funding—including Federal
investments under the BIL and the IRA, and funding from states, automakers, charging
providers, utilities, and others—will help meet future charging infrastructure needs."61 EPA
must acknowledge in its impact analysis that public and private funding is not "free" - every
dollar supported by public funding is ultimately borne by taxpayers, and every dollar invested by
private funders is supported by a plan for recouping the investment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1566-A2, p. 13]
60 DRIA at xiii, emphasis added.
61 DRIA at 195-196.
Even if fleet owners will not bear the direct burden of capital costs for installing the requisite
en-route stations, EPA should assume that the station capital costs will be amortized within the
price of electricity, consistent with the methodology that EPA has applied for both FCEV and
ICEV fueling.62 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 13]
62 DRIA at 85.
EPA Summary and Response
Summary:
In the NPRM, EPA estimated infrastructure costs associated with depot charging to fulfill
each BEV's daily charging needs off-shift with appropriately sized EVSE. While we
acknowledged some vehicles may use public or other en-route charging, we did not directly
estimate these costs since BEV charging needs were met with depot charging in our NPRM
analysis (see DRIA at 195). We requested comment on this approach.
Multiple commenters agreed with EPA that depot charging would be preferred and sufficient
for many BEVs, particularly in the Phase 3 program's early years. For example, RMI cited an
analysis they conducted of heavy-duty trucks in California and New York, which found that
almost half of the vehicles can meet their daily needs without public charging. The
Electrification Coalition noted that New York and New Jersey fleet owners participating in a
2022 workshop stated that they currently preferred depot charging, expressing concern that
public charging may not yet be available and that electricity costs would be higher due to peak
daytime pricing. Likewise, ATA noted that early adopters prefer depot to public charging noting
some of the challenges with the latter. MEMA also cited several vocations—school buses, transit
buses, and port drayage—for which depot charging can be effective.
However, most commenters on this topic also saw a role for public charging at some point in
the Phase 3 rule's time frame and many recommended that EPA include public charging in its
analysis. For example, the Electrification Coalition said that en-route charging would be needed
927
-------
in the longer term both for vehicles without depot charging access and for long-haul applications.
CARB stated that EPA's decision to only model depot charging was sound given the ZEV
penetration levels and phase-in time in the agency's modeled compliance pathway but noted that
the analysis would better reflect the real world if it included some public charging. CARB further
noted that it did not anticipate a significant impact on costs based on comparable cost data for
depot and public EVSE.
The Arizona State Legislature, Clean Fuels Development Coalition et al., DTNA, and Valero
also said that EPA should account for public charging costs. The Arizona State Legislature
commented that en-route charging would be needed for long-haul or other vehicles with daily
VMT over 200 miles, citing several sources showing significant numbers of vehicles are over
that threshold or would otherwise need public charging. DTNA also stated that BEVs with high
VMT (e.g., a Class 8 regional cab with 349 miles a day) may need public charging as would
other vehicles (e.g., those in small business fleets) for which it's difficult to install depot
charging (e.g., due to location or capital costs). DTNA suggested that EPA could use a recent
ICCT paper (Ragon et al.) to inform modeling of public infrastructure needs and costs within HD
TRUCS.
Valero commented that EPA should include the costs for public charging infrastructure in its
impacts analysis regardless of whether it is borne directly by fleet owners or paid for with public
or private investments, and suggested amortizing costs of public charging within the estimated
electricity price (noting this would be consistent with the approach EPA uses for ICE vehicles
and FCEVs). The Arizona State Legislature said EPA did not consider costs of downtime
associated with en-route charging.
EPA also received comments about the EVSE power levels in our depot charging analysis,
which included L2 charging at 19.2 kW and DCFC at 50 kW, 150 kW, and 350 kW. TRALA
commented that EPA's approach to select the lowest cost option is inconsistent with the user
preferences and plans to install higher power (150 kW+) charging. TRALA suggested EPA issue
a request for information to better understand power needs and to conduct a sensitivity within
HD TRUCS to assess impact on payback periods if depot charging is assumed to be 150 kW to
350 kW. MEMA likewise noted that higher power charging than is assumed in HD TRUCS may
be needed to serve multi-shift operations for port drayage vehicles (e.g., fleets may opt for 350
kW EVSE to enable charging during operators' lunch breaks.)
Other comments on EVSE costs, charging costs, and dwell times are summarized and
addressed in the following sections.
Response:
As discussed above, EPA's NPRM analysis estimated infrastructure costs associated with
depot charging to fulfill each BEV's daily charging needs. This reflected our expectation that
many heavy-duty BEV owners would opt to purchase and install sufficient EVSE to ensure their
vehicle's operational needs are met. Commenters agreed that charging at depots is likely to be
preferred over public (or en-route charging) for certain fleets and vehicle types, particularly in
the early years of the Phase 3 program. Therefore, we continue to project that most vocational
vehicles and certain day cab tractors—those with return-to-base operations—will rely on depot
charging and we model them accordingly in our FRM analysis (though we have made updates to
that analysis as described in RIA 2.6 and RTC 6.3.2 to 6.3.4 below).
928
-------
However, we acknowledged in the proposal that some public charging may be needed in
future years, and we agree with commenters that it is appropriate to incorporate some public
charging costs into our analysis as part of the modeled potential compliance pathway that
supports the feasibility of the final standards. In particular, we agree that long-haul and certain
other vehicles with long daily ranges or that do not regularly return to base may rely on en-route
or public charging. As described in RIA 2.6, starting in MY 2030 in our final rule HD TRUCS
analysis we project public charging will be used by certain long-haul vehicles (both sleeper cab
and long-range day cab tractors) and coach buses (although we note that the coach bus custom
chassis standards are unchanged for the Phase 3 - we assume that if there are electrified coach
buses, they would utilize public charging networks). We further agree with the commenters who
suggested that the hardware and installation costs for public charging infrastructure would
typically be passed onto BEV owners through the charging price. Accordingly, we have
incorporated amortized public charging infrastructure costs into a $ per kWh charging cost for
vehicles that we project will use public charging. DTNA suggested a public charging cost of
$0.196 per kWh sourced from a recent ICCT paper (Basma et al. 2023).439 We agree that is a
reasonable choice and have utilized it in our FRM analysis (while also making adjustments in
future years to reflect changes in electricity prices over time as described in RIA 2.4.4.2 and
RTC 6.3.3). These public infrastructure costs reflect ICCT's assumed mix of 1 MW and 150 kW
EVSE ports to meet long-haul BEV charging needs with each station capable of 20 MW
power.440 See RIA 2.6.3 for a discussion of this topic, including estimated charge times for
vehicles that we project will use public charging at 1 MW.
We selected MY 2030 as the year when we project there will be sufficient public charging
infrastructure for HD vehicles for the projected utilization of such technologies under the
modeled potential compliance pathway (see our discussion of lead time in RTC Chapter 6.2).
For depot charging, we continue to model four EVSE power levels (19.2 kW, 50 kW, 150
kW, and 350 kW) and to select the lowest cost EVSE option for each of the depot-charging
vehicle types in HD TRUCS that can meet its needs. However, we agree with TRALA that some
fleet owners may opt for higher power and higher cost EVSE options, as we acknowledged in the
NPRM (DRIA at 201). TRALA suggested we conduct a sensitivity that restricts depot charging
options to 150 kW or higher but did not provide detailed information on the specific scenario
EPA should use for such a sensitivity. In particular, we note that per vehicle EVSE costs are
impacted not only by the hardware and installation costs of the selected EVSE, but by how many
vehicles can share that EVSE port. Fleet owners that opt for higher-power ports may be doing so
in order to share those ports across more vehicles (and reduce total installed depot costs) or to
future-proof the depot so additional EVSE do not need to be installed as more BEVs are
incorporated into the fleet. To illustrate this point, consider a fleet of transit buses that each need
to add 350 kWh of energy from charging over the same 8-hour dwell period at a depot. A fleet
owner opting for 50 kW EVSEs would need one port per bus at a cost of about $54,000 each
439 Hussein Basma, Claire Buysee, Yuanrong Zhou, and Felipe Rodriguez. "Total Cost of Ownership of Alternative
Powertrain Technologies for Class 8 Long-haul Trucks in the United States." International Council on Clean
Transportation. April 2023. Available online: https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/tco-alt-powertrain-
long-haul-trucks-us-apr23 .pdf.
440 Hussein Basma, Claire Buysee, Yuanrong Zhou, and Felipe Rodriguez. "Total Cost of Ownership of Alternative
Powertrain Technologies for Class 8 Long-haul Trucks in the United States." International Council on Clean
Transportation. April 2023. Available online: https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/tco-alt-powertrain-
long-haul-trucks-us-apr23 .pdf.
929
-------
(using EVSE cost and charging loss assumptions from our FRM analysis) whereas if the fleet
owner opts for 350 kW charging, up to seven buses could share the same port at a per vehicle
cost of about $28,000 (just over half the costs under 50 kW.) EPA did not conduct a sensitivity in
HD TRUCS, but notes that overall costs could be higher or lower (depending on assumptions),
and to the extent fleets owners opt for higher power charging in order to share ports among
vehicles, EPA's costs could be conservative.
We address the issue of potential need for distribution grid buildout to support public
charging stations in RTC 7 (Distribution) below.
6.3.2 EVSE Costs
Comments by Organizations
Organization: American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)
EPA's cost analysis also assumes—without any concrete support—an "upfront" cost for ZEV
purchasers of EVSE at or near the time of the vehicle purchase. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1659-A2, p. 30]
Organization: American Trucking Associations (ATA)
The uncertainty of the costs associated with opportunity public charging and the availability
of mega charging sites requires fleets to invest in onsite charging. Investment in charging onsite
has become a barrier as well. On average, a 180-kW charger with dual ports costs fleets
$100,000 each. In consultation with utilities, available power and expected power usage dictate
the number of chargers on site. In many cases, the high cost of installation and planning also
limits fleets from electrifying a greater number of ZEVs or narrows their electrification plans to
just forklifts or yard trucks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1535-A1, p. 18]
Organization: CALSTART
Technology diffusion and infrastructure costs: EPA's cost scenario assumes no reduction in
the cost of infrastructure over time. Both the range of costs used in EPA's assumptions and the
lack of reduction do not match market realities. EPA references an ICCT assumption of a 3
percent annual cost reduction but does not include it.53F54 To assume no change in costs over
time can cause an incorrect assumption of payback timing and introduce artificial cost/benefit
tradeoffs for fleets. Analyses show that capital costs across energy supply infrastructure have
shown significant reductions due to technology learning rates, such as in solar technology.54F55
Our analysis considers a technology reduction cost between 4 percent and 7 percent annually,
similar to those seen in wind and solar, as reasonable. Using this assumption in our assessment
reduces total capital costs of electric vehicle supply equipment in our scenarios by 11
percent. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1656-A1, pp. 24 - 25]
54 https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/202 l/06/ICCT_EV_Charging_Cost_20190813 .pdf
55 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar..cle/pii/S1364032120307747#fig4
930
-------
Organization: Clean Fuels Development Coalition et al.
And, as will be discussed later in this comment, the proposal's listed costs grossly
underestimate the rule's true costs. The proper metric is aggregate cost because the major-
questions doctrine asks about the rule's significance to the "national economy." West Virginia v.
EPA, 142 S. Ct. at 2609 (2022). These aggregate costs include: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1585-A1, p. 4]
Vehicle fueling infrastructure: Not only the costs to build depot chargers that the proposal
contemplates, but also the cost to install and maintain all the DC fast-charging stations necessary
for purchasers to use the heavy-duty vehicles when they are out on the road. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1585-A1, p. 5]
Electric power costs: Researchers estimate that the 350 million electric vehicles required to
decarbonize the U.S. fleet by 2050 could use as much as half of U.S. national electricity demand.
See Thea Riofrancos et al., Achieving Zero Emissions with More Mobility and Less Mining,
U.C. Davis Climate + Community Project (Jan. 2023),
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/eenews/f/eenews/?id=00000185-e562-de44-a7bf-
ed7751a00000. The proposal would hence amount to a complete transformation of the electric
power sector, requiring substantially more generation, transmission, and distribution, which in
turn would result in higher power prices not just for those using electrified vehicles, but for all
users. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2022-0985-1585- A 1, p. 5]
Organization: Daimler Truck North America LLC (DTNA)
Infrastructure Costs Electrical infrastructure costs are not adequately accounted for in EPA's
HD TRUCS modeling. As a counterpoint to EPA's estimates in the Proposed Rule, the Company
presents a summary of the average combined hardware and installation EVSE costs in Table 10
below, based upon DTNA's experience working with fleet customers. EPA assumes all
customers will have 12- hour depot dwell times for lower speed overnight charging, however,
DTNA believes that a significant portion of the HD fleet sees higher utilization, requiring faster
charging times. We would thus expect higher costs for customers where faster charging speeds
are required. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 30] [Refer to Table 10 on p. 30 of docket
number EPA-HQ-0AR-2022-0985-1555- A 1 ]
EPA Request for Comment, Request #75: We request comment on our estimated EVSE costs
as well as our proposal to add EVSE costs to each vehicle's purchaser RPE costs in estimating
purchaser costs.
DTNA Response: As EVSE is required for fleets, and heavy-duty public charging
networks do not exist, EPA should include EVSE costs in each vehicle purchaser's RPE.
DTNA believes that EPA underestimates EVSE costs and is willing to share relevant data
confidentially with EPA. As discussed in Section II.C of these comments, EPA should re-
evaluate its assumptions on this issue on a regular basis, using the best available
data. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 172]
EPA Request for Comment, Request #36: After considering the uncertainty on how costs may
change over time, we keep the combined hardware and installation costs per EVSE port constant.
We request comment on this approach.
931
-------
• DTNA Response: See DTNA Response to Request # 20, above. In addition, DTNA
believes EPA is under-estimating EVSE costs, and is willing to share relevant data
confidentially with EPA. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 164]
EPA Request for Comment, Request #37: We request comment, including data, on our
approach and assessment of current and future costs for charging equipment and installation
DTNA Response: See DTNA Response to Request # 20 and 36, above. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 164]
Organization: Environmental Defense Fund (EPF)
1. EPA's underlying component costs are high
While EPA includes the Commercial Clean Vehicle Credit and the production tax credit for
batteries, it fails to include the Alternative Fuel Refueling Property Credit in its assessment of
cost. The IRS has not published guidance yet on how this credit will be applied, but the language
from the IRA indicates that businesses could receive up to a 30% credit on up to $100,000 of
EVSE. Roush, in a recent report, showed that this also could save vehicle owners $1,064 for a 25
kW charger to $26,000 for a 100 kW charger.130 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 53]
130 H. Saxena, S. Pillai, "Impact of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 on Medium- and Heavy-Duty
Electrification onMYs 2024 and 2027," 2023. Roush.
In their modeling, EPA has a maximum of two vehicles per charger even if many more
vehicles could be charged in the 12 hours of dwell time EPA assumes. This results in a high
estimate of number of EVSE ports needed, driving up the EVSE costs and driving down the
stringency of the rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 53]
Organization: MEMA
• The model assumes that end-users will buy the lowest cost, lowest power chargers
possible given the vehicle application's daily energy expenditures and overnight dwell
time -12 hours. This assumption does not match what we have heard from end-users that
indicates commercial vehicle end users want to invest in EVSE at a higher power level
than minimum requirements. Because of the need for faster charging time, 150KW-
350KW charging rather than 19-50KW charging is more desirable in the commercial
vehicle space due to desires to future proof infrastructure investments and have more
flexibility in charging options for overnight and opportunity charging. It is believed this
higher kW power charging provides a margin of safety that fleet operators will seek to
avoid costly vehicle downtime. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1570-A1, p. 16]
Recommendation: EPA run a sensitivity analysis using HD TRUCS to see how payback and
adoption analyses would change if the applications currently assumed to use 19- 50 KW in the
model instead are projected using 150-350KW. EPA issue a public request for information about
vehicle dwell time and intentions to install higher power DC fast charging on site. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1570-A1, p. 16]
Some percentage of the above noted vehicle applications can electrify once suitable charging
is available near the job site. We would expect BEV adoption to increase in areas where fast
932
-------
charging (>150-350KW) has been deployed in industrial, metro, and interstate locations.
However, we would not recommend full-BEV technology be modeled, recommended or
mandated for utility vehicles that restore critical services in emergency situations due to the risk
of charging infrastructure downtime impeding the vehicles' missions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1570-A1, p. 19]
Given sufficient time to gather data, industry can support EPA development of HD TRUCS
model with GPS-driven geographical inputs of a variety of vehicle applications to assess the
variability of routes/location and assess public infrastructure charging needs. A MEMA member
provides an example below of the kind of additional data that could be provided to EPA using
telematics, GPS, and elevation maps on a refuse application. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1570-
Al, p. 19.] [See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1570-A1, page. 19, for referenced
figure.]
Organization: PACCAR
C. EPA UNDERESTIMATES CHARGER COSTS
TRUCS underestimates the cost of electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE). EPA assumed a
$162,333 cost in 2021 dollars for a 350 kW charger. However, during the Phase 3 timeframe,
PACCAR projects that actual per-charger costs will be tens of thousands of dollars more. The
TRUCS analysis also fails to consider EVSE maintenance costs, including those for periodic
cable replacement, repairs due to operator damage, and filter replacement, each of which can be
significant. A recent ICCT paper, for example, estimates that annual maintenance charger costs
will be $3,200 annually.4 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1607-A1, p. 6.] [See table 8 on page 7 of
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1607-A1.]
4. Id.
E. TRUCS DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR IMPORTANT OPERATING COSTS
TRUCS omits other key considerations that will affect electric vehicle operating costs. For
example, only onsite-charging costs are considered in estimating electric vehicle charging cost.
Although EPA's Regulatory Impact Analysis recognizes that "public charging price may
incorporate the profit margin of the third-party charging provider along with operating expenses,
and costs associated with charging equipment depreciation," TRUCS does not factor in such
public charging station cost increases. 5 It was unrealistic for EPA to assume that all charging
will take place onsite, so EPA should have considered higher offsite-charging costs as
well. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1607-A1, p. 8]
5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles: Phase 3 Draft Regulatory Impact
Analysis at 68, EPA-420-D-23-001 April 2023, available at:
https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P10178RN.pdf
Organization: Tesla, Inc. (Tesla)
Turning to the record the agency has set forth then, first, the agency's cost estimates for
DCFC installation are higher than Tesla's experience. Tesla has established the lowest cost in the
industry and shown the costs to be more than 50% below current industry averages. 198
Importantly, EPA should recognize that non-utility ownership of BEV charging stations is
933
-------
associated with significantly reduced cost of installation. 199 Further, charging technology, like
vehicle technology, is also maturing as more suppliers and manufacturing facilities are coming
online.200 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1505-A1, p. 27]
198 Tesla, Investor's Day Presentation (March 1, 2023) at 97 - 101 available at
https://digitalassets.tesla.com/teslacontents/image/upload/IR/Investor-Day-2023-Keynote
199 See Grid Strategies/Electric Serving Customers Best: The Benefits of Competitive Electric Vehicle
Charging Stations (May 2023) at Table 3 (showing calculations for average cost per EV charging port by
company) available at https://www.electricadvisorsconsulting.eom/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/The-
Benefits-of-Competitive-EV-Charging- Stations.pdf
200 See, ABB, ABB expands US manufacturing footprint with investment in new EV charger facility
(Sept. 14, 2023) available at https://new.abb.com/news/detail/94725/abb-expands-us-manufacturing-
footprint-with-investment-in-new-ev-chargerfacility; See also, Tritium, Tritium Celebrates the Opening of
Its First Global EV Fast Charger Manufacturing Facility in the United States (Aug. 23, 2022) available at
https://tritiumcharging.com/tritium-celebrates-the-opening-of-its-first-global-evfast- charger-
manufacturing-facility-in-the-united-states/
Organization: Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
EVSE Costs - The EVSE costs included in EPA's HD TRUCS cover the cost of the EVSE
unit (charger) and the installation cost downstream of the electricity meter. The NPRM expects
that the vehicle owner will be responsible for those costs. The data for those costs in the EPA
tool came from an article published on June 21, 2021 by Nature Energy, as referenced in the
Draft RIA. That article is based on a study authored in part by NREL as part of a DOE contract.
The EVSE cost data from that study forms the basis of the EPA's EVSE costs, as shown in the
Draft RIA Table 2-58 (p. 197), reproduced below. Significantly, EPA uses the low-end in each
range of estimated ESVE costs in HD TRUCS. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p.28]
EMA data from OEMs shows that the low-end costs are consistently too low in comparison to
what actually is being experienced in the field today and what likely will be experienced in the
future. Instead, EMA has determined that the midrange values (average of the high and low
values in the table) are far more consistent with OEM experience and with what is reasonably
expected in the future for the Level 2, DC-50kW and DC-150kW installations. The high end of
the range is more appropriate for the DC-350kW EVSE, even though that is still significantly
below the current cost in the field. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p.28]
EMA agrees with EPA that the EVSE costs should be held constant throughout the regulated
years. Increased labor costs are expected to offset or even overtake any reductions in the cost of
the EVSE units over time. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p.29]
Based on the foregoing, the table below reflects the recommended values for EVSE costs that
EMA has used in the EMA HD TRUCS model. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p.29] [See
the EMA Recommended Values for EVSE Costs table on page 29 of docket number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1]
EVSE Costs - EMA's recommended EVSE costs, shown in the table below, also were run
together. The ensuing table shows the revised projected ZEV adoption rates for 2027 and
2032. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 37] [See the Projected ZEV Adoption Rates for
MYs 2027 and 2032 Tables on page 37 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1.]
934
-------
Organization: Truck Renting and Leasing Association (TRALA)
The maximum 30% tax credit, up to $100,000 per EV charger, also has qualifying conditions
including that charging stations must be located in an eligible census tract which by definition
requires:
• A poverty rate of at least 20%; OR
• Location in a census tract that is not in a metropolitan area and the medium family
income for the tract does not exceed 80% of the applicable statewide median family
income; AND
• Laborers employed in the construction of EV charging stations must meet the new
prevailing wage and apprenticeship requirements [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1577-A1,
P- 20]
Many TRALA customers (i.e.., lessees) will not likely be able to maximize this tax credit
either since they may not meet the preceding criteria or they will not have permission to install
charging ports on leased property under their lease terms. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1577-A1,
p. 20]
Organization: Valero Energy Corporation
6. The EVSE installation costs adopted by EPA are unrealistic.
Table 2-58 of the draft RIA summarizes the ranges of costs that EPA considered for EVSE
hardware and installation, for Level 2 (19.2 kW), DC-50 kW, DC-150 kW and DC-350 kW
power levels.63 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 13.] [See Table 2-58 Combined
Hardware and Installation Costs, per EVSE Port: ICCT Costs on page 13 of docket number EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0986-1566-A2.]
63 DRIA at 197.
While EPA details the significant funding opportunities made available for EV charging
infrastructure under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) and Inflation Reduction Act
(IRA),64 it acknowledges the "complexity of analyzing the combined potential impact of these
provisions (including IRA programs for which implementation guidance is not yet available)"65
and clarifies that it did "not directly account[] for these cost savings in our depot charging
analysis."66 Instead, "to reflect our expectation that these programs could significantly reduce
the overall infrastructure costs paid by BEV and fleet owners for depot charging, we are using
the low end of our hardware and installation cost ranges, as shown in Table 2-60, for each
charging type."67 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 13.] [See Table 2-60, Combined
Hardware and Installation Costs, per EVSE Port, on page 14 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0986-1566-A2.]
64 DRIA at 15-22.
65 DRIA at 202.
66 DRIA at 202.
67 DRIA at 202.
935
-------
EPA again regards funding opportunities through the BIL and IRA as being "free," when in
reality the funding comes at a very real cost to the U.S. taxpayer. Further, the cost ranges
presented by EPA are drawn from sources published between 2017 and June 2021,68 all of
which pre-date the adoption of the BIL in November 2021. In contrast to EPA's expectation that
the BIL and IRA funding opportunities will reduce the cost of EVSE hardware and installation,
industry warns that the "Build America, Buy America" provisions of the BIL will "slow the
rollout, drive up costs" of compliant charging infrastructure.69 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1566-A2, p. 14]
68 DRIA at 197, footnotes 145 to 148.
69 See https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/ev-charger-makers-brace-slowdown-new-
made-america-rules-kick-2023-03-21/ (accessed May 13, 2023).
In fact, recent estimates by EV charging station vendors and in DOT-approved state EV
Infrastructure Deployment Plans project significantly higher EVSE costs than used by EPA in
their cost analysis, ranging from $500,000 to $1.2 million in capital expenditures for a
minimally-compliant NEVI charging station containing four simultaneously operable 150 kW
CCS ports (i.e., $125,000 - $300,000 per DC-150 kW port).70,71,72,73 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1566-A2, p. 14]
70 See https://www.evgo.com/blog/building-ev-charging-stations-with-nevi/ (accessed May 13, 2023).
71 https://betterenergy.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/EV_CorridorRoadmap2023.pdf (accessed May 13,
2023).
72 ARDOT, "Arkansas Electric Vehicle Charging" (July 2022), https://www.ardot.gov/wp-
content/uploads/2022/07/ARDOT_NE VI_FAQ.pdf.
73 U.S. DOT Fiscal Year 2022/2023 EV Infrastructure Deployment Plans (accessed May 20, 2023),
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/nevi/ev_deployment_plans/. See plans submitted by and approved
for Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, District of Columbia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Texas,
and Wyoming.
EPA Summary and Response
Summary:
Comments on EPA's assumptions about hardware and installation costs for EVSE generally
fell into three categories: comments on the EVSE costs themselves, comments on whether and
how these should be adjusted based on tax credits, and comments on whether EVSE costs should
vary or be kept constant over time.
Vehicle manufacturers including DTNA and PACCAR asserted that EPA underestimated
hardware and installation costs. PACCAR stated that costs for 350 kW will be tens of thousands
higher than the $162,333 value used in the proposed rulemaking, while DTNA confidentially
provided average EVSE cost estimates informed by its experience with fleet customers. EMA
commented on EPA's choice to use the low end of a range of EVSE costs presented in the
NPRM, stating that this underestimated costs. EMA recommended that EPA use the mid (or
average) point of the range for L2 ports and DCFCs at 50 kW and 150 kW. For the highest-
power depot charging option of 350 kW, EMA recommended using the high end of the range
though noted this was still low compared to today's costs. Valero also stated that EPA
936
-------
underestimated costs and asserted that EPA's assumptions come from older sources published
from 2017 to 2021. Valero provided an estimated range of $125,000 to $300,000 per DC-150
kW port drawn from state NEVI plans and EVSE providers as a purported example of current
costs.
By contrast, Tesla commented that EPA's EVSE costs for DC fast charging installations in
the NPRM are high, noting that Tesla's own costs are half of the average industry costs. More
broadly, Tesla stated that installation costs are lower in situations where entities other than
utilities own the charging stations. While not directly addressing EPA's EVSE cost assumptions,
ATA cited as an example that a dual port 180-kW charger could cost $100,000 in its comment on
how high EVSE costs for fleets could impede adoption.
Several commenters addressed the Alternative Fuel Refueling Property tax credit that was
extended and modified by the IRA. EDF said that EPA's EVSE costs were too high because the
NPRM analysis failed to incorporate the tax credit, and cited a Roush report that found it could
save owners as much as $26,000 for a 100-kW charger. TRALA noted the limitation of the tax
credit to certain census tracts and the prevailing wage requirements, indicating that its customers
may not be eligible for the maximum credit. TRALA also noted that customers with leased
property may not be able to install charging infrastructure. Valero disagreed with EPA's
approach to account for the potential savings from the tax credit by using the low end of EVSE
cost ranges. It noted that costs funded by public sources under IRA or BIL are borne by
taxpayers and therefore still must be accounted for in EPA's analysis. Beyond the tax credit,
Valero cautioned that due to "Build America, Buy America" provisions, costs for EVSE funded
under BIL programs could increase.
Both EMA and CARB thought that EPA's approach of holding combined EVSE hardware
and installation costs constant over time was reasonable, noting as EPA did in the proposal, that
EVSE unit costs could decline, but installation costs could rise and offset these cost savings. By
contrast, CALSTART said that EPA should account for learning rates when assessing EVSE
equipment costs and noted that they have considered annual reductions of 4 to 7 percent in their
analysis, consistent with reductions from renewable energy generation.
Response:
As described in RIA Chapter 2.6.2.1, we made several changes in how we estimate the EVSE
costs incurred for depot charging in the final rule analysis in response to these comments and to
account for the most up-to-date information available.
For the NPRM analysis, we developed cost ranges for each of the four EVSE types
considered in our depot charging analysis. The DCFC costs were sourced from a 2021 study
specific to heavy-duty electrification at charging depots while L2 cost ranges were informed by
several sources (as described in RIA Chapter 2.6.2.1). After reviewing new information on
EVSE costs provided in comments as well as a new NREL study released since the publication
of the NPRM (Wood et al. 2023),441 we determined it was appropriate to increase the underlying
hardware and installation cost ranges we considered for DCFC-150 kW and DCFC-350 kW to
those in Wood et al. 2023. As discussed in RIA Chapter 2.6.2.1, hardware and installation costs
vary due to differences in equipment, installation sites, labor costs and other factors. We selected
441 Wood, Eric et al. "The 2030 National Charging Network: Estimating U.S. Light-Duty Demand for Electric
Vehicle Charging Infrastructure." 2023. Available online: https://driveelectric.gov/files/2030-charging-network.pdf.
937
-------
the midpoint of the EVSE cost ranges to use in our cost analysis for the final rule to reflect an
average cost for charging infrastructure deployment. We note that this differs from our approach
in the NPRM. For that analysis, we used the low end of EVSE cost ranges to reflect typical costs
that may be borne by BEV and fleet owners for installing EVSE after accounting for savings
from the Alternative Fuel Refueling Property tax credit as well as grants, rebates, or other
funding available through the IRA (see DRIA at 202). As described below, and to reflect new
and more detailed information on the potential value of the tax credit, we now consider the tax
credit in a separate step.
The resulting EVSE costs used in our FRM analysis before accounting for the tax credit for
L2 and DC-50 kW ports now match the NPRM midpoint values as recommended by EMA. The
updated cost for each DC-150 kW port in our FRM analysis is $154,200, which is within the
range Valero provided in its comments as an example, and higher than the value recommended
by EMA.442 For a 350-kW port, the updated EVSE cost in our FRM analysis is $232,700, which
is consistent with PACCAR's comment that costs would be "tens of thousands of dollars more"
than the approximately $162,000 in the NPRM analysis and similar to the value recommended
by EMA of about $228,000.443 We also acknowledge Tesla's comments reporting significantly
lower installed DCFC costs. To the extent that is experienced more widely by the industry in
future years, our EVSE costs could be considered conservative.
We agree with EDF that it is appropriate to account for the potential savings to BEV owners
from the Alternative Fuel Refueling Property Tax credit, but also with TRALA that it is
important to consider eligibility restrictions when assessing the value of the tax credit. As
described in RIA Chapter 2.6.1, DOE conducted an analysis of the average value of this tax
credit for charging equipment that supports heavy-duty BEVs. DOE estimated that
approximately 60 percent of depots will be located in qualifying census tracts and that businesses
will generally meet prevailing wage and apprenticeship requirements to utilize the maximum 30
percent tax credit where applicable.444 Accordingly, we apply an average reduction of 18 percent
to the upfront costs we assume BEV owners will incur for EVSE at depots in our HD TRUCS
model for the FRM (see RIA 2.6.1 for more information on this assumption.) We also agree with
Valero that even though purchasers will pay less for EVSE due to the tax credit, these costs are
still borne by taxpayers and represent a societal cost. Therefore, for the FRM analysis, we only
include the assumed 18% cost savings as a savings to purchasers. We include the full EVSE
costs in our cost benefits calculations as presented in RIA Chapter 8.
For the FRM analysis, we determined it was still appropriate to keep total hardware and
installation costs constant over time as both EMA and CARB had affirmed in their comments.
However, we agree with CALSTART that EVSE unit costs could decline significantly due to
learning or other factors, as we acknowledged in the NPRM. As described in RIA Chapter 2.6,
we decided to keep overall EVSE costs constant to reflect that while hardware costs may decline,
installation costs could rise over time, particularly if fleet owners choose to install charging
442 While EPA did not estimate the cost associated with a 180-kW EVSE port, we note that our assumed costs for the
lower power 150-kW port are higher than those ATA cited for a 180-kW unit.
443 As PACCAR noted, the $162,333 in the NPRM was expressed in 2021 dollars and the same is true of the
$227,687 value recommend by EMA. We treat the $232,700 value in our FRM analysis as being expressed in 2022
dollars.
444 Department of Energy. "Estimating Federal Tax Incentives for Heavy Duty Electric Vehicle Infrastructure and
for Acquiring Electric Vehicles Weighing Less Than 14,000 Pounds." March 11, 2024.
938
-------
stations at easier (and lower cost sites) first, and then move onto more challenging sites. To the
extent installation costs stay constant or even decline, the combined hardware and installation
EVSE costs we utilized for the FRM analysis could be considered conservative for future years.
6.3.3 Charging Costs
Comments by Organizations
Organization: American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)
In addition, EPA underestimates the cost of the electricity to those customers who are not able
to install their own charging stations and take advantage of charging at low-cost times, as the
EPA's cost analysis uses a commercial rate and does not consider peak power or time of use
charges. Notably, the cost to consumer also fails to account for the decreased range and loads for
ZEV HDs in accounting for the payback occurring between three and seven years for long-haul
tractors. EPA also fails to account for infrastructure impacts from increased operation of heavier
ZEVs on the road including road and bridge deterioration and commensurate reduced funding for
infrastructure from fuel tax collections as EPA fails to account for the fact that ZEVs do not pay
federal and state liquid transportation fuel taxes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1659-A2, p. 30]
Critically, EPA fails to account for billions of dollars in electric power infrastructure upgrades
needed to supply power to the mandated heavy-duty ZEVs, including additional power
generation, transmission, substations, transformers, and other distribution equipment. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1659-A2, p. 30]
Organization: Arizona State Legislature
Finally, EPA has not considered other important factors necessary to enable cross-country
freight transportation by electric heavy-duty trucks. 'Other barriers include laws preventing
commercial charging at public rest areas and the remoteness of many truck parking locations.'54
EPA acknowledges that 'the buildout of public and private charging stations (particularly those
with multiple high-powered DC fast charging units) could in some cases require upgrades to
local distribution systems.' 88 Fed. Reg. 25,982. EPA also recognizes that '[t]here is
considerable uncertainty associated with future distribution upgrade needs, and in many cases,
some costs may be borne by utilities rather than directly incurred by [battery electric vehicle] or
fleet owners.' Id. at 25,983. But rather than conduct a comprehensive analysis of the cost and
technology availability as the statute requires, EPA punted: 'Therefore, we do not model them
directly as part of our infrastructure cost analysis.' Id. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1621-A1,
p. 28]
54 American Transportation Research Institute, supra note 42, at 2.
Organization: Clean Fuels Development Coalition et al.
This charging infrastructure analysis further ignores the massive increase in electricity
infrastructure necessary to supply an additional 110,000 GWh per year the rule says will be
needed by 2055. Supplying this load will not only require significant new generation assets, but
also additional transmission and distribution equipment including replacement of every
939
-------
transformer between the substation and the "depot." Assuming that this can all be done on EPA's
timeline (and it almost certainly can't), these costs will be borne either by the buyers of the
electric trucks or by electric ratepayers, many of whom will receive no benefit. EPA
unreasonably ignores these costs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1585-A1, pp. 33 - 34]
Organization: Daimler Truck North America LLC (DTNA)
As discussed in more detail in Section II.B.3.f, grid side updates to support transportation
electrification must be included in EPA's payback period calculation, either as a separate input
or as a cost per kilowatt-hour addition to the base electricity price. DTNA recommends that the
costs set forth in Table 11 be included in EPA's assessment of payback period in HD TRUCS to
assess the cost of grid updates as a separate input:56 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, pp.
30-31] [Refer to Table 11 on p. 31 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1]
56 Alternatively, EPA could consider ICCT's approach to estimating public infrastructure costs on a cent
per kilowatt-hour basis, which is reflected in Table 7 of the ICCT TCO White Paper. See id. at Table 7
(estimating grid upgrade and connection costs, plus behind-the-meter charger-related cost estimates in
cents-per-kWh). The ICCT figures may reasonably estimate the costs of depot site electrification; however,
ICCT assumes that new public charging sites will have flexibility in station location selection to reduce the
grid connection costs and that there will either be space inside the existing substation to add another
substation transformer, or it would be possible to upgrade an existing transformer. Id. at 14. Using these
assumptions, the ICCT TCO White Paper does not consider land acquisition costs, nor engineering design
or right-of-way acquisition activities. As discussed in Section II.B.3.f, fleet depot locations do not have this
flexibility, and therefore ICCT may underestimate grid side costs. Further, there is significant uncertainty in
ICCT's grid update cost estimates, as the cost of grid improvements to support transportation electrification
will widely vary based on the project scope. DTNA believes that its grid update cost estimates set forth in
Table 11 are more accurate than the ICCT figures, but it requests that EPA consider using the ICCT cent-
per-KW/h figures if it determines not to use the Company's per-vehicle cost figures in HD TRUCS.
DTNA also recommends that EPA proactively engage with electric utilities to better
understand the range of associated grid update costs and that these costs be updated regularly in
the HD TRUCS tool as additional data becomes available. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1,
p. 31]
A number of fleet operations will require some charging to occur during peak hours or at
public charging infrastructure, both of which will likely have higher associated costs than the
commercial electricity end-use rate projection used by EPA in the HD TRUCS tool. These are
factors fleets will likely consider when assessing the payback period for a BEV, thus EPA should
periodically update electricity costs in the HD TRUCS model to inform its payback periods and
adoption rates. To perform this analysis, it may be reasonable for EPA to rely on the 19.6 cents
per kilowatt-hour charging cost estimate from the ICCT TCO White Paper as the basis for more
accurate cost estimates. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 32]
EPA's projected electricity costs are based on the DOE EIA AEO 2022 reference case, but
these estimates do not account for the supply-demand relationship, decarbonization mandates in
the power generation sector, nor rate increases for large scale utility projects. In a 2022 article
exploring the impact of the net-zero transition on a number of sectors, including electricity
generation, McKinsey Sustainability projects that electricity costs could rise by about 40% by
2040 over 2020 prices, as power companies must invest in building renewable generation,
transmission, and storage capacity—and some fossil fuel-based power assets would continue to
940
-------
incur capital costs, even if underutilized or prematurely retired.58 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1555-A1, p. 32]
58 See McKinsey Sustainability, 'The economic transformation: What would change in the net-zero
transition' (Jan. 25, 2022), https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/sustainability/our-insights/the-
economic-transformation-what-would-change-in-the-net-zero-transition.
A number of fleet operations will require some charging to occur during peak hours or at
public charging infrastructure, both of which will likely have higher associated costs than the
commercial electricity end-use rate projection used by EPA in the HD TRUCS tool. These are
factors fleets will likely consider when assessing the payback period for a BEV, thus EPA should
periodically update electricity costs in the HD TRUCS model to inform its payback periods and
adoption rates. To perform this analysis, it may be reasonable for EPA to rely on the 19.6 cents
per kilowatt-hour charging cost estimate from the ICCT TCO White Paper as the basis for more
accurate cost estimates. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 32]
There are a number of TCO Inputs that EPA has not accounted for. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1555-A1, p. 34]
There are a number of TCO inputs that EPA has not accounted for in the HD TRUCS tool that
should be included to more accurately inform payback periods and adoption rate projections for
the Proposed Rule, including:
• Grid Update Costs. As discussed in this section and in Section II.B.3.f of these
comments, fleets will pay for the grid updates required to support charging equipment for
HD BEVs. EPA should include these costs either as a standalone line item in the HD
TRUCS tool (using the per-vehicle costs provided above in Table 11, 'DTNA Proposed
Grid Update Cost Inputs for HD TRUCS') or as an increase on its estimated costs per
kilowatt hour (potentially using the estimates in Table 7 of the ICCT TCO White
Paper). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 34]
• Land Acquisition. As discussed in Section II.B.3.f, fleets with space constraints may need
to purchase additional land to site charging equipment. As real estate prices are extremely
variable, and DTNA does not have information about how many fleets would need to
expand their depot locations, we do not offer cost estimates here; however, the Company
recommends that EPA consider adding land acquisition cost to HD TRUCS as more data
becomes available. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 35]
Infrastructure Costs
EPA asserts 'there is considerable uncertainty associated with future distribution upgrade
needs, and in many cases, some costs may be borne by utilities rather than directly incurred by
BEV or fleet owners. Therefore, we do not model them directly as part of our infrastructure
analysis.' 115 DTNA appreciates that there is significant complexity and uncertainty in modeling
these costs, but believes that omitting front-of-meter costs is a significant error in the TCO
calculation that has major implications for EPA's proposed C02 standard stringency
levels. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2022-0985-1555- A 1, p. 48]
115 Proposed Rule, 88 Fed. Reg. at 25,983.
How fleet owners pay for infrastructure will depend on a variety of factors, including utility
structure (investor-owned, municipal, cooperative), existing available grid capacity, project
941
-------
scale, real estate needs, etc. For fleets in cooperative and municipality service territories,
including many in critical urban freight hubs, upgrade costs are likely borne directly by the fleet.
For fleets working with investor-owned utilities, the cost mechanism will vary. If infrastructure
is needed by more than one utility customer, the utility will typically ask the fleet for a pro-rata
share of those costs, or in some cases, increase electricity rates to cover those costs. Where fleets
do not meet the minimum utilization rates for the contracted time period (5 to 10 years), fleets
may be required to reimburse the utility for infrastructure upgrades, or costs are distributed
among all ratepayers. One DTNA customer fleet has cancelled an order for 25 Class 8 tractors
because of what they viewed as risky contract terms, including requirements for load
management and a 10-year commitment to construct capacity for a 3 MW site. Regardless of the
pathway, fleets will bear the cost of infrastructure upgrades to support charging needs, and those
costs should be included in the proposed rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 48]
DTNA relied on a cost study by the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) to estimate an
optimized and non-optimized dollar-per-kilowatt cost figure for grid updates. 116 To estimate
per-vehicle grid update costs for Class 3-8 BEVs, we applied the BCG dollar-per-kilowatt cost
estimates to an assumed average daily power need for each vehicle class that would be subject to
the Phase 3 C02 standards, shown in Table 11 ('DTNA Proposed Grid Update Cost Inputs for
HD TRUCS') presented in Section II.B.3.b. As reflected in Table 11, these costs are non-
negligible, significantly impact the TCO proposition, and must be considered in EPA's HD
TRUCS analysis. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 48]
116 See Boston Consulting Group, 'The Costs of Revving Up the Grid for Electric Vehicles' (Dec. 20,
2019), https://www.bcg.com/publications/2019/costs-rewing-up-the-grid-for-electric-vehicles.
Using the same average daily power assumptions, DTNA estimated the additional installed
capacity that will be needed to support HD BEVs at the adoption rates projected in the Proposed
Rule. The Company calculated a 5-year average of commercial vehicle sales in all 50 states from
the Polk Automotive database from 2017-2021, applied EPA's projected ZEV volumes for 2027-
2032, and calculated the total installed charging capacity that will be required by these vehicles
in 2027 - 2032 to be approximately 45 gigawatts. In Appendix C to these comments, DTNA
estimates the investments in charging infrastructure and grid upgrades, as well as total installed
charging capacity, that will be required in each of the 50 states to support implementation of the
Proposed Rule. 117 DTNA considers installed capacity in this context to mean the total power
available as EVSE to charge commercial vehicle batteries. Using installed capacity is a
more appropriate metric for evaluating available charging capacity than the number of chargers
alone, as installed capacity better reflects the variability in charging speeds needed to support
different vehicle dwell times and truck-to-charger ratios. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1,
pp. 48-49]
This installed capacity must be available at a combination of public and private purpose built
HD-accessible charging stations. To be HD-accessible, public charging stations must include
pull-through charging lanes and accommodate wide ingress and egress to support all vehicle
types. Commercial vehicles are often unable to utilize existing passenger car charging
infrastructure, due to space constraints that are not compatible with HDVs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 49] [Refer to graphics on p. 49 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1555-A1]
942
-------
Based on the projected vehicle mix in the Proposed Rule and installed capacity needed to
support these vehicles, DTNA estimated the total costs of EVSE charging equipment and
necessary supporting grid updates to support Class 3-8 BEVs that would be required under the
Proposed Rule. These figures, summarized in Table 16 below, do not include the additional
capacities and investments needed to support passenger car electrification. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 49] [Refer to Table 16 on p. 49 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1555-A1]
Even with incentive funding available, many fleets are unable to make the capital investments
required to add BEVs to their fleets. DTNA is currently working with one school bus fleet that
has secured Clean School Bus funds from EPA for 23 buses, as well as a payment plan through
their utility's Make Ready program, and is still facing a $500,000 funding gap for site
construction that threatens to jeopardize the project. Private fleet deployments are likely to face
similar gaps, even where some combination of incentive program funding is available. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 50]
EPA Request for Comment, Request #38: However, there is considerable uncertainty
associated with future distribution upgrade needs, and in many cases, some costs may be borne
by utilities rather than directly incurred by BEV or fleet owners. Therefore, we do not model
them directly as part of our infrastructure cost analysis. We welcome comments on this and other
aspects of our cost analysis.
• DTNA Response: In using this approach, EPA significantly underestimates the cost of
associated infrastructure in the BEV payback period calculation. Fleets will pay for the
necessary grid upgrades in a variety of ways, depending on their utility structure and
scope of project. EPA should consider these costs in its payback analysis, either as an up-
front cost for fleets, or by building in a rate increase, as detailed in Section II.B.3 of these
comments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 164]
Organization: Edison Electric Institute (EEI)
EPA notes that 'there is considerable uncertainty associated with future distribution upgrade
needs, and in many cases, some costs may be borne by utilities rather than directly incurred by
BEV or fleet owners' in explaining why it models these costs as part of the infrastructure cost
analysis. 88 Fed. Reg. 25,983. In general, the upgrades to the local electric system needed to
bring sufficient power to the site may be known as 'electric company-side make-ready' or 'front-
of-the-meter' infrastructure and includes but is not limited to poles, vaults, service drops,
transformers, mounting pads, trenching, conduit, wire, cables, meters, other equipment as
necessary, and associated engineering and civil construction work. Front-of-the-meter
infrastructure is distinct from infrastructure on the customer side of the meter ('behind-the-
meter'), which includes the supply infrastructure (conduit and wiring to bring power from the
service connection to the charging station, and the associated installation costs, sometimes
known as 'customer-side make-ready') and the charging equipment, sometimes known as
Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1509-A2, p. 17]
Front-of-the-meter infrastructure is generally installed, owned, and operated by the electric
company. However, the costs associated with front-of-the-meter infrastructure may be borne by
the site host customer in full or in part if the costs exceed an allowance as determined by
943
-------
the electric company's line-extension and/or service extension policy. These costs may also be
known as 'contributions in aid of construction.' [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1509-A2, pp. 17-18]
Modeling these front-of-the-meter infrastructure costs is inappropriate for the following
reasons. First, estimating distribution upgrade costs may be beyond the scope of EPA's analysis,
as it is not clear that a similar scope of analysis is applied to traditional liquid fuels. For example,
the analogous cost comparison for internal combustion engine vehicle would include cost
considerations for fleet operators either 1) installing refueling stations at their own facilities, or
2) the embedded cost of fuel retailers' business operations in the cost of diesel or
gasoline. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1509-A2, p. 18]
Second, as described above, distribution upgrades are highly location specific. The costs
associated with these upgrades are also highly variable, depending on the upgrade requested by
the customer and the local distribution capacity. As stated in EEI's Preparing to Plug In Your
Fleet guide, 'the grid can expand as needed to accommodate the needs of any customer, but the
time and resources needed to make the required upgrades are highly dependent on the specific
facility and the circuit that serves it.'27 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1509-A2, p. 18]
27 See EEI, Preparing To Plug In Your Fleet - 10 Things to Consider, https://www.eei.org/-
/media/Project/EEI/Documents/Issues-and-Policy/Electric-
Transportation/PreparingToPluglnYourFleetpdf.
Third, the share of any distribution costs that the customer may bear varies as a matter of
policy. Some electric companies have or are seeking approval for line extension allowances to
cover some or all of these costs for serving EV charging infrastructure. In California, for
example, legislation required electric companies in the state to file tariffs that would authorize
them to 'design and deploy all electrical distribution infrastructure on the utility side of the
customer's meter for all customers installing separately metered infrastructure to support
charging stations, other than those in single-family residences.' This policy prompted tariffs from
EEI members Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E), and SCE
that essentially allow electric companies to invest in more of the electric company-side
infrastructure costs as part of the standard distribution system investment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1509-A2, pp. 18-19]
Fourth, EEI expects that the majority of fleets to electrify in the next several years will be
those with return-to-base operations, which enables depot charging that is owned and operated
by the fleet itself. Public charging, analogous to the existing gas station model, will be needed to
serve long-haul electric trucks, but that opportunity will be limited in the near-term by battery
capabilities. However, there are many new refueling models emerging, including but not limited
to: fleet charging facilities owned by third parties and accessed by fleet operators through a
reservation or subscription system; charging-as-a-service companies that disintermediate the
fleet operator from the electric company, owning and operating the charging equipment at a
customer facility and assessing the fleet operator a fully-bundled, flat charging fee (e.g., $/kWh);
and transportation-as-a-service companies that provide the vehicle and charging to a fleet
operator, such that the fleet operator pays a fully-bunded, flat service feel (e.g., $/mile). In all of
these models, the fleet operator itself is not exposed to the front-of-the-meter infrastructure costs,
but rather these costs are borne by a third party that then recoups all of its costs through their
charging or service fees. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1509-A2, p. 19]
944
-------
In conclusion, EPA is justified in not modeling front-of-the meter costs because doing so
would result in an apples-to-oranges comparison to liquid fuels, those costs are site-specific and
variable, the recovery mechanism of those costs depends upon state-specific policies, and fleet-
operators may not always bear those costs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1509-A2, p. 20]
Organization: Moving Forward Network (MFN) et al.
12.7. EV Charging is Already Putting Downward Pressure on Electric Rates to the Benefit of
All Utility Customers
Because much EV charging can be accomplished when there is spare capacity on the grid,
charging can spread the costs of maintaining the system over a greater volume of electricity
sales, reducing the per-kilowatt-hour price of electricity to the benefit of all customers. This has
already been demonstrated in the real-world with light-duty EV charging and is expected to hold
true for HD EV charging as well. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 117]
In fact, real-world data compiled by Synapse Energy Economics shows EV drivers are not
being subsidized by other utility customers and, in fact, they are putting downward pressure on
rates. Between 2011 and 2020, EV customers across the United States have contributed more
than $1.7 billion in net-revenue to the body of utility customers. 266 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1608-A1, p. 117]
266 Melissa Whited, Tyler Fitch, Jason Frost, Eric Borden, Courtney Lane, BenHavumaki Sarah
Shenstone- Harris, and Elijah Sinclair. Electric Vehicles Are Driving Rates Down. (June 2023).
https://www.synapse-
energy.com/sites/default/files/Electric%20Vehicles%20Are%20Driving%20Rates%20Down%20Factsheet.
pdf
The results shown in Figure 34 compare the new revenue the utilities collected from EV
drivers to the cost of the energy, capacity, transmission, and distribution system upgrades
required to charge those vehicles, plus the costs of utility EV infrastructure programs that are
deploying charging stations for EVs. In total, EV drivers contributed an estimated $1.7 billion
more than associated costs. That net-revenue is returned to the body of utility customers in the
form of electric bills that are lower than they otherwise would be. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1608-A1, p. 117.] [See Figure 34 Total Utility Revenues vs. Total Costs Associated with EVs
(2011-2020) located on p. 118 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1.]
While the costs associated with serving generally higher-powered HD EV charging could be
more significant on a per-vehicle basis, there is still significant potential for HD EV charging
(much of which can still be done during off-peak hours when there is plenty of spare grid
capacity) to improve the utilization of the electric grid and put downward pressure on utility rates
as a result. In fact, analysis conducted by ERM estimates that widespread medium and heavy-
duty EV charging could result in $433 million in net-utility-revenue in 2030, rising to $2.4
billion in 2040, and $4.1 billion in 2050. 267 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 118]
267 ERM. Federal Clean Trucks Program: An Analysis of the Impacts of Low NOx and Zero-Emission
Medium- and Heavy-Duty Trucks on the Environment, Public Health, Industry, and the Economy. ERM.
(2022). p. 23. https://www.erm.com/contentassets/f3d6061dd8a04147a3I38b7db256ae44/federal-clean-
trucks-report.pdf
945
-------
12.8. New Utility Rates Designed for EV Charging Increase the Fuel Cost Savings EVs Can
Provide
Gasoline, diesel, and electricity prices vary across the country, and electricity prices vary
depending upon the particular characteristics of the utility rate on which a customer takes
service. And many existing commercial and industrial utility rates have "demand charges"
that can reduce fuel cost savings for high-powered/low-utilization applications like some EV
charging use-cases. Thankfully, the challenge such demand charges can pose for EV charging
has long been recognized and across the nation, many utilities and regulators have already
implemented solutions or are in the process of doing so. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1,
pp.118 - 119]
In fact, the BIL amended the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA) Section 111(d)
to require regulators and non-regulated utilities to consider new rates that:
promote affordable and equitable electric vehicle charging options for residential,
commercial, and public electric vehicle charging infrastructure; improve the customer experience
associated with electric vehicle charging; accelerate third-party investment in electric vehicle
charging for light-, medium-, and heavy-duty vehicles; and appropriately recover the marginal
costs of delivering electricity to electric vehicles and electric vehicle charging infrastructure.
268 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 119]
268 H.R.3684. Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. 117th Congress. (2021-2022). Section 40431
www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3684/text.
This has spurred new regulatory proceedings across the country. But many utilities,
regulators, and state legislatures were already acting to address this issue before the BIL became
law. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 119]
As detailed in a publication of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners
(NARUC) entitled "Best Practices for Sustainable Commercial EV Rates and PURPA 111(d)
Implementation," rates designed for EV charging can deliver significant fuel cost savings
without relying upon cross-subsidies from other utility customers. 269 For example, on a new
Pacific Gas & Electric rate designed for commercial EV charging that still recovers all associated
marginal costs, the San Joaquin Regional Transit District reduced its overall fuel cost per mile
from $2.31 to $0.68 (in a utility service territory that has some of the higher underlying marginal
costs in the nation). 270 The paper also details rates that take a similar approach that were
approved for Southern California Edison, San Diego Gas & Electric, and Alabama Power. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 119]
269 Nancy Ryan, Alissa Burger, Jenifer Bosco, John Howat, and Miles Muller. Best Practices for
Sustainable Commercial EV Rates and PURPA 111(d) Implementation. (2022).
https://pubs.naruc.org/pub/55C47758-1866-DAAC-99FB-FFA9E6574C2B
270 Id.
Since the publication of that NARUC paper, many other utilities and regulators have either
proposed or secured approval of new rates designed for EV charging. And by the time the HDV
rule goes into effect in 2027, many more will have followed suit, increasing the fuel cost savings
EVs can provide. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 119]
946
-------
Organization: National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA)
D. EPA's proposed rule fails to appropriately consider infrastructure lead times and costs.
EPA has failed to analyze or model the essential and unique refueling infrastructure needs and
costs associated with its Phase 3 GHG proposal. ZEV HDVs will have special
refueling infrastructure needs versus light-duty ZEVs. Without sufficient infrastructure, the
number of ZEV HDVs purchased between 2028 and 2032 will be far lower than EPA forecasts.
One of several impediments to widespread charging infrastructure availability is the cost. 14
Among other things, the costs associated with EV charging infrastructure include the equipment
itself, ongoing operation and maintenance costs, and the back-end equipment, transmission, and
installation costs needed to get power to the charging station site. These should be considered as
purchaser costs in the HD TRUCS tool as those costs are passed on to HDV purchasers installing
infrastructure. In addition to private infrastructure, a massive amount of costly public refueling
infrastructure designed for ZEV HDVs must be built out. This will take time. 15 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1592-A1, pp. 8 - 9]
14 M. Melaina et al., Consumer Convenience and the Availability of Retail Stations as a Market Barrier for
Alternative Fuel Vehicles, NREL (Jan. 2013).
15 Hydrogen Fueling Station Locations, DOE.
2. EPA's infrastructure assumptions must be adjusted to reflect reality.
The infrastructure needed to support ZEV HDVs will require increased electricity generation
capacity and a more comprehensive transmission system than exists today. EPA has not
considered necessary public charging investments. Apparently, the Phase 3 GHG proposal
envisions that all the battery-recharging stations for ZEV HDVs will be located at trucking
depots and terminals where trucks park overnight. But depot charging will result in high
electricity demands and significant upgrades to transmission lines and substations to support
each depot. On-site power availability limits the number of ZEV HDVs a site can charge. The
assumption that ZEV HDVs will exclusively charge at night is a fallacy as many will need to be
charged on route at public battery-recharging stations, in addition to at depots. Sites acting as
electrified truck stops will also concentrate electricity demands and could require the same
amount of energy as a small town. 19 EPA's final Phase 3 GHG rule must reflect realistic
infrastructure timelines and demand considerations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1592-A1, pp. 10
-11]
19 High-Voltage Transmission Grid Critical to Meeting Electric Vehicle Charging Demands, First -in-the-
Nation Study Finds, NATIONAL GRID (Nov. 14, 2022).
Organization: National Waste & Recycling Association (NWRA)
NWRA also asks that EPA work with the Department of Energy to understand the electrical
load that would be needed to electrify the heavy-duty truck fleet. NWRA members are concerned
that the electrical infrastructure is not expanding fast enough to support an electrified
fleet. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2022-0985-1616-A1, p. 2]
947
-------
Organization: Schneider National Inc.
The EPA assumes all vehicles will have a 12-hour overnight dwell time for charging.
• A driver break is 10 hours, so a 12-hour dwell for charging requirements would extend
the driver's standard break time and would likely negatively impact work time/hours for
a driver. Additionally, a 12-hour overnight dwell time would eliminate a motor carrier's
ability to slip-seat a truck to be used in multiple shifts in a day (again, affecting
productivity and freight transportation capabilities). In the over-the-road trucking
industry, a 12- hour overnight dwell time - particularly at a specific location that has
charging infrastructure - is not typical.
• Team drivers would be most impacted as they would need to shut down for charging;
whereas, today, they trade off sleeper berth time with driving time. As a result, until
infrastructure is more prevalent and charging times are faster, forcing team drivers to
utilize ZEVs will certainly affect productivity and pay.
• Today, drivers will often take their DOT break and fuel at the same time/location. If a
charger is not available (and, to be clear, charging infrastructure certainly is not
prevalent), it will negatively impact a driver's ability to pick up, deliver or take his/her
mandatory break when needed.
• Driver parking is already very congested and there is limited visibility to locations with
available parking spots, especially at third-party fuel locations. Requiring a 12-hour
charging shutdown would exacerbate the situation.
• DOT breaks would need to take place where there is the availability to charge the tractor
instead of after a driver utilizes his/her full complement of 11 available driving hours and
14 available on-duty hours, thus reducing a driver's productive hours and further
increasing the need for additional capacity to perform the same amount of work. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1525-A1, p. 2]
Organization: Tesla, Inc. (Tesla)
Utility Rate Design Reform Will Spur Greater Infrastructure Investment
Addressing utility demand charges will also play a role in facilitating the expansion of heavy-
duty charging infrastructure. 218 The combination of low load factors with high demand charges
can result in uneconomic operation of charging stations and stymies investment in charging
infrastructure in otherwise promising markets where heavy-duty electrification is growing. EPA
should recognize that this issue is changing with many utilities now proposing or already having
implemented novel approaches to mitigate the impact of demand charges and encourage time of
use rates to facilitate higher volume charging.219 Moreover, since BEV charging stations are
large upfront investments assessed over a long-time horizon, the longer-term certainty provided
in many of these rate reform proceedings will drive greater infrastructure investment. A number
of utilities proceedings have already addressed these issues including the following:
• Illinois Commerce Commission Docket No. 20-0170 - In the Matter of Ameren Illinois
Company d/b/a Ameren Illinois's Proposed Creation of Rider Optional Vehicle Charging
Program ('Rider EVCP').
• Oregon Public Utilities Commission Docket No. UE 374 - In the Matter of Pacificorp
d/b/a Pacific Power Request for a General Rate Revision
948
-------
• New Jersey Board of Public Utilities Docket No. EO18101111 - In the Matter of the
Petition of Public Service Electric and Gas Company for Approval of its Clean Energy
Future - Electric Vehicle and Energy Storage ('CEF-EVES') Program on a Regulated
Basis
• Colorado Public Utilities Commission Proceeding No. 21AL-0494E - In the Matter of
Advice No. 1867- Electric Filed by Public Service Company of Colorado to Revise Its
PUC No. 8-Electric Tariff and to Add Schedule S-EV-CPP and Implement Changes to
Schedules S-EV, EVC, and TEPA, to be Effective on Thirty- Days' Notice
• Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities Docket # 21-90 - Petition of NSTAR
Electric Company d/b/a Eversource Energy for approval of its Phase II Electric Vehicle
Infrastructure Program and Electric Vehicle Demand Charge Alternative Proposal
• Illinois Commerce Commission Docket No. 22-0432 Petition for Approval of Beneficial
Electrification Plan under the Electric Vehicle Act, 20 ILCS 627/45 and New EV
Charging Delivery Classes under the Public Utilities Act, Article IX
• New York PSC's Case No. 22-E-0236 Proceeding to Establish Alternatives to Traditional
Demand-Based Rate Structures for Commercial Electric Vehicle Charging. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1505-A1, p. 30]
218 See Alliance for Transportation Electrification, Rate Design for EC Fast Charging: Demand Charges
(May 2022) available at https://evtransportationalliance.org/wp-
content/uploads/2022/06/Rate.Design.TF_.Demand-Charge-Paper-Final- 5.25.22.pdf
219 Utility Dive, With looming EV load spikes, PG&E, Duke, other utilities adopt new rate design and cost
recovery strategies (Apr. 18, 2023) available at https://www.utilitydive.com/news/electric-vehicle-load-
spikes-pge-duke-sce-entergy-apsdynamic-rate-design-reduced-
demandcharges/646603/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Issue:%202023-04-
21%20Utility%20Dive%20Newsletter%20%5Bissue:49850%5D&utm_term=Utility%20Dive
Additional proceedings addressing these issues will help further facilitate investment and
deployment of charging infrastructure that can support a more ambitious Phase 3
standard. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1505-A1, p. 31]
Organization: Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
HD TRUCS calculates BEV charging characteristics using the known losses that occur with
the flow of electricity from the grid to the battery. Four unique EVSE (i.e., chargers) are included
in the HD TRUCS assessment tool. The AC EVSE and DCFC EVSEs provide a spread of
possible recharging equipment that could be used with a given type of BEV truck. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 21]
As noted above, EPA chose to assume that all BEV-truck charging will occur at private depot
locations at the end of each daily shift. EPA determined that a 12-hour dwell time (downtime) is
most appropriate based on its literature search. HD TRUCS assesses the appropriate EVSE, and
its associated cost, for the various truck applications using the 12-hour dwell time and calculates
the least expensive EVSE unit capable of performing the modeled needed charging. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 22]
Annual BEV Electricity Cost in A3a_Cost worksheet - HD TRUCS calculates the annual cost
of electricity based on the energy that is consumed by the vehicle from the batteries rather than
from the electricity that is used to recharge the batteries. The latter includes the wall-to-battery
949
-------
loss factor for the charging process. The current formula in HD TRUCS underestimates the
annual electricity cost by approximately 11%. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 23]
Annual BEV Electricity Cost in A3a_Cost worksheet - HD TRUCS calculates the annual cost of
electricity based on the energy that is consumed by the vehicle from the batteries rather than
from the electricity that is used to recharge the batteries. The latter includes the wall-to-battery
loss factor for the charging process. The current formula in HD TRUCS underestimates the
annual electricity cost by approximately 11%. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 23]
Electricity Cost - Electricity cost in HD TRUCS is based on the commercial rate from the
AEO 2022 Report, Table 8. The cost starts at 10.63 cents per kilowatt-hour. While that may be a
good estimate of the base rate that is paid by large commercial users of electricity, it does not
adequately reflect the total cost of electricity that purchasers of BEVs will experience. Three
important elements are missing, and a fourth is recommended to be added. The missing elements
of the cost of electricity are: peak time-of-use (TOU) electricity rates, monthly peak demand
charge, and upfront costs of modifications to the electrical grid upstream of the electric meter.
The item to be added is the annual maintenance cost of the EVSE unit, normalized to a cents per
kilowatt-hour basis. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p.29]
In ICCT's April 2023 TCO white paper, they report on their study of electricity costs for BEV
battery charging. Their study looked at seven states, covering all four corners of the US plus the
middle of the country. It shows the spread of electricity costs and provides real-world data for
use in determining more complete electricity costs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p.29]
EMA's research directionally aligns with the data shown in the ICCT white paper. With the
limited time for this comment period, a more exhaustive study by EMA could not be
accomplished. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p.29]
Using the ICCT data, the average cost of electricity for businesses charging BEVs works out
to be 12.26 cents per kilowatt-hour (cents/kWh). That includes 10% of the charging at peak rates
and 30%) at super off-peak rates. Based on the charging times and vehicles per-charger
calculations in HD TRUCS, EMA believes the percent time at peak rates, between 4 PM and 9
PM, is lower than will be seen by fleet owners, but is acceptable until a more comprehensive
study can be completed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p.29]
Also included in the ICCT paper are estimates of the cost of required upstream infrastructure
changes, normalized to cents/kWh. Utilities have not shown a willingness to absorb those
upfront costs without including them in the electricity rates for the end users. Thus, those costs
need to be included in the cost of electricity. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p.29]
The cost to maintain the EVSE units is estimated by ICCT to be $3,200 annually. Normalized,
this becomes 0.52 cents/kWh. This maintenance cost needs to be included in the cost of
electricity in HD TRUCS as well. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p.30]
With the foregoing in mind, the table below provides a breakdown of all the relevant
components of the cost of electricity for BEV battery charging:
EMA has applied this total cost of electricity (14.29 cents/kWh) for each year of the proposed
regulation in the EMA HD TRUCS tool. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p.30] [See the
Cost of electricity for BEV Battery Charging table on page 30 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-2668-A1.]
950
-------
Electricity Cost - The revised total cost of electricity of 14.29 cents/kWh, as detailed above,
was run on its own in EMA HD TRUCS. The table below shows the revised projected ZEV
adoption rates for 2027 and 2032 from running that one updated input: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-2668-A1, p. 37] [See the Projected ZEV Adoption Rates for MYs 2027 and 2032,
Electricity Table on page 37 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1.]
Organization: Valero Energy Corporation
Beyond the EVSE hardware and installation costs, EPA fails to consider annual operating and
maintenance costs for EVSE, estimated by the District of Columbia to run $1,000 per Level 2
charger and $l,400-$2,000 per Level 3 DC fast charger.74 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2,
p. 14]
74 Government of the District of Columbia, "District's Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Deployment Plan" at
13 (2022), https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/nevi/ev_deployment_plans/dc_nevi_plan.pdf.
Although EPA acknowledges that upgrades to electricity distribution systems may be required
to meet the charging loads associated with EVSE, it immediately dismisses the costs, explaining
that "in many cases, costs for some distribution system upgrades may be borne by utilities rather
than directly incurred by BEV or fleet owners whose costs we model in our analysis of depot
charging infrastructure; therefore, we do not include these costs in our analysis."75 Regardless of
who is paying, upgrades to electrical infrastructure are real impacts associated with EVSE
installation and come with real costs. In their EV Infrastructure Deployment Plans, several states
quantify the cost of electrical system upgrades needed to accommodate EVSE, including:
• Idaho cites that "charging stations installed with NEVI formula funds must be able to
provide a power output of at least 600kW. In Idaho, most NEVI sites will require
transformer upgrades. Additional improvements such as installing new feeder lines and
completing substation upgrades also may be needed. At the very least, new electrical
upgrades for a new transformer cost approximately $20-30,000."76
• Indiana cites that "Utilities estimated investment between $50,000 to $125,000 to serve
600kW per station with locations requiring significant system upgrades totaling greater
than $1 million. Upgrades could include new transformers, trenching, concrete/asphalt
work, conduit, underground vaults, new conductor, and other miscellaneous equipment to
serve the DCFC. Respondents expressed they would not deny an installation from
proceeding. However, as expressed above, costs may be prohibitive for the prospective
customer at certain locations."77 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, pp. 14 - 15]
75 DRIA at 201.
76 Idaho Transportation Department, "2022 State of Idaho Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Baseline Plan" at
38 (August 1, 2022), https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/nevi/ev_deployment_plans/id_nevi_plan.pdf.
77 Indiana Department of Transportation, "Indiana Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Deployment Plan" at 37
(July 29, 2022), https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/nevi/ev_deployment_plans/in_nevi_plan.pdf.
These utility costs may not be borne solely by individual customers; in some cases, these
costs will ultimately be passed on to ratepayers. EPA fails to acknowledge these costs, nor to
assess the cumulative cost burden resulting from the concurrent increase in electrical demand
resulting from implementing the proposed heavy-duty vehicle rule in the same time frame it
951
-------
seeks to force electrification of the light- and medium-duty vehicle fleet. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1566-A2, p. 15]
7. The charging efficiencies adopted by EPA for purposes of this proposed rule are arbitrarily
inconsistent with other contemporaneously proposed rules.
EPA adopts the following charging efficiency rates for use in this rulemaking:78 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 15.] [See Table 2-68, Charging Efficiency, on page 15 of docket
number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0986-1566-A2.]
78 DRIA at 227.
Upon examination of the NREL study to which EPA cites,79 these charging efficiencies
represent NREL program goals, not projections. Further, the years represent assumptions of
when the goals will reach commercial production, which NREL expects to occur 5 years
after demonstration in a lab. 80 At the time of publication of the NREL report (2021), then, these
charging efficiencies had not yet even been demonstrated in a lab, and yet EPA incorporates
them as fact and relies upon them for purposes of the proposed rulemaking. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1566-A2, pp. 15 - 16]
79 NREL, "Vehicle Technologies and Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies Research and Development
Programs Assessment Report for 2020" (August 2021), https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/79617.pdf.
80 NREL, "Vehicle Technologies and Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies Research and Development
Programs Assessment Report for 2020" at 26 and v (August 2021),
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy2 losti/79617.pdf.
Further, the EV charging efficiencies used by EPA in this rulemaking are inconsistent with
those used in other proposed rulemakings:
• In the "Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis: RFS Standards for 2023-2025 and Other
Changes," to support the generation of eRINs, EPA used an EV charging efficiency of
85% and a line loss factor of 5.3%, yielding a total loss rate of 19.5% (p. 329).
• The efficiency and loss factors applied in EPA's Multi-Pollutant Emissions Standards for
Model Years 2027 and Later Light-Duty and Medium-Duty Vehicles81 assume an
overall loss rate of 15.9% (i.e., 1 - 0.9*0.935).
• Here, EPA proposes a third distinct charging efficiency, but fails to account for
transmission line losses.
• EPA provides no explanation for why the efficiency values should differ among the three
proposed rules. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 16]
81 88 Fed. Reg. 29303 (May 5, 2023).
EPA Summary and Response
Summary:
EPA received comments both on the electricity prices we used in the NPRM analysis, and on
additional categories of costs that commenters said should be included in the FRM analysis
either as part of the $ per kWh cost to charge or through other means.
In general, most commenters stated that our assumed electricity costs—based on the
commercial rate in the AEO 2022 reference case—were too low and understated the cost to
952
-------
charge. DTNA noted several limitations of AEO's costs, saying they "do not account for the
supply-demand relationship, decarbonization mandates in the power generation sector, nor rate
increases for large scale utility projects." DTNA pointed to McKinsey work, which suggests that
electricity costs could be significantly higher by 2040 given the costs of new generation,
transmission, and storage to increase renewable electricity.
AFPM, DTNA, and NADA stated that EPA failed to consider the higher costs associated with
public charging, which may happen during peak hours and include higher time of use rates and
demand charges (among other costs). EMA likewise noted that the AEO electricity rates do not
account for demand charges or peak time of use rates and that EPA should include these costs in
its FRM analysis.
Many commenters stated that upgrades to the electric distribution system or, in some cases, to
generation or transmission infrastructure, would be needed to meet increased demands from
BEV charging. Most—including AFPM, the Arizona State Legislature, CFDC et al., DTNA,
EMA, NADA, and Valero—said that EPA should account for the cost of such power sector
upgrades in the analysis. Valero provided examples of estimated potential distribution upgrade
costs ranging from $20,000 to $125,000 or more per station from two state plans for NEVI-
funded stations. DTNA shared estimates of potential distribution costs that it recommended EPA
use for this purpose but noted that costs from a 2023 ICCT TCO paper (Basma et al. 2023) may
be a reasonable alternative. EMA also pointed to the ICCT paper as a source for distribution
upgrade costs.
DTNA, EMA, NADA, and Valero all stated that EPA should include EVSE maintenance
costs in its analysis, with several pointing to values in the same ICCT paper of $3200 per port
per year, amortized as $0.0052 per kWh. Valero cited cost estimates from the District of
Columbia's plan for NEVI-funded stations of $1000 per L2 charger and up to $2000 per DCFC
each year. DTNA additionally commented that the costs to purchase or lease land for station
deployments should be accounted for in EPA's cost analysis.
As noted above, both EMA and DTNA suggested the ICCT paper (Basma et al. 2023) as a
potential source to inform charging costs in EPA's analysis, since it accounts for many of the
costs discussed above. EMA suggested that $0.1429 per kWh, which combines ICCT's
electricity price, amortized EVSE maintenance costs, and costs associated with distribution
system upgrades, is a reasonable choice for depot charging. DTNA suggested ICCT's value of
$0,196 per kWh—which includes the aforementioned costs as well as amortized costs of public
charging equipment—may be a reasonable source of public charging costs (while noting some
limitations).
However, not all commenters agreed with the above points. Whereas DTNA and others
suggested that EPA's assumed electricity prices were too low and did not properly account for
the impacts of BEV charging demand on the power grid, the Moving Forward Network et al.
stated that EV charging can actually reduce electricity prices for all users by taking advantage of
unused grid capacity (e.g., at night) and distributing system costs that would be incurred anyway
over more electricity sales. The commenter cited data from Synapse Energy Economics showing
that EV charging was responsible for $1.7 billion in net revenue that helped lower electricity
bills in the 9 years leading up to 2020, and an ERM study, which projected that future medium-
heavy-duty charging could also reduce rates.
953
-------
Both the Moving Forward Network et al. and Tesla acknowledged that demand charges are
currently a challenge for EVSE providers and customers. However, both commenters
characterized this as a well-known issue that utilities and others are working to address. For
example, the Moving Forward Network et al. pointed to an amendment to the Public Utility
Regulatory Policies Act (promulgated in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law) to promote
affordable EV charging rates and "appropriately recover the marginal costs of delivering
electricity to electric vehicles and electric vehicle charging infrastructure" among other actions.
The Moving Forward Network et al. and Tesla also noted utilities and regulators have already
been addressing this issue through rate reform or other strategies, with Tesla citing a variety of
recent utility proceedings.
EEI commented that EPA was justified in its decision not to model costs of distribution
upgrades to fleets in the NPRM as EEI stated that these costs will be site specific, who bears the
costs (utilities vs. fleets) will vary, and accounting for these costs would be inconsistent with the
approach EPA has taken for liquid fuels, in which comparable upgrades are not directly
accounted for in fleet costs. EEI also discussed a variety of emerging market solutions including
third-party subscription or bundled services (e.g., charging-as-a-service or transportation-as-a-
service), in which fleets would not directly bear the upfront costs for front-of-the meter upgrades.
Separately, Valero commented on EPA's charging efficiency assumption stating that the
value is inconsistent with comparable values in other contemporaneous EPA proposed
rulemakings and that the underlying source for the charging assumption is an NREL program
goal rather than a projection of feasible or demonstrated charging efficiencies. Valero also stated
that EPA did not account for transmission line losses.
Response:
For the NPRM analysis, we used the DOE EIA AEO 2022 reference case commercial
electricity end-use rate projection for our electricity price. EPA agrees with commenters that this
approach likely underestimates charging costs that will be experienced by BEV owners, and we
have updated our assumed charging costs for the FRM analysis. For example, in the NPRM, we
acknowledged that certain stations, particularly those with many high-power DCFC, may require
upgrades to the distribution system; however, we did not include these estimates in our EVSE or
charging costs. On further consideration, and taking into account comments received, EPA has
included these costs in our FRM analysis. As described in RIA Chapter 2.4.4.2, to estimate
charging costs for the final rule analysis, we start by modeling future electricity prices, as
charged by utilities, that account for the costs of BEV charging demand and the associated
distribution system upgrade costs. We do this in three steps: 1) we model future power
generation using the Integrated Planning Model (IPM), 2) we estimate the cost of distribution
system upgrades associated with charging demand through the DOE Transportation
Electrification Impact Study (TEIS),445 and 3) we use the Retail Price Model (RPM) to project
electricity prices accounting for both (1) and (2).
As described in RIA Chapter 4.2, IPM models the power sector, including changes to power
generation based on future demand scenarios. In order to capture the potential future impacts on
445 National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Kevala Inc., and U.S.
Department of Energy. "Multi-State Transportation Electrification Impact Study: Preparing the Grid for Light-,
Medium-, and Heavy-Duty Electric Vehicles." DOE/EE-2818. U.S. Department of Energy. March 2024. ("TEIS").
954
-------
the power sector from ZEVs, we ran IPM for a scenario that combined electricity demand from
an interim version of the final standards case and EPA's proposed rulemaking "Multi-Pollutant
Emissions Standards for Model Years 2027 and Later Light-Duty and Medium-Duty
Vehicles."446 The same demand scenario was used as the action case for the TEIS. The TEIS
research team modeled how many new or upgraded substations, feeders, and transformers would
be needed to meet projected electricity demand from transportation, including demand from
residential workplace, depot, and public charging to support projected light-, medium-, and
heavy-duty plug-in electric vehicles. For all public and workplace charging, vehicles were
assumed to charge at full power upon arrival. At homes and depot charging stations—where
vehicles have longer dwell times—a managed charging scenario was developed to spread out
charging and reduce peak power.
The changes to power generation in our modeled IPM scenario and the distribution cost
estimates from TEIS were then input to the Retail Price Model.447 The RPM developed by ICF
generates estimates for average electricity prices over consumer classes accounting for the
regional distribution of electricity demand. The resulting national average retail prices, which
include distribution upgrade costs, were used as a basis for the charging costs in HD TRUCS.
We agree with commenters that we could model additional costs related to BEV charging that
drivers may incur beyond just electricity prices. For the final rule, in HD TRUCS we
differentiate between depot charging and public charging when assigning charging costs. We
agree with EMA, DTNA, and other commenters that it is appropriate to account for EVSE
maintenance costs, and that the estimate from a recent ICCT paper448 of $0.0052 per kWh is a
reasonable choice. Accordingly, we have incorporated this into both our depot and public
charging costs.
Our public charging price additionally includes the amortized cost of public charging
equipment and land costs for the station; we project that third parties may install and operate
these stations and pass costs onto BEV owners via charging costs. For public charging, we use a
total charging cost of 19.6 cents per kWh, from the previously mentioned ICCT paper and as
recommended by DTNA, for 2027. We adjust it for future years according to the results of the
IPM Retail Price Model discussed above. The initial value from the ICCT study reflects costs for
public charging at stations designed for long-haul vehicles. Stations are assumed to have
seventeen 1 MW EVSE ports and twenty 150 kW EVSE ports for a total peak power capacity of
20 MW. The 19.6 cent per kWh price includes the amortized cost of this charging equipment,
land costs, both electricity prices (cents/kWh) and demand charges (cents/kW) associated with
high peak power, distribution upgrade costs for substations, feeders, and transformers associated
with these public charging stations, and EVSE maintenance costs. Overall, our charging costs
446 Electricity demand for heavy-duty ZEVs matches that of the interim control case as described in RIA Chapter
4.2.4 while demand from light- and medium-duty vehicles was based on Alternative 3 from EPA's proposed "Multi-
Pollutant Emissions Standards for Model Years 2027 and Later Light-Duty and Medium-Duty Vehicles" (88 FR
29184 et seq.)
447 ICF. "Documentation of the Retail Price Model: Draft." 2019. Available online:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2019-06/documents/rpm_documentationjune2019.pdf.
448 Hussein Basma, Claire Buysee, Yuanrong Zhou, and Felipe Rodriguez. "Total Cost of Ownership of Alternative
Powertrain Technologies for Class 8 Long-haul Trucks in the United States." International Council on Clean
Transportation. April 2023. Available online: https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/tco-alt-powertrain-
long-haul-trucks-us-apr23 .pdf.
955
-------
used in the final rule analysis for both depot and public charging are higher than those used in the
NPRM analysis. See RIA Chapter 2.4.4.2 for a more complete discussion and a summary of
depot and public charging costs used in the FRM analysis.
EPA updated the wall-to-battery efficiency for the FRM analysis to a value (89.3 percent)
sourced from the EPA MOVES model, as described in RIA Chapter 2.8. Regarding Valero's
comment about inconsistent charging efficiencies across EPA analyses, we note that the final
RFS rule did not make use of the value noted by the commenter and slightly different
efficiencies between values used for rulemakings covering light- and medium-duty vehicles
versus heavy-duty vehicles (90 percent versus 89.3 percent) is not inappropriate from our
perspective given differences in the light-duty and heavy-duty markets. Valero stated that EPA
did not account for transmission losses in the proposal. As described above, EPA's charging
costs utilized electricity prices from IPM's Retail Price Model in the FRM analysis; these prices
reflect the price to the end user and therefore account for upstream losses, including
transmission. More broadly, the power sector modeling conducted in IPM to estimate emissions
associated with BEV charging and other electricity demand accounts for transmission losses (see
RIA Chapter 4).
6.3.4 Dwell Time & EVSE Sharing
Comments by Organizations
Organization: American Trucking Associations (ATA)
Onsite charging is preferred
As fleets examine battery electric and hydrogen fuel cell trucks, they prefer to charge and
refuel onsite. Today, most fleets have diesel refueling onsite for beginning trips, and line-haul
fleets manage their refueling and break time for drivers to overlap. As ATA's Vice Chairman
Andrew Boyle testified at the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, today's diesel
technology allows a fleet to travel 1,200 miles and refuel in 15 minutes for an additional 1,200
miles. Based on the range for Class 8 battery-electric trucks today, that same truck can travel
roughly 250 miles before the need to charge with downtime of up to 3-8 hours, depending on the
charging equipment available.24 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1535-A1, p. 18]
24 Boyle, Andrew, Testimony at Hearing: Cleaner Vehicles: Good for Consumers and Public Health,
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, April 18, 2023.
EPA assumes that battery electric trucks can accommodate eight hours of charging downtime.
While this could work for certain truck applications that return to base each night, constantly
moving regional and line-haul trucks will require more energy for shorter charge times. The
agency's assumption is based on electricity pricing, where overnight charging would be more
cost-effective than daytime charging. While this is true for electricity costs, truck operators have
already found the most optimal time for them to operate. For example, line-haul fleets prefer to
run at night due to less congestion on the road. In addition, many line-haul fleets "slip seat" their
drivers to meet federal hours-of-service regulations and ensure that their investment, the truck,
operates 24 hours a day. Many regional fleets begin their days in the pre-dawn hours to stage
before sites open to begin their routes for the day's pickup and delivery routes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1535-A1, p. 18]
956
-------
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
The EVSE cost estimates include both direct and indirect costs also referred to as EVSE retail
price equivalent costs. U.S. EPA assume that up to two vehicles can share one DCFC port if
there is sufficient dwell time for both vehicles to meet their daily charging needs. While fleet
owners may also choose to share Level 2 chargers across vehicles, U.S. EPA is conservatively
assigning one Level 2 charger per vehicle. They assume that EVSE costs are incurred by
purchasers/ fleet owner. 184 Assigning two vehicles per fast charger and one vehicle per Level 2
is reasonable on a cost basis given current information. There will be variation on a site-by-site
basis on power and number of depot chargers and it is not clear the proportion of Level 2
assigned to vehicles to estimate costs. Level 2 is suitable in a limited number of cases. Also, the
model could be improved by explicitly including public charging. However, the assumption that
depot and public charging will be approximately the same cost is reasonable considering the
available information. The cost estimation in NPRM Table IV-6: EVSE Costs for the Proposed
Option Relative to the Reference Case, Millions 2021 Dollars is reasonable without an explicit
accounting for public chargers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1591-A1, p.51]
184 Ibid. Page 26030
Organization: Clean Fuels Development Coalition et al.
C. The proposal underestimates the cost for charging infrastructure.
Charging infrastructure is the single largest expense accounted for in the proposal—$47
billion in "electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) costs." But this expense only accounts for
"depot" charging installation, or the cost to install heavy-duty chargers at an electric vehicle's
home base. This completely ignores "upfront hardware and installation costs for public or other
en-route electric vehicle charging infrastructure" because it assumes "BEV charging needs are
met with depot charging." 88 Fed. Reg. 25,978. This is unrealistic, particularly given the short
ranges of heavy-duty batteries and the long travel distances expected of heavy-duty vehicles. To
compound this error, the proposal makes unreasonable assumptions about how many of these
depot chargers are needed. EPA "assume[s] that up to two vehicles can share one DCFC port if
there is sufficient depot dwell time for both vehicles to meet their daily charging needs." DRIA
at 200. This allows, as EPA explains, "per-vehicle EVSE costs [to] decline by 50 percent or
more." Id. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1585-A1, p. 33]
Organization: Daimler Truck North America LLC (DTNA)
DTNA also evaluated the average stop duration for this population of vehicles to assess
EPA's 12-hour charging dwell time assumption, and found that the median average stop time for
day cabs in this population to be 5.9 hours for day cab tractors and 7.4 hours for sleeper cab
tractors, as reflected in Appendix A. DTNA believes only approximately 25% of the tractor
population meets or exceeds EPA's estimate of 12-hour charging dwell time. The need for
shorter dwell times can be addressed by high speed charging; however, higher charging speeds
require additional installed capacity for EVSE and the grid, which is not widely available given
the associated higher costs and complexities. EPA should account for these costs and
complexities, or reduce ZEV suitability to better reflect fleet operational needs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 22]
957
-------
Using this same data snapshot, DTNA assessed where these tractors end their work days. In
doing so, the Company considered vehicles to have "returned-to-base" if during the 18 day
evaluation period, the tractor ended its day of operation repeatedly in the same location. On
average, we found that day cabs returned to base 21% of the time, with sleeper cabs returning
only 9% of the time. DTNA evaluated 90th percentile daily VMT, charging dwell time, and
return-to-base as independent variables, consistent with EPA's approach. See Appendix A.
However, we note that fleets will only deem a ZEV suitable if it meets all daily operational
criteria, including VMT, dwell time, and return-to-base operation. Neither DTNA's nor
EPA's data determines if the return-to-base VINs dwell greater than 12 hours and have
suitable daily VMTs. It is possible return-to-base vehicles dwell for significantly shorter
periods of time and/or exceed the daily VMT. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, pp. 22-
23]
The 12-hour dwell time that EPA assumes for recharging for modeling purposes is not
realistic for many routes and operations, including some daily VMTs assumed in the HD TRUCS
tool. NACFE states regional haul accounts for 30% of tractor applications, and typically include
long dwell times that could be suitable for BEVs.50 Vocational applications and long haul
applications need further study to understand what proportion of operations have significant
dwell times that can support charging. As discussed above, DTNA's telematics data suggests
approximately 5.9 hours and 7.4 hours are more reasonable assumptions for day cabs and sleeper
cabs, respectively. Shortening the dwell time may be possible with high speed charging and
allow BEV penetration in more applications, but charging at higher speeds adds significant cost
that must be considered in the TCO calculation and additional infrastructure challenges. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 27]
50 Id. at 127.
There are a number of TCO inputs that EPA has not accounted for in the HD TRUCS tool that
should be included to more accurately inform payback periods and adoption rate projections for
the Proposed Rule, including:
• Charging Downtime. EPA assumes all HD BEVs will have 12-hour depot dwell times for
overnight charging. While DTNA believes this may be true in some applications, many
fleets run two-shift operations, and any charging time that exceeds today's diesel
refueling time is likely to be viewed as downtime, as the asset is unusable. EPA should
collect additional data on fleet operating characteristics, and either constrain suitability to
single-shift operations or somehow account for downtime in HD TRUCS. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 35]
EPA Request for Comment, Request #50: Our request for comment includes a request for data
to inform an assessment of the distribution of daily miles traveled and the distribution of the
number of hours available daily to charge for each of the vehicle types that we could use to
update a constraint like this in the final rulemaking analysis.
• DTNA Response: Based upon DTNA's analysis, EPA significantly underestimates daily
VMT in the tractor categories and over-estimates dwell time available for vehicles to
charge, as reflected in Section II.B.3 and Appendix A to these comments. An accurate
estimate is critical to the feasibility of HD ZEVs to replace conventional vehicles, thus
EPA should reevaluate VMT using the best available data, including the data DTNA
958
-------
provides for certain vehicle categories in Section II.B.3 and Appendix A to these
comments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 167]
Organization: Delek US Holdings, Inc.
b. BEV charging consumes significantly more time than refueling ICE-powered vehicles.
The Proposed Rule fails to consider the impact that increased HD BEV charging times will
have on consumer adoption rates and whether end users will be willing to accept disruptions to
fleet usage in addition to the increased purchase price of HD BEVs. According to DOT, Level 1
EV chargers can take 40-50 hours to fully charge a BEV from empty, Level 2 chargers can take
4-10 hours to fully charge a BEV from empty, and Direct Current Fast Charging Technology
chargers can take up to an hour to fully charge a BEV from empty. But under any scenario, HD
BEVs will incur additional downtime for more frequent, and longer, charging times as compared
to the equivalent ICE. For example, a 3,000 mile cross-country freight journey taking 54 hours
by ICE would take 71 hours by BEV.37 Yet the Proposed Rule fails to consider whether, in light
of these impacts, consumers will purchase HD BEVs at the rate necessary to meet EPA's
targets. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1561-A1, p. 8]
37 MCKINSEY & COMPANY, "Powering the transition to zero-emission trucks through infrastructure,"
(Apr. 21, 2023), available at https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/travel-logistics-and-infrastructure/our-
insights/powering-the-transition-to-zero-emission-trucks-through-infrastructure.
Organization: Environmental Defense Fund (EPF)
1. EPA's underlying component costs are high
While EPA includes the Commercial Clean Vehicle Credit and the production tax credit for
batteries, it fails to include the Alternative Fuel Refueling Property Credit in its assessment of
cost. The IRS has not published guidance yet on how this credit will be applied, but the language
from the IRA indicates that businesses could receive up to a 30% credit on up to $100,000 of
EVSE. Roush, in a recent report, showed that this also could save vehicle owners $1,064 for a 25
kW charger to $26,000 for a 100 kW charger.130 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 53]
130 H. Saxena, S. Pillai, "Impact of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 on Medium- and Heavy-Duty
Electrification onMYs 2024 and 2027," 2023. Roush.
In their modeling, EPA has a maximum of two vehicles per charger even if many more
vehicles could be charged in the 12 hours of dwell time EPA assumes. This results in a high
estimate of number of EVSE ports needed, driving up the EVSE costs and driving down the
stringency of the rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 53]
Organization: International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT)
SENSITIVITY OF ZEV ADOPTION RATES OF VOCATIONAL VEHICLES TO LEVEL 2
CHARGING ASSUMPTIONS EPA assumes that each Level 2 charging station (AC charging up
to 19.2 kW in this context) will not be shared by more than one truck. EPA explicitly states that
this is a conservative assumption. Level 2 charging is considered the main charging technology
for step vans, box trucks, shuttle and school buses, and utility trucks. Given the long dwell times
of these vehicles and their relatively smaller battery sizes, it is technically possible to share
959
-------
charging ports between at least two trucks, and fleets will take advantage of port sharing among
several trucks to reduce their capital investment. ICCT modified this assumption in the HD
TRUCS model to investigate the impact on the payback period and adoption rates. The total ZEV
adoption rate of vocational vehicles increased by 6% in 2027 and 4% in 2032 under this new
assumption. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1553-A1, p. 8]
Organization: Schneider National Inc.
The EPA assumes all vehicles will have a 12-hour overnight dwell time for charging.
• A driver break is 10 hours, so a 12-hour dwell for charging requirements would extend
the driver's standard break time and would likely negatively impact work time/hours for
a driver. Additionally, a 12-hour overnight dwell time would eliminate a motor carrier's
ability to slip-seat a truck to be used in multiple shifts in a day (again, affecting
productivity and freight transportation capabilities). In the over-the-road trucking
industry, a 12- hour overnight dwell time - particularly at a specific location that has
charging infrastructure - is not typical.
• Team drivers would be most impacted as they would need to shut down for charging;
whereas, today, they trade off sleeper berth time with driving time. As a result, until
infrastructure is more prevalent and charging times are faster, forcing team drivers to
utilize ZEVs will certainly affect productivity and pay.
• Today, drivers will often take their DOT break and fuel at the same time/location. If a
charger is not available (and, to be clear, charging infrastructure certainly is not
prevalent), it will negatively impact a driver's ability to pick up, deliver or take his/her
mandatory break when needed.
• Driver parking is already very congested and there is limited visibility to locations with
available parking spots, especially at third-party fuel locations. Requiring a 12-hour
charging shutdown would exacerbate the situation.
• DOT breaks would need to take place where there is the availability to charge the tractor
instead of after a driver utilizes his/her full complement of 11 available driving hours and
14 available on-duty hours, thus reducing a driver's productive hours and further
increasing the need for additional capacity to perform the same amount of work. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1525-A1, p. 2]
Organization: Tesla, Inc. (Tesla)
Second, Tesla believes that more than two vehicles can use high powered DCFC as is
suggested in the Draft RIA.201 Depending on the driving use case, battery sizes and charging
power levels, when fast charging, one could have more than five vehicles per charger. This
higher utilization rate can vitiate many concerns about the volume of charging ports needed to be
deployed at the outset of the Phase 3 program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1505-A1, p. 27]
201 Draft RIA at 202 (Table 2-60).
Third, regulations that mandate rest periods can also provide a time window for mid-shift
charging if fast or ultra-fast charging options are available in route, allowing for a greater
number of vehicles to utilize individual chargers.202 Recent studies of power requirements for
regional and long-haul truck operations in the U.S. and Europe find that charging power higher
960
-------
than 350 kW, and as high as 1 MW, may be required to fully recharge electric trucks during a
30- to 45-minute break.203 In Tesla's case, it is deploying 750 kW chargers (using a version of a
megawatt charging standard) at depots utilizing Tesla Semi's. Like Tesla, others are already
deploying depot charging for the tractor class.204 Moreover, a number of analyses have found
that that the total cost of ownership for depot-charging electric trucks, including charging
infrastructure, will be cost-competitive with diesel in the near future without
incentives.205 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1505-A1, p. 28]
202 See generally, U.S. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Summary of Hours of Service
Regulations available at https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/regulations/hours-service/summary-hours-
serviceregulations#:~:text=Drivers%20must%20take%20a%2030,combination%20of%20these%20taken%
20consecutively
203 IEA, Global EV Outlook 2023, Trends in charging infrastructure available at
https://www.iea.Org/reports/global-evoutlook-2023/trends-in-charging-infrastructure#abstract (emphasis
added).
204 See e.g. Charged, WattEV opens heavy-duty electric truck charging depot at Port of Long Beach (May
19, 2023) available at https://chargedevs.com/newswire/wattev-opens-heavy-duty-electric-truck-charging-
depot-at-port-of-longbeach/?utm_source=ChargedEVs.com+Email+Newsletter+Opt-
in&utm_campaign=f8268c83c5-
Daily+Headlines+RSS+Email+Campaign&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_6c05923d39-f8268c83c5-
343935020Daily+Headlines+RSS+Email+Campaign&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_6c05923d39-
f8268c83c5-343935020
205 Atlas Public Policy, U.S. Medium- and Heavy-Duty Truck Electrification Infrastructure Assessment
available at https://atlaspolicy.com/u-s-medium-and-heavy-duty-truck-electrification-infrastructure-
assessment/
Organization: Truck Renting and Leasing Association (TRALA)
Increased ZEV Use Will Impact Federally Mandated Hours-of-Service Requirements
Federal Hours-of-Service (HOS) regulations require drivers to take a 30-minute break after
driving for eight hours and a 10-hour break after 14 hours. (See Figure 4). [Refer to Figure 4 on
p. 13 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1577-A1] Driver break times will not likely
align with where chargers are physically located or available for immediate use. While rapid
charging using megawatt ports will evolve over time and allow greater range for trucks and
faster charging intervals, every minute of not driving reduces the period that drivers can legally
operate their trucks on the road. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1577-A1, pp. 12-13]
Driver dwell times at shipper and receiver facilities are already severely impacting driver
HOS windows and adding a layer of inefficiency into the supply chain. According to the
American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI), in 2021, drivers rated dwell time as their
second-highest concern. 16 In its report, ATRI summarizes its current dwell time findings as
follows: 17
• The average dwell time at facilities for all fleets was 1 hour and 54 minutes per stop.
• Refrigerated carriers had an average dwell time of 3 hours and 16 minutes.
• LTL carriers averaged dwell times was 1 hour.
• Fleets with 25 or fewer trucks experienced the highest dwell time averaging 2 hours and
23 minutes per stop.
961
-------
• At 1 hour and 37 minutes per stop, fleets with more than 1,000 trucks had the lowest
average dwell time. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1577-A1, p. 13]
16 An Analysis of the Operational Costs of Trucking, American Transportation Research Institute (August
2022).
17 Id. at 40.
In addition, truck drivers often park prior to exhausting available drive time and drivers
surrender an average of 56 minutes of available drive time per day. 18 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1577-A1, p. 14]
18 Managing Critical Truck Parking Case Study: Real World Insights From Truck Parking Diaries,
American Transportation Research Institute (December 2016).
Route planning will become critical to account for EV operational range limitations, needed
charging infrastructure on travel routes, and charger types (i.e., slow versus fast charging). While
EV and fleet software continues to evolve, the best route planning involving an EV can be
thrown a curveball based upon congestion, temperature extremes, charging time, charger up-
times, charger availability, battery health, and driver behavior. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1577-
Al, p. 14]
High energy needs and big battery packs present challenges for truck EV dwell times. Direct
current fast chargers (DCFCs) are the fastest chargers available today. A 600-kWh electric truck
would require six hours to charge using a 100 kW DCFC. More powerful DCFCs will of course
greatly reduce charge and dwell times. When it comes to EV charger ratings and speed, size
matters. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1577-A1, p. 14]
Given the uncertainties as to how EVs may impact federal HOS requirements, TRALA
requests EPA coordinate with DOT to conduct on-going analysis and reporting on how driver
HOS requirements are being impacted by the increased use of ZEV vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1577-A1, p. 14]
EPA Summary and Response
Summary:
Multiple commenters said that EPA's assumed dwell time in the NPRM is too long or may
not be applicable for some vehicles, particularly long-haul vehicles or those with multi-shift
operations. DTNA conducted its own analysis of tractors' dwell times from telematics data,
estimating that only one-quarter of tractors had a dwell time of 12 hours or longer and instead
finding a median dwell time for day cabs of under 6 hours and for sleeper cabs just above 7
hours. DTNA further found that the large majority of the time, day cabs and sleeper cabs
sampled did not return to base. ATA, which incorrectly noted that EPA assumed an 8-hour dwell
time, cautioned that this would not work for line-haul or other vehicles that operate at night or
those that "slip-seat" (change drivers so the truck can operate for the full 24-hour day). Schneider
raised similar concerns.
Tesla stated that drivers' mandatory rest periods present an opportunity for en-route charging,
though it also noted that higher charging powers (up to 1 MW) may be needed to deliver the
electricity required during these breaks. (Tesla noted it is installing 750 kW DCFC ports at its
depots.) TRALA also discussed the mandatory driver rest periods in its comments, noting that
962
-------
charging may not be available in locations where drivers have these 30-minute breaks so that
significant route planning would be needed. TRALA asked that EPA coordinate with DOT to
better understand the impact of if ZEV adoption on federal hours-of-service regulations. TRALA
expressed concern about added downtime for charging, and cited an ATRI report that found
average downtime at shipping and receiving facilities was just under two hours a stop.
Delek US Holdings and DTNA also commented on cost of additional downtime for charging.
While Delek's comments primarily concerned the potential impact on BEV adoption, DTNA
recommended that EPA account for charging downtime in its analysis, or alternately limit BEV
feasibility in HD TRUCS to vehicles with single-shift operations. DTNA also suggested EPA
gather data to better understand dwell times and other aspects of fleet operations.
EPA also received comments on how many vehicles can share EVSE ports. CARB found our
assumption that up to two vehicles could share a DCFC port and one for L2, to be reasonable,
whereas Clean Fuels Development Coalition et al. thought allowing two vehicles to share a
DCFC port (and therefore halving the EVSE costs in those cases) to be unreasonable.
Tesla commented that our assumed limits on DCFC sharing were too restrictive, stating that 5
or more vehicles could share a DCFC in some circumstances. EDF stated that EPA
overestimated EVSE costs by assuming only up to two vehicles could share a charger, noting
that in some cases, many more could charge. ICCT commented that multiple vehicles could also
share L2 ports and that fleets are likely to do to save costs.
Response:
How long a vehicle is off-shift and parked at a depot, warehouse, or other home base each day
is a key factor for determining which charging type(s) could meet its needs. We refer to this as
dwell time. In the NPRM, we assumed all vehicle types would have at least 12 hours of available
time to charge at a depot or other location the vehicle is parked off-shift. However, we
acknowledged that the amount of time available at the depot for charging will depend on a
vehicle's duty cycle and other factors (88 FR at 25979). We requested comment on this
approach. EPA further assumed that up to two vehicles could share a DCFC port if both vehicles
could meet their charging needs within this dwell time, while each vehicle using L2 charging
would have its own port (see DRIA Chapters 2.6.4.1 and 2.6.4.2).
Commenters on this topic generally thought the 12-hour dwell time assumption is too long,
particularly for regional or long-haul applications in which vehicles may not return to their home
base. As discussed in RTC 6.3.1, EPA agrees that it is appropriate to model long-haul vehicles,
certain other long-range tractors, and coach buses as relying on public rather than depot charging
and we have updated our FRM analysis accordingly. Given that, we no longer estimate a depot
dwell time for these vehicles.
To better understand how dwell times might vary by vehicle application and class for vehicles
that we assume will use depot charging in our FRM analysis, we supported new data analysis by
NREL through an interagency agreement between EPA and the U.S. Department of Energy.
NREL analyzed several data sets for this effort: General Transit Feed Specification (GTFS) data
for about 21,700 transit buses, operating data for nearly 300 school buses from NREL's Fleet
DNA database, and a set of fleet telematics data from Geotab's Altitude platform covering about
963
-------
13,600 medium- and heavy-duty trucks. As described in the report Bruchon et al. 2024,449 NREL
separately analyzed data for 18 unique combinations of vocations and class types. We mapped
the resulting dwell times to the applicable BEV type in our HD TRUCS model, as described in
Chapter 2.6.2.1.4 of the RIA. As shown in Table 2-78 of RIA, Chapter 2.6.2.2, the updated
dwells times in HD TRUCS range from 7.4 hours (for a class 8 regional vehicle) to 14.5 hours
(for school buses). For the large majority of depot-charged BEV types in HD TRUCS, dwell
times used are under 12 hours.
For the NPRM, we assumed that each vehicle using Level 2 charging would have its own
EVSE port, while up to two vehicles could share DCFC if charging needs could be met within
the assumed dwell time. We agree with comments received by EDF, ICCT, and Tesla that these
limits were conservative as fleet owners have a strong financial incentive to share EVSE ports
among vehicles if it could decrease their costs while still ensuring operational needs are met.
Accordingly, and in consideration of more robust dwell time assumptions, in our final rule
analysis we allow up to two vocational vehicles to share one EVSE port if there is sufficient
depot dwell time for all vehicles to meet their daily charging needs. For tractors, which tend to
be part of larger fleets, we allow up to four vehicles to share one EVSE port if there is sufficient
daily depot dwell time for each vehicle to meet its charging needs. To the extent higher numbers
of BEVs can share EVSE ports and still meet their daily electricity consumption needs, these
limits should still be considered conservative. See RIA Chapter 2.6.2.1.5.
In response to the comments about the impact of charging time on slip seating operations, if
slip seating is utilized, then this would be an instance when ICE vehicles would be appropriate.
As noted, EPA's modeled compliance pathway allows for ICE vehicles, and the majority of
sleeper cabs would remain ICE vehicles in that modeled compliance pathway. See also RTC
Section 4.3.3.
6.4 Charging Infrastructure (Miscellaneous)
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Daimler Truck North America LLC (DTNA)
• Mandatory Transportation Electrification Infrastructure Reporting. DTNA is not aware of
any existing tool where fleets, manufacturers, or regulators can find information about
public or private charging stations that can accommodate HD BEVs with pull-through
charging and ingress/egress appropriate for commercial vehicles. DOE's Alternative
Fueling Station Locator could serve as one such tool by adding fields to indicate whether
or not the charging site can support medium heavy-duty (MHD)18 and/or heavy heavy-
duty (HHD) vehicles. 19 Collecting this data is critical to inform the Agency of the
development of HD electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) and should be used to
inform and enable increased C02 stringencies throughout the GHG Phase 3 program.
This data is also critical information for fleets utilizing BEVs that may need en route
access to public charging. DTNA also recommends that EPA work with FHWA to
449 Bruchon, Matthew, Brennan Borlaug, Bo Liu, Tim Jonas, Jiayun Sun, Nhat Le, and Eric Wood. "Depot-based
Vehicle Data for National Analysis of Medium- and Heavy-Duty Electric Vehicle Charging." NREL/TP-5400-
88241. February 2024. Available online: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy24osti/88241.pdf.
964
-------
reconsider the designations of Alternative Fuel Corridors (AFCs), in particular to ensure
that the 'ready' corridor designation is reserved for AFCs that have HD-accessible BEV
and hydrogen infrastructure spaced at regular intervals. Even where an AFC has stations
50-100 miles apart, if the stations cannot accommodate HDVs, then the corridor is not
HD-ready. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 14]
18 DTNA uses the term 'Medium Heavy Duty' (MHD) to refer to Class 5 and Class 6 vehicles and the
term 'Heavy Heavy-Duty' (HHD) to refer to Class 7 and 8 vehicles.
19 See DOE, Alternative Fueling Station Locator, available at https://afdc.energy.gOv/stations/#/analyze.
• National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) Formula Program Funding. DTNA
recommends that 15% of NEVI funding be set aside for charging stations that can
accommodate HD BEVs with at least one pull-through charging lane. To be eligible for
the set-aside, station owners should be required to build at least one dual-use (HDV and
light-duty vehicle capable) pull-through charging lane with a charging level above 150
kilowatts (kW). Station owners located near known fleet operating routes or major
distribution hubs should be given priority for funding applications to encourage fleet
owners to integrate electric HD BEVs into their fleets. Site proposals that include future-
proofing measures to increase charging speeds for HDVs, up to 1.5 MW, should also
receive additional consideration. Other site design considerations for station owners to
accommodate HD charging include: (1) cable lengths and management systems; (2)
vehicle turning radius; and (3) charger locations. DTNA recommends that EPA work
with FHWA to issue additional HD guidance and direct state departments of
transportation to include the above in next year's NEVI plans. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1555-A1, pp. 14-15]
Organization: Daimler Truck North America LLC (DTNA)
Recommendations to Facilitate ZEV Infrastructure Buildout and C02 Standard Feasibility
While EPA does not have regulatory authority over many of the factors that currently pose
challenges to ZEV infrastructure development, the Agency could help to mitigate these
challenges by supporting the policies, legislation, and regulatory initiatives that are detailed in
Section I.B.4 of these comments, including:
• Align with EIA vehicle uptake estimates, to ensure accurate estimates of real power
demand by MHD and HHD ZEVs and net C02 emissions.
• Work with FERC to direct utilities to incorporate demand projects into both a system-
wide transportation electrification electricity forecast and a utility distribution grid
capacity requirement forecast, to serve these medium- and heavy-duty transportation
electrification loads on a geographic basis.
• Assume financial liability as a demand guarantor for infrastructure buildout that is
undertaken based upon EPA's ZEV penetration forecasts.
• Work with FERC to identify high traffic freight hubs that are likely to see rapid increase
in BEVs, and direct utilities to proactively upgrade this infrastructure.
• Encourage state utility regulatory commissions to adopt PBRs to incentivize faster
interconnection timelines for charging infrastructure projects. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1555-A1, p. 57]
965
-------
• Work with stakeholders to develop model building codes that can be adopted by state and
local governments to streamline authorizations for EVSE installation projects and
encourage state and local adoption of these model codes.
• Require reporting of medium- and heavy-duty ZEV infrastructure and make this
information available to fleets.
• Work with FHWA to revise the NEVI formula program to more actively encourage states
to provide HD-accessible public charging infrastructure. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1555-A1, p. 58]
Organization: Fermata Energy
There are numerous reasons for the EPA to encourage the adoption of V2G technology and
support our detailed recommendations below. We feel strongly that the EPA has a unique
opportunity to make a major difference in the commercialization of V2X technology. If the EPA
were to provide incentives or regulations on V2X, as we are recommending, it could provide
market confidence for vehicle manufacturers and V2X charging equipment providers, and
accelerate V2X by providing a positive value to consumers, including low- and moderate-income
consumers. EPA action to unlock the full potential of V2X could help mitigate the emerging
generation shortage because with V2X, EVs become grid assets.3 For example, PG&E CEO
Patti Poppe recently noted that EVs on the road in "PG&E's service area today have 6,700 MW
of capacity," which equals "three Diablo Canyon nuclear power plants. It's on the road today,
and we are not using it as a power source. We're only using it as a power draw."4 EPA action on
V2X could also help address the duck curve, evening ramp, and summertime "needle" peaks in
many generation and distribution grids. More importantly V2G, as a storage asset, unlocks and
enables the large GHG benefits of the on-going, large-scale transition to intermittant renewable
energy. EPA action to help commercialize V2X could create a low-cost, cleaner alternative to the
zero-emission portable gensets required by California Air Resources Board's (CARB) recent
Small Off-Road Engines (SORE) regulation and replace dirty portable gensets in other states.
Finally, Fermata Energy encourages the EPA to support all connectors, protocols, and EVSE
sizes in any V2X recommendations for incentives or regulation in order to foster competition and
encourage lower cost solutions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1662-A2, p.3]
3 Decommissioning of Diablo Canyon and lack of hydropower in drought years.
https://www.utilitydive.com/news/california-drought-could-halve-summer-hydropower-share-leading-to-
more-nat/624489/
https://www.utilitydive.eom/news/california-grid-reliability-2022-2023-summer/609261/
4 https://www.latimes.eom/environment/newsletter/2021-10-14/as-california-fires-burn-pge-ceo-promises-
fixes-boiling-point
BNEF data (Figures 1 and 2) show over 10 million battery-powered EVs on the road globally
at the end of 2020, with a combined 296-gigawatt hours of lithium-ion batteries installed in
them. That's a lot of batteries driving around - 8 times more than the number of stationary grid-
scale batteries installed globally.5,6 While these figures are mostly for light duty EVs and
electric buses, they illustrate what will soon be happening with heavy duty vehicles in a few
years as a result of EPA's final rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1662-A2, p.3] [[See Docket
Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1662-A2, page 4, for Figures 1 and 2]]
5 More EVs Are Being Designed to Push Power to The Electrical Grid - Bloomberg
966
-------
6 https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/electric-vehicles-to-drive-massive-battery-
demand-bnef-chart
7 Electric Vehicles to Drive Massive Battery Demand, BNEF, 2021 [[Reference for Figures 1 and 2]]
In addition, a May 2022 presentation by the World Resources Institute using Bloomberg NEF
and Energy Information Administration data found the power capacity in 2030 for EVs to be 10
to 20 times more than the 2030 power capacity of stationary storage.8 While these numbers are
for light-duty EVs, electrified trucks can also contribute and some fleets (e.g., school buses,
municipal trucks, trucks in one-shift operations) are expected to be early adopters. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1662-A2, p.4]
8 See slide 5 at https://www.slideshare.net/emmaline742/building-resiliency-with-v2g-in-residential-
homes-by-camrongorguinpour
V2X bidirectional charging is a win-win-win investment: many benefits accrue:
• Achieves EPA's environmental goals. Just like stationary storage, V2X bidirectional
charging platforms can reduce carbon and criteria pollutant emissions from generators by
shifting electricity consumption to the cleanest hours of the day and removing the need
for dirty thermal peaker electricity generation. However, V2X is more cost-effective than
stationary storage, as ratepayers don't have to pay for purchase of the EV battery and can
accelerate the renewable transition.
• Provides grid services. With V2X bidirectional charging, utilities gain a low-cost energy
storage resource to help integrate renewable energy into the electric grid by shifting
energy, providing resource adequacy, and ancillary services (Figure 3). For example,
modeling by the CPUC currently projects 14,700 MW of new energy storage is needed in
CA by 2032 to support the integration of renewables but only 2,185 MW is operational
today.9,10 V2X, with supportive policies, can provide many thousands of MW by 2030.
• Lower vehicle ownership costs. EV owners can earn money by selling electricity back to
the grid, significantly cutting the cost of vehicle ownership. Offsetting the cost of owning
and maintaining an EV supports equitable access to EVs, particularly those EVs in the
used car market, such as the low-income EV driving community.
• Increased resiliency. Unidirectional charging is a grid load. V2X bidirectional charging
cost-effectively supports grid resilience. During black outs and public safety power shut
offs, EV owners can power their homes, businesses, and critical infrastructure.
• Ratepayer benefits. EV adoption has already been shown to significantly benefit utility
ratepayers and V2X technology can further those benefits. 12 For example, a 2018 CEC
study projects $1 Billion in annual ratepayer benefits if 50% of chargers were V2X
capable. 13 V2X technology also improves driver economics which would likely drive
further EV adoption and even greater ratepayer benefits. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1662-A2, pp.4-6] [[See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1662-A2, page 5, for
Figure 3]]
9 CPUC Approves Long Term Plans To Meet Electricity Reliability and Climate Goals, CPUC, 2022
10 Infographic: Q4'21 US Battery Storage by the Numbers, S&P Global, 2022
11 California Energy Commission, March 2019, Distribution System Constrained Vehicle-to-Grid Services
for Improved Grid Stability and Reliability, Figure 42 [[Reference for Figure 3]]
967
-------
12 Electric Vehicles Are Driving Electric Rates Down, Synapse Economics, 2019, Electric Vehicles
Benefit All Utility Ratepayers, Forbes, 2019
13 Distribution System Constrained Vehicle-to-Grid Services for Improved Grid Stability and Reliability,
CEC 2018, Table 8, High PEV Forecast Scenario
Organization: Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association (MECA)
Charger Infrastructure and Standards
The prioritization of building forward-looking vehicle charging infrastructure is critical to the
penetration of electric commercial vehicles. Furthermore, analogous to vehicle electronic designs
and material selection impacts electric vehicle efficiency, similar approaches can be used to
improve charger efficiency in delivering the maximum power to the vehicle. For this reason, we
believe that EPA should work with other agencies, like the Joint Office on Energy and
Transportation, in setting minimum charger efficiency standards to ensure that infrastructure
funds are spent on chargers with the best utilization of electric power. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1521-A1, p. 11]
While overnight charging at lower power may be appropriate for certain vehicle applications
and fleets on a regimented schedule, we recommend the EPA prioritize the planning and building
of direct current fast chargers (DCFC). The planning of public DCFCs is indispensable to allow
in-service electric vehicles to address unforeseen day-to-day vehicle use variables (i.e., weather,
traffic conditions, needed route changes, etc.). The availability of strategically placed, publicly
accessible DCFCs prevents vehicles becoming inoperable due to these use variables, allowing
vehicles to be rapidly charged and quickly placed back into service while minimizing
interruptions to vehicle operations, traffic disruptions from vehicle strandings and maximizing
the utilization of available space for heavy-duty vehicle recharging. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1521-A1, p. 11]
DCFC is also crucial to address long-term heavy-duty vehicle charging needs. Many
commercial EVs will need to achieve fast charging times to encourage fleet owners to transition
to e-mobility. This is particularly true for those vehicle operators who do not have access to
charging at their own facilities. EV fleet adopters with slower rate overnight charging should
also diversify their charging assets with DCFCs to have more flexibility as their fleets grow and
unforeseen needs arise to charge vehicles and return them to service. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1521-A1, p. 12]
Additionally, DCFCs futureproof infrastructure investments by allowing fleet operators to
immediately convert and deploy BEVs while also allowing them to remain up to date with
advancements in battery technology. Vehicle batteries are quickly improving in size, chemistry,
energy density, and efficiency resulting in increased vehicle range. This range improvement will,
however, require faster charging capabilities. While HD BEV vehicles typically require large
batteries with increasing power density, DCFCs enable quicker and more efficient charging of
these vehicles. In addition, site and infrastructure owners maximize their investment because
DCFCs enable site-readiness for future DCFC expansions while allowing the best utilization of
available space and higher turnover of serviced vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1521-A1,
p. 12]
968
-------
DCFCs also allow for bidirectional charging which futureproofs infrastructure investment
further by providing support for increasing electricity demand. Vehicle-to-Grid ("V2G")
technology can help address energy use and manage peak demand times and costs, as well as
serve as backup power during an outage. As EV adoption increases, this technology becomes
more critical to enable sustainable grid management, grid resilience, utilization, and national
security protection. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1521-A1, p. 12]
MECA also recommends the EPA consider national certification, such as UL Certification,
for EV supply equipment to provide consistency, quality, safety, efficiency and compliance. A
Certificate of Compliance will mean the product has passed a series of rigorous tests to
demonstrate performance, safety, quality, and serviceability, while enhancing sustainability,
strengthening security, and managing risk. National certification also supports local permitting
efficiency, therefore, helps fast track deployment of charging stations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1521-A1, p. 12]
For these reasons, MECA urges EPA to work with other government agencies, such as the
Joint Office for Transportation and Energy, and industry to develop national standards for
minimum charger efficiency which will ensure the efficient energy utilization and lowest
operating cost for electric vehicles. With regards to technology, several suppliers of vehicle
power electronics are applying similar electric efficiency technology innovation to the
development of more efficient chargers to minimize switching losses and deliver maximum
power to the battery. This is important to fleets as charging losses increase their operating cost
and it is important to the environment because these loses represent electricity that is generated
but never used. The difference in electric efficiency between the first generation of chargers, that
are deployed in the field today, and the advanced second generation chargers can be as much as
10-20%. This becomes significant given the magnitude of battery energy in conventional
vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1521-A1, p. 12]
Organization: MEMA
EVSE that has higher DC charging capacity (i.e., DC fast charging, or DCFC) than the
minimum requirements modeled in the HD TRUCS tool will enable opportunity charging and
help future-proof charging infrastructure, which is especially important to further encourage EV
rollouts. School bus and other applications suited to bi-directional charging can also offer a layer
of grid resiliency that will address stakeholder concerns about increasing dependency on
electrical grids and also improve local and national security. Likewise, significantly more
investment is needed to address fleet operator confidence and reliability for EVs. For medium-
and heavy-duty EV, DCFC is critical. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1570-A1, pp. 9 - 10]
Organization: Nuvve Holding Corporation
EVs equipped with V2G technology can help further reduce GHG emissions in multiple ways
beyond the emissions reductions that EVs alone can achieve, and enhance infrastructure
resilience and national security. For example, EVs equipped with V2G technology can help
reduce GHG emissions and help avoid harmful health effects from diesel generators, when used
to provide emergency backup power as a substitute for diesel. V2G also supports the integration
of variable clean generation resources, such as solar and wind energy, into the grid and can
enhance the management thereof. These benefits can be realized across all types of EVs, from
969
-------
HD to light-duty EVs (both battery-only and plug-in hybrids). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1572-
Al, p. 2]
In addition, V2G technology can provide valuable grid flexibility, e.g., to regional power
grids, by leveraging V2G as a grid resource during periods of extreme grid strain, thereby
helping to avoid local, state, or regional power outages. An Electric Power Resources Institute
("EPRI") study found that implementing V2G capability can provide two-to-three times the
value that unidirectional, managed charging (otherwise known as "VIG") from the grid to a
vehicle can provide.2 EPRI estimates that V2G could generate $1 billion in annual grid benefits
to California ratepayers under an aggressive EV adoption scenario of 5 million EVs by 2030
with 50 percent of the vehicles being V2G-enabled. Another study of light-duty bidirectional
EVs in California estimated an annual V2G value of $2,850 per vehicle.3 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1572-A1, p. 2]
2 Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). "Vehicle-to-Grid: $1 Billion in Annual Grid Benefits?" EPRI
Journal, https://eprijournal.com/vehicle-to-grid-l-billion-in-annual-grid-benefits/.
3 Tarroja, Brian, and Eric Hittinger. The value of consumer acceptance of controlled electric vehicle
charging in a decarbonizing grid: The case of California. Energy. Vol. 229. August 15, 2021.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544221009397.
Organization: South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD)
The workforce needed to install this infrastructure also can present a key challenge. In
California, our Energy Commission estimated that 157,000 fast charging stations (>50 kW)
would be needed by 2030 to support zero emissions heavy-duty on-road vehicles. 1 This equates
to more than 400 charging stations per week that need to be installed. This is in addition to those
needed for light duty vehicles. A significant workforce is needed to do the site work, the
upstream utility distribution, transmission, and generation work, as well as the manufacturing of
electrical equipment (e.g., transformers, etc.). The federal government has a key role in
developing programs across the nation to first estimate the workforce needed and in which key
sectors and regions, and then to provide resources to ensure that workforce is trained and
available. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1575-A1, pp. 3-4]
1 https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/reports/electric-vehicle-charging-infrastructure-assessment-ab-
2127
Finally, while most sites installing infrastructure are focused on their local needs (e.g., site
installation, local utility distribution infrastructure, etc.), when implemented at scale, additional
generation/production and transmission/transportation of electricity and hydrogen will be
needed, in many cases across state lines. The federal government can continue to facilitate these
interstate connections to ensure a streamlined market that will encourage the rapid growth of
zero emissions vehicles. Key factors in the adoption of zero emissions vehicles is the actual price
that end consumers will pay for electricity and hydrogen as well as a reliable supply of both,
especially in comparison to conventional fossil fuels. The federal government can play a role in
driving down the cost to consumers as well as ensuring stable and reliable fuel supplies to the
extent that they cross state lines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1575-A1, p. 4]
970
-------
Organization: Truck Renting and Leasing Association (TRALA)
ZEVs Will Exacerbate the Nation's Shortage of Truck Parking Spaces
TRALA is concerned over how the build-out of a national truck charging network will impact
the nation's truck parking space shortage. Truck drivers count on safe parking spaces to comply
with trucking regulations and to get a good night's sleep. Parking has been in short supply for
years, over 300,000 spaces to be more precise. For every 11 drivers in the U.S., there is one truck
parking space. 19 Drivers spend, on average, one hour each day searching for truck parking.20
The DOTs 2019 Jason's Law Report found that approximately 98% of drivers have trouble
finding parking compared to 75% in 2015 - a 23% increase. Admittedly 70% of commercial
motor vehicle drivers were forced to violate HOS regulations seeking safe, legal parking.21 DOT
also found that the truck parking shortages exist in every state and region and is most acute along
major freight corridors - the very same corridors targeted to install truck EV charging. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1577-A1, p. 14]
19 'Truck Parking Shortage: A Heavy Load for Truck Drivers to Bear,' Driver Safety (July 5, 2022).
20 Id.
21 'Trucking Groups Urge Secretary Buttigieg to Address Safe Parking Shortage,' Safety+Health (March
1, 2022).
Diesel remains the predominant fuel in trucking and will continue to be over the near-term
future. With that being the case, as truck parking facilities add or expand charging infrastructure,
it will likely take away valuable parking spaces for diesel-powered trucks that - at this point in
time - are more likely to need limited parking spaces. What is more troublesome are areas
having few parking spaces, little land for parking expansion, or under-utilized truck parking
spaces reserved for truck charging, will result in spill-over parking along roadways and in
surrounding neighborhoods.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1577-A1, pp. 14-15]
One has to go no further than rest areas along the interstate to see trucks parked on interstate
entry and exit ramps due to lack of parking. Rural areas may have better opportunities to
purchase land for expanding parking and adding charging spaces but they may also be less
inclined to do so until sufficient ZEV product lines are available and in use. Even electrified
parking spaces can compound parking shortages depending on vehicle dwell times, wait periods
for electrified spaces to become available, charger downtimes, speed of charging, fire code
spacing requirements, and the numbers of chargers. TRALA recommends the agency coordinate
with DOT to conduct periodic reviews, assessments, and define solutions regarding any truck
parking impacts created from electrifying current truck parking locations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1577-A1, p. 15]
Organization: Volvo Group
Even other seemingly unrelated issues could influence the availability of charging, such as
parking concerns. Parking for Class 8 vehicles is a significant problem today and many truck
stop operators are understandably nervous about converting existing parking stalls for EV
charging for fear of having those spaces blocked by internal combustion engine (ICE) trucks.
This parking problem has been exacerbated by state decisions to close existing, and limit future
development of interstate rest stop parking. More state and federal dollars for parking along with
971
-------
amendments to the Federal-Aid Highway Act currently restricting EV charging at rest areas will
help. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1606-A1, p. 8]
EPA Summary and Response:
Summary:
At least one commenter requested better public information and resources to support HD BEV
charging. For example, DTNA suggested that mandatory reporting could help resolve the lack of
public information for fleets, manufacturers, and regulators about charging stations for HD
BEVs. They noted that stations for HD BEVs have special requirements that need to be
accounted for (e.g., along designated Alternative Fuel Corridors and in NEVI plans). DTNA
stated that DOE's AFDC could be supplemented to share additional data relevant to HD
vehicles, which could also be useful to EPA for tracking purposes. They suggested working with
agencies like FHWA, EIA, FERC, the NEVI program, and others to align data, encourage
programs that accommodate and support BEV charging for HD vehicles, and help mitigate
challenges to ZEV infrastructure deployment.
Others commented on the value of encouraging vehicle-to-grid (V2G) and vehicle-to-X
(V2X) technologies. Fermata, MECA, MEMA, and Nuvve noted the benefits of future-proofing
BEV infrastructure to address long-term needs. Fermata and Nuuve encouraged the use of V2G
and V2X technologies to enhance infrastructure resilience. Fermata said the technology could
provide a potential revenue stream for charging equipment owners, and with proper
implementation can act as a grid asset that would benefit ratepayers at large. Fermata commented
that V2X could provide a "positive value to consumers and low- and moderate-income
consumers." They recommend that EPA provide incentives or regulations on V2X to increase
confidence in the technology, and to help commercialize V2X. They also encourage EPA to
"support all connectors, protocols, and EVSE sizes in any V2X recommendations for incentives
or regulations in order to foster competition and encourage lower cost solutions." Nuvve pointed
to V2G as an alternative to diesel generators, which offers emissions benefits. They noted that
V2G can work across vehicle types and pointed to a few studies on the financial benefits of V2G.
Nuvve and MECA also highlighted the national security benefits of V2G.
Also as a means of future-proofing infrastructure, MECA and MEMA wrote about the
importance of improving charger efficiency and setting minimum charger efficiency standards to
ensure the efficient use of energy and to lower operating costs. MECA stated that EPA should
prioritize the planning and building of public DCFCs. They described many reasons including
the fact that DCFC allows for bidirectional charging, which can support increasing electricity
demand. They suggested that EPA work with other government agencies such as JOET to
develop national standards and certification requirements to ensure reliability. MEMA noted that
higher-power chargers like DCFC are critical for HD BEVs. For example, DCFCs can enable
opportunity charging, and bidirectional charging can offer additional benefits. They suggested
that more investment is needed to improve reliability and promote confidence in these
technologies.
At least one commenter expressed concerns about workforce requirements. South Coast
AQMD focused on the workforce needed in California to install charging infrastructure. They
said the federal government has a key role to play in creating programs to develop the skills and
training needed to ramp up the deployment of charging stations. The rapid scaling of
972
-------
infrastructure for ZEVs, they note, will require interstate connections, and the federal
government is in a good position to help facilitate the market, create stability and reliable fuel
supplies, and drive down costs.
Finally, TRALA and Volvo commented on an existing truck parking station shortage that they
say could be impacted by the buildout of a national HD BEV charging network. TRALA
explained issues that commercial vehicle drivers must deal with to find safe, legal parking and
expressed concerns about converting limited spaces for diesel trucks to spaces for BEV charging.
They recommend that EPA coordinate with DOT to monitor and assess conditions as the market
evolves and develop solutions. Volvo suggested that additional state and federal funding for
parking and restrictions on BEV charging at rest stops could help.
Response:
In response to DTNA's comment suggesting that EPA work with other agencies to improve
public information about HD BEV charging infrastructure, EPA has worked closely with the
Joint Office of Energy and Transportation (JOET) and other federal agencies on a range of BEV
charging infrastructure issues and challenges. For example, EPA works with DOE and DOT
(along with other government, industry, and other stakeholders participants) on the Electric
Vehicle Working Group, which, as described by JOET, was formed to make recommendations
"regarding the development, adoption, and integration of light-, medium-, and heavy-duty
electric vehicles (EVs) into the U.S. transportation and energy systems."450 EPA collaborated
with other agencies in development of a National Zero-Emission Freight Corridor Strategy,451
released in March 2024, that, "sets an actionable vision and comprehensive approach to
accelerating the deployment of a world-class, zero-emission freight network across the United
States by 2040. The strategy focuses on advancing the deployment of zero-emission medium-
and heavy-duty vehicle (ZE-MHDV) fueling infrastructure by targeting public investment to
amplify private sector momentum, focus utility and regulatory energy planning, align industry
activity, and mobilize communities for clean transportation."452 The strategy has four phases.
The first phase, from 2024-2027, focuses on establishing freight hubs defined "as a 100-mile to a
150-mile radius zone or geographic area centered around a point with a significant concentration
of freight volume (e.g., ports, intermodal facilities, and truck parking), that supports a broader
ecosystem of freight activity throughout that zone."453 The second phase, from 2027-2030, will
connect key ZEV hubs, building out infrastructure along several major highways. The third
phase, from 2030-2045, will expand the corridors, "including access to charging and fueling to
all coastal ports and their surrounding freight ecosystems for short-haul and regional
operations."454 The fourth phase, from 2035-2040, will complete the freight corridor network.
This corridor strategy provides support for the development of HD ZEV infrastructure that
450 Joint Office of Energy and Transportation. "Electric Vehicle Working Group". Available online:
https://driveelectric.gov/ev-working-group.
451 Joint Office of Energy and Transportation. "National Zero-Emission Freight Corridor Strategy" DOE/EE-2816
2024. March 2024. Available at https://driveelectric.gov/files/zef-corridor-strategy.pdf.
452 Joint Office of Energy and Transportation. "Biden-Harris Administration, Joint Office of Energy and
Transportation Release Strategy to Accelerate Zero-Emission Freight Infrastructure Deployment." March 12, 2024.
Available online: https://driveelectric.gov/news/decarbonize-freight.
453 Joint Office of Energy and Transportation. "National Zero-Emission Freight Corridor Strategy" DOE/EE-2816
2024. March 2024. Available at https://driveelectric.gov/files/zef-corridor-strategy.pdf. See page 3.
454 Joint Office of Energy and Transportation. "National Zero-Emission Freight Corridor Strategy" DOE/EE-2816
2024. March 2024. Available at https://driveelectric.gov/files/zef-corridor-strategy.pdf. See page 8.
973
-------
corresponds to the modeled potential compliance pathway for meeting the final standards. In
addition, EPA has announced several funding opportunities through BIL and IRA focused on HD
sectors that allow for spending on HD BEV charging infrastructure, as discussed in RIA Chapter
1.3.2, and we offer information on our website to inform the public about implementation of
these funding programs. As discussed in RTC Section 2.10, we are committed to continuing our
engagement with federal partners and with multiple stakeholders and to monitoring build-out of
major elements of the HD ZEV infrastructure. We may in the future request additional
information, as appropriate, and as consistent with our Clean Air Act and other authorities, but
we do not agree with the commenter that mandatory reporting about infrastructure deployment is
warranted at this time.
The commenter suggested that DOE's Alternative Fuels Data Center (AFDC), for example,
could be a tool for providing public information about HD BEV charging stations. We agree the
AFDC Station Locator is a useful resource for finding stations and further note that it is possible
to identify stations with access for HD BEVs through advanced filters.455 We encourage industry
to also partner with DOE to ensure that accurate and useful information is made publicly
available in a timely manner, given that the AFDC Station Locator data collection methods
include "collaborating with infrastructure equipment and fuel providers, original equipment
manufacturers (OEMs), and industry groups".456 We also note that many utilities publish hosting
capacity maps, and there is a Department of Energy publication compiles all of these maps'
locations in a central registry. See RTC Section 7 (Distribution) below.
We agree with the commenters that V2G and related technologies may offer numerous
benefits and potentially save money for fleets, as discussed further in RIA Chapter 1.6.4 and
RTC Section 7. We did not quantitatively include these benefits in our analysis for the rule so to
the extent that fleets monetize such benefits, our costs analysis may be considered conservative.
In response to comments about charger efficiency, we note that DOT's Federal Highway
Administration 2023 rule sets minimum charging infrastructure standards and requirements for
infrastructure projects funded under the NEVI program, including DCFCs. The rule "does not
specifically accommodate" HD BEV charging, but FHWA explicitly and strongly encourages the
consideration of future HD charging needs and notes that they will continue to monitor
technological advancements.457 In January 2024, DOT's FHWA awarded the first EV Charger
Reliability and Accessibility Accelerator Program grants to address charger reliability.458 We
agree that the efficiency of technologies can help lower costs, and that higher power chargers
like DCFCs make sense for some HD BEV charging scenarios that require faster charging times,
such as en-route charging. EPA encourages the use of energy efficient chargers through our
455 U.S. Department of Energy. "Alternative Fueling Station Locator". Available online:
https://afdc.energy.gOv/stations/#/analyze ?fuel=ELEC&maximum_vehicle_class=HD.
456 U.S. Department of Energy. "About the Alternative Fueling Station Locator Data". Available online:
https://afdc.energy.gOv/stations/#/analyze ?fuel=ELEC&maximum_vehicle_class=HD&show_about=true.
457 Federal Register. "National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Standards and Requirements". February 28. 2023.
Available online: https://www.federalregister.gOv/documents/2023/02/28/2023-03500/national-electric-vehicle-
infrastructure-standards-and-requirements.
458 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. "NEVI Program: Electric Vehicle Charger
Reliability and Accessibility Accelerator". Available online: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/nevi/evc_raa/.
974
-------
voluntary EnergyStar program, which certifies AC-Output and DC-Output charger models with
power levels of up to 350 kW.459
Please see RTC Section 19.2 for a detailed response to comments regarding employment,
including some discussion related to workforce and training needs to install charging
infrastructure. There are many programs to support the training of technicians supporting ZEV
infrastructure, including through federal agencies. For example, both EPA and JOET identify
resources related to workforce development and training on their websites.460'461 In January
2024, DOE announced $46.5 million for BEV charging that is intended in part to grow the clean
energy workforce.462 In November 2023, the National Governors Association and the National
League of Cities launched a State and Local Collaborative to Support an Inclusive Workforce for
the Electric Vehicle Charging Sector to develop career pathways, supported by the Siemens
Foundation's EVeryone Charging Forward initiative that has a similar focus.463 We expect that
programs like the many that are listed throughout RTC Section 19.2 and this rulemaking, as well
as other efforts not included, will increase with the increasing buildout of charging infrastructure.
We acknowledge concerns about the availability of parking for commercial trucks and
potential impacts due to public charging, particularly along major freight corridors where the
shortages may be most acute according to TRALA. We note that DOT released a truck parking
handbook for state and local planners that mentions designing facilities for future freight
vehicles, including electric vehicles. They recognize that parking will continue to play a
significant role in trucking and that as vehicle technologies evolve, activity at a site may change
over time. DOT also updated guidance on funding eligibility for commercial vehicle parking
projects that recognizes truck parking shortages as a national concern.464'465 We thus note that
this issue is being addressed as part of the federal government's response to promoting
successful deployment of needed HD ZEV infrastructure, as discussed further in RTC Section
2.10.
459 EnergyStar. "Electric Vehicle Chargers". Available online: https://www.energystar.gov/products/ev_chargers.
460 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Clean School Bus: Workforce Development and Training Resources".
Available online: https://www.epa.gov/cleanschoolbus/workforce-development-and-training-resources.
461 Joint Office of Energy and Transportation. "Webinar: Workforce Development Tools and Resources". March 5,
2024. Available online: https://driveelectric.gov/webinars/workforce-development-tools-resources.
462 U.S. Department of Energy. "Biden-Harris Administration Announces Over $46 Million to Enhance EV
Charging Reliability and Workforce Development". January 19, 2024. Available online:
https://www.energy.gov/articles/biden-harris-administration-announces-over-46-million-enhance-ev-charging-
reliability-and.
463 National Governors Association. "EV Workforce Collaborative". November 8, 2023. Available online:
https://www.nga.org/projects/ev-workforce-collaborative/.
464 Gallagher, John. "DOT issues truck parking handbook for local planners". FreightWaves. September 30, 2022.
Available online: https://www.freightwaves.com/news/dot-issues-truck-parking-handbook-for-local-planners.
465 Knopp, Martin C. and Thomas Keane. Memorandum from FHWA/FMCSA to Division Administrators.
"INFORMATION: Eligibility of Title 23 and Title 49 Federal Funds for Commercial Motor Vehicle Parking
(Updated)". September 20, 2022. Available online:
https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/infrastructure/truck_parking/title23fundscmv/title23_49_funds_cmv.pdf.
975
-------
7 Distribution
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Advanced Energy United
Transportation is the largest source of domestic [GHG] emissions. In 2021, 28% of emissions
came from the transportation sector, 23% of which came from HDVsl. We have a unique
opportunity to not only decarbonize this sector, but improve public health, create good paying
jobs, and produce technologically advanced vehicles for consumers and businesses in the
process. The EPA's promulgation of the new emissions reductions rule on heavy-duty vehicles
provides a pathway to meet emissions reductions targets and expand the adoption of zero-
emissions vehicles on our roads. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1652-A2, p. 1]
1 EPA. (28 April, 2023). Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions
A large percentage of emissions reductions from the transportation sector will be
accomplished by replacing gas- and diesel-powered buses, trucks and vans with EV models. EVs
are not only much more energy efficient than gas-powered cars but are also less expensive to fuel
and maintain over their lifetimes. Thus, the EPA's proposed rule presents an opportunity to
decarbonize the largest source of emissions in the American economy while scaling up an
emerging domestic market. Electrified transportation reduces our reliance on fossil fuels,
strengthens America's energy independence, and produces economic benefits across the value
chain of the automotive industry. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1652-A2, pp. 1-2]
However, in order to fully realize the benefits of this new fuel source, we must consider
innovative approaches that will effectively manage that electric load and mitigate potential grid
impacts. In the draft regulatory impact assessment for the Phase 3 rule, the EPA rightly
recognized that grid constraints will be a challenge, and the likely necessity of a variety of
approaches to reduce the need or scale of upgrades.2 While some solutions to this challenge will
require the engagement of state and federal policymakers, others are already being deployed by
innovative companies across the advanced energy industry. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1652-
A2, p. 2]
2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles: Phase 3 Draft Regulatory Impact
Analysis p 70 https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P10178RN.pdf
Building out a decarbonized electric grid with advanced energy technologies—and the
infrastructure necessary to ensure its stability—will require the innovation and speed
demonstrated by President Roosevelt's Arsenal of Democracy. In response to the need for tanks,
weapons, and planes, American companies like Ford, GM, and Boeing ramped up manufacturing
production and began making the technologies, equipment, and parts necessary to bolster Allied
efforts. That is the kind of American innovation that we will need—and have begun to see—
from leading automakers and new market entrants as they increase their share of EVs. For
instance, Ford and Sunrun have teamed up to pair the energy storage capabilities of the all-
electric F-150 Lightening with rooftop solar. In a similar vein, Rivian has indicated an interest in
implementing bi-directional charging—vehicle-to-load—software into their vehicles which
would alleviate grid constraints and improve resiliency. This technology turns an EV into a
976
-------
mobile battery. Heavy-duty vehicles in particular have larger battery capacity than light-duty
vehicles, and can provide even more power in times of need. This could yield immense benefits
to grid resiliency and provide helpful energy storage for commercial buildings and homes. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1652-A2, p. 2]
In addition to hardware solutions to manage grid impacts from electric HDVs, software-based
managed charging solutions (sometimes called automated load management or power control
systems) serve a similar role to mitigate the need for electrical distribution system upgrades.
Fleets comprised of HDVs are well-suited to such managed charging technologies. Fleet vehicle
routes and deployment schedules are often fairly predictable, with fleet operators closely
monitoring schedules for operational and economic optimization. At the same time, many
vehicles often have long dwell times which can help to shift and shape load, thereby reducing
impact on the grid. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1652-A2, p. 2]
II. Case Studies
Below are three brief case studies that show how these proven technologies have helped to
alleviate grid constraints and benefit consumers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1652-A2, pp. 2-3]
Case Study 1:
Dedicated EVSE companies like FreeWire Technologies are an example of American
innovation, which has shown repeatedly that it can keep pace with the demands of the moment.
Free Wire's battery-integrated charging technology "solves grid constraints by packaging
charging infrastructure, grid infrastructure, and energy storage into a fully-integrated compact
solution These ultrafast chargers provide enhanced grid resiliency options during peak demand
and can support critical facilities during outages and charge vehicles at 200kW in 15
minutes.4 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1652-A2, p. 3]
3 FreeWire Technologies. (27 April, 2022). FreeWire Technologies Announces $125 Million Series D
Financing to Accelerate Deployment and Development of Next-Gen EV Charging Technology and Energy
Management Services, https://freewiretech.com/freewire-technologies-announces-125-million-series-d-
financing/
4 FreeWire Technologies. (2023). FAQ.
https://freewiretech.com/faq/#:~:text=Visit%20the%20Boost%20Chargei%20web,200%20miles%20in%20
15%20minutes.
Case Study 2:
Octopus Energy has employed a demand response program in the United Kingdom called
Intelligent Octopus, which demonstrates the potential for managed charging to reduce grid
pressures and the costs associated with overbuilding the distribution system. A customer simply
sets their preferences in an app (specifying when they need the EV charged and the state of
charge that is needed) and the platform will automatically charge the cars at times where there is
abundant, low-cost energy, helping to balance out demand and supply on the grid while saving
customers money. Intelligent Octopus enrollment has grown from 600 EVs since it was launched
in January 2022 to over 45,000 EVs today, providing 250 MW in shiftable load resources.
Intelligent Octopus was launched for EV drivers in Texas in February. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1652-A2, p. 3]
Case Study 3:
977
-------
Irish Post issued an RFP to electrify 100 parking sites across the country for its mail fleet of
trucks, vans, and cars. Understanding that they were working with constrained grid conditions,
Irish Post included load management capability as a requirement so as to avoid the cost and time
delays of extensive local grid upgrades.
A general contractor and The Mobility House (TMH) won the RFP and deployed 2800 22 kW
AC chargers and 180 DC chargers ranging from 22-50 kW while avoiding an estimated 50 MW
of utility upgrades across all sites. At a subset of 31 sites using exclusively 32 Amp chargers,
TMH's load management technology enabled the team to safely install and operate EVSE
nameplate capacity exceeding the main site panel capability by an average of 200-300%. This
allowed an average of eight extra EVSEs per site to be installed without upgrading service,
saving Irish Post time and money as they electrified their fleet while allowing all EVSEs
access to their full nameplate capacity when needed and serving their mobility needs with no
adjustments in driver behavior. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1652-A2, pp. 3-4]
Case Study 4:
Vehicle-to-grid (V2G) technology allows an electric vehicle (EV) to draw energy from the
grid (typically during periods of low cost & low demand) and discharge energy back to the grid
(during periods of high cost & high demand). V2G technology also helps reduce energy costs
associated with owning and operating EV fleets. An increasing number of electric utilities, like
National Grid in Massachusetts, support programs that pay electric fleets and other battery
storage resources to discharge energy, turning them into revenue-generating assets without
disrupting normal operations. In the summers of 2021 & 2022, Highland Electric Fleets piloted
V2G technology in battery storage from electric school buses. 10+ MWh was discharged to the
Massachusetts grid across 158 hours, generating $2,300. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1652-A2,
p. 4]
Case Study 5:
The San Diego-based company Nuvve is a global leader in vehicle-to-grid (V2G) technology
with deployments on five continents. In the US, Nuvve is focused on the school bus market.
Electrified school bus fleets represent an excellent candidate for V2G given the large batteries
and the long dwell times. School buses are often idle for months at a time during the summer
when additional grid capacity is at a premium. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) acknowledges the potential of electrified school bus fleets to provide V2G
services.5 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1652-A2, p. 4]
5 See U.S. EPA, What if Electric School Buses Could be Used to Supply Power When Off Duty? Available
at https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/what-if-electric-school-buses-could-be-used-supply-power-when-
duty.
Nuvve is the only company, working collaboratively with San Diego Gas & Electric
(SDG&E), to have successfully developed an electric school bus (ESB) V2G pilot program in
California. Six 60 kW bidirectional chargers and six V2G capable Lion Electric school buses
were deployed at Cajon Valley Union School District. Using Nuvve's GIVe software platform,
these buses participated in 10 Emergency Load Reduction Program (ELRP) events from August
17th through September 9th through SDG&E.6 The host school district was paid $2/kWh for
V2G exports helping to reduce the total cost of ownership of its ESB fleet. Nuvve has additional
V2G deployments totaling over 1 MW under development in California. In addition, Nuvve has
978
-------
multiple projects under development in other states including Oregon, Utah, Nevada, Colorado,
Texas, Illinois, Florida, and Rhode Island. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1652-A2, p. 4]
6 See SDG&E and Cajon Valley Union School District Flip the Switch on Region's First Vehicle-to-Grid
Project Featuring Local Electric School Buses Capable of Sending Power to the Grid available at
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20220726006137/en/SDGE-and-Cajon-Valley-Union-School-
District-Flip-the-Switch-on-Region%E2%80%99s-First-Vehicle-to-Grid-Project-Featuring-Local-Electric-
School-Buses-Capable-of-Sending-Power-to-the-Grid.
III. Technology Impacts
Managed charging with both hardware- and software-based solutions is an essential strategy
to reduce infrastructure costs for fleet charging depots. Depot charging is likely to account for
nearly 90% of fleet operating needs, with vehicles on average having 14 hours of downtime per
day.7 Managing these vehicles' charging load to avoid peak periods can substantially reduce the
need to upgrade both the facility's infrastructure and the utility-side infrastructure, compared to
an unmanaged charging scenario in which vehicles charge simultaneously during peak periods.
A recent NREL study found that managed charging in the MHD sector can reduce distribution
system investment costs by up to $1,090 per EV per year.8 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1652-
A2, pp. 4 - 5]
7 Perspectives on Charging Medium- and Heavy-Duty Electric Vehicles, NREL, December 2021.
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/ty22osti/81656.pdf
8 Electric Vehicle Grid Integration, NREL. https://www.nrel.gov/transportation/project-ev-grid-
integration.html
In 2021 testimony filed at the California Public Utilities Commission, Pacific Gas & Electric stated that
utilizing these load management technologies could reduce the originally requested capacity by more than
50%, which resulted in cost savings ranging from $30,000 to $200,000 per project.9 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1652-A2, p. 5]
9 PGE testimony 2-9-210 https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/SupDoc/A2110010/4240/417398449.pdf
Modeling based on New York's existing medium- and heavy-duty electrification indicates
that managed charging will yield cost savings that will accrue to all ratepayers. A 2023 report
from Synapse Energy Economics, leveraging data and tariffs from ConEd and National Grid,
found that managed charging reduced site peak load by 15% and 5% respectively. 10 This data
reflects the more rigid charging needs and schedules of fleet vehicles, but is significant,
nonetheless. The cost savings associated with managed charging are also likely to lead to faster
economic return on investment for fleets in the process of electrification. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1652-A2, p. 5]
10 MHDV Integration Costs Report, Synapse, April 2023.
https://acrobat.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3Ab0fd0780-9882-3a25-9ef2-
f8c73bd80c92&viewer%21megaVerb=group-discover
The implimentation of managed charging policies are a critical factor to speed overall
adoption of medium- and heavy-duty electric vehicles in line with the EPA's rulemaking. As
emissions standards steadily increase and EVs proliferate on our roads, it is likely that demand
for electricity will rise beyond what managed charging can save. This new demand will call for
added transmission capacity and resiliency measures, vehicle-grid integration, smart charging,
and bidirectional charging/ V2G, and other innovative solutions. Without proactive planning and
979
-------
buildout of charging infrastructure, the U.S. is at risk of failing to meet its ambitious, and
laudable, goals for transportation emissions reductions. A 2021 study by the Brattle Group
estimated that investments in transmission would have to reach $25 billion in order to charge 20
million EVsl 1. To fully unlock these investments, the U.S. will need to undertake permitting
reform, to streamline transmission projects and free up interconnection queues. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1652-A2, p. 5]
11 Sergici, S., Hagerty, M., & Long, L. (1 June, 2020). Electric Power Sector Investments of $75-125
Billion Needed to Support Projected 20 Million EVs by 2030, According to Brattle Economists. Brattle
Group, https://www.brattle.com/insights-events/publications/electric-power-sector-investments-of-75-125-
billion-needed-to-support-projected-20-million-evs-by-2030-according-to-brattle-economists/
American innovation has shown repeatedly that it can keep pace with the demands of the
moment. There will be stumbling blocks on the road to electrification, but we have the tools to
mitigate them. Innovative approaches like bidirectional charging/V2G technology can support
the grid when supply is needed. Managed charging and demand response technologies and
battery-integrated charging stations help ease peak demand. These types of approaches can
facilitate the transition to 100% clean energy, while transmission and distribution capacity are
built out. These comments reflect industry concerns, priorities, and above all, solutions. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1652-A2, p. 6.]
Advanced Energy United and its member-companies believe that these recommendations will
bolster the effectiveness of the EPA's implementation of this rule and we look forward to further
collaboration. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1652-A2, p. 7.]
Organization: Alliance for Vehicle Efficiency (AVE)
According to a recent study, "... the electric grid does not have 'sufficient delivery headroom'
for highway charging to meet projected demand and policy targets... Sites with significant
charging loads will need 'considerable' electric distribution system upgrades and, in many cases,
high-voltage transmission-level interconnection." 23 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1571-A1, p. 8]
23 https://www.fleetowner.com/perspectives/running-lights/blog/21255007/us-grid-not-prepared-for-
electric-truck-avalanche
Organization: American Free Enterprise Chamber of Commerce (AmFree) et al.
c. Electricity Grids Will Need Substantial Upgrades Before They Can Support Commercial
Fleets
Even if adequate charging stations could be established in the numbers and at the locations
needed across the United States, providing those stations with the massive amounts of electricity
required to charge heavy-duty vehicles would pose another likely insuperable obstacle on the
proposed rule's timeline. Heavy-duty electric vehicles require especially large batteries and
charging them will raise electricity demand across the country. See Medium- and Heavy- Duty
Vehicle Electrification at 16. For example, a modest-sized fleet of Class 7 and 8 vehicles could
consume more than four gigawatt hours of electricity per year and could reach peaks that rival
outdoor sports stadiums. Id. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1660-A1, pp. 48 - 49]
Today's electricity grids do not have capacity for such a dramatic increase in demand. See
Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicle Electrification at 18; Hauke Engel et al., The Potential Impact
980
-------
of Electric Vehicles on Global Energy Systems, McKinsey & Co. (July 2018) ("Potential
Impact"). Researchers have emphasized that heavy-duty charging stations "wouldn't be like the
charging stations you see around now for cars"; instead, they would "require much more power"
that "existing grid connections would not be able to handle." Calculating the Cost of E-Trucking.
Others have similarly warned that the integration of electric heavy-duty vehicles "could bring
challenges to power systems, such as increased peak load, power quality issues, increased power
losses, and shortened life of transformers." Mingzhi Zhang et al., Location Selection of Fast-
Charging Stations for Heavy-Duty EVs Using GIS and Grid Analysis, NREL, at 1 (Feb. 2021)
(footnotes omitted). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1660-A1, p. 49]
Indeed, one recent study found that electrification of even 11 percent of trucks and buses
"could destabilize the transmission grid." Medium- and Heavy- Duty Vehicle Electrification at
18. And local officials and utilities have reportedly halted company plans for electrification over
these concerns. See A Heavy Dose of Reality. For example, "[a]fter one trucking company tried
to electrify just 30 trucks at a terminal in Joliet, Illinois, local officials shut those plans down,
saying they would draw more electricity than is needed to power the entire city," and when "[a]
California company tried to electrify 12 forklifts"—not trucks, but forklifts—"[l]ocal power
utilities told them that's not possible." Id. Thus, before manufacturers can comply with the
proposed rule, there will need to be major upgrades to the nation's electricity grids. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1660-A1, p. 49]
Those upgrades would be expensive—and would take time. Modifications to local electricity-
distribution systems can cost between $30,000 (to produce and install electric-vehicle supply
equipment) and $35 million (to install a new substation) and can take between three months and
four years. See Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicle Electrification at 17. In places with highway
charging stations, there would also likely be a need for transmission interconnection. See Electric
Highways at 6; Potential Impact ("[A] single fast-charging station can quickly exceed the peak-
load capacity of a typical feeder-circuit transformer."). That project can take as long as eight
years to complete—if it can even be done at all. See Electric Highways at 4, 34 ("It may not be
feasible to extend the transmission network to every site, particularly in locations where there
would be impacts to local residents and the environment."). Given these long lead times, even if
fleet owners, utilities, and others began work on grid improvements today, necessary upgrades
might not be completed in time to support the surging demand for electricity distributed across
the grid that EPA's proposed rule would require. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1660-A1, pp. 49 -
50]
EPA observed that the precise extent and nature of improvements to the grid that ultimately
would be necessary is difficult to predict years in advance— and on that basis declined to model
those changes directly. See 88 Fed. Reg. at 25,983 ("[T]here is considerable uncertainty
associated with future distribution upgrade needs, and in many cases, some costs may be borne
by utilities rather than directly incurred by BEV or fleet owners. Therefore, we do not model
them directly as part of our infrastructure cost analysis."). That regulate-first, confront-practical-
impediments-later approach is backwards. It is irrational to press forward without robust analysis
of the changes that are likely to be necessary; if EPA concludes that reliable analysis is
impossible, it should stay its hand or pursue a different approach. At a minimum, the
acknowledged uncertainty about the potentially massive burdens that grid improvements might
necessitate provides further doubt on the proposed rule's feasibility and more reason for
caution.7 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1660-A1, p. 50]
981
-------
7 Relying on other forms of energy would also be infeasible. Researchers have found that "[t]he initial cost
for a solar-powered charging site would be between $82 million and $139 million," "[a] nuclear reactor
station would initially cost $141 million," and "[a] wind power station would initially cost up to $75
million." Calculating the Cost of E-Trucking. And even if those options were not prohibitively expensive,
"[e]ach alternative also comes with its own issues," making them ill suited for a widespread shift away
from internal-combustion-engine vehicles. Id.
Organization: American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)
Critically important to increased ZEV adoption is the infrastructure necessary to operate such
vehicles. EPA overlooks this issue in the Proposed Rule. Notably absent from EPA's analysis is
any demonstration that sufficient charging stations, utilities, and other infrastructure needed to
support accelerated ZEV implementation will be available by MY27. As engine manufacturers
have acknowledged, even as new ZEVs are ready to enter into production, the necessary
infrastructure for both electric vehicles and hydrogen vehicles continue to lag, especially when
multiple facilities are needed to support the multiple fuel and powertrain technologies EPA
contemplates.72 Focusing solely on electric vehicles themselves, EPA has not adequately
evaluated or grasped the time and resources required to permit, construct, and operate the
necessary infrastructure to power these vehicles. This is particularly concerning in light of the
very real risk that the electric grid will not be able to meet the increased demand anticipated by
the Proposed Rule.73 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1659-A2, pp. 17- 18]
72 See Jack Roberts, Truck Tech, "5 Takeaways from ACT Expo 2020," (May 20, 2022), available at
https://www.truckinginfo.com/10172184/5-take-aways-from-act-expo-2022 (citing Cummins CEO Tom
Linebarger as warning ACT Expo attendees that the undertaking will cost multiple trillions of dollars to
accomplish).
73 North American Electric Reliability Corporation, 2022 Long-Term Reliability Assessment (Dec. 2022),
21, available at
https://www.nerc.com/pa/RAPA/ra/Reliability%20Assessments%20DL/NERC_LTRA_2022.pdf.
(indicating that increased demand projections may lead to reliability concerns for the electric grid,
especially as dual-peaking or seasonal peaking times change with increased electrification)
While a significant percentage of the charging installations deployed today are Level 2
EVSEs, dual charging installations to enable the flexibility of light-duty as well as medium-duty
and HDV charging will become increasingly important. Direct current fast charging equipment
("DCFCs") will enable broader market coverage, even for LDVs used in applications where they
cannot sit for 6 hours and charge during off-peak, lower-cost electricity periods. As utility
companies gear up to provide infrastructure installations, EPA should not minimize the impact of
supply chain shortages/strains on the cost of materials necessary for installing supporting
charging infrastructure in the short time ahead to 2032. Beyond EVSE chargers, the cost of grid
upgrade projects needed to support the incremental electricity demand growth from
transportation is not insignificant and can be quite variable. A particular case study of Southern
California illustrated in IOPscience notes: "the total cost of these upgrades will be at least $1
billion and potentially more than $10 billion." These costs need to be taken into consideration
with expected demand growth, within detailed rate base calculations, and in concert with
appliance upgrade costs to fully understand their ultimate impacts on annual ratepayer
expenditures." 81 We agree with and support the Proposed Rule's acknowledgement that "a
recent study found power needs as low as 200 kW could trigger a requirement to install a
distribution transformer." Other anecdotal evidence discussed within an RMI report highlights
982
-------
the expensive mistakes that can emerge from insufficient planning and engagement in details.82
Demand charges can be particularly punishing, and in some cases make or break the business
case for transition from ICEVs to BEVs, particularly for fleets and vehicles that require DCFC
charging. Other considerations for high-reliability use cases should include provisional back-up
power system considerations, which likely depend upon back-up generators or expensive
stationary energy storage batteries. Absent comprehensive understanding of the dynamics
between increased ZEV use and charging infrastructure needs, vehicle manufacturers—as well as
consumers—are left in a vulnerable position. Regardless of whether manufacturers even could
comply with the Proposed Rule, they would likely be left in a position where there is no
consumer demand, and fleet turnover declines because the infrastructure necessary to support the
new ZEVs is either at capacity or nonexistent. Indeed, at least one study to date has concluded
that, upon ZEVs becoming the norm in California, it could push the total demand for electricity
beyond the existing capacity of the state's grid—turning ZEVs into zero electricity vehicles.83
Even more important, meeting the demand in California would likely require construction of new
power plants, or electricity purchases from neighboring states—further adding to the
infrastructure needs with increased transmission and distribution capabilities.84 Or, in the short
term, electricity may come from generators, in which case it makes more sense to leave the ICE
in the truck rather than beside it. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1659-A2, pp. 22 - 23]
81 Salma Elmallah et al., IOP SCIENCE, "Can distribution grid infrastructure accommodate residential
electrification and electric vehicle adoption in Northern California?" (Nov. 9, 2022) available at
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2634-4505/ac949c
82 Alessandra R. Carreon, et al., RMI, "Increasing Equitable EV Access and Charging" (2022) available at
https://rmi.org/insight/increasing-equitable-ev-access-charging/.
83 Beth Daley, THE CONVERSATION, "Switching to electric vehicles could save the US billions, but
timing is everything" (Dec. 4, 2018), available at https://theconversation.com/switching-to-electric-
vehicles-could-save-the-us-billions-but-timing-is-everything-106227.
84 Id.
Despite the potential for increased demands on domestic energy generation and generation
capacity,85 EPA offers little to no support that these demands will be sufficiently met. Similarly,
EPA's draft Regulatory Impact Analysis86 provides little to no analysis regarding the costs
associated with meeting these increased infrastructure and energy generation/capacity needs
beyond the flawed reliance on various legislative actions, such as the BIL and IRA.87
Consequently, EPA is pushing a technology at a pace that cannot be adopted within the
timeframe of its own proposal. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1659-A2, p. 23]
85 See, e.g., U.S. DRIVE, "Summary Report on Evs at Scale and the U.S. Electric Power System" (Nov.
2019), available at https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/summary-report-evs-scale-and-us-
electric-power-system-2019 (summarizing impacts of light-duty vehicles on energy generation and
generation capacity alone and acknowledging several potential challenges without including analysis of
medium- and heavy-duty ZEVs).
86 DRIA at 15-17, 20-21.
87 See, e.g., Salma Elmallah et al., Can distribution grid infrastructure accommodate residential
electrification and electric vehicle adoption in Northern California? (Nov. 9, 2022), available at
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2634-4505/ac949c (projecting upgrades needed solely for the
PG&E service area in Northern California, which serves 4.8 million electricity customers and is subject to
983
-------
aggressive targets for both EV adoption and electrification of residential space and water heating will add
at least $1 billion and potentially $10 billion to PG&E's rate base).
Organization: American Highway Users Alliance
Significantly, at the same time that EPA has issued this NPRM, it has also issued a major
proposal calling for reduced tailpipe emissions of C02, other GHGs, and other substances from
light-duty and medium-duty vehicles. See 88 Fed. Reg. 29184 (May 5, 2023). That proposed
rule, similar to the one in this docket, assumes astronomical growth in EVs as a percentage of
new light-duty and medium-duty vehicles. That rule faces similar questions regarding feasibility
due to, among other uncertainties, the availability of charging infrastructure that is sufficiently
fast, the ability of the electric grid to provide electricity to support the growth in light-duty EVs,
the ability of the electric utilities to provide connections from the grid to charging facilities, and
the availability of critical minerals, processing and related battery components. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1550-A1, p. 3]
Organization: American Petroleum Institute (API)
iv. Stakeholders missing from the discussion - utilities
EPA requested comment on stakeholders that may be missing from the discussion. As noted
during the public hearing testimony, of the various stakeholders who testified, representation
from the utilities was lacking. We implore the agency to fully engage the utilities in discussion
prior to finalizing the Phase 3 rule. Because infrastructure is such an important piece of the
program, the main stakeholder group needs to be included in the design of the program to
provide EPA guidance. For example, a set of truck chargers of sufficient size to charge a fleet of
fully electric trucks requires power enough for a small town. 10 If there are National Electric
Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) charging facilities (i.e., four direct current fast chargers (DCFCs)
with the capability to deliver 150 kW simultaneously) located on the same grid, there could be
significant challenges to delivering the power without impacting other residential, commercial,
and industrial customers. Further, a guidance report by the North American Council for Freight
Efficiency (NACFE) and RMI highlights that "[cjharging infrastructure includes not only the
chargers themselves, but the interrelated system of vehicles, duty cycles, chargers, and electric
utilities." 11 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1617-A1, p. 9]
10 "Charging Infrastructure Challenges for the U.S. Electric Vehicle Fleet," American Trucking Research
Institute, December 2022.
11 "Charging Forward with Electric Trucks," North American Council for Freight Efficiency (NACFE)
and RMI, June 2023.
ii. Infrastructure
2. Grid and charging
A robust analysis of the potential for the development and application of ZEV technologies in
the HD sector must be conducted by EPA. We have concerns that EPA is overly optimistic about
the technology readiness of ZEVs across the HD vehicle classes. Even with the low numbers of
vehicles available on which to provide data, numerous studies and reports have been issued
noting important concerns regarding ZEV readiness of the HD fleet. For example, a 2022 report
by ATRI identified three overarching challenges in the deployment of HD ZEVs: electricity
984
-------
needs, battery materials and technology sourcing, and truck charging and parking
infrastructure. 16 The report cites the need for up to a 40 percent increase (based on HD vehicle
class) in the nation's present electricity generation to fully electrify the U.S. vehicle fleet, and
individual states would need 28 to 63 percent to meet vehicle travel needs. ATRI quantified that
the truck charging needs at a single rural rest area would be equal to the amount of daily
electricity required to power more than 5,000 U.S. households. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1617-A1, pp. 11-12]
16 "Charging Infrastructure Challenges for the U.S. Electric Vehicle Fleet", American Transportation
Research Institute, December 2022.
EPA requested comment on whether certain HD sectors may need alternate standards or
timing due to the energy content required for charging. The ATRI study, as well as a study
prepared for the Diesel Technology Forum, indicate significant electricity demand and costs
associated with HD ZEV charging for larger vehicles as well as for fleets with multiple vehicles.
HD vehicle charging may require megawatt-levels of charging, which will require significant
buildout of electricity distribution that does not exist today. 17 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1617-
Al, p. 12]
17 "Environmental Benefits of Medium- and Heavy-Duty Zero Emission Vehicles Compared with Clean
Bio- & Renewable-Fueled Vehicles 2022-2032," prepared for Diesel Technology Forum by Stillwater
Associates LLC, July 19, 2022.
Organization: American Trucking Associations (ATA)
Grid Availability
Charging sites for depots or large public charging stations for commercial vehicles will
require significant energy. The American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI) estimates full
commercial vehicle electrification would require a 14 percent increase in energy generation from
today's standards.20 In many cases, remote or densely populated areas do not have available
power to direct toward commercial vehicle charging sites. The International Council on
Clean Transportation (ICCT) recognizes that the electrification of commercial vehicles will
significantly burden the current electrical grid and challenge the centralization of where and how
charging accommodates trucks in operation today.21 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1535-A1,
p. 15-16]
20 American Transportation Research Institute, Charging Infrastructure Challenges for the U.S. Electric
Vehicle Fleet, pg. 17, December 2022.
21 The International Council on Clean Transportation, Near Term Infrastructure Deployment to Support
Zero-Emission Medium-and Heavy-Duty Vehicles in the United States, May 2023.
"We find that near-term energy needs will be concentrated in industrial areas in the largest
metropolitan areas in the country, including Los Angeles, Phoenix, Houston, Chicago, and
Dallas. 1% of U.S. counties will account for 15% of nationwide MHDV charging energy needs
in 2030, constituting high-priority areas in which to concentrate near-term deployment of
charging and refueling infrastructure of MHDVs." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1535-A1, p. 16]
Early adopting fleets are being forced to quickly learn electricity demands and generation
requirements as an important external factor that impacts their operations and TCO calculation.
One fleet interviewed provided an example of their desire to electrify forklifts. In their mind, it
985
-------
would serve as an early use case to understand electric technology as they explored BEVs for
their operations. However, in their discussions with the local utility, they were only allowed to
electrify a small percentage of the originally desired forklifts due to limited onsite power. ATA
asked fleets about their experiences with local utilities. More than two-thirds of respondents said
they had not begun conversations with them. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1535-A1, p. 16]
The multi-state patchwork of energy generation and transmission regulatory bodies has made
investment and modernization of the U.S grid even more challenging. Fleets are left with the
reality of wading through local utility politics to receive approval for a permit to install minimal
chargers on their site today. Addressing these site-specific challenges to build out charging
infrastructure is essential to achieving the proposed rule's adoption rates and should begin
immediately to accommodate large-scale transportation electrification. Yet, most states have not
begun this process. With 168 investor-owned utilities, 1,958 publicly owned utilities and 812
cooperatives providing electricity to customers in the U.S., the scale of this undertaking will be
significant and time consuming.22 The planning and oversight associated with hydrogen
infrastructure is especially so. EPA should not propose a ZEV-dependent rule prior to ensuring
the needed electric and hydrogen infrastructure will be available, including initiating state-wide
planning and deployment assessments prior to establishing proposed ZEV adoption rates and
timelines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1535-A1, p. 16]
22 Energy Information Administration, Investor-owned utilities served 72% of U.S. electricity customers in
2017, August 15, 2019, available at http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=40913.
For example, recently the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) developed a "Draft
Staff Proposal: Zero-Emissions Freight Infrastructure Planning" that addresses the need for
proactive planning of long lead time utility-side electric infrastructure (i.e., distribution and
transmission) needed to support the acceleration of transportation electrification.23 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1535-A1, p. 16]
23 California Public Utilities Commission, Freight Infrastructure Planning, May 22, 2023, available at:
http://www.cpucc.ca.gov/industries-and-topics/electricial-energy/infrastructure/transportation-
electrification/freight-infrastructure-planning.
CPUC identified several challenges through this process, including:
• Approximately three years of required time to sequence statewide planning efforts and
complete infrastructure authorizations. This does not include the time for cost recovery
approval.
• Significant market and technology uncertainty affects the state's ability to proactively
authorize infrastructure solutions.
• Risks and uncertainties regarding electricity grid load that are dependent on large-scale
infrastructure buildout. These have not been adequately quantified within the state's
existing planning and forecasting processes.
• The lack of an existing source of information on future fleet charger locations, and the
need for long-term grid infrastructure planning to account for fleets' current flexible and
economical routes.
• The lack of a coherent planning framework to optimize fleet business needs with
electricity sector goals and requirements (i.e., how to cost-effectively upgrade the
distribution and transmission system).
986
-------
• The lack of a process for identifying long-term substation land acquisition needs. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1535-A1, p. 17]
Organization: CALSTART
One interesting example of successful load management strategies comes from EO Charging,
a UK company that is expanding its presence in North America. EO currently manages the
charging operations for several large fleets, including more than 5,000 Amazon commercial
electric vehicles in Europe, primarily delivery vans but including medium-duty trucks. Their site
design and operation enable accelerated truck deployments and manage utility capacity delays
via smart managed charging and a mix of flexible charging rates to meet fleet operational
requirements, site capacity limits, energy storage, and pricing considerations.45 In conversations,
the group noted the system has been delivering consistent 99+ percent reliability/uptime. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1656-A1, p. 23]
45 https://www.eocharging.com/stories/eo-unveils-complete-electric-vehicle-fleet-charging-ecosystem
In our study, we assume a wide availability and strategic use of on-site battery storage for
managed charging purposes and consider it a near-standard component of sites within certain
geographies in the study, and estimate additional average costs per vehicle at a fraction of total
charger cost based on industry data and project information available to CALSTART.46 Our
assessment shows that significant total cost decreases of deployment compared to a baseline
maximum deployment scenario are possible by on-site storage unlocking managed charging and
making it available to deployments. Other studies show that managed charging reduces grid
operating costs in general.47 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1656-A1, p. 23]
46 https://www.ostigov/pages/servlets/purl/1507680
47 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030142151930638X7via%3Dihub
Energy services and markets: CALSTART has witnessed utilities implementing a variety of
new strategies to speed interconnection and find optimal places for it within their business, as
distribution upgrade costs in general will make up a fraction of the overall annual utility annual
revenue requirements.48 Many utilities now plan to work with shared charging service providers
since they can create a new market for energy services at the edge of the grid and address the
economics of increasing amounts of distributed loads.49 This may allow utilities to support
aggregated loads and address interconnection queues more proactively. Others are looking into
ways both increasing transactive coordination of services across a more distributed load can
provide a hybridized energy resource platform.50 Interconnect queues are therefore managed not
just through overcoming physical barriers in capacity and reliability but by developing new
business models that realize cost efficiencies. EPA does not factor this growing market for
services—critical to the future of the energy market—into its analysis. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1656-A1, pp. 23 -24]
48 https://www.ethree.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/GridLab_2035-Transportation-Dist-Cost.pdf
49 https://rmi.org/insight/economics-load-defection/
50 https://www.pnnl.gov/sites/default/files/media/file/DSOT%20Vol%205%20Study%20Results-Final.pdf
Grid integration: Fleet deployments are often integrated within comprehensive and long-term
facility development plans, which afford a managed and phased-in approach to interconnection
987
-------
issues and close coordination with utilities. This approach also allows fleets to integrate
electrification within larger sustainability planning efforts in cooperation with utility capabilities
to aggregate demand. In addition, supportive public sustainability strategy frameworks and
regional emissions regulations increasingly anticipate grid integration and the utilization of these
facility-based integration measures as a means for fleet compliance with emissions reduction
targets. The California Sustainable Goods Movement Action Plan,51 California's ACF rule
regarding drayage vehicles and their traffic near ports,52 and the South Coast Air Quality
Management District's Warehouse Indirect Source Rule53 all focus on the phase-in of new
infrastructure from a holistic facility approach to managing emissions. Many of these strategies
are already being replicated in ACT states. Emerging vehicle-to-grid (V2G) technologies offer
methods for integrating fleet, facilities, and the grid directly, and managing demand in real-time
and even in advance with utilities through advanced demand response technologies and
charging-discharging scheduling. This capability will be a factor during the timeline of EPA's
proposed rule. However, assuming infrastructure deployment is a sporadic, unplanned process
which is initiated only with the purchase of a new vehicle ignores and possibly undermines these
technologies and approaches. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1656-A1, p. 24]
51 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/california-sustainable-freight-action-plan
52 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2022/acf22/acffroa3.pdf
53 http://www.aqmd.gov/home/air-quality/clean-air-plans/air-quality-mgt-plan/facility-based-mobile-
source-measures/warehs-distr-wkng-grp
Interconnect planning services: An array of established service providers enables planned and
cost-effective phase-in of infrastructure upgrades. These provide advanced simulation of grid
needs for medium-duty fleets as well as many other commercial vehicle applications. In the
course of their analyses, they identify and flag grid reliability needs and grid upgrades necessary
for a fleet's electrification. Comparable services are now being offered by major firms, including
but not limited to Arup, Black and Veatch, Edison Energy, ICF, Microgrid Labs, Siemens, and
Parsons. This allows transitions to pace themselves at a rate responsive to the grid's upgrade
timelines and fleet needs—and still at a pace that can accommodate many more vehicles than
proposed in EPA's stringency assumption. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1656-A1, p. 24]
Organization: Clean Air Task Force et al.
b. Charging and grid infrastructure is capable of supporting HD BEVs in volumes aligned
with and in excess of EPA's proposed standards.
Deployment of BEVs is well underway across the U.S. and is already requiring the electric
power sector to make plans to reliably and safely integrate these vehicles. The electric power
industry is well situated to maintain safe and reliable service that can power an increasing
deployment of HD BEVs; utilities, aided significantly through investments from the BIL and
IRA, are making important upgrades to the system to integrate higher penetrations of BEVs.
Additional third party private investments and public investments are also already committed to
building a robust HD BEV charging network. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 45.]
When considering infrastructure buildout, it is important to remember that HD ZEVs will
enter the total on-road HD fleet gradually and in volumes that pale in comparison to in-use HD
combustion vehicles. Modeling using HD TRUCS and MOVeS3.R3188 shows that EPA's
988
-------
proposal, if finalized, would likely result in ZEVs comprising just 1 percent of the total on-road
HD fleet by 2027, gradually reaching 8 percent in 2032 and 23 percent in 2040. See Table 4,
infra. In other words, a relatively small portion of the HD fleet will be tapping into charging and
grid infrastructure over the next decade, and even by 2040, HD ZEVs would comprise less than a
quarter of the on-road fleet under this proposal. Infrastructure needs for HD ZEVs will
accordingly grow gradually overtime. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 45. See Docket
Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, pages 45-46, for Table 4.]
188 HD TRUCS was used to develop ZEV adoption rates (by vehicle classification). MOVES3.R3 was
used to translate HD TRUCS-derived ZEV adoption rates to ZEV sales and in-use curves.
For the final rule, we urge EPA to model how the Phase 3 standards will likely affect the
composition of the entire on-road HD fleet, not just HD ZEVs' share of new sales. That
information would better help the Agency and the public consider infrastructure issues related to
this rulemaking. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 46.]
i. Economic theory and historical precedent show that infrastructure buildout will occur at the
pace and scale needed to support vehicle electrification.
EPA should reject arguments that the buildout of charging and grid infrastructure cannot
occur at the pace and scale needed to support expanded vehicle electrification, which are
unreasonably pessimistic and inconsistent with both economic theory and historical precedent.
These arguments rely on the classic "chicken-and-egg" scenario said to be presented by ZEV
sales and charging infrastructure, where each side of the market waits for the other. But EPA
need not and should not wait for infrastructure to fully mature before finalizing strong Phase 3
standards. Instead, EPA's standards themselves will send a strong signal to the market to
undertake the infrastructure investments needed to accommodate a gradual rise in
vehicle electrification, 189 such that increased ZEV sales and infrastructure buildout will occur in
relative tandem and reinforce each other. As one analyst sums it up: "The chicken-and-egg
conundrum is being solved. Investments in the space and the adoption of EVs [a]re happening
much faster than many analysts expected, and this is also accelerating the build-out of the
charging network."190 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, pp. 46 - 47.]
189 Environmental regulation itself, of course, can lead to technology innovation and market development.
See generally Jaegul Lee et al., Forcing Technological Change: A Case of Automobile Emissions Control
Technology Development in the US, 30 Technovation 249 (2010); Margaret R. Taylor, Edward S. Rubin,
& David A. Hounshell, Regulation as the Mother of Innovation: The Case of S02 Control, 27 Law &
Policy 348 (2005); James Lents et al., Chapter II: The regulation of automobile emission: A case study, in
Environmental Regulation and Technology Innovation: Controlling Mercury Emissions from Coal-Fired
Boilers (Marika Tatsutani & Praveen Amar eds., 2000)
https://www.nescaum.org/documents/rpt000906mercury_innovative-technology.pdf.
190 Gabriela Herculano, Chicken-and-Egg Problem: EV Adoption and Buildout of Charging Networks,
Nasdaq (Apr. 18, 2022), https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/chicken-and-egg-problem%3A-ev-adoption-and-
buildout-of-charging-networks.
The economic literature on indirect network effects and two-sided markets shows that an
increase in BEV sales—a likely effect of the Phase 3 standards, particularly if they are
strengthened in the final rule—can be expected to stimulate associated infrastructure
development. In a study on flex-fuel vehicles fueled by E85 (85 percent ethanol), Corts (2010)
found that growth in sales of flex-fuel vehicles due to government fleet acquisition programs led
to an increase in the number of retail E85 stations. 191 That relationship held true across all six
989
-------
Midwestern states analyzed, despite differences in those states' E85 subsidies and tax credits. 192
The author concluded that the results "confirm the basic validity" of the theory underlying
government fleet purchase requirements: that increasing the "base of alternative fuel vehicles can
spur the development of a retail alternative fuel distribution infrastructure." 193 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 47.]
191 Kenneth S. Corts, Building out alternative fuel retail infrastructure: Government fleet spillovers in E85,
59 J. Env't Econ. & Mgmt. 219, 219-20 (2009).
192 Id.
193 Id. at 231.
Recent economic research has confirmed this relationship in the context of ZEVs and
charging infrastructure specifically. An influential study by Li et al. (2017) found that "EV
demand and charging station deployment give rise to feedback loops" and that "subsidizing
either side of the market will result in an increase in both EV sales and charging stations." 194
Similarly, Springel (2021) found "evidence of positive feedback effects on both sides of the
market, suggesting that cumulative EV sales affect charging station entry and that public
charging availability has an impact on consumers' vehicle choice." 195 The BIL and IRA
subsidize both sides of the market, offering significant incentives for both HD ZEV purchases
and the construction of charging infrastructure. Economic theory therefore supports the
proposition that strengthened Phase 3 standards, particularly in combination with the BIL and
IRA's large financial incentives, will facilitate expansion of charging and grid
infrastructure. 196 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 47.]
194 Shanjun Li et al., The market for electric vehicles: indirect network effects and policy design, 4 J.
Ass'n Env't. & Resources Econ. 89, 128 (2017).
195 Katalin Springel, Network Externality and Subsidy Structure in Two-Sided Markets: Evidence from
Electric Vehicle Incentives, 13 Am. Econ. J.: Econ. Pol'y 393, 426 (2021).
196 See id. at 394 (noting that "the presence of positive feedback amplifies the impact of both types of
subsidies"), 415 ("positive feedback loops between the charging station network and total all-electric
vehicle sales amplify the impact of both types of subsidy").
Economic theory has in fact played out in Norway, where ZEV sales and infrastructure both
expanded rapidly over the span of about a decade. There, the "path to charging point saturation
started by stimulating more demand for EVs "197 In other words, Norway did not wait for
infrastructure to fully mature before beginning its transition to cleaner cars. Rather, rising ZEV
sales themselves "helped trigger a spike in demand for charging stations." 198 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 48.]
197 Whitney Bauck, How Norway Became the World's Electric Car Capital, Nexus Media News (Mar. 7,
2023), https://nexusmedianews.com/how-norway-became-the-worlds-electric-car-capital/.
198 McKinsey & Co, What Norway's Experience Reveals About the EV Charging Market 3 (2023),
https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/automotive-and-assembly/our-insights/what-norways-experience-
reveals-about-the-ev-charging-market#/.
The concept that charging infrastructure will adequately scale up over time also finds support
in an analogous historical example: the buildout of roads and gasoline refueling infrastructure in
the early 20th century to serve the United States' growing fleet of automobiles. The country's
exponential growth in automobile sales—first exceeding 1,000 in 1899 and growing to 1 million
990
-------
by 1916199—preceded the establishment of an extensive network of both suitable roads200 and
filling stations.201 Instead, the buildout of road and refueling infrastructure unfolded over long
time horizons and in a variety of ways, adapting to the needs of the automobile fleet as it
changed and grew. Paving and other road improvement efforts began on a small scale in cities,
where automobiles were initially concentrated; efforts to improve rural roads and construct
highways happened a decade or more later, as motorists began to expand their driving beyond
cities.202 Similarly, in the case of refueling infrastructure, a network of modern filling stations
did not spring up until well after automobiles had grown in popularity.203 Before that, refueling
needs were met through varied and dispersed "non-station" methods such as cans of gasoline
sold at general stores, barrels at repair garages, mobile fuel carts, curb pumps, and home
refueling pumps, which emerged at various times as the demand for gasoline increased.204 Road
and refueling infrastructure therefore exhibited a "long-term, adaptive and portfolio
approach"205 that, over the span of several decades, satisfied the shifting needs of the growing
ranks of automobile owners. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 48.]
199 Roads, Encyclopedia.com (May 29, 2018), https://www.encyclopedia.com/science-and-
technology/technology/technology-terms-and-concepts/roads.
200 See id. (noting that around 1904, "[o]nly a few hundred miles of roads in the entire country were
suitable for motor vehicles"); see also F.W. Geels, The Dynamics of Transitions in Socio-technical
Systems: A Multi-level Analysis of the Transition Pathway from Horse-drawn Carriages to Automobiles
(1860-1930), 17 Tech. Analysis & Strategic Mgmt. 445, 460, 467-68 (2005) (discussing the gradual
expansion and improvement of road infrastructure in the 1910s and 1920s to accommodate growth in and
changes to automobile travel).
201 Marc W. Melaina, Turn of the century refueling: A review of innovations in early gasoline refueling
methods and analogies for hydrogen, 35 Energy Pol'y 4919, 4922 (2007) (noting that "the takeoff period
for gasoline stations occurred between 1915 and 1925, but exponential growth in vehicles began around
1910, so the rise of gasoline filling stations followed rather than preceded the rise of gasoline vehicles").
202 Geels, at 467-68.
203 Melaina, at 4922.
204 Id. at 4924-27.
205 Id. at 4932 (discussing refueling infrastructure).
That approach holds important lessons for this rulemaking. As detailed above, the
introduction of HD ZEVs into the total on-road fleet will occur gradually and, for the first
decade or more, in relatively low volumes. As explored in a recent white paper by ICCT,206
successfully meeting the needs of this gradually expanding fleet of heavy-duty ZEVs will not
require the overnight nationwide buildout of infrastructure that some have misleadingly claimed.
Instead, economic theory and historical precedent show that growth in heavy-duty ZEV sales and
infrastructure buildout will occur in relative tandem, with infrastructure responding over time
commensurate with the evolving needs of the ZEV fleet. And in finalizing its Phase 3 standards,
EPA will send a strong market signal that will facilitate infrastructure development at the pace
and scale needed to support compliance with the standards. As explained in the sections below,
the nation's infrastructure is already well-positioned to adapt to increased vehicle electrification.
EPA must reject unfounded chicken-and-egg arguments questioning whether infrastructure will
respond to rising demand. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, pp. 48 - 49.]
991
-------
206 See generally Pierre-Louis Ragon et al., ICCT, Near-Term Infrastructure Deployment to Support Zero-
Emission Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles in the United States (2023), https://theicct.org/wp-
content/uploads/2023/05/infrastructure-deployment-mhdv-may23.pdf.
ii. The grid can reliably support significantly increased loads.
The electric industry is well situated to maintain safe and reliable service that can power the
increasing deployment of HD BEVs. As detailed below, the projected growth in electricity
demand over the coming years, including demand related to BEV deployment in line with
strengthened Phase 3 standards as well as additional economy-wide load growth, is well within
the range of past historical load growth. Additionally, the industry is already responding to and
preparing for increased electrification as more fleets and individuals adopt BEVs and has a wide
range of tools, practices, and partnerships in place to continue to maintain a strong and reliable
grid. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 49]
EPA conducted modeling within the Integrated Planning Model (IPM) to assess the electric
sector and emissions impact of the proposal. In this modeling, the Agency utilized baseline
projections of electricity demand and generation growth from the Annual Energy Outlook 2021
(AEO2021). DRIA at 321. EPA notes that this forecast "does not include the full forecasted ZEV
adoption in the [proposal] reference case," and so it developed further incremental demand
estimates to include "the demand of electric vehicles not captured by IPM's defaults," which
EPA "calculated from the output of national MOVES runs." Id. While these files are not
available to us, we are able to approximate this projected demand growth under the proposal by
similarly calculating electric demand utilizing the proposal case in MOVES3.R3. This output
reflects demand from all HD BEVs, including those HD BEVs that would be deployed in
absence of this rule. In order to combine this with AEO2021 generation values, we converted
this demand value to generation using a charging efficiency factor of 95 percent and transmission
line loss factor of 5 percent. We then are able to combine this incremental generation calculation
with projected generation from AEO2021 Reference Case (net available to grid).207 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 49]
207 U.S. Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2021, at Table 8 (Electricity Supply,
Disposition, Prices, and Emissions), https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/data/browser (last accessed, June 13,
2023).
This analysis finds that system-wide increases in generation to meet demand growth,
including both increased demand from the proposed Phase 3 standards (assuming EPA finalizes
the stringency levels it has proposed) and projected economy-wide load growth, is projected
to average 1.2 percent per year between 2028 and 2040. Importantly, this methodology is likely
to overestimate generation growth, as the AEO2021 Reference Case already includes some level
of transportation electrification.208 Isolating the impact of HD BEVs alone shows load average
growth of 0.5 percent per year between 2028 and 2040. Further isolating only the incremental
HD BEV generation projected under MOVES3.R3 associated with this proposal (as compared to
the baseline) shows average generation growth of 0.4 percent per year between 2028 and
2040. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, pp. 49 - 50]
208 U.S. Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2021: Narrative, at 13 (2021),
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/AEO_Narrative_2021.pdf.
Maintaining reliable and safe electric power delivery through this level of demand growth, as
well as higher levels of growth resulting from more stringent Phase 3 standards, is within electric
992
-------
utility standard practice as demonstrated through the electric power sector's strong track record
of reliability and resiliency. These annual generation increases are well within the range of
contemporary, normal operations for the U.S. electric sector (see Figure 1 below). According to
data reported to the Energy Information Administration in Form 861, in the 31 years from 1990
to 2021, average annual national growth in electricity sales was 1.1 percent.209 In 15 of those
years, growth was 1.5 percent or higher, and in ten years it exceeded 2 percent. The U.S. has also
seen previous periods of sustained high demand growth across most states; for example, 1995 to
2007 saw average nationwide growth of approximately 1.9 percent per year. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 50.] [See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, page 51,
for Figure 1]
209 Note that these data are for statewide demand, not generation. State level demand figures are more
meaningful to show local variations in electricity usage as compared to state-level generation, which does
not necessarily (or even usually) serve in-state customers. While absolute generation and demand figures
(TWh) should not be compared, growth rates between the two, as shown here, should track proportionally.
U.S. Energy Information Administration, Historical State Data, EIA-861, Annual Electric Power Industry
Report (Mar. 8, 2023), https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/state/.
Many states saw much higher, sustained levels of growth. In the two decades from 1999 to
2018, North Dakota electric sales more than doubled. Year over year growth averaged nearly 5
percent, and in 2014 electric sales were 14 percent higher than the previous year alone. In
Nevada between 1992 and 2007, annual electric sales growth averaged 4.9 percent and fell below
1.5 percent only once. More recently, Virginia has seen strong annual sales growth, with sales
increasing 12.3 percent in the five years from 2016 to 2021, or 3 percent on average per year,
even accounting for a pandemic dip. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 50]
This analysis draws similar conclusions to those of the researchers at the Electrification
Futures Study, a multi-year research project to explore potential widespread electrification in the
future energy system of the United States. In a report developing an integrated understanding of
how the potential for electrification might impact the demand side in all major sectors of the U.S.
energy system—transportation, residential and commercial buildings, and industry—this study
concluded that "[electrification has the potential to significantly increase overall demand for
electricity, although even in the High scenario, compound annual electricity consumption growth
rates are below long-term historical growth rates."210 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1,
p. 50]
210 TrieuMai etal., NREL, Electrification Futures Study: Scenarios of Electric Technology Adoption and
Power Consumption for the United States (2018), https://www.nrel.gov/docs/Iyl8osti/71500.pdf.
We further recognize that many parties will nevertheless need to take important steps to
manage increased electrification demand. Utilities, public utility commissions and other state
regulators, grid operators, charging providers, and others can and have already begun to
coordinate and plan for increased vehicle electrification. Examples include:
• The West Coast Clean Transit Corridor Initiative is an ongoing, collaborative effort
among 16 utilities to support the development of BEV charging facilities along 1-5, from
San Diego to British Columbia, for heavy- and medium-duty freight haulers and delivery
trucks.211
• The National Charging Experience Consortium (ChargeX) is a collaborative effort
between Argonne National Laboratory, Idaho National Laboratory, NREL, BEV charging
993
-------
industry experts, consumer advocates, and other stakeholders whose mission is "to work
together as BEV industry stakeholders to measure and significantly improve public
charging reliability and usability by June 2025."212
• The National BEV Charging Initiative brings together automakers, power providers, BEV
and charging industry leaders, labor, and public interest groups to "develop a national
charging network for light, medium, and heavy-duty vehicles and inspire deeper
commitments from state leaders, the administration and each other."213
• The National Association of State Energy Officials and the American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials partnered with the U.S. Joint Office of
Energy and Transportation to hold a series of convenings to coordinate on a range of
topics, including ZEV infrastructure and utility planning needs.214 These convenings
brought together State Departments of Transportation officials, State Energy Offices, and
other key partners.
• PG&E and BMW of North America are testing a "vehicle-to-everything technology that
will improve grid reliability and help EV customers lower their electric bills by exporting
power back to the grid during peak demand periods." PG&E notes that "[t]he utility and
automotive industries are creating a transformative clean energy future together."215
• NREL and Volvo collaborated on a research paper regarding challenges and
opportunities of HD and commercial ZEVs, noting: Coordination between disparate and
historically unconnected stakeholders, including state agencies, local
governments, automotive manufacturers, fleets, energy infrastructure and utility
companies, and research and academia will be required to ensure a smooth and timely
transition to ZEVs. This paper, a joint research and industry perspective, is one such
example of cross-sectoral collaboration.216 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, pp. 52
- 53]
211 West Coast Clean Transit Corridor Initiative, https://westcoastcleantransit.com/ (last visited June 13,
2023).
212 Idaho Nat'l Lab'y, National Charging Experience Consortium, https://inl.gov/chargex/ (last visited
June 13, 2023).
213 EV Charging Initiative, https://www.evcharginginitiative.com/ (last visited June 13, 2023).
214 Nat'l Ass'n State Energy Officials (NASEO) & the Am. Ass'n State Highway & Transp. Officials
(AASHTO), Building a National Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Network: Regional EV Meetings
Key Themes, Takeaways, and Recommendations from the States (not dated),
https://www.naseo.Org/data/sites/l/documents/publications/NASEO_AASHTO_Regional%20EV%20Meet
ings%20Summary_%20Final.pdf.
215 BMW Group, More Power To You: BMW of North America and PG&E Start V2X Testing in
California (May 16, 2023), https://www.press.bmwgroup.com/usa/article/detail/T0417218EN_US/more-
power-to-you:-bmw-of-north-america-and-pg-e-start-v2x-testing-in-california.
216 Muratori et al., at 7.
Finally, ICCT has highlighted myriad actions that utilities, local and state agencies and
regulators, fleet operators, and property owners can take to help reduce barriers to infrastructure
deployment and aid "timely planning and construction to ensure transmission and distribution
systems can accommodate the needs of [medium- and heavy-duty vehicle] electrification.'^ 17
These examples show that the relevant stakeholders are already stepping up to plan for and
994
-------
accommodate the charging and grid needs associated with greater vehicle electrification. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985- 1640-A1, p. 53]
217 Ragon et al., at 25.
Utilities in particular are also already planning for and deploying solutions to address
increased vehicle electrification as their customers adopt BEVs to improve fleet economics and
performance. For example, executives at Southern California Edison, which is one of the largest
electric utilities in the U.S. and is facing industry-leading levels of electrification, have recently
voiced strong support for the ability of the grid to manage, respond to, and benefit from BEVs.
Caroline Choi, Edison International and Southern California Edison senior vice president of
corporate affairs, noted that "the electric grid is really going to be the backbone of the whole
system" for electrified transit, and that "[w]hat we're seeing are the investments necessary to
ensure that the grid is available."218 Utilities and their customers will benefit from the ability to
plan ahead for any significant infrastructure requirements. The regulatory certainty provided by
Phase 3 standards can aid this planning. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 53]
218 Casey Wian, Transportation Electrification Gains Momentum: Edison International and SCE outline
plans to seize the "huge opportunity" of preparing the grid for exponential EV growth, Energized, (Feb. 1,
2023), https://energized.edison.com/stories/transportation-electrification-gains-momentum.
Regulatory certainty can also help ensure that investments not only maintain strong electric
service, but improve it while at the same time lowering costs. Southern California Edison
President and CEO Steve Powell noted: "if we leverage the electric vehicle load and have that
work for consumers as well, that whole idea of vehicle-to-grid, there can be real value in helping
alleviate a lot of the infrastructure investments that need to happen," ultimately lowering overall
energy bills for customers.219 Similarly, Seattle City Light, in its Transportation Electrification
Strategic Investment Plan, found that the utility received a net benefit of roughly $120,500 per
bus or other heavy-duty ZEVs through an increase in new revenue, placing downward pressure
on rates.220 It stated that "[w]hile there are system costs associated with increased transportation
electrification (e.g., distribution and transmission infrastructure upgrades), with proactive utility
planning and intervention, the system benefits (e.g., new revenue) are estimated to outweigh the
costs, spreading the economic benefits of transportation electrification to all customers "221 This
will require action from regulators as well to help shape and approve these proactive and critical
investments. As RMI recommended, "regulators can fulfil [sic] their responsibility for ensuring
prudent and least-cost grid investments while proactively planning by using new
information."222 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, pp. 53 - 54]
219 Id.
220 Seattle City Light, Transportation Electrification Strategic Investment Plan 6 (not dated),
https://www.seattle.gov/documents/Departments/CityLight/TESIP.pdf.
221 Id.
222 Ari Kahn et al., RMI, Preventing Electric Truck Gridlock: Meeting the Urgent Need for a Stronger
Grid 16 (2023), https://rmi.org/insight/preventing-electric-truck-gridlock/.
Third-party analyses have bolstered these statements from utilities that BEVs, if deployed
strategically, can improve grid operations. For example, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
estimated that enabling "vehicle-to-grid" technology,223 which allows ZEVs to serve as
electricity storage and provide power back to the grid during periods of high demand, would save
995
-------
California utility customers $13-15 billion in stationary battery costs.224 An analysis conducted
by Gladstein, Neandross & Associates on behalf of EDF found that managed charging of class 8
trucks combined with strategic deployment of distributed energy resources could provide
significant cost savings for fleet operators and "result in significant savings to utilities through
avoided grid buildout costs."225 Yet another analysis found that BEVs can "contribute
significantly to grid stability" and provide value to the grid through "deferred or avoided capital
expenditure on additional stationary storage, power electronic infrastructure, transmission build-
out, and more."226 Additionally, utilities can deploy proven and emerging rate designs that
ensure utilities recover costs, reliably serve BEV charging load, improve BEV owner experience,
and take advantage of grid strengthening services from these vehicles.227 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1640-A1, p. 54]
223 For more information on vehicle to grid and other bidirectional charging technologies, see, e.g. Jason
Svarc, Bidirectional Chargers Explained - V2G Vs V2H Vs V2L, Clean Energy Reviews (Apr. 10, 2023),
https://www.cleanenergyreviews.info/blog/bidirectional-ev-charging-v2g-v2h-v21; SAFE & Electrification
Coalition, Advancing Vehicle to Grid Technology Adoption Policy Recommendations for Improved
Energy Security and Resilience (2022), https://safe2020.wpenginepowered.com/wp-
content/uploads/2022/06/Advancing-Vehicle-to-Grid-Technology-Adoption, pdf,
224 Jonathan Coignard et al., Clean Vehicles as an Enabler for a Clean Electricity Grid, Env't Rsch.
Letters, May 16, 2018, http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aabe97.
225 Gladstein, Neandross & Associates, California Heavy-Duty Fleet Electrification Summary Report
(2021), https://blogs.edf.org/energyexchange/files/2021/03/EDF-GNA-Final-March-2021.pdf.
226 Chengjian Xu et al., Electric vehicle batteries alone could satisfy short-term grid storage demand by as
early as 2030, Nature Commc'n, Jan. 17, 2023, at 1, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-35393-0.
227 See e.g., Brittany Blair et al., Smart Electric Power Alliance, Managed Charging Programs:
Maximizing Customer Satisfaction and Grid Benefits (2023), https://sepapower.org/resource/managed-
charging-programs-maximizing-customer-satisfaction-and-grid-benefits/; Enel-X, Understanding Smart EV
Load Management (Apr. 8, 2022), https://info.evcharging.enelx.com/whitepaper-download-ev-load-
management-utility-dive; Zachary Needell, Wei Wei & Jessika E. Trancik, Strategies for beneficial electric
vehicle charging to reduce peak electricity demand and store solar energy, CELL REPS. PHYSICAL SCI.,
Mar. 15, 2023, https://www.cell.com/cell-reports-physical-science/fulltext/S2666-3864(23)00046-2; Lily
Paul & Maureen Marshall, CALSTART, Not Just Smart: The Importance of Managed Charging (2021),
https://calstart.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Managed-Charging-Paper-Final.pdf; Karen Kirk, Yes, the
grid can handle EV charging, even when demand spikes, Yale Climate Connections (Mar. 23, 2023),
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2023/03/yes-the-grid-can-handle-ev-charging-even-when-demand-
spikes/.
In addition, the historic investments of the BIL and IRA are helping utilities build a stronger,
cleaner grid and prepare for advanced electrification while minimizing customer costs. Duke
Energy, for example, has stated that "[the BIL] provides an important down payment on the
infrastructure and incentives that are needed to electrify transportation and secure the grid," and
"[the IRA] can create significant cost savings for our customers."228 New York utilities have
indicated that they will be applying for $900 million in grants from the BIL and IRA to advance
grid resilience.229 National Grid in particular notes that "EV charging make-ready infrastructure
is identical to electric infrastructure that serves other purposes, this is the kind of work electric
utilities do every day,"230 and that "areas of the [BIL] funding are enabling increased
investment."231 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, pp. 54 - 55]
996
-------
228 Jennifer Loraine, Policy can have a crucial impact on our clean energy future, Duke Energy News
Center (Jan. 20, 2023), https://news.duke-energy.com/our-perspective/policy-can-have-a-crucial-impact-
on-our-clean-energy-future.
229 John Norris, NY Utilities to Seek $900M from DOE, RTO Insider, (Mar. 28, 2023),
https://www.rtoinsider.com/articles/31898-ny-utilities-seek-900m-from-doe.
230 Comments of National Grid to USDOT/FHWA on Docket No. FHWA-2021-0022, at 11 (Jan. 26,
2022), https://downloads.regulations.gOv/FHWA-2021-0022-0150/attachment_l.pdf.
231 Id. at 10.
Organization: Consolidated Edison, Inc. (Con Edison)
Con Edison recommends that the Agency identify utility proactive planning as a best practice
to support the buildout of grid infrastructure to prepare the grid for the ramp up in EV
charging. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1661-A1, p.4]
Organization: Daimler Truck North America LLC (DTNA)
Policies to Promote ZEV Infrastructure Development
• Utility Grid Planning and Identification of High-Priority Charging Sites. To support
achievement of ZEV sales targets and climate goals, electric utilities should be required
to conduct detailed grid planning and assessments for transportation electrification.
Legislation proposed and currently being considered in New York (AB 5052/SB 4830),
for example, would require utilities to establish a highway and depot charging action
plan, and addresses identification of high priority medium- and heavy-duty vehicle
charging sites that are likely to see high traffic from commercial vehicles. 15 EPA should
consider advocating for legislation of this type in all 50 states to encourage advanced
planning to develop the infrastructure needed to support feasibility of the Phase 3
standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 12]
15 See New York Assembly Bill A5052 (2023-2024 Legislative Session), available at
https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2023/A5052; Senate Bill 4830 (2023-2024 Legislative Session),
https://legiscan.com/NY/bill/S04830/2023.
• Proactive Grid Upgrades at HD High Priority Sites. Going beyond NY AB 5052/SB
4830, utilities should be required to proactively upgrade the electric grid to support the
high priority HD BEV sites identified in the grid planning exercise described above.
These proactive grid upgrades are required to bring interconnection timelines in line with
the pace that EPA proposes. EPA should consider working with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) and other stakeholders to craft model legislation that
requires grid upgrades at the identified high-priority sites and initiation of infrastructure
build-outs as needed to support implementation of the Proposed Rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 12]
• Align EPA and EIA ZEV Forecasts to Facilitate Utility Demand Planning. Utilities need
detailed fleet transition plans in order to update their 5-10 year demand forecasts, and
demand must be guaranteed to prompt investment in improved infrastructure. Fleets are
unlikely to have detailed transition plans until there is sufficient experience with the use
cases, technology maturity, and confidence in the infrastructure. In order to solve this
997
-------
chicken-and-egg scenario, EPA's ZEV forecast should be aligned with the Energy
Information Administration's (EIA) ZEV projections in its Annual Energy Outlook
(AEO), and these forecasts should further project ZEV adoption on a geographic basis.
Utilities should be required to treat EPA and EIA's aligned ZEV forecasts as sufficient
evidence of demand to start the build out of infrastructure. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1555-A1, pp. 12-13]
• Demand Guarantors for Infrastructure Utilization. When fleets submit interconnection
applications to their utility for charging capacity, and the utility makes investments to
build up that infrastructure, the applicants (fleets) are responsible for using power at the
requested levels in the interconnection application for a minimum of 5 years, or
sometimes up to 10 years. If the applicant does not meet the required utilization rate, the
applicant and/or ratepayers may be financially responsible for bearing the costs of those
infrastructure upgrades. Fleets are not required to take on this type of financial risk in the
conventional vehicle market, and DTNA believes it to be a major disadvantage for BEVs.
In order to reduce the risk for fleets, utilities, and ratepayers, EPA and/or the Department
of Energy (DOE) should consider assuming a portion of the financial liability in the event
infrastructure utilization is not met. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 13]
• Performance-Based Regulations to Incentivize Faster Interconnection Timelines. The
California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) Resolution E-5247 establishes an interim
average service energization timeline of 125 business days for certain EV infrastructure
projects, excluding projects with a capacity exceeding two megawatts (MW), projects
that need distribution line upgrades, and projects requiring substation upgrades. 16 Many
fleet charging infrastructure projects will meet these exclusion criteria, however, thus
EPA should encourage state utility regulatory commissions to adopt similar resolutions
that address depot charging interconnection requests on a standard timeline but that apply
to a broader array of projects. We also recommend that EPA encourage state utility
regulatory commissions to adopt performance-based regulations (PBRs) to incentivize
faster interconnection timelines for commercial vehicle charging needs. Hawaii Public
Utilities Commission (HPUC) Decision and Order No. 37787, for example, established
new performance mechanisms to incentivize faster interconnection timelines for certain
infrastructure projects undertaken by the Hawaiian Electric companies and may serve as a
model for similar PBRs that could be established in other states. 17 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1555-A1, p. 13]
16 See CPUC, Resolution E-5247 (Dec. 16, 2022),
https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M500/K043/500043680.PDF.
17 See HPUC, In re Instituting a Proceeding to Investigate Performance-Based Regulation, Decision and
Order No. 37787 (May 17, 2021),
https://dms.puc.hawaii.gov/dms/DocumentViewer?pid=A1001001A21E17B53226E00118.
• Standardized Processes and Commitments for Interconnection Timing. With more than
3,000 electric utilities in the United States, navigating new service requests poses
challenges for fleets. Utilities cite incomplete or inaccurate information on applications
from fleets as contributors to transportation electrification delays. Fleets cite lack of
communication and firm interconnection timing commitments from utilities as a
deterrents to adopting ZEVs, as they are unable to properly plan their fleet operations and
vehicle delivery timelines. To mitigate these concerns, EPA could work with DOE and
998
-------
FERC to standardize the application and review processes for interconnection requests.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 13]
• Single Application Requests for Site Projects. Today, fleets interested in installing on-site
solar and energy storage as part of a depot charging infrastructure project must often
submit separate applications to their utility service provider for these project components,
in addition to their interconnection request. These three requests are often handled by
different teams on different timelines, which do not serve the needs of the fleet's depot
site development and deter fleets from incorporating on-site storage and solar to offset
peak loads and manage charging. EPA should consider working with FERC to encourage
utilities to bundle fleet depot projects so that they may be considered as a single request.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, pp. 13-14]
• Clear Track for Third Parties to Support Infrastructure Development. Where utilities are
unable to make the infrastructure investments needed for fleet electrification, a clear
process should be in place to allow for third-party companies to step in and build out
necessary infrastructure capacity, which could be leased or sold back to the utility at a
future date. EPA should consider working with FERC to find pathways for third-party
infrastructure funding and development, to enable buildout at the pace needed to support
implementation of the Proposed Rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 14]
Electrical infrastructure buildout pace is a barrier to significant ZEV adoption that should be
factored in to Phase 3 C02 standard levels.
The pace of electrical infrastructure buildout remains the biggest barrier for customer
adoption of HD BEVs and poses the greatest threat to successful implementation of the Proposed
Rule. As EPA observes, BEV infrastructure is critically important for the success of increasing
development and adoption of BEV technologies. 108 DTNA thus appreciates the opportunity to
respond to EPA's request for comment on the concerns that have already been expressed to EPA
regarding the slow growth of ZEV charging and refueling infrastructure. This Proposed Rule is
unique in that compliance will rely heavily on the development of infrastructure that
manufacturers have no control over, and providers are not obligated to expand infrastructure to
support the scope and timing of the Proposed Rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 45]
108 See Proposed Rule, 88 Fed. Reg. at 26,000.
DTNA—in partnership with Portland General Electric—is proud to have built the first-of-its-
kind public charging island for commercial ZEVs in Portland, Oregon. In addition, DTNA's
expert eConsulting team is dedicated to supporting fleets on all aspects of the ZEV transition,
including site design and interfacing with utilities. Therefore, DTNA is uniquely positioned to
offer insight into the challenges associated with commercial ZEV infrastructure development.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 45]
DTNA has concerns about EPA's treatment of electric infrastructure in the Proposed Rule,
and the Agency's assumptions that all suitable vehicle applications and willing customer
adopters will have charging infrastructure available, or that such infrastructure can be made
available within the timeframes that EPA assumes and at the costs projected in HD TRUCS. In
this section, DTNA highlights the unique challenges with HD charging infrastructure (especially
with respect to electricity transmission and distribution); explains why EPA significantly
underestimates infrastructure costs; discusses specific timing challenges; and highlights case
studies from its customer fleets. Finally, DTNA concludes by recommending that EPA use an
999
-------
electric infrastructure scalar to ensure that infrastructure development pace is adequately factored
in to EPA's adoption rate projections, as discussed in more detail on Section II.C of these
comments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 45]
EPA projects that modest increases in electric power generation will be required to support
the Proposed Rule. Specifically, the Agency estimates that Proposed Rule requirements would
increase HD BEV electric power end use by 0.1% over 2021 levels in 2027, increasing to 2.8%
over 2021 levels in 2055.109 EPA notes, however, that these figures do not include the
electricity increase required to produce hydrogen. 110 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, pp.
45-46]
109 Id. at 25,983; DRIA at 430, Table 6-1.
110 See DRIA at 431 (noting that EPA's projected electricity consumption increases attributable to the
Proposed Rule do 'not include changes in electricity generation to produce hydrogen').
EPA's figures appear to underestimate the increase in electric power generation that will be
required to support implementation of the Proposed Rule. As discussed below, according to the
Company's calculations, 45 gigawatts of installed charging capacity will be required to support
the vehicle volumes in the Proposed Rule from 2027 - 2032. Based on EIA's estimate that there
was 1,143,757 megawatts (MW) of total utility-scale electricity generating capacity in the United
States at the end of 2021,111 Proposed Rule implementation will require a 3.9% increase in
domestic generation capacity (over the 2021 level) by 2032, conflicting with EPA's projection
that only a 2.8% increase will be required by 2055. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 46]
111 See U.S. Energy Information Administration, 'Electricity explained: Electricity generation, capacity,
and sales in the United States,' https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-in-the-us-
generation-capacityand-sales.php.
Further, DTNA is concerned that EIA's commercial vehicle forecast does not align with
EPA's ZEV market projections in the Proposed Rule. EIA's AEO 2022 commercial vehicle
projections are summarized in Table 15 below EIA projects zero commercial vehicle BEV sales
through 2050, and minimal FCEV penetration up to 1,600 vehicles per year per category. It is
critical that federal agencies are aligned on these commercial vehicle projections and
communicate them clearly to the electric utility industry. Given the misalignment with EIA on
ZEV uptake rates, it is likely that EPA underestimates the electricity generation increase needed
to support HD BEVs.[EPA-HQ-0AR-2022-0985-1555- A 1, p. 46] [Refer to Table 15 on p. 46 of
docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1],
EPA points to the adoption of residential air conditioners and growth of power-intensive data
centers as historical evidence of the electric utility industry's ability to deliver additional power
to customers. 113 Residential air conditioners provide a reasonable comparison for light-duty
vehicle electricity demand levels, as they represent a relatively low load that is evenly distributed
across utility service territories. The electricity demands associated with medium- and heavy-
duty electrification will, however, be fundamentally different and must be treated as such. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 46]
113 See Proposed Rule, 88 Fed. Reg. at 25,983.
Unlike light-duty vehicles, most HD ZEVs cannot charge using existing 120-volt and 240-volt
AC electrical infrastructure, and they require dedicated DC infrastructure. HD ZEVs are also
1000
-------
disproportionally located in concentrated urban areas, creating highly localized grid capacity
addition needs in constrained spaces (see Figure 3 below, showing heat maps of potential future
loads). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 47] [Refer to Figure 3 on p. 47 of docket
number EP A-HQ-0 AR-2022-098 5 -15 5 5 - A 1 ]
Power-intensive data centers and server farms were rapidly constructed across the United
States in the last 20 years and were largely greenfield projects that had the flexibility to be sited
where grid capacity was available or could be made available relatively easily. By contrast, the
commercial transportation industry is already entrenched and invested in existing logistics
facilities. Most of these are located in or around high density urban population centers, often
clustered tightly together, where grid capacity is not available, and the process of acquiring land
and rights-of-way for upgrades is complex. The use of data centers and server farms as anecdotal
examples of electric utility adaptability suggests that EPA is significantly underestimating the
demand presented by commercial transportation charging infrastructure. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1555-A1, p. 47]
DTNA generally agrees with EPA's assertion that scale-up of electric power generation is not
likely to significantly limit the development of BEV electric vehicle charging infrastructure.
Rather, the challenge for medium- and heavy-duty charging lies in distribution of that power. As
ICCT observed in a recent white paper on near-term medium- and heavy-duty ZEV
infrastructure development, 'Most uncertainties regarding infrastructure buildout concern the
capacity of distribution systems to bring that energy to the right place in a timely manner and
accommodate the highly localized power requirements of [medium- and heavy-duty vehicle]
charging.' 114 Accordingly, DTNA recommends that EPA engage with electric utilities and their
trade associations to further understand the unique challenges that HD ZEVs charging will pose
for distribution systems, and how those factors should be accounted for in this rulemaking.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 47]
114 See ICCT, 'Near-Term Infrastructure Deployment to Support Zero-Emission Medium- and Heavy -
Duty Vehicles in the United States (May 2023) at 1, https://theicct.org/wp-
content/uploads/2023/05/infrastructure-deployment-mhdv-may23.pdf (ICCT ZEV Infrastructure White
Paper).
Infrastructure Costs
EPA asserts 'there is considerable uncertainty associated with future distribution upgrade
needs, and in many cases, some costs may be borne by utilities rather than directly incurred by
BEV or fleet owners. Therefore, we do not model them directly as part of our infrastructure
analysis.' 115 DTNA appreciates that there is significant complexity and uncertainty in modeling
these costs, but believes that omitting front-of-meter costs is a significant error in the TCO
calculation that has major implications for EPA's proposed C02 standard stringency
levels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 48]
115 Proposed Rule, 88 Fed. Reg. at 25,983.
How fleet owners pay for infrastructure will depend on a variety of factors, including utility
structure (investor-owned, municipal, cooperative), existing available grid capacity, project
scale, real estate needs, etc. For fleets in cooperative and municipality service territories,
including many in critical urban freight hubs, upgrade costs are likely borne directly by the fleet.
For fleets working with investor-owned utilities, the cost mechanism will vary. If infrastructure
1001
-------
is needed by more than one utility customer, the utility will typically ask the fleet for a pro-rata
share of those costs, or in some cases, increase electricity rates to cover those costs. Where fleets
do not meet the minimum utilization rates for the contracted time period (5 to 10 years), fleets
may be required to reimburse the utility for infrastructure upgrades, or costs are distributed
among all ratepayers. One DTNA customer fleet has cancelled an order for 25 Class 8 tractors
because of what they viewed as risky contract terms, including requirements for load
management and a 10-year commitment to construct capacity for a 3 MW site. Regardless of the
pathway, fleets will bear the cost of infrastructure upgrades to support charging needs, and those
costs should be included in the proposed rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 48]
DTNA relied on a cost study by the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) to estimate an
optimized and non-optimized dollar-per-kilowatt cost figure for grid updates. 116 To estimate
per-vehicle grid update costs for Class 3-8 BEVs, we applied the BCG dollar-per-kilowatt cost
estimates to an assumed average daily power need for each vehicle class that would be subject to
the Phase 3 C02 standards, shown in Table 11 ('DTNA Proposed Grid Update Cost Inputs for
HD TRUCS') presented in Section II.B.3.b. As reflected in Table 11, these costs are non-
negligible, significantly impact the TCO proposition, and must be considered in EPA's HD
TRUCS analysis. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 48]
116 See Boston Consulting Group, 'The Costs of Revving Up the Grid for Electric Vehicles' (Dec. 20,
2019), https://www.bcg.com/publications/2019/costs-rewing-up-the-grid-for-electric-vehicles.
Using the same average daily power assumptions, DTNA estimated the additional installed
capacity that will be needed to support HD BEVs at the adoption rates projected in the Proposed
Rule. The Company calculated a 5-year average of commercial vehicle sales in all 50 states from
the Polk Automotive database from 2017-2021, applied EPA's projected ZEV volumes for 2027-
2032, and calculated the total installed charging capacity that will be required by these vehicles
in 2027 - 2032 to be approximately 45 gigawatts. In Appendix C to these comments, DTNA
estimates the investments in charging infrastructure and grid upgrades, as well as total installed
charging capacity, that will be required in each of the 50 states to support implementation of the
Proposed Rule. 117 DTNA considers installed capacity in this context to mean the total power
available as EVSE to charge commercial vehicle batteries. Using installed capacity is a
more appropriate metric for evaluating available charging capacity than the number of chargers
alone, as installed capacity better reflects the variability in charging speeds needed to support
different vehicle dwell times and truck-to-charger ratios. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1,
pp. 48-49]
This installed capacity must be available at a combination of public and private purpose-built
HD-accessible charging stations. To be HD-accessible, public charging stations must include
pull-through charging lanes and accommodate wide ingress and egress to support all vehicle
types. Commercial vehicles are often unable to utilize existing passenger car charging
infrastructure, due to space constraints that are not compatible with HDVs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 49] [Refer to graphics on p. 49 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1555-A1]
Based on the projected vehicle mix in the Proposed Rule and installed capacity needed to
support these vehicles, DTNA estimated the total costs of EVSE charging equipment and
necessary supporting grid updates to support Class 3-8 BEVs that would be required under the
Proposed Rule. These figures, summarized in Table 16 below, do not include the additional
1002
-------
capacities and investments needed to support passenger car electrification. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 49] [Refer to Table 16 on p. 49 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1555-A1]
Even with incentive funding available, many fleets are unable to make the capital investments
required to add BEVs to their fleets. DTNA is currently working with one school bus fleet that
has secured Clean School Bus funds from EPA for 23 buses, as well as a payment plan through
their utility's Make Ready program, and is still facing a $500,000 funding gap for site
construction that threatens to jeopardize the project. Private fleet deployments are likely to face
similar gaps, even where some combination of incentive program funding is available. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 50]
Timing for Infrastructure Development
EPA implies that in the next five years, electric infrastructure will be sufficiently built out to
support the BEVs required by the Proposed Rule, and that buildout will continue to support
substantially higher fleet adoption rates by 2032. Without major regulatory and/or legislative
action, DTNA does not believe the infrastructure needed will materialize on the timeline required
to enable compliance with the Phase 3 C02 standards as proposed. New interconnection requests
are processed on a first-come-first-serve basis, and transportation electrification competes with
all other utility priorities, including decarbonization mandates, resiliency, and other residential
and commercial interconnection requests. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 50]
Utilities are noting extended timelines for installing critical hardware, both in front of and
behind the meter, due to supply chain and other constraints. During the ACF rulemaking process,
for example, one electric utility commented to CARB that the lead time for transformers was 40
weeks, and that the lead time customer side meter panels/switchgears was 70 weeks. 118 In the
Company's experience, utilities will wait for this hardware to be received to perform other
upgrades, and these types of sequential gating events can add significant time to transportation
electrification projects. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 50]
118 See Comments of Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Proposed Advanced Clean Fleets Regulation
(Oct. 17, 2022), https://www.arb.ca.gov/lists/com-attach/370-acf2022-AXEFZFUxUFxRYlBl.pdf.
In a recent joint presentation by Southern California Edison (SCE), Pacific Gas & Electric
(PG&E), and San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) at a California Energy Commission (CEC)
workshop, the following table was presented reflecting the utilities' estimations of typical
timelines for distribution capacity improvements: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p.
50] [Refer to Table 17 on p. 50 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1]
As the scope of the necessary distribution capacity improvements is often unknown until
detailed site planning is underway, predicting how long fleets will wait for
interconnection requests is challenging. DTNA believes many depot electrification projects may
require increases in substation capacity, sub-transmission improvements, or new substations to
serve the concentrated power demands. One of DTNA's customers cancelled a BEV deployment
because their utility returned a 5-8 year lead time for a new substation. Another fleet's initial
ZEV deployment at scale required construction of a 6 MW facility, able to charge 32 Class 8
drayage tractors simultaneously. 120 Providing these capacities to many sites clustered together,
as will be required to support concentrated freight hubs and logistics centers, is likely to require
substantial grid upgrades. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, pp. 50-51]
1003
-------
120 See 'Schneider's Electric Heavy-Duty Trucks Start Off on Regional Routes' (June 8, 2023)
https://www.truckinginfo.com/10200304/new-electric-heavy-duty-trucks-start-off-on-regional-routes.
Because of California's climate policies, including Executive Order N-79-20 requiring all
new passenger car and truck sales to be zero emission by 2035, and CARB's ACT and ACF
regulations, a number of transportation electrification planning procedures and make-ready
programs have already been implemented or have begun to develop in California. Thus, it is
important to keep in mind that electric utilities in other states may generally be less prepared to
respond to transportation electrification requests. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 51]
In the Company's experience, fleets typically purchase their vehicles 6-12 months ahead of
need, and often utilities require proof of purchase to show the fleet is committed to move
forward with infrastructure development. DTNA has experienced fleet customers cancelling
BEV orders when utilities respond to interconnection requests with multi-year lead times. Many
of these cancellations include the return of incentive program funds, such as HVIP or Clean
School Bus Program vouchers. Purchasers who apply for and are granted HVIP funds for
example, must redeem the voucher within 90 days, or apply for three-month extensions up to 540
total days. 121 It is not uncommon for infrastructure projects to exceed the 540 day timeline,
which would require the fleet to take delivery of BEVs with no charging infrastructure, resulting
in a stranded capital investment and no air quality improvements. One of DTNA's customers
cancelled an order and returned HVIP funding for 20 Class 8 tractors when their utility estimated
their site would take 3 years (1,095 days) to energize. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1,
p. 51]
121 See Implementation Manual for the Hybrid and Zero-Emission Truck and Bus Voucher Incentive
Project (HVIP) (March 15, 2022) at 20, https://californiahvip.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/HVIP-
FY 21 -22-Implementation-Manual-03.15.22.pdf.
Furthermore, it is unlikely that fleets will make major investments in long-term infrastructure
that require commitments longer than the vehicle trade cycle. For example, if a fleet plans for a
4-year vehicle product cycle, but the infrastructure lead time is 4 years for an increase in
substation capacity, by the time the infrastructure is available, the fleet will be working with the
next generation of vehicles, which may or may not have the same power needs. Similarly, where
utilities have made capital investments in infrastructure, fleets may be required to commit to a
certain utilization rates for 5 to 10 years. Fleets working with shorter trade cycles, contracted
routes, or leased properties are likely to see operational changes well before they are released
from their utilization obligations. Committing to minimum utilization rates may be a major
financial risk for fleets, which is unaccounted for in the cost estimates in the Proposed Rule.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 51]
Fleets have also cited the lack of firm interconnection dates as a major deterrent to
committing to long-term infrastructure projects. DTNA appreciates that infrastructure buildout
projects are difficult to project, and may encounter unanticipated delays, but fleets are unable to
make fleet transition plans, place orders for electric vehicles, or apply for funding without firm
interconnection timelines. Some of DTNA's fleet customers committed to ZEV deployment have
sought temporary power solutions to address these timeline issues. However, temporary power
solutions incur additional costs and generally must be paid up front by the fleet. For instance,
SDG&E Rule 13 ('Temporary Service') provides that an applicant for temporary service 'shall
pay, in advance or otherwise as required by the utility, the estimated cost installed plus the
1004
-------
estimated cost of removal, less the estimated salvage of the facilities necessary for furnishing
service.' 122 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, pp. 51-52]
122 See SDG&ERule 13, https://www.sdge.com/sites/default/files/elec_elec-rules_erulel3.pdf.
In addition to electrical interconnection complexities, fleets must navigate their local building
codes and permitting processes. As noted by the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use
Management (NESCAUM) in a 2019 paper on DCFC deployment, 'the permitting process for
DCFC stations is sometimes lengthy and fraught with delays due to unfamiliarity with the
technology, protracted zoning reviews, and undefined requirements for permitting DCFC. As a
result, the DCFC permitting process can be resource-intensive for both applicants and
[authorities having jurisdiction (AHJs)].' 123 Since the NESCAUM paper was published,
DTNA's eConsulting team has encountered many AHJs that lack defined processes for DCFC
installation projects and the expertise needed to move projects along quickly. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 52]
123 NESCAUM, 'Preparing Our Communities for Electric Vehicles: Facilitating Deployment of DC Fast
Chargers' (May 2019), https://www.nescaum.org/documents/dcfc-permit-streamlining-whitepaper-final-5-
14-19.pdf.
Fleets may encounter additional complications related to EVSE installation that impact BEV
technology adoption rates. For example, when converting vehicles to BEVs, the infrastructure
needed for charging equipment takes up physical space that could otherwise be occupied by
additional trucks. Figure 4 below illustrates the components needed for combined charging
systems (CCS). Megawatt Charging Systems (MCS) require additional space for installation as
well. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 52] [Refer to Figure 4 on p. 53 of docket number
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1]
Figure 5 below shows an overhead view of one such fleet operation in Southern California
where physical space will limit the number of BEVs that can be deployed. This site will require
additional power poles, new transformers, and new switchgears to support only a fraction of the
fleet. To convert additional tractors to BEVs, fleets working with constrained spaces like the site
shown below will likely be required to purchase additional real estate. Recently, Denver's
Regional Transportation District (RTD) announced the cancellation of an $18 million deal for
new electric buses, citing space constraints for charging and EVSE equipment. 124 RTD officials
estimated they would need an additional $85 million to construct a new building to support this
deployment. Space constraint issues of this type—and the associated costs—are not accounted
for in EPA's cost estimates for the Proposed Rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p.
53] [Refer to Figure 5 on p. 53 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1]
124 See Denver Post, 'RTD cancels purchase of 17 electric buses it doesn't have space to maintain—and
orders fleet transition strategy' (April 26, 2023), https://www.denverpost.com/2023/04/26/regional-
transportation-district-battery-electric-buses-contract/.
DTNA's fleet customers have faced a number of similar challenges, which have resulted in
order cancellations or reductions, revealing the following issues :
• Fleet customers have been quoted 1.5-8 years for depot site electrification for
deployments that are modest compared to the scale of those discussed in the Proposed
Rule.
1005
-------
• Depot installation projects are complex and resource intensive for fleets, utilities, and
AHJs. DTNA often observes differing views of roles and responsibilities in transportation
electrification projects and a lack of expertise in this developing space.
• Infrastructure lead time is not synchronized with funding program lead time, leading
fleets to return vouchers they spent resources securing, highlighting that available
funding and the calculated TCO is only part of the adoption equation.
• Utilities and fleets sometimes cannot come to agreement on contractual terms, including
load restrictions, managed charging, and guaranteed utilization time periods. It is unlikely
these issues will be resolved without significant regulatory or legislative changes.
• State and municipal building codes and processes lack transparency and add significant
time to depot electrification projects. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 54]
Utility Long Range Planning vs. Fleet Planning
Utilities today rely on long-range forecasts in the 5 - 10 year timeframe to plan investment
and system upgrades. During CARB's ACF rulemaking process, a number of electric utilities
submitted comments recommending that CARB facilitate the ongoing sharing of data with
utilities about fleet customers' detailed near-term and long-term charging infrastructure needs,
including fleet transition plans by year, whether the fleet would need to charge full-time or on
peak, what percentage of time fleets would charge on peak and at what level, and if fleets
anticipated seasonal peaks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 55]
As discussed above, fleets typically order their vehicles 6-12 months in advance, and it is
unlikely fleets are able to make accurate predictions of what the future fleets' energy needs
might be, as fleet operations are subject to change with changes in contracted routes, technology
maturity, etc. Some fleets rent their depot facilities, and short term leases will prevent the tenant
fleet from making long range plans. Where long term leases are in place, the fleet tenant often
cannot make substantial changes to the property without the landlord's permission. Even with the
landlord's permission, fleets are unlikely to make a long-term investment in sites that they do not
own. Landlords could choose to install EVSE if they anticipated a positive business case, but are
similarly unable to provide detailed long range forecasts. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1,
p. 55]
DTNA has made vehicle telematics data available for interested utilities to predict where
future loads may occur, but this dataset only represents a subset of the Company's products, and
not the market as a whole. Without substantive regulatory and/or legislative intervention to
prompt utilities to plan for and buildout for transportation electrification, DTNA does not believe
significant buildout of electrical infrastructure will occur on the timeline required to support
EPA's proposed C02 stringency levels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 55]
Recommendations to Facilitate ZEV Infrastructure Buildout and C02 Standard Feasibility
While EPA does not have regulatory authority over many of the factors that currently pose
challenges to ZEV infrastructure development, the Agency could help to mitigate these
challenges by supporting the policies, legislation, and regulatory initiatives that are detailed in
Section I.B.4 of these comments, including:
• Align with EIA vehicle uptake estimates, to ensure accurate estimates of real power
demand by MHD and HHD ZEVs and net C02 emissions.
1006
-------
• Work with FERC to direct utilities to incorporate demand projects into both a system-
wide transportation electrification electricity forecast and a utility distribution grid
capacity requirement forecast, to serve these medium- and heavy-duty transportation
electrification loads on a geographic basis.
• Assume financial liability as a demand guarantor for infrastructure buildout that is
undertaken based upon EPA's ZEV penetration forecasts.
• Work with FERC to identify high traffic freight hubs that are likely to see rapid increase
in BEVs, and direct utilities to proactively upgrade this infrastructure.
• Encourage state utility regulatory commissions to adopt PBRs to incentivize faster
interconnection timelines for charging infrastructure projects. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1555-A1, p. 57]
• Work with stakeholders to develop model building codes that can be adopted by state and
local governments to streamline authorizations for EVSE installation projects and
encourage state and local adoption of these model codes.
• Require reporting of medium- and heavy-duty ZEV infrastructure and make this
information available to fleets.
• Work with FHWA to revise the NEVI formula program to more actively encourage states
to provide HD-accessible public charging infrastructure. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1555-A1, p. 58]
Finally, as described in more detail in Sections I.B.3 and II.C. of these comments, EPA should
incorporate a scalar to be used in its calculations of appropriate C02 standard stringency levels,
designed (and regularly updated) to reflect actual installed capacity of HD-accessible charging
equipment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 58]
Organization: Edison Electric Institute (EEI)
EPA notes that several stakeholders have raised concerns that 'slow growth in ZEV charging
and refueling infrastructure can slow the growth of heavy-duty ZEV adoption, and that this may
present challenges for vehicle manufacturers ability to comply with future EPA GHG standards.'
88 Fed. Reg. 25,934. EEI member companies have addressed similar infrastructure build out
issues in the past. Like those issues, these concerns can be addressed through deliberate effort
and collaboration among electric companies, fleet operators, and stakeholders, including
planning for increased demand, customer engagement, and fleet electrification. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1509-A2, p. 7]
Electric companies can accommodate increased energy demand.
As EPA notes, the electric power sector has a long history of accommodating growth in
electricity demand from the adoption of new technologies, including electric home appliances,
residential and commercial air conditioning, and data centers. See id. At 25,983. Electricity use
from EVs today is modest. Argonne National Lab estimates the approximately 2.3 million EVs
on the road as of the end of 2021 consumed 6.1 terawatt-hours of electricity in that year, or about
0.16 percent of the total electric sales to U.S. customers in that year.18 As EPA also notes,
the increase in electricity use resulting from the Proposed Rule also will be modest, increasing
electricity end-use by less than 3 percent in 2055. See id. On a macro-level, meeting the
increased energy usage from electric truck adoption as contemplated in the Proposed Rule will
not be a significant challenge for the electric power sector. Meeting the location-specific power
1007
-------
needs of large electric vehicle (EV) charging facilities can be a more pressing challenge.
However, this is a challenge that can be addressed with deliberate effort and collaboration among
electric companies, fleet operators, and stakeholders. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1509-A2,
pp. 7-8]
18 See Gohlke, et al., Assessment of Light-Duty Plug-in Electric Vehicles in the United States, 2010 -
2021, https://publications.anl.gov/anlpubs/2022/ll/178584.pdf and U.S. Energy Information
Administration, Electric Power Monthly
Electric companies can accommodate localized power needs at the pace of customer demand,
provided appropriate customer engagement and enabling policies are in place. The power
required by a customer is essential when considering the infrastructure needed at the facility
level, because the capacity of the local distribution circuit is sized to meet the peak power
requirements of customers on that circuit. Some large EV charging facilities have power
requirements in the tens of megawatts (MW). Electric companies are well accustomed to serving
facilities with those types of power needs, but large fleet customers differ from traditional
electric customers (e.g., commercial or industrial buildings) in several important aspects. These
aspects include, but are not limited to:
• Construction timelines: A new, large commercial building with a multi-MW power
demand, for example, will typically have a multi-year construction timeline, giving the
local electric company time to plan and make appropriate upgrades to the electric
distribution system serving that customer. A fleet operator, in contrast, may be able to
procure vehicles and complete construction on a multi-MW charging facility in a matter
of months. This creates a potential misalignment between the fleet operators' timeline to
procure vehicles and charging equipment and the electric company's timeline for making
the necessary system upgrades to provide power to that facility. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1509-A2, p. 8]
• Customer familiarity with procuring electric power: Commercial and industrial electric
customers are used to working with electric companies for the operation of their facilities
as part of their normal course of business, including working with electric companies as
part of the construction process for launching new facilities. In particular, national
corporate customers often have long-standing relationships with the electric companies
that serve them. Electric companies typically assign these customers an account manager,
given their scale and complexity. A fleet operator, in contrast, is used to procuring diesel
to operate its vehicles, and may consider procuring electricity in the same paradigm. Fleet
operators may be small electricity users today and thus that division may not yet be
considered a managed account for the electric company. However, EEI members have
identified this issue and are expanding their working relationship with these
customers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1509-A2, pp. 8-9]
• Uncertain and dynamic load profiles: The power usage throughout the day, known as the
'load profile,' of typical commercial and industrial buildings is well understood (e.g.,
large retail store, data center, or manufacturing facility). Typical load profiles for electric
fleet customers are not yet well understood and often hypothetical given the early stage of
electric truck commercialization. A fleet charging load profile is the product of many
factors, including the routes of the vehicles, the state of charge of the EV when returning
to the facility, the number of operating shifts, etc. Unlike a typical commercial building,
the load profile of a fleet facility could also drastically change with a change in vehicle
1008
-------
operations (e.g., changing from a one-shift to two-shift operation). This uncertainty adds
complexity for electric companies when determining how best to serve the power
requirements of a fleet customer. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1509-A2, p. 9]
These factors could result in misalignment between expectations and reality regarding the
timing, cost, and complexity of procuring electric power for fleet charging. Electric companies
are taking a multi-pronged approach to remedy this potential misalignment, as discussed in the
following sections. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1509-A2, p. 9]
Earlier customer engagement through education and coordination will alleviate infrastructure
delays.
Early engagement between the relevant fleet customer and electric company is important as it
allows planning for the infrastructure to support EV charging to occur much earlier and
accommodate longer lead-times. In 2020, EEI began a collaboration with a large, national
corporate customer that was planning to electrify a significant portion of its fleet operation. EEI
facilitated meetings for this customer to share its conceptual plans with EEI's members and
establish points of contact at the customer and each electric company. Over the course of
more than a year, the customer identified the locations within each member's territory where it
planned to deploy EVs and developed a five-year forecast to inform the electric company how
the power demand would increase at each location over time. This unprecedented level of
collaboration has resulted in this customer deploying thousands of electric vehicles to date. This
includes alternative locations that were identified by the electric company after consulting with
the customer. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1509-A2, pp. 9-10]
The extent of collaboration described in this example may not be feasible, or necessary, for
every fleet customer. But it does provide a helpful template for how early engagement and
planning can streamline fleet electrification. The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) is
developing a data-sharing platform as part of its EVs2Scale2030 initiative that will formalize and
expand this model by allowing fleet customers to upload their forward-looking fleet
electrification plans to a common database. 19 Electric companies will then be able to access this
data to visualize where on its system upgrades will be needed to accommodate growing power
needs from fleet customers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1509-A2, p. 10]
19 See Electric Power Research Institute, EVs2Scale2030,
https://www.epri.eom/research/products/000000003002025622.
Many electric companies are developing tools and resources to assist fleet customers. These
include, but are not limited to:
• Grid capacity evaluation tools: Several electric companies have launched capacity
hosting maps that are available on public websites that illustrate local grid capacity in
their service territory.20 These maps can be helpful early indicators for fleet customers
when considering the level of upgrades that may be required at a particular facility. These
maps have limitations, as they are a snapshot in time and do not substitute for a formal
engineering study. Even if they have not published such a capacity map, many electric
companies have the ability to assist fleet customers by providing an early screen for local
grid capacity by location directly. In either case, the outcome is the same: for customers
that have the ability to consider multiple locations for their EV deployment plans, pre-
screening the local distribution system capacity at these locations allows the fleet to
1009
-------
factor grid upgrade timelines into their deployment plans. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1509-A2, pp. 10-11]
20 Examples include: AVANGRID (United Illuminating, NYSEG, Rochester Gas & Electric), Ameren
Illinois, Con Edison, Dominion Energy, Eversource, Exelon (Atlantic City Electric, Delmarva Power,
Pepco, Corned, PECO), Jersey Central Power & Light, National Grid, Orange & Rockland, Public Service
Electric & Gas, San Diego Gas & Electric, and Southern California Edison.
• Fleet assessments and advisory services: Many electric companies have launched
programs to provide in-depth consulting services to fleets that are considering
electrification, including elements like feasibility studies based on total cost of
ownership.21 These programs also may include dedicated staff resources to guide
customers through the fleet electrification journey, including choosing the appropriate
charging strategy and charging infrastructure to meet their operational needs. These
programs help to educate fleet customers about the nuances of procuring power for their
fleet operations and allow electric companies to learn more about the expected operations
of electric fleets. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1509-A2, p. 11]
21 See Alliance for Transportation Electrification, Fleet Advisory Services (FAS) for Fleet Electrification:
Meet Customer Needs and Provide Grid Benefits, https://evtransportationalliance.org/wp-
content/uploads/2023/02/PRESS-ATE-EC-White-Paper.pdf, which includes case studies from DTE
Energy, Exelon, Portland General Electric, Southern California Edison, and Xcel Energy.
These and other resources being developed and deployed today by electric companies are
essential to ensuring that infrastructure plans and efforts are matched to forthcoming
electrification efforts from fleets and other operators. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1509-A2,
p. 11]
Electric companies are planning for fleet electrification.
Investor-owned electric companies are regulated by state commissions, which approve
electric company capital plans to maintain and upgrade the electric grid. While policies vary by
state commission, two generally applicable principles have important implications for fleet
electrification. First, the 'used and useful' standard means that regulators will only approve the
electric company to build infrastructure that will be utilized and provide value. The onus is
on electric companies to provide evidence that their capital plans will meet this standard. Second
is the principle that the customer that incurs the cost must pay for the cost. Typically, a customer
seeking new or upgraded electric service must submit a formal service request to the electric
company, which prompts the electric company to perform an engineering study to determine the
cost of the upgrades needed to provide that service. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1509-A2,
pp.11-12]
The implication for fleet electrification, a potentially fast-growing source of significant new
demand on the electric system, is that electric companies are not authorized to upgrade the
electric system in anticipation of new demand without robust evidence that those upgrades will
be 'used and useful.' Only when a fleet customer submits a service request is the electric
company permitted to make the upgrades necessary to serve that customer. Electric company
forecasts for load growth, including that due to electrification, are typically at a system level, not
the local distribution system level for individual fleet facilities. Given the nascent
commercialization of fleet electrification, there is a lack of visibility into how, where, and when
1010
-------
fleet electrification will appear on the system sufficient evidence to give electric companies (and
their regulators) confidence to build for it. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1509-A2, p. 12]
Importantly, electric companies are recognizing the risks of this approach and are getting
ahead of the need. Given the long lead times to make distribution upgrades, particularly if the
upgrades are significant to extend further upstream to the substation and transmission level, it
will increasingly be unacceptable to customers to wait for the customer service request-driven
process. There is a risk that fleet customers, facing increased regulatory pressure to electrify their
fleets, will be unable to plan their businesses around these infrastructure lead times and fail
to meet their electrification goals. Electric companies must find mechanisms to plan and build
for these increased loads now, so that the power is available when the customer needs
them. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1509-A2, pp. 12-13]
In California, the investor-owned electric companies use the California Energy Commission's
Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR) as their base forecast. Southern California Edison (SCE)
in its recent General Rate Case found a significant gap between the electric transportation load
growth in the IEPR forecast and that expected due to the state's policies, specifically the
California Air Resources Board's Advanced Clean Cars II, Advanced Clean Trucks, and
Advanced Clean Fleets rules.22 SCE developed a Transportation Electrification Grid Readiness
(TEGR) analysis to account for this gap in its General Rate Case that will set the electric
company's grid investments for the next several years. SCE used a top-down methodology to
apply this higher forecast to the circuit level for electric transportation loads, as well as a bottom-
up methodology for certain high growth areas. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1509-A2, p. 13]
22 See Southern California Edison, 2025 General Rate Case, WP SCE-02, Vol. 07 Bk. A, TEGR Forecast
Development Workpaper.
SCE has deployed a variety of new methods to account for HDV development and
deployment, including the Power Service Availability (PSA) initiative to support transportation
electrification. The PSA initiative, working in concert with the TEGR analysis, focuses on
improving SCE's internal processes to streamline interconnection, engaging fleet operators to
better understand their plans for electrification, improving their ability to forecast and assess the
impacts of load growth from electrification, and leveraging new technologies as grid
infrastructure solutions. Because some projects will require more time than others to build,
SCE actively encourages fleet owners to engage with them early in the process so that SCE can
better understand and plan for their needs. For grid upgrades that require a longer construction
schedule, SCE is developing temporary solutions that can deploy quickly while those upgrades
are being built. These solutions may include mobile battery storage or a mobile substation
brought in on a semi tractor-trailer. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1509-A2, pp. 13-14]
In New York, the Public Service Commission opened a proceeding in April to address
barriers to medium-and heavy-duty electric vehicle infrastructure. In particular, the order
recognizes that 'proactive planning for the grid infrastructure needed to serve future
electrification load must anticipate the location and magnitude of future demand' and notes an
analogy to previous policies in which the commission directed the electric companies in New
York to 'develop proactive planning processes to anticipate the need for local transmission and
distribution system upgrades to enable the renewable interconnections required to achieve the
State's renewable energy goals.' 23 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1509-A2, p. 14]
1011
-------
23 State of New York Public Service Commission, Case 23-E-0070, Proceeding on Motion of the
Commission to Address Barriers to Medium- and Heavy-Duty Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure.
EPA's assessment that 'there is sufficient time for the infrastructure, especially for depot
charging, to gradually increase over the remainder of this decade to levels that support the
stringency of the proposed standards for the timeframe they would apply' is accurate. 88 Fed.
Reg. 25,999. As seen above, EEI members actively are planning for and deploying infrastructure
today. However, the increased deployment of this infrastructure over the next decade and beyond
will not happen on its own. Proactive planning processes, whether initiated by the
relevant electric company or state regulatory commission, will be critical to accommodate fleet
electrification to meet customer expectations and planning requirements, while also providing
affordable and reliable service. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1509-A2, pp. 14-15]
EPA specifically requests comment on 'whether there are additional stakeholders EPA should
work with during implementation of the Phase 3 standards.' 88 Fed. Reg. 26,000. EPA, states,
engine and truck manufacturers, and fleet operators should work with electric companies on a
regional or state level to glean additional insight into their planning processes and help bolster
proactive planning and infrastructure investments. As discussed above, electric companies and
their regulators benefit from the confidence that fleet electrification load will materialize through
additional forward planning and outreach, which also provides visibility into where and when
that load will materialize on the system. Final adoption of the Proposed Rule will help provide
confidence that fleet electrification will occur through the period of the rule, but at a national
level. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1509-A2, p. 15]
Additionally, the States, Congress, EPA, and other federal partners should work with the
electric power industry to ensure policies are aligned across the federal government to reduce the
cost and timelines associated with building infrastructure to support increased electrification.
This includes but is not limited to:
• Investing in domestic manufacturing of critical electrical infrastructure, including efforts
to alleviate the labor pool shortage limiting domestic manufacturing of critical electrical
infrastructure and provide loan or purchase guarantees to manufacturers. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1509-A2, p. 15]
• Not exacerbating the supply shortage of distribution transformers with unsupported
efficiency rules. The U.S. Department of Energy should choose an efficiency standard for
transformers that does not require switching to a new type of steel or make a
determination that no new standard is needed.24 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1509-A2,
pp.15-16]
24 EEI's comments are attached as Appendix A.
• Reforming permitting, both at the bulk power level with respect to building electricity
generation and transmission, and at the state and local levels with respect to building
distribution infrastructure. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1509-A2, p. 16]
EEI and its members stand ready to work with our regulatory and legislative partners to
ensure these challenges are appropriately addressed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1509-A2, p. 16]
EPA notes that 'there is considerable uncertainty associated with future distribution upgrade
needs, and in many cases, some costs may be borne by utilities rather than directly incurred by
1012
-------
BEV or fleet owners' in explaining why it models these costs as part of the infrastructure cost
analysis. 88 Fed. Reg. 25,983. In general, the upgrades to the local electric system needed to
bring sufficient power to the site may be known as 'electric company-side make-ready' or 'front-
of-the-meter' infrastructure and includes but is not limited to poles, vaults, service drops,
transformers, mounting pads, trenching, conduit, wire, cables, meters, other equipment as
necessary, and associated engineering and civil construction work. Front-of-the-meter
infrastructure is distinct from infrastructure on the customer side of the meter ('behind-the-
meter'), which includes the supply infrastructure (conduit and wiring to bring power from the
service connection to the charging station, and the associated installation costs, sometimes
known as 'customer-side make-ready') and the charging equipment, sometimes known as
Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1509-A2, p. 17]
Front-of-the-meter infrastructure is generally installed, owned, and operated by the electric
company. However, the costs associated with front-of-the-meter infrastructure may be borne by
the site host customer in full or in part if the costs exceed an allowance as determined by
the electric company's line-extension and/or service extension policy. These costs may also be
known as 'contributions in aid of construction.' [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1509-A2, pp. 17-18]
Modeling these front-of-the-meter infrastructure costs is inappropriate for the following
reasons. First, estimating distribution upgrade costs may be beyond the scope of EPA's analysis,
as it is not clear that a similar scope of analysis is applied to traditional liquid fuels. For example,
the analogous cost comparison for internal combustion engine vehicle would include cost
considerations for fleet operators either 1) installing refueling stations at their own facilities, or
2) the embedded cost of fuel retailers' business operations in the cost of diesel or
gasoline. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1509-A2, p. 18]
Second, as described above, distribution upgrades are highly location specific. The costs
associated with these upgrades are also highly variable, depending on the upgrade requested by
the customer and the local distribution capacity. As stated in EEI's Preparing to Plug In Your
Fleet guide, 'the grid can expand as needed to accommodate the needs of any customer, but the
time and resources needed to make the required upgrades are highly dependent on the specific
facility and the circuit that serves it.'27 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1509-A2, p. 18]
27 See EEI, Preparing To Plug In Your Fleet - 10 Things to Consider, https://www.eei.org/-
/media/Project/EEI/Documents/Issues-and-Policy/Electric-
Transportation/PreparingToPluglnYourFleetpdf.
Third, the share of any distribution costs that the customer may bear varies as a matter of
policy. Some electric companies have or are seeking approval for line extension allowances to
cover some or all of these costs for serving EV charging infrastructure. In California, for
example, legislation required electric companies in the state to file tariffs that would authorize
them to 'design and deploy all electrical distribution infrastructure on the utility side of the
customer's meter for all customers installing separately metered infrastructure to support
charging stations, other than those in single-family residences.' This policy prompted tariffs from
EEI members Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E), and SCE
that essentially allow electric companies to invest in more of the electric company-side
infrastructure costs as part of the standard distribution system investment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1509-A2, pp. 18-19]
1013
-------
Organization: Electrification Coalition (EC)
With continued planning efforts, the electric grid can manage the additional load from mass
EV adoption, including the EPA forecasted 35-57% of HD EVs, depending on vehicle type, by
2032, in the proposed rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1558-A1, p. 9]
The EPA states,
As discussed in Section V, we model changes to power generation due to the increased
electricity demand anticipated in the proposal as part of our upstream analysis. We project the
additional generation needed to meet the demand of the heavy-duty BEVs in the proposal to be
relatively modest (as shown in DRIA Chapter 6.5). As the proposal is estimated to increase
electric power end use by heavy-duty electric vehicles by 0.1 percent in 2027 and increasing to
2.8 percent in 2055. The U.S. electricity end use between the years 1992 and 2021, a similar
number of years included in our proposal analysis, increased by around 25 percent 449 without
any adverse effects on electric grid reliability or electricity generation capacity shortages. Grid
reliability is not expected to be adversely affected by the modest increase in electricity demand
associated with HD BEV charging.'27 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1558-A1, p. 9]
27 See page 25983 of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposed rule for Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles-Phase 3 in the Federal Register:
https://www.govinfo.gOv/content/pkg/FR-2023-04-27/pdf/2023-07955.pdf
The EC notes the following additional information for consideration, and overall agrees with
the EPA's assessment in terms of the HD EV adoption impact to the electric grid. The May 2023
report from the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT), 'Near-Term MHDV
Infrastructure Deployment in the United States,' projected an increase in total electricity
consumption resulting in MHD electrification by 2030 to be 1 percent.28 A significant share of
this projected energy consumption will be concentrated in several states, for example, as well as
along key freight corridors, such as the National Highway Freight Network. As such, while
MHD electrification may not be constrained by electricity generation, investments will be
required at the regional level in additional generation capacity, transmission, and distribution to
meet peak electricity loads for electric truck charging along these freight corridors. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1558-A1, pp. 9-10]
28 https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/infrastructure-deployment-mhdv-may23.pdf
In addition, there are many planning efforts underway with utilities, regulators and additional
EV stakeholders to prepare for the impending adoption of EVs in the HD sector. For example, in
March 2023, the Nevada Public Utilities Commission approved $70 million of NV Energy's
proposed $348 million transportation electrification plan (TEP). Of the nearly 20 programs
included in the TEP proposal, three programs were approved: the Interstate Corridor Depot
Program, the Electric School Bus Vehicle to Grid Trial, and the Inflation Reduction Act
Innovation Demonstration Program. All of these programs involve the HD EV sector. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1558-A1, p. 10]
Another example is Pennsylvania. For the past few years, the Pennsylvania General Assembly
has considered transportation electrification planning legislation - similar to laws passed in
Nevada and New Mexico. This year, new TEP legislation was introduced (HB 1240) that would
establish a robust, holistic planning process for electric utilities in the state for EV charging
1014
-------
station deployment. The development of TEPs by electric utilities, overseen by the Public Utility
Commission, would ensure the electric grid is prepared for future EV adoption by requiring load
forecasting, evaluation of the transmission and distribution networks, rates charged to customers,
and providing an implementation plan today so we are prepared for tomorrow. Depot charging
and large public charging sites would also be a part of the utility's analysis. This analysis will
prepare the utilities for added load capacity requests reaching into the in the 2 to 5 MWh range-
or for more, depending on the size of the EV charging depot. The TEP legislation would allow
utilities to identify where upgrades are needed now, begin installation, and prepare for the
impending greater adoption of EVs in the HD sector. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1558-A1,
p. 10]
Utilities are also preparing reports and studies that will help with the planning and timely
installation of HD EV charging infrastructure. For example, National Grid commissioned a
report, "Electric Highways Study," to examine the planning considerations for alternative-fueled
corridors with the freight and goods movement in mind.29 This first of its kind study examined
the traffic patterns and infrastructure needed to support the transportation decarbonization
mandates in NY and MA, the service territories for National Grid. The report looked at 71 sites
in both states, with results showing that by 2030, over a quarter of the sites would need more
than 5 MW of capacity to meet peak charging demand. National Grid was able to share the
results of the whitepaper with MA DOT and NY DOT to help them be aware of the advanced
planning that will be required for enabling highway charging for the light-duty and MHD
sectors. While some sites may need electric grid upgrades, the planning occurring now will ease
any bottlenecks in the future, particularly as future-proofing 'no-regrets' sites/zones will limit the
need for retroactive upgrades. Planning ensures that costs are kept low, EV charging station
deployment is timely, generation is available, and distribution lines are not strained. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1558-A1, pp. 10-11]
29 https://www.nationalgrid.com/us/EVhighway
Utilities are also planning for the adoption of EVs in the HD sector with fleet advisory
services. An issue brief by the Alliance for Transportation Electrification and the Electrification
Coalition examined several utilities' fleet advisory services programs.30 These programs are
comprised of dedicated utility staff with a suite of tools and assistance offered by the electric
company that is designed to educate and enable fleet managers to make informed choices.
Ultimately, the programs help the utilities and fleets to work together and begin to think through
the best sites for any depot charging, allowing for any grid issues or concerns to be addressed
ahead of time. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1558-A1, p. 11]
30 https://electrificationcoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/FAS.White-
Paper.E.O.task_.force_.FINAL_.2.23.23.pdf
Finally, it should be noted that HD EVs can also be used to enhance grid resiliency and
reliability. In January 2023, the EC released a V2X Implementation Guide and Mutual Aid
Agreement Template that would encourage V2X-enabled EBS to be used as mobile power units
to enhance resilience during emergency response and disaster relief efforts.31 As ESB adoption
grows, it is highly likely we will see ESBs deployed in this manner. The report also outlines
reasons as to why ESBs represent a great use case for any grid resiliency efforts. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1558-A1, p. 11]
31 https://electrificationcoalition.org/resource/v2x/
1015
-------
The ATE Interconnection brief outlines some of the current challenges and opportunities with
the installation of HD EV charging infrastructure, including the three aspects of pre-planning,
energization and permitting.33 In terms of the pre-planning, using existing data and considering
states that have adopted the Advanced Clean Truck (ACT) rule, utilities should be approved to
move forward with the build out of HD EV charging infrastructure, and not need to wait for a
lengthy regulatory approval process. For example, the ICCT projects that 85% of the charging
needs for long-haul trucking in 2030 will be along the corridors of the National Highway Freight
Network.34 Of course, ratepayer advocate concerns must be taken into consideration but
balanced with the need for swift deployment of HD EV charging infrastructure if climate targets
and public health goals are to be achieved. The EC is also currently developing a set of practical
tools and policy solutions as well to speed the installation of HD EV charging infrastructure that
we would eagerly share in a meeting with EPA and DOE staff, when completed. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1558-A1, p. 12]
33 https://evtransportationalliance.org/publications/
34 https://theicct.org/publication/infrastructure-deployment-mhdv-may23/
Organization: Energy Strategy Coalition
III. Coalition members are investing in EV charging infrastructure
Members of this Coalition have begun making significant investments in the charging
infrastructure needed to support a growing number of electric heavy-duty trucks, vans, and
passenger cars. For example, NextEra Energy is pursuing a $650 million joint venture called
Greenlane with BlackRock Alternatives and Daimler Truck North America to design, develop,
install, and operate a nationwide charging and hydrogen fueling network for medium- and heavy-
duty vehicles. 19 Coalition members are also making significant investments in the charging
infrastructure for electric passenger cars and trucks:
• National Grid recently received approval for a $206 million initiative to enable up to
32,000 additional charging ports in Massachusetts.20
• The New York Power Authority will have up to 400 fast chargers installed or
in construction through its EVolve NY program by the end of 2025.21
• The Pacific Gas and Electric Company ("PG&E") has successfully installed through
March 2023 over 5,700 charging ports through its EV Charge Network, EV Fleet, EV
Fast Charge and EV Schools programs.22
• Austin Energy provides rebates of up to $1,200 and $4,000 for customers installing Level
2 charging stations at their homes and workplaces respectively.23
• The Sacramento Municipal Utility District ("SMUD") offers up to $1,000 toward
residential charging equipment and installation costs through its Charge@Home
program. 24
• Constellation Energy Corporation's venture arm (Constellation Technology Ventures, or
"CTV") has invested in portfolio companies focused on EV and charging
infrastructure.25 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1626-A1, pp. 4 - 5]
19 Introducing Greenlane: Daimler Truck North America, NextEra Energy Resources and BlackRock
Forge Ahead with Public Charging Infrastructure Joint Venture, NEXTERA ENERGY (Apr. 28, 2023),
https://newsroom.nexteraenergy.com/2023-04-28-Introducing-Greenlane-Daimler-Truck-North-America,-
1016
-------
NextEra-Energy-Resources-and-BlackRock-Forge-Ahead-with-Public-Charging-Infrastructure-Joint-
Venture.
20 NATIONAL GRID, ANNUAL REPORT AND ACCOUNTS 2022/23, at 30 (2023),
https://www.nationalgrid.com/document/149701/download.
21 Leading the Way in EV Infrastructure, EVOLVE NY, https://evolveny.nypa.gov/ (last visited June 9,
2023).
22 More information on PG&E's EV charging programs can be found at:
https://www.pge.com/en_US/small-medium-business/energy-alternatives/clean-vehicles/ev-charge-
network/electric-vehicle-charging/electric-vehicle-programs-and-resources.page.
23 Commercial Charging, AUSTIN ENERGY (last reviewed or modified July 8, 2022),
https://austinenergy.com/green-power/plug-in-austin/workplace-charging; Home Charging, AUSTIN
ENERGY (last reviewed or modified July 8, 2022), https://austinenergy.com/green-power/plug-in-
austin/home-charging.
24 Drive electric and save, SMUD, https://www.smud.org/en/Going-Green/Electric-Vehicles/Residential
(last visited June 9, 2023).
25 For instance, CTV invested in Qnovo, which offers a solution suite that uses advanced computation to
optimize the chemical reactions within lithium-ion batteries, resulting in faster charging, increased daily
run times, and longer battery lifetimes. See Constellation Technology Ventures,
https://www.constellationenergy.com/our-work/innovation-and-advancement/technology-ventures.html.
Coalition members are making these investments in part because of the benefits that EVs can
provide to grid reliability. EVs' primary near-term grid benefits stem from their enablement of
load shifting—whether from periods of higher load demand to periods of lower load demand, or
from periods of more carbon-intensive power generation to periods where more renewable
energy is available.26 Load shifting can involve both deferral (to avoid charging during periods
of peak load) and more targeted scheduling (to take advantage of periods of excess energy
supply).27 In addition to enhancing grid reliability, load shifting can also reduce customer
electricity rates, increase the value of renewable energy investments (by maximizing usage of
excess solar energy produced during the day), and mitigate the need for equipment upgrades
(e.g., increased storage capacity to accommodate excess solar energy).28 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1626-A1, pp. 5 - 6]
26 See TIMOTHY LIPMAN ET AL., CAL. ENERGY COMM'N, TOTAL CHARGE MANAGEMENT
OF ELECTRIC VEHICLES 5 (CEC-500-2021-055, Dec. 2021),
https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021-12/CEC-500-2021-055.pdf.
27 See id.
28 See Aligning Utilities and Electric Vehicles, for the Greater Grid, NAT'L RENEWABLE ENERGY
LAB'Y (Jan. 10, 2022), https://www.nrel.gov/news/program/2022/aligning-utilities-electric-vehicles-for-
greater-grid.html (citing Muhammad Bashar Anwar et al., Assessing the value of electric vehicle managed
charging: a review of methodologies and results, 15 ENERGY ENV'T SCI. 466 (2022)).
For example, PG&E has partnered with the BMW Group to explore ways to incentivize EV
drivers to shift their charging times to support grid reliability.29 This program—called
ChargeForward—first kicked off in 2015 and moved into its third phase in 2021.30 Building on
the success of the first two phases, phase three expanded the program's scope to 3,000 EV
drivers (from prior pilots of 100 and 400 drivers in phases one and two).31 Phase two of
ChargeForward demonstrated the ability to shift nearly 20% of charging from a particular hour to
another time and to shift up to 30% of charging to a particular hour.32 SMUD is also engaged in
1017
-------
a managed charging pilot program with BMW, Ford, and GM, and is planning to add Tesla
vehicles to the pilot as well, targeting participation of around 2,000 vehicles through
2024.33 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1626-A1, p. 6]
29 PG&E Corporate Sustainability Report 2022, PG&E CORPORATION 105 (2022),
https://www.pgecorp.com/corp_responsibility/reports/2022/assets/PGE_CSR_2022.pdf.
30 CLARION ENERGY CONTENT DIRECTORS, PG&E and BMW kick off 3rd phase of
ChargeForward for clean, smart EV charging, POWERGRID INTERNATIONAL (Mar. 23, 2021),
https://www.power-grid.com/der-grid-edge/pge-and-bmw-kick-off-3rd-phase-of-chargeforward-for-clean-
smart-ev-charging/#gref.
31 PG&E Corporate Sustainability Report 2022, PG&E CORPORATION 105 (2022),
https://www.pgecorp.eom/corp_responsibility/reports/2022/assets/PGE_CSR_2022.pdf.
32 See Timothy Lipman et al., Total Charge Management of Electric Vehicles, CALIFORNIA ENERGY
COMMISSION iii (CEC-500-2021-055, Dec. 2021), https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021-
12/CEC-500-202 l-055.pdf.
33 2030 Zero Carbon Plan Progress Report, SMUD 21 (Apr. 2023), https://www.smud.org/-
/media/Documents/Corporate/Environmental-Leadership/ZeroCarbon/2030-ZCP-Progress-Report—April-
2023_FINAL.ashx.
Coalition members are also exploring Vehicle-to-Grid ("V2G") technology, through which
EVs can send power back to load sources (e.g., homes) and the grid from their batteries. While
still in the early stages of development, V2G technology can offer reliability benefits by serving
as a grid resource during periods of peak demand.34 PG&E and BMW recently extended their
ChargeForward partnership until March 2026 and, as part of that program, will conduct a field
trial of V2G-enabled vehicles in order to explore their potential to increase grid reliability.35 In
addition, PG&E has announced vehicle-grid integration ("VGI") pilot programs with Ford36 and
General Motors to test the ability of EVs to provide backup power to homes.37 SMUD is also in
the process of conducting an electric school bus V2G demonstration project with the Twin
Rivers Unified School District.38 SMUD is planning to expand the program to additional school
districts and is also pursuing other projects to explore V2G capabilities for light-duty
EVs.39 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1626-A1, pp. 6 - 7]
34 See Value Assessment of DC Vehicle-to-Grid Capable Electric Vehicles: Analytical Framework and
Results, EPRI (May 24, 2023), https://www.epri.com/research/programs/053122/results/3002026772.
35 More Power To You: PG&E and BMW of North America Start V2X Testing in California, PG&E
CORPORATION (May 16, 2023), https://investor.pgecorp.com/news-events/press-releases/press-release-
details/2023/More-Power-To-You-PGE-and-BMW-of-North-America-Start-V2X-Testing-in-
California/default.aspx.
36 PG&E and Ford Collaborate on Bidirectional Electric Vehicle Charging Technology in Customers'
Homes (Mar. 11, 2022), https://investor.pgecorp.com/news-events/press-releases/press-release-
details/2022/PGE-and-Ford-Collaborate-on-Bidirectional-Electric-Vehicle-Charging-Technology-in-
Customers-Homes/default.aspx.
37 A. Vanrenen, PG&E and General Motors Collaborate on Pilot to Reimagine Use of Electric Vechiles as
Backup Power Sources For Customers (Mar. 8, 2022), https://www.pgecurrents.com/articles/3410-pg-e-
general-motors-collaborate-pilot-reimagine-use-electric-vehicles-backup-power-sources-customers.
38 2030 Zero Carbon Plan Progress Report, SMUD 22 (Apr. 2023), https://www.smud.org/-
/media/Documents/Corporate/Environmental-Leadership/ZeroCarbon/2030-ZCP-Progress-Report—April-
2023 FINAL.ashx.
1018
-------
39 Id.
IV. EPA should work closely with state and local partners to ensure deployment of the
resources and infrastructure needed to accelerate transportation electrification while maintaining
grid reliability
EPA's HDV Proposal will help support deployment of the charging and generation resources
needed to meet anticipated demand from vehicle electrification. Yet effective and efficient
deployment of these resources will require coordination among electric utilities, state public
utility commissions, and local governments to ensure loads from EVs are factored into long-
range resource planning and to permit distribution and transmission system upgrades and siting
of new generation and storage resources. To ensure these resources are deployed on the pace and
scale needed to support vehicle electrification and grid reliability, EPA should play a leadership
role in ensuring coordination occurs among relevant federal, state and local agenices to remove
barriers, emphasizing the benefits to the electricity grid, public health, and climate that will be
achieved as a result. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1626-A1, p. 7]
Organization: Environmental Defense Fund (EPF)
4. The benefits of bi-directional charging from buses should also be considered
EPA's rulemaking should consider the potential benefits of using school buses for bi-
directional charging. Electric school buses can function as large batteries to support the power
grid, providing energy to municipalities through the use of vehicle-to-grid (V2G) technologies.
According to WRI, at least 15 utilities across 14 states have committed to pilot electric school
bus V2G programs, which allow electricity to be stored in the bus batteries and later discharged
onto the grid. 128 The bus batteries' stored power "can help stabilize fluctuating energy
conditions, alleviate the need to start up additional power generation sources by shaving peak
energy needs and provide mobile emergency power to shelters and other essential facilities.
Because school buses operate on set daily schedules and often sit idle in the summer and during
portions of the school day when electricity demand is high, they are ideal for this purpose. The
power they can provide to the grid or buildings could offer revenue to help pay for the buses, a
win-win for schools and the utility or other entity using the electricity." 129 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 52]
128 Norma Hutchinson and Greggory Kresge, "3 Design Considerations for Electric School Bus Vehicle-
to-Grid Programs," World Resources Institute (February 14, 2022). https://www.wri.org/insights/electric-
school-bus-vehicle-grid-programs
129 Id.
b) The electric grid can support widespread HD ZEV adoption
The U.S. electric grid has provided reliable, cheap, instantaneous power to millions of homes
and businesses every second of every day for well over a century. For so many end uses,
electrification represents the cheapest and most attainable decarbonization pathway. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 65]
Growing the electric grid to meet increased demand is nothing new. Since 1960, about a third
of the year over year increases in state electricity sales have been higher than 5% with 7% of
those years having increases higher than 10% annual growth. 166 The compound annual growth
1019
-------
rate for the entire grid since 1960 is 2.8%. The total increase in electricity consumption as a
result of the proposed rule is expected to be 1.3%, less than half of the average annual increase
that has occurred since 1960. Research shows that, with planning, utilities will meet the demand
for additional electricity needed to charge our nation's fleet of heavy-duty vehicles, and those
vehicles may improve the reliability of the grid. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1,
p. 65] [See Figure 11 on p. 66 of Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1]
166 U.S. Energy Information Administration, EIA-861: Annual Electric Power Industry Report, 1960-
2021, https ://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/state/
EDF commissioned a report by Analysis Group to understand how the expected growth in
HDV charging will impact the grid and what processes are in place or need to be added to enable
the grid to meet the increased demand. 167 Their main findings include:
1. The overall magnitude of growth in demand that would result from EPA's proposed
rule is very small relative to historic periods of growth in the electric industry, and will
not pose a challenge from the perspectives of power system generation or transmission
infrastructure needs.
2. Charging station needs that may result from EPA's proposed rule range greatly in size
and location; most counties and utilities in the U.S. analyzed in ICCT's report will
likely not face new distribution system infrastructure needs due to charging load
different from past experience.
3. Some utilities will need to plan for the development of new distribution system
infrastructure to accommodate fairly large point sources of new charging station
demand.
4. Adding significant new distribution system infrastructure is not a new experience for
states, public utility commissions, or electric companies, and there are long-standing
policies and practices in place to process development of infrastructure needed to
ensure system reliability.
5. The need for a high level of certainty around the timely integration of charging
stations and associated distribution system infrastructure at the scale and speed needed
for HDV electrification warrants - and has already prompted - proactive action on
behalf of some states and utilities to engage and expand planning and regulatory
practices at the scale necessary to ensure timely readiness of the power system.
6. There are many emerging technologies, ratemaking practices, and distributed resource
solutions that have the potential to significantly and efficiently reduce the expected
impacts on distribution systems associated with vehicle electrification. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 66-67]
167 Paul Hibbard et al. Heavy Duty Vehicle Electrification: Planning for and Development of Needed
Power System Infrastructure. 2023. Analysis Group, https://blogs.edf.org/climate411/wp-
content/blogs.dir/7/files//Analysis-Group-HDV-Charging-Impacts-Report.pdf. Analysis Group,
https://blogs.edf.org/climate411/wp-content/blogs.dir/7/files//Analysis-Group-HDV-Charging-Impacts-
Report.pdf. (Attachment W).
1020
-------
Evolution of distribution systems to meet the potential increase in charging station demand
associated with EPA's proposed Phase 3 rule for HDVs is eminently achievable. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 67]
Additionally, they found that 83% of utility service territories would not see more than 5 MW
of increased load from HDV charging based on a study done by ICCT. The localized nature of
the expected growth of HDV charging demand presents unique challenges but also allows for
focused action. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 67]
ii. Robust solutions exist and are being implemented to ensure rapid interconnection and
widespread vehicle electrification
The main concern that has been raised by OEMs and other parties related to the grid is the
ability to build out infrastructure quickly enough to meet demand. 177 In addition to the existing
policies and practices around upgrading distribution systems that have served to build things like
data centers which have high load requirements, additional practices have been developed and
are being implemented in some areas to address specific challenges around HD ZEV
charging. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 68]
177 https://documents.dps.ny.gov/public/Common/ViewDoc.aspx?DocRefId={D05A8E88-0000-CE16-
8EA2-97D9432AAEE9}
These include practices and policies that maximize the existing grid capacity, proactively
building the grid, and updating planning procedures. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1,
p. 69]
By maximizing the existing grid capacity, fleet owners can transition to ZEVs without
requiring immediate grid upgrades allowing more time for utilities to build out infrastructures.
Techniques such as leveraging non-wires alternatives (managed charging, onsite storage and
generation, and energy efficiency programs) have had great success in minimizing the upgrades
required, and allowing for continued load growth while waiting for a necessary upstream grid
upgrade. One clear example of this is Con Edison' BQDM program which resulted in a 7-year
grid upgrade deferral. 178 A report by the Smart Electric Power Alliance (SEPA) found a wide
range of non-wires alternatives succeeded at enabling rapid interconnection and HDV
electrification. 179 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 69]
178 Coley Girouard. BQDM program demonstrates benefits of non-traditional utility investments. 2019.
Utility Dive, https://www.utilitydive.com/news/bqdm-program-demonstrates-benefits-of-non-traditional-
utility-investments/550110/
179 Brenda Chew et al. Non-Wires Alternatives: Case studies from leading U.S. projects. 2018, Smart
Electric Power Alliance, https://sepapower.org/resource/non-wires-alternatives-case-studies-from-leading-
u-s-projects/
Where fleets install managed charging software and/or onsite storage and solar generation to
minimize charging costs including demand charges, their net load can be significantly lower than
the utility-assigned capacity requirements for the site. To connect to the grid, they may be
required to undergo site and utility upgrades to provide significantly higher capacity than what is
actually needed and in some cases these solutions result in some sites never exceeding the
existing capacity on their site making the upgrades unnecessary. Flexible interconnection, where
customers agree to limit their peak load to a specified level below that of the cumulative
nameplate capacity of their equipment, is one solution to energize chargers while those grid
1021
-------
upgrades are ongoing. This mitigates any site and upstream grid upgrades in the short term in
exchange for early energization of their charging equipment, and can even lower long-term
upgrade needs. EPRI has shown the benefits of flexible interconnections for broader grid
decarbonization. 180 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 69]
180 Chris Warren. Can allowing curtailment speedup DER growth? EPRI Journal,
https://eprijournal.com/getting-flexible-about-interconnection/
States are working towards allowing utilities, with guardrails in place to protect ratepayers, to
proactively build the grid to need ahead of interconnection requests for new load, such as EV
charging. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 70]
There are legislative efforts that are paving the way for this solution. California's AB 2700,
which in addition calls for the collection of fleet electric vehicle deployment plans, also allows
for utilities to submit pro-active grid expansion proposals to the utility commission in areas with
identified future congestion using fleet deployment data. 181 SB 410 in California would take
this a step further, setting requirements for utilities to have their grid ready for interconnection
requests and calls for utilities to plan and evaluate potential grid impact of Advanced Clean
Fleets (ACF) and Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT) rules as well as submit plans to address
potential areas of congestion to meet energization timelines. This bill also requires utilities to
report interconnection requests and delays to better track progress and hold utilities
accountable. 182 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 70]
181 Transportation electrification: electricial distribution grid upgrades. AB2700. 2021-2022 Regular
Session, (California 2022) https://legiscan.com/CA/bill/AB2700/2021
182 Powering Up Californians Act, SB410, 2023-2024 Regular Session, (California, 2023)
https ://legiscan. com/C A/text/SB410/id/2813 946
Other states have also taken steps to ensure utilities are able to proactively build
infrastructure. New York senate bill S4830, which recently passed both houses of the New York
legislature, directs the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority
(NYSERDA) to identify the number and location of fleet charging zones and highway charging
hubs where significant demand from EV charging, including electric HDVs, is expected in line
with meeting state and federal transportation sector emissions regulations, and the associated
grid impact of that charging. 183 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 70]
183 Establishing a highway and depot charging action plan, Senate Bill S4830A, 2023-2024 Legislative
Session. (New York, 2023) https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2023/S4830
Efforts to update planning processes have also improved the ability for the grid to meet
demand from HDV charging. If utilities have accurate forecasts well in advance of when grid
needs arise, they can complete needed upgrades without as great of a need for mitigating
solutions like grid deferment and flexible interconnection. In a recent article, Southern California
Edison (SCE) emphasized the importance of planning for utilities: "On the forecasting and
planning side, utilities and energy system planners must adapt planning efforts to reflect
expected EV growth, including impacts from proposed and adopted policies and incentives. For
example, to account for the new developing needs of the Advanced Clean Cars II and Advanced
Clean Fleets policies in California, SCE and the other California investor-owned utilities were
recently approved to use higher forecasts for transportation electrification than previously
used." 184 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 70-71]
1022
-------
184 Pamela MacDougall and Katie Sloan, As the electric truck transition shifts into high gear, utilities must
lead the charge. 2022. Utility Dive, https://www.utilitydive.com/news/electric-truck-bus-ev-utilities-sce-
edison-edf/634214/
The New York Joint Utilities' Coordinated Grid Planning Process and California PUC's
Freight Infrastructure Planning Framework, both currently under development, also represent
examples of improved planning processes to enable accelerated HDV electrification and grid
interconnection. 185 186 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 71]
185 https://documents.dps.ny.gov/public/MatterManagement/CaseMaster.aspx?MatterCaseNo=20-e-
0197&CaseSearch=Search
186 Zero-Emissions Freight Infrastrucutre Planning. California Public Utilities Commission,
https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/industries-and-topics/electrical-energy/infrastructure/transportation-
electrification/freight-infrastructure-planning
iii. Upgrade costs for charging HD ZEVs can help more efficiently use the grid and drive
down costs
Large-scale electrification of medium- and heavy-duty vehicles will require grid upgrades,
largely at the distribution grid level, to support the added load from charging. But, research
shows that EVs can help strengthen the grid, and the costs of the needed upgrades can be covered
by the additional revenue from fleets charging without raising consumers' electricity
rates. 187 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 71]
187 Lucy Metz, Melissa Whited, Paul Rhodes and Ellen Carlson. Distribution System Investments to
Enable Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicle Electrification: A Case Study of New York, Synapse Energy
Economics, Inc., prepared for EDF. (April 2023). (Attachment X)
https://acrobat.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3Ab0fd0780-9882-3a25-9ef2-
f8c73bd80c92&viewer%21megaVerb=group-discover
According to electricity company executives, EVs can boost grid reliability. 188 EVs are
schedulable loads that typically charge off peak (at night). Utilities can encourage EV owners to
charge when and where they want, leading to more efficient use of existing grid
infrastructure. 189 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 72]
188 Tomlinson, Chris. "Will electric vehicles crash the Texas grid? It's not complicated." Houston
Chronicle (April 10, 2023).
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/columnists/tomlinson/article/electric-vehicles-ercot-grid-
reliabilty -17880578.php
189 Jennifer Chen. 2023. Leveraging Locational and Temporal Flexibility in Transportation Electrification
to Benefit Power Systems. Energy Systems Integration Group. https://www.esig.energy/leveraging-
locational-and-temporal-flexibility-in-transportation-electrification-to-benefit-power-sy stems/
EV charging can also finance and justify needed grid updates. Recent analysis conducted by
Synapse Energy Economics for EDF finds that if U.S. utilities rate-base the cost of infrastructure
upgrades needed for fleet charging, the utilities will see increased revenue without the need to
raise consumers' electricity rates. 190 The analysis used two New York State utilities as case
studies and found that if utilities cover the "make-ready" cost for both private and municipal
medium- and heavy-duty fleets at the pace necessary for 100 percent electrification by 2045, the
investment will pay off for utilities and have a positive to neutral impact on ratepayers in both
utility service areas. The analysis' findings are applicable beyond New York to states across the
country due to the varying grid costs, geography and electricity demand profiles of the utilities
1023
-------
studied. Con Edison primarily serves New York City, while National Grid provides electricity to
portions of upstate New York. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 72]
190 Metz et al Distribution System Investments to Enable Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicle
Electrification: (April 2023).
The study finds that if fleets are assumed to engage in modest managed charging (shifting
charging times by only two hours at night), Con Edison's make-ready program could generate
$690 million in net revenue between 2023-2045, while National Grid's program could generate
$89 million in the same time period. Even without managed charging, investing in make-ready
programs was shown to have a positive to neutral impact on ratepayers in both utility service
areas. As more fleets are incentivized to plug in - and therefore spend more of their
operating budget on electricity and less on diesel - utilities can invest a portion of that revenue on
grid upgrades elsewhere that would have otherwise been paid for by all ratepayers. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 72-73]
iv. Managed charging represents an opportunity for fleet owners to reduce their costs and to
increase grid benefits from HDV electrification
Medium- and heavy-duty fleets can experience short but high energy demand events that can
significantly increase their grid impact and energy bills. When these fleets go beyond merely
managing charging to leveraging onsite distributed energy resources (DERs) such as solar and
battery storage, they can benefit from an even more powerful lever for reducing charging costs.
A GNA study examined two types of clean DERs: on-site solar panels and batteries. When
combined with managed charging, DERs produced additional annual electric savings of
$625,000 (Schneider) and $835,000 (NFI) for fleets of 40-50 electric HDVs. Moreover, managed
charging and DERs together reduced annual on-peak load by 611 kW for the Schneider fleet and
4 MW for the NFI fleet. 191 Thus, such techniques would not only reduce costs for the truck
companies, but the utility and ratepayers as a whole as well owing to the reduced need for grid
buildout. If scaled to all trucks in a utility's territory, these load reductions could drastically
decrease the amount of grid upgrades needed to accommodate electric fleets. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 73]
191 Gladstein, Neandross & Associates, California Heavy-Duty Fleet Electrification Summary Report,
March 2021, http://blogs.edf.org/energyexchange/files/2021/03/EDF-GNA-Final-March-2021.pdf
Gladstein, Neandross & Associates, California Heavy-Duty Fleet Electrification Summary Report, March
2021, http://blogs.edf.org/energyexchange/files/2021/03/EDF-GNA-Final-March-2021.pdf. (Attachment
Y)
A recent New Jersey study evaluated the statewide grid impact of meeting ACT, as well as the
grid savings when implementing managed charging and utilizing on-site solar and storage for all
Class 3-7 vehicles in the state. Avoided peak load ranges from -8,400 MW for managed
charging, to -10,000 MW for managed charging with solar + battery. Total avoided
infrastructure costs are between $320 million and $1.80 billion for managed charging, and
between $382 million and $2.15 billion for managed charging with solar + battery. 192 [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985- 1644-A1, p. 73-74]
192 Jeffery Greenblatt. New Jersey Medium Duty Fleet Electrification Infrastructure Summary Report.
2022. Emerging Futures,
https://blogs.edf.org/energyexchange/files/2022/05/New_Jersey_Medium_Duty_Fleet_Elecrtification_Infra
structure_Summary_Report.pdf Emerging Futures,
1024
-------
https://blogs.edf.org/energyexchange/files/2022/05/New_Jersey_Medium_Duty_Fleet_Elecrtification_Infra
structure_Summary_Report.pdf (Attachment Z)
Furthermore, these largely avoided infrastructure costs are sure to be an underestimate for
HDV electrification as a whole for the state since they do not account for the benefits of
electrifying Class 8 vehicles with managed charging or managed charging with solar +
battery. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 74]
The flexibility associated with vehicle charging is also extremely valuable to the grid
operator. A study by the Midwest ISO shows the untapped potential of EV load flexibility as a
DER resource in the wholesale markets. This study evaluated the impact of expected
electrification of both MHDVs as well as LDVs in the MISO footprint. A key factor in this study
was determining the potential flexibility of these vehicles when applying managed and
bidirectional charging tactics to mitigate ramp and peak load. It showed that at any given hour
this additional load can provide a minimum of 10 GW of combined ramp up capacity and just
under 10 GW of ramp down or generation capacity using the flexibility of EV charging alone. To
reiterate, this ramp capacity was based on vehicle charging alone and would be even greater if
combined with other on-site DERs.193 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 74]
193 Greenblatt, Jeff and Margaret McCall, Exploring enhanced load flexibility from grid-connected electric
vehicles on the Midcontinent Independent System Operator grid (Feb. 2021), available at
https://cdn.misoenergy.org/Exploring%20enhanced%201oad%20flexibility%20from%20grid%20connected
%20EVs%20on%20MISO%20grid543291
Of critical importance, this load flexibility also comes at a fraction of the cost of traditional
fixed battery storage. A study by Lawrence Berkeley National Lab shows that managed charging
of EVs—modulating when and at what rate the EVs are charged— can provide reliable storage
at approximately a tenth of the cost of equivalent storage provided by single-purpose, stationary
batteries. When scaled to California's projected 1.5 million light-duty EVs by 2025, the storage
potential of managed charging alone is 1 GW, resulting in savings of approximately $1
billion compared to investments needed for equivalent stationary storage. This number also does
not include the thousands of MHDVs such as buses and trucks expected to be electrified in the
near future. 194 By leveraging the flexibility of newly electrified resources, stakeholders can
significantly reduce grid management costs ultimately, resulting in savings for end-customers
and mitigating grid upgrade needs, further supporting accelerated HDV electrification. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 74-75]
194 Jonathan Coignard et al., Clean vehicles as an enabler for a clean electricity grid, 13 Environmental
Research Letters 54031 (2018).
Organization: International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT)
Utilities have many options to provide timely delivery of grid capacity to support these
charging needs. ICCT has identified actions that (1) require no regulatory approval or pre-
authorization (2) require regulator consent or notification, or (3) require regulatory approval or
state legislation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1553-A1, p. 12]
Utilities have the greatest flexibility to meet charging infrastructure needs in a timely fashion
when actions can be taken without regulator notification or approval. These actions include
short-term load rebalancing, the use of non-firm distribution capacity, the incorporation of smart
charging into feeder ratings and load forecasting, the deployment of temporary distribution,
1025
-------
generation and storage, and public-private partnerships that allow for third-party funding, design,
and construction of infrastructure. This list is not comprehensive but demonstrates that options
do exist for utilities to meet the most acute needs of fleets. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1553-A1,
p. 12]
As the trend toward truck electrification grows, utilities will need to take actions to adapt to a
new market environment in their service area. Any adaptation in programs and planning will
require the notification, if not consent, of state regulatory agencies. For example, utility
regulators can consent to periodic adjustments to transportation electrification programs to better
respond to market trends. Utilities can also request consent to explicitly incorporate
transportation electrification load forecasts into their distribution system planning and related
investments. These modifications to existing programs and planning processes reflect the type of
adaptation most utilities serving freight zones will need to perform. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1553-A1, p. 12]
Finally, utilities may need to take certain actions that increase their responsiveness to freight
charging needs beyond what state utility regulation permits them to do. For example,
authorization to pre-build distribution capacity infrastructure in 'no-regrets' freight zones will
require either state legislation or explicit regulation where it does not already exist. Examples of
such policies under development in California include SB410 passed by the California State
Senate on 25 May 2023.(Powering Up Californians Act, n.d.) Another example includes the
Zero-Emissions Freight Infrastructure Planning proposal made by the staff of the California
Public Utilities Commission on 22 May 2023. (Gruendling, 2023.) Similar examples exist in
New York State, including a new proceeding opened by the New York Public Service
Commission to address barriers to Medium- and Heavy-Duty Charging Infrastructure.4 [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1553-A1, p. 12]
4 https://documents.dps.ny.gov/public/MatterManagement/CaseMaster.aspx?MatterCaseNo=23-E-
0070&CaseSearch=Search
Power Up Californians Act. Retrieved June 15, 2023, from https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB410/id/2813946
Gruendling, P. (2023). Freight Infrastructure Planning. California Public Utilities Commission.
https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/industries-and-topics/electrical-
energy/infrastructure/transportationelectrification/freight-infrastructure-planning
In response to EPA's request for comment on how to engage infrastructure stakeholders, we
suggest EPA consider infrastructure needs tbroadly, starting from the transmission grid and
downstream to the charger that connects to the vehicle. Many players exist in each segment of
this chain. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1553-A1, p. 12]
Key stakeholders include electric utilities (IOU, POU, NRECA, EPRI), EVSE manufacturers,
CharIN (MCS), CPO (Charge Point Operators/Network Service Providers), Bundled Service
Providers (charging-as-a-service, trucking-as-a-service), public charging hub owner/operators
(such as the Daimler/NextEra/Blackrock JV, WattEV, Terawatt, bp Pulse, etc),
engineering/construction firms (Black & Veatch, Burns MacDonnell, Schneider Electric, etc),
fleets (including NACFE) and depot owners. EPA can engage these stakeholders individually
and facilitate dialogue across these groups to support the data collection, planning, and
coordinated deployment to support the objectives of the greenhouse gas standards. A regular
meeting, such as an annual summit, is one strategy EPA could use to gather information on
1026
-------
challenges and solutions in the zero-emission vehicle transition. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1553-A1, p. 12]
While EPA does not have jurisdictional authority over electric utilities, interagency
collaboration with the Department of Energy, Department of Transportation, and the Joint Office
of Energy and Transportation would ensure EPA has a voice in federal infrastructure policy these
other agencies may be responsible for developing. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1553-A1, p. 12]
Organization: MEMA
EPA appears to be over optimistic with regard to both electricity generation growth and wide
dispersal needed to assure charging across the roads of the U.S. Similarly, many heavy trucks
must operate off road away from infrastructure. Today they are capable of doing this, as fuel can
be topped-off before leaving the road or brought to the job site. EVs do not have this luxury and
would require a large generator to replicate this scenario, which would be counterproductive.
Oversizing a fuel tank is a cost-effective way to guarantee sufficient energy for asset flexibility
across the full range of applications and locations. Oversizing batteries or pressurized hydrogen
tanks is more costly. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1570-A1, p. 8]
Opportunity to Build a Resilient and Sustainable EV Infrastructure
The American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI) has released a study' on the
challenges facing the U.S. infrastructure for EV, which we urge the EPA to incorporate
alongside the other ATRI studies noted in the DRIA. It projects significant grid expansion is
needed in each state if all vehicle applications are electrified; see Appendix 3. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1570-A1, p. 9]
7 https://truckingresearch.org/2022/12/new-atri-research-evaluates-charging-infrastructure-challenges-for-
the-us-electric-vehicle-fleet/
Organization: Missouri Farm Bureau (MOFB)
Further, MOFB is greatly concerned that the proposed rule contains zero language regarding
what impact it will have on the severely aged and inadequate electric grid. In 2020, the U.S.
experienced 180 major electrical disruptions, up from fewer than two dozen in 2000.9 In this
proposed rule, EPA fails to illustrate how electricity will actually be delivered to thousands of
new charging stations that will be built in the near future, and what impact this action will have
upon every other aspect of our lives, much of which relies on the constant delivery of
electricity. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1584-A1, p. 2]
9 America's Power Grid Is Increasingly Unreliable - WSJ, accessed June 14, 2023.
In addition, but not separable from this conversation, MOFB is especially concerned with the
future buildout of electric transmission lines that will be needed to carry the proposed rule's
mandates into fruition. Unfortunately, and all too often, farmers and ranchers hear others say that
their land is needed for the 'public's benefit.' Government agencies and renewable energy
advocates often forget that farmers and ranchers are part of the 'public' as well, and need to be
fairly compensated for the continued buildout of transmission lines through their private property
which will take away the critical farm and ranch land necessary to run their businesses for
generations to come. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1584-A1, p. 3]
1027
-------
Organization: Moving Forward Network (MFN) et al.
7.2. The ability of electric trucks to reduce emissions compared to diesel vehicles
The benefits of an electric drayage truck compared to its diesel-powered equivalent
change between today and 2035 based predominantly on the improvement in the electric grid.
Figure 4 shows the relative greenhouse gas emissions benefits resulting from the two
different timeframes. Figure 5 shows the relative public health impact, as indicated by the Public
Health Score defined earlier through aggregated mortality. While today's diesel vehicles are
the benchmark for the public health scores, the 2035 diesel truck public health score in Figure 5
reflects a Phase 2 diesel truck meeting the 2027 NO X and PM 2.5 standards finalized last year.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 44]
Electric trucks powered by electricity supplied from the U.S. grid production average today
would lead to more than a two-thirds reduction in greenhouse gas emissions compared to their
diesel counterpart. By 2035, under a scenario consistent with the administration's goals for the
power sector and analysis of what is needed to decarbonize by 2050, that achieves a 95 percent
reduction compared to diesel. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 44]
However, the story is more complicated when it comes to public health impacts. It
underscores the tremendous importance of eliminating fossil fuels across the electricity sector
and in transportation. 102 On average, an electric drayage truck powered by today's grid would
reduce premature deaths by nearly 57 percent compared with current diesel trucks. Nearly all
regional electricity grids, covering 97 percent of the U.S. population, result in net benefits today.
However, there are some subregions where, if the average grid powered the truck, an electric
truck could lead to more net harm as the result of substantial particulate emissions from fossil
fuel power: in Alaska, diesel generators continue to be utilized in remote areas, especially as a
backup source to hydropower, and make up more than one-quarter of generation in the AKMS
subregion and 10 percent of generation in the AKGD subregion; in Hawaii (HIOA and HIMS
subregions), while there has been significant growth in both rooftop and utility-scale solar
power, more than two-thirds of grid-supplied electricity in the state comes from petroleum power
plants; and in rural Missouri/Illinois (SRMW subregion), approximately two-thirds of the grid
remains coal-powered. 103 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 44] [Refer to Figure 4,
Greenhouse gas emissions reductions for an electric drayage truck compared to a diesel drayage
truck on p. 45 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-202-1608-A1.] [Refer to Figure 5, Public health
impact for an electric drayage truck compared to a diesel drayage truck on p. 46 of docket
number EPA-HQ-OAR-202-1608-A1.]
102 See footnote 7. An electric truck is not inherently a zero emission vehicle (ZEV) - zero-emission
solutions must minimize impacts when accounting for upstream and downstream impacts. If the full
lifecycle is not considered, we risk trading pollution for more pollution, and the same frontline and
fenceline communities are left to suffer.
103 All current values come from EPA's eGRID 2021 dataset, the most recent available. It is worth noting,
however, that this dataset excludes net metered, distributed solar production (i.e. it only reflects utility-
delivered electricity).
By 2035, an electric truck would have public health benefits compared to today's diesel
everywhere, even when powered by the average grid. In the country's most remote areas, where
petroleum and diesel power is expected to remain a significant share of the grid, electric trucks
1028
-------
may continue to have unhealthy public health impacts. However, it is unlikely that such a grid
would be used to fuel electric trucks given the high cost of fossil power in this instance, so it is
more probable that electric trucks would accelerate the adoption of cleaner energy sources to
augment the renewable energy in the Alaskan and Hawaiian grids and/or be preferentially
charged on more renewable sources than the average grid in such a future. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 46]
Importantly, the difference in time for the two grids is short enough to be within the
anticipated lifespan of a given truck—any electric truck sold today is still likely to be on the road
in 2035. Unlike a combustion vehicle, which gets dirtier over time due to aging of emissions
controls, mal-maintenance, and tampering, electric trucks get cleaner over the vehicle's lifespan
as the grid continues to incorporate more renewable sources of electricity. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1608-A1, p. 47]
In addition, the California Senate recently voted 32-to-8 to advance new legislation (Senate
Bill 410, "Powering Up Californians Act") that builds upon existing law to accelerate short-term
energization timelines for EV charging and to ensure timely grid investments needed to electrify
"light-duty, medium-duty, and heavy-duty vehicles and off-road vehicles, vessels, trains, and
equipment" consistent with state law requiring economy-wide carbon neutrality by 2045, and
"federal, state, regional, and local air quality and decarbonization standards, plans, and
regulations." 241 The legislation also establishes a balancing account to recover associated costs,
which would ensure Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) and San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) do
not have to wait several years for their next General Rate Cases to propose investments such as
those recently proposed by SCE (and it would also allow SCE to propose subsequent investments
before its next rate case that could not be predicted when its current rate case was filed). [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 109]
241 California Senate Bill 410. (2023).
https://leginfo.legislatures. gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB410
Grid operators around the country are also beginning to incorporate EV planning into existing
planning structures. For example, the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission has shifted
investor-owned utility transportation electrification planning and reporting requirements to the
integrated distribution planning process to account for increasing linkages between EV planning
and distribution system planning. 242 Incorporating robust EV planning in existing planning
structures can help ensure those processes account for EV adoption, even where the utility
business units responsible for those areas of planning may be distinct. Furthermore, combined
planning processes can create administrative efficiencies that help expedite time-sensitive
planning needs. On the transmission planning side, regional grid operators, such as the
Midcontinent Independent System Operator, have already begun to think about how
transportation electrification will affect total energy needs and the timing of annual peaks in
electricity demand. 243 Strong vehicle standards give grid operators a reliable EV forecast
against which to plan in processes that are already underway. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-
Al, p. 109]
242 Minnesota Public Utilities Commission ORDER. (December 8, 2022). I n the Matter of a Commission
Inquiry into Electric Vehicle Charging and Infrastructure (Docket No. E999/CI-17-879), In the Matter of
Minnesota Power's 2021 Integrated Distribution System Plan (Docket No. M-21-390), In the matter of
Distribution System Planning for Otter Tail Power Company (Docket No. 21-612), In the matter of Xcel
Energy's 2021 Integrated Distribution System Plan (Docket No. (21-694).
1029
-------
https://www.edockets.state.mn.us/edockets/searchDocuments.do?method=showPoup&documentId={30E7
F284-0000-C810-9E0 A-266C1B8B4815 }&documentTitle=202212-191192-01
243 MISO Electrification Insights. (April 2021).
https://cdn.misoenergy.org/Electrification%20Insights538860.pdf.
12.4. EPA's Conclusion that HDV Charging Will Not Compromise the Reliability of the
Electric Grid is Supported by Empirical Data
EPA observes HDV charging is not anticipated to impact electric grid reliability adversely:
U.S. electric power utilities routinely upgrade the nation's electric power system to improve
grid reliability and to meet new electric power demands. For example, when confronted with
rapid adoption of air conditioners in the 1960s and 1970s, U.S. electric power utilities
successfully met the new demand for electricity by planning and building upgrades to the electric
power distribution system. Likewise, U.S. electric power utilities planned and built distribution
system upgrades required to service the rapid growth of power-intensive data centers and server
farms over the past two decades. U.S. electric power utilities have already successfully designed
and built the distribution system infrastructure required for 1.4 million battery electric vehicles.
Utilities have also successfully integrated 46.1 GW of new utility-scale electric generating
capacity into the grid. 245 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 110]
245 88 FR 25983
And:
Our assessment is that grid reliability is not expected to be adversely affected by the modest
increase in electricity demand associated with HD BEV charging and thus was not considered to
be a constraining consideration. 246 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. Ill]
246 88 FR 26003.
These conclusions are supported by empirical evidence from California, which already has
more than 1.3 million EVs on the road. While some pundits have claimed EV charging is already
straining the grid, triggering the need for service disruptions, those claims have been debunked.
247 And root cause analysis from the California Independent System Operator (California ISO)
showed that EVs are not what has strained the grid. 248 Indeed, empirical evidence shows that
EV charging has been accommodated with minimal required grid upgrades and that EV charging
can be shifted to hours of the day when there is plenty of spare grid capacity. Since 2011, the
California Public Utilities Commission has required the utilities it regulates to report annually on
costs associated with accommodating EV charging and on the charging patterns of EVs on
different utility rates. 249 While the vast majority of those EVs are passenger vehicles, the real-
world data on charging patterns and associated grid impacts gathered by the largest utilities in
the state is still relevant, especially considering that the "Level 2" equipment used to charge
those passenger vehicles is the same equipment that is used to meet the daily charging needs of
most of the categories of vehicles subject to the Proposed Rule. As summarized by Synapse
Energy Economics, utility grid upgrades required to accommodate EV charging to this point in
those service territories are essentially rounding errors compared to the costs of maintaining the
electrical grid:
Even in the service territories with the most EVs of any, the observed costs have been minor.
For instance, in California where EV adoption has been markedly higher than other states, EV-
1030
-------
related distribution upgrade costs appear minor compared to total distribution costs. Despite the
fact EVs are often more concentrated in many neighborhoods and distribution circuits, California
utilities collectively spent less than 0.03% of their total distribution-related expenses on
distribution system upgrades associated with residential EV adoption. 250 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1608-A1, p. Ill - 112]
247 Dustin Gardiner. No, Newsom's push for electric cars isn't the cause of potential blackouts in
California. San Francisco Chronicle. (Sep. 7, 2022). https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/No-
Newsom-s-push-for-electric-cars-isn-t-the-17426102.php.
248 California ISO. Root Cause Analysis: Mid-August 2020 Extreme Heat Waive. (January 13, 2021).
http://www.caiso.com/Documents/Final-Root-Cause-Analysis-Mid-August-2020-Extreme-Heat-Wave.pdf.
249 Alliance for Automotive Innovation. Electric Vehicle Sales Dashboard.
https://www.autosinnovate.org/resources/electric-vehicle-sales-dashboard; Joint IOU Electric Vehicle Load
Research and Charging Infrastructure Cost Report 10th Report, Filed on March 31, 2022, available at:
https://www.cpuc.ca.gOv/-/media/cpuc-website/divisions/energy-division/documents/transportation-
electrification/10th-joint-iou-ev-load-report-mar-2022.pdf (Last accessed: May 30, 2023).
250 Melissa Whited, Tyler Fitch, Jason Frost, Eric Borden, Courtney Lane, Ben Havumaki Sarah
Shenstone- Harris, and Elijah Sinclair. Electric Vehicles Are Driving Rates Down. (June 2023).
https ://www. synapse-
energy.com/sites/default/files/Electric%20Vehicles%20Are%20Driving%20Rates%20Down%20Factsheet.
pdf
And costs associated with integrating both light- and heavy-duty EV charging onto the grid
can also be minimized with effective load management programs, as described immediately
below. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 112]
12.5. Time-of-Use Electric Rates Are Extremely Effective at Pushing EV Charging to Hours
of the Day When there is Plenty of Spare Grid Capacity
Real-world data from hundreds of thousands of EVs reveals that time-of-use (TOU)
electricity rates work. At the time the data described below was collected, SCE estimated there
were 329,940 EVs in its service territory (through December 31, 2021). 251 Figure 32 shows the
load profile of households in SCE territory with EVs, with a readily discernible uptick in
electricity demand after 9PM (when the on-peak period ends on the time-of-use rates) as a result
of EV charging that increases until just before midnight and trails off in the early morning hours
as those EVs complete their charging. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 112.] [See Figure
32 Load Profile of Households with EVs on a TOU Rate in SCE Territory located on p. 113 of
docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1.]
251 Joint IOU Electric Vehicle Load Research and Charging Infrastructure Cost Report 10th Report. Filed
on March 31, 2022. https://www.cpuc.ca.gOv/-/media/cpuc-website/divisions/energy -
division/documents/transportation-electrification/10th-joint-iou-ev-load-report-mar-2022.pdf
252 Id.
The impact of TOU rates is even more self-evident in Figure 33, which isolates EVs on
separate meters, demonstrating that EVs charge almost exclusively after 9 PM on that TOU
rate. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1. p. 113.] [See Figure 33 Load Profile of EVs on a
Separately Metered TOU Rate in SCE Territory located on p. 114 of docket number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1.]
1031
-------
253 Id.
The figures above represent real-world data collected from hundreds of thousands of
households with EVs. There is no need to test the proposition that simple TOU rates designed for
EVs work. If they work for LDVs parked at home for long periods of time, they should also
work for HDVs parked at depots, homes, or other locations for long periods of time. Given EPA
expects the vast majority of charging for the HD EVs contemplated in its Proposed Rule will
occur at depots and other locations where EVs are typically parked for long periods of time,
often overnight, the real-world data described above remains relevant. And TOU rates are often
the default option for commercial and industrial customers in the U.S. (whereas residential
customers typically need to opt-into a TOU rate), and commercial and industrial customers are
generally more sensitive to price signals than residential customers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1608-A1, p. 114]
The combination of TOU rates and more active means of managing EV charging can yield
even greater benefits. Researchers from NRDC, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and
Pacific Gas & Electric found that well-designed TOU rates could allow the utility's system to
accommodate universal light-duty EV adoption with minimal associated costs. 254 This peer-
reviewed study used real-world data on the distribution grid and EVs to simulate what would
happen if every household in a major metro area had an EV and found that, if just 30 percent of
light-duty EVs were on TOU rates, the required grid upgrades were reduced by a factor of four
and that more comprehensive load management could essentially prevent all otherwise necessary
grid upgrades. 255 The potential impacts of generally higher-powered HD EV charging, some of
which may need to occur during hours when overall demand for electricity is greater, could be
more extensive, but the demonstrated efficacy of TOU rates and other load management
strategies is still relevant. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, pp. 114 - 115]
254 Jonathan Coignard et al. Will Electric Vehicles Drive Distribution Grid Upgrades?: The Case of
California. 7 IEEE 2. (June 5, 2019). p. 46-56
255 Id.
12.6. EVs Can Lower the Cost of Managing an Increasingly Dynamic Electric Grid
Researchers from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory estimate that using smart charging
of light-duty EVs as a means to comply with California's energy storage procurement mandate
(designed to facilitate the integration of renewable energy) would save utility customers $1.5
billion because it is cheaper to use batteries customers have already purchased on four wheels
than it is to pay private companies to deploy standalone battery storage. 256 The same study also
found enabling so-called "vehicle-to-grid" (V2G) technology, allowing EVs to supply power
back to the grid during times of stress, could save $13-15 billion in stationary battery costs. 257
"By displacing the need for construction of new stationary grid storage, EVs can provide the dual
benefit of decarbonizing transportation while lowering the capital costs for widespread
renewables integration," the researchers concluded. 258 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1,
p. 115]
256 Jonathan Coignard, Samveg Saxena, Jeffery Greenblatt, and Dai Wang. Clean Vehicles as an Enabler
for a Clean Electricity Grid. Environmental Research Letters. V. 13, No. 5. (May 2018).
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aabe97. (last checked September 14, 2022).
257 Id.
1032
-------
258 Id.
Focusing on the Midwest to underscore the point, researchers conclude very high levels of
renewable energy penetration in the Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO) region
could result in "negative valleys" (requiring excess renewable energy to be exported or curtailed)
but "[controlled (EV) charging (both smart charging and smart discharging back onto the grid)
is able to reduce these negative valleys, and with sufficient numbers of EVs can eliminate them
altogether, obviating the need for either export of excess renewable generation or curtailment."
259 This would provide both increased environmental benefits by facilitating the integration of
high levels of renewable generation and significant customer benefits. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1608-A1, p. 115]
259 Jeffery Greenblatt, Cong Zhang, Samveg Saxena. Quantifying the Potential of Electric Vehicles to
Provide Electric Grid Benefits in the MISO Area: Final report to the Midcontinent Independent System
Operators. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
https://cdn.misoenergy.org/QuantiIying%20the%20Potential%20of%20Electric%20Vehicles%20to%20Pro
vide%20Electric%20Grid%20Benefits%20in%20the%20MISO%20Area354192.pdf. (last checked
September 14, 2022).
Put simply, it is cheaper to pay individual utility customers to use batteries on wheels they
have already bought-and-paid-for than it is to pay corporations to buy big batteries and park
them on the grid. And that simple proposition holds true for both individual passenger vehicle
drivers and for fleet managers whose HD EVs have even bigger batteries and higher power
intake and output potential (meaning they can potentially both absorb more excess renewable
energy when available and put more power back onto the grid when needed). [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1608-A1, pp. 115 - 116]
Moreover, the revenues from participating in vehicle-grid integration programs and markets
can create value streams that reduce the total cost of ownership of EVs for the driver or fleet
operator. HD EVs have a variety of duty cycles and vehicle characteristics, including battery size
and charging power. A particular vehicle segment or vocation may be better suited to providing
power or other grid services than others. The California Joint Agencies Vehicle-Grid Integration
Working Group found that a large number of vehicle use cases could provide value now in a
variety of different vehicle-grid integration applications, including V2G applications. 260 [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 116]
260 Final Report of the California Joint Agencies Vehicle-Grid Integration Working Group. (June 30,
2020). https://gridworks.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/GW_VehicleGrid-Integration-Working-
Group.pdf
While many types of HD EVs could potentially provide V2G services, school buses are
already doing so in the real world. They have defined duty-cycles during the school year that
include significant portions of the day when they are sitting idle while solar generation peaks in
the afternoon and when wind generation often peaks overnight. In the summer months, they can
often be fully dedicated to providing energy storage and grid services. Many V2G school bus
demonstration projects have been conducted or are in progress. A pair of early examples in
California demonstrates how different approaches to power export can create revenue streams for
school districts or school bus operators and support the grid in the process. A project in Torrance
Unified School District uses energy stored in two electric school buses to power on-site electrical
loads. This behind-the-meter solution saved the school district about $10,000 per year, by
reducing power usage and demand charges. 261 A project in Rialto Unified School District is
1033
-------
taking a different approach, using a front-of-the-meter grid interconnection to allow eight electric
buses to generate revenue by participating as a distributed energy resource in the CAISO market.
262 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 116]
261 Nicole Schlosser. California district to receive first electric school bus in conversion project. (July 14,
2015). https://www.schoolbusfleet.eom/10042977/california-district-to-receive-first-electric-school-bus-in-
conversion-project; Kevin Matthews. V2B Background on EV V2G School Bus Demonstration Programs
CEC Workshop on V2B for Resilient Backup Power. (January 2021).
https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/getdocument. aspx?tn=236550
262 Kuba Szczypiorski. Blue Bird Electric School Bus. (Nd).
https://cleanairnortheast.epa.gov/pdf/v2g/blue-bird-electric-bus-k-szczypiorski.pdf
Dominion Energy in Virginia has the largest electric school bus V2G program in the country.
263 In 2020, the utility program already had 50 electric school buses on the road. To date, the
program has tested and verified V2G functionality on one bus and is deploying and testing
firmware capability on the balance of the 50 bus fleet. 264 Over time, the program is designed
to scale to 1,000 buses that will be able to provide 105 megawatt-hours of energy storage,
enough to power 10,000 homes. 265 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, pp. 116 - 117]
263 Dominion Energy. Electric School Buses. Dominion Energy.
https://www.dominionenergy.com/virginia/save-energy/electric-school-buses. (Last accessed: September
21, 2022).
264 DISTRIBUTECH International Conference. Insights from the Nations Largest V2G Electric School
Bus Pilot. (February 7, 2023). slide 18. https://www.distributech.com/2023-distributech-international-
conference-sessions/insights-from-the-nations-largest-v2g-electric-school-bus-pilot
265 Dominion Energy. Dominion Energy moves forward with electric school bus program. Dominion
Energy. (2020). https://news.dominionenergy.com/2020-01-16-Dominion-Energy-Moves-Forward-with-
Electric-School-Bus-Program; PJM Inside Lines. V2G Hits the Big Time with Dominion Electric School
Bus Project. PJM Inside Lines. (2019). https://insidelines.pjm.com/dominion-to-roll-out-largest-electric-
school-bus-deployment-in-u-s/
Organization: National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA)
EPA also requests comment on the readiness of ZEV charging and refueling infrastructure.
Specifically, EPA writes in the proposal that'. . .important early actions and market indicators
suggest strong growth in charging and refueling ZEV infrastructure in the coming years.
Furthermore, as described in Section II of this document, our analysis of charging infrastructure
needs and costs supports the feasibility of the future growth of ZEV technology of the magnitude
EPA is projecting in this proposal's technology package. EPA has heard from some
representatives from the heavy-duty vehicle manufacturing industry both optimism regarding the
heavy-duty industry's ability to produce ZEV technologies in future years at high volume, but
also concern that a slow growth in ZEV charging and refueling infrastructure can slow the
growth of heavy-duty ZEV adoption, and that this may present challenges for vehicle
manufacturers ability to comply with future EPA GHG standards. Several heavy-duty vehicle
manufacturers have encouraged EPA to consider ways to address this concern both in the
development of the Phase 3 program, and in the structure of the Phase 3 program itself. EPA
requests comment on this concern, both in the Phase 3 rulemaking process, and in consideration
of whether EPA should consider undertaking any future actions related to the Phase 3 standards,
1034
-------
if finalized, with respect to the future growth of the charging and refueling infrastructure for
ZEVs.' 16 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1499-A1, p. 6]
16 Supra note 1, at 25,934
For reasons we explain earlier in these comments, NACAA does not share the concerns
expressed by some representatives of the heavy-duty vehicle manufacturing industry about the
ability of electric utilities and/or charging equipment and service providers to continuously meet
the incremental rollout needs for ZEV charging and refueling infrastructure. NACAA firmly
opposes an 'off-ramp' from the standards or any similar measure. Likewise, anything akin to a
mid-term evaluation is unnecessary and inappropriate given the program will begin in just a few
years, span the course of only five years and starts from a demonstrated baseline of vehicle and
charging technology. NACAA strongly urges EPA to reject any such provisions. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1499-A1, p. 6]
There is a great deal of evidence, including what NACAA provides at the beginning of this
section on our comments and recommendations, that points to the coming readiness of the
charging and fueling infrastructure needed to support strong Phase 3 standards. The federal
government has demonstrated its deep commitment to accelerating the transition to ZEVs by
providing historic levels of funding and monetary incentives including for timely infrastructure.
NACAA notes that given the importance of this federal funding to achieving meaningful
nationwide reductions in GHG emissions, including from heavy-duty vehicles and engines, EPA
should ensure that these funds are allocated equitably across the country. In addition to federal
action, states and local areas are demonstrating leadership by undertaking their own
infrastructure initiatives. These are helping to drive private investment to capitalize on these
opportunities. The following a few examples. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1499-A1, pp. 6-7]
Organization: National Association of Convenience Stores (NACS), NATSO, and SIGMA
Another substantial challenge is the generation and supply of electricity to charging stations.
Every market participant that our membership communicates with is extraordinarily skeptical
that electricity providers will be able to increase generation and transmission activity to service
the kind of load necessary to provide charging infrastructure for this volume of HD trucks at
scale within ten years. A recent analysis of grid upgrades necessary for HD electrification found
that a single highway fast-charging site will require the same amount of electricity as a sports
stadium or a small town. 10 This will require the development of dedicated substations and
significant energy resources behind the meter. EPA's Proposed Rule largely assumes that, with
an increase in EV production, there will be a sufficient increase in electricity generation and
transmission to meet those EV needs. Even when HD charging sites are financed, more than 50%
of fleet operators already operating HD EVs report that building a charging site takes over a year
on average. 11 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1603-A1, p. 5]
10 Gideon Katsh, et al., CALSTART et al., 'Electric Highways: Accelerating and Optimizing Fast-
Charging Deployment for Carbon-Free Transportation' (November 11, 2022) available at
https://calstart.org/electric-highways-study/.
11 Saral Chauhan, et al., McKinsey & Co., 'Fleet decarbonization: Operationalizing the transition' (Dec.
20, 2022) available at https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/automotive-and-assembly/our-insights/fleet-
decarbonization-operationalizing-the-
transition?stcr=5E41D3E4A0E44A8AB1251119CEF46775&cid=other-eml-alt-mip-
1035
-------
mck&hlkid=cf69cd78c86a42938ccdc7806b06c93d&hctky=14495856&hdpid=4eble872-7192-48d7-b6cb-
0642d205d4c5.
On top of these challenges, the overarching structure of wholesale and retail electricity
markets is not designed for—and is currently incompatible with—the retail diesel market.
Currently, electric utilities monopolize both generation and access, and they experience shifts in
supply and demand with little to no risk as they are able to pass on costs to ratepayers. These
electric utilities routinely impose demand charges on commercial users of electricity added to a
monthly utility bill. These charges are not based on the amount of electricity used by that
business, but on the highest rate of usage the business has during the two fifteen-minute periods
in a month in which the business draws electricity from the grid at the highest pace. EV fast
chargers—a must-have for on-the-go charging such as those found at a truck stop or convenience
store—draw extensive electricity from the grid to charge an EV quickly. To power HD diesel
trucks, this would result in inordinate charges to a refueling location's monthly utility bill that it
likely could not recover. There is simply no business case for electric truck charging in the
United States. The Associations are actively working with state and federal policymakers to
enhance this business case, but until there is a clearer light at the end of that tunnel, it makes
little sense to put all of our heavy-duty decarbonization eggs in one basket. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1603-A1, pp. 5-6]
Organization: National Association of Manufacturers
Infrastructure Needed
According to the Department of Energy's draft National Transmission Needs Study released
in February 2023, the national electric transmission infrastructure would need to grow 57% by
2035 to reach the administration's clean energy goals as it relates to the growing light-,medium-
and heavy-duty vehicle industries. 1 Yet at the historical pace of approximately 1% annual
growth for these projects,2 the transmission system would require more than half a century to
achieve the goals the administration hopes to achieve in little more than a decade. As such, the
rulemaking must recognize the realities and limitations of current infrastructure, even as
manufacturers urge administration officials and congressional leaders to prioritize policies that
would strengthen transmission systems and infrastructure, including critical permitting
reforms. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1649-A2, p. 1 - 2]
1 https ://www .energy. gov/gdo/national-transmission-needs-study
2 https://repeatproject.org/docs/REPEAT_IRA_Transmission_2022-09-22.pdf
Organization: National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA)
EPA Should Account for Grid-side Investments in Proposed Rule's Analysis
Bearing these realities in mind, we write to express our significant concern that EPA has
failed to adequately account for the costs associated with serving the new load that will be
created via heavy-duty highway vehicle (HDV) electrification as outlined in this proposed rule.
While EPA accounts for the cost to purchasers for the hardware and installation of charging
equipment, EPA fails to include the electric grid-side upgrades that will likely be needed, if not
now, certainly in the future as electrification spreads and this could have serious negative
consequences to American consumers. Specifically, within the proposed rule section on
1036
-------
Charging Infrastructure Costs, EPA states: 1 "there may be additional infrastructure needs and
costs beyond those associated with charging equipment itself. While planning for additional
electricity demand is a standard practice for utilities and not specific to BEV charging, the
buildout of public and private charging stations (particularly those with multiple high-powered
DC fast charging units) could in some cases require upgrades to local distribution systems."
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1515-A1, p. 2]
1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles - Phase 3, 88 Fed. Reg. 25,982 (April 27,
2023)
It is important for EPA to correct this failure in the proposed rule stage by updating its
analysis with inclusion of a range of expected costs associated with serving the new load from
the HDV fleet created by EPA's proposal. Failure to do so will likely result in unrealistic
expectations on the part of fleet operators and possibly delay plans for electrification as they
learn of the full costs that will be required to serve this new load from their electric cooperatives
or other electric utilities. Neither these HDV fleet operators, nor the EPA, should expect that
electric cooperatives can bear the burden of these new costs alone, particularly when these costs
will ultimately need to be passed on to the end of the line consumer-members of the
cooperative.[EPA-HQ-0AR-2022-0985-1515- A 1, p. 2]
Overall, it is important for EPA to recognize that electrification of the transportation sector,
and the increased flexibility of this newly electrified demand, will require substantial distribution
infrastructure investment over time to meet increased average local electric demand and to meet
increased demand in new locations (e.g., EV charging stations). Significant transmission
infrastructure investment may also be required to meet increased average electric demand and
changes in the spatial distribution of electric demand among load centers. According to the
National Academy of Sciences, to transition the transportation sector through increased
electrification, electric utilities will need to increase generation by up to 170% and see a three-
fold expansion of the transmission grid by 2050. Over time, electrification of the transportation
sector will require additional generation investment to ensure resource and energy adequacy to
meet increased average electric demand and changing consumption profiles. Unfortunately, this
investment challenge is becoming more complex due to several recent EPA actions that are
jeopardizing flexible, dispatchable always available generation resources.2 These actions would
require increased reliance on intermittent energy sources. Particular attention will be needed to
ensure that generation investment is adequate in amount and in operational characteristics to
meet the demands of electrification while ensuring grid stability, security, and reliability. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1515-A1, pp. 2-3]
2 These actions include: Supplemental Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam
Electric Power Generating Point Source Category, 88 FR 18824 (March 29, 2023); National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units
Review of the Residual Risk and Technology Review, 88 FR 24854 (April 24, 2023); Hazardous and Solid
Waste Management System: Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals From Electric Utilities; Legacy CCR
Surface Impoundments, 88 FR 31982 (May 18, 2023; New Source Performance Standards for Greenhouse
Gas Emissions From New, Modified, and Reconstructed Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric Generating Units;
Emission Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Existing Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric Generating
Units; and Repeal of the Affordable Clean Energy Rule, 88 FR 33240 (May 23, 2023); and Federal Good
Neighbor Plan for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 88 FR 36654 (June 5, 2023).
Specific Costs for EPA to Consider Incorporating in the Proposed Rule's Analysis
1037
-------
Again, we urge EPA to update its analysis to account for the costs needed to make updates to
the grid to support HDV electrification. Grid upgrade costs for EV charging will vary by region,
neighborhood, cooperative, circuit, and feeder. However, to illustrate the types and ranges of
costs that EPA should account for, we provide the following costs sourced from four different
cooperative regions, broken down by charge level:
• Residential (Level 1 and Level 2): One out of three households will need an expanded
electric panel to accommodate 240 V Breakers. If a household purchases two electric
vehicles, then four slots on a breaker will be needed to accommodate this load. The
average cost will be approximately $4,000 for a Level 2 residential charger with a panel
upgrade.
o Upgrading panel (20% of panels must be upgraded) j V can start around $600
o Transformer upgrades - $2,600 and climbing
o Service wire gauge upgrades to accommodate higher amperage - $3,000
• Public (Level 2 and DC Fast Charging (DCFC)): For commercial sites, transformer
upgrade needs will vary. Most sites will already have three-phase power available;
however, in very rural locations single-phase power will need to be upgraded to three-
phase. If transformers do need to be upgraded on a three-phase line, then three
transformers will need to be upgraded.
o Level 2 charger including panel - approx. $4,000 on average
o National EV Infrastructure Program (NEVI)-Compliant DCFC - approx. $25,000-
$150,000
¦ Transformer - $25,000 - $40,000 (reflects current prices for three
transformers)
¦ Service entrance - $3,000-$4,000
¦ Metering package (including instrumentation, voltage transformers
(PT) and current transformers (CT) - $2,000
¦ Line extension, if required (site dependent) - $50,000 - $75,000 [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1515-A1, pp. 3-4]
Circumstances vary across cooperatives, but some of these costs will be borne directly by the
consumer-members and others will be paid for by the cooperative. Regardless, these costs help to
illustrate more accurately the investment it will take to implement on EPA's proposed
rule. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2022-0985-1515- A 1, p. 4]
We note that these costs reflect a snapshot estimate in time and are likely to increase,
particularly due to the significant challenges and delays utilities are facing in their supply chains,
which are contributing to an unprecedented shortage of the most basic machinery and
components essential to ensure the continued reliability of the electric grid. Electric cooperatives
are waiting a year, on average, to receive distribution transformers. Additionally, lead times for
large power transformers have grown to more than three years. And orders for electrical conduit
have been delayed five-fold to 20 weeks with costs ballooning by 200 percent year-over-year. As
a result, new projects are being deferred or canceled, and electric cooperatives are concerned
about their ability to respond to major storms due to depleted stockpiles. We expect these supply
chain challenges to persist with the increased demand for electrification projects being
incentivized by the U.S. federal government. All these delays will likely impact the cost and
1038
-------
timing of charging infrastructure buildout needed to support the HDV fleet electrification
envisioned in this proposed rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1515-A1, p. 4]
Organization: NTEA - The Association for the Work Truck Industry
MY 2027 Target - EV Infrastructure Needs
The proposal calls for 20% of vocational trucks be a ZEV by MY 2027. This time frame does
not seem possible given the resources needed to achieve such a goal in a compressed amount of
time. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2022-0985-1510-A1, p. 4]
As an industry, companies involved in the manufacture and distribution of work trucks
(manufacturers of truck chassis, bodies, equipment and final assembly) will require EV charging
equipment and power that has not previously been required for their facilities. While these
producers of work trucks may not need the recharging capacity of a major truck fleet, they will
need to provide charging for all of the EV chassis at their facility for assembly or
alteration. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1510-A1, p. 4]
Much like truck dealers who will need EV charging infrastructure, anecdotally, NTEA has
been informed that one of the biggest initial challenges is the availability of electricity from local
utilities. In some cases, EV charging equipment is available but they can't yet be installed
without agreement for power from the utility company, which appears could in some cases be
multiple years away. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1510-A1, p. 4]
Based on the current statutory and regulatory landscape, it is assumed that the highest initial
energy needs for medium- and heavy-duty vehicle charging is likely to occur in those states that
have adopted California's Advanced Clean Trucks rule. While prioritizing charging
infrastructure along freight corridors within these states may be a prudent approach, many
vocational trucks are not necessarily involved in moving freight but rather accomplishing work
tasks at whatever location is required - whether it be along a freight corridor or on a side street
or in a rural area. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1510-A1, p. 4]
Given the long lead times involved in building power generation capacity and electric
transmission systems, the NTEA questions if the aggressive time frames being mandated for the
phase-in of medium and heavy-duty vocational trucks is possible. Will the operators of the wide
variety of work trucks have access to charging when and where they will need it in order to
complete their vocational missions within the existing timeframe? [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1510-A1, p. 4]
Organization: RMI
Electric Grid
One of the key challenges to truck electrification is about the ability for the grid to meet
electric charging infrastructure demand and this is commonly cited as a key concern in
electrifying fleets. Fully electrifying trucking would increase current national electricity
consumption by almost 10% and create uneven, local impacts. The electric distribution system
will require new infrastructure to support electric truck load. 19 By 2035 our grid must be
prepared to add 230 TWh of new truck electricity demand, including power for nearly 150,000
fast public chargers and 860,000 depot chargers.20 Building this new infrastructure requires time
1039
-------
and costs that are or will soon be the limiting factor in truck decarbonization. Forward-looking
fleets, utilities, and regulators are beginning to reimagine business practices, infrastructure
planning, and building decisions [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1529-A1, p. 8]
19 'Use of electricity,' U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), Accessed April 27, 2023,
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/use-of-electricity.php.
20 Kahn et al., The Inflation Reduction Act Will Help Electrify Heavy-Duty Trucking, RMI, August 25,
2022, https://rmi.org/inflation-reduction-act-will-help-electrify-heavy-duty-trucking/
There are not that many electric trucks compared with the 750,000 electric passenger cars on
the road, but adoption of electric trucks does not look the same as the adoption of electric
passenger vehicles.21 While utilities generally support and facilitate electric car adoption, e-
truck adoption will be more rapid than what utilities have seen so far due to the fleet nature of
trucks. Once a fleet is convinced of e-trucks' reliability, capability, and economics, it will be
ready to purchase vehicles. Fleet managers, as professional consumers, can act more decisively
than consumers hindered by unfamiliarity and range anxiety, if they are not limited by either the
grid or vehicle availability.22 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1529-A1, p. 8]
21 Zachary Shahan, 'US Electric Car Sales Increased 65% In 2022,' CleanTechnica, February 25 2022,
https://cleantechnica.eom/2023/02/25/us-electric-car-sales-increased-65-in-2022/.
22 Kahn et al., Preventing Electric Truck Gridlock, RMI, 2023 https://rmi.org/insight/preventing-electric-
truck-gridlock/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=spark&utm_content=spark-
a&utm_campaign=2023_06_01
The truck depots need megawatts of power at a scale that utilities aren't yet mobilized to
address. And while providing new power in new places is a big challenge for utilities, it is at
least an extension of their core business. For fleets, electrifying a depot can be foreign, an
additional new requirement on top of understanding how e-trucks operate differently in the field.
The economics of procuring power, installing chargers, and managing charging power and time
are just some of the new skills fleets need to succeed with electric trucks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1529-A1, p. 8]
There are some 'no regrets' actions that can make the process better, but there is no getting
around the fact that utilities, regulators, and fleets will need to change their business practices to
electrify trucking.23
1. Determine where load growth will be to plan accordingly
2. Streamline procedures with updated regulatory requirements
3. Provide utilities with regulatory incentives to update the grid
4. Embrace proactive grid planning [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1529-A1, p. 8]
23 Kahn et al., Preventing Electric Truck Gridlock, RMI, 2023 https://rmi.org/insight/preventing-electric-
truck-gridlock/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=spark&utm_content=spark-
a&utm_campaign=2023_06_01
Organization: Schneider National Inc.
Grid side improvements do not appear to be factored into the Proposed Rule's costs. The
EPA's Proposed Rule assumes grid updates are going to be paid by utility.
1040
-------
• The upfront capital costs for the grid improvements may be paid by the utilities; however,
the utilities will undoubtedly seek to recoup the costs via rate recovery. As a result, the
costs will ultimately be borne by the utility's customers via rate increases and higher
utility bills.
• The costs to upgrade infrastructure at the ZEV charging sites will be solely borne by the
owner or user of the site, whether it is an owned site or leased site. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1525-A1, pp. 2-3]
Organization: State of California et al. (2)
Our States and Cities do not anticipate significant concerns about the electrical grid's ability
to support the additional energy needs created by vehicle electrification. A case study shows that
in 2040, battery-electric truck energy needs represent 3 percent of electricity production in the
United States in 2021; however, the International Council on Clean Transportation notes that a
"3 [percent] increase in grid capacity will not necessarily be needed, since the existing
infrastructure can be leveraged through demand management and minor distribution network
upgrades."205 There are also efforts underway by utilities and transmission organizations to put
electrified vehicles to work for the grid. For example, the public power utilities in Austin, Texas
conducted a pilot project with the US Department of Energy that incorporated use of electric
vehicles as a way to add stability to the power grid via vehicle-to-grid, or V2G, charging,206 as
has San Diego Gas and Electric.207 Ultimately, the decisions needed to respond to a modest
increase in energy demand required by increasing numbers of electric vehicles will take place at
the state public utility commission, grid operator, and utility level, as they are appropriately
situated to plan for and respond to those changes in demand. These are routine plans and
adjustments that these entities make as a matter of course. Indeed, utilities may be uniquely well
situated to make the "distribution level" updates, and "smart charging and pricing schemes" that
will respond to the changing energy needs of increasing electric vehicles.208 And, as EPA
correctly notes, the power sector and its regulators have responded to much larger changes in
demand—including from increased use of electrical equipment—over similar (or smaller)
timeframes.209 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1588-A1, pp.28-29]
205 ICCT, Charging Solutions for Battery-Electric Trucks (Dec. 22, 2022),
https://theicct.org/publication/charging-infrastructure-trucks-zeva-dec22/; see also Grid Modernization
Laboratory Consortium, Electric Vehicles at Scale - Phase I Analysis: High EV Adoption Impacts on the
Western U.S. Power Grid (July 2020), https://www.pnnl.gov/sites/default/files/media/file/EV-AT-
SCALE_l_IMPACTS_final.pdf.
206 Austin Energy, Final Deliverable Reports, Austin SHINES Research for the U.S. Dep't of Energy (July
31, 2020), https://austinenergy.com/green-power/austin-shines/final-deliverable-reports.
207 Robert Walton, California OKs $100M SDG&E commercial EV charging plan, testing electric buses
as grid assets, Utility Dive (Aug. 16, 2019), https://www.utilitydive.com/news/california-oks-100m-sdge-
commercial-ev-charging-plan-testing-electric-bu/561071/.
208 ICCT, Charging Solutions for Battery-Electric Trucks (Dec. 22, 2022),
https://theicct.org/publication/charging-infrastructure-trucks-zeva-dec22/, at 15.
209 88 Fed. Reg. at 25,983.
1041
-------
Organization: Truck Renting and Leasing Association (TRALA)
The annual rate at which U.S. grid infrastructure needs to expand to maximize the potential of
the new clean-energy tax breaks under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) of 2022 is 2.3%.2 If
expansion continues at the current rate of around 1% a year, 80% of the emissions-reduction
potential of those incentives will be lost and C02 emissions will be 800 million tons a year
higher in 2030.3 The advancement of transmission infrastructure will make or break America's
energy transition for the freight sector. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1577-A1, p. 4]
2 Jenkins, J.D., Farbes, J., Jones, R., Patankar, N., Schivley, G., 'Electricity Transmission is Key to Unlock
the Full Potential of the Inflation Reduction Act,' REPEAT Project, Princeton, NJ (September 2022).
3 Id.
Organization: Valero Energy Corporation
Significant investments in charging/fueling infrastructure will also be needed. The CEC has
projected that an additional 157,000 chargers will be needed to support California's anticipated
electric HD population in 2030—all of these will be DCFC, representing 9,100 additional job-
years of dedicated workforce requirements, compounding timeline feasibility challenges. CEC
further projects that the HDV charging network will see loads "in excess of 2,000 MW around 5
p.m. on a typical workday," further exacerbating the existing gap between net peak energy
demand and existing generation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 41.]
195 https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/01/us/california-heat-wave-flex-alert-ac-ev-charging.html
Twelve states expressed concerns regarding electrical grid and utility impacts in their DOT-
approved state EV Infrastructure Deployment Plans, as summarized below. While the plans
primarily focus on infrastructure to be installed along designated alternative fuel corridors, the
concerns relating to grid and utility impacts are similarly applicable to depot and truck parking
stations. EPA has not accounted for these concerns in its analysis. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1566-A2, p. 41.] [See the table of State Concern on page 41 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1566-A2.]
Additionally, within California there are significant challenges to be overcome in order to
build the infrastructure necessary to support freight electrification under the CARB Advanced
Clean Trucks and Advanced Clean Fleets rules. The California Public Utilities Commission
(CPUC) recently identified the need for an accelerated electrical infrastructure deployment as a
challenge for forecasting and planning, with approximately three years lead time needed for
statewide planning efforts to be completed and infrastructure authorized.208 Indeed, in the six
priority corridors alone, which doesn't account for more rural routes, California would need
between 556 and 1,832 public BEV charging stations by 2040.209 For comparison, California
currently has approximately 5,000 retail diesel stations statewide as of 2021.210 As a result,
there are risks that could negatively impact MD and HD adoption including uncertainty
regarding long-term electricity rate, delayed construction of distribution/transmission
infrastructure, and differences in charging behavior from what was assumed in the planning
stages (which would result in an infrastructure buildout that doesn't align with actual charging
behavior).211 Clearly, there will be significant shortfall in resources in California alone to meet
the needs of the freight electrification push, let alone the entire nation, as contemplated by the
instant proposed rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 43
1042
-------
208 California Public Utilities Commission, Energy Division Webinar, "Draft Staff Proposal: Zero-
Emissions Freight Infrastructure Planning" at 22 (May 22, 2023), https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/-/media/cpuc-
website/divisions/energy-division/documents/transportation-electrification/fip-draft-staff-
proposal_5_22_23 -webinar-final_ver2 .pdf.
209 Id. at p. 60.
210 Id.
211 Id. at p. 28.
Organization: Volvo Group
Nevertheless, governance of the electricity industry is exceedingly fractured in terms of
geography, purview, and governing entities, with more than 3,000 separate power/electric
utilities across the United States. California stakeholders have had years to gain experience and
prepare for this transition. Other states with much less experience and more resistant
stakeholders will make it virtually impossible to successfully extend the ZEV penetration rates of
the Advanced Clean Truck Regulation to a national level. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1606-A1,
p. 7]
Finally, utilization of medium and heavy-duty ZEVs, together with the continued growth in
electric passenger vehicles will place unprecedented demand on the grid, particularly during
peak hours. While all ZEV owners will be sensitive to charging prices, the elasticity of demand
for commercial ZEVs is much more sensitive to electricity price and reliability than for light-
duty vehicles. Significant expansion of transmission lines and distribution infrastructure
(circuits/feeders) will require utility investment; however current industry norms enable utilities
to build additional capacity only after increased demand is assured. This process, while logical
for meeting residential and commercial building needs, undermines the assurance fleets will
demand before ordering more than a couple of pilot trucks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1606-
Al, p. 8]
Organization: Zero Emission Transportation Association (ZETA)
c. Electricity Generation and Grid Readiness
Transitioning to zero-emission transportation offers a unique challenge to the energy
companies that will need to ensure they have ample electricity supply to match EV-driven
demand. At minimum, this will require investments in the electricity distribution system to
enable the deployment of electric vehicle charging equipment. In some instances, this may also
require investing in new energy generation sources and associated distribution system
infrastructure to accommodate major EV centers like heavy-duty vehicle depots or co-locate
other necessary amenities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 29]
However, this is not the first time electricity providers have navigated increases in electricity
demand brought on by new technologies: similar spikes accompanied the mass adoption of now-
standard appliances like refrigerators and in-home air conditioners. Still, it will be important to
ensure that providers and government agencies can work within their regulatory frameworks to
test solutions and upgrade the grid to prepare for future demand increases accompanying greater
EV adoption. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 29]
1043
-------
This section will discuss the growing energy demands of widespread EV adoption and new
potential hotspots for energy demand. It will also use case studies to highlight how electricity
providers are preparing for this transition. These case studies showcase solutions that have the
potential to revolutionize energy consumption and highlight how electricity providers support
customer EV adoption through incentive programs, building infrastructure, and other
initiatives. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, pp. 29 - 30]
The grid's ability to handle millions of additional EVs hinges on utilities' proactive planning
capacity. Granting utilities the flexibility to make proactive upgrades to the electrical grid and
facilitate transportation electrification will require careful planning and coordination between
regulators and stakeholders. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 30]
Regulatory certainty will allow utilities to make the investments necessary to facilitate a
smooth EV transition. To invest proactively, rather than in response to firm load, energy
providers will need clear insight into multi-year schedules for customer electrification, approval
from regulators to recover costs, and/or flexibility to serve loads with non-wire
alternatives. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 30]
Robust EPA emission standards will provide the regulatory certainty needed to not only
ensure vehicle manufacturers continue to invest in EV technologies, but that the entire supply
chain supporting the transition to electrification will have a clearer picture of how to plan capital
expenditures today to meet the increased demand over the coming years. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-2429-A1, p. 30]
i. Anticipated impacts to electricity providers from increased EV deployment
In 2021, the U.S. fleet of electric vehicles used 6.1 terawatt hours (TWhs) of electricity to
travel 19.1 billion miles.125 That accounted for just 0.15% of the total national energy
generation that year. 126 In 2022, the United States produced 4,243 TWhs of electricity. 127 To
meet the demand of transportation electrification, more generation will be needed to service EVs
and electrified vehicle technologies. One estimate suggests it would take roughly 800 to 1,900
TWh of electricity to power all vehicles if they were electric. 128 It is important to remember,
however, that this new demand will not occur all at once but rather more gradually as EVs
continue to displace ICEVs. While achievable, meeting this increase in electricity demand will
require significant strategy as electric providers transition to renewable, carbon free
resources. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 30]
125 "Assessment of Light-Duty Plug-in Electric Vehicles in the United States, 2010-2021," Argonne
National Lab, November 2022 https://publications.anl.gOv/anlpubs/2022/l l/178584.pdf
126 "Monthly Energy Review May 2023," EIA,
https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec7_3.pdf
127 Id.
128 "How much electricity would it take to power all cars if they were electric?," USAFacts, (May 15,
2023) accessed June 13, 2023 https://usafacts.org/articles/how-much-electricity-would-it-take-to-power-all-
cars-if-they-were-electric/
The key to meeting these energy requirements will be the expansion of renewable energy
resources but also the addition of new, zero-emission and low-emission load-following resources
like advanced nuclear, carbon capture, long-term energy storage, and green hydrogen. In
1044
-------
2022, electricity generated from renewable sources surpassed coal for the first time in U.S.
history. 129 At the same time, electricity providers are looking at ways to add low-cost energy
storage to increase the availability of non-dispatchable renewable generation such as solar and
wind. Currently, renewable energy generates about 20% of all electricity production in the U.S,
and renewable sources like solar and wind are expected to account for the majority of new
utility-scale electricity generation going forward. 130,131 Already, available renewable energy
resources in the U.S. are estimated to amount to more than 100 times the nation's current
electricity needs. 132 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, pp. 30-31]
129 "U.S. renewable electricity surpassed coal in 2022," Associated Press, (March 28, 2023), accessed
June 4, 2023 https://apnews.com/article/renewable-energy-coal-nuclear-climate-change-
dd4a0bl68fe057f430e37398615155a0
130 "Renewable Energy," Department of Energy, accessed June 4, 2023
https://www.energy.gov/eere/renewable-energy
131 "Solar power will account for nearly half of new U.S. electric generating capacity in 2022," EIA,
(January 10, 2022) https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=50818
132 "Renewable Energy Resource Assessment Information for the United States," Department of Energy,
accessed June 4, 2023 https://www.energy.gov/eere/analysis/renewable-energy-resource-assessment-
information-united-states
133 "Yes, the grid can handle EV charging, even when demand spikes," Yale Climate Connections, (March
23, 2023) accessed June 4, 2023 https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2023/03/yes-the-grid-can-handle-ev-
charging-even-when-demand-spikes/
Power generation is only one of the considerations when preparing for 100% transportation
electrification. In particular, the industry needs to develop its ability to precisely manage demand
in real time, including by accurately predicting when and where increases in demand will
occur. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 31]
It is important to note that energy demand is not constant. Instead, it consists of relatively
predictable peaks and troughs throughout the day. High demand consistently occurs between
5:00 PM and 8:00 PM each day, as customers return home, turn up their climate control systems,
begin cooking dinner, and turn on other devices. 133 System demand peak is typically between
5:00-6:00 PM during the summer, and 7:00-8:00 AM in the winter. As such, EV charging poses
minimal impacts to the winter peak hours but could increase summer peaks without managed
charging. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 31]
ii. Utility-specific planning underway
The following collection of case studies demonstrates how electricity providers in ZETA's
membership are preparing for the EV transition and highlights some of their groundbreaking
initiatives to support EV adoption in the United States. It should be noted that each provider
operates within a regulatory framework that is unique to the state in which it serves. The cases
outlined below do not represent the entire portfolio of EV-related products and services offered
by these providers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 31]
These examples include programs that exist across the EV supply chain, with earlier examples
covering infrastructure planning programs and later examples focusing on programs to engage
with EV drivers on their charging needs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 32]
1045
-------
1. Pacific Gas & Electric
As California's largest electric provider, PG&E continues to play an important role in
advancing electric vehicle adoption in support of the state's broad climate goals. PG&E works in
collaboration with the California Energy Commission and California Public Utilities
Commission to plan and approve grid infrastructure upgrades to support this shift to zero-
emission transportation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 32]
With nearly 500,000 EVs sold in its service area—one in every seven of all EVs on the road
throughout the nation—expansion of PG&E's EV charging network in Northern and Central
California is critical to support the State's transition to a clean transportation future. Over the last
half-decade, the provider has deployed more than 5,000 EV charging ports across its service
area. Additionally, it offers a variety of resources to help accelerate EV adoption among
customers, and PG&E is working collaboratively with vehicle manufacturers to develop vehicle
grid-integration technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 32]
Grid planning requires precise forecasts to ensure electric infrastructure is available to support
future demand. Pre-existing electricity demand (load) forecasts did not provide the geographical
granularity needed to best plan for grid investments. PG&E could allocate the load to residential
charging locations; however, larger charging loads that are often not associated with existing
service points—such as public charging systems—lacked a methodology to be accounted for in
long-term forecasting efforts. Without the ability to identify future EV demand with geographic
and temporal accuracy, PG&E was limited in its ability to plan future grid capacity. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 32]
Lacking a long-term geospatial forecasting methodology, PG&E was primarily dependent on
customer requests for service to inform where EV load would materialize. This reliance on
customer requests led PG&E to reactively develop capacity solutions to serve load requests.
Given the long lead times often associated with capacity projects and the relatively fast pace at
which customers wish to build EV charging infrastructure, there would be instances where
energization timelines exceeded the requested energization date from customers. This can occur
with large load applications associated with public DCFC charging stations or large fleets, which
have the potential to exceed the maximum capacity of existing electrical infrastructure in those
areas. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 32]
Identifying a need for a more proactive approach, PG&E set out to improve its forecasting
abilities to increase the clarity of where and when EV loading is most likely to materialize.
This enables PG&E to build capacity in advance of service applications being received.
Although research indicates that customer preference for EVs is increasing, and there are many
regulations and incentives which further support the transition to EVs, there are still uncertainties
around the pace of adoption. This impacts how the EV load will manifest on the electric grid. For
this reason, a solution capable of supporting a variety of forecast scenarios was necessary for
success. PG&E commissioned a multi-faceted project focused on three common categories of
EV charging load: 1) public DCFC & Level 2 charging stations, 2) residential EV charging, and
3) fleet charging. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, pp. 32 - 33]
Detailed analysis and machine learning modeling and testing were applied to each of these
focus areas to predict where EV charging is most likely to occur. These analyses were performed
at the premise level and resulted in over 5 million potential growth points across PG&E's service
1046
-------
territory that were integrated into existing distribution planning software. This created a dynamic
tool that can adapt to a variety of forecast inputs, such as system-level adoption forecasts, EV
charging behaviors, and charging infrastructure assumptions. These scenarios can be integrated
into PG&E's distribution planning processes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 33]
Developing a solution that was easily integrated into existing distribution planning processes
and software was critical for successful implementation. Involving PG&E forecasting and asset
planning teams in the development of the EV forecasting tool, as well as reviewing and approval
of the major inputs and assumptions used to develop forecast scenarios, ensured alignment in the
scenarios generated. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 33]
In figure 7 above, the difference in magnitude of localized EV load in the year 2035 can be
seen in a relatively low EV adoption scenario (2020 California Energy Commission (CEC)
Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR Mid)) and a higher policy-based scenario based on the
California Air Resources Board (CARB) Multiple Source Strategy (MSS) forecast. Grid planners
can use this tool to investigate and solve for circuit level impacts of EV load growth. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 34.] [See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1,
page 34, for Figure 7. This Figure was redacted]
Using varying EV forecast scenarios, PG&E was able to assess the localized grid impacts
from high EV adoption scenarios that are better aligned with state transportation electrification
goals and policies. PG&E assessed how various levels of EV adoption, as well as the impacts
that changing charging behaviors (such as on vs. off-peak charging), can have on grid needs.
Early analysis has indicated that off-peak charging can reduce near-term grid constraints. In the
future, this may lead to new circuit peaks and capacity constraints that must be addressed. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 34]
Results from these analyses were helpful in advocating for approval of higher transportation
electrification forecasts with regulators and the state energy commission, which are ultimately
used for electric grid planning. PG&E has also used these forecasts to produce directional
assessments of the resources needed to support capacity investments included in their long-
term capital planning. PG&E continues to work to improve its forecasting and planning
capabilities. Still, the solutions implemented to date have enabled a more robust approach that
will allow PG&E to continue to support its customers' electrification transition. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-2429-A1, pp. 34 - 35]
2. Vistra
Electricity generators are making the transition to low- and no-carbon-emitting sources of
energy as quickly as possible in response to investor, regulator, policymaker, and customer
expectations. This transition is backed by a strong business case for doing so, as renewables and
battery storage systems are able to compete effectively with fossil fuel generation and provide
benefits to the power grid. The International Energy Agency expects renewable energy resources
to provide 18% of the world's power by 2030, up from 11.2% in 2019.134 However, certain
renewable energy sources—such as solar and offshore/onshore wind—are dependent on weather
conditions and the time of day. This means deploying these resources at scale will require
accompanying battery technology to ensure electric grid reliability. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
2429-A1, p. 35]
1047
-------
134 "Modern renewables," IEA, accessed June 4, 2023 https://www.iea.org/reports/sdg7-data-and-
projections/modern-renewables
Energy storage allows for the integration of more intermittent resources by storing electricity
until it is needed. It also augments existing energy generation by allowing excess energy to be
produced when low demand is stored until demand peaks. Energy storage can provide benefits
beyond emissions reduction, including cost-savings for consumers, reliability, and backup and
startup power during extreme events. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 35]
Vistra operates the Moss Landing Energy Storage Facility in California, the largest of its kind
in the world, and is pursuing an expansion that will bring 750 MW online in the second quarter
of 2023.135 This facility is particularly valuable in California, where the swift transition to
renewable energy, paired with a constantly growing demand for electricity, illustrates the need
for reliability in the electric grid and the role energy storage can play. As of 2021, non-
hydroelectric renewables provide approximately 35% of California's electricity, and electricity
demand has increased due to a variety of factors, including severe weather events, widespread
electrification, and electric vehicle deployment. 136 This combination was put to the test in
September 2022, when the state faced its most extreme September heat event in recorded history.
This weather event put unprecedented strain on the electric grid and set records for electricity
demand. To the surprise of many, the lights stayed on. During that event, batteries, including
Vistra's Moss Landing facility, provided about 4% of supply—over 3,360 MW, more than the
Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant (the state's largest electricity generator)—during the peak
demand, averting rolling blackouts. A report from the California Independent System Operation
(CAISO) following the September 2022 event specifically highlighted the increase in energy
storage resources as a key factor that supported the grid's reliability. 137 As a comparison, the
August 2020 heat wave, which occurred when California's energy storage resources were few
and far between, resulted in rolling blackouts over multiple days. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
2429-A1, pp. 35 - 36]
135 "Vistra Announces Expansion of World's Largest Battery Energy Storage Facility," Vistra, accessed
June 4, 2023 https://investor.vistracorp.com/2022-01-24-Vistra-Announces-Expansion-of-Worlds-Largest-
Battery-Energy-Storage-Facility
136 "2021 Total System Electric Generation," California Energy Commission, accessed June 5, 2023
https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/2021-total-system-
electric-generation
137 "California ISO posts analysis of September heat wave," California ISO, accessed June 5, 2023
http://www.caiso.com/Documents/california-iso-posts-analysis-of-september-heat-wave.pdf
Recognizing that the replacement of fossil fuel-powered assets with zero-carbon resources is
not a one-to-one exchange, Vistra is working to maintain reliability by using energy storage and
installing zero-carbon investments on the sites of retired or soon-to-be-retired fossil fuel plants.
This also ensures that communities do not lose key energy supplies or ongoing tax revenue.
Vistra is also focused on ensuring that existing zero-carbon generation remains online, such as
the Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant in Texas, which is currently going through the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission's relicensing process to continue operations through 2053. This high-
performing plant is able to produce power—rain, snow, or shine—increasing grid reliability for
Texans and making it a keystone generator for the Electric Reliability Council of Texas
(ERCOT) grid. Alongside the transition to cleaner generation resources, Vistra has been able to
maintain reliability for its consumers and ensure that individuals and businesses are able to keep
1048
-------
their lights on, even during extreme weather events. During Winter Storm Uri in Texas in 2021,
Vistra's plants produced between 25-30% of the power on the grid during the storm, far beyond
its -18% market share. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 36]
As the energy supply mix shifts toward low- and zero-carbon resources, energy storage will
fill the reliability gap and allow that mix to evolve more reliably and flexibly. The Inflation
Reduction Act provides new tax incentives for investment in energy storage technologies and
resources to support the R&D of advanced and long-duration energy storage technologies. These
investments will enable the deployment of utility-scale energy storage and add reliability to the
grid, no matter what the future energy generation mix looks like. It is crucial that the United
States continues to make the transition to a carbon-neutral economy and electric grid in a way
that ensures the continued reliability of the grid at a reasonable cost to consumers. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 36]
3. Southern California Edison: Preparing the Grid for EV Adoption
About 40% of the nation's electric vehicles, more than 1.3 million, have been sold in the state
of California. More than 430,000 of those are in SCE's service area alone. Many have expressed
doubts that the grid is ready for the energy demand created by the need to charge so many EVs,
but electric power companies, including SCE, are keeping up with increasing levels of
adoption. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 36] In anticipation of growing EV demand in
Southern California, SCE is continuously taking the steps to upgrade the grid and promote
customers' transition to electric transportation and proactively solve near-term issues, while also
undertaking long-term investments to ensure the grid is ready for all levels of anticipated
electrification adoption. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 37]
Solving near-term challenges
One way SCE is addressing the near-term issues is its Power Service Availability (PSA)
initiative for Transportation Electric service
• SCE is focusing on (1) improving its internal processes to streamline interconnection, (2)
engaging fleet operators to better understand their plans for electrification, (3) improving
its ability to forecast and assess the impacts of transportation electrification (TE) growth,
and (4) leveraging new technologies as grid infrastructure solutions
• Because some projects require more time than others to build, SCE is encouraging fleet
owners to engage with the utility early in the process so that SCE can better understand
and plan for the fleets' needs [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 37]
SCE is also improving how we partner with customers to meet their needs.
• This includes streamlining buildout, developing deeper customer engagements that
include rate planning and load management education, and right-sizing grid solutions to
meet the expected charging demand growth in both the near and long term. These efforts
will provide more innovative and customer-focused solutions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-2429-A1, p. 37]
In addition to customer project deployment, SCE has also pushed to accelerate EV adoption
through customer-side infrastructure programs such as Charge Ready for light-duty vehicles.
1049
-------
• Through its Charge Ready program, SCE installs, maintains, and covers installation costs
for charging infrastructure while participants own, operate, and maintain the charging
stations. For those ready to invest in EV charging for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles,
SCE's Charge Ready Transport program similarly offers low- to no-cost site upgrades to
support the installation. The program provides funding to help electrify semi-trucks,
buses, and delivery vehicles, among others. Through its Charge Ready programs, SCE
has installed more than 3,000 charging ports throughout its service area and is targeting
30,000 charging ports by 2026. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 37]
SCE's Transportation Electrification Advisory Services program is also available for
commercial customers considering electric transportation options.
• On top of offering educational webinars and workshops, the program also offers to
develop site-specific EV-readiness studies to help determine the feasibility of proposed
projects and grant writing assistance to help customers secure zero-emission vehicle
grants. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 37]
Long-term Planning and investing in the grid for TE
SCE is improving the value of EV adoption forecasts used for grid planning by assessing
where, when, and how much EVs are likely to charge.
• SCE led the West Coast Clean Transit Corridor Initiative, composed of nine other electric
utilities and two agencies representing more than two dozen municipal utilities, to
conduct a multi-phase and multi-year research study to forecast EV truck populations and
determine the proper number and size of highway charging sites. Subsequent phases of
this initiative are supporting internal planning operations across the participating utilities.
• SCE developed a new forecasting approach for Medium-Duty / Heavy Duty (MDHD)
vehicles for the recent General Rate Case (GRC) Application.
o Because MDHD electrification is still nascent, current forecasting methodologies
that are based (in part) on historical adoption are insufficient
o For the GRC, SCE's new forecasting methodology leverages MDHD fleet
industry data to more accurately predict MDHD electrification adoption and
corresponding grid needs
o SCE (and the IOUs) are collaborating with CPUC on a new "Freight
Infrastructure Planning" (FIP) Framework to further address planning for MDHD
• SCE is working to expand the current distribution planning forecast window from 10
years to 20 years. Developing and implementing an interagency-sponsored forecast that
spans 20 years for distribution will bring benefits, such as:
o Identifying long lead time projects that are needed beyond the 10-year horizon
o Identifying important land acquisition needs
o Informing how the development of infrastructure may need to be levelized to
practically achieve the scale of development required by achieving state ZEV
policies and GHG targets
• SCE has proposed robust investments in its GRC application to support TE adoption and
load growth.
o The investments proposed are designed to ensure long-lead infrastructure projects
(such as new or expanded substations) will be completed when load growth
1050
-------
arrives. The plan especially focuses on high TE locations: freight corridors, fleet
hubs, Port of Long Beach, etc.
o Specific TE-focused projects include: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p.
38.] [See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, pages 38-39, for
Figure of TE-focused projects]
4. Con Edison
Con Edison is helping to accelerate New York State's transition to clean transportation and
EV adoption through grid and customer investments that support buildout of a widespread
charging network. The Company's PowerReady Program provides incentives to connect
thousands of new public and private charging stations to the electric grid. Authorized by the New
York State Public Service Commission's July 2020 Order Establishing Electric Vehicle
Infrastructure Make-Ready Program and Other Programs, the program offsets the electric
infrastructure costs associated with installing chargers for light-duty EVs, including cars and
small vans. To date, nearly 4,000 Level 2 and 175 DCFC chargers have been installed under the
program, with the goal of installing 18,539 Level 2 and 457 DCFC chargers by 2025, with the
potential for significant expansion of the program budget and goals as recently recommended by
the New York State Department of Public Service Staff. The Company provides a similar pilot
program for medium- and heavy-duty (MHD) vehicles, and a full-scale program is being
considered in the recently launched New York State proceeding to address barriers to MHD
charging infrastructure (MHD Proceeding). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 39]
Along with these infrastructure incentive programs, Con Edison also offers the SmartCharge
New York managed charging program that provides incentives for personal drivers to charge
outside of grid peak periods and the Company is launching a commercial managed charging
program later this year including eligibility for all fleets, public stations, and multi-unit
dwellings. SmartCharge New York is discussed below as an example of how managed charging
can help mitigate the impact of EV charging on the grid. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1,
p. 39]
An essential step in EV charger buildout is interconnection with the grid. Con Edison has
developed dedicated teams that support the growing number of EV charging interconnections,
including those that provide load evaluation, engineering review, project queue management, and
incentive deployments. The Company is implementing multiple efforts to improve the customer
experience and speed interconnection timelines and will continue to identify and implement
efficiencies and improvements. For example, the Company provides pre-application advisory
services for fleets and other customers to evaluate site feasibility and understand electric fueling
costs, automates internal processes such as service rulings for smaller stations, and
is coordinating with permitting agencies to identify and resolve challenges. Con Edison provides
load-serving capacity maps to help those seeking to install EV charging infrastructure identify
suitable sites with adequate grid capacity. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, pp. 39 - 40]
While Con Edison is supporting installation of increasing numbers of EV chargers under its
programs today, the Company is also working to evolve its robust planning processes to prepare
for the ramp in clean transportation loads. These loads are expected to drive significant grid
impacts in New York State and ambitious emissions regulations will further accelerate an
already rapidly growing EV market, with the exact timing in the inflection point unknown. The
timeline to install EV chargers is relatively short compared to that of other new customer
1051
-------
infrastructure, such as a new building, while the buildout of utility-side grid infrastructure to
meet the significant increase in demand from EV chargers requires longer timelines, sometimes
of 5 to 7 years. A proactive grid planning process to meet near-term needs and build out the grid
in advance to support long-term growth in the deployment of EVs is being considered in the New
York State MHD Proceeding. Con Edison, along with other NY State Utilities, filed comments
proposing a proactive utility infrastructure planning framework to prepare the grid in advance of
future transportation electrification needs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 40]
SmartCharge New York Managed Charging Case Study
In 2017, Con Edison launched SmartCharge New York program with the goal of instilling
gridbeneficial charging behavior in parallel with the upswing in electric vehicle adoption. The
goal was to influence driver behavior at the inflection point of transitioning from combustion-
engine fueling to electric battery charging and have drivers default to grid-optimizing charging
activity. Program participants received a free cellular-enabled device that plugs into the vehicle's
diagnostic port that allowed Con Edison to track time, energy, and power consumed when
charging in the utility's service territory. Incentives encourage drivers to 1) avoid charging
during the system peak (2 PM to 6 PM) during summer weekdays from June to September, and
2) charge overnight from 12 AM to 8 AM. Incentives were initially paid off-bill through gift
cards to the customer's business of choice, such as Amazon, Starbucks, or Home Depot. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 40]
As electric vehicle adoption continues to rise, managing charging behavior will grow
increasingly important in maintaining a healthy and reliable grid. Since its inception, the
SmartCharge New York program has evolved to meet customer needs and program objectives.
Starting in 2023 for example, the program was overhauled to allow participation through a
mobile application and payments are now issued through Venmo or Paypal, in line with
participant feedback. This shift also changed the way the program collects data, favoring more
cost-effective vehicle onboard telematics or networked electric vehicle supply equipment such as
a Wi-Fi-enabled charger or charging cable. This enables the program to scale efficiently with
the market and give a greater number of drivers insight into their behavior and how that activity
translates to incentive earnings. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, pp. 40 - 41]
In light of the EPA announcement of its heavy-duty and light/medium-duty proposed
emissions standards, Con Edison released the following statement:
"Con Edison applauds the Environmental Protection Agency's efforts to rev up the market for
electric vehicles, which will improve the air in the communities we serve and help in the fight
against climate change. A rapid shift to mass EV adoption looks more achievable all the time,
with vehicle options expanding and new charging stations being built across New York City and
Westchester County, including locations that serve the needs of disadvantaged communities. Con
Edison will continue to support the EV market's development through investment in the grid and
by offering a range of programs, from incenting new chargers to managing the grid impact by
rewarding drivers for charging overnight." 138 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 41]
138 "Con Edison Supports Effort to Encourage Electric Vehicle Adoption," Con Edison Media Relations,
(April 12, 2023) accessed June 5, 2023 https://www.coned.eom/en/about-us/media-center/news/2023/04-
12/con-edison-supports-effort-to-encourage-electric-vehicle-adoption
5. SRP
1052
-------
When EVs were still in the early stages of adoption, SRP recognized the importance of
exploring ways to identify EV households and analyze their charging behavior in order to help
prepare for greater EV uptake in the future. It was also important to begin engaging customers
who were EV drivers in order to understand their interests and their charging patterns and assess
ways to influence charging behaviors. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 41]
In 2014, SRP launched "EV Community" (EVC)—a program that offers customers a $50 bill
credit for each EV they register (up to two vehicles per household)—as a means to incentivize
EV drivers to identify themselves and engage with SRP. Participants provide basic information
about the electric vehicle and the type of charger they use. This provides a way for SRP to learn
more about EV customers and their charging behavior and needs while offering them an
incentive to help support EV growth in the region. There are currently more than 7,500
customers enrolled in the program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 41]
While EVC members only account for a small number of total EV households, they are a fair
overall representation of the EV customer base since all price plans are included, as well as
households with one vs. two EVs. The program offers SRP a good platform for analysis,
including the type of cars they drive (PHEV, BEV, brand, etc.) and the charge levels they use. In
addition, SRP found that EVC members are willing to share information and are eager to
participate in future pilot programs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 42]
The EVC program also provides SRP with a method and channel to promote their Electric
Vehicle Price Plan, a special time-of-use pricing plan which offers EV drivers the most
opportunity to save on EV charging costs by charging during super off-peak times (between 11
PM and 5 AM). Load research has shown that this program has been highly effective at shifting
EV charging loads away from peak periods. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 42]
The EVC program has helped SRP plan and prepare the grid for widespread EV adoption by
enabling them to:
• Anticipate load growth. A pilot study with EVC members that monitors their EV driving
and charging behavior through data telematics devices enables SRP to estimate typical
consumption and charging load profiles per EV.
• Understand the impacts of EV charging on the grid. EVC data is used to model the
impacts of EV charging on the electric grid, identify when transformers and wires may
need to be upgraded, and understand when and how customers need to charge.
• Recruit for Managed Charging pilot programs. The EVC program and channel have
enabled SRP to recruit participants for additional Managed Charging pilot programs to
test other active control technologies to control EV charging load on the grid.
• Survey participants for insights. EVC members are surveyed regularly to get more data
on their charging behaviors, including their use of home, workplace, and public charging
and their satisfaction with EVs overall.
• Engagement. EVC participants receive regular newsletters and other communications
with EV-related information. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 42]
6. Duke Energy
Electric fleet commitments are increasing as companies with ambitious sustainability goals
work to decarbonize operations. Fleet owners are also seeking ways to take advantage of the cost
1053
-------
savings available by transitioning to EVs. However, programs for fleet electrification and
managed charging options are still limited to date. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 42]
When transitioning to an electric fleet, it is important that fleet managers understand the full
scope of charging multiple vehicles while maintaining fleet operations and that larger
MHDVs bring with them additional factors to consider. Fleet owners who have electrified fleets
without consulting experts or an electric provider have likely been experiencing avoidable
operational and technological issues. Long-term energy cost and performance risk are also
potential issues for fleets and can hinder mainstream fleet electrification technology development
if not managed correctly. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, pp. 42 - 43]
Duke Energy's significant experience and large customer base make it well-positioned to
design and implement fleet electrification and charging programs. Duke Energy is building a
first-of-its-kind performance center that will model and accelerate the development, testing, and
deployment of zero-emission light-, medium-, and heavy-duty commercial electric vehicle EV
fleets. The site will be located in North Carolina at Duke Energy's Mount Holly Technology and
Innovation Center and incorporate microgrid integration. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1,
p. 43]
The fleet electrification center will provide a commercial-grade charging experience for fleet
customers evaluating or launching electrification strategies—reinforcing reliability, clean power,
and optimization by integrating solar, storage, and microgrid controls software applications. The
center will be connected to both the Duke Energy grid—charging from the bulk electric
system—and to 100% carbon-free resources through the microgrid located at Mount Holly. This
project is the first electric fleet depot to offer a microgrid charging option. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-2429-A1, p. 43]
In addition to fleet charging, the site will also function as an innovation hub, allowing Duke
Energy to collect data around charger use, performance, management, and energy integration
with various generation resources. It will also allow for the development of managed charging
algorithms for fleets connected to the bulk power system or integrated with renewables and
storage—which can be utilized to minimize the upgrades needed to the distribution system,
easing the transition to electrifying fleets. Identifying EV charging technologies and how they
may be used to power any type of fleet with vehicles (ranging from class 1) will help develop a
model to show the industry a clear, integrated, and cost-effective path to fleet
electrification. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 43]
Duke Energy is teaming up with Daimler Truck North America and Electrada on this
importantwork. Electrada, an electric fuel solutions company, is providing funding for research
and demonstration efforts. For fleets seeking to electrify, Electrada invests all required capital
"behind the meter" and delivers reliable charging to the fleet's electric vehicles through a
performance contract, eliminating the complexity and risk that fleets face in transitioning to this
new source of fuel. Electrada's investment in the depot allows Duke Energy to focus on
programs that simplify adoption for electric fleet customers and distribution system performance
to support the predictable addition of electric load over time. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-
Al, p. 43]
By the end of 2023, fleet operators will be able to experience a best-in-class, commercial-
grade fleet depot integrated with energy storage, solar, and optimization software. Moving
1054
-------
to zero-emission vehicles in this sector allows North Carolina to seize the large economic
potential of the transition and generate billions in net benefits for the state. Projects like Duke
Energy's fleet performance center will be key for fleet owners across the state to take advantage
of the cost savings of transitioning to electric vehicles. That said, fleet owners exploring
electrification should engage their electricity provider early and often to identify and address
site-specific considerations. As fleet electrification accelerates, it will be important for electricity
providers and policymakers to identify best practices to proactively plan for fleet electrification,
including readying the distribution grid. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, pp. 43 - 44]
7. Xcel Energy
Xcel Energy is committed to electrifying all of its light-duty fleet and 30% of its medium and
heavy-duty fleet by 2030, equating to over 2,500 EVs. It's part of their vision to be a net-zero
energy provider by 2050 and enable one out of five vehicles to be electric in the areas they serve
by 2030. This will save customers $1 billion annually on fuel by 2030 and deliver cleaner air for
everyone. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 44]
With a fleet that includes iconic bucket trucks, all-terrain service vehicles, and a host of
pickup trucks and pool cars across eight states, achieving these goals will be no small feat, but an
important one. There are notable hurdles, yet evolving technology presents solutions. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 44]
Electrifying the Marquee Fleet Vehicle
Xcel Energy is the first electric provider in the nation to add an all-electric bucket truck to its
fleet. The truck features two electric sources: one for the drivetrain and one for the lift
mechanism. It has a 135-mile driving range and can operate the bucket for an entire workday on
a single charge. Crews are collecting data from real working conditions in Minnesota and
Colorado that will be used to inform further improvement to the vehicle's technology and
operation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 44]
Optimizing Charging to Minimize Grid Impacts
To support a growing electric fleet, over 1,200 EV chargers must be brought into service by
2030, which will result in an electric load increase of 71 megawatts. Charge management
techniques enable low-cost charging for this growing electric fleet. It's a sophisticated approach
to optimize charging times by using time-of-day and grid demand efficiencies and builds on the
expertise Xcel Energy has developed through offering managed charging programs to customers
in multiple states. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 44]
For fleets, overnight charging schedules make the most sense. Demand and rates are lower,
and renewable wind sources are ample at that time. Yet, fast charging outside of these time
periods may be required to help larger vehicles make it through a workday. This is when
charging schedules need to be customized and highly specific. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-
Al, p. 45]
Enabling Cleaner Service Calls Through Bucket Truck Technology
Xcel is also taking immediate action on other high-impact emission reduction opportunities,
using technologies such as electric power take-off, idle mitigation, and solar systems to power
job site tools.
1055
-------
• Electric power take-off (ePTO) - An ePTO system is a device that uses battery power. It's
similar to an EV, but instead of moving the vehicle down the road, it powers equipment
and tools to avoid engine idling at the job site. These devices are recharged by plugging
into the same chargers that EVs use.
• Idle mitigation - An idling truck can consume 1.5 gallons of gas each hour. Idle
mitigation on Xcel Energy's utility bucket trucks works by automatically shutting down
the gas-powered engine when the vehicle is not in use or when the engine is idling for too
long. This helps to reduce emissions and conserve fuel. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
2429-A1, p. 45]
Fleet Electrification Solutions for Customers
Xcel Energy's experience and expertise with fleet electrification doesn't stop with their own
fleet. They have developed a mix of customer programs across service areas to support fleet
electrification for businesses and communities. These customer-centric solutions enable
sophisticated planning, lower upfront costs with various rebates and incentives, and minimize
impacts to the grid. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 45]
Xcel's approach for commercial EV fleet development includes:
• Advisory services: Xcel offers a "white-glove service" to meet customers where they are
on their electrification journey by guiding them through customized planning for their
infrastructure needs. For fleet operators, this includes a free assessment to help them
determine the best path to electrify their fleet and advise them on future electric fleet
considerations such as charging best practices.
• Infrastructure installation: Xcel designs and builds EV supply infrastructure to support
charging station installations at minimal to no cost to customers.
• Equipment recommendations and rental options: Xcel also provides recommendations for
charging equipment and offers customers the option to purchase their own qualifying
vehicle chargers or rent them at a monthly fee that includes installation and maintenance.
• Grid continuity: Xcel designs long-term clean energy resource and distribution plans to
consider the future impact of new EV load to ensure ongoing grid stability, reliability and
affordability.
• Equitable opportunities: Xcel supports EV adoption in higher emissions communities and
income-qualified neighborhoods through rebates and incentives. This includes facilitating
the electrification of carshare, refuse trucks, school buses, paratransit vehicles, and other
fleets operating in these disproportionately impacted communities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-2429-A1, pp. 45 - 46]
Fleet electrification is a key component of Xcel Energy's larger vision, which includes
enabling zero-carbon transportation by 2050 across our eight-state service footprint. This long-
term strategy balances affordability with sustainability across the entire grid. It's why Xcel is
dedicated to assisting fleet managers across the ecosystem in providing fleet electrification
solutions that empower and inspire a clean energy future while also leading by example. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 46]
iii. Transmission
1056
-------
A critical part of ensuring a smooth transition to an electrified heavy-duty sector will be a
robust build out of high-voltage transmission lines. Doing so will also enable increased
penetration of renewables into the grid mix, helping to further improve the environmental and
climate benefits of electric vehicles. While progress in this space has historically been slow and
bogged down by procedural delays, there are some signs of progress. In April 2023, the U.S.
Bureau of Land Management approved a 732-mile transmission line, which will carry wind
energy from Wyoming through to Nevada. 139 Also in April 2023, a Maine court granted
approval to restart work on the 145-mile New England Clean Energy Connect project, which will
carry hydropower from Canada to New England. 140 The line is expected to carry up to 1,200
megawatts of power. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 46]
139 "US approves $3bn Wyoming-Nevada power line," (April 12, 2023) accessed May 15, 2023
https://www.power-technology.com/news/us-approves-3bn-wyoming-nevada-power-
line/#:~:text=The%20US%20BLM%20has%20given,blustery%20Wyoming%20through%20to%20Nevada
.&text=US%20officials%20on%20Tuesday%20gave,running%20from%20Wyoming%20to%20Nevada
140 "Maine court greenlights embattled $1B transmission line," (April 17, 2023) accessed May 17, 2023
https://subscriber.politicopro.eom/article/eenews/2023/04/21/maine-court-greenlights-embattled-lb-
transmission-line-00093087
Electricity transmission is also a key focus of the Biden-Harris Administration. In May 2023,
the administration published its plan to decrease permitting timelines for new transmission
projects, among other key items. 141 Also in May 2023, the U.S. Department of Energy proposed
a rule on designating National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors. 142 There will also be a
role for Congress to play in improving transmission permitting times and this is a policy area
where some bipartisan support exists. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, pp. 46 - 47]
141 "FACT SHEET: Biden-.Harris Administration Outlines Priorities for Building America's Energy
Infrastructure Faster, Safer, and Cleaner," (May 2023) https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-
room/statements-releases/2023/05/10/fact-sheet-biden-harris-administration-outlines-priorities-for-
building-americas-energy-infrastructure-faster-safer-and-cleaner/
142 88 FR 30956
EPA Summary and Response - Feasibility of Timing466:
Summary:
EPA received comments regarding the ability of the grid to grow and supply the power
needed to charge HD BEV. General concerns with grid capability (based on current hardware or
its age) and timely grid build out were voiced by American Free Enterprise Chamber of
Commerce (AmFree), American Highway Users Alliance, American Petroleum Institute (API),
American Trucking Associations (ATA), Dana Incorporated (Dana), Transfer Flow, Inc.,
MEMA, and Missouri Farm Bureau (MOFB). American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers
(AFPM) and AmFree stated that EPA should analyze the changes required and demonstrate that
the grid can grow sufficiently to support this policy. Additionally, Clean Fuels Development
Coalition and AFPM state that EPA has not accounted for the time and resources required to
permit, site, construct (with usual delays), and operate the grid improvements required for both
HD and LD. (We note that AFPM's comments on the LD rule driving level 2 charger load in
neighborhoods pertains to a different rulemaking; however, we are addressing here the question
466 Note that issues relating to timing and adequacy of hydrogen infrastructure are addressed separately in RTC 8.1.
1057
-------
of the combined effect of the HD and LD rules on the grid). Comments by National Association
of Manufacturers put the time needed for infrastructure transmission build out at half a century
based on their assumption of 57% growth required by 2035. Comments expressing concern
regarding location - specific power distribution for HD BEV, such as highways (including
alternative fuel corridors), rural areas, remote areas, and densely populated areas, were received
from Alliance for Vehicle Efficiency (AVE), American Trucking Associations (ATA), Daimler
Truck North America LLC (DTNA), MEMA, RMI, and Valero. These comments stated that
more detailed regional information is required to understand the grid distribution build out
challenges. Specific concerns were identified with remote areas with minimal power that may
not have sufficient excess power available as well as densely populated industrial areas that,
although they already have significant power available, they do not have sufficient excess
available power. MEMA shares a concern that heavy trucks operating away from infrastructure
will require generators on site if they are switched to BEV.
AFPM noted that one supercharger equals the power need of 70 air conditioners which points
out how the HD BEV need may drive a grid distribution shortfall. AmFree echoes this concern
when they state that a modest fleet of HD BEV would require 4 GWh/year that existing grid
connections would not be able to handle. They also point out that high energy stations could
require a new substation requiring 4 years to install or they could require a transmission
interconnection taking 8 years to complete. Daimler Truck North America LLC (DTNA) calls
electrical infrastructure build out the biggest barrier for adoption of HD BEV. Manufacturers like
DTNA shared their concern that they don't control the infrastructure buildout and there is
nothing that obligates the utilities to deliver. DTNA does not believe the infrastructure build out
will happen quickly enough without major regulatory and/or legislative action. One of DTNA's
concerns is that utility infrastructure planning is in the 5-10 year timeframe, much farther out
than fleets planning on adopting HD BEV, making alignment difficult.
Comments by AVE, Arizona State Legislature, NACS, and Delek US Holdings, Inc., and
Valero focused on the challenge of delivering the large amount of power required for any
individual charging station. NACS focused concern on charging stations possibly requiring 10
MW of power. ASL shared a similar concern in that a charging station could require the power
of a data center or small town. Valero shared concern on the grid capability based on comments
by California Energy Commission regarding peak demand at 5 pm and based on input from 12
states in their state EV Infrastructure plans.
Other comments focused concern on the complexity and number of stakeholders required to
implement grid buildout. Volvo states that the large number of utilities, compounded with
different geography and governing bodies, will make it impossible to extend ACT adoption rates
to the nation. API points out the critical nature of the grid infrastructure and that the utilities must
be fully engaged. ATA comments that the infrastructure plans should be site and state specific to
address the large number and varying types of utilities.467 ATA shares that having almost 3,000
utilities as well as individual energy regulatory entities will hamper investment and
modernization of the grid. They further state that the different utility types (investor owned
467 We note here that ATA's reference that ICCT, "recognizes that the electrification of commercial vehicles will
significantly burden the current electrical grid" is misleading as ICCT stated that the relatively small share of the
electricity demand attributable to the Phase 3 proposed rule (which was more stringent than that finally adopted) as
not being a constraint. See Comments of ICCT, June, 2023, Comment 1553, at pp. 10-11 (estimating demand from
proposed Phase 3 rule at 1% of national electric retail sales in 2021).
1058
-------
(IOU), publicly owned (POU), and cooperatives), will add to these challenges. They reference
input from California Public Utility Commission (a state wide planning and development
organization) regarding challenges including: time (3 years) to align statewide efforts and
complete infrastructure authorizations; market and technology uncertainty making it unclear
what infrastructure actions should be supported; the quantity of infrastructure build out needed
not having been adequately quantified within the states planning process; lack of detail on fleet
charger needs; lack of planning for enroute stations, no coherent planning framework; and,
finally, no process for identifying the land needed for substations. The concerns relating to
availability of critical minerals raised by American Highway Users Alliance are addressed in
RTC 17.2.
Supply chain concerns were mentioned by DTNA such as 40 weeks for transformers and 70
weeks for side meter panels /switch gears. DTNA added that the long lead times could be as
much as vehicle cycle time. Plans made for aligning HD BEV vehicles with charging needs
could become obsolete as the fleet changes by the time charging infrastructure is finally
available. National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA) states that supply chain
issues are causing shortages of basic machinery needed to ensure grid reliability. They also
share that cooperative utilities are waiting a year on average for distribution transformers and
that the lead time for large transformers is over 3 years. NTEA, The Association for the Work
Truck Industry is concerned with their work truck manufacturers getting required power and
states that in some cases the equipment required for power delivery is available but the
agreement from the utility to supply power has not been received and could be multiple years
away. Comments were also received (DTNA) that truck customers had cancelled orders when
utility timing for depot supply came in at 5-8 years. Other buildout estimates were shorter (3
years) but were deemed unacceptable as the fleet needs had to be proven through an order such
that the HD BEV would be available but would sit idle for 2 years before the grid buildout. EEI
recognizes this potential misalignment between the time of obtaining HD BEV and the time
required for buildout of supporting infrastructure. EEI also shared the related issue that fleet
customers are not familiar enough with the process of obtaining grid buildout. As mentioned
before, their investor-owned utility members are strengthening their relationship with fleet
customers to address this. Comments by EEI show that utilities are working to deliver power
when needed, understand critical detail like load profiles, and share information such as hosting
capacity maps. They note that utilities are adding account managers for fleets that will engage
early and help plan successful implementation. EEI also shares the utility challenge that many
are not authorized to make proactive upgrades but rather must wait until they have a customer
request. Energy Innovation commented that more states are authorizing utility investments to
support widespread and equitable access.
DTNA shared that some customers looked at temporary power solutions but those would have
increased upfront costs borne by their fleet. Related comments by ATA shared that a company
wanting to electrify forklifts was only able to change over a small percentage of their original
plan due to power availability.
Comments were received from Clean Air Task Force, CalStart, Edison Electric Institute
(EEI), Electrification Coalition (EC), Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), and National
Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA) supporting that the electrical distribution grid and
its buildout will be sufficient for the adoption rates analyzed by EPA in its projected compliance
pathway. The Edison Electric Institute (EEI), the trade association for all of the nation's investor-
1059
-------
owned utilities supported the proposal, indicating that needed infrastructure buildout can be
accommodated within a MY 2027-2032 timeframe. CalStart and EDF commented that even
more aggressive standards, posited on a higher ZEV adoption rate, would not be precluded by
grid reliability concerns. EDF shared that grid buildout since 1960, as shown by electricity sales,
has averaged 2.8%, well above what the proposed Phase 3 rule would necessitate, assuming
every OEM chose to comply using the compliance pathway projected by EPA. CalStart and
Clean Air Task Force stated that buildout will be possible and HD BEV adoption will be
supported since the fleet turnover will happen gradually allowing needed buildout to be phased
in over time rather than built all at once. Clean Air Task Force emphasizes that the HD fleet
composition, not just annual sales, should be presented to show the small portion of the fleet that
will be adding load to the grid (again, assuming that every OEM adopts the projected compliance
pathway). CalStart comments that investment in key nodes and then corridors will drive
efficient infrastructure implementation and greater availability than EPA assumes. ICCT made
the same point and provided quantified analysis of freight corridors that would be the likely
candidates for immediate buildout, noting that infrastructure buildout outside of these areas
would not be necessitated in the early years of a Phase 3 regime. CATF commented that
historical precedent shows that infrastructure buildout will occur as needed (see the further
summary in the following paragraph). They specifically reject the 'chicken-egg conundrum'
raised in a number of comments whereby utilities require guaranteed demand before building
out, but ZEV purchasers require assurance of infrastructure before purchasing a ZEV.
CATF states that utilities are planning and deploying solutions. EDF notes that there are a
number of State legislative initiatives to allow or to force proactive buildout by utilities. EDF
and EEI agree with the need for states, regulators, and utilities to improve planning and
regulatory practices and provide instances of where this process has already commenced. MFN
shares positive planning and reporting actions taken by the Minnesota PUC. EEI shares positive
actions by SCE and NY PSC. They reiterate that longer term buildout (10 year) will require
proactive planning processes between the utilities and regulators. MFN shares that California
legislation establishes a balancing account to recover associated costs, which would ensure
utilities do not have to wait several years for their next General Rate Cases to propose
investments. EDF, ICCT, and MFN share proposed California legislation that would drive or
even require utilities to be ready for connection requests. EC shares thoughts on expediting grid
buildout but suggests that utilities in ACT States should be approved to move forward with grid
buildout without a time-consuming regulatory approval process. DTNA recognizes the need for
government, utilities and other industries to work together. They share proposals for grid
planning responsibilities, legislation to require key grid updates, aligned adoption plans to
properly support utility forecasts, process to protect fleets from financial burden if planned
energy use isn't met, encouraging state regulators to adopt performance based regulations
regarding buildout, standardized application and review process for upgrade requests, encourage
utilities to bundle requests for grid upgrades with DER and stationary battery, process to allow
third parties to deliver and profit from infrastructure for HD BEV. ICCT comments that EPA
should engage other federal agencies and provide input on federal infrastructure policy. In public
comments, and in a contemporaneous May 2023 White Paper, ICCT provided quantified
estimates of electricity demand that could be needed for a regulatory program predicated on
some electrification, analysis of where demand might be heaviest potentially creating need for
some buildout, and means by which the buildout could be effectuated considering actions
1060
-------
utilities can take without need for regulatory approval, actions necessitating regulatory approval,
and actions requiring authorizing legislation.
RMI recognizes in their comments that the infrastructure build-out time and cost can be
limiting factors for ZEV adoption. RMI and ZETA share practical enablers such as identifying
where grid growth is needed, streamlining regulatory processes, providing regulatory incentives,
and embracing proactive grid planning. Energy Strategy Coalition, CARB, EDF, and ZETA
referenced the certainty a federal regulation would provide for needed planning relating to the
grid. CATF shares economic theory supporting that an increase in HD BEV sales will spur
infrastructure development. Like EDF, CATF notes that BIL and IRA support both HD ZEV
and infrastructure such that they will clearly support grid buildout. They use Norway as proof
that BEV sales and infrastructure can expand rapidly. They point to our US infrastructure
buildout of roads and service stations as automobile use expanded as another example of markets
and support infrastructure growing together. Comments supporting that grid reliability and grid
distributive buildout would not be impediments to achieving the proposed Phase 3 standards
were received from Cal Start, CATF, EDF, EEI, the thrust of these comments being that
implementation will be supported by federal, state, public entities, utilities, charging providers,
and fleets working together proactively on the required plans, policy, and funding. CalStart also
identified service providers that simulate grid needs for commercial vehicles and identify
required grid upgrades.
Electrification Coalition (EC), EEI, RMI and ICCT made comments that success will require
funding and cooperative actions between the transport and utility sectors and provided specific
examples of actions required. Consolidated Edison recommends that utility proactive planning
should be a best practice. EC comments highlighted studies by utilities that help identify and
communicate the issues that require proactive planning,while EDF highlights that NY State has
passed statutes requiring such studies. ICCT went into detail regarding what utilities can
implement on their own, those that need regulator notification, and those that require approval.
They assert that utilities can get started implementing change and do not require approval for
every helpful action.
EEI recognized that the grid buildout needs to support large charging stations capable of
supplying tens of megawatts. EEI states that "[ejlectric companies can accommodate localized
power needs at the pace of customer demand, provided appropriate customer engagement and
enabling policies are in place", that servicing HDV BEV demand posed some new issues for the
utility sector - notably rapid construction timelines, reduced customer familiarity with procuring
electric power, and uncertainty of load profiles, but went on to explain how the utility sector is
addressing these potential challenges.
Many of these comments stated how BEV purchasers could mitigate electricity demand.
AEU, State of California, and EDF provided examples of hardware enablers such as DER, V2G,
and stationary batteries. AEU, State of California, and EDF also shared software solutions that
manage power requested from the grid to optimize charging with grid temporal supply. AEU
focuses their input on the cost savings of managed charging, but they make it clear that,
"Managing these vehicles' charging load to avoid peak periods can substantially reduce the need
to upgrade both the facility's infrastructure and the utility-side infrastructure". EDF shares that
these hardware and software enablers can, in some cases, eliminate the need for grid buildout.
Another means of mitigating demand mentioned in comments was for users and utilities to agree
1061
-------
that demand would remain a given percentage below nameplate capacity (EDF, AEU.). MFN
shares evidence that time-of-use rates push electric demand (HD BEV charging) to times when
power is plentiful and less expensive.
Other commenters spoke positively to the issue of regional impacts. The Energy Strategy
Coalition noted that both Regional Transmission Organizations (RTO) and Independent System
operators (ISO) engage in long range planning and are doing so in anticipation of increased
demand posed by both light and heavy-duty electrification. Commenter EDF noted the work of
its contractor Analysis Group showing that 83% of demand posed by the HD rule would be less
than 5MW. MFN cited to a recent study of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
(September 2022) which centered on the MISO (midwest) grid and found the EVs could smooth
out the "negative valley" sometimes resulting from difficulties storing excess capacity from
renewables. CATF and EC provided multiple examples of regional stakeholders coming
together to coordinate and plan for increased electrification.
Comments were received that EPA should monitor and review charging infrastructure and
grid capacity. Other comments (NACAA) opposed ongoing evaluation as unnecessary and
inappropriate.
Response:
EPA has carefully considered the comments regarding the distribution infrastructure for
charging HD BEVs, including issues of feasibility, lead-time, and costs. In this response, we
discuss the feasibility and lead-time of distribution infrastructure; subsequent responses discuss
costs and other issues related to distribution infrastructure, as well as grid reliability and
resiliency. The agency has conducted comprehensive analyses of distribution infrastructure
needed to support HD ZEV charging, including in close coordination with the Department of
Energy and informed by the extensive public engagement on this issue. We find that there will
be sufficient lead-time to develop the necessary distribution infrastructure associated with HD
ZEV uptake under the modeled potential compliance pathway for the final standards. We note
that the final standards themselves, as discussed in section II of the preamble, provide significant
additional lead-time relative to the proposal, which also means additional lead-time to build and
connect distribution infrastructure. Our conclusion as to the sufficiency of distribution
infrastructure is supported by numerous comments and analyses, including those from the
stakeholders most intimately familiar with building and operating distribution infrastructure: the
utility industry and state utility and energy regulatory agencies. Below, we highlight several key
lines of evidence.
Because the need for distribution infrastructure is associated with increases in electricity
demand, EPA evaluated demand increases at the national, regional, and local levels. We found
only modest increases in demand associated with the Phase 3 Rule at all of these levels.
Assuming manufacturers follow the modeled potential compliance pathway—which focuses on
increasing penetrations of HD ZEVs468—the Phase 3 rule would account for less than 1%
468 We emphasize that the final rule does not require manufacturers to adopt any particular technological pathway;
nor does it force consumers to buy ZEVs, including because we anticipate that a large number of ICE vehicles will
continue to be produced and sold during the timeframe of this rule. Whether in response to potential charging
infrastructure or other constraints, manufacturers and consumers may choose to adopt a wide range of technologies
not dependent on charging infrastructure.
1062
-------
increase in transportation-sector electricity demand in MY 2027, the first year of the program,
rising to slightly over 9% in MY 2032. From the perspective of total utility demand for all
sectors, the increase by 2035 attributable to the rule is just slightly over 2.5%. These are modest
increases and consistent with historical increases in demand, such as accompanying the
introduction of refrigerators, air conditioners, and data centers, which the electric utilities have
successfully managed.
With respect to regional demand, we concentrated our analysis on the high freight corridor
areas identified as the most likely candidates for electrified infrastructure during the Phase 3
rule's timeframe. We found that demand associated with the Phase 3 rule in each of these areas
remains low, especially at the commencement of the Phase 3 rule in 2027, when issues of lead
time are most critical.
At the local level, our analysis is informed by the recent Department of Energy Transportation
Electrification Impact Study (TEIS), which found that only a small amount of new infrastructure
would be needed as a result of the rule. The TEIS evaluated five States susceptible to increased
infrastructure needs, including due to high concentrations of freight corridors necessitating
additional infrastructure, dense urban areas with less space for infrastructure buildout, and rural
areas with relatively little existing infrastructure. The study evaluated the combined effects of
both the Phase 3 Rule and the Light- and Medium-Duty Multi-Pollutant Rule. It found only
minor increases in peak demand associated with the incremental impact of the rule in 2027 and
2032 (+0.1 to +3.0%) and that even those minor increases could be reduced, in some cases to
below zero (i.e., decreases in peak demand), through basic, easily implemented, demand
management strategies (-1.8% to +0.5%). The study estimated that the peak demand increases
could be accommodated by a small volume of additional infrastructure; for example, in 2027
with basic management strategies, it found the need for zero new substations, five new feeders,
and 2,400 transformers across the five states evaluated. Based on our assessment of the time
needed to build different kinds of infrastructure, EPA determined that the level of buildout
identified by the TEIS could be achieved within the timeframe available.
We also carefully evaluated programs and funding to support charging infrastructure,
including at the Federal, State, local, and utility levels, for both depot and public charging. The
Federal government continues to provide significant funds for developing charging
infrastructure, including through the Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Discretionary Grant
Program. Many States have also developed programs to support such infrastructure; we
anticipate much of the needed charging infrastructure would be developed in States that have
adopted the Advanced Clean Trucks program, which mandates increasing levels of HD ZEVs,
and that also have especially supportive policies for developing such infrastructure. Many
localities and utilities also are actively developing innovative strategies to build and support
additional charging infrastructure; for example, Edison Electric Institute, the trade group for the
nation's investor owned utilities, identified numerous such strategies and concluded that needed
infrastructure could be timely developed. The final rule provides beneficial regulatory certainty
to support the development of these programs and of charging infrastructure generally.
Finally, we underscore the potential for numerous innovative strategies to mitigate
distribution infrastructure demands. As noted regarding the TEIS study, even basic mitigation
strategies for HD BEV charging can significantly ameliorate or even reduce peak demand. A
panoply of potential strategies—including short-term load rebalancing, smart charging contracts,
1063
-------
flexible interconnections, hosting capacity maps, managed charging software, vehicle-to-grid
technologies, distributed energy generation, onsite battery storage, and more—provides many
opportunities for mitigating the impacts of additional demand, and in some cases, for providing
benefits back to the grid as the volume of BEV charging increases.
The balance of this response details the above factors.
EPA found at proposal that "there is sufficient time for the infrastructure, especially for depot
charging, to gradually increase over the remainder of this decade to levels that support the
stringency of the proposed standards for the timeframe they would apply." 88 FR at 25999. We
reiterate that conclusion here. Addressing the question of availability of supporting electrification
infrastructure in the rule's 2027-2032 MY timeframe necessitates a predictive judgment by the
agency. In making this type of prediction, EPA follows the same template as in developing
emission standards under Title II generally: EPA must identify the steps necessary for
deployment of the needed amount of infrastructure, and provide plausible reasons as to how
these steps can be effectuated in the lead time provided.469 In making these projections, EPA has
consulted repeatedly with the Department of Energy (DOE), and has benefitted greatly from the
Department's expertise.470 EPA also met with the North American Electric Reliability
Corporation (NERC) staff on the two rules for on-highway vehicles, the light- and medium-duty
vehicle multipollutant standards proposal, and the heavy-duty vehicle Greenhouse Gas (GHG)
emissions standards 471
We estimate a modest annual generation increase attributable to the Phase 3 rule.472 In
consideration of lead time concerns raised by commenters (on both infrastructure and vehicle
developments), we are finalizing C02 emission standards for heavy-duty vehicles that include a
lower increase in stringency of standards for many HD vehicle categories in MY 2027, a slower
phase-in of standards through MYs 2028 and 2029, and a phase-in of standards from MYs 2030
through 2032 that, for many of the subcategories, achieves similar levels of stringency in MY
2032 as proposed
In 2027, the Phase 3 rule is projected to increase demand for electricity posed by the
transportation sector by a modest 0.666%.; that is, of the demand for electricity posed by the
transportation sector, well less than 1% is attributable to the Phase 3 rule. In 2032, this is
projected to increase demand from that sector by 9.232%. 473 We note that the modelling
associated with these estimates assumed somewhat higher electricity demand than the demand
469 NRDC v. EPA, 655 F. 2d 318, 333 (D.C. Cir. 1983).
470 See_Shafer & Freeman Lakes Env't Conservation Corp. v. FERC, 992 F.3d 1071, 1090 (D.C. Cir. 2021)
(deference to agency determination supported where agency consulted with outside experts regarding that
determination). See also Intelligent Transportation Soc'y of Am. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 45 F.4th 406, 413-14
(D.C. Cir. 2022) (Federal Communications Commission properly rejected challenge relating to its findings
involving transportation safety by utilizing analysis from the Department of Transportation).
471 Jung, Zoltan. "North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) Grid Reliability Discussion". January
26, 2024
472 Murray, Evan "Calculations of the Final Standards at Various Geographic Scales" (February, 2024).
473 Murray, Evan "Calculations of the Impacts of theFinal Standards at Various Geographic Scales" (February,
2024). (National Demand tab)
1064
-------
ultimately reflected in the final rule.474 The final rule adoption scenario and associated
electricity needs were not finalized when inputs were required for this analysis. Our interim
scenario was used for input as it was the most accurate data available when inputs were required.
The modelling also includes needed electricity generation for the hydrogen necessary to fuel
FCEVs produced using grid electrolysis (as a simplifying assumption). The power supply for
electrolysis is assumed to be available or made available while the electrolysis facility is built so
the related electricity distribution build out is not a critical factor for timing. EPA thus regards
this modeling as conservative.
Furthermore, since this demand is only that portion attributable to the transportation sector,
the demand as a percentage of total demand on a utility would be less, since it would be in effect
diluted by all other sources of demand. Thus, in 2030 and 2035 (the only years for which we are
able to generate these values), increases in generation are only 0.41% and 2.59% of total
demand.475
Furthermore, there is near consensus that charging infrastructure needed to meet this demand
in the time frame of the rule will be centered in a sub-set of states and counties where freight
activity is concentrated and where many have supportive ZEV polices. See RTC section 6.1
above. These likely areas of high concentration include Texas (Harris, Dallas, and Bexar
counties); southern California (Los Angeles, San Bernadino, San Diego and Riverside counties);
New York State (Bronx, New York, Queens, Kings, and Richmond counties); Massachusetts
(Suffolk county); Pennsylvania (Philadelphia county); New Jersey (Hudson county); and Florida
(Miami-Dade county).476 These areas are projected to experience either higher aggregate
demand or higher energy demand per unit area attributable to HD BEV adoption. The projected
increases from baseline transportation sector demand are especially modest in 2027, the initial
year of the phase 3 program, when there is the shortest amount of lead time:
• Boston-Cambridge-Newton (Mass/New Hampshire) 0.093%
• Chicago-Napierville-Elgin (Illinois-Indiana-Wisconsin) 0.836%)
• Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington (Texas) 0.866%
• Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land (Texas) 0.847%>
• Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim (California) 0.002%
474 Murray, Evan. Memorandum to Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985. "Modeling Inputs for IPM Modeling in the
Final Rulemaking Inventory Analysis". February , 2024.
475 Murray, Evan "Calculations of the Impacts of the Final Standards at Various Geographic Scales" (February,
2024). (Generation National Demand tab)
476 Comments of ICCT, July 2023 at 11. These comments reflect Ragon, Kelly, et al., 2023 ("ICCT May 2023 White
Paper"). The ICCT May 2023 White Paper combines trucking operational data and route information with
locational factors to estimate the types quantity and approximate location of new charging capacity that may be
needed due to electrification requirements and growth on HDV BEVs. These estimates reflect BEV adoption in the
heavy duty fleet slightly greater than EPA projects in its estimated compliance pathway for MY 2032, and so
constitute conservative estimates. See Hibbard et al. "Heavy Duty Vehicle Electrification: Planning for and
Development of Needed Power System infrastructure" (Analysis Group, June 2023) at Table 1 ("Analysis Group
HDC Electrification Paper"), available at Analysis Group, https://blogs.edf.org/climate411/wp-
content/blogs.dir/7/files/Analysis-Group-HDV-Charging-Impacts-Report.pdf.
1065
-------
Miami-Ft. Lauderdale-West Palm Beach (Florida)
0.830%
New York City-Newark-Jersey City (New York/NJ) 0.007%
Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington (PA -NJ-DE-MD) 0.531%
Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale (Arizona)
Riverside-San Bernadino-Ontario (California)
San Antonio-New Braunfels (Texas)
San Diego-Carlsbad (California)
0.878%
0.002%
0.870%
0.002%477
These estimates are conservative. The projected increases represent increased electricity
demand attributable to both the heavy-duty rule and demand from the light duty sector absent the
final rule . EPA did not disaggregate these data, and they reflect the aggregate increase demand
associated with both rules that utilities would face. However, the portion of electricity demand
attributable to the Phase 3 rule as finalized would be less.
We estimate that electricity demand in these critical freight corridors attributable to the
transportation sector would increase in 2032, reflecting increased standard stringency, including
standards for sleeper cab tractors and heavy heavy-duty vocational vehicles which commence in
later years of the program:
• Boston-Cambridge-Newton (Mass/New Hampshire) 1.157%)
• Chicago-Napierville-Elgin (Illinois-Indiana-Wisconsin) 10.95%)
• Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington (Texas) 12.285%)
• Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land (Texas) 11.715%)
• Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim (California) 0.014%
• Miami-Ft. Lauderdale-West Palm Beach (Florida) 10.597%)
• New York City-Newark-Jersey City (New York/NJ) 0.077%)
• Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington (PA-NJ-DE-MD) 6.545%
• Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale (Arizona) 12.053%)
• Riverside-San Bernadino-Ontario (California) 0.014%
• San Antonio-New Braunfels (Texas) 12.580%)
477Murray, Evan "Calculations of the Impacts of the Final Standards at Various Geographic Scales" (February,
2024).(MSA Demand tab). We note that the differences in demand reflect ACT implementation in some of the
states
478 Murray, Evan "Calculations of the Impacts of the Final Standards at Various Geographic Scales" (February
2024). (MSA Demand tab)
San Diego-Carlsbad (California)
0.014%478
1066
-------
EPA regards these projected increases as modest. The projected increases in 2027, when there
is the shortest lead time for buildout, are small. As expected, demand is projected to increase in
2032 but there is considerably more available lead time in which buildout can be accommodated.
Moreover, these increases are modest compared to total electricity demand on utilities within the
States in these freight corridors. Thus, looking at the dominant state in each freight corridor
which in 2032 showed incremental transportation sector increases greater than 1.1%, the effect
on total in-state demand (in 2035) is low: Arizona is 2.85%, Florida 2.39%; Illinois 0.91%,
Pennsylvania 1.04%, and Texas 2.34 %.479 The National Zero-Emission Freight Corridor
Strategy described above identifies many of these areas in its phasing of a national network,
which will help focus timely planning for and investment in the deployment of refueling and
utility infrastructure in advance of the regulatory period.480
The Department of Energy Study, "Transportation Electrification Impact Study" ("TEIS")
supports this conclusion.481 This is a first-of-its-kind study which performs thermal capacity
analysis (at the substation, feeder, and service transformer levels) compared to cumulative
LMHD vehicle demand (i.e., demand from both the light- and heavy-duty sectors) enabling
location-specific estimates of potential buildout capacity needs and costs. This is the first study
to be bottom up, comparing parcel level LMHD demand to parcel supply by PV (photo voltaic)
and grid capacity at each examined parcel.482 Previous studies made estimates of how the new
demand from BEV might align with the existing grid capacity or studied the parcel level grid
needs for a smaller area (as compared to this 5 state analysis). The TEIS is especially valuable, in
fact unique, in assessing both a large area (5-State) coupled with parcel-level analysis.483 The
study focuses on five study States (California, Illinois, New York, Oklahoma, and Pennsylvania),
and extrapolates those results nationwide. The five states were intentionally chosen to address
geographic concerns such as freight corridors, crowded urban areas, and rural areas with widely
distributed demand sources. These states represent 30-35% of the costs of the extrapolated
results in the TEIS.484 They also account for nearly 20% of 2021 nationwide utility peak demand
and account for 25 % of electricity customers nationwide.485 The study also incorporates public
charging such that the corresponding high power needs are reflected, addressing a concern of
479 Murray, Evan "Calculations of the Impacts of the Final Standards at Various Geographic Scales" (February
2024) (State generation tab). We recognize that generated electricity can cross state lines, so that these corridors
could be serviced by multiple states. However, increased total electric demand in states in the freight corridors other
than those mentioned in the text above remains low. Incremental impact on Indiana electricity demand, for
example, is 1.90 %. Id.
480 U.S. Joint Office of Energy and Transportation, "National Zero-Emission Freight Corridor Strategy," DOE/EE-
2816 2024. Available online: https://driveelectric.gov/files/zef-corridor-strategy.pdf
481
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Kevala Inc., and U.S.
Department of Energy. "Multi-State Transportation Electrification Impact Study: Preparing the Grid for Light-,
Medium-, and Heavy-Duty Electric Vehicles". DOE/EE-2818. U.S. Department of Energy. March 2024.
("TEIS").
482 A "parcel", as used in TEIS, means "a real estate property or land and any associated structures that are the
property of a person with identification for taxation purposes." TEIS at 2.
483 TEIS at 6-7.
484 TEIS at 66. EPA agrees with the TEIS that these States' results are sufficiently representative to allow for
national extrapolation. See TEIS App B for description of the extrapolation methodology in the Study.
485 TEIS at 72 .
1067
-------
many comments. . The study estimates overload at the substation level (100% criteria)486, feeder
level (100% criteria), and at the residential service transformer per feeder level (125% criteria).
487 Scenarios examined are no action case (baseline without EPA light-duty or heavy-duty
emission standards), and action case with EPA light- and heavy-duty rules), using as an Action
case the same case EPA used for its national and regional estimates presented above.), Both
action and no action cases are analyzed with and without mitigation resulting in four scenarios
generated. The study examines the same four scenarios for both 2027 and 2032.488 The TEIS
unmanaged (without mitigation) case simply distributes the BEV demand over the vehicle dwell
time available for charging. The BEV charging is ignorant to non BEV loads. Charging could
still occur on top of, and increasing, peak demand. As an example, if the peak load due to
existing homes and business occurs at 7 pm and the BEV dwell time runs from 6 pm to 6 am, the
unmitigated charging would apply peak power charging at 7 pm, exacerbating peak demand. The
mitigated scenario assumes a lower power level and uses the available dwell time — it lasts until
the vehicle leaves the charging venue.489 The peak power demand increases but at a lower level.
Consistent with the national demand and high freight corridor regional demand estimates
above, the TEIS projects minimal increase in demand (energy consumption) and minimal
increase in peak demand for the LMHD action case relative to no action for both 2027 and 2032,
even without considering any management. In 2027, incremental energy consumption across the
five states attributable to the light- and heavy-duty rules ranged from 0.1-0.3%.490 In 2032, that
incremental increase ranged from 1.6% to 2.7%.491 Incremental impact on 5 state peak demand,
again from the unmanaged case, was 0.1-0.2%) in 2027 and 0.6-3.0%) in 2032.492
If ZEV users engage in non-optimized "conservative" management -shifting charging times
so that vehicles minimize charging power such that the charging session starts on arrival and
finishes when the vehicle departs the charging location493 - not only do these estimates of peak
demand impacts decrease, but in some instances, peak demand is projected to decrease in
absolute terms, that is, to be less than in the no action unmanaged case. Just by engaging in
easy-to-implement time of day charging adjustments, overall demand to the grid is reduced
(demand relative to the no action case), smoothing out overall demand and allowing for more
efficient distribution. Thus, for 2027, incremental peak demand is reduced in four of the five
states, and unchanged in the fifth.494 . For 2032, incremental peak demand is positive in two of
486 Criteria level is showing if the peak loads are directly applicable to the design capacity of the system as is the
case for the 100% criteria level. Criteria level of 125% for service transformer shows that many individual
noncoincident peaks exist. See TEIS at 47-49 for additional detail.
487 TEIS at 47 (substation), 47 (feeder), and 49 (transformer).
488 TEIS at Executive Summary vi-vii. The No Action case includes current state and federal policies and
regulations as of April 2023. Id. at vi.
489 TEIS at 4: "A managed scenario is applied in which vehicles arriving at select charging locations will
intentionally minimize charging power suych that the session is completed just prior to the vehicle's departure time
from that location."
490 TEIS at 63.
491 TEIS at 63.
492 TEIS at 76
493 TEIS at 4.
494 TEIS at 62.
1068
-------
the states but the increase is only 0.1% and 0.5%, and reduced in the other states by 0.5%-1.8%
potentially obviating the need for any incremental buildout at all.495
These minor increases reflect low numbers of transformers, feeders, and substations estimated
to be needed (again, for the five states studied and for both light and heavy-duty rules together).
In 2027, the TEIS projects need for only a single incremental substation, and zero in the
managed case. In 2032, the TEIS projects that only 8 incremental substations would be needed in
the unmanaged case, 4 if conservative mitigative measures are utilized.496 Of these, all but one
would be upgrades to an existing substation.497 Projections for incremental feeders are 9 in 2027
(5 in the managed case), and 125 in 2032 (75 if managed). In 2027, the TEIS projects an
incremental need of 2800 transformers (2,400 if managed), and 30,000 in 2032 (21,000 in the
managed case). 498 Compare this to the estimated 1 million transformers sold domestically each
year, and the estimated 50 million transformers associated with the U.S. electric grid.499.
Industry is also responding with actions such as Prolec GE's $30 million expansion at its
Shreveport, Louisiana transformer plant, their $85 million new plant in Monterrey, Mexico, and
Siemens Energy investing $150 million to build their first transformer production facility in the
US in Charlotte, North Carolina.500.
EPA finds that this projected amount of buildout attributable to the Phase 3 rule can be
accommodated in the rule's time frame. Indeed, the TEIS finds that "[njotably, substation,
transformer bank and service transformers built by 2027 mostly cover 2032 needs based off size
assumptions for existing and new substations; feeder upgrades are still triggered in 2032." 501
Realistic estimates for time needed to install infrastructure components have been studied and
are shared here (and see also RIA Chapter 1.6.5 for further discussion):
495 TEIS at 62.
496 TEIS at 75.
497 TEIS at 77-81 .
498 TEIS at 75.
499 Power Technology Research, "The U.S. Distribution Transformer Market: A Replacement and Expansion Story"
(June, 2022) at https://ptr.inc./the-u-s-distribution-transformer-market-continues-to-be-replacement-driven; and
Environmental and Energy Study Inst, "Driven to Be More Energy Efficient, Distribution Transformers Are More
than Meets the Eye" (August 25, 2023) at https://www.eesi.org/articles/view/driven-to-be-more-energy-efficient-
distribution-transformers-are-more-than-meets-the-eye.
500 "Siemens Energy addresses the shortage of U.S. power transformers and invests in new factory". Siemens Energy
press release. February 14, 2024. Available online: https://www.siemens-energy.com/global/en/home/press-
releases/siemens_energy_addresses_shortage_US_powertransformers_invests_new_factory.html#:~:text=Siemens%
20Energy%20addresses%20the%20shortage%20of%20U.S.,and%20invests%20in%20new%20factory&text=Sieme
ns%20Energy%20is%20addressing%20the,creating%20almost%20600%201ocal%20jobs
501 TEIS at 74.
1069
-------
Time to Implement (months)
Component
Capacity per Borlaug
Borlaug et al. 2021502
EPRI503
Substation New
3 - 10+ MW
24-48
36-60
Substation Upgrade
3 - 10+ MW
12-18
24-36
Feeder New
5+ MW
12-24
Feeder Upgrade
5+ MW
3-12
6-12
Transformer New
200+ kW
3 -8
3-8
Although new substations are a significant undertaking that can take multiple years as shown
in the Table above, as noted, the TEIS finds that, for the 5-state analysis, only 4 substations
(incremental to the no action case) are required for the managed scenario and 8 for unmanaged in
2032. In 2027, the TEIS found that only a single additional upgraded substation (or none in the
managed case), and, as just noted, finds that substations built by 2027 can "mostly cover 2032
needs". We note further that the estimates in the TEIS Study of the amount of distributive
buildout needed are conservative with respect to the Heavy-duty Phase 3 rule - indeed, the
estimates are almost certainly overstated. First, the TEIS Study considered both the
light/medium duty standards and the Phase 3 heavy-duty emission standards together and did not
disaggregate the results. Second, the Action scenario considered was more stringent with respect
to electricity demand for Phase 3 than the rule ultimately finalized. In addition as noted above,
the "unmanaged" scenario presented above considers no mitigation efforts at all. If conservative,
simple charging level adjustments in the TEIS managed scenarios estimated impacts decrease
sharply. The action managed case is projected to reduce peak loads in all 5 States in 2027, and
to reduce peak loads in 3 of the 5 States in 2032.
EPA recognizes that from the standpoint of timing, one may consider not only incremental
increases in demand attributable to the Phase 3 rule but also other demand from the
transportation sector that might occasion the need for distributive grid buildout. That is, buildout
can be needed with respect to HD BEVs in the EPA reference case as well as to those reflected
in the analysis supporting the Phase 3 rule. We continue to find that this overall demand can be
accommodated within the timeframe of the rule for the following reasons.
As discussed above, buildout need not occur everywhere and all at once. In the rule's time
frame, as shown in particular in the ICCT White Paper, it can be centered in a discrete number of
high freight corridors.
In the early model years of the program, when lead time is the shortest, projected demand
remains low.504 When accounting for the increase from all vehicles (light-duty and heavy-duty),
we find the portion of demand attributable to the entire heavy-duty vehicle sector (including
ACT) increases by only 2.6% between 2024 and 2027. 505 That is, the increase in demand
502 Borlaug, B., Muratori, M., Gilleran, M. et al. "Heavy-duty truck electrification and the impacts of depot charging
on electricity distribution systems". Nat Energy 6, 673-682 (2021). Available online:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-021-00855-0
503 EPRI. "EVs2Scale2030TM Grid Primer". August 29, 2023. Available online:
https://www.epri.eom/research/products/000000003002028010
504 Murray, Evan, "Calculations of the Impacts of the Final Standards at Various Geographic Scales" (February
2024).
505 Murray, Evan "Calculations of the Impacts of the Final Standards at Various Geographic Scales" (February ,
2024) (Demand National tab.)
1070
-------
attributable specifically to electric heavy-duty vehicles (including ACT), and therefore the
infrastructure buildout necessary to support those vehicles, is small compared to other factors.
We further project that a substantial majority of these ACT-compliant ZEVs would be light
and medium heavy vocational vehicles which would be the least likely to require additional
buildout. RIA Chapter 4.2.2. For example, the TEIS projects no need for new and upgraded
substations in 2027 nationally, and need for only approximately 24-48 (managed and unmanaged
cases) nationally in 2032 ).506
Most of the demand comes from the states which have adopted ACT: California, Oregon,
Washington, New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts, and Colorado.507 In adopting ACT, these
States have considered the means to successfully implement the program and in some cases
taken additional legislative or regulatory action specifically to support needed infrastructure.
This is reflected in the administrative record here. For example, the California Public Utility
Commission is developing a Zero-Emission Freight infrastructure planning framework to
identify distribution, substation and transmission needs under high transportation electrification
scenarios.508 Similarly, in New York, the State Department of Public Services has ordered seven
utilities within the state to develop a Coordinated Grid Planning Process which requires utilities
to proactively identify potential barriers to incremental new load, including from HDV charging,
and to identify near-term solutions for any such identified barriers.509 Eversource, New
England's largest energy delivery company, has published an Integrative System Planning
Approach per the order of the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities.510 See also the
legislative actions undertaken in California and New York, cited in the comments of the
Environmental Defense Fund. CARB, EMA, and the HDV OEMs have also reached agreement
to "actively promote further needed infrastructure development."511
With respect to non-ACT states, most of the demand in these states is attributable to the Phase
3 rule itself. See RIA Chapter 4.2.2 (sales ratio for HD BEVs in non-ACT states is
approximately 0.2). As shown above with respect to high freight corridors in non-ACT states
(including Pennsylvania, Texas, Arizona, and Illinois), incremental demand is low, especially in
the critical initial year of the program. State-by state results show similar small percentages of
increased demand. 512 We note that Florida (a non-ACT state) has experienced a dramatic load
growth since 2012 (10 percent overall), but has accommodated that growth, including building
506 TEIS at 65 and using the TEIS analysis showing that the 5 states analyzed account for approximately one third of
national costs (TEIS at 66).
507 Murray, Evan "Calculations of the Impacts of the Final Standards at Various Geographic Scales" (February
2024) (Demand by State tab.). At the time we performed the inventory modeling analysis, seven states had
adopted ACT in addition to California. Oregon, Washington, New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts adopted
ACT beginning in MY 2025 while Vermont adopted ACT beginning in MY 2026 and Colorado in MY 2027. Three
other states, New Mexico, Maryland, and Rhode Island adopted ACT (beginning in MY 2027) in November and
December of 2023, but there was not sufficient time for us to incorporate them as ACT states in our modeling.
508 Analysis Group Heavy Duty Vehicle Electrification at 29.
509 Analysis Group Heavy Duty Vehicle Electrification at 31.
510 "Integrated Distribution System Planning Approach", www.mass.gov/doc/eversource-integrated-distribution-
systcm-p 1 anning-approach/down 1 oad#:~ (May 8, 2023).
511 Final Agreement between CARB, EMA, and Manufacturing Members of EMA, App. D item G (June 2023).
512 Murray, Evan "Calculations of the Impacts of the Final Standards at Various Geographic Scales" (February
2024) (Demand by State tab).
1071
-------
new substations, feeders (9 percent increase), and transformers, all between 2013 and 2021.513
This is far more buildout than will be occasioned by heavy-duty BEVs within the Phase 3 rule's
timeframe.
We further note the comments of the Edison Electric Institute (trade association of the
nation's investor owned utilities) ("EEI") that the degree of anticipated buildout is similar to
increases experienced historically by the utility industry, and can be accommodated within the
Phase 3 rule's timeframe. EEI Comments at 7, 8. The Analysis Group reached a similar
conclusion.514 Some commenters were concerned that interactions with utilities and their
regulatory commissions vary state-by-state, and that this balkanized regime adds to grid buildout
deployment timing difficulties.515 Other commenters, however, persuasively maintained that this
localized system is actually a plus. Each potential buildout is a localized decision, best handled
by the local utility and grid operator.516 As discussed in the following section, there are also
many mitigative measures which BEV users can utilize to reduce demand, and the localized
process provides a ready means to best develop optimized local mitigative measures.
Finally, we expect that the Phase 3 rule itself will serve as a strong signal to the utility
industry to make proactive investments and otherwise proactively analyze and plan for potential
buildout needs.517 This is a partial answer to the chicken-egg conundrum voiced in the
comments (see discussion in the following section).
Putting this together, EPA finds that the increases in national electricity demand associated
with the Phase 3 Rule are very low in 2027 and increase to modest and manageable levels in later
years of the program. At a regional and local level, we expect some areas to see small increases
in peak demand, while other areas may see small decreases in peak demand associated with basic
managed charging strategies. The resulting level of needed infrastructure buildout is small and
manageable given the lead-time available. We now consider the specific situations of depot
charging and en route (public) charging.
A. Depot Charging
We consider first the situation of a centralized depot accommodating multi-vehicle fleets, the
typical situation for most of the HD BEVs considered in our modelled compliance pathway. As
noted above, a number of commenters pointed out, accommodating the increased demand for
this type of depot is not unprecedented, or even unusual, for utilities to timely accommodate.
Charging infrastructure needs for a depot housing a large fleet would be similar to those of a data
center or of a large commercial building, which demand even greater power at a centralized
513 Analysis Group Heavy Duty Vehicle Electrification at 22.
514 Analysis Group Heavy Duty Vehicle Electrification at 27 ("Adding significant new distribution system
infrastructure is not a new experience for states, public utility commissions, or electric companies, and there are
long-standing policies and practices in place to ensure timely planning for and development of the infrastructure
needed to endure system, reliability. And for most states and electric companies in the country. The magnitude and
pace of system demand growth associated with the rollout of the EPA's proposed Phase 3 rule neither different from
past periods of economically-driven demand growth, nor unusual with respect of the processes of forecasting,
planning and development required.")
515 Comments of DTNA at 47; see also Comments of Environmental Defense Fund at 67.
516 Comments of State of California at 29.
517 See Comments of CATF at 48; Comments of EDF at 75; Comments of ICCT at 10; Comments of Moving
Forward Network at 114.
1072
-------
location.518 Utilities successfully connected more than 1,000 MW of new data center loads in
2023.519 In Virginia alone, the data center industry's load has increased 500 MW annually for the
past three years and been accommodated.520
The final standards are structured to minimize demand for electrification infrastructure
distributive buildout in the initial years of the program, the critical years for this purpose given
the shorter lead time. The standards for MYs 2027-2029 are less stringent than proposed. The
standards for the HDVs which pose the highest demand, heavy heavy-duty vocational vehicles
and sleeper cab tractors, do not take effect until MYs 2029 and 2030, respectively.
We further have demonstrated a compliance pathway whereby almost all of the HDV BEVs
utilize Level 2 or DC-50 kW chargers for depot EVSE, rather than higher rated chargers.521
These lower rated chargers will not pose the types of electricity demand potentially requiring
distributive buildout upgrades as the higher-rated chargers posited by some of the
599
commenters.
We have carefully considered the public comments and see that utilities and fleets have both
the means to address issues of timing of buildout and are already utilizing them. EPA recognizes
the various comments about leadtime. For example, a commenter states that "at the distribution
system level it is not sufficient to simply compare potential charging station demand growth to
system capacities."523 Some commenters pointed to a chicken-egg conundrum, whereby
potential fleet purchasers contemplating BEVs will not purchase without an assurance of
adequate electrical supply, but utilities cannot build out without having assurance of demand.
They say that utilities can be required to demonstrate that any buildout will be utilized in order to
obtain regulatory approval for the buildout,524 and state that infrastructure buildout needs can be
heightened by the current practice of establishing capacity to handle nameplate power, the
theoretical maximum power delivered when all users demand maximum load at once.
Commenters note that related issues can arise from misalignment of timing of purchasing
518 North America Data Center Trends HI 2022, "CBRE, September 9, 2022, available at
https://www.cbre.com/insights/reports/north-america-data-center-trends-hl-2022.
519 North America Data Center Trends H2 2023, CBRE, March 6, 2024, available at
https://www.cbre.com/insights/reports/north-america-data-center-trends-h2-2023.. See also Analysis Group Heavy
Duty Vehicle Electrification at pp. 23-24 for additional examples of utilities' timely accommodation of high demand
data centers. See also Comments of EEI at 8: "Some large EV charging facilities have power requirements in the
tens of megawatts (MW). Electric companies are well accustomed to serving facilities with those type of power
needs".
520 Wilson, J., and Z. Zimmerman. 2023. The Era of Flat Power Demand is Over. Grid Strategies. See pp. 11 at
https://gridstrategiesllc.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/National-Load-Growth-Report-
2023.pdf#:~:text=Over%20the%20past%20decade%2C%20grid%20planners%20have%20been,data%20centers%2
C%20industrial%20facilities%2C%20and%20other%20near-term%20investments
521 RIA chapter 2 at Table 2-73. The only exceptions are for tour tractors projected to utilize DC-150kW chargers
(HD TRUCS vehicles 30, 31, 83, and 101), and one additional tractor and one transit bus projected to utilize DC-
350kW chargers (HD TRUCS vehicles 80 and 87).
522 The ICCT White Paper likewise finds that "trucks with smaller batteries can charge overnight with 50 kW CCS
chargers or 19 kW Level 2 chargers in some cases." ICCT White Paper at p. 6.
523 Analysis Group Heavy Duty Vehicle Electrification at 10.
524 Comment of EEI at 11:" While policies vary by state commission, two generally applicable principles have
important implications for fleet electrification. First, the 'used and useful' standard means that regulatory will only
approve the electric company to build infrastructure that will be utilize and provide value." EEI further documents
that a number of large utilities are finding ways to move away from this model so as to provide infrastructure
readiness in advance of individual applications. EEI comments at 12-14. (described more fully in text above).
1073
-------
decisions and distributive grid buildout, including that utilities need to account for the fact that a
BEV purchasing decision is on a shorter timeline than building construction. Commenters also
note that a major distributive buildout requiring new substations would require significant lead
time; for example, buildouts entailing new substations could take years for construction and for
obtaining regulatory approvals.525
EPA has thoroughly considered these issues, including in consultation with experts at the
Department of Energy. While we acknowledge the leadtime concerns raised by these
commenters, the agency believes there is sufficient leadtime. We have identified solutions to
each of these issues, many of which are already being implemented. First, as demonstrated
above, we have projected a compliance pathway whereby there will be limited need for any grid
distributive buildouts. Those buildouts that we project largely involve transformers or feeders,
and a small number of expanded substations. Few new substations are projected to be needed ,
even when considering national demand (i.e. BEVs in EPA's reference case plus those
attributable to the Phase 3 rule, in the potential compliance pathway). We emphasize again that
this analysis is conservative in that we do not consider ameliorative measures available to
utilities to apportion demand (discussed below), and consider only conservative mitigative
measures on the part of depot owners (limited time-of-day charging assumptions).
Second, utilities can and are acting proactively to provide added capacity when needed. As
stated by EEI, "EPA's assessment that 'there is sufficient time for the infrastructure, especially
for depot charging, to gradually increase over the remainder of this decade to levels that support
the stringency of the proposed standards for the timeframe they would apply' is accurate. As
seen above, EEI members actively are planning for and deploying infrastructure today."526 EEI
documents that a number of large utilities are finding ways to move away from a business model
requiring demonstration of concrete demand so as to provide infrastructure readiness in advance
of individual applications. EEI comments at 12-14 (actions of California and New York State
investor owned utilities, and their respective regulatory bodies); see also Analysis Group Heavy
Duty Vehicle Electrification at 31 and n. 75 (rate orders allowing utilities to include adjustment
clauses in tariffs, whereby utility buildout expansions need not wait upon the outcome of a full
rate case).
There are means for utilities to ameliorate demand which do not require regulatory approval
at all. Utilities can engage in short-term load rebalancing by optimizing use of existing
distributive infrastructure. This can accommodate new HDV demand while maintaining overall
system reliability.527 In addition, because depot charging often occurs over nighttime hours
corresponding to reduced system demand, utilities have the flexibility to use otherwise extra grid
capacity for those hours (excess capacity being inherent in constructing to nameplate
capacity).528 Utilities also can reduce needed demand by incorporating so-called smart charging
525 Approximately 3 years for planning and authorization in California. California Public Utilities Commission Draft
Staff Proposal: Zero-Emissions Freight Infrastructure Planning May 22, 2023 Available online:
https://www.cpuc.ca.gOv/-/media/cpuc-website/divisions/energy-division/documents/transportation"
electrification/fip-draft-staff-proposal_5_22_23-webinar-final_ver2.pdf
526 EEI Comments at 14.
527 ICCT White Paper at 18-19.
528 https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradtempleton/2022/09/12/evs-wont-overload-the-power-grid-in-
fact-evs-and-ice-are-its-salvation/?sh=61f3269949c5
1074
-------
into feeder ratings and load forecasting whereby the utility need not provide capacity based on
annual peak load, but can differentiate by daily and seasonal times.529 An available variant of
this practice is use of flexible interconnections (discussed in more detail below), whereby
customers agree to limit their peak load to a specified level below the cumulative nameplate
capacity of their equipment (in this case, their EVSEs).530
Many utilities also provide hosting capacity maps. Utilities, developers, and other
stakeholders can use these maps to better plan and site energy infrastructure. Hosting capacity
maps provide greater transparency about where new loads such as EV chargers, can be readily
connected. Specifically, hosting capacity maps identify where power exists and at what level,
where distributed energy resources (DERs) can alleviate grid constraints, or where an upgrade
may be required. For example, EV charging companies can use the maps to identify new areas to
expand their charging station networks more quickly and cost-effectively. While the information
in hosting capacity maps does not address all the interconnection questions for individual sites,
they can indicate relative levels of investment needed. DOE has identified 39 unique hosting
capacity maps currently available covering 24 States and the District of Columbia.531 Similarly,
utilities have developed tools providing detailed information on electrification fueling
requirements, site preparation and depot needs, the process of interconnection, total cost of
ownership calculation mechanisms, maintenance and operations issues associated with both
vehicles and infrastructure.532 ERCOT (the grid operator for most of Texas) has in place a
method and process to forecast EV loads at the substation level, and has commenced using these
estimates as part of its near-term transmission planning studies.533
Third, there are many mitigative measures open to fleet owners utilizing depots. Readily
available practices include use of managed charging software, energy efficiency measures, and
onsite battery storage and solar generation.534 Other solutions include bi-directional charging and
V2G (vehicle to grid) whereby vehicles can return electricity to the grid during peak hours while
drawing power at low demand times.535 Solar DER allows on site electricity generation that
reduces the energy demand on the grid. As discussed in the RIA, battery-integrated chargers can
reduce the need for distribution upgrades by limiting the peak power draw of high-powered
charging stations. On-site distributed generation can similarly be deployed to reduce the amount
of power needed from the grid, and allow for faster interconnection. Mainspring Energy has
deployed its linear generators to accelerate interconnection for heavy-duty EV charging for
529 ICCT Comment at 12.
530 Comments of EDF at 69; Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), "Understanding Flexible Interconnection"
(September 2018) (describing flexible interconnection generally, and detailing its possibilities for reducing demands
on time - and location-dependent hosting capacity).
531 See US Department of Energy Atlas of Electric Distribution System Hosting Capacity Maps, available at
https://www.energy.gov/eere/us-atlas-electric-distribution-system-hosting-capacity-maps.
532 Alliance for Transportation Electrification and the Electrification Coalition, "Fleet Advisory Services for Fleet
Electrification: Meet Customer Needs and Provide Grid Benefits" (February 2023), available at
https://electrificationcoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/FAS.White-
Paper.E.O.task_.force_.FINAL_.2.23.23.pdf.
533 Analysis Group Heavy Duty Vehicle Electrification at 28. See also additional instances of hosting capacity maps
and their benefits in Alliance for Transportation Electrification "ATE: Interconnection Task Force" (March 2023) at
https://evtransportationalliance.org/publications/
534 Comments of EDF at 69.
535 Comments of Advanced Energy United, EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1652-A2 at 4; Comments of Clean Air Task
Force, EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1 at 54; Analysis Group Heavy Duty Vehicle Electrification at 33-4.
1075
-------
Prologis in California.536 The TEIS captures existing solar energy in its analysis but did not
consider the potential for increased future on-site solar generation at charging locations. All of
these can reduce demand below what would otherwise be nameplate capacity. See the
summaries in the following section on distribution costs further documenting additional
mitigative possibilities. We note that EPA's cost estimates do not expressly consider these
mitigative measures. However, standard available Level 2 chargers have power/amperage
control that would enable basic charge management such as used in the TEIS. Others had
features allowing charge start time control which is the next level of charge management to
mitigate distribution buildout cost and timing. These chargers have low enough price points that
total cost with installation is expected within our cost assumptions.537 This demonstrates that
additional cost for managed charging is not required, and that some measure of managed
charging is already encompassed within our cost analysis under the potential compliance
pathway. There thus exist multiple available measures to reduce demand and need for
distribution buildout, and consequently provide further support for finding that there are
reasonable means of providing needed distribution buildout in the rule's timeframe when there is
a need to do so. See RIA Chapter 1.6.4 for additional examples.
As many commenters noted, the question of availability of supporting electrification
infrastructure is not in the control of the regulated entity here, the OEM, nor is it in the direct
control of prospective vehicle purchasers. See, e.g., Comments of EMA summarized above. As
all agree, this necessitates some measure of coordination between a range of stakeholders and
utilities. Many such means of coordination are described in the comments by utility associations
like EEI, 538 and the transportation industry coalition ZETA539 Additional examples and
strategies are set out in RIA Chapter 1.6.4 and in the following discussion of public charging
network availability. OEMs and regulators likewise can contribute to this coordination, as in the
agreement between CARB, EMA, and OEMs to "promote future infrastructure development"
noted earlier in this response.
We note further that this is not an unprecedented situation with CAA section 202 standards.
For example, when EPA required the removal of lead from gasoline, an entire new parallel fuel
distribution system was developed to dispense the new unleaded gasoline. See Preamble section
I. Other examples where new distribution systems arose to ensure delivery of fuels necessary to
vehicular pollution control include the infrastructure to supply diesel exhaust fluid (used to
support selective catalytic reduction) and ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel (used to support diesel
particulate filters). We thus see that there can be successful market responses to demand created
by a section 202 standard, including successful responses from unregulated entities.
Utilities, of course, are motivated to continue investment in the distribution system for reasons
other than demand from the transportation sector, and so could be building out in some cases for
536 Mainspring Energy. "Clean, on-site EV charging infrastructure and prime power generation for a global leader in
logistics real estate." Available at
https://cdn.sanity.io/files/m8z36hin/production/e7132d4b2c726044a24820343e825136c2ee0c04.pdf.
537 FoxESS, https://www.aliexpress.us/item/3256805996960006.html; Hwisel,
https://www.google.com/shopping/product/5400666075669586382; 54 energy, https://54energy.net/products/32a-
evse-wallbox-charger-type2-cable-7-6-1 l-22kw-power-and-app-control-for-electric-vehicle-charging.
538 Comments of EEI pp. 10-16.
539 Comments of ZETA pp. 32-46.
1076
-------
their own purposes.540 In addition, as noted at the end of this section, the utility industry has a
strong financial incentive to service the HDV sector, and to do so expeditiously. That is to say,
the increased demand due to BEV charging presents a significant positive business opportunity
for utilities to increase their revenues and profits, and it is reasonable to believe that utilities will
successfully capitalize on these opportunities. Utilities are thus themselves pursuing innovative
solutions to address the issue of needed buildout. One approach is for utilities to make non-firm
capacity available immediately as they construct distribution system upgrades. In California,
Southern California Edison (SCE) is running a two-year Automated Load Control Management
Systems (LCMS) Pilot. The program would use third-party owned LCMS equipment approved
by SCE to accelerate the connection of new loads, including new EVSE, while "SCE completes
necessary upgrades in areas with capacity constraints." SCE would use the LCMS to require new
customers to limit consumption during periods when the system is more constrained, while
providing those customers access to the distribution system sooner than would otherwise be
possible. Once SCE completes required grid upgrades, the LCMS limits will be removed, and
participating customers will gain unrestricted distribution service. SCE hopes to evaluate the
extent to which LCMS can be used to "support distribution reliability and safety, reduce grid
upgrade costs, and reduce delays to customers obtaining interconnection and utility power
service." ,541
Plans like SCE's to use LCMS to connect new EV loads faster in constrained sections of the
grid will be bolstered by standards for load control technologies. UL, an organization that
develops standards for the electronics industry, drafted the UL 3141 Outline of Investigation
(OOI) for Power Control Systems (PCS). Once finalized, manufacturers will be able to use this
standard for developing devices that utilities can use to limit the energy consumption of BEVs.
The OOI identifies five potential functions for PCS. One of these functions is to serve as a Power
Import Limit (PIL) or Power Export Limit (PEL). In these use cases, the PCS controls the flow
of power between a local electric power system (local EPS, most often the building wiring on a
single premises) and a broader area electric power system (area EPS, most often the utility's
system). Critically, the standardized PIL function will enable the interconnection of new BEV
charging stations faster by leveraging the flexibility of BEVs to charge in coordination with other
loads at the premise. With this standard in place and manufacturer completion of conforming
products, utilities will have a clear technological framework available to use in load control
programs that accelerate charging infrastructure deployment for their customers.542
Finally, as a number of commenters noted, the utility industry has a strong financial incentive
to service the HDV sector, and to do so expeditiously. For example, the study conducted by
Synapse Energy Economics for EDF showed significant financial opportunity. Con Edison's
540 TEIS at 99-100, noting the need to replace aging assets, and other planned maintenance .
541 Southern California Edison. "Southern California Edison Company's Comments on the California Energy
Commission's Draft 2023 Integrated Energy Policy Report". November 2023. Available online:
file:///C:/Users/mlandgra/OneDrive%20-%20Environmental%20Protection%20Agency%20(EPA)/Documents%20-
%20HD%20GHG%20Ph.3/05%20-
%20FRMDocket/To%20be%20docketed/Landgraf/TN253452_20231201T140710_SCE%20Comments%20on%202
023%20IEPR%20Comments%20-%20SCE%20Comments%20on%202023%20IEPR%20(l).pdf.
542 UL LLC. January 11, 2024. "UL 3141: Outline for Investigation of Power Control Systems." Available online:
https://www.shopulstandards.com/ProductDetail.aspx?productId= UL3141 _1 _0 20240111.
1077
-------
make ready program could generate net revenue of $690 million and National Grid could
generate $89 million over the years of 2023 - 2045.
In sum, we project that distribution systems to meet the potential increase in charging station
demand associated with depot charging under the Phase 3 rule will be available in the rule's
timeframe. Quantified demand attributable to the rule is relatively modest, and there are ways—
many on-going—to accommodate demand. Where buildout might be needed, it can be met for
the most part with the least time-intensive forms of infrastructure buildout. We have also
considered further potential issues, including the chicken-egg paradigm, and described means
that are reasonably available to resolve these issues in the lead time provided by the rule. That
the trade association of the investor-owned utility industry agrees provides further support for
our finding. Comments of EEI at 14.
B. Public Charging Infrastructure Availability
Commenters from both industry and NGO sectors agreed that EPA's assumption of depot
charging as the exclusive charging mode for the 2027-2032 MY standards was inadequate for
certain long-haul applications. EPA agrees and has revised its projected compliance pathway
accordingly such that sleeper cab tractors and certain day cab tractors are projected to utilize
public (en-route) charging networks rather than depot charging. See generally, Preamble section
II.D.5. We find here that there will be adequate supporting public charging infrastructure for
sleeper cab tractors in the lead time afforded by the rule.
First, as documented in the ICCT White Paper, and as discussed above, there is no need to
build out all at once. It is reasonable to project that activity will center on the busiest long-haul
freight routes and corridors. The White Paper further finds that in MY 2030, up to 85% of long-
haul truck charging needs in the country will concentrate on discrete corridors of the National
Highway Freight Network.543 Assuming an average of 50 miles between stops, this would mean
a need for 844 public charging stations. Id. In a supplemental analysis assuming 100 mile
intervals between stations, ICCT refined that estimate to needing between 100-210 electrified
truck stops, assuming a given level of BEV long-haul tractors. ICCT Supplemental Comment
(January 2024.) We note that the ICCT estimates in both the White Paper and the supplemental
comment assume more long-haul tractor BEV adoption than in EPA's projected compliance
pathway for 2030, and also assume public charging rather than depot charging for some short-
haul tractors and vocational vehicles. From that standpoint, the White Paper estimates can be
viewed as conservative. 544
This level of public charging is doable. First, under the final standards, there would be no
need for public charging until MY 2030. One reason for the extra lead time in the final rule is to
provide more time for the public infrastructure development. See RIA Chapter 2.8.7.3.
Second, manufacturers, charging network providers, energy companies and others are
investing in high-power public or other stations that will support en-route charging. See RIA
Chapter 1.6.2.2 and 1.6.5. As noted there, a recent assessment by Atlas Public Policy
543 ICCT White Paper at 14. This estimate reflects total need, not just an increment attributable to Phase 3 standards.
Id. at 10.. .
544 See Analysis Group "Heavy Duty Vehicle Electrification" at Table 1 (showing ICCT long-haul tractor estimates
for 2030: 16% (ICCT) v. 6% (EPA final rule potential compliance pathway)).; ICCT White Paper at 10, 23 (showing
projections for all MHDVs).
1078
-------
estimated that $30 billion in public and private investments had been committed as of the end of
2023 specifically for charging infrastructure for medium- and heavy-duty BEVs.545 The U.S.
government is making large investments in charging infrastructure through the BIL546 and the
IRA,547 as discussed in RIA Chapter 1.3.2. This includes extending and modifying a tax credit
that could cover up to 30% of the costs for procuring and installing certain charging
infrastructure (subject to a $100,000 per item cap) and billions of dollars in funding programs
that could support charging infrastructure either on its own or alongside the purchase of a HD
BEV. In the past year, for example, the States of California, Colorado, New Mexico, New York,
and Washington have received a total of approximately $166 million in grants under the
Charging and Fuel Infrastructure federal program for designated alternative fuel corridors. See
RTC section 6.1.
Private investments will also play a critical role in meeting future infrastructure needs. Much
of this will likely be charging infrastructure purchased by individual BEV or fleet owners for
depot charging. This is occurring already. Over a billion dollars have been announced for
projects to support electric truck or other commercial vehicle charging in the United States and
Europe.548 For example, Daimler Truck North America is partnering with electric power
generation company NextEra Energy Resources and BlackRock Renewable Power to
collectively invest $650 million to create a nationwide U.S. charging network for commercial
vehicles with a later phase of the project also supporting hydrogen fueling stations.549 Volvo
Group and Pilot recently announced their intent to offer public charging for medium- and heavy-
duty BEVs at priority locations throughout the network of 750 Pilot and Flying J North
American truck stops and travel plazas550. One Energy plans a 30 MW charging facility in Ohio.
It is located next to a 138kV transmission line to benefit from reduced connection cost and time
needed for development. The size and capacity are such that 90 trucks can charge at 300 kW.551
This example shows that, with proper planning, even the largest charging facilities can
potentially be accommodated without significant new distribution infrastructure buildout. See
RIA Chapter 1.6.2.2 describing additional existing and projected efforts among vehicle
manufacturers, fleets, charging providers, and other public and private sources to support HDV
545 Lepre, Nicole. "Estimated $30 Billion Committed to Medium- and Heavy-Duty Charging Infrastructure in the
United States." Atlas Public Policy. January 26, 2024. Available online:
https://www.atlasevhub.com/data_story/estimated-30-billion-committed-to-medium-and-heavy-duty-charging-
infrastructure-in-the-united-states/.
546 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Pub. L. No. 117-58, 135 Stat. 429 (2021). Available online:
https://www.congress.gOv/l 17/plaws/publ58/PL AW-117publ58.pdf.
547 Inflation Reduction Act, Pub. L. No. 117-169, 136 Stat. 1818 (2022). Available online:
https://www.congress.gOv/l 17/plaws/publl69/PLAW-l 17publl69.pdf
548 BloombergNEF. "Zero-Emission Vehicles Factbook A BloombergNEF special report prepared for COP27."
November 2022. Available online: https://www.bloomberg.com/professional/download/2022-zero-emissions-
vehicle-factbook/.
549 NextEra Energy. News Release: "Daimler Truck North America, NextEra Energy Resources and BlackRock
Renewable Power Announce Plans to Accelerate Public Charging Infrastructure for Commercial Vehicles Across
The U.S." January 31, 2022. Available online: https://newsroom.nexteraenergy.com/news-releases?item=l23840.
550 Adler, Alan. "Pilot and Volvo Group add to public electric charging projects." FreightWaves. November 16,
2022. Available online: https://www.freightwaves.com/news/pilot-and-volvo-group-add-to-public-electric-charging-
projects.
551 BusinessWire. October 9, 2023. "One Energy Energizes the Largest Electric Semi-Truck Charging Site in US at
30 MW Megawatt Hub Site in Ohio". Available Online:
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20231009589668/en/
1079
-------
BEV public charging. And, of particular import, the TEIS included public charging in its
analysis and identified no barriers to implementation.552
As described in RIA Chapter 1.6.2.2, states and utilities are also engaged. Seventeen states
plus the District of Columbia (and the Canadian province Quebec) developed a "Multi-State
Medium- and Heavy-Duty Zero-Emission Vehicle Action Plan," which includes
recommendations for planning for, and deploying, charging infrastructure. California is investing
$2.9 billion through 2026 in BEV charging and hydrogen fueling infrastructure (and related
projects), including $1.7 billion specific to infrastructure for medium- and heavy-duty vehicle
applications. Actions such as these are required to address DTNA and similar concerns that
utility infrastructure planning is 5-10 year timeframe, much farther out than fleets. This
coordination and communication will allow utilities to determine future infrastructure needs,
align with regulators on the need and cost, and implement on time. The Edison Electric Institute
estimates that electric companies are investing about $4 billion to advance charging
infrastructure and fleets. The National Electric Highway Coalition, a group that includes more
than 60 electric companies and cooperatives that serve customers in 48 states and D.C. aims to
provide fast charging along major highways in their service areas. Other utilities, like the
Jacksonville Electric Authority (JEA) are supporting infrastructure through commercial
electrification rebates. JEA is offering rebates of up to $30,000 for DCFC stations and up to
$5,200 for Level 2 stations. In the west, Nevada Energy is supporting fleets by offering rebates
for up to 75% of the project costs for Level 2 ports and up to 50% of the project costs for DCFC
stations (subject to caps and restrictions. For supporting citations, please see RIA Chapter
1.6.2.2.
Thus, we see coordinated responses at the federal,553 state, utility, fleet, and vehicle
manufacturer level to meet evident market demand. EPA agrees with commenters that all these
entities may play a role in facilitating public charging infrastructure, and that is what we see
already happening. We note further that numerous comments by varied stakeholders reinforced
that this EPA rule will provide clear direction and help infrastructure plans move forward. See
RTC section 2.4 (Theme: Federal standards themselves will provide regulatory certainty for
investment in ZEVs, critical materials, and infrastructure). We view the Phase 3 rule as
providing the vital regulatory certainty for supporting the development of charging
infrastructure.
Putting this together, we believe that there will be adequate public charging infrastructure
within the Phase 3 rule's timeframe. The standards are structured to provide extra lead time until
2030 for commencing public charging. Substantial sums are being invested in creating a public
charging network for HD BEVs, and there is coordinated activity across the public and private
sectors, including the utility sector, to successfully implement a network. EPA's rule will
provide regulatory certainty to support further investment. Accordingly, we find that the rule
affords adequate lead time for public charging.
We discuss the issue of cost in the following RTC section, but note here the conclusion that
costs associated with distributive grid buildouts attributable to the potential compliance pathway
552 TEIS at 23 (overall methodology) and 73 (incremental number of public charging ports estimated).
553 As noted above, the National Zero-Emission Freight Corridor Strategy is part of this federal response.
1080
-------
used to support the standard's feasibility are modest both absolutely and as a percentage of total
grid investment.
EPA Summary and Response - Distribution Cost:
Summary:
EPA received many comments regarding the cost needed for upgrading the grid to deliver the
power required for HD BEV (AFPM, AmFree, NACS). AmFree states that a new substation can
cost $35M and take 4 years to implement. AFPM highlights the cost magnitude by sharing a
Southern California case study where the infrastructure upgrades were at least $1B and possibly
over $10B. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America (UAW) comments that the standards should better reflect that federal
incentives will take time to mature, and that market demand will lag behind that timing. RMI
recognizes in their comments that the infrastructure buildout time and cost can be limiting factors
for ZEV adoption.
Commenters provided input on various cost aspects driven by or related to Phase 3 standards.
Some shared external factors that would drive up electric prices. One (CFDC) expects that new
power plant regulations will increase costs as the demand for power from HD BEV increases.
Zero Emission Transportation Association (ZETA) provided comment on investments being
required for distribution systems and possibly energy generation and associated distribution.
Other comments like those from DTNA and EEI focused on the cost of the infrastructure build
out and how that cost is passed on to consumers. They share that the HD fleets may cover
buildout costs directly when power is supplied by utility coops or by municipal service. NRECA
mirrored this thought and added that costs will be region, neighborhood, cooperative, circuit, and
feeder dependent and must be passed to their coop members. DTNA and Schneider National
similarly stated that, when power is from an investor-owned utility, the costs will be covered by
rate increases that impact the fleets or all electric customers. EMA likewise noted that there are
different mechanisms for allocating costs of distributive grid buildout, but agreed that it was
reasonable to consider that the cost would be reflected in the overall rate base. EMA further
suggested what this cost should be, based on analytic work of the ICCT.
DTNA utilized analysis by BCG to estimate an optimized and non-optimized electric rate
increase driven by grid infrastructure. DTNA calculated and shared grid build out cost estimates
for each of the 50 states. DTNA's calculation shows a price tag of $36B for grid buildout in
support of HD BEV Phase 3 standards. NACS indicated that pricing could be based on peak
demand, rather than on actual use, and also shared concern that HD BEV en route charging
stations would incur high demand charges as HD BEV at these facilities would require
immediate, high power charging.
Clean Air Task Force pointed out that revenue would be generated by additional electricity
supply with existing systems such that rates could decrease. This possibility to lower rates for all
users, due to the increased revenue from HD BEV, was also found in a study of NY State
conducted for EDF. EDF goes on to state that HD BEV users can decrease their own rates by
implementing managed charging and save even more with stationary batteries and DER.
Valero shares that if fleets add stationary batteries to keep distribution upgrade cost low, the cost
of the stationary batteries must go into the analysis. Clean Air Task Force and Moving Forward
Network (MFN) comments offered that using V2G technology would provide significant savings
1081
-------
such as $13-15 billion in stationary battery costs in CA. Comments on related costs like the
charging equipment taking up physical space and possibly adding parking lot size and cost were
made by DTNA. Clean Fuels Development Coalition shared that HD BEV charging stations will
require more space since the large trucks will remain at the station longer as charging takes
longer than filling the tank of an ICE vehicle. If the infrastructure upgrade requires land, MOFB
states that land owners need fair compensation for any land they relinquish.
Comments were received that distribution upgrades and their cost can be minimized through
load management and Time of Use charging (AEU, CALSTART, MFN). They shared that TOU
works for residential customers and they expect HD BEV users to be even more cost sensitive
and, for depot charging situations, potentially having more latitude about scheduling off-peak
charging times. MFN also shared that LBNL studies showing TOU and load management
reduce grid investment needs. Comments by EDF cover a NJ study where grid buildout savings
(i.e., avoided costs) were up to $2.15B when managed charging was combined with solar and
battery hardware. AEU shared NREL data that managed charging can save a fleet $1,090 per EV
per year. They also shared PGE testimony that managed charging can reduce capacity request
50% and save $30,000 to $200,000 per project. CALSTART shared information on EO
Charging, a UK company that has made managed charging, energy storage, and flexible rates a
way to accelerate BEV deployment and deliver reliable charging while working around grid
capacity constraints. CALSTART shared other new business models that, although possibly
supporting HD BEV adoption, are outside of the scope of this rule. Energy Strategy Coalition
and NACAA noted massive subsidies at the federal and State level supporting grid
improvements, including specific instances of funding directed at the heavy-duty sector.
Commenter DTNA, however, included an Appendix B documenting that most states have not yet
given specific consideration to HD infrastructure needs in their plans for disposition of NEVI
subsidies for public charging EVSE. Energy Innovation shared that private investment has
grown from $200 million to $13 billion in the 5 years ending in 2023. It was not made clear if
this investment was distribution or EVSE or both. This commenter further notes that total
approved utility investment for transportation electrification was $5,230 billion as of March
2023.
Response:
EPA recognizes that grid distribution upgrade costs will be present when existing capacity is
not sufficient for HD BEV loads. We have considered the costs of distribution buildout in the
RIA costs analysis. The below discussion supplements our prior response as well as the analysis
in RIA Chapter 2.4.4.2.
In order to better understand potential distribution upgrade costs associated with the combined
BEV demand under potential compliance pathways for this rulemaking and for the proposed
Multipollutant Emissions Standards for Model Years 2027 and Later Light-Duty Medium-Duty
Vehicles, EPA and DOE supported a first of its kind Transportation Electrification Impact Study
(TEIS). To reiterate, the TEIS was conducted by a team of researchers at NREL, LBNL, and
Kevala. The study focuses on 5 states (California, New York, Illinois, Oklahoma, and
Pennsylvania) to capture diversity in population density (urban and rural areas), freight demand,
BEV demand, state EV policies, utility type (i.e., investor owned, municipality, or cooperative)
and distribution grid composition. The TEIS used these states to extrapolate a national demand
for where and when upgrades will be needed to the electricity distribution system—including
1082
-------
substations, feeders, and service transformers—due to increased BEV load associated with an
approximation of the EPA light- and heavy-duty rules, referred to in the Study as the EPA policy
case, and under a no action case. The research team also assessed the potential impact of
"conservative " 554managed EV charging to reduce the needs and associated costs of distribution
upgrades. The 5 State portion of the TEIS for the year 2027 shows incremental distribution grid
capital investment of $195 million for the unmanaged scenario. When managed, this drops to
$82 million.555 The 5 state portion of the TEIS for the year 2032 shows incremental distribution
grid capital investment of $2.3 billion for the unmanaged action scenario. When managed, the
$2.3 billion drops to $1.0 billion.556 The savings is driven by the reduction in peak incremental
load achieved by the basic load management applied in this study. More effective load
management is expected to be utilized in practice.557 Incremental distribution grid investment to
enable BEV charging ($2.3 billion across five states over 6 years) was found to be approximately
3% of existing utility distribution system investments (2027-2032).558 In 2027, when there is the
least lead time, projected incremental distribution capital investment is only $195 million (82
million managed), an even smaller percentage.559 The study moreover finds that "[mjanaged
charging techniques can decrease incremental distribution grid investment needs by 30%,
illustrating the potential for significant cost savings by optimizing PEV charging and other loads
at the local level."560 These values are inclusive of effects for LMHD and so overstate the
amount of grid investment associated with the Phase 3 rule.
A 3% increase in distribution system build out correlates to a small increase in manufacturing
output so concerns regarding supply chain timing and cost are minimal. The total costs are
modest both in and of themselves, as a percentage of grid investment even without considering
mitigation strategies. Based on utility reports to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
data from electric co-ops, and extrapolation for the remaining utilities, the TEIS estimated that
the national investment in distribution systems exceeded $60 billion annually as of 2021.561 A
high-level approach for scaling the national distribution system investment to the five states
under study was applied to estimate that $15 billion of distribution system investment occurred
in 2021. The TEIS estimated that the incremental investment in distribution networks (to
accommodate PEV growth due to EPA's rulemaking) as an additional $2.3 billion of grid
investment for PEVs relative to a no action case. Annualizing this between 2027 and 2032
results in an annual cost from the EPA light- and medium duty rule combined with the heavy-
duty phase 3 rule of $0.4 billion, or approximately 3% of existing annual distribution
investments, across the five states.562
554 TEIS at 4.
555 TEIS Table 26.
556 TEIS Table 26.
557 As noted in the previous section, even in 2032, peak demand is projected to decrease in three of the five states,
and increase only minimally in the other two. TEIS at 76. . Consistent with the small increase in load and peak
load, total costs are modest as well.
558 TEIS at 75 ..
559 TEIS at 75.
560 TEIS at 76. PEV refers to Plug-in electric vehicles. Since the TEIS is considering effects of both rules, it
includes plug-in hybrid vehicles as part of its analysis. Breaking this down further, the TEIS finds that "managing
charging could substantially reduce incremental grid components needs, including for substations by 50%, feeders
by 40%, and service transformers by 30%." Id.
561 TEIS Executive Summary at ix.
562 TEIS Executive Summary at ix.
1083
-------
The TEIS grid buildout cost results were extrapolated to all IPM regions in order to estimate
impacts on electricity rates using the Retail Price Model. There is no difference in retail
electricity prices between the No action/unmanaged and action/mitigated case in 2030 and the
difference in 2055, is only 2.5 percent and we estimate that the 2.5 percent difference is
primarily due to distribution-level costs. The net cost of distribution-level upgrades are included
within our analysis of costs and benefits for the final rule along with other grid-related costs
modeled by IPM, and is reflected in electricity rates estimated using the Retail Price Model. EPA
thus believes that the costs associated with distributive grid buildout attributable to the Phase 3
rule are reasonable. The relative small cost increases further support our conclusion in the prior
response that there is sufficient lead-time to upgrade distribution infrastructure.563
As noted, based on utility reports to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, data from
electric co-ops, and extrapolation for the remaining utilities, the TEIS estimated that the national
investment in distribution systems exceeded $60 billion annually as of 2021. A high-level
approach for scaling the national distribution system investment to the five states under study
was applied to estimate that $15 billion of distribution system investment occurred in 2021. The
TEIS estimated that the incremental investment in distribution networks (to accommodate PEV
growth due to EPA's rulemakings) as an additional $2.3 billion of grid investment for PEVs
relative to a no action case. Annualizing this between 2027 and 2032 results in an annual cost
from the EPA light- and medium duty rule combined with the heavy-duty phase 3 rule of $0.4
billion, or approximately 3% of existing annual distribution investments, across the five
states. The TEIS results were extrapolated to all IPM regions in order to estimate impacts on
electricity rates using the Retail Price Model (see RIA Chapter 2.4.4.2). There is no difference in
retail electricity prices between the No action/unmanaged and action/mitigated case in 2030 and
the difference in 2055, is only 2.5 percent and we estimate that the 2.5 percent difference is
primarily due to distribution-level costs. Note also that this is comparable to the 3% increase in
distribution-level investments estimated for the 5 states within the TEIS.564 The net cost of
distribution-level upgrades are included within our analysis of costs and benefits for the final rule
along with other grid-related costs modeled by IPM, and is reflected in electricity rates estimated
using the Retail Price Model. See RIA Chapter 2.4.4.2.
Land Acquisition Costs
A number of commenters stated that grid distribution buildout would require additional space,
sometimes necessitating acquisition of land. They noted that freight depots are often located in
densely populated areas where land is either not available, or at a premium. See, e.g. Comments
of DTNA at 47. The ATA (at 17) gave the example of when a new substation is a specific
situation where more land would be needed. If land is available, there would be a cost which
should be reflected in EPA's analysis.
With respect to public charging, EPA agrees that there may be additional costs associated
with land acquisition that should be considered in our modeling. In many cases, the public
charging stations will be new facilities, see RIA Chapter 1.6.1.5, and so will not be utilizing an
existing footprint. Our estimate of electricity rate for public charging includes an amortized cost
of land acquisition. RIA Chapter 2.4.4.2. We agree with commenters that HDV public charging
563 See Preamble section II.D.2.iii.c at n. 452.
564.TEIS at 74.
1084
-------
will in many cases require more parking and other space, as well as higher rates chargers, than
public facilities servicing light duty vehicles. See RIA Chapter 1.6.1.4 noting this concern, and
RIA Chapter 1.6.2.2 describing various means of sizing to accommodate HD BEVs. The fact
that much of the heavy-duty public charging network will be new facilities allows this extra
space to be included in the facility design.
With respect to depot charging, we are not including a cost for land acquisition. First, these
are typically not greenfield sites (i.e., new facilities), but will be utilizing existing footprints.
Second, we believe that the early targets of electrification will be facilities where it is most cost
effective to do so, which would include considerations of available space. In this regard, as
noted throughout the Preamble and RIA, the majority of HDV in our potential compliance
pathway remain ICE vehicles, leaving fleet owners flexibility as to where to electrify.
In addition, our modeled potential compliance pathway shows that depot charging needs for
most HDVs can be met with level 2 chargers. RIA Chapter 2.6.2.2. This type of charger would
generally not require power cabinets or other behind-the-meter equipment for which higher-
power stations need extra space. In confirmation (and in response to the comment of ATA), the
TEIS Study finds that in 2032, only 8 substations would be required in its 5-State study area even
in the unmanaged case (i.e. without any mitigation), and only 4 substations would be required if
"conservative " mitigation is utilized, of which only 1 would be new, the rest being upgrades to
existing substations which would not add to an existing footprint.565 Nationally, the number of
substations in 2032 is projected at from 24-48 (managed and unmanaged) of which most would
be upgrades.566 Moreover, as discussed in the responses above, there are many other mitigative
measures readily available to reduce the need for buildout at all, or for the type of buildout that
would occasion the need for additional land.
Daimler cites two instances where space constraints have precluded BEV purchases by fleet
owners, one in California and one in Denver, Colorado. Daimler Comment at Fig. 4 and 5.
These instances both involved situations where grid buildout was needed. It is not clear from the
comment if Level 2 or other chargers were being utilized, if any mitigative measures for
reducing demand were considered, or otherwise why buildout was involved. Given the lack of
specificity provided by the commenter, EPA cannot respond further to this individual instance,
which in any case would not be generalizable to national conditions years hence.
Total Cost (DTNA Appendix C)
DTNA estimated the additional installed capacity that will be needed to support HD BEVs at
the adoption rates projected in the Proposed Rule. They calculated a 5-year average of
commercial vehicle sales in all 50 states from the Polk Automotive database from 2017-2021,
applied EPA's projected ZEV volumes for 2027-2032, and calculated the total installed charging
capacity that will be required by these vehicles in 2027 - 2032 to be approximately 45 gigawatts.
In Appendix C of its comments, DTNA then estimated the investments in charging infrastructure
and grid upgrades, as well as total installed charging capacity, that will be required in each of the
50 states, state by state, to support implementation of the Proposed Rule. They project a 50-State
cost of $36 billion.
565 TEIS at 75.
566 TEIS at 65 , and see text at n. 501 above for further explanation.
1085
-------
First, DTNA used sales estimates and BEV (their analysis assumes no FCEVs) adoption rates
reflecting the proposed rule, and so based its estimates on nearly 1,500,000 BEVs.567 This is
almost three times the number of BEVs projected under the final Phase 3 standards; 525,0000.568
DTNA also used its own cost estimates for charging and installation, which are higher than
EPA's. In addition, although they present state-by-state estimates of amount of charging and
distributive infrastructure needed, there is no breakdown of either charger type or the nature of
the grid buildout. There is also no discussion of mitigation to reduce need for buildout, but as
EPA explained above, we think it is very likely that mitigation strategies will be employed, and
that even the most rudimentary of such strategies can greatly reduce the need for infrastructure
buildout. For all these reasons, it is difficult to evaluate DTNA's estimate, although it is clearly
higher than the final rule's costs given the difference between the proposed and final standards.
The TEIS does provide an estimate of 5-State costs for charging ports and charging
infrastructure capital investment (for substations, feeders and transformers). The basis for these
quantified estimates of individual asset type is well documented in the TEIS.569 Over 2027-2032
the TEIS estimates a cost of $12 billion (unmitigated), and $10.7 billion (managed). These
estimates are for both light and heavy-duty action cases, so the portion attributable to the heavy-
duty sector would be less. The five states in the TEIS represent 30-35% of nationally
extrapolated costs570,. This yields extrapolated costs of roughly $33 billion to $39 billion, but
these reflect costs from both light duty and heavy duty sectors. We consequently believe that
DTNA's cost estimates for the Phase 3 rule are significantly overstated.
IOP study cited by AFPM
AFPM states that "[BJeyond EVSE chargers, the cost of grid upgrade projects needed to support
the incremental electricity demand growth from transportation is not insignificant and can be
quite variable. A particular case study of Southern California illustrated in IOPscience notes: 'the
total cost of these upgrades will be at least $1 billion and potentially more than $10 billion.'"
The commenter mischaracterizes the study. It considered electrification not just of heavy-duty
vehicles, but of light and medium duty vehicles, and of residential electrification.571 The study is
thus not directly comparable here.
Time for Interconnection
Certain commenters (e.g. AFPM, DTNA) noted that even if no distributive buildout is needed,
it can sometimes take two years or longer just to be connected to the grid and that this would
dissuade fleets from purchasing BEVs given that purchase decisions are generally made 6-12
months in advance (meaning that timetables of purchase and connection will not synchronize).
As an initial matter, we note that even if we accepted two years or longer as the time for grid
connection, there is sufficient lead-time. The standards phase in from MY 2027 through 2032,
which is 2-8 years from now.
567 DTNA App. C p. 1.
568 RIA Chapter 10.2.3.
5® TEIS at 16-25 ("Charging Demand for Heavy-Duty Vehicles).
570 TEIS at 66 .
571 "Can distribution grid infrastructure accommodate residential electrification and electric vehicle adoption in
Northern California?" https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2634-4505/ac949c at Abstract.
1086
-------
More importantly, we do not agree that two or more years is generally representative of the
time for interconnection. The timeline for EVSE deployment—even without distribution
upgrades—is very site specific and also has considerable variability based on the jurisdiction, but
there are certainly documented instances already of connection occurring in considerably less
than two years. . As noted in RIA Chapter 1.6.5, an EPRI survey of distribution utilities with 18
respondents from different areas of the country found the typical interconnection time was under
six months where no distribution buildout was needed.
Commenters also note the measures being taken by utilities and BEV purchasers to speed the
connection process. A report by the Smart Electric Power Alliance (SEPA) found a wide range
of non-wires alternatives succeeded at enabling rapid interconnection and HDV electrification.572
CALSTART cites instances of utilities implementing a variety of new strategies to speed
interconnection by planning to work with shared charging service providers since they can create
a new market for energy services at the edge of the grid and address the economics of increasing
amounts of distributed loads.573 This may allow utilities to support aggregated loads and address
interconnection queues more proactively and rapidly.
Finally, we note FERC Order 2023, which relates to interconnection reforms. Order 2023
requires grid operators to adopt certain interconnection practices with the goal of reducing
interconnection delays. These practices include a first-ready, first-served interconnection
process that requires new generators to demonstrate commercial readiness to proceed, and a
cluster study interconnection process that studies many new generators together.574
Reflecting Front-of-the Meter Costs
EPA agrees that it is appropriate to account for distributive grid buildout costs attributable to
the Phase 3 rule. There are different ways of assessing this cost. Utilities often spread the cost
of buildout over their rate base, and we have chosen this method. See RIA Chapter 2.6.4.
Members of both the utility industry and HDV manufacturing industry agreed that this was a
reasonable approach. See Comments of EEI and DTNA.
Substation Cost and Lead Time
Commenter AmFree stated that new substations could cost $35 million and take 4 years to
install, raising issues of both lead time and cost. The commenter does not provide data or
estimates of numbers of substations needed to service demand posed by the Phase 3 rule,
however. AmFree's cost estimate is at the very high end of literature estimates for the cost of a
new substation, and far higher than literature estimates for substation upgrades. See RIA
Chapter 1.6.5. Their estimate of timing for a new substation are similar to other literature values,
but again, higher than literature values for an upgraded substation. Id. The TEIS shows that few
if any substations (new or upgraded) will be needed in 2027, and only a small number in 2032,
almost all of which are upgrades. It further finds, for the 5 States in the study, that "substation
572 Brenda Chew et al. Non-Wires Alternatives: Case studies from leading U.S. projects. 2018, Smart Electric Power
Alliance, https://sepapower.org/resource/non-wires-alternatives-case-studies-from-leading-u-s-projects/
573 "The Economics Of Load Defection". RMI. https://rmi.org/insight/economics-load-defection/
574 See generally FERC Order 2023, 184 FERC ^ 61,054 (July 28, 2023) (Docket No. RM22-14-000).
1087
-------
[and] transformer bank ... built by 2027 mostly cover 2032 needs."575 So we do not believe that
the few projected substations not needed until 2032 would pose issues as to reasonableness of
cost or adequacy of lead time to install. (Note further that both the comment and this response
are referring to the potential compliance pathway supporting the final standards. Alternative
available means of compliance involving non-ZEV vehicles would not pose this issue at all.)
AmFree Comment Relating to Total Demand Summary and Response
Commenter AmFree states that "today's electric grids do not have the capacity for such a
dramatic increase in demand", referring to demand posed by "a modest-size fleet of Class 7 and
8 vehicles", and further quotes a "recent study" finding that "electrification of even 11 percent of
trucks and buses 'could destabilize the transmission grid'", citing Spiller et al. "Medium - and
Heavy-Duty Vehicle Electrification: Challenges, Policy Solutions, and Open Research
Questions" (Resources for the Future, 2023). (Incidentally, this is a Report, not a Study, and so
does not provide references for the statements it makes.)
First, the modelled compliance pathway used to support the Phase 3 standards does not posit
anything like electrifying 11 per cent of the nation's trucks and buses. The standard applies to
new vehicles only where the overwhelming percentage of vehicles will remain ICE for years to
come. Second, depot charging with lower power chargers, as EPA analyzes and costs in its
modelled compliance pathway, significantly reduces grid demand. RIA Chapter 2.10.3.
Third, with respect to public charging networks, there is already an instance of a public
charging facility accommodating more demand than posited by the commenter without need for
buildout. As described above, One Energy plans a 30 MW charging facility in Ohio located next
to a 138kV transmission line to benefit connection cost and timing. The size and capacity is such
that 90 trucks can charge at 300 kW. This is an example of how public charging networks, being
for the most part greenfield sites, can site optimally in relation to available grid capacity.
Generally, businesses building public charging facilities have strong incentives to make cost-
minimizing decisions that take full advantage of existing infrastructure, and we fully expect them
to do so going forward.
Finally, as discussed in RTC section 7.1, total demand on the grid posed by the Phase 3 rule is
modest and does not pose issues as to grid reliability, even considered out to 2055 when
projected HD BEV utilization would be greatest due to fleet turnover.
Response to Comment of National Rural Electrical Cooperative Association (NRECA)
NRECA states, correctly, that EPA did not assess the need for distributive grid buildout at
proposal, and needs to do so. We agree, and have analyzed the issue in detail, informed by the
public comments, including this one. See Preamble section II.D.2.iii.c and response above in
this section 7.
The commenter also projects the need for additional service transformers in rural area because
of the need to convert power to three-phase in very rural locations with only single-phase power.
In the rural state analyzed in the TEIS (Oklahoma), transformer costs between the no action and
action cases (both unmanaged and managed) are virtually none in 2027, and minimal in 2032.576
575 TEIS at 74.
576 TEIS at 80 .
1088
-------
Our modeled compliance pathway also projects availability of ICE vehicles for all HDV
applications, and we have noted elsewhere that ICE vehicles may remain a norm in rural areas.
The commenter notes current delays in obtaining transformers due to supply chain
irregularities, and that these irregularities have led to price spikes. We do not anticipate supply
chains to remain disrupted years into the future but have structured the standards to reduce
demand in the program's initial years when there is the least lead time. We also address
transformer supply chain delays and costs in our earlier response in this RTC 7.
With respect to costs to NRECA member utilities for adding infrastructure, we note that those
costs are recoverable via inclusion in the rate base, or by direct recovery from users. See RIA
Chapter 2.4.4.2. HDV demand consequently can be a source of income to cooperative utilities,
and from that standpoint, can be viewed as a positive development for the utilities.
7.1 Generation and Transmission
Comments by Organizations
Organization: American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)
2. The Proposed Rule Requires Deployment of Technology Not Feasible within the
Timeframe Contemplated.
Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act does not mandate that EPA set standards to drive
pollutant emissions down to zero; rather, EPA must balance benefits to health and welfare
against costs of compliance to reflect "the greatest degree of emission reduction achievable
through the application of technology which the [EPA] determines will be available" during the
relevant model year.71 Here, the Proposed Rule forces a transition from ICEVs to ZEVs in the
MY27-32 timeframe without demonstrating that such a transition is feasible, let alone
necessary. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1659-A2, p. 17]
71 42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(3)(A)(i).
Critically important to increased ZEV adoption is the infrastructure necessary to operate such
vehicles. EPA overlooks this issue in the Proposed Rule. Notably absent from EPA's analysis is
any demonstration that sufficient charging stations, utilities, and other infrastructure needed to
support accelerated ZEV implementation will be available by MY27. As engine manufacturers
have acknowledged, even as new ZEVs are ready to enter into production, the necessary
infrastructure for both electric vehicles and hydrogen vehicles continue to lag, especially when
multiple facilities are needed to support the multiple fuel and powertrain technologies EPA
contemplates.72 Focusing solely on electric vehicles themselves, EPA has not adequately
evaluated or grasped the time and resources required to permit, construct, and operate the
necessary infrastructure to power these vehicles. This is particularly concerning in light of the
very real risk that the electric grid will not be able to meet the increased demand anticipated by
the Proposed Rule.73 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1659-A2, pp. 17- 18]
72 See Jack Roberts, Truck Tech, "5 Takeaways from ACT Expo 2020," (May 20, 2022), available at
https://www.truckinginfo.com/10172184/5-take-aways-from-act-expo-2022 (citing Cummins CEO Tom
Linebarger as warning ACT Expo attendees that the undertaking will cost multiple trillions of dollars to
accomplish).
1089
-------
73 North American Electric Reliability Corporation, 2022 Long-Term Reliability Assessment (Dec. 2022),
21, available at
https://www.nerc.com/pa/RAPA/ra/Reliability%20Assessments%20DL/NERC_LTRA_2022.pdf.
(indicating that increased demand projections may lead to reliability concerns for the electric grid,
especially as dual-peaking or seasonal peaking times change with increased electrification)
Even assuming sufficient ZEVs can be manufactured with the corresponding consumer
demand to buy them, EPA has not fully considered the uncertainty around the grid being able to
support them. Grid resiliency is at risk of further deterioration due to increasing power demand
from electrification, not just in transportation. Combined with other issues, such as a disorderly
transformation of the generation base as conventional units are replaced with intermittent
resources, increased electrification raises questions about the grid's ability to reliably meet
consumer demand on a regional basis. The regional operation of the power grid is managed by
entities called Regional Transmission Organizations ("RTO") or Independent System Operators
("ISO"). These authorities are not only responsible for transmission, but also balancing a
regional power system to ensure that supply constantly matches demand. The grids in some
RTOs are already under various degrees of stress. For example, the North American Electric
Reliability Corporation's ("NERC") recent summer assessment shows roughly two-thirds of the
U.S. faces increased resource adequacy risk in the summer of 2023.74 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1659-A2, p. 18]
74 North American Electric Reliability Corporation, "2023 Summer Reliability Assessment" (May 2023).
EPA's projections of ZEV sales are on a national basis, but the ability to charge the vehicles
is driven by the ability to manage regional or local power grids to supply electricity on demand.
EPA's national data thus disguises important problems that increasing EV penetration will cause.
By 2022, over 50% of BEVs were concentrated in California, Florida, and Texas. The
distribution of the BEV fleet across RTOs can be seen in Figure 1, in which state shares of EV
registrations are allocated across RTOs.75 EPA barely pays lip-service to this issue. Even
without increased demand on the grid from transportation electrification, today's grid is fragile.
EPA should discuss the costs of power outages from weather events that could preclude truck
recharging and put fleets out of operation for days at a time. Reduced utilization from grid
dependency is an important issue that EPA failed to quantify. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1659-
A2, p. 18.] [See Figure 1, EV Registrations by RTO, on page 19 of docket number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1659-A2.]
75 There are several states that are covered by more than one RTO. For this high-level assessment, our
consultants have allocated the state's EV sales by roughly the geographic footprint of each RTO within the
state.
Potential stress on the grid within any given RTO is not just a function of EVs on the road,
but also power generation capacity within the region. As seen in Figure 2, the greatest stress is
not in California (though the California's stress is significant), but rather in the southwestern
U.S. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1659-A2, p. 19. See Figure 2, EV Power Requirement by RTO,
on page 20 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1659-A2.]
This figure is based on EPA's estimate of EV electricity demand in 2032, allocated to RTOs,
under the assumption that no reserve capacity is added over the next eight years. If an RTO
wanted to fill incremental EV electricity demand and keep its reserve margin constant, the
required capacity investment depends on the source of generation and that source's availability
1090
-------
(i.e., expected load factor) specific to that region. For the U.S., the total investment cost could
range from $15 to $100 billion, not including up to an additional $80 billion for storage to
improve ratability of intermittent sources. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1659-A2, p. 20]
RTOs face another complication with the times of day likely to see greater EV charging.
Sparsely available data suggest most EV charging currently occurs during daytime. However, if
a growing EV fleet were to switch to overnight charging, it would put much less stress on a grid.
EPA should work with other federal entities to ensure the growth in power demand stemming
from an expanding EV fleet in the Proposed Rule can be safely and reliably supplied.
Furthermore, EPA should provide a comprehensive analysis on how the light- and medium-duty
multipollutant and the HD Phase 3 GHG proposed rules will jointly impact these demands on the
grid. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1659-A2, p. 20]
Power generation using traditional fuels has an advantage in the capacity being located near
demand centers. Except for nuclear, any low-carbon power generation capacity must be located
at the energy source (e.g., where the wind blows, water flows, sun shines). Supplying low-carbon
electricity to charge EVs also needs to resolve the transmission of that power to the demand
center. Installation of transmission capacity in a timely manner is not a guarantee. The Bureau of
Land Management ("BLM") recently issued its record of decision for the SunZia Southwest
Transmission Project more than 15 years after the project was proposed.76 Once this incremental
power is transmitted from supply location to a load center, there are potentially additional
distribution transmission constraints before the electrons reach charging stations and homes. One
supercharger equals the launch of 70 air-conditioning units at once. Such an instant change in the
power demand profile is a significant problem for the local distribution grid. And EPA's
ambitious light-duty proposal compounds this problem as Level 2 EV chargers, typically used in
a home, can increase a home's peak load by 40% to 100%, which can stress neighborhood
transformers and compromise reliability. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1659-A2, pp. 20 - 21]
76 Emma Peterson, INSIDE CLIMATE NEWS, "SunZia Southwest Transmission Project Receives Final
Federal Approval" (May 29, 2023) available at https://insideclimatenews.org/news/29052023/sunzia-
transmission-proj ect-approval/.
The intensity is further complicated in that the capacity factor (percentage of time a plant is
likely to be available for generation) of solar (28%) and wind (36%) plants is so much lower than
dispatchable (typically 90+%) generation capacity. To put the intensity of effective generation
capacity in perspective, solar and wind farms require almost three times as much copper to meet
the load of a typical (combined cycle gas turbine) natural gas plant. For EPA to achieve its GHG
reduction aspirations in the Proposed Rule, all three of these challenges must be met: (1)
sufficient materials to manufacture the required EVs, (2) consumer willingness to substitute EVs
for incumbent ICEVs currently for sale, and (3) a low-carbon power generation grid capable of
reliably supply energy for this mode of transportation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1659-A2,
p. 21]
Relatedly, it is unlikely that the grid can be upgraded quickly enough to overcome the
constraints referenced above. A recent DOE-funded study finds that: "[o]nly —21% of projects
(14%) of capacity) requesting interconnection from 2000-2017 reached commercial operations by
the end of 2022"; "[completion rates are even lower for wind (20%) and solar (14%); and "[t]he
average time projects spent in queues before being built has increased markedly. The typical
project built in 2022 took 5 years from the interconnection request to commercial operations."77
1091
-------
Moreover, EPA has failed to account for the direct effect its new carbon dioxide standards for
fossil-fuel fired power plants, proposed shortly after the Proposed Rule, will have on the grid
including how the increased demand for baseload and peaking power as a result of the Proposed
Rule can be met as affordable base-load generators are rapidly phased out.78 Even in California,
where renewable energy is a priority, daily evening peak load is still routinely supplied by
approximately 70 percent fossil fuels.79 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1659-A2, p. 21]
77 See LAWRENCE BERKELEY NATIONAL LABORATORY, "Queued Up: Characteristics of Power
Plants Seeking Transmission Interconnection As of the End of 2022", available at
https://emp.lbl.gOv/sites/default/files/queued_up_2022_04-06-2023.pdf.
78 Proposed Rule at 33,240. Notably, EPA's electric generating unit rule is not referenced in the proposed
rule. Nor does the electric generating rule's mere one-page assessment of grid reliability considerations
even address EPA's parallel efforts to push mass adoption of electric vehicles. Id. at 33,415.
79 See, e.g., CALIFORNIA ISO, "Today's Outlook" (accessed June 13, 2023), available at
https://www.caiso.eom/TodaysOutlook/Pages/supply.html#section-supply-trend (showing data from Aug.
4, 2022, indicating more than 70 percent of energy from natural gas, coal, and imports).
Beyond the normal approximately four-year lead time for vehicle manufacturers to make
incremental changes to their production, the typical duration of an electricity transmission
system capital project timeline would need to be accelerated from approximately ten-years to
have a chance to support the proposed ZEV demand, while current large-scale electric generation
and storage projects are increasingly backlogged year-on-year due to long lead times for
permitting and approvals, supply chain shortages, and shortage of skilled workers. While
government programs have recently been put in place to help overcome some of these hurdles,
they will take time for the benefits to be realizable.80 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1659-A2,
pp. 21-22]
80 Gracie Brown, et al., MCKINSEY AND COMPANY, "Upgrade the grid: Speed is of the essence in the
energy transition" (Feb. 1, 2022) available at https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/operations/our-
insights/global-infrastructure-initiative/voices/upgrade-the-grid-speed-is-of-the-essence-in-the-energy-
transitionl; DELOITTE, "2023 power and utilities industry outlook" available
https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/us/Documents/energy-resources/us-eri-power-utilities-
outlook-2023.pdf.
Organization: American Trucking Associations (ATA)
Grid AvailabilityCharging sites for depots or large public charging stations for commercial
vehicles will require significant energy. The American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI)
estimates full commercial vehicle electrification would require a 14 percent increase in energy
generation from today's standards.20 In many cases, remote or densely populated areas do not
have available power to direct toward commercial vehicle charging sites. The International
Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) recognizes that the electrification of commercial
vehicles will significantly burden the current electrical grid and challenge the centralization of
where and how charging accommodates trucks in operation today.21 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1535-A1, p. 15-16]
20 American Transportation Research Institute, Charging Infrastructure Challenges for the U.S. Electric
Vehicle Fleet, pg. 17, December 2022.
21 The International Council on Clean Transportation, Near Term Infrastructure Deployment to Support
Zero-Emission Medium-and Heavy-Duty Vehicles in the United States, May 2023.
1092
-------
"We find that near-term energy needs will be concentrated in industrial areas in the largest
metropolitan areas in the country, including Los Angeles, Phoenix, Houston, Chicago, and
Dallas. 1% of U.S. counties will account for 15% of nationwide MHDV charging energy needs
in 2030, constituting high-priority areas in which to concentrate near-term deployment of
charging and refueling infrastructure of MHDVs." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1535-A1, p. 16]
Early adopting fleets are being forced to quickly learn electricity demands and generation
requirements as an important external factor that impacts their operations and TCO calculation.
One fleet interviewed provided an example of their desire to electrify forklifts. In their mind, it
would serve as an early use case to understand electric technology as they explored BEVs for
their operations. However, in their discussions with the local utility, they were only allowed to
electrify a small percentage of the originally desired forklifts due to limited onsite power. ATA
asked fleets about their experiences with local utilities. More than two-thirds of respondents said
they had not begun conversations with them. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1535-A1, p. 16]
The multi-state patchwork of energy generation and transmission regulatory bodies has made
investment and modernization of the U.S grid even more challenging. Fleets are left with the
reality of wading through local utility politics to receive approval for a permit to install minimal
chargers on their site today. Addressing these site-specific challenges to build out charging
infrastructure is essential to achieving the proposed rule's adoption rates and should begin
immediately to accommodate large-scale transportation electrification. Yet, most states have not
begun this process. With 168 investor-owned utilities, 1,958 publicly owned utilities and 812
cooperatives providing electricity to customers in the U.S., the scale of this undertaking will be
significant and time consuming.22 The planning and oversight associated with hydrogen
infrastructure is especially so. EPA should not propose a ZEV-dependent rule prior to ensuring
the needed electric and hydrogen infrastructure will be available, including initiating state-wide
planning and deployment assessments prior to establishing proposed ZEV adoption rates and
timelines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1535-A1, p. 16]
22 Energy Information Administration, Investor-owned utilities served 72% of U.S. electricity customers in
2017, August 15, 2019, available at http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=40913.
For example, recently the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) developed a "Draft
Staff Proposal: Zero-Emissions Freight Infrastructure Planning" that addresses the need for
proactive planning of long lead time utility-side electric infrastructure (i.e., distribution and
transmission) needed to support the acceleration of transportation electrification.23 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1535-A1, p. 16]
23 California Public Utilities Commission, Freight Infrastructure Planning, May 22, 2023, available at:
http://www.cpucc.ca.gov/industries-and-topics/electricial-energy/infrastructure/transportation-
electrification/freight-infrastructure-planning.
CPUC identified several challenges through this process, including: Approximately three years
of required time to sequence statewide planning efforts and complete infrastructure
authorizations. This does not include the time for cost recovery approval.Significant market and
technology uncertainty affects the state's ability to proactively authorize infrastructure
solutions.Risks and uncertainties regarding electricity grid load that are dependent on large-scale
infrastructure buildout. These have not been adequately quantified within the state's existing
planning and forecasting processes.The lack of an existing source of information on future fleet
charger locations, and the need for long-term grid infrastructure planning to account for fleets'
1093
-------
current flexible and economical routes.The lack of a coherent planning framework to optimize
fleet business needs with electricity sector goals and requirements (i.e., how to cost-effectively
upgrade the distribution and transmission system).The lack of a process for identifying long-term
substation land acquisition needs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1535-A1, p. 17]
Organization: Arizona State Legislature
EPA estimates that the additional electricity generation needed to meet the demand of heavy-
duty battery electric vehicles is 'relatively modest.' 88 Fed. Reg. 25,983. According to EPA's
estimates, the proposed rule will 'increase electric power end use by heavy-duty electric vehicles
by 0.1 percent in 2027 and increase to 2.8 percent in 2055.' Id. EPA argues that the electric grid
supported adoption of air conditioners and data processing centers successfully. Id. EPA
concludes that '[g]rid reliability is not expected to be adversely affected by the modest increase
in electricity demand' from the proposed rule. Id. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1621-A1, p. 28]
The electric grid is already stretched to the breaking point before implementing the proposed
rule. According to the North American Electric Reliability Corporation's 2023 Summer
Reliability Assessment, numerous sectors of the electric grid face shortfalls during peak demand
this summer:
• Midcontinent ISO (MISO): 'MISO can face challenges in meeting above-normal peak
demand if wind generator energy output is lower than expected. Furthermore, the need
for external (non-firm) supply assistance during more extreme demand levels will depend
largely on wind energy output.'55 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1621-A1, pp. 28-29]
• NPCC-New England: 'Operating procedures for obtaining emergency resources or non-
firm supplies from neighboring areas are likely to be needed during more extreme
demand or low resource conditions.'56
• SERC-Central: 'Compared to the summer of 2022, forecasted peak demand has risen by
over 950 MW while growth in anticipated resources has been flat. The assessment area is
expected to have sufficient supply for normal peak demand while demand-side
management or other operating mitigations can be expected for above-normal demand or
high generator-outage conditions.'57
• Southwest Power Pool (SPP): 'Reserve margins have also fallen in SPP as a result of
increasing peak demand and declining anticipated resources. Like MISO, the energy
output of SPP's wind generators during periods of high demand is a key factor in
determining whether there is sufficient electricity supply on the system.'58
• Texas (ERCOT): 'Resources are adequate for peak demand of the average summer;
however, dispatchable generation may not be sufficient to meet reserves during an
extreme heat-wave that is accompanied by low winds.'59
• U.S. Western Interconnection: 'However, wide-area heat events can expose the WECC
assessment areas of California/Mexico (CA/MX), Northwest (NW), and Southwest (SW)
to risk of energy supply shortfall as each area relies on regional transfers to meet demand
at peak and the late afternoon to evening hours when energy output from the area's vast
solar PV resources are diminished.'60 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1621-A1, p. 29]
55 North American Electric Reliability Corporation, 2023 Summer Reliability Assessment, May 2023, 5,
available at
https://www.nerc.com/pa/RAPA/ra/Reliability%20Assessments%20DL/NERC_SRA_2023.pdf.
1094
-------
56 Id.
57 Id.
58 Id.
59 Id.
60 Id.
Almost all of these sectors are projected to have fewer resources than demand during extreme
heat conditions.61 Power outages reached an all-time high in 2020, and the average person went
seven hours without power in 2021.62 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1621-A1, p. 29]
61 Id. at 11 Table 1.
62 Catherine Morehouse, Power grid can't handle Biden's climate rule, industry groups say, POLITICO,
May 12, 2023, available at https://www.politico.eom/news/2023/05/12/biden-power-rule-fossil-fuels-
00096536.
Other observers recognize significant issues with the current electric grid's reliability. A
commissioner to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission recently testified to a U.S. Senate
committee, 'The United States is heading for a reliability crisis.'63 Another commissioner
echoed this warning, testifying, 'We know that there is a looming resource adequacy crisis.'64
The commissioner predicted that 'there will be, in time, a catastrophic reliability event.'65 [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1621 -A1, pp. 29-30]
63 Oversight of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission: Hearing before the Sen. Comm. on Energy
and Natural Resources, 118th Cong. 1 (May 4, 2023) (statement of FERC Commissioner Mark C. Christie),
available at https://www.energy.senate.gov/services/files/0A896B 12-2895-4F68-A367-74009F2975C4.
64 Oversight of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission: Hearing before the Sen. Comm. on Energy
and Natural Resources, 118th Cong. 2 (May 4, 2023) (statement of FERC Commissioner James P. Danly),
available at https://www.energy.senate.gov/services/files/0A896B 12-2895-4F68-A367-74009F2975C4.
65 Id.
EPA has only exacerbated the threats to grid reliability by proposing new carbon pollution
standards for coal and natural-gas fired power plants in May 2023.66 The National Rural Electric
Cooperative Association is 'concerned the proposal could disrupt domestic energy security, force
critical, always-available power plants into early retirement and make new natural gas plants
exceedingly difficult to permit, site and build.'67 This is consistent with a FERC commissioner's
concern that '[t]he problem generally is not the addition of intermittent resources, primarily wind
and solar, but the far too rapid subtraction of dispatchable resources, especially coal and gas.'68
As the Electric Power Supply Association observed upon release of the proposed power plant
rule, 'For the EPA to issue proposed rules that are likely to drive power plant retirements while
simultaneously undertaking separate actions to significantly increase demand for electricity due
to electrification of the nation's vehicle fleet creates the conditions for a reliability failure. . . .
We are not slow walking into a reliability crisis - if this rule is finalized, we will be choosing to
run toward that outcome.'69 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1621-A1, p. 30]
66 U.S. EPA, 'EPA Proposes New Carbon Pollution Standards for Fossil Fuel-Fired Power Plants to
Tackle the Climate Crisis and Protect Public Health,' May 11, 2023, available at
https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-proposes-newcarbon-pollution-standards-fossil-fuel-fired-power-
plants-tackle.
1095
-------
67 National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, 'Electric Co-ops: EPA's Power Plant Proposal Would
Further Jeopardize Reliability,' May 11, 2023, available at https://www.electric.coop/electric-co-ops-epas-
power-plantproposal-would-further-jeopardize-reliability.
68 Statement of FERC Commissioner Mark C. Christie, supra note 71, at 1 (emphasis original).
69 Electric Power Supply Association, 'Proposed EPA Power Plant Rules Could Intensify Reliability
Challenges,' May 11, 2023, available at https://epsa.org/proposed-epa-power-plant-rule-could-intensify-
reliability-challenges/.
Into the face of these EPA-exacerbated grid reliability issues come EPA's electric vehicle
rules, and many electricity requirement estimates are far less optimistic than EPA's. Before the
electric vehicle rules, the U.S. Energy Information Administration was forecasting that
'electricity consumption by the transportation sector will increase by more than a factor of 12
between 2021 and 2050 (from 12 billion kWh in 2021 to more than 145 billion kWh in 2050).'70
The American Research Transportation Institute estimates that full electrification of the
country's freight trucks will require a 14 percent increase in existing electricity generation.71
When combined with the needs for electricity generation for passenger cars and trucks, which
EPA is separately proposing, the country needs to increase its existing electricity generation by
more than 40%.72 California needs to increase its existing electricity generation by more than
57%.73 [EPA-HQ-0AR-2022-0985-1621 - A 1, p. 30]
70 North American Electric Reliability Corporation et al., Electric Vehicle Dynamic Charging Performance
Characteristics during Bulk Power System Disturbances, Apr. 11, 2023, 2, available at
https://www.nerc.com/comm/RSTC/Documents/Grid_Friendly_EV_Charging_Recommendations.pdf.
71 American Transportation Research Institute, supra note 50, at 1.
72 Id.
73 Id.
EPA's mandate could require automobile manufacturers to sell 10-12 million electric vehicles
in calendar year 2035 alone.74 Millions more would be sold in the years before that. According
to a study conducted for the Department of Energy that modeled grid impacts in 2028 from
electric vehicles, 'The results indicated that the first issues would occur between 30 and 37
million EVs, at which point load could not be reliably met.'75 [EPA-HQ-0AR-2022-0985-1621-
Al, p. 31]
74 Todd Lassa, Can Automakers Sell 10-12 Million EVs Here By 2032?, AUTOWEEK, Apr. 10, 2023,
available at https://www.autoweek.com/news/industry-news/a43555049/epa-announcing-zero-emissions-
targets-for-newvehicles/.
75 M. Kintner-Meyer et al., Electric Vehicles at Scale - Phase I Analysis: High EV Adoption Impacts on
the Western U.S. Power Grid, PNNL Report 29894, July 2020, available at
https://www.pnnl.gov/sites/default/files/media/file/EVAT-SCALE_l_IMPACTS_final.pdf.
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
D. ZE Fueling Infrastructure 147
Affected pages: 25982-25984, 25996-25998, and 26000-26006
147 CARB staff worked collaboratively with CEC team to provide this comment.
1096
-------
The NPRM states that the projected additional generation needed to meet demand of the HD
BEVs in the proposal will be relatively modest. This is consistent with California's finding with
regard to energy generation needed to meet MD and HD fleet electrification needs. As modeled
by the CEC, California expects that LDV, MDV, and HDV charging will account for less than 5
percent of California's total system electric load during peak hours. 148 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1591-A1, p.45]
148 California Energy Commission Revised Staff Report Zero-Emission Vehicle Infrastructure Plan (ZIP),
last accessed June 5, 2023. https://www.energy.ca.gOv/sites/default/files/2022-12/600-2022-054-REV.pdf
The NPRM points out that the responsibility for delivering reliable electrical service is a
shared responsibility between private utilities and government entities. CARB staff agrees with
this finding. California works closely with utilities to forecast electrical demand and plan for
load growth from all sectors. Working with the Public Utilities Commission, investor-owned
utilities develop rate cases and investment plans that consider expected growth of electrical load
from all sectors of the economy and take into account needed grid upgrades to account for
climate change and maintenance. Planning for further truck electrification can be analyzed and
rolled into forecasting even before fleets apply for service upgrades and interconnection
associated with specific infrastructure installations, much as that planning occurs for other
anticipated changes in demand.
Organization: Clean Air Task Force et al.
b. Charging and grid infrastructure is capable of supporting HD BEVs in volumes aligned
with and in excess of EPA's proposed standards.
Deployment of BEVs is well underway across the U.S. and is already requiring the electric
power sector to make plans to reliably and safely integrate these vehicles. The electric power
industry is well situated to maintain safe and reliable service that can power an increasing
deployment of HD BEVs; utilities, aided significantly through investments from the BIL and
IRA, are making important upgrades to the system to integrate higher penetrations of BEVs.
Additional third party private investments and public investments are also already committed to
building a robust HD BEV charging network. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 45.]
When considering infrastructure buildout, it is important to remember that HD ZEVs will
enter the total on-road HD fleet gradually and in volumes that pale in comparison to in-use HD
combustion vehicles. Modeling using HD TRUCS and MOVeS3.R3188 shows that EPA's
proposal, if finalized, would likely result in ZEVs comprising just 1 percent of the total on-road
HD fleet by 2027, gradually reaching 8 percent in 2032 and 23 percent in 2040. See Table 4,
infra. In other words, a relatively small portion of the HD fleet will be tapping into charging and
grid infrastructure over the next decade, and even by 2040, HD ZEVs would comprise less than a
quarter of the on-road fleet under this proposal. Infrastructure needs for HD ZEVs will
accordingly grow gradually overtime. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 45. See Docket
Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, pages 45-46, for Table 4.]
188 HD TRUCS was used to develop ZEV adoption rates (by vehicle classification). MOVES3.R3 was
used to translate HD TRUCS-derived ZEV adoption rates to ZEV sales and in-use curves.
For the final rule, we urge EPA to model how the Phase 3 standards will likely affect the
composition of the entire on-road HD fleet, not just HD ZEVs' share of new sales. That
1097
-------
information would better help the Agency and the public consider infrastructure issues related to
this rulemaking. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 46.]
i. Economic theory and historical precedent show that infrastructure buildout will occur at the
pace and scale needed to support vehicle electrification.
EPA should reject arguments that the buildout of charging and grid infrastructure cannot
occur at the pace and scale needed to support expanded vehicle electrification, which are
unreasonably pessimistic and inconsistent with both economic theory and historical precedent.
These arguments rely on the classic "chicken-and-egg" scenario said to be presented by ZEV
sales and charging infrastructure, where each side of the market waits for the other. But EPA
need not and should not wait for infrastructure to fully mature before finalizing strong Phase 3
standards. Instead, EPA's standards themselves will send a strong signal to the market to
undertake the infrastructure investments needed to accommodate a gradual rise in
vehicle electrification, 189 such that increased ZEV sales and infrastructure buildout will occur in
relative tandem and reinforce each other. As one analyst sums it up: "The chicken-and-egg
conundrum is being solved. Investments in the space and the adoption of EVs [a]re happening
much faster than many analysts expected, and this is also accelerating the build-out of the
charging network."190 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, pp. 46 - 47.]
189 Environmental regulation itself, of course, can lead to technology innovation and market development.
See generally Jaegul Lee et al., Forcing Technological Change: A Case of Automobile Emissions Control
Technology Development in the US, 30 Technovation 249 (2010); Margaret R. Taylor, Edward S. Rubin,
& David A. Hounshell, Regulation as the Mother of Innovation: The Case of S02 Control, 27 Law &
Policy 348 (2005); James Lents et al., Chapter II: The regulation of automobile emission: A case study, in
Environmental Regulation and Technology Innovation: Controlling Mercury Emissions from Coal-Fired
Boilers (Marika Tatsutani & Praveen Amar eds., 2000)
https://www.nescaum.org/documents/rpt000906mercury_innovative-technology.pdf.
190 Gabriela Herculano, Chicken-and-Egg Problem: EV Adoption and Buildout of Charging Networks,
Nasdaq (Apr. 18, 2022), https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/chicken-and-egg-problem%3A-ev-adoption-and-
buildout-of-charging-networks.
The economic literature on indirect network effects and two-sided markets shows that an
increase in BEV sales—a likely effect of the Phase 3 standards, particularly if they are
strengthened in the final rule—can be expected to stimulate associated infrastructure
development. In a study on flex-fuel vehicles fueled by E85 (85 percent ethanol), Corts (2010)
found that growth in sales of flex-fuel vehicles due to government fleet acquisition programs led
to an increase in the number of retail E85 stations. 191 That relationship held true across all six
Midwestern states analyzed, despite differences in those states' E85 subsidies and tax credits. 192
The author concluded that the results "confirm the basic validity" of the theory underlying
government fleet purchase requirements: that increasing the "base of alternative fuel vehicles can
spur the development of a retail alternative fuel distribution infrastructure." 193 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 47.]
191 Kenneth S. Corts, Building out alternative fuel retail infrastructure: Government fleet spillovers in E85,
59 J. Env't Econ. & Mgmt. 219, 219-20 (2009).
192 Id.
193 Id. at 231.
1098
-------
Recent economic research has confirmed this relationship in the context of ZEVs and
charging infrastructure specifically. An influential study by Li et al. (2017) found that "EV
demand and charging station deployment give rise to feedback loops" and that "subsidizing
either side of the market will result in an increase in both EV sales and charging stations." 194
Similarly, Springel (2021) found "evidence of positive feedback effects on both sides of the
market, suggesting that cumulative EV sales affect charging station entry and that public
charging availability has an impact on consumers' vehicle choice." 195 The BIL and IRA
subsidize both sides of the market, offering significant incentives for both HD ZEV purchases
and the construction of charging infrastructure. Economic theory therefore supports the
proposition that strengthened Phase 3 standards, particularly in combination with the BIL and
IRA's large financial incentives, will facilitate expansion of charging and grid
infrastructure. 196 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 47.]
194 Shanjun Li et al., The market for electric vehicles: indirect network effects and policy design, 4 J.
Ass'nEnv't. & Resources Econ. 89, 128 (2017).
195 Katalin Springel, Network Externality and Subsidy Structure in Two-Sided Markets: Evidence from
Electric Vehicle Incentives, 13 Am. Econ. J.: Econ. Pol'y 393, 426 (2021).
196 See id. at 394 (noting that "the presence of positive feedback amplifies the impact of both types of
subsidies"), 415 ("positive feedback loops between the charging station network and total all-electric
vehicle sales amplify the impact of both types of subsidy").
Economic theory has in fact played out in Norway, where ZEV sales and infrastructure both
expanded rapidly over the span of about a decade. There, the "path to charging point saturation
started by stimulating more demand for EVs "197 In other words, Norway did not wait for
infrastructure to fully mature before beginning its transition to cleaner cars. Rather, rising ZEV
sales themselves "helped trigger a spike in demand for charging stations." 198 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 48.]
197 Whitney Bauck, How Norway Became the World's Electric Car Capital, Nexus Media News (Mar. 7,
2023), https://nexusmedianews.com/how-norway-became-the-worlds-electric-car-capital/.
198 McKinsey & Co, What Norway's Experience Reveals About the EV Charging Market 3 (2023),
https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/automotive-and-assembly/our-insights/what-norways-experience-
reveals-about-the-ev-charging-market#/.
The concept that charging infrastructure will adequately scale up over time also finds support
in an analogous historical example: the buildout of roads and gasoline refueling infrastructure in
the early 20th century to serve the United States' growing fleet of automobiles. The country's
exponential growth in automobile sales—first exceeding 1,000 in 1899 and growing to 1 million
by 1916199—preceded the establishment of an extensive network of both suitable roads200 and
filling stations.201 Instead, the buildout of road and refueling infrastructure unfolded over long
time horizons and in a variety of ways, adapting to the needs of the automobile fleet as it
changed and grew. Paving and other road improvement efforts began on a small scale in cities,
where automobiles were initially concentrated; efforts to improve rural roads and construct
highways happened a decade or more later, as motorists began to expand their driving beyond
cities.202 Similarly, in the case of refueling infrastructure, a network of modern filling stations
did not spring up until well after automobiles had grown in popularity.203 Before that, refueling
needs were met through varied and dispersed "non-station" methods such as cans of gasoline
sold at general stores, barrels at repair garages, mobile fuel carts, curb pumps, and home
1099
-------
refueling pumps, which emerged at various times as the demand for gasoline increased.204 Road
and refueling infrastructure therefore exhibited a "long-term, adaptive and portfolio
approach"205 that, over the span of several decades, satisfied the shifting needs of the growing
ranks of automobile owners. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 48.]
199 Roads, Encyclopedia.com (May 29, 2018), https://www.encyclopedia.com/science-and-
technology/technology/technology-terms-and-concepts/roads.
200 See id. (noting that around 1904, "[o]nly a few hundred miles of roads in the entire country were
suitable for motor vehicles"); see also F.W. Geels, The Dynamics of Transitions in Socio-technical
Systems: A Multi-level Analysis of the Transition Pathway from Horse-drawn Carriages to Automobiles
(1860-1930), 17 Tech. Analysis & Strategic Mgmt. 445, 460, 467-68 (2005) (discussing the gradual
expansion and improvement of road infrastructure in the 1910s and 1920s to accommodate growth in and
changes to automobile travel).
201 Marc W. Melaina, Turn of the century refueling: A review of innovations in early gasoline refueling
methods and analogies for hydrogen, 35 Energy Pol'y 4919, 4922 (2007) (noting that "the takeoff period
for gasoline stations occurred between 1915 and 1925, but exponential growth in vehicles began around
1910, so the rise of gasoline filling stations followed rather than preceded the rise of gasoline vehicles").
202 Geels, at 467-68.
203 Melaina, at 4922.
204 Id. at 4924-27.
205 Id. at 4932 (discussing refueling infrastructure).
That approach holds important lessons for this rulemaking. As detailed above, the
introduction of HD ZEVs into the total on-road fleet will occur gradually and, for the first
decade or more, in relatively low volumes. As explored in a recent white paper by ICCT,206
successfully meeting the needs of this gradually expanding fleet of heavy-duty ZEVs will not
require the overnight nationwide buildout of infrastructure that some have misleadingly claimed.
Instead, economic theory and historical precedent show that growth in heavy-duty ZEV sales and
infrastructure buildout will occur in relative tandem, with infrastructure responding over time
commensurate with the evolving needs of the ZEV fleet. And in finalizing its Phase 3 standards,
EPA will send a strong market signal that will facilitate infrastructure development at the pace
and scale needed to support compliance with the standards. As explained in the sections below,
the nation's infrastructure is already well-positioned to adapt to increased vehicle electrification.
EPA must reject unfounded chicken-and-egg arguments questioning whether infrastructure will
respond to rising demand. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, pp. 48 - 49.]
206 See generally Pierre-Louis Ragon et al., ICCT, Near-Term Infrastructure Deployment to Support Zero-
Emission Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles in the United States (2023), https://theicct.org/wp-
content/uploads/2023/05/infrastructure-deployment-mhdv-may23.pdf.
ii. The grid can reliably support significantly increased loads.
The electric industry is well situated to maintain safe and reliable service that can power the
increasing deployment of HD BEVs. As detailed below, the projected growth in electricity
demand over the coming years, including demand related to BEV deployment in line with
strengthened Phase 3 standards as well as additional economy-wide load growth, is well within
the range of past historical load growth. Additionally, the industry is already responding to and
preparing for increased electrification as more fleets and individuals adopt BEVs and has a wide
1100
-------
range of tools, practices, and partnerships in place to continue to maintain a strong and reliable
grid. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 49]
EPA conducted modeling within the Integrated Planning Model (IPM) to assess the electric
sector and emissions impact of the proposal. In this modeling, the Agency utilized baseline
projections of electricity demand and generation growth from the Annual Energy Outlook 2021
(AEO2021). DRIA at 321. EPA notes that this forecast "does not include the full forecasted ZEV
adoption in the [proposal] reference case," and so it developed further incremental demand
estimates to include "the demand of electric vehicles not captured by IPM's defaults," which
EPA "calculated from the output of national MOVES runs." Id. While these files are not
available to us, we are able to approximate this projected demand growth under the proposal by
similarly calculating electric demand utilizing the proposal case in MOVES3.R3. This output
reflects demand from all HD BEVs, including those HD BEVs that would be deployed in
absence of this rule. In order to combine this with AEO2021 generation values, we converted
this demand value to generation using a charging efficiency factor of 95 percent and transmission
line loss factor of 5 percent. We then are able to combine this incremental generation calculation
with projected generation from AEO2021 Reference Case (net available to grid).207 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 49]
207 U.S. Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2021, at Table 8 (Electricity Supply,
Disposition, Prices, and Emissions), https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/data/browser (last accessed, June 13,
2023).
This analysis finds that system-wide increases in generation to meet demand growth,
including both increased demand from the proposed Phase 3 standards (assuming EPA finalizes
the stringency levels it has proposed) and projected economy-wide load growth, is projected
to average 1.2 percent per year between 2028 and 2040. Importantly, this methodology is likely
to overestimate generation growth, as the AEO2021 Reference Case already includes some level
of transportation electrification.208 Isolating the impact of HD BEVs alone shows load average
growth of 0.5 percent per year between 2028 and 2040. Further isolating only the incremental
HD BEV generation projected under MOVES3.R3 associated with this proposal (as compared to
the baseline) shows average generation growth of 0.4 percent per year between 2028 and
2040. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, pp. 49 - 50]
208 U.S. Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2021: Narrative, at 13 (2021),
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/AEO_Narrative_2021.pdf.
Maintaining reliable and safe electric power delivery through this level of demand growth, as
well as higher levels of growth resulting from more stringent Phase 3 standards, is within electric
utility standard practice as demonstrated through the electric power sector's strong track record
of reliability and resiliency. These annual generation increases are well within the range of
contemporary, normal operations for the U.S. electric sector (see Figure 1 below). According to
data reported to the Energy Information Administration in Form 861, in the 31 years from 1990
to 2021, average annual national growth in electricity sales was 1.1 percent.209 In 15 of those
years, growth was 1.5 percent or higher, and in ten years it exceeded 2 percent. The U.S. has also
seen previous periods of sustained high demand growth across most states; for example, 1995 to
2007 saw average nationwide growth of approximately 1.9 percent per year. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 50.] [See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, page 51,
for Figure 1]
1101
-------
209 Note that these data are for statewide demand, not generation. State level demand figures are more
meaningful to show local variations in electricity usage as compared to state-level generation, which does
not necessarily (or even usually) serve in-state customers. While absolute generation and demand figures
(TWh) should not be compared, growth rates between the two, as shown here, should track proportionally.
U.S. Energy Information Administration, Historical State Data, EIA-861, Annual Electric Power Industry
Report (Mar. 8, 2023), https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/state/.
Many states saw much higher, sustained levels of growth. In the two decades from 1999 to
2018, North Dakota electric sales more than doubled. Year over year growth averaged nearly 5
percent, and in 2014 electric sales were 14 percent higher than the previous year alone. In
Nevada between 1992 and 2007, annual electric sales growth averaged 4.9 percent and fell below
1.5 percent only once. More recently, Virginia has seen strong annual sales growth, with sales
increasing 12.3 percent in the five years from 2016 to 2021, or 3 percent on average per year,
even accounting for a pandemic dip. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 50]
This analysis draws similar conclusions to those of the researchers at the Electrification
Futures Study, a multi-year research project to explore potential widespread electrification in the
future energy system of the United States. In a report developing an integrated understanding of
how the potential for electrification might impact the demand side in all major sectors of the U.S.
energy system—transportation, residential and commercial buildings, and industry—this study
concluded that "[electrification has the potential to significantly increase overall demand for
electricity, although even in the High scenario, compound annual electricity consumption growth
rates are below long-term historical growth rates."210 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1,
p. 50]
210 TrieuMai etal., NREL, Electrification Futures Study: Scenarios of Electric Technology Adoption and
Power Consumption for the United States (2018), https://www.nrel.gov/docs/Iyl8osti/71500.pdf.
We further recognize that many parties will nevertheless need to take important steps to
manage increased electrification demand. Utilities, public utility commissions and other state
regulators, grid operators, charging providers, and others can and have already begun to
coordinate and plan for increased vehicle electrification. Examples include:
• The West Coast Clean Transit Corridor Initiative is an ongoing, collaborative effort
among 16 utilities to support the development of BEV charging facilities along 1-5, from
San Diego to British Columbia, for heavy- and medium-duty freight haulers and delivery
trucks.211
• The National Charging Experience Consortium (ChargeX) is a collaborative effort
between Argonne National Laboratory, Idaho National Laboratory, NREL, BEV charging
industry experts, consumer advocates, and other stakeholders whose mission is "to work
together as BEV industry stakeholders to measure and significantly improve public
charging reliability and usability by June 2025."212
• The National BEV Charging Initiative brings together automakers, power providers, BEV
and charging industry leaders, labor, and public interest groups to "develop a national
charging network for light, medium, and heavy-duty vehicles and inspire deeper
commitments from state leaders, the administration and each other."213
• The National Association of State Energy Officials and the American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials partnered with the U.S. Joint Office of
Energy and Transportation to hold a series of convenings to coordinate on a range of
topics, including ZEV infrastructure and utility planning needs.214 These convenings
1102
-------
brought together State Departments of Transportation officials, State Energy Offices, and
other key partners.
• PG&E and BMW of North America are testing a "vehicle-to-everything technology that
will improve grid reliability and help EV customers lower their electric bills by exporting
power back to the grid during peak demand periods." PG&E notes that "[t]he utility and
automotive industries are creating a transformative clean energy future together."215
• NREL and Volvo collaborated on a research paper regarding challenges and
opportunities of HD and commercial ZEVs, noting: Coordination between disparate and
historically unconnected stakeholders, including state agencies, local
governments, automotive manufacturers, fleets, energy infrastructure and utility
companies, and research and academia will be required to ensure a smooth and timely
transition to ZEVs. This paper, a joint research and industry perspective, is one such
example of cross-sectoral collaboration.216 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, pp. 52
- 53]
211 West Coast Clean Transit Corridor Initiative, https://westcoastcleantransit.com/ (last visited June 13,
2023).
212 Idaho Nat! Lab'y, National Charging Experience Consortium, https://inl.gov/chargex/ (last visited
June 13, 2023).
213 EV Charging Initiative, https://www.evcharginginitiative.com/ (last visited June 13, 2023).
214 Nat'l Ass'n State Energy Officials (NASEO) & the Am. Ass'n State Highway & Transp. Officials
(AASHTO), Building a National Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Network: Regional EV Meetings
Key Themes, Takeaways, and Recommendations from the States (not dated),
https://www.naseo.Org/data/sites/l/documents/publications/NASEO_AASHTO_Regional%20EV%20Meet
ings%20Summary_%20Final.pdf.
215 BMW Group, More Power To You: BMW of North America and PG&E Start V2X Testing in
California (May 16, 2023), https://www.press.bmwgroup.com/usa/article/detail/T0417218EN_US/more-
power-to-you:-bmw-of-north-america-and-pg-e-start-v2x-testing-in-california.
216 Muratori et al., at 7.
Finally, ICCT has highlighted myriad actions that utilities, local and state agencies and
regulators, fleet operators, and property owners can take to help reduce barriers to infrastructure
deployment and aid "timely planning and construction to ensure transmission and distribution
systems can accommodate the needs of [medium- and heavy-duty vehicle] electrification.'^ 17
These examples show that the relevant stakeholders are already stepping up to plan for and
accommodate the charging and grid needs associated with greater vehicle electrification. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985- 1640-A1, p. 53]
217 Ragon et al., at 25.
Utilities in particular are also already planning for and deploying solutions to address
increased vehicle electrification as their customers adopt BEVs to improve fleet economics and
performance. For example, executives at Southern California Edison, which is one of the largest
electric utilities in the U.S. and is facing industry-leading levels of electrification, have recently
voiced strong support for the ability of the grid to manage, respond to, and benefit from BEVs.
Caroline Choi, Edison International and Southern California Edison senior vice president of
corporate affairs, noted that "the electric grid is really going to be the backbone of the whole
system" for electrified transit, and that "[w]hat we're seeing are the investments necessary to
1103
-------
ensure that the grid is available."218 Utilities and their customers will benefit from the ability to
plan ahead for any significant infrastructure requirements. The regulatory certainty provided by
Phase 3 standards can aid this planning. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 53]
218 Casey Wian, Transportation Electrification Gains Momentum: Edison International and SCE outline
plans to seize the "huge opportunity" of preparing the grid for exponential EV growth, Energized, (Feb. 1,
2023), https://energized.edison.com/stories/transportation-electrification-gains-momentum.
Regulatory certainty can also help ensure that investments not only maintain strong electric
service, but improve it while at the same time lowering costs. Southern California Edison
President and CEO Steve Powell noted: "if we leverage the electric vehicle load and have that
work for consumers as well, that whole idea of vehicle-to-grid, there can be real value in helping
alleviate a lot of the infrastructure investments that need to happen," ultimately lowering overall
energy bills for customers.219 Similarly, Seattle City Light, in its Transportation Electrification
Strategic Investment Plan, found that the utility received a net benefit of roughly $120,500 per
bus or other heavy-duty ZEVs through an increase in new revenue, placing downward pressure
on rates.220 It stated that "[w]hile there are system costs associated with increased transportation
electrification (e.g., distribution and transmission infrastructure upgrades), with proactive utility
planning and intervention, the system benefits (e.g., new revenue) are estimated to outweigh the
costs, spreading the economic benefits of transportation electrification to all customers."221 This
will require action from regulators as well to help shape and approve these proactive and critical
investments. As RMI recommended, "regulators can fulfil [sic] their responsibility for ensuring
prudent and least-cost grid investments while proactively planning by using new
information "222 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, pp. 53 - 54]
219 Id.
220 Seattle City Light, Transportation Electrification Strategic Investment Plan 6 (not dated),
https://www.seattle.gov/documents/Departments/CityLight/TESIP.pdf.
221 Id.
222 Ari Kahn et al., RMI, Preventing Electric Truck Gridlock: Meeting the Urgent Need for a Stronger
Grid 16 (2023), https://rmi.org/insight/preventing-electric-truck-gridlock/.
Third-party analyses have bolstered these statements from utilities that BEVs, if deployed
strategically, can improve grid operations. For example, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
estimated that enabling "vehicle-to-grid" technology,223 which allows ZEVs to serve as
electricity storage and provide power back to the grid during periods of high demand, would save
California utility customers $13-15 billion in stationary battery costs.224 An analysis conducted
by Gladstein, Neandross & Associates on behalf of EDF found that managed charging of class 8
trucks combined with strategic deployment of distributed energy resources could provide
significant cost savings for fleet operators and "result in significant savings to utilities through
avoided grid buildout costs."225 Yet another analysis found that BEVs can "contribute
significantly to grid stability" and provide value to the grid through "deferred or avoided capital
expenditure on additional stationary storage, power electronic infrastructure, transmission build-
out, and more."226 Additionally, utilities can deploy proven and emerging rate designs that
ensure utilities recover costs, reliably serve BEV charging load, improve BEV owner experience,
and take advantage of grid strengthening services from these vehicles.227 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1640-A1, p. 54]
1104
-------
223 For more information on vehicle to grid and other bidirectional charging technologies, see, e.g. Jason
Svarc, Bidirectional Chargers Explained - V2G Vs V2H Vs V2L, Clean Energy Reviews (Apr. 10, 2023),
https://www.cleanenergyreviews.info/blog/bidirectional-ev-charging-v2g-v2h-v21; SAFE & Electrification
Coalition, Advancing Vehicle to Grid Technology Adoption Policy Recommendations for Improved
Energy Security and Resilience (2022), https://safe2020.wpenginepowered.com/wp-
content/uploads/2022/06/Advancing-Vehicle-to-Grid-Technology-Adoption, pdf,
224 Jonathan Coignard et al., Clean Vehicles as an Enabler for a Clean Electricity Grid, Env't Rsch.
Letters, May 16, 2018, http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aabe97.
225 Gladstein, Neandross & Associates, California Heavy-Duty Fleet Electrification Summary Report
(2021), https://blogs.edf.org/energyexchange/files/2021/03/EDF-GNA-Final-March-2021.pdf.
226 Chengjian Xu et al., Electric vehicle batteries alone could satisfy short-term grid storage demand by as
early as 2030, Nature Commc'n, Jan. 17, 2023, at 1, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-35393-0.
227 See e.g., Brittany Blair et al., Smart Electric Power Alliance, Managed Charging Programs:
Maximizing Customer Satisfaction and Grid Benefits (2023), https://sepapower.org/resource/managed-
charging-programs-maximizing-customer-satisfaction-and-grid-benefits/; Enel-X, Understanding Smart EV
Load Management (Apr. 8, 2022), https://info.evcharging.enelx.com/whitepaper-download-ev-load-
management-utility-dive; Zachary Needell, Wei Wei & Jessika E. Trancik, Strategies for beneficial electric
vehicle charging to reduce peak electricity demand and store solar energy, CELL REPS. PHYSICAL SCI.,
Mar. 15, 2023, https://www.cell.com/cell-reports-physical-science/fulltext/S2666-3864(23)00046-2; Lily
Paul & Maureen Marshall, CALSTART, Not Just Smart: The Importance of Managed Charging (2021),
https://calstart.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Managed-Charging-Paper-Final.pdf; Karen Kirk, Yes, the
grid can handle EV charging, even when demand spikes, Yale Climate Connections (Mar. 23, 2023),
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2023/03/yes-the-grid-can-handle-ev-charging-even-when-demand-
spikes/.
In addition, the historic investments of the BIL and IRA are helping utilities build a stronger,
cleaner grid and prepare for advanced electrification while minimizing customer costs. Duke
Energy, for example, has stated that "[the BIL] provides an important down payment on the
infrastructure and incentives that are needed to electrify transportation and secure the grid," and
"[the IRA] can create significant cost savings for our customers."228 New York utilities have
indicated that they will be applying for $900 million in grants from the BIL and IRA to advance
grid resilience.229 National Grid in particular notes that "EV charging make-ready infrastructure
is identical to electric infrastructure that serves other purposes, this is the kind of work electric
utilities do every day,"230 and that "areas of the [BIL] funding are enabling increased
investment."231 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, pp. 54 - 55]
228 Jennifer Loraine, Policy can have a crucial impact on our clean energy future, Duke Energy News
Center (Jan. 20, 2023), https://news.duke-energy.com/our-perspective/policy-can-have-a-crucial-impact-
on-our-clean-energy-future.
229 John Norris, NY Utilities to Seek $900M from DOE, RTO Insider, (Mar. 28, 2023),
https://www.rtoinsider.com/articles/31898-ny-utilities-seek-900m-from-doe.
230 Comments of National Grid to USDOT/FHWA on Docket No. FHWA-2021-0022, at 11 (Jan. 26,
2022), https://downloads.regulations.gOv/FHWA-2021-0022-0150/attachment_l.pdf.
231 Id. at 10.
Organization: Clean Fuels Development Coalition et al.
H. The proposed rule neglects the impact of EPA's many other proposed rules on these rules.
1105
-------
Finally, the proposed rule is made even more infeasible when EPA's other proposed rules are
considered. On the same day EPA announced this proposed rule it also announced the
corresponding rule for light-and medium-duty vehicles. That proposed rule, "Multi-Pollutant
Emissions Standards for Model Years 2027 and Later Light-Duty and Medium-Duty Vehicles,"
88 Fed. Reg. 29,184 (May 5, 2023), would require nearly 70 percent of light-duty vehicles to be
electrified by 2032. These light-duty vehicles will compete with heavy-duty vehicles for
minerals, batteries, charging infrastructure, and more. But there is little mention of this
competition. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1585-A1, p. 30]
EPA has also proposed new carbon pollution standards for coal and natural gas-fired power
plants. See "New Source Performance Standards for Greenhouse Gas Emissions From New,
Modified, and Reconstructed Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric Generating Units; Emission Guidelines
for Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Existing Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric Generating Units; and
Repeal of the Affordable Clean Energy Rule," 88 Fed. Reg. 33,240 (May 23, 2023). Among
other things, this proposal assumes it would lead all coal facilities to close by 2040 or
implement—largely unproven—carbon capture and storage technology with at least a 90 percent
capture rate. The proposal would also require the use of hydrogen blending or carbon capture in
all natural gas plants. These new rules will drive up electricity costs—by adding large new
expenses to the coal and gas the currently provides a majority of our nation's electricity—and
reduce grid reliability by driving offline the large thermal generation sources that provide most
of our electric grid's reliable power. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1585-A1, p. 30]
This grid reliability is a serious concern. A decline in steady thermal sources like coal makes
our grid susceptible to the "fatal trifecta": "overreliance on weather-dependent solar and wind,
just-in-time natural-gas backstops, and imports of electricity from neighboring states." Michael
Buschbacher & Taylor Myers, FERC Gaslights America, American Conservative (Sep. 6, 2022),
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/ferc-gaslights-america/. The effects of decreasing
baseload power are already being felt. The North American Electric Reliability Corporation's
("NERC") most recent Long-Term Risk Assessment found that found that most of the country is
already at elevated risk of blackouts, with some regions being at high-risk during even normal
peak conditions. 2022 Long-Term Reliability Assessment, North American Electric Reliability
Corporation (Dec. 2022),
https://www.nerc.com/pa/RAPA/ra/Reliability%20Assessments%20DL/NERC_LTRA_2022.pdf
. These problems are exacerbated by rules like EPA's new power plant rules because those rules
drive the adoption of less reliable intermittent resources like solar and wind. NERC explained
that "[a]s solar decreases as sunset approaches, the total of all available resources can fall short
of the demand, especially [during] higher demand levels." Id. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1585-
Al, pp. 30-31]
These reliability concerns are exacerbated by the deployment of electric vehicles. A recent
NERC report explained that when up-ticks in electrical vehicle charging coincide with
increasingly frequent grid disturbances in the bulk power system. Electric Vehicle Dynamic
Charging Performance, North American Electric Reliability Corporation (Apr. 10, 2023),
https://www.nerc.com/comm/RSTC/Documents/Grid_Friendly_EV_Charging_Recommendation
s.pdf. When these events coincide they could "have catastrophic consequences for grid reliability
if left unchecked (i.e., cascading blackouts and widespread power interruptions)." Id. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1585-A1, p. 31]
1106
-------
But the proposal waves away concerns about grid reliability by explaining that "U.S. electric
power utilities routinely upgrade the nation's electric power system to improve grid reliability
and to meet new electric power demand." 88 Fed. Reg. 25,983. This is inadequate. If the Biden
Administration is going to adopt a "whole of government" approach to rulemaking, it must
consider the interaction of all these rules. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1585-A1, p. 31]
Organization: Daimler Truck North America LLC (DTNA)
Electrical infrastructure buildout pace is a barrier to significant ZEV adoption that should be
factored in to Phase 3 C02 standard levels.
The pace of electrical infrastructure buildout remains the biggest barrier for customer
adoption of HD BEVs and poses the greatest threat to successful implementation of the Proposed
Rule. As EPA observes, BEV infrastructure is critically important for the success of increasing
development and adoption of BEV technologies. 108 DTNA thus appreciates the opportunity to
respond to EPA's request for comment on the concerns that have already been expressed to EPA
regarding the slow growth of ZEV charging and refueling infrastructure. This Proposed Rule is
unique in that compliance will rely heavily on the development of infrastructure that
manufacturers have no control over, and providers are not obligated to expand infrastructure to
support the scope and timing of the Proposed Rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 45]
108 See Proposed Rule, 88 Fed. Reg. at 26,000.
DTNA—in partnership with Portland General Electric—is proud to have built the first-of-its-
kind public charging island for commercial ZEVs in Portland, Oregon. In addition, DTNA's
expert eConsulting team is dedicated to supporting fleets on all aspects of the ZEV transition,
including site design and interfacing with utilities. Therefore, DTNA is uniquely positioned to
offer insight into the challenges associated with commercial ZEV infrastructure development.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 45]
DTNA has concerns about EPA's treatment of electric infrastructure in the Proposed Rule,
and the Agency's assumptions that all suitable vehicle applications and willing customer
adopters will have charging infrastructure available, or that such infrastructure can be made
available within the timeframes that EPA assumes and at the costs projected in HD TRUCS. In
this section, DTNA highlights the unique challenges with HD charging infrastructure (especially
with respect to electricity transmission and distribution); explains why EPA significantly
underestimates infrastructure costs; discusses specific timing challenges; and highlights case
studies from its customer fleets. Finally, DTNA concludes by recommending that EPA use an
electric infrastructure scalar to ensure that infrastructure development pace is adequately factored
in to EPA's adoption rate projections, as discussed in more detail on Section II.C of these
comments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 45]
EPA projects that modest increases in electric power generation will be required to support
the Proposed Rule. Specifically, the Agency estimates that Proposed Rule requirements would
increase HD BEV electric power end use by 0.1% over 2021 levels in 2027, increasing to 2.8%
over 2021 levels in 2055.109 EPA notes, however, that these figures do not include the
electricity increase required to produce hydrogen.110 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, pp.
45-46]
109 Id. at 25,983; DRIA at 430, Table 6-1.
1107
-------
110 See DRIA at 431 (noting that EPA's projected electricity consumption increases attributable to the
Proposed Rule do 'not include changes in electricity generation to produce hydrogen').
EPA's figures appear to underestimate the increase in electric power generation that will be
required to support implementation of the Proposed Rule. As discussed below, according to the
Company's calculations, 45 gigawatts of installed charging capacity will be required to support
the vehicle volumes in the Proposed Rule from 2027 - 2032. Based on EIA's estimate that there
was 1,143,757 megawatts (MW) of total utility-scale electricity generating capacity in the United
States at the end of 2021,111 Proposed Rule implementation will require a 3.9% increase in
domestic generation capacity (over the 2021 level) by 2032, conflicting with EPA's projection
that only a 2.8% increase will be required by 2055. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 46]
111 See U.S. Energy Information Administration, 'Electricity explained: Electricity generation, capacity,
and sales in the United States,' https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-in-the-us-
generation-capacityand-sales.php.
Further, DTNA is concerned that EIA's commercial vehicle forecast does not align with
EPA's ZEV market projections in the Proposed Rule. EIA's AEO 2022 commercial vehicle
projections are summarized in Table 15 below EIA projects zero commercial vehicle BEV sales
through 2050, and minimal FCEV penetration up to 1,600 vehicles per year per category. It is
critical that federal agencies are aligned on these commercial vehicle projections and
communicate them clearly to the electric utility industry. Given the misalignment with EIA on
ZEV uptake rates, it is likely that EPA underestimates the electricity generation increase needed
to support HD BEVs.[EPA-HQ-0AR-2022-0985-1555- A 1, p. 46] [Refer to Table 15 on p. 46 of
docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1],
EPA points to the adoption of residential air conditioners and growth of power-intensive data
centers as historical evidence of the electric utility industry's ability to deliver additional power
to customers. 113 Residential air conditioners provide a reasonable comparison for light-duty
vehicle electricity demand levels, as they represent a relatively low load that is evenly distributed
across utility service territories. The electricity demands associated with medium- and heavy-
duty electrification will, however, be fundamentally different and must be treated as such. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 46]
113 See Proposed Rule, 88 Fed. Reg. at 25,983.
Unlike light-duty vehicles, most HD ZEVs cannot charge using existing 120-volt and 240-volt
AC electrical infrastructure, and they require dedicated DC infrastructure. HD ZEVs are also
disproportionally located in concentrated urban areas, creating highly localized grid capacity
addition needs in constrained spaces (see Figure 3 below, showing heat maps of potential future
loads). [EPA-HQ-0AR-2022-0985-1555- A 1, p. 47] [Refer to Figure 3 on p. 47 of docket
number EPA-HQ-0AR-2022-0985-1555- A 1 ]
Power-intensive data centers and server farms were rapidly constructed across the United
States in the last 20 years and were largely greenfield projects that had the flexibility to be sited
where grid capacity was available or could be made available relatively easily. By contrast, the
commercial transportation industry is already entrenched and invested in existing logistics
facilities. Most of these are located in or around high density urban population centers, often
clustered tightly together, where grid capacity is not available, and the process of acquiring land
and rights-of-way for upgrades is complex. The use of data centers and server farms as anecdotal
1108
-------
examples of electric utility adaptability suggests that EPA is significantly underestimating the
demand presented by commercial transportation charging infrastructure. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1555-A1, p. 47]
DTNA generally agrees with EPA's assertion that scale-up of electric power generation is not
likely to significantly limit the development of BEV electric vehicle charging infrastructure.
Rather, the challenge for medium- and heavy-duty charging lies in distribution of that power. As
ICCT observed in a recent white paper on near-term medium- and heavy-duty ZEV
infrastructure development, 'Most uncertainties regarding infrastructure buildout concern the
capacity of distribution systems to bring that energy to the right place in a timely manner and
accommodate the highly localized power requirements of [medium- and heavy-duty vehicle]
charging.' 114 Accordingly, DTNA recommends that EPA engage with electric utilities and their
trade associations to further understand the unique challenges that HD ZEVs charging will pose
for distribution systems, and how those factors should be accounted for in this rulemaking.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 47]
114 See ICCT, 'Near-Term Infrastructure Deployment to Support Zero-Emission Medium- and Heavy -
Duty Vehicles in the United States (May 2023) at 1, https://theicct.org/wp-
content/uploads/2023/05/infrastructure-deployment-mhdv-may23.pdf (ICCT ZEV Infrastructure White
Paper).
Infrastructure Costs
EPA asserts 'there is considerable uncertainty associated with future distribution upgrade
needs, and in many cases, some costs may be borne by utilities rather than directly incurred by
BEV or fleet owners. Therefore, we do not model them directly as part of our infrastructure
analysis.' 115 DTNA appreciates that there is significant complexity and uncertainty in modeling
these costs, but believes that omitting front-of-meter costs is a significant error in the TCO
calculation that has major implications for EPA's proposed C02 standard stringency
levels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 48]
115 Proposed Rule, 88 Fed. Reg. at 25,983.
How fleet owners pay for infrastructure will depend on a variety of factors, including utility
structure (investor-owned, municipal, cooperative), existing available grid capacity, project
scale, real estate needs, etc. For fleets in cooperative and municipality service territories,
including many in critical urban freight hubs, upgrade costs are likely borne directly by the fleet.
For fleets working with investor-owned utilities, the cost mechanism will vary. If infrastructure
is needed by more than one utility customer, the utility will typically ask the fleet for a pro-rata
share of those costs, or in some cases, increase electricity rates to cover those costs. Where fleets
do not meet the minimum utilization rates for the contracted time period (5 to 10 years), fleets
may be required to reimburse the utility for infrastructure upgrades, or costs are distributed
among all ratepayers. One DTNA customer fleet has cancelled an order for 25 Class 8 tractors
because of what they viewed as risky contract terms, including requirements for load
management and a 10-year commitment to construct capacity for a 3 MW site. Regardless of the
pathway, fleets will bear the cost of infrastructure upgrades to support charging needs, and those
costs should be included in the proposed rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 48]
DTNA relied on a cost study by the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) to estimate an
optimized and non-optimized dollar-per-kilowatt cost figure for grid updates. 116 To estimate
1109
-------
per-vehicle grid update costs for Class 3-8 BEVs, we applied the BCG dollar-per-kilowatt cost
estimates to an assumed average daily power need for each vehicle class that would be subject to
the Phase 3 C02 standards, shown in Table 11 ('DTNA Proposed Grid Update Cost Inputs for
HD TRUCS') presented in Section II.B.3.b. As reflected in Table 11, these costs are non-
negligible, significantly impact the TCO proposition, and must be considered in EPA's HD
TRUCS analysis. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 48]
116 See Boston Consulting Group, 'The Costs of Revving Up the Grid for Electric Vehicles' (Dec. 20,
2019), https://www.bcg.com/publications/2019/costs-rewing-up-the-grid-for-electric-vehicles.
Using the same average daily power assumptions, DTNA estimated the additional installed
capacity that will be needed to support HD BEVs at the adoption rates projected in the Proposed
Rule. The Company calculated a 5-year average of commercial vehicle sales in all 50 states from
the Polk Automotive database from 2017-2021, applied EPA's projected ZEV volumes for 2027-
2032, and calculated the total installed charging capacity that will be required by these vehicles
in 2027 - 2032 to be approximately 45 gigawatts. In Appendix C to these comments, DTNA
estimates the investments in charging infrastructure and grid upgrades, as well as total installed
charging capacity, that will be required in each of the 50 states to support implementation of the
Proposed Rule. 117 DTNA considers installed capacity in this context to mean the total power
available as EVSE to charge commercial vehicle batteries. Using installed capacity is a
more appropriate metric for evaluating available charging capacity than the number of chargers
alone, as installed capacity better reflects the variability in charging speeds needed to support
different vehicle dwell times and truck-to-charger ratios. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1,
pp. 48-49]
This installed capacity must be available at a combination of public and private purpose-built
HD-accessible charging stations. To be HD-accessible, public charging stations must include
pull-through charging lanes and accommodate wide ingress and egress to support all vehicle
types. Commercial vehicles are often unable to utilize existing passenger car charging
infrastructure, due to space constraints that are not compatible with HDVs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 49] [Refer to graphics on p. 49 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1555-A1]
Based on the projected vehicle mix in the Proposed Rule and installed capacity needed to
support these vehicles, DTNA estimated the total costs of EVSE charging equipment and
necessary supporting grid updates to support Class 3-8 BEVs that would be required under the
Proposed Rule. These figures, summarized in Table 16 below, do not include the additional
capacities and investments needed to support passenger car electrification. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 49] [Refer to Table 16 on p. 49 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1555-A1]
Even with incentive funding available, many fleets are unable to make the capital investments
required to add BEVs to their fleets. DTNA is currently working with one school bus fleet that
has secured Clean School Bus funds from EPA for 23 buses, as well as a payment plan through
their utility's Make Ready program, and is still facing a $500,000 funding gap for site
construction that threatens to jeopardize the project. Private fleet deployments are likely to face
similar gaps, even where some combination of incentive program funding is available. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 50]
1110
-------
Timing for Infrastructure Development
EPA implies that in the next five years, electric infrastructure will be sufficiently built out to
support the BEVs required by the Proposed Rule, and that buildout will continue to support
substantially higher fleet adoption rates by 2032. Without major regulatory and/or legislative
action, DTNA does not believe the infrastructure needed will materialize on the timeline required
to enable compliance with the Phase 3 C02 standards as proposed. New interconnection requests
are processed on a first-come-first-serve basis, and transportation electrification competes with
all other utility priorities, including decarbonization mandates, resiliency, and other residential
and commercial interconnection requests. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 50]
Utilities are noting extended timelines for installing critical hardware, both in front of and
behind the meter, due to supply chain and other constraints. During the ACF rulemaking process,
for example, one electric utility commented to CARB that the lead time for transformers was 40
weeks, and that the lead time customer side meter panels/switchgears was 70 weeks. 118 In the
Company's experience, utilities will wait for this hardware to be received to perform other
upgrades, and these types of sequential gating events can add significant time to transportation
electrification projects. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 50]
118 See Comments of Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Proposed Advanced Clean Fleets Regulation
(Oct. 17, 2022), https://www.arb.ca.gov/lists/com-attacli/370-acf2022-AXEFZFUxUFxRYlBl.pdf.
In a recent joint presentation by Southern California Edison (SCE), Pacific Gas & Electric
(PG&E), and San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) at a California Energy Commission (CEC)
workshop, the following table was presented reflecting the utilities' estimations of typical
timelines for distribution capacity improvements: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p.
50] [Refer to Table 17 on p. 50 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1]
As the scope of the necessary distribution capacity improvements is often unknown until
detailed site planning is underway, predicting how long fleets will wait for
interconnection requests is challenging. DTNA believes many depot electrification projects may
require increases in substation capacity, sub-transmission improvements, or new substations to
serve the concentrated power demands. One of DTNA's customers cancelled a BEV deployment
because their utility returned a 5-8 year lead time for a new substation. Another fleet's initial
ZEV deployment at scale required construction of a 6 MW facility, able to charge 32 Class 8
drayage tractors simultaneously. 120 Providing these capacities to many sites clustered together,
as will be required to support concentrated freight hubs and logistics centers, is likely to require
substantial grid upgrades. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, pp. 50-51]
120 See 'Schneider's Electric Heavy-Duty Trucks Start Off on Regional Routes' (June 8, 2023)
https://www.truckinginfo.com/10200304/new-electric-heavy-duty-trucks-start-off-on-regional-routes.
Because of California's climate policies, including Executive Order N-79-20 requiring all
new passenger car and truck sales to be zero emission by 2035, and CARB's ACT and ACF
regulations, a number of transportation electrification planning procedures and make-ready
programs have already been implemented or have begun to develop in California. Thus, it is
important to keep in mind that electric utilities in other states may generally be less prepared to
respond to transportation electrification requests. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 51]
1111
-------
In the Company's experience, fleets typically purchase their vehicles 6-12 months ahead of
need, and often utilities require proof of purchase to show the fleet is committed to move
forward with infrastructure development. DTNA has experienced fleet customers cancelling
BEV orders when utilities respond to interconnection requests with multi-year lead times. Many
of these cancellations include the return of incentive program funds, such as HVIP or Clean
School Bus Program vouchers. Purchasers who apply for and are granted HVIP funds for
example, must redeem the voucher within 90 days, or apply for three-month extensions up to 540
total days. 121 It is not uncommon for infrastructure projects to exceed the 540 day timeline,
which would require the fleet to take delivery of BEVs with no charging infrastructure, resulting
in a stranded capital investment and no air quality improvements. One of DTNA's customers
cancelled an order and returned HVIP funding for 20 Class 8 tractors when their utility estimated
their site would take 3 years (1,095 days) to energize. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1,
p. 51]
121 See Implementation Manual for the Hybrid and Zero-Emission Truck and Bus Voucher Incentive
Project (HVIP) (March 15, 2022) at 20, https://californiahvip.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/HVIP-
FY 21 -22-Implementation-Manual-03.15.22.pdf.
Furthermore, it is unlikely that fleets will make major investments in long-term infrastructure
that require commitments longer than the vehicle trade cycle. For example, if a fleet plans for a
4-year vehicle product cycle, but the infrastructure lead time is 4 years for an increase in
substation capacity, by the time the infrastructure is available, the fleet will be working with the
next generation of vehicles, which may or may not have the same power needs. Similarly, where
utilities have made capital investments in infrastructure, fleets may be required to commit to a
certain utilization rates for 5 to 10 years. Fleets working with shorter trade cycles, contracted
routes, or leased properties are likely to see operational changes well before they are released
from their utilization obligations. Committing to minimum utilization rates may be a major
financial risk for fleets, which is unaccounted for in the cost estimates in the Proposed Rule.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 51]
Fleets have also cited the lack of firm interconnection dates as a major deterrent to
committing to long-term infrastructure projects. DTNA appreciates that infrastructure buildout
projects are difficult to project, and may encounter unanticipated delays, but fleets are unable to
make fleet transition plans, place orders for electric vehicles, or apply for funding without firm
interconnection timelines. Some of DTNA's fleet customers committed to ZEV deployment have
sought temporary power solutions to address these timeline issues. However, temporary power
solutions incur additional costs and generally must be paid up front by the fleet. For instance,
SDG&E Rule 13 ('Temporary Service') provides that an applicant for temporary service 'shall
pay, in advance or otherwise as required by the utility, the estimated cost installed plus the
estimated cost of removal, less the estimated salvage of the facilities necessary for furnishing
service.' 122 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, pp. 51-52]
122 See SDG&E Rule 13, https://www.sdge.com/sites/default/files/elec_elec-rules_erulel3.pdf.
In addition to electrical interconnection complexities, fleets must navigate their local building
codes and permitting processes. As noted by the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use
Management (NESCAUM) in a 2019 paper on DCFC deployment, 'the permitting process for
DCFC stations is sometimes lengthy and fraught with delays due to unfamiliarity with the
technology, protracted zoning reviews, and undefined requirements for permitting DCFC. As a
1112
-------
result, the DCFC permitting process can be resource-intensive for both applicants and
[authorities having jurisdiction (AHJs)].' 123 Since the NESCAUM paper was published,
DTNA's eConsulting team has encountered many AHJs that lack defined processes for DCFC
installation projects and the expertise needed to move projects along quickly. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 52]
123 NESCAUM, 'Preparing Our Communities for Electric Vehicles: Facilitating Deployment of DC Fast
Chargers' (May 2019), https://www.nescaum.org/documents/dcfc-permit-streamlining-whitepaper-final-5-
14-19.pdf.
Fleets may encounter additional complications related to EVSE installation that impact BEV
technology adoption rates. For example, when converting vehicles to BEVs, the infrastructure
needed for charging equipment takes up physical space that could otherwise be occupied by
additional trucks. Figure 4 below illustrates the components needed for combined charging
systems (CCS). Megawatt Charging Systems (MCS) require additional space for installation as
well. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 52] [Refer to Figure 4 on p. 53 of docket number
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2022-098 5 -15 5 5 - A 1 ]
Figure 5 below shows an overhead view of one such fleet operation in Southern California
where physical space will limit the number of BEVs that can be deployed. This site will require
additional power poles, new transformers, and new switchgears to support only a fraction of the
fleet. To convert additional tractors to BEVs, fleets working with constrained spaces like the site
shown below will likely be required to purchase additional real estate. Recently, Denver's
Regional Transportation District (RTD) announced the cancellation of an $18 million deal for
new electric buses, citing space constraints for charging and EVSE equipment. 124 RTD officials
estimated they would need an additional $85 million to construct a new building to support this
deployment. Space constraint issues of this type—and the associated costs—are not accounted
for in EPA's cost estimates for the Proposed Rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p.
53] [Refer to Figure 5 on p. 53 of docket number EPA-HQ-0AR-2022-0985-1555-A1]
124 See Denver Post, 'RTD cancels purchase of 17 electric buses it doesn't have space to maintain—and
orders fleet transition strategy' (April 26, 2023), https://www.denverpost.com/2023/04/26/regional-
transportation-district-battery-electric-buses-contract/.
DTNA's fleet customers have faced a number of similar challenges, which have resulted in
order cancellations or reductions, revealing the following issues :
• Fleet customers have been quoted 1.5-8 years for depot site electrification for
deployments that are modest compared to the scale of those discussed in the Proposed
Rule.
• Depot installation projects are complex and resource intensive for fleets, utilities, and
AHJs. DTNA often observes differing views of roles and responsibilities in transportation
electrification projects and a lack of expertise in this developing space.
• Infrastructure lead time is not synchronized with funding program lead time, leading
fleets to return vouchers they spent resources securing, highlighting that available
funding and the calculated TCO is only part of the adoption equation.
• Utilities and fleets sometimes cannot come to agreement on contractual terms, including
load restrictions, managed charging, and guaranteed utilization time periods. It is unlikely
these issues will be resolved without significant regulatory or legislative changes.
1113
-------
• State and municipal building codes and processes lack transparency and add significant
time to depot electrification projects. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 54]
Utility Long Range Planning vs. Fleet Planning
Utilities today rely on long-range forecasts in the 5 - 10 year timeframe to plan investment
and system upgrades. During CARB's ACF rulemaking process, a number of electric utilities
submitted comments recommending that CARB facilitate the ongoing sharing of data with
utilities about fleet customers' detailed near-term and long-term charging infrastructure needs,
including fleet transition plans by year, whether the fleet would need to charge full-time or on
peak, what percentage of time fleets would charge on peak and at what level, and if fleets
anticipated seasonal peaks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 55]
As discussed above, fleets typically order their vehicles 6-12 months in advance, and it is
unlikely fleets are able to make accurate predictions of what the future fleets' energy needs
might be, as fleet operations are subject to change with changes in contracted routes, technology
maturity, etc. Some fleets rent their depot facilities, and short term leases will prevent the tenant
fleet from making long range plans. Where long term leases are in place, the fleet tenant often
cannot make substantial changes to the property without the landlord's permission. Even with the
landlord's permission, fleets are unlikely to make a long-term investment in sites that they do not
own. Landlords could choose to install EVSE if they anticipated a positive business case, but are
similarly unable to provide detailed long range forecasts. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1,
p. 55]
DTNA has made vehicle telematics data available for interested utilities to predict where
future loads may occur, but this dataset only represents a subset of the Company's products, and
not the market as a whole. Without substantive regulatory and/or legislative intervention to
prompt utilities to plan for and buildout for transportation electrification, DTNA does not believe
significant buildout of electrical infrastructure will occur on the timeline required to support
EPA's proposed C02 stringency levels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 55]
Recommendations to Facilitate ZEV Infrastructure Buildout and C02 Standard Feasibility
While EPA does not have regulatory authority over many of the factors that currently pose
challenges to ZEV infrastructure development, the Agency could help to mitigate these
challenges by supporting the policies, legislation, and regulatory initiatives that are detailed in
Section I.B.4 of these comments, including:
• Align with EIA vehicle uptake estimates, to ensure accurate estimates of real power
demand by MHD and HHD ZEVs and net C02 emissions.
• Work with FERC to direct utilities to incorporate demand projects into both a system-
wide transportation electrification electricity forecast and a utility distribution grid
capacity requirement forecast, to serve these medium- and heavy-duty transportation
electrification loads on a geographic basis.
• Assume financial liability as a demand guarantor for infrastructure buildout that is
undertaken based upon EPA's ZEV penetration forecasts.
• Work with FERC to identify high traffic freight hubs that are likely to see rapid increase
in BEVs, and direct utilities to proactively upgrade this infrastructure.
1114
-------
• Encourage state utility regulatory commissions to adopt PBRs to incentivize faster
interconnection timelines for charging infrastructure projects. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1555-A1, p. 57]
• Work with stakeholders to develop model building codes that can be adopted by state and
local governments to streamline authorizations for EVSE installation projects and
encourage state and local adoption of these model codes.
• Require reporting of medium- and heavy-duty ZEV infrastructure and make this
information available to fleets.
• Work with FHWA to revise the NEVI formula program to more actively encourage states
to provide HD-accessible public charging infrastructure. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1555-A1, p. 58]
Finally, as described in more detail in Sections I.B.3 and II.C. of these comments, EPA should
incorporate a scalar to be used in its calculations of appropriate C02 standard stringency levels,
designed (and regularly updated) to reflect actual installed capacity of HD-accessible charging
equipment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 58]
Organization: Edison Electric Institute (EEI)
EPA notes that several stakeholders have raised concerns that 'slow growth in ZEV charging
and refueling infrastructure can slow the growth of heavy-duty ZEV adoption, and that this may
present challenges for vehicle manufacturers ability to comply with future EPA GHG standards.'
88 Fed. Reg. 25,934. EEI member companies have addressed similar infrastructure build out
issues in the past. Like those issues, these concerns can be addressed through deliberate effort
and collaboration among electric companies, fleet operators, and stakeholders, including
planning for increased demand, customer engagement, and fleet electrification. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1509-A2, p. 7]
Electric companies can accommodate increased energy demand.
As EPA notes, the electric power sector has a long history of accommodating growth in
electricity demand from the adoption of new technologies, including electric home appliances,
residential and commercial air conditioning, and data centers. See id. At 25,983. Electricity use
from EVs today is modest. Argonne National Lab estimates the approximately 2.3 million EVs
on the road as of the end of 2021 consumed 6.1 terawatt-hours of electricity in that year, or about
0.16 percent of the total electric sales to U.S. customers in that year.18 As EPA also notes,
the increase in electricity use resulting from the Proposed Rule also will be modest, increasing
electricity end-use by less than 3 percent in 2055. See id. On a macro-level, meeting the
increased energy usage from electric truck adoption as contemplated in the Proposed Rule will
not be a significant challenge for the electric power sector. Meeting the location-specific power
needs of large electric vehicle (EV) charging facilities can be a more pressing challenge.
However, this is a challenge that can be addressed with deliberate effort and collaboration among
electric companies, fleet operators, and stakeholders. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1509-A2,
pp. 7-8]
18 See Gohlke, et al., Assessment of Light-Duty Plug-in Electric Vehicles in the United States, 2010 -
2021, https://publications.anl.gov/anlpubs/2022/ll/178584.pdf and U.S. Energy Information
Administration, Electric Power Monthly
1115
-------
Electric companies can accommodate localized power needs at the pace of customer demand,
provided appropriate customer engagement and enabling policies are in place. The power
required by a customer is essential when considering the infrastructure needed at the facility
level, because the capacity of the local distribution circuit is sized to meet the peak power
requirements of customers on that circuit. Some large EV charging facilities have power
requirements in the tens of megawatts (MW). Electric companies are well accustomed to serving
facilities with those types of power needs, but large fleet customers differ from traditional
electric customers (e.g., commercial or industrial buildings) in several important aspects. These
aspects include, but are not limited to:
• Construction timelines: A new, large commercial building with a multi-MW power
demand, for example, will typically have a multi-year construction timeline, giving the
local electric company time to plan and make appropriate upgrades to the electric
distribution system serving that customer. A fleet operator, in contrast, may be able to
procure vehicles and complete construction on a multi-MW charging facility in a matter
of months. This creates a potential misalignment between the fleet operators' timeline to
procure vehicles and charging equipment and the electric company's timeline for making
the necessary system upgrades to provide power to that facility. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1509-A2, p. 8]
• Customer familiarity with procuring electric power: Commercial and industrial electric
customers are used to working with electric companies for the operation of their facilities
as part of their normal course of business, including working with electric companies as
part of the construction process for launching new facilities. In particular, national
corporate customers often have long-standing relationships with the electric companies
that serve them. Electric companies typically assign these customers an account manager,
given their scale and complexity. A fleet operator, in contrast, is used to procuring diesel
to operate its vehicles, and may consider procuring electricity in the same paradigm. Fleet
operators may be small electricity users today and thus that division may not yet be
considered a managed account for the electric company. However, EEI members have
identified this issue and are expanding their working relationship with these
customers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1509-A2, pp. 8-9]
• Uncertain and dynamic load profiles: The power usage throughout the day, known as the
'load profile,' of typical commercial and industrial buildings is well understood (e.g.,
large retail store, data center, or manufacturing facility). Typical load profiles for electric
fleet customers are not yet well understood and often hypothetical given the early stage of
electric truck commercialization. A fleet charging load profile is the product of many
factors, including the routes of the vehicles, the state of charge of the EV when returning
to the facility, the number of operating shifts, etc. Unlike a typical commercial building,
the load profile of a fleet facility could also drastically change with a change in vehicle
operations (e.g., changing from a one-shift to two-shift operation). This uncertainty adds
complexity for electric companies when determining how best to serve the power
requirements of a fleet customer. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1509-A2, p. 9]
These factors could result in misalignment between expectations and reality regarding the
timing, cost, and complexity of procuring electric power for fleet charging. Electric companies
are taking a multi-pronged approach to remedy this potential misalignment, as discussed in the
following sections. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1509-A2, p. 9]
1116
-------
Earlier customer engagement through education and coordination will alleviate infrastructure
delays.
Early engagement between the relevant fleet customer and electric company is important as it
allows planning for the infrastructure to support EV charging to occur much earlier and
accommodate longer lead-times. In 2020, EEI began a collaboration with a large, national
corporate customer that was planning to electrify a significant portion of its fleet operation. EEI
facilitated meetings for this customer to share its conceptual plans with EEI's members and
establish points of contact at the customer and each electric company. Over the course of
more than a year, the customer identified the locations within each member's territory where it
planned to deploy EVs and developed a five-year forecast to inform the electric company how
the power demand would increase at each location over time. This unprecedented level of
collaboration has resulted in this customer deploying thousands of electric vehicles to date. This
includes alternative locations that were identified by the electric company after consulting with
the customer. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1509-A2, pp. 9-10]
The extent of collaboration described in this example may not be feasible, or necessary, for
every fleet customer. But it does provide a helpful template for how early engagement and
planning can streamline fleet electrification. The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) is
developing a data-sharing platform as part of its EVs2Scale2030 initiative that will formalize and
expand this model by allowing fleet customers to upload their forward-looking fleet
electrification plans to a common database. 19 Electric companies will then be able to access this
data to visualize where on its system upgrades will be needed to accommodate growing power
needs from fleet customers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1509-A2, p. 10]
19 See Electric Power Research Institute, EVs2Scale2030,
https://www.epri.eom/research/products/000000003002025622.
Many electric companies are developing tools and resources to assist fleet customers. These
include, but are not limited to:
• Grid capacity evaluation tools: Several electric companies have launched capacity
hosting maps that are available on public websites that illustrate local grid capacity in
their service territory.20 These maps can be helpful early indicators for fleet customers
when considering the level of upgrades that may be required at a particular facility. These
maps have limitations, as they are a snapshot in time and do not substitute for a formal
engineering study. Even if they have not published such a capacity map, many electric
companies have the ability to assist fleet customers by providing an early screen for local
grid capacity by location directly. In either case, the outcome is the same: for customers
that have the ability to consider multiple locations for their EV deployment plans, pre-
screening the local distribution system capacity at these locations allows the fleet to
factor grid upgrade timelines into their deployment plans. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1509-A2, pp. 10-11]
20 Examples include: AVANGRID (United Illuminating, NYSEG, Rochester Gas & Electric), Ameren
Illinois, Con Edison, Dominion Energy, Eversource, Exelon (Atlantic City Electric, Delmarva Power,
Pepco, Comed, PECO), Jersey Central Power & Light, National Grid, Orange & Rockland, Public Service
Electric & Gas, San Diego Gas & Electric, and Southern California Edison.
1117
-------
• Fleet assessments and advisory services: Many electric companies have launched
programs to provide in-depth consulting services to fleets that are considering
electrification, including elements like feasibility studies based on total cost of
ownership.21 These programs also may include dedicated staff resources to guide
customers through the fleet electrification journey, including choosing the appropriate
charging strategy and charging infrastructure to meet their operational needs. These
programs help to educate fleet customers about the nuances of procuring power for their
fleet operations and allow electric companies to learn more about the expected operations
of electric fleets. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1509-A2, p. 11]
21 See Alliance for Transportation Electrification, Fleet Advisory Services (FAS) for Fleet Electrification:
Meet Customer Needs and Provide Grid Benefits, https://evtransportationalliance.org/wp-
content/uploads/2023/02/PRESS-ATE-EC-White-Paper.pdf, which includes case studies from DTE
Energy, Exelon, Portland General Electric, Southern California Edison, and Xcel Energy.
These and other resources being developed and deployed today by electric companies are
essential to ensuring that infrastructure plans and efforts are matched to forthcoming
electrification efforts from fleets and other operators. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1509-A2,
p. 11]
Electric companies are planning for fleet electrification.
Investor-owned electric companies are regulated by state commissions, which approve
electric company capital plans to maintain and upgrade the electric grid. While policies vary by
state commission, two generally applicable principles have important implications for fleet
electrification. First, the 'used and useful' standard means that regulators will only approve the
electric company to build infrastructure that will be utilized and provide value. The onus is
on electric companies to provide evidence that their capital plans will meet this standard. Second
is the principle that the customer that incurs the cost must pay for the cost. Typically, a customer
seeking new or upgraded electric service must submit a formal service request to the electric
company, which prompts the electric company to perform an engineering study to determine the
cost of the upgrades needed to provide that service. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1509-A2,
pp.11-12]
The implication for fleet electrification, a potentially fast-growing source of significant new
demand on the electric system, is that electric companies are not authorized to upgrade the
electric system in anticipation of new demand without robust evidence that those upgrades will
be 'used and useful.' Only when a fleet customer submits a service request is the electric
company permitted to make the upgrades necessary to serve that customer. Electric company
forecasts for load growth, including that due to electrification, are typically at a system level, not
the local distribution system level for individual fleet facilities. Given the nascent
commercialization of fleet electrification, there is a lack of visibility into how, where, and when
fleet electrification will appear on the system sufficient evidence to give electric companies (and
their regulators) confidence to build for it. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1509-A2, p. 12]
Importantly, electric companies are recognizing the risks of this approach and are getting
ahead of the need. Given the long lead times to make distribution upgrades, particularly if the
upgrades are significant to extend further upstream to the substation and transmission level, it
will increasingly be unacceptable to customers to wait for the customer service request-driven
process. There is a risk that fleet customers, facing increased regulatory pressure to electrify their
1118
-------
fleets, will be unable to plan their businesses around these infrastructure lead times and fail
to meet their electrification goals. Electric companies must find mechanisms to plan and build
for these increased loads now, so that the power is available when the customer needs
them. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1509-A2, pp. 12-13]
In California, the investor-owned electric companies use the California Energy Commission's
Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR) as their base forecast. Southern California Edison (SCE)
in its recent General Rate Case found a significant gap between the electric transportation load
growth in the IEPR forecast and that expected due to the state's policies, specifically the
California Air Resources Board's Advanced Clean Cars II, Advanced Clean Trucks, and
Advanced Clean Fleets rules.22 SCE developed a Transportation Electrification Grid Readiness
(TEGR) analysis to account for this gap in its General Rate Case that will set the electric
company's grid investments for the next several years. SCE used a top-down methodology to
apply this higher forecast to the circuit level for electric transportation loads, as well as a bottom-
up methodology for certain high growth areas. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1509-A2, p. 13]
22 See Southern California Edison, 2025 General Rate Case, WP SCE-02, Vol. 07 Bk. A, TEGR Forecast
Development Workpaper.
SCE has deployed a variety of new methods to account for HDV development and
deployment, including the Power Service Availability (PSA) initiative to support transportation
electrification. The PSA initiative, working in concert with the TEGR analysis, focuses on
improving SCE's internal processes to streamline interconnection, engaging fleet operators to
better understand their plans for electrification, improving their ability to forecast and assess the
impacts of load growth from electrification, and leveraging new technologies as grid
infrastructure solutions. Because some projects will require more time than others to build,
SCE actively encourages fleet owners to engage with them early in the process so that SCE can
better understand and plan for their needs. For grid upgrades that require a longer construction
schedule, SCE is developing temporary solutions that can deploy quickly while those upgrades
are being built. These solutions may include mobile battery storage or a mobile substation
brought in on a semi tractor-trailer. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1509-A2, pp. 13-14]
In New York, the Public Service Commission opened a proceeding in April to address
barriers to medium-and heavy-duty electric vehicle infrastructure. In particular, the order
recognizes that 'proactive planning for the grid infrastructure needed to serve future
electrification load must anticipate the location and magnitude of future demand' and notes an
analogy to previous policies in which the commission directed the electric companies in New
York to 'develop proactive planning processes to anticipate the need for local transmission and
distribution system upgrades to enable the renewable interconnections required to achieve the
State's renewable energy goals.' 23 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1509-A2, p. 14]
23 State of New York Public Service Commission, Case 23-E-0070, Proceeding on Motion of the
Commission to Address Barriers to Medium- and Heavy-Duty Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure.
EPA's assessment that 'there is sufficient time for the infrastructure, especially for depot
charging, to gradually increase over the remainder of this decade to levels that support the
stringency of the proposed standards for the timeframe they would apply' is accurate. 88 Fed.
Reg. 25,999. As seen above, EEI members actively are planning for and deploying infrastructure
today. However, the increased deployment of this infrastructure over the next decade and beyond
will not happen on its own. Proactive planning processes, whether initiated by the
1119
-------
relevant electric company or state regulatory commission, will be critical to accommodate fleet
electrification to meet customer expectations and planning requirements, while also providing
affordable and reliable service. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1509-A2, pp. 14-15]
EPA specifically requests comment on 'whether there are additional stakeholders EPA should
work with during implementation of the Phase 3 standards.' 88 Fed. Reg. 26,000. EPA, states,
engine and truck manufacturers, and fleet operators should work with electric companies on a
regional or state level to glean additional insight into their planning processes and help bolster
proactive planning and infrastructure investments. As discussed above, electric companies and
their regulators benefit from the confidence that fleet electrification load will materialize through
additional forward planning and outreach, which also provides visibility into where and when
that load will materialize on the system. Final adoption of the Proposed Rule will help provide
confidence that fleet electrification will occur through the period of the rule, but at a national
level. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1509-A2, p. 15]
Additionally, the States, Congress, EPA, and other federal partners should work with the
electric power industry to ensure policies are aligned across the federal government to reduce the
cost and timelines associated with building infrastructure to support increased electrification.
This includes but is not limited to:
• Investing in domestic manufacturing of critical electrical infrastructure, including efforts
to alleviate the labor pool shortage limiting domestic manufacturing of critical electrical
infrastructure and provide loan or purchase guarantees to manufacturers. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1509-A2, p. 15]
• Not exacerbating the supply shortage of distribution transformers with unsupported
efficiency rules. The U.S. Department of Energy should choose an efficiency standard for
transformers that does not require switching to a new type of steel or make a
determination that no new standard is needed.24 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1509-A2,
pp.15-16]
24 EEI's comments are attached as Appendix A.
• Reforming permitting, both at the bulk power level with respect to building electricity
generation and transmission, and at the state and local levels with respect to building
distribution infrastructure. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1509-A2, p. 16]
EEI and its members stand ready to work with our regulatory and legislative partners to
ensure these challenges are appropriately addressed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1509-A2, p. 16]
Organization: Energy Innovation
V. THE MODERN ELECTRIC GRID CAN SUPPORT WIDESPREAD
TRANSPORTATION ELECTRIFICATION OF HDVS OVER TIME.
As part of its analysis, the EPA modeled changes to power generation due to the increased
electricity demand from more EVs and projects that the "additional generation needed to meet
the demand of the heavy-duty BEVs in the proposal [will be] relatively modest (as shown in
DRIA Chapter 6.5). As the proposal is estimated to increase electric power end use by heavy-
duty electric vehicles by 0.1 percent in 2027 and increasing to 2.8 percent in 2055. The U.S.
electricity end use between the years 1992 and 2021, a similar number of years included in our
1120
-------
proposal analysis, increased by around 25 percent, without any adverse effects on electric grid
reliability or electricity generation capacity shortages. Grid reliability is not expected to be
adversely affected by the modest increase in electricity demand associated with HD BEV
charging."55 We concur with this finding. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1604-A1, p. 23]
55 U.S. EPA, "Proposed Rules," 25983
A similar analysis in the 2035 2.0 study found that the DRIVE Clean Scenario resulted in
demand growth from increased electrification averages about 2 percent per year, a growth rate
slower than that achieved between 1975 and 2005. See Figure 15. To meet this demand with a 90
percent clean grid (analyzed as part of the DRIVE Clean Scenario), the U.S. would need to
install on average 105 GW of new wind and solar and 30 GW of new battery storage each year—
nearly four times the current deployment rate.56 Even with additional electric loads in the
DRIVE Clean Scenario, grid modeling found a 90 percent clean grid would be dependable
without coal plants or new natural gas plants by 2035. The grid model also found that during
normal periods of generation and demand, wind, solar, and batteries provide 72 percent of total
annual generation, while hydropower and nuclear provide 16 percent. During periods of high
demand and/or low renewable generation, existing natural gas plants (primarily combined-cycle
plants) cost-effectively compensate for remaining mismatches between demand and renewables-
plus-battery generation—accounting for about 10 percent of total annual electricity generation.
The increased electrification and pervasive renewable energy and battery storage deployments
require investments mainly in new transmission spurs connecting renewable generation to
existing high-capacity transmission, rather than new investments in bulk transmission.57 Of
note, the rates of HDV EV adoption envisioned in the DRIVE Clean Scenario are considerably
higher than the adoption rates in the proposed rules, even if a more stringent alternative is
finalized. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1604-A1, p. 23.] [See Figure 16, electricity Demand
Growth, on page 23 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1604-A1.]
56 Phadke et al., "2035 2.0: Plummeting Costs and Dramatic Improvements in Batteries Can Accelerate
Our Clean Transportation Future" vi.
57 "Transitioning to All-Electric Cars and Trucks Won't Crash the Power Grid," 2035 2.0, n.d.,
https://www.2035report.com/transportation/evs-the-power-grid/.
The examples the EPA provides in its proposed rule offer useful reminders that increased
electric demand from new technologies has, throughout recent history, been met with
commensurate increases in investments, grid upgrades, and reinforcements to comply with grid
reliability standards. Examples include the rapid adoption of air conditioners in the 1960s and
1970s and the rapid growth of power-intensive data centers and server farms over the past two
decades.58 As noted in the proposed rule, the U.S. electric power utilities have already
successfully designed and built the distribution system infrastructure required for 1.4 million
BEVs and have successfully integrated 46.1 GW of new utility-scale electric generating capacity
into the grid between 2020 and 2021.59 The challenges posed by the prospect of gradual growth
in ZEVs in the HDV sector over the next decade can be addressed with the continued adoption of
policies, regulations, planning, and prudent investments. Numerous reports articulate what's
needed to support a highly electrified transportation future, including Accelerating Clean,
Electrified Transportation by 2035: Policy Priorities: A 2035 2.0 Companion Report and the
ACEEE State Transportation Electrification Scorecard.60 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1604-A1,
p. 24]
1121
-------
58 U.S. EPA, "Proposed Rules," 25983.
59 U.S. EPA, 25983.
60 Bryan Howard and Shruti Vaidyanathan, "State Transportation Electrification Scorecard" (American
Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, 2021), https://www.aceee.org/electric-vehicle-scorecard.
Finally, more nascent vehicle-to-grid (V2G) technologies, vehicle grid integration (VGI), and
managed charging programs have the potential to be game changers for HDV electrification and
the electric grid. Certain HDVs are especially well suited to deliver on the promise of V2G,
given how they are used and where they are located. V2G can help HDV fleet owners recoup
energy costs while also meeting power needs during grid constraints. For example, a fleet of
electric-powered school buses in El Cajon can send electricity back to California's grid, thanks
to V2G technology developed by a San Diego company and a partnership with San Diego Gas &
Electric.61 More utilities are working with original equipment manufacturers, fleets, and
government officials to adopt V2G technologies and develop V2G programs, and the IRA and
BIL both contain funding to support pilots and nex-tgeneration R&D.62 The EPA points to
several other entities engaged in VGI research.63 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1604-A1, p. 24]
61 Rob Nikolewski, "How Eight School Buses Are Helping during Power Shortages: They're Transporting
Electrons," Los Angeles Times, July 27, 2022, https://www.latimes.eom/business/story/2022-07-
27/electric-school-buses-in-el-cajon-will-send-power-to-the-grid and "SDG&E and Cajon Valley Union
School District Flip the Switch on Region's First Vehicle-to-Grid Project," SDG&E News Center, July 26,
2022, https://www.sdgenews.com/article/sdge-and-cajon-valley-union-school-district-flip-switch-regions-
first-vehicle-grid-proj ect.
62 See for e.g., Paul Ciampoli, "Public Power Utilities, Others Pursue Vehicle-to-Grid Opportunities,"
American Public Power Association, February 1, 2021,
https://www.publicpower.org/periodical/article/public-power-utilities-others-pursue-vehicle-grid-
opportunities and Dan Zukowski, "GM Partners with Utilities, Solar and Storage Providers on Vehicle-to-
Grid, Home EV Charging," Smart Cities Dive, October 11, 2022,
https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/news/gm-energy-electric-vehicles-v2g-v2h-utilities-solar/633734/.
63 U.S. EPA, "Proposed Rules," 25983.
Based on other analyses and continued advancements in technologies, we agree strongly with
the EPA's finding that the increase in electric power demand attributable to vehicle
electrification is not expected to adversely affect grid reliability due to the modest increase in
electricity demand associated with EV charging.64 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1604-A1, p. 24]
64 U.S. EPA, 25983.
Organization: Energy Strategy Coalition
Members of this coalition are already engaging in long-term planning to meet the increased
demand for electricity attributable to vehicle electrification, and the HDV Proposal will provide a
regulatory backstop supporting further investments in electrification and grid reliability. Demand
for electricity will increase under both the HDV Proposal and recently-proposed multi-pollutant
standards for light-duty and medium-duty vehicles ("LMDV Proposed Rule"),5 but
the electricity grid is capable of planning for and accommodating such demand growth and has
previously experienced periods of significant and sustained growth. Moreover, historic growth in
demand and generation resources does not reflect the investments that will be made under the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act ("IIJA") and the Inflation Reduction Act ("IRA") to
1122
-------
support the deployment of new renewable and zero-carbon generation resources, energy storage
and charging infrastructure. Coalition members are already making investments in the resources
and infrastructure needed to support transportation electrification and realize the benefits that
integration of electric vehicles ("EVs")—including HDVs—can provide to the electricity grid.
The Coalition encourages EPA to work closely with state and local partners and other federal
agencies to ensure that deployment of this infrastructure occurs on the pace and scale needed to
achieve the EV penetration-rates contemplated by these proposals, while ensuring grid
reliability. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1626-A1, pp. 1 -2]
5 Multi-Pollutant Emissions Standards for Model Years 2027 and Later Light-Duty and Medium-Duty
Vehicles, 88 Fed. Reg. 29,184 (published May 5, 2023).
II. The proposed rule supports long-term planning and investment
Long-term planning and investment for vehicle electrification is a business imperative for the
Coalition's members and a necessary element of their efforts to provide affordable, clean, and
reliable power to their customers. By setting a clear trajectory for vehicle electrification that
complements existing regulatory and market forces, EPA's HDV and LMDV proposals facilitate
further investment in the generation and charging infrastructure needed to meet increased
demand associated with electrification of the vehicle fleet. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1626-A1,
p. 2]
In 2021, sales of electric buses increased 40% over the previous year (even as the global bus
market remained consistent) and global sales of electric medium- and heavy-duty trucks more
than doubled over 2020 volumes.6 In its 2023 Global EV Outlook, the International Energy
Agency found that the number of models of zero-emission trucks continued to expand with
nearly 840 current and announced medium- and heavy-duty vehicle models.7 And, as EPA notes,
manufacturers are increasingly announcing targets to expand production and sales of zero-
emission trucks. 8 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1626-A1, p. 2]
6 INT'L ENERGY AGENCY, GLOBAL EV OUTLOOK 2022: SECURING SUPPLIES FOR AN
ELECTRIC FUTURE 35, https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/ad8fb04c-4f75-42fc-973a-
6e54c8a4449a/GlobalElectricVehicleOutlook2022.pdf.
7 INT'L ENERGY AGENCY, GLOBAL EV OUTLOOK 2023: CATCHING UP WITH CLIMATE
AMBITIONS 40, https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/dacfl4d2-eabc-498a-8263-
9f97fd5dc327/GEVO2023 .pdf.
8 88 Fed. Reg. at 25,941. For example, Volvo Trucks and Scania announced a global target of 50% of
trucks sold being electric by 2030, and Navistar has a goal of having 50% of its sales volume be ZEVs by
2030. Id.
These market trends complement government commitments and incentives to expand the
heavy-duty vehicle fleet. Due to IRA incentives, between 39-48% of all truck sales are projected
to be electric by 2030 and between 44-52% of sales will be electric by 2032.9 The IIJA
similarly provides substantial incentives for the deployment of zero-emission heavy-duty
vehicles: two IIJA programs alone provide over $10 billion in incentives to support zero-
emission bus deployment. 10 States like California, New York, and New Jersey also offer their
own recurring rebates for electric buses and trucks. 11 In addition to these generous subsidies, 17
states, the District of Columbia, and Quebec, have formulated a road map to achieve 30% zero-
emission truck sales by 2030.12 And under California's Advanced Clean Trucks regulation,
zero-emission vehicle sales will need to comprise 75% of Class 4-8 straight truck sales and 40%
1123
-------
of tractor truck sales by 2035.13 Other states that have adopted California's truck regulation
include Colorado, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Vermont, and
Washington. 14 As an example of utility planning to achieve such high penetration-rates,
National Grid co-authored a November 2022 study to "support utility long-term capital
planning," 15 which assumed that the two states in its service territory (New York and
Massachusetts) reached 100% sales of zero-emission passenger vehicles by 2035 and complied
with California's Advanced Clean Trucks regulation. 16 Although EPA's HDV Proposal is not
projected to result in zero-emission vehicle penetration-rates as high as projected under
California's Advanced Clean Trucks regulation, EPA's HDV rule will provide regulatory
certainty for planning and investment decisions in all states, beyond California and the states that
adopt its regulation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1626-A1, pp. 2-3]
9 See INT'L COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSP. AND ENERGY INNOVATION POL'Y & TECH.,
ANALYZING THE IMPACT OF THE INFLATION REDUCTION ACT ON ELECTRIC VEHICLE
UPTAKE IN THE UNITED STATES (Jan. 2023), https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/ira-
impact-evs-us-jan23-2.pdf; see also 88 Fed. Reg. at 25,941 (citing the same study).
10 88 Fed. Reg. at 25,943 (noting EPA's Clean School Bus Program and the Federal Transit
Administration's Low or No-Emission Grant Program). The IIJA contains other incentives to support
vehicle electrification as well, such as a $7.5 billion program to build out electric charging and hydrogen
fueling infrastructure through the Federal Highway Administration. Id. at 25,943-25,944.
11 Some of these programs include the California Hybrid and Zero-Emission Truck and Bus Voucher
Incentive Project, the New York Truck Voucher Incentive Program, and the New Jersey Zero Emission
Incentive Program. See Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicle Electrification, ATLAS EV HUB (last updated
April 1, 2022), https://www.atlasevhub.com/materials/medium-and-heavy-duty-vehicle-electrification/.
12 See MULTI-STATE ZEV TASK FORCE, NORTHEAST STATES FOR COORDINATED AIR USE
MANAGEMENT, MULTI-STATE MEDIUM- AND HEAVY-DUTY TASK FORCE ZERO-EMISSION
VEHICLE ACTION PLAN (July 2022), https://www.nescaum.org/documents/multi-state-medium-and-
heavy-duty-zev-action-plan.pdf.
13 Advanced Clean Trucks Fact Sheet, CAL. AIR RES. BD. (Aug. 20, 2021),
https ://ww2 .arb. ca. gov/resources/fact-sheets/advanced-clean-trucks-fact-sheet.
14 Advanced Clean Trucks Spreads, ATLAS EVHUB (May 15, 2023),
https://www.atlasevhub.com/weekly-digest/advanced-clean-trucks-spreads/.
15 See GIDEON KATSH ET AL., NATIONAL GRID, ELECTRIC HIGHWAYS: ACCELERATING
AND OPTIMIZING FAST-CHARGING DEPLOYMENT FOR CARBON-FREE TRANSPORTATION 1
(Nov. 2022), https://www.nationalgrid.com/document/148616/download.
16 Id. at 5.
Electric utilities, regional transmission organizations ("RTOs") and independent system
operators ("ISOs") engage in long-term planning to ensure adequate generation resources will be
available to meet anticipated demand for electricity. Expectations for electrification of the
vehicle fleet and other end uses of energy are already being incorporated into long-term planning
decisions, even the absence of the HDV and LMDV rules. The incremental demand attributable
to these rules would increase electricity demand on a nationwide basis, while areas with higher
concentrations of major transit corridors carrying a higher volume of medium and heavy-duty
vehicles may experience even greater demand growth. But the electricity grid can, with adequate
planning and investment, accommodate this growth and has previously experienced periods of
significant and sustained growth, 17 including relatively recently. 18 Moreover, these historical
1124
-------
periods do not reflect the pace and scale of generation growth anticipated as a result of
implementation of the IRA and IIJA. By providing regulatory certainty needed for long-term
resource planning and investment decisions, the HDV and LDMV rules will help ensure that the
necessary resources are deployed to accommodate anticipated growth in demand due to
electrification of the vehicle fleet. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1626-A1, pp. 3-4]
17 From 1960 to 1980, net generation in the electric power sector increased a remarkable 5.7% per year,
with net generation more than tripling from just 756 GWh to 2,286 GWh. See ENERGY INFO. ADMIN.,
MONTHLY ENERGY REVIEW 134 tbl. 7.2b (May 2023),
https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/mer.pdf.
18 Between 1995 and 2007, average nationwide generation demand grew approximately 1.9% per year. See
id. (noting an increase from 3,194 GWh to 4,005 GWh over this 13-year period).
III. Coalition members are investing in EV charging infrastructure
Members of this Coalition have begun making significant investments in the charging
infrastructure needed to support a growing number of electric heavy-duty trucks, vans, and
passenger cars. For example, NextEra Energy is pursuing a $650 million joint venture called
Greenlane with BlackRock Alternatives and Daimler Truck North America to design, develop,
install, and operate a nationwide charging and hydrogen fueling network for medium- and heavy-
duty vehicles. 19 Coalition members are also making significant investments in the charging
infrastructure for electric passenger cars and trucks:
• National Grid recently received approval for a $206 million initiative to enable up to
32,000 additional charging ports in Massachusetts.20
• The New York Power Authority will have up to 400 fast chargers installed or
in construction through its EVolve NY program by the end of 2025.21
• The Pacific Gas and Electric Company ("PG&E") has successfully installed through
March 2023 over 5,700 charging ports through its EV Charge Network, EV Fleet, EV
Fast Charge and EV Schools programs.22
• Austin Energy provides rebates of up to $1,200 and $4,000 for customers installing Level
2 charging stations at their homes and workplaces respectively.23
• The Sacramento Municipal Utility District ("SMUD") offers up to $1,000 toward
residential charging equipment and installation costs through its Charge@Home
program. 24
• Constellation Energy Corporation's venture arm (Constellation Technology Ventures, or
"CTV") has invested in portfolio companies focused on EV and charging
infrastructure.25 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1626-A1, pp. 4 - 5]
19 Introducing Greenlane: Daimler Truck North America, NextEra Energy Resources and BlackRock
Forge Ahead with Public Charging Infrastructure Joint Venture, NEXTERA ENERGY (Apr. 28, 2023),
https://newsroom.nexteraenergy.com/2023-04-28-Introducing-Greenlane-Daimler-Truck-North-America,-
NextEra-Energy-Resources-and-BlackRock-Forge-Ahead-with-Public-Charging-Infrastructure-Joint-
Venture.
20 NATIONAL GRID, ANNUAL REPORT AND ACCOUNTS 2022/23, at 30 (2023),
https://www.nationalgrid.com/document/149701/download.
21 Leading the Way in EV Infrastructure, EVOLVE NY, https://evolveny.nypa.gov/ (last visited June 9,
2023).
1125
-------
22 More information on PG&E's EV charging programs can be found at:
https://www.pge.com/en_US/small-medium-business/energy-alternatives/clean-vehicles/ev-charge-
network/electric-vehicle-charging/electric-vehicle-programs-and-resources.page.
23 Commercial Charging, AUSTIN ENERGY (last reviewed or modified July 8, 2022),
https://austinenergy.com/green-power/plug-in-austin/workplace-charging; Home Charging, AUSTIN
ENERGY (last reviewed or modified July 8, 2022), https://austinenergy.com/green-power/plug-in-
austin/home-charging.
24 Drive electric and save, SMUD, https://www.smud.org/en/Going-Green/Electric-Vehicles/Residential
(last visited June 9, 2023).
25 For instance, CTV invested in Qnovo, which offers a solution suite that uses advanced computation to
optimize the chemical reactions within lithium-ion batteries, resulting in faster charging, increased daily
run times, and longer battery lifetimes. See Constellation Technology Ventures,
https://www.constellationenergy.com/our-work/innovation-and-advancement/technology-ventures.html.
Coalition members are making these investments in part because of the benefits that EVs can
provide to grid reliability. EVs' primary near-term grid benefits stem from their enablement of
load shifting—whether from periods of higher load demand to periods of lower load demand, or
from periods of more carbon-intensive power generation to periods where more renewable
energy is available.26 Load shifting can involve both deferral (to avoid charging during periods
of peak load) and more targeted scheduling (to take advantage of periods of excess energy
supply).27 In addition to enhancing grid reliability, load shifting can also reduce customer
electricity rates, increase the value of renewable energy investments (by maximizing usage of
excess solar energy produced during the day), and mitigate the need for equipment upgrades
(e.g., increased storage capacity to accommodate excess solar energy).28 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1626-A1, pp. 5 - 6]
26 See TIMOTHY LIPMAN ET AL., CAL. ENERGY COMM'N, TOTAL CHARGE MANAGEMENT
OF ELECTRIC VEHICLES 5 (CEC-500-2021-055, Dec. 2021),
https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021-12/CEC-500-2021-055.pdf.
27 See id.
28 See Aligning Utilities and Electric Vehicles, for the Greater Grid, NAT'L RENEWABLE ENERGY
LAB'Y (Jan. 10, 2022), https://www.nrel.gov/news/program/2022/aligning-utilities-electric-vehicles-for-
greater-grid.html (citing Muhammad Bashar Anwar et al., Assessing the value of electric vehicle managed
charging: a review of methodologies and results, 15 ENERGY ENV'T SCI. 466 (2022)).
For example, PG&E has partnered with the BMW Group to explore ways to incentivize EV
drivers to shift their charging times to support grid reliability.29 This program—called
ChargeForward—first kicked off in 2015 and moved into its third phase in 2021.30 Building on
the success of the first two phases, phase three expanded the program's scope to 3,000 EV
drivers (from prior pilots of 100 and 400 drivers in phases one and two).31 Phase two of
ChargeForward demonstrated the ability to shift nearly 20% of charging from a particular hour to
another time and to shift up to 30% of charging to a particular hour.32 SMUD is also engaged in
a managed charging pilot program with BMW, Ford, and GM, and is planning to add Tesla
vehicles to the pilot as well, targeting participation of around 2,000 vehicles through
2024.33 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1626-A1, p. 6]
29 PG&E Corporate Sustainability Report 2022, PG&E CORPORATION 105 (2022),
https://www.pgecorp.eom/corp_responsibility/reports/2022/assets/PGE_CSR_2022.pdf.
1126
-------
30 CLARION ENERGY CONTENT DIRECTORS, PG&E and BMW kick off 3rd phase of
ChargeForward for clean, smart EV charging, POWERGRID INTERNATIONAL (Mar. 23, 2021),
https://www.power-grid.com/der-grid-edge/pge-and-bmw-kick-off-3rd-phase-of-chargeforward-for-clean-
smart-ev-charging/#gref.
31 PG&E Corporate Sustainability Report 2022, PG&E CORPORATION 105 (2022),
https://www.pgecorp.eom/corp_responsibility/reports/2022/assets/PGE_CSR_2022.pdf.
32 See Timothy Lipman et al., Total Charge Management of Electric Vehicles, CALIFORNIA ENERGY
COMMISSION iii (CEC-500-2021-055, Dec. 2021), https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021-
12/CEC-500-202 l-055.pdf.
33 2030 Zero Carbon Plan Progress Report, SMUD 21 (Apr. 2023), https://www.smud.org/-
/media/Documents/Corporate/Environmental-Leadership/ZeroCarbon/2030-ZCP-Progress-Report—April-
2023_FINAL.ashx.
Coalition members are also exploring Vehicle-to-Grid ("V2G") technology, through which
EVs can send power back to load sources (e.g., homes) and the grid from their batteries. While
still in the early stages of development, V2G technology can offer reliability benefits by serving
as a grid resource during periods of peak demand.34 PG&E and BMW recently extended their
ChargeForward partnership until March 2026 and, as part of that program, will conduct a field
trial of V2G-enabled vehicles in order to explore their potential to increase grid reliability.35 In
addition, PG&E has announced vehicle-grid integration ("VGI") pilot programs with Ford36 and
General Motors to test the ability of EVs to provide backup power to homes.37 SMUD is also in
the process of conducting an electric school bus V2G demonstration project with the Twin
Rivers Unified School District.38 SMUD is planning to expand the program to additional school
districts and is also pursuing other projects to explore V2G capabilities for light-duty
EVs.39 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1626-A1, pp. 6 - 7]
34 See Value Assessment of DC Vehicle-to-Grid Capable Electric Vehicles: Analytical Framework and
Results, EPRI (May 24, 2023), https://www.epri.com/research/programs/053122/results/3002026772.
35 More Power To You: PG&E and BMW of North America Start V2X Testing in California, PG&E
CORPORATION (May 16, 2023), https://investor.pgecorp.com/news-events/press-releases/press-release-
details/2023/More-Power-To-You-PGE-and-BMW-of-North-America-Start-V2X-Testing-in-
California/default.aspx.
36 PG&E and Ford Collaborate on Bidirectional Electric Vehicle Charging Technology in Customers'
Homes (Mar. 11, 2022), https://investor.pgecorp.com/news-events/press-releases/press-release-
details/2022/PGE-and-Ford-Collaborate-on-Bidirectional-Electric-Vehicle-Charging-Technology-in-
Customers-Homes/default.aspx.
37 A. Vanrenen, PG&E and General Motors Collaborate on Pilot to Reimagine Use of Electric Vechiles as
Backup Power Sources For Customers (Mar. 8, 2022), https://www.pgecurrents.com/articles/3410-pg-e-
general-motors-collaborate-pilot-reimagine-use-electric-vehicles-backup-power-sources-customers.
38 2030 Zero Carbon Plan Progress Report, SMUD 22 (Apr. 2023), https://www.smud.org/-
/media/Documents/Corporate/Environmental-Leadership/ZeroCarbon/2030-ZCP-Progress-Report—April-
2023_FINAL.ashx.
39 Id.
IV. EPA should work closely with state and local partners to ensure deployment of the
resources and infrastructure needed to accelerate transportation electrification while maintaining
grid reliability
1127
-------
EPA's HDV Proposal will help support deployment of the charging and generation resources
needed to meet anticipated demand from vehicle electrification. Yet effective and efficient
deployment of these resources will require coordination among electric utilities, state public
utility commissions, and local governments to ensure loads from EVs are factored into long-
range resource planning and to permit distribution and transmission system upgrades and siting
of new generation and storage resources. To ensure these resources are deployed on the pace and
scale needed to support vehicle electrification and grid reliability, EPA should play a leadership
role in ensuring coordination occurs among relevant federal, state and local agenices to remove
barriers, emphasizing the benefits to the electricity grid, public health, and climate that will be
achieved as a result. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1626-A1, p. 7]
Organization: Environmental Defense Fund (EPF)
4. The benefits of bi-directional charging from buses should also be considered
EPA's rulemaking should consider the potential benefits of using school buses for bi-
directional charging. Electric school buses can function as large batteries to support the power
grid, providing energy to municipalities through the use of vehicle-to-grid (V2G) technologies.
According to WRI, at least 15 utilities across 14 states have committed to pilot electric school
bus V2G programs, which allow electricity to be stored in the bus batteries and later discharged
onto the grid. 128 The bus batteries' stored power "can help stabilize fluctuating energy
conditions, alleviate the need to start up additional power generation sources by shaving peak
energy needs and provide mobile emergency power to shelters and other essential facilities.
Because school buses operate on set daily schedules and often sit idle in the summer and during
portions of the school day when electricity demand is high, they are ideal for this purpose. The
power they can provide to the grid or buildings could offer revenue to help pay for the buses, a
win-win for schools and the utility or other entity using the electricity." 129 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 52]
128 Norma Hutchinson and Greggory Kresge, "3 Design Considerations for Electric School Bus Vehicle-
to-Grid Programs," World Resources Institute (February 14, 2022). https://www.wri.org/insights/electric-
school-bus-vehicle-grid-programs
129 Id.
b) The electric grid can support widespread HD ZEV adoption
The U.S. electric grid has provided reliable, cheap, instantaneous power to millions of homes
and businesses every second of every day for well over a century. For so many end uses,
electrification represents the cheapest and most attainable decarbonization pathway. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 65]
Growing the electric grid to meet increased demand is nothing new. Since 1960, about a third
of the year over year increases in state electricity sales have been higher than 5% with 7% of
those years having increases higher than 10% annual growth. 166 The compound annual growth
rate for the entire grid since 1960 is 2.8%. The total increase in electricity consumption as a
result of the proposed rule is expected to be 1.3%, less than half of the average annual increase
that has occurred since 1960. Research shows that, with planning, utilities will meet the demand
for additional electricity needed to charge our nation's fleet of heavy-duty vehicles, and those
1128
-------
vehicles may improve the reliability of the grid. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1,
p. 65] [See Figure 11 on p. 66 of Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1]
166 U.S. Energy Information Administration, EIA-861: Annual Electric Power Industry Report, 1960-
2021, https ://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/state/
EDF commissioned a report by Analysis Group to understand how the expected growth in
HDV charging will impact the grid and what processes are in place or need to be added to enable
the grid to meet the increased demand. 167 Their main findings include:
5. The overall magnitude of growth in demand that would result from EPA's proposed
rule is very small relative to historic periods of growth in the electric industry, and will
not pose a challenge from the perspectives of power system generation or transmission
infrastructure needs.
6. Charging station needs that may result from EPA's proposed rule range greatly in size
and location; most counties and utilities in the U.S. analyzed in ICCT's report will
likely not face new distribution system infrastructure needs due to charging load
different from past experience.
7. Some utilities will need to plan for the development of new distribution system
infrastructure to accommodate fairly large point sources of new charging station
demand.
8. Adding significant new distribution system infrastructure is not a new experience for
states, public utility commissions, or electric companies, and there are long-standing
policies and practices in place to process development of infrastructure needed to
ensure system reliability.
9. The need for a high level of certainty around the timely integration of charging
stations and associated distribution system infrastructure at the scale and speed needed
for HDV electrification warrants - and has already prompted - proactive action on
behalf of some states and utilities to engage and expand planning and regulatory
practices at the scale necessary to ensure timely readiness of the power system.
10. There are many emerging technologies, ratemaking practices, and distributed resource
solutions that have the potential to significantly and efficiently reduce the expected
impacts on distribution systems associated with vehicle electrification. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 66-67]
167 Paul Hibbard et al. Heavy Duty Vehicle Electrification: Planning for and Development of Needed
Power System Infrastructure. 2023. Analysis Group, https://blogs.edf.org/climate411/wp-
content/blogs.dir/7/files//Analysis-Group-HDV-Charging-Impacts-Report.pdf. Analysis Group,
https://blogs.edf.org/climate411/wp-content/blogs.dir/7/files//Analysis-Group-HDV-Charging-Impacts-
Report.pdf. (Attachment W).
Evolution of distribution systems to meet the potential increase in charging station demand
associated with EPA's proposed Phase 3 rule for HDVs is eminently achievable. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 67]
Additionally, they found that 83% of utility service territories would not see more than 5 MW
of increased load from HDV charging based on a study done by ICCT. The localized nature of
1129
-------
the expected growth of HDV charging demand presents unique challenges but also allows for
focused action. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 67]
ii. Robust solutions exist and are being implemented to ensure rapid interconnection and
widespread vehicle electrification
The main concern that has been raised by OEMs and other parties related to the grid is the
ability to build out infrastructure quickly enough to meet demand. 177 In addition to the existing
policies and practices around upgrading distribution systems that have served to build things like
data centers which have high load requirements, additional practices have been developed and
are being implemented in some areas to address specific challenges around HD ZEV
charging. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 68]
177 https://documents.dps.ny.gov/public/Common/ViewDoc.aspx?DocRefId={D05A8E88-0000-CE16-
8EA2-97D9432AAEE9}
These include practices and policies that maximize the existing grid capacity, proactively
building the grid, and updating planning procedures. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1,
p. 69]
By maximizing the existing grid capacity, fleet owners can transition to ZEVs without
requiring immediate grid upgrades allowing more time for utilities to build out infrastructures.
Techniques such as leveraging non-wires alternatives (managed charging, onsite storage and
generation, and energy efficiency programs) have had great success in minimizing the upgrades
required, and allowing for continued load growth while waiting for a necessary upstream grid
upgrade. One clear example of this is Con Edison' BQDM program which resulted in a 7-year
grid upgrade deferral. 178 A report by the Smart Electric Power Alliance (SEPA) found a wide
range of non-wires alternatives succeeded at enabling rapid interconnection and HDV
electrification. 179 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 69]
178 Coley Girouard. BQDM program demonstrates benefits of non-traditional utility investments. 2019.
Utility Dive, https://www.utilitydive.com/news/bqdm-program-demonstrates-benefits-of-non-traditional-
utility-investments/550110/
179 Brenda Chew et al. Non-Wires Alternatives: Case studies from leading U.S. projects. 2018, Smart
Electric Power Alliance, https://sepapower.org/resource/non-wires-alternatives-case-studies-from-leading-
u-s-projects/
Where fleets install managed charging software and/or onsite storage and solar generation to
minimize charging costs including demand charges, their net load can be significantly lower than
the utility-assigned capacity requirements for the site. To connect to the grid, they may be
required to undergo site and utility upgrades to provide significantly higher capacity than what is
actually needed and in some cases these solutions result in some sites never exceeding the
existing capacity on their site making the upgrades unnecessary. Flexible interconnection, where
customers agree to limit their peak load to a specified level below that of the cumulative
nameplate capacity of their equipment, is one solution to energize chargers while those grid
upgrades are ongoing. This mitigates any site and upstream grid upgrades in the short term in
exchange for early energization of their charging equipment, and can even lower long-term
upgrade needs. EPRI has shown the benefits of flexible interconnections for broader grid
decarbonization. 180 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 69]
1130
-------
180 Chris Warren. Can allowing curtailment speedup DER growth? EPRI Journal,
https://eprijournal.com/getting-flexible-about-interconnection/
States are working towards allowing utilities, with guardrails in place to protect ratepayers, to
proactively build the grid to need ahead of interconnection requests for new load, such as EV
charging. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 70]
There are legislative efforts that are paving the way for this solution. California's AB 2700,
which in addition calls for the collection of fleet electric vehicle deployment plans, also allows
for utilities to submit pro-active grid expansion proposals to the utility commission in areas with
identified future congestion using fleet deployment data. 181 SB 410 in California would take
this a step further, setting requirements for utilities to have their grid ready for interconnection
requests and calls for utilities to plan and evaluate potential grid impact of Advanced Clean
Fleets (ACF) and Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT) rules as well as submit plans to address
potential areas of congestion to meet energization timelines. This bill also requires utilities to
report interconnection requests and delays to better track progress and hold utilities
accountable. 182 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 70]
181 Transportation electrification: electricial distribution grid upgrades. AB2700. 2021-2022 Regular
Session, (California 2022) https://legiscan.com/CA/bill/AB2700/2021
182 Powering Up Californians Act, SB410, 2023-2024 Regular Session, (California, 2023)
https ://legiscan. com/C A/text/SB410/id/2813 946
Other states have also taken steps to ensure utilities are able to proactively build
infrastructure. New York senate bill S4830, which recently passed both houses of the New York
legislature, directs the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority
(NYSERDA) to identify the number and location of fleet charging zones and highway charging
hubs where significant demand from EV charging, including electric HDVs, is expected in line
with meeting state and federal transportation sector emissions regulations, and the associated
grid impact of that charging. 183 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 70]
183 Establishing a highway and depot charging action plan, Senate Bill S4830A, 2023-2024 Legislative
Session. (New York, 2023) https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2023/S4830
Efforts to update planning processes have also improved the ability for the grid to meet
demand from HDV charging. If utilities have accurate forecasts well in advance of when grid
needs arise, they can complete needed upgrades without as great of a need for mitigating
solutions like grid deferment and flexible interconnection. In a recent article, Southern California
Edison (SCE) emphasized the importance of planning for utilities: "On the forecasting and
planning side, utilities and energy system planners must adapt planning efforts to reflect
expected EV growth, including impacts from proposed and adopted policies and incentives. For
example, to account for the new developing needs of the Advanced Clean Cars II and Advanced
Clean Fleets policies in California, SCE and the other California investor-owned utilities were
recently approved to use higher forecasts for transportation electrification than previously
used." 184 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 70-71]
184 Pamela MacDougall and Katie Sloan, As the electric truck transition shifts into high gear, utilities must
lead the charge. 2022. Utility Dive, https://www.utilitydive.com/news/electric-truck-bus-ev-utilities-sce-
edison-edf/634214/
1131
-------
The New York Joint Utilities' Coordinated Grid Planning Process and California PUC's
Freight Infrastructure Planning Framework, both currently under development, also represent
examples of improved planning processes to enable accelerated HDV electrification and grid
interconnection. 185 186 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 71]
185 https://documents.dps.ny.gov/public/MatterManagement/CaseMaster.aspx?MatterCaseNo=20-e-
0197&CaseSearch=Search
186 Zero-Emissions Freight Infrastrucutre Planning. California Public Utilities Commission,
https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/industries-and-topics/electrical-energy/infrastructure/transportation-
electrification/freight-infrastructure-planning
iii. Upgrade costs for charging HD ZEVs can help more efficiently use the grid and drive
down costs
Large-scale electrification of medium- and heavy-duty vehicles will require grid upgrades,
largely at the distribution grid level, to support the added load from charging. But, research
shows that EVs can help strengthen the grid, and the costs of the needed upgrades can be covered
by the additional revenue from fleets charging without raising consumers' electricity
rates. 187 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 71]
187 Lucy Metz, Melissa Whited, Paul Rhodes and Ellen Carlson. Distribution System Investments to
Enable Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicle Electrification: A Case Study of New York, Synapse Energy
Economics, Inc., prepared for EDF. (April 2023). (Attachment X)
https://acrobat.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3Ab0fd0780-9882-3a25-9ef2-
f8c73bd80c92&viewer%21megaVerb=group-discover
According to electricity company executives, EVs can boost grid reliability. 188 EVs are
schedulable loads that typically charge off peak (at night). Utilities can encourage EV owners to
charge when and where they want, leading to more efficient use of existing grid
infrastructure. 189 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 72]
188 Tomlinson, Chris. "Will electric vehicles crash the Texas grid? It's not complicated." Houston
Chronicle (April 10, 2023).
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/columnists/tomlinson/article/electric-vehicles-ercot-grid-
reliabilty -17880578.php
189 Jennifer Chen. 2023. Leveraging Locational and Temporal Flexibility in Transportation Electrification
to Benefit Power Systems. Energy Systems Integration Group. https://www.esig.energy/leveraging-
locational-and-temporal-flexibility-in-transportation-electrification-to-benefit-power-sy stems/
EV charging can also finance and justify needed grid updates. Recent analysis conducted by
Synapse Energy Economics for EDF finds that if U.S. utilities rate-base the cost of infrastructure
upgrades needed for fleet charging, the utilities will see increased revenue without the need to
raise consumers' electricity rates. 190 The analysis used two New York State utilities as case
studies and found that if utilities cover the "make-ready" cost for both private and municipal
medium- and heavy-duty fleets at the pace necessary for 100 percent electrification by 2045, the
investment will pay off for utilities and have a positive to neutral impact on ratepayers in both
utility service areas. The analysis' findings are applicable beyond New York to states across the
country due to the varying grid costs, geography and electricity demand profiles of the utilities
studied. Con Edison primarily serves New York City, while National Grid provides electricity to
portions of upstate New York. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 72]
1132
-------
190 Metz et al Distribution System Investments to Enable Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicle
Electrification: (April 2023).
The study finds that if fleets are assumed to engage in modest managed charging (shifting
charging times by only two hours at night), Con Edison's make-ready program could generate
$690 million in net revenue between 2023-2045, while National Grid's program could generate
$89 million in the same time period. Even without managed charging, investing in make-ready
programs was shown to have a positive to neutral impact on ratepayers in both utility service
areas. As more fleets are incentivized to plug in - and therefore spend more of their
operating budget on electricity and less on diesel - utilities can invest a portion of that revenue on
grid upgrades elsewhere that would have otherwise been paid for by all ratepayers. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 72-73]
iv. Managed charging represents an opportunity for fleet owners to reduce their costs and to
increase grid benefits from HDV electrification
Medium- and heavy-duty fleets can experience short but high energy demand events that can
significantly increase their grid impact and energy bills. When these fleets go beyond merely
managing charging to leveraging onsite distributed energy resources (DERs) such as solar and
battery storage, they can benefit from an even more powerful lever for reducing charging costs.
A GNA study examined two types of clean DERs: on-site solar panels and batteries. When
combined with managed charging, DERs produced additional annual electric savings of
$625,000 (Schneider) and $835,000 (NFI) for fleets of 40-50 electric HDVs. Moreover, managed
charging and DERs together reduced annual on-peak load by 611 kW for the Schneider fleet and
4 MW for the NFI fleet. 191 Thus, such techniques would not only reduce costs for the truck
companies, but the utility and ratepayers as a whole as well owing to the reduced need for grid
buildout. If scaled to all trucks in a utility's territory, these load reductions could drastically
decrease the amount of grid upgrades needed to accommodate electric fleets. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 73]
191 Gladstein, Neandross & Associates, California Heavy-Duty Fleet Electrification Summary Report,
March 2021, http://blogs.edf.org/energyexchange/files/2021/03/EDF-GNA-Final-March-2021.pdf
Gladstein, Neandross & Associates, California Heavy-Duty Fleet Electrification Summary Report, March
2021, http://blogs.edf.org/energyexchange/files/2021/03/EDF-GNA-Final-March-2021.pdf. (Attachment
Y)
A recent New Jersey study evaluated the statewide grid impact of meeting ACT, as well as the
grid savings when implementing managed charging and utilizing on-site solar and storage for all
Class 3-7 vehicles in the state. Avoided peak load ranges from -8,400 MW for managed
charging, to -10,000 MW for managed charging with solar + battery. Total avoided
infrastructure costs are between $320 million and $1.80 billion for managed charging, and
between $382 million and $2.15 billion for managed charging with solar + battery. 192 [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985- 1644-A1, p. 73-74]
192 Jeffery Greenblatt. New Jersey Medium Duty Fleet Electrification Infrastructure Summary Report.
2022. Emerging Futures,
https://blogs.edf.org/energyexchange/files/2022/05/New_Jersey_Medium_Duty_Fleet_Elecrtification_Infra
structure_Summary_Report.pdf Emerging Futures,
https://blogs.edf.org/energyexchange/files/2022/05/New_Jersey_Medium_Duty_Fleet_Elecrtification_Infra
structure_Summary_Report.pdf (Attachment Z)
1133
-------
Furthermore, these largely avoided infrastructure costs are sure to be an underestimate for
HDV electrification as a whole for the state since they do not account for the benefits of
electrifying Class 8 vehicles with managed charging or managed charging with solar +
battery. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 74]
The flexibility associated with vehicle charging is also extremely valuable to the grid
operator. A study by the Midwest ISO shows the untapped potential of EV load flexibility as a
DER resource in the wholesale markets. This study evaluated the impact of expected
electrification of both MHDVs as well as LDVs in the MISO footprint. A key factor in this study
was determining the potential flexibility of these vehicles when applying managed and
bidirectional charging tactics to mitigate ramp and peak load. It showed that at any given hour
this additional load can provide a minimum of 10 GW of combined ramp up capacity and just
under 10 GW of ramp down or generation capacity using the flexibility of EV charging alone. To
reiterate, this ramp capacity was based on vehicle charging alone and would be even greater if
combined with other on-site DERs.193 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, p. 74]
193 Greenblatt, Jeff and Margaret McCall, Exploring enhanced load flexibility from grid-connected electric
vehicles on the Midcontinent Independent System Operator grid (Feb. 2021), available at
https://cdn.misoenergy.org/Exploring%20enhanced%201oad%20flexibility%20from%20grid%20connected
%20EVs%20on%20MISO%20grid543291
Of critical importance, this load flexibility also comes at a fraction of the cost of traditional
fixed battery storage. A study by Lawrence Berkeley National Lab shows that managed charging
of EVs—modulating when and at what rate the EVs are charged— can provide reliable storage
at approximately a tenth of the cost of equivalent storage provided by single-purpose, stationary
batteries. When scaled to California's projected 1.5 million light-duty EVs by 2025, the storage
potential of managed charging alone is 1 GW, resulting in savings of approximately $1
billion compared to investments needed for equivalent stationary storage. This number also does
not include the thousands of MHDVs such as buses and trucks expected to be electrified in the
near future. 194 By leveraging the flexibility of newly electrified resources, stakeholders can
significantly reduce grid management costs ultimately, resulting in savings for end-customers
and mitigating grid upgrade needs, further supporting accelerated HDV electrification. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985- 1644-A1, p. 74-75]
194 Jonathan Coignard et al., Clean vehicles as an enabler for a clean electricity grid, 13 Environmental
Research Letters 54031 (2018).
Organization: National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA)
EPA Should Account for Grid-side Investments in Proposed Rule's Analysis
Bearing these realities in mind, we write to express our significant concern that EPA has
failed to adequately account for the costs associated with serving the new load that will be
created via heavy-duty highway vehicle (HDV) electrification as outlined in this proposed rule.
While EPA accounts for the cost to purchasers for the hardware and installation of charging
equipment, EPA fails to include the electric grid-side upgrades that will likely be needed, if not
now, certainly in the future as electrification spreads and this could have serious negative
consequences to American consumers. Specifically, within the proposed rule section on
Charging Infrastructure Costs, EPA states: 1 "there may be additional infrastructure needs and
costs beyond those associated with charging equipment itself. While planning for additional
1134
-------
electricity demand is a standard practice for utilities and not specific to BEV charging, the
buildout of public and private charging stations (particularly those with multiple high-powered
DC fast charging units) could in some cases require upgrades to local distribution systems."
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1515-A1, p. 2]
1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles - Phase 3, 88 Fed. Reg. 25,982 (April 27,
2023)
It is important for EPA to correct this failure in the proposed rule stage by updating its
analysis with inclusion of a range of expected costs associated with serving the new load from
the HDV fleet created by EPA's proposal. Failure to do so will likely result in unrealistic
expectations on the part of fleet operators and possibly delay plans for electrification as they
learn of the full costs that will be required to serve this new load from their electric cooperatives
or other electric utilities. Neither these HDV fleet operators, nor the EPA, should expect that
electric cooperatives can bear the burden of these new costs alone, particularly when these costs
will ultimately need to be passed on to the end of the line consumer-members of the
cooperative.[EPA-HQ-0AR-2022-0985-1515- A 1, p. 2]
Overall, it is important for EPA to recognize that electrification of the transportation sector,
and the increased flexibility of this newly electrified demand, will require substantial distribution
infrastructure investment over time to meet increased average local electric demand and to meet
increased demand in new locations (e.g., EV charging stations). Significant transmission
infrastructure investment may also be required to meet increased average electric demand and
changes in the spatial distribution of electric demand among load centers. According to the
National Academy of Sciences, to transition the transportation sector through increased
electrification, electric utilities will need to increase generation by up to 170% and see a three-
fold expansion of the transmission grid by 2050. Over time, electrification of the transportation
sector will require additional generation investment to ensure resource and energy adequacy to
meet increased average electric demand and changing consumption profiles. Unfortunately, this
investment challenge is becoming more complex due to several recent EPA actions that are
jeopardizing flexible, dispatchable always available generation resources.2 These actions would
require increased reliance on intermittent energy sources. Particular attention will be needed to
ensure that generation investment is adequate in amount and in operational characteristics to
meet the demands of electrification while ensuring grid stability, security, and reliability. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1515-A1, pp. 2-3]
2 These actions include: Supplemental Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam
Electric Power Generating Point Source Category, 88 FR 18824 (March 29, 2023); National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units
Review of the Residual Risk and Technology Review, 88 FR 24854 (April 24, 2023); Hazardous and Solid
Waste Management System: Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals From Electric Utilities; Legacy CCR
Surface Impoundments, 88 FR 31982 (May 18, 2023; New Source Performance Standards for Greenhouse
Gas Emissions From New, Modified, and Reconstructed Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric Generating Units;
Emission Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Existing Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric Generating
Units; and Repeal of the Affordable Clean Energy Rule, 88 FR 33240 (May 23, 2023); and Federal Good
Neighbor Plan for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 88 FR 36654 (June 5, 2023).
Specific Costs for EPA to Consider Incorporating in the Proposed Rule's Analysis
Again, we urge EPA to update its analysis to account for the costs needed to make updates to
the grid to support HDV electrification. Grid upgrade costs for EV charging will vary by region,
1135
-------
neighborhood, cooperative, circuit, and feeder. However, to illustrate the types and ranges of
costs that EPA should account for, we provide the following costs sourced from four different
cooperative regions, broken down by charge level:
• Residential (Level 1 and Level 2): One out of three households will need an expanded
electric panel to accommodate 240 V Breakers. If a household purchases two electric
vehicles, then four slots on a breaker will be needed to accommodate this load. The
average cost will be approximately $4,000 for a Level 2 residential charger with a panel
upgrade.
o Upgrading panel (20% of panels must be upgraded) j V can start around $600
o Transformer upgrades - $2,600 and climbing
o Service wire gauge upgrades to accommodate higher amperage - $3,000
• Public (Level 2 and DC Fast Charging (DCFC)): For commercial sites, transformer
upgrade needs will vary. Most sites will already have three-phase power available;
however, in very rural locations single-phase power will need to be upgraded to three-
phase. If transformers do need to be upgraded on a three-phase line, then three
transformers will need to be upgraded.
o Level 2 charger including panel - approx. $4,000 on average
o National EV Infrastructure Program (NEVI)-Compliant DCFC - approx. $25,000-
$150,000
¦ Transformer - $25,000 - $40,000 (reflects current prices for three
transformers)
¦ Service entrance - $3,000-$4,000
¦ Metering package (including instrumentation, voltage transformers
(PT) and current transformers (CT) - $2,000
¦ Line extension, if required (site dependent) - $50,000 - $75,000 [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1515-A1, pp. 3-4]
Circumstances vary across cooperatives, but some of these costs will be borne directly by the
consumer-members and others will be paid for by the cooperative. Regardless, these costs help to
illustrate more accurately the investment it will take to implement on EPA's proposed
rule. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2022-0985-1515- A 1, p. 4]
We note that these costs reflect a snapshot estimate in time and are likely to increase,
particularly due to the significant challenges and delays utilities are facing in their supply chains,
which are contributing to an unprecedented shortage of the most basic machinery and
components essential to ensure the continued reliability of the electric grid. Electric cooperatives
are waiting a year, on average, to receive distribution transformers. Additionally, lead times for
large power transformers have grown to more than three years. And orders for electrical conduit
have been delayed five-fold to 20 weeks with costs ballooning by 200 percent year-over-year. As
a result, new projects are being deferred or canceled, and electric cooperatives are concerned
about their ability to respond to major storms due to depleted stockpiles. We expect these supply
chain challenges to persist with the increased demand for electrification projects being
incentivized by the U.S. federal government. All these delays will likely impact the cost and
timing of charging infrastructure buildout needed to support the HDV fleet electrification
envisioned in this proposed rule. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2022-0985-1515-A1, p. 4]
1136
-------
Organization: Transfer Flow, Inc.
Even the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has warned that a rapid transition
to electric vehicles would be devastating to the country's electric grid reliability. 18' 19 [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1534-A1, p. 4]
18 https://robertbryce.substack.com/p/epa-v-the-grid?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
19 https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/energy-environment/ev-push-threatens-to-strain-power-
grids-and-threaten-reliability
Organization: Truck Renting and Leasing Association (TRALA)
Shifting all U.S. vehicles to battery electric would demand more than 40% of the country's
current electricity production according to a recent study by the American Transportation
Research Institute (ATRI). 5 Installing charging equipment at truck stop parking locations across
the U.S. alone could cost upwards of $35 billion based on a per-unit cost of $112,000.6 Overall
vehicle electricity demands will vary widely by state based upon vehicle populations, types,
usage rates, and other factors. Figure 1 depicts the wide range in vehicle power demands
anticipated if a 100% transition were to occur today. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1577-A1,
pp. 4-5] [Refer to Figure 1 on p. 5 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1577-A1]
5 Charging Infrastructure Challenges for the U.S. Electric Vehicle Fleet, American Transportation
Research Institute (December 2022).
6 Id.
The U.S. Energy Information Administration projects electricity consumption byi the
transportation sector will increase from 12 billion kWh in 2021 to more than 145 billion kWh in
2050.7 The electric power sector will have decades to meet that demand but in the near-term
experts say possible constraints will need to be addressed. Even at a relatively slow transitional
pace, there will be challenges on the grid such as can trucks and cars demanding electricity at the
same time and located in the same geographic area be supported under existing power
loads? [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1577-A1, p. 5]
7 'Annual Energy Outlook 2023,' U.S. Energy Information Administration (March 16, 2023).
Organization: Valero Energy Corporation
2. EPA does not adequately consider potential grid reliability impacts.
As part of its evaluation of potential economic impacts to the welfare of Americans and
businesses, EPA must assess grid reliability impacts stemming from the proposed rule's forced
electrification of the HD transportation sector. Reliance on BEVs for freight transport may have
unintended, negative consequences, especially in relation to the electricity generation sector. In
addition, EPA needs to accurately predict the number of additional chargers that will be needed
to support the anticipated HD BEV population, which will require DC fast chargers ("DCFC").
At present, charging and re-fueling infrastructure are inadequate to meet the country's freight
transport needs. Moreover, most of America's existing DCFC and prospective installations are
first and foremost intended to service light-duty passenger vehicles and do not include the
1137
-------
commercial depot charging systems necessary to support electric HDV fleets. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 37.]
ZEV mandates like the proposed rule also present significant risks to grid reliability and the
stability of the transportation sector. Transitioning truck stops into BEV charging hubs
will require massive power, on a scale that has been likened to the power required by a small
townl78 or sports arena. 179 Yet EPA's analysis of electrical grid impacts is weak. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, pp. 37 - 38.]
178 https://www.autoblog.com/2022/ll/26/electric-vehicle-charging-stations-could-use-as-much-power-as-
a-small-town-by-2035-and-the-grid-isn-t-ready/
179 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-ll-14/tesla-s-electric-semis-are-coming-and-trucks-
stops-aren-t-ready
EPA expects that the proposed standards will drive an increase in electricity demand and
generation across the U.S. 180 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 38.]
180 EPA's HD Phase 3 GHG Proposal at 25983.
EPA estimates an increase in electricity consumption in response to this proposal of 7.8
Terawatt-hours (TWh) in 2028 (a 0.2 percent increase), 18 TWh in 2030 (a 0.5 percent increase),
48 TWh in 2035 (a 1.2 percent increase), 72 TWh in 2040 (a 1.8 percent increase) and 98 TWh
in 2050 (a 2.5 percent increase)."181 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 38.]
181 DRIA at 430.
EPA does not expect grid reliability to be adversely affected by this increase in electricity
demand and generation, as long as charging behavior is carefully managed. 182 This begs the
question who would manage charging behavior, by what authority, and based on what standards
or criteria. In the absence of any specific and credible information about how charging behavior
will be managed, it is unreasonable for EPA to assume that it will be. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1566-A2, p. 38.]
182 DRIA at 70-71.
In its analysis of electric grid reliability, EPA refers to a 25% increase in electrical demand
that occurred over 1992 to 2021 and concludes that since the increase in demand occurred
j§without any adverse effects on electric grid reliability or electricity generation capacity
shortages, "grid reliability is not expected to be adversely affected by the modest increase in
electricity demand associated with HD BEV charging." 183 However, this glib assessment
overlooks the vast increase in inexpensive natural gas occurring during this period which made it
possible to meet the increased demand without compromising reliability. It also overlooks the
potential impacts to electrical grid costs and reliability from EPA's recently proposed New
Source Performance Standards for GHG emissions from power plants. 184 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 38.]
183 EPA's HD Phase 3 GHG Proposal at 25983.
184 88 Fed. Reg. 33240 (May 23, 2023).
Considering the regional and temporal nature of the PEV charging load, the recent trends of
seasonal strain on grid reliability, and the increasing replacement of baseload generation with
1138
-------
intermittent renewable sources, EPA's comparison to a national trend occurring over the past
three decades is not particularly meaningful. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 38.]
EPA also acknowledges that "how the additional electricity demand from BEVs will impact
the grid will depend on the time of day that charging occurs, the type or power level of charging,
and the use of onsite storage and vehicle-to-grid (V2G) or other vehicle-grid integration
technology, among other considerations." 185 EPA explains that most of the electric power grid
is owned and operated by the private industry, with Federal, state, local, Tribal and
territorial governments playing significant role in enhancing the reliability of the electric power
grid. 186 While EPA is neither the expert in nor holds responsibility for the reliability of the
electrical power grid, the agency offers suggestions for accommodating the increased electricity
demand, such as:
• Grid operators incorporating automated load management or power control systems to
dynamically limit total charging load; 187 and
• EVSE station operators incorporating onsite battery storage or onsite renewable
generation to reduce demand on the grid. 188
• EPA does not account for the cost of either suggestion in its DRIA nor to any other
safeguards to protect grid reliability. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, pp. 38 - 39.]
185 DRIA at 70.
186 EPA's HD Phase 3 GHG Proposal at 25983.
187 DRIA at 71.
188 DRIA at 71.
EPA asserts that it has statutory authority to adopt technology-forcing standards for reducing
emissions from motor vehicle tailpipes. CAA Section 202(a) does not authorize the agency to
force grid operators to manage electrical loads in completely new ways, or to dictate vehicle
charging behavior to fleet owners and independent vehicle operators. Yet EPA must account for
the costs and impacts on the grid in the RIA for the rule and consider such costs and impacts and
the availability and reliability of the grid. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 39.]
4. EPA fails to recognize existing grid reliability concerns.
EPA's analysis of impacts to the electrical power grid overlooks existing grid reliability issues
such as the following: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 40.]
The North American Electric Reliability Corporation's (NERC's) "2023 Summer Reliability
Assessment" warns that two-thirds of North America is at risk of energy shortfalls this summer
during periods of extreme demand. While there are no high-risk areas in this year's assessment,
the number of areas identified as being at elevated risk has increased. The assessment finds that,
while resources are adequate for normal summer peak demand, if summer temperatures spike,
seven areas — the U.S. West, SPP and MISO, ERCOT, SERC Central, New England and
Ontario — may face supply shortages during higher demand levels. 192 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1566-A2, p. 40.]
192 NERC, "2023 Summer Reliability Assessment" (May 17, 2023),
https://www.nerc.com/news/Headlines%20DL/Summer%20Reliability%20Assessment%20Announcement
%20May%202023 .pdf
1139
-------
NERC's "2022-2023 Winter Reliability Assessment" warned that a large portion of the North
America BPS was at risk of insufficient electricity supplies during peak winter conditions,
including Texas RE-ERCOT, MISO, SERC-East, WECC-Alberta, NPCC-Maritimes, NPCC-
New England. 193 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 40.]
193 NERC, "2022-2023 Winter Reliability Assessment" (November 2022),
https://www.nerc.com/pa/RAPA/ra/Reliability%20Assessments%20DL/NERC_WRA_2022.pdf
NERC's "2022 Long Term Reliability Assessment" identifies three high risk areas - MISO,
NPCC-Ontario, and the California/Mexico part of WECC - that are projected to not have
adequate electricity supply to meet demand forecasts associated with normal weather over the
10-year assessment period. Several other areas are identified as having elevated risk, i.e.,
meeting the resource adequacy criteria for normal forecasted conditions but at risk of shortfall in
extreme conditions. These areas include the U.S. West—CA/MX, Western Power Pool (WPP),
and the Southwest Reserve Sharing Group (SRSG), Texas RE-ERCOT, SPP and New England.
Specific recommendations from NERC to manage the risks include considering "the impact that
the electrification of transportation, space heating, and other sectors may have on future
electricity demand and infrastructure." 194 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, pp. 40 - 41.]
194 NERC, "2022 Long-Term Reliability Assessment" (December 2022),
https://www.nerc.com/pa/RAPA/ra/Reliability%20Assessments%20DL/NERC_LTRA_2022.pdf
As California has faced rolling blackouts and historic energy prices, Governor Newsom in his
May 2022 state budget proposal, has pivoted to the use of traditional fuel infrastructure to ensure
system reliability to protect against outages. Approximately one week after the California Air
Resources Board approved its "Advanced Clean Cars II" rule prohibiting sales of new ICEV
passenger cars in California by 2035, Governor Gavin Newsom issued a statewide request for
electric vehicle owners to refrain from charging their vehicles in order to prevent blackouts. 195
Significant investments in charging/fueling infrastructure will also be needed. The CEC has
projected that an additional 157,000 chargers will be needed to support California's anticipated
electric HD population in 2030—all of these will be DCFC, representing 9,100 additional job-
years of dedicated workforce requirements, compounding timeline feasibility challenges. CEC
further projects that the HDV charging network will see loads "in excess of 2,000 MW around 5
p.m. on a typical workday," further exacerbating the existing gap between net peak energy
demand and existing generation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 41.]
195 https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/01/us/california-heat-wave-flex-alert-ac-ev-charging.html
Twelve states expressed concerns regarding electrical grid and utility impacts in their DOT-
approved state EV Infrastructure Deployment Plans, as summarized below. While the plans
primarily focus on infrastructure to be installed along designated alternative fuel corridors, the
concerns relating to grid and utility impacts are similarly applicable to depot and truck parking
stations. EPA has not accounted for these concerns in its analysis. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1566-A2, p. 41.] [See the table of State Concern on page 41 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1566-A2.]
Additionally, within California there are significant challenges to be overcome in order to
build the infrastructure necessary to support freight electrification under the CARB Advanced
Clean Trucks and Advanced Clean Fleets rules. The California Public Utilities Commission
(CPUC) recently identified the need for an accelerated electrical infrastructure deployment as a
1140
-------
challenge for forecasting and planning, with approximately three years lead time needed for
statewide planning efforts to be completed and infrastructure authorized.208 Indeed, in the six
priority corridors alone, which doesn't account for more rural routes, California would need
between 556 and 1,832 public BEV charging stations by 2040.209 For comparison, California
currently has approximately 5,000 retail diesel stations statewide as of 2021.210 As a result,
there are risks that could negatively impact MD and HD adoption including uncertainty
regarding long-term electricity rate, delayed construction of distribution/transmission
infrastructure, and differences in charging behavior from what was assumed in the planning
stages (which would result in an infrastructure buildout that doesn't align with actual charging
behavior).211 Clearly, there will be significant shortfall in resources in California alone to meet
the needs of the freight electrification push, let alone the entire nation, as contemplated by the
instant proposed rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 43.]
208 California Public Utilities Commission, Energy Division Webinar, "Draft Staff Proposal: Zero-
Emissions Freight Infrastructure Planning" at 22 (May 22, 2023), https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/-/media/cpuc-
website/divisions/energy-division/documents/transportation-electrification/fip-draft-staff-
proposal_5_22_23 -webinar-final_ver2 .pdf.
209 Id. at p. 60.
210 Id.
211 Id. at p. 28.
Organization: Volvo Group
An American Transportation Research Institute report from 2022 estimated that full national
electrification of light-duty and medium/heavy-duty vehicles would require a 26% and 14%
increase in power supply respectively.4 For a more regional perspective, a National Grid Report
co-authored by Calstart, RMI and others looked at charging needs along major highways in
Massachusetts and New York.5 Based on current truck traffic and the goal of having all light-
duty and medium/heavy-duty vehicles be electric by 2035 and 2045 respectively, the report
stated that "in 10 years more than a quarter of sites studied will require the same amount of
power as an outdoor sports stadium to meet charging demand, with some requiring the same
power as a small town within the next two decades." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1606-A1, p. 8]
4 Short, J., Shirk, A., & Pupillo, A. (2022, December). Charging Infrastructure Challenges for the U.S.
Electric Vehicle Fleet. American Transportation Research Institute publication. Retrieved on 14 June 2022,
from https://truckingresearch.org/2022/12/charging-infrastructure-challenges-for-the-u-s-electric-vehicle-
fleet/
5 Electric Highways: Accelerating and Optimizing Fast-Charging Deployment for Carbon-Free
Transportation. Accessed on 14 June 2023, from https://calstart.org/electric-highways-study/
Organization: Zero Emission Transportation Association (ZETA)
c. Electricity Generation and Grid Readiness
Transitioning to zero-emission transportation offers a unique challenge to the energy
companies that will need to ensure they have ample electricity supply to match EV-driven
demand. At minimum, this will require investments in the electricity distribution system to
enable the deployment of electric vehicle charging equipment. In some instances, this may also
1141
-------
require investing in new energy generation sources and associated distribution system
infrastructure to accommodate major EV centers like heavy-duty vehicle depots or co-locate
other necessary amenities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 29]
However, this is not the first time electricity providers have navigated increases in electricity
demand brought on by new technologies: similar spikes accompanied the mass adoption of now-
standard appliances like refrigerators and in-home air conditioners. Still, it will be important to
ensure that providers and government agencies can work within their regulatory frameworks to
test solutions and upgrade the grid to prepare for future demand increases accompanying greater
EV adoption. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 29]
This section will discuss the growing energy demands of widespread EV adoption and new
potential hotspots for energy demand. It will also use case studies to highlight how electricity
providers are preparing for this transition. These case studies showcase solutions that have the
potential to revolutionize energy consumption and highlight how electricity providers support
customer EV adoption through incentive programs, building infrastructure, and other
initiatives. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, pp. 29 - 30]
The grid's ability to handle millions of additional EVs hinges on utilities' proactive planning
capacity. Granting utilities the flexibility to make proactive upgrades to the electrical grid and
facilitate transportation electrification will require careful planning and coordination between
regulators and stakeholders. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 30]
Regulatory certainty will allow utilities to make the investments necessary to facilitate a
smooth EV transition. To invest proactively, rather than in response to firm load, energy
providers will need clear insight into multi-year schedules for customer electrification, approval
from regulators to recover costs, and/or flexibility to serve loads with non-wire
alternatives. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 30]
Robust EPA emission standards will provide the regulatory certainty needed to not only
ensure vehicle manufacturers continue to invest in EV technologies, but that the entire supply
chain supporting the transition to electrification will have a clearer picture of how to plan capital
expenditures today to meet the increased demand over the coming years. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-2429-A1, p. 30]
i. Anticipated impacts to electricity providers from increased EV deployment
In 2021, the U.S. fleet of electric vehicles used 6.1 terawatt hours (TWhs) of electricity to
travel 19.1 billion miles.125 That accounted for just 0.15% of the total national energy
generation that year. 126 In 2022, the United States produced 4,243 TWhs of electricity. 127 To
meet the demand of transportation electrification, more generation will be needed to service EVs
and electrified vehicle technologies. One estimate suggests it would take roughly 800 to 1,900
TWh of electricity to power all vehicles if they were electric. 128 It is important to remember,
however, that this new demand will not occur all at once but rather more gradually as EVs
continue to displace ICEVs. While achievable, meeting this increase in electricity demand will
require significant strategy as electric providers transition to renewable, carbon free
resources. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 30]
125 "Assessment of Light-Duty Plug-in Electric Vehicles in the United States, 2010-2021," Argonne
National Lab, November 2022 https://publications.anl.gov/anlpubs/2022/ll/178584.pdf
1142
-------
126 "Monthly Energy Review May 2023," EIA,
https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec7_3.pdf
127 Id.
128 "How much electricity would it take to power all cars if they were electric?," USAFacts, (May 15,
2023) accessed June 13, 2023 https://usafacts.org/articles/how-much-electricity-would-it-take-to-power-all-
cars-if-they-were-electric/
The key to meeting these energy requirements will be the expansion of renewable energy
resources but also the addition of new, zero-emission and low-emission load-following resources
like advanced nuclear, carbon capture, long-term energy storage, and green hydrogen. In
2022, electricity generated from renewable sources surpassed coal for the first time in U.S.
history. 129 At the same time, electricity providers are looking at ways to add low-cost energy
storage to increase the availability of non-dispatchable renewable generation such as solar and
wind. Currently, renewable energy generates about 20% of all electricity production in the U.S,
and renewable sources like solar and wind are expected to account for the majority of new
utility-scale electricity generation going forward. 130,131 Already, available renewable energy
resources in the U.S. are estimated to amount to more than 100 times the nation's current
electricity needs. 132 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, pp. 30-31]
129 "U.S. renewable electricity surpassed coal in 2022," Associated Press, (March 28, 2023), accessed
June 4, 2023 https://apnews.com/article/renewable-energy-coal-nuclear-climate-change-
dd4a0bl68fe057f430e37398615155a0
130 "Renewable Energy," Department of Energy, accessed June 4, 2023
https://www.energy.gov/eere/renewable-energy
131 "Solar power will account for nearly half of new U.S. electric generating capacity in 2022," EIA,
(January 10, 2022) https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=50818
132 "Renewable Energy Resource Assessment Information for the United States," Department of Energy,
accessed June 4, 2023 https://www.energy.gov/eere/analysis/renewable-energy-resource-assessment-
information-united-states
133 "Yes, the grid can handle EV charging, even when demand spikes," Yale Climate Connections, (March
23, 2023) accessed June 4, 2023 https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2023/03/yes-the-grid-can-handle-ev-
charging-even-when-demand-spikes/
Power generation is only one of the considerations when preparing for 100% transportation
electrification. In particular, the industry needs to develop its ability to precisely manage demand
in real time, including by accurately predicting when and where increases in demand will
occur. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 31]
It is important to note that energy demand is not constant. Instead, it consists of relatively
predictable peaks and troughs throughout the day. High demand consistently occurs between
5:00 PM and 8:00 PM each day, as customers return home, turn up their climate control systems,
begin cooking dinner, and turn on other devices. 133 System demand peak is typically between
5:00-6:00 PM during the summer, and 7:00-8:00 AM in the winter. As such, EV charging poses
minimal impacts to the winter peak hours but could increase summer peaks without managed
charging. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 31]
ii. Utility-specific planning underway
1143
-------
The following collection of case studies demonstrates how electricity providers in ZETA's
membership are preparing for the EV transition and highlights some of their groundbreaking
initiatives to support EV adoption in the United States. It should be noted that each provider
operates within a regulatory framework that is unique to the state in which it serves. The cases
outlined below do not represent the entire portfolio of EV-related products and services offered
by these providers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 31]
These examples include programs that exist across the EV supply chain, with earlier examples
covering infrastructure planning programs and later examples focusing on programs to engage
with EV drivers on their charging needs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 32]
1. Pacific Gas & Electric
As California's largest electric provider, PG&E continues to play an important role in
advancing electric vehicle adoption in support of the state's broad climate goals. PG&E works in
collaboration with the California Energy Commission and California Public Utilities
Commission to plan and approve grid infrastructure upgrades to support this shift to zero-
emission transportation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 32]
With nearly 500,000 EVs sold in its service area—one in every seven of all EVs on the road
throughout the nation—expansion of PG&E's EV charging network in Northern and Central
California is critical to support the State's transition to a clean transportation future. Over the last
half-decade, the provider has deployed more than 5,000 EV charging ports across its service
area. Additionally, it offers a variety of resources to help accelerate EV adoption among
customers, and PG&E is working collaboratively with vehicle manufacturers to develop vehicle
grid-integration technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 32]
Grid planning requires precise forecasts to ensure electric infrastructure is available to support
future demand. Pre-existing electricity demand (load) forecasts did not provide the geographical
granularity needed to best plan for grid investments. PG&E could allocate the load to residential
charging locations; however, larger charging loads that are often not associated with existing
service points—such as public charging systems—lacked a methodology to be accounted for in
long-term forecasting efforts. Without the ability to identify future EV demand with geographic
and temporal accuracy, PG&E was limited in its ability to plan future grid capacity. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 32]
Lacking a long-term geospatial forecasting methodology, PG&E was primarily dependent on
customer requests for service to inform where EV load would materialize. This reliance on
customer requests led PG&E to reactively develop capacity solutions to serve load requests.
Given the long lead times often associated with capacity projects and the relatively fast pace at
which customers wish to build EV charging infrastructure, there would be instances where
energization timelines exceeded the requested energization date from customers. This can occur
with large load applications associated with public DCFC charging stations or large fleets, which
have the potential to exceed the maximum capacity of existing electrical infrastructure in those
areas. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 32]
Identifying a need for a more proactive approach, PG&E set out to improve its forecasting
abilities to increase the clarity of where and when EV loading is most likely to materialize.
This enables PG&E to build capacity in advance of service applications being received.
1144
-------
Although research indicates that customer preference for EVs is increasing, and there are many
regulations and incentives which further support the transition to EVs, there are still uncertainties
around the pace of adoption. This impacts how the EV load will manifest on the electric grid. For
this reason, a solution capable of supporting a variety of forecast scenarios was necessary for
success. PG&E commissioned a multi-faceted project focused on three common categories of
EV charging load: 1) public DCFC & Level 2 charging stations, 2) residential EV charging, and
3) fleet charging. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, pp. 32 - 33]
Detailed analysis and machine learning modeling and testing were applied to each of these
focus areas to predict where EV charging is most likely to occur. These analyses were performed
at the premise level and resulted in over 5 million potential growth points across PG&E's service
territory that were integrated into existing distribution planning software. This created a dynamic
tool that can adapt to a variety of forecast inputs, such as system-level adoption forecasts, EV
charging behaviors, and charging infrastructure assumptions. These scenarios can be integrated
into PG&E's distribution planning processes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 33]
Developing a solution that was easily integrated into existing distribution planning processes
and software was critical for successful implementation. Involving PG&E forecasting and asset
planning teams in the development of the EV forecasting tool, as well as reviewing and approval
of the major inputs and assumptions used to develop forecast scenarios, ensured alignment in the
scenarios generated. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 33]
In figure 7 above, the difference in magnitude of localized EV load in the year 2035 can be
seen in a relatively low EV adoption scenario (2020 California Energy Commission (CEC)
Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR Mid)) and a higher policy-based scenario based on the
California Air Resources Board (CARB) Multiple Source Strategy (MSS) forecast. Grid planners
can use this tool to investigate and solve for circuit level impacts of EV load growth. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 34.] [See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1,
page 34, for Figure 7. This Figure was redacted]
Using varying EV forecast scenarios, PG&E was able to assess the localized grid impacts
from high EV adoption scenarios that are better aligned with state transportation electrification
goals and policies. PG&E assessed how various levels of EV adoption, as well as the impacts
that changing charging behaviors (such as on vs. off-peak charging), can have on grid needs.
Early analysis has indicated that off-peak charging can reduce near-term grid constraints. In the
future, this may lead to new circuit peaks and capacity constraints that must be addressed. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 34]
Results from these analyses were helpful in advocating for approval of higher transportation
electrification forecasts with regulators and the state energy commission, which are ultimately
used for electric grid planning. PG&E has also used these forecasts to produce directional
assessments of the resources needed to support capacity investments included in their long-
term capital planning. PG&E continues to work to improve its forecasting and planning
capabilities. Still, the solutions implemented to date have enabled a more robust approach that
will allow PG&E to continue to support its customers' electrification transition. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-2429-A1, pp. 34 - 35]
2. Vistra
1145
-------
Electricity generators are making the transition to low- and no-carbon-emitting sources of
energy as quickly as possible in response to investor, regulator, policymaker, and customer
expectations. This transition is backed by a strong business case for doing so, as renewables and
battery storage systems are able to compete effectively with fossil fuel generation and provide
benefits to the power grid. The International Energy Agency expects renewable energy resources
to provide 18% of the world's power by 2030, up from 11.2% in 2019.134 However, certain
renewable energy sources—such as solar and offshore/onshore wind—are dependent on weather
conditions and the time of day. This means deploying these resources at scale will require
accompanying battery technology to ensure electric grid reliability. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
2429-A1, p. 35]
134 "Modern renewables," IEA, accessed June 4, 2023 https://www.iea.org/reports/sdg7-data-and-
projections/modern-renewables
Energy storage allows for the integration of more intermittent resources by storing electricity
until it is needed. It also augments existing energy generation by allowing excess energy to be
produced when low demand is stored until demand peaks. Energy storage can provide benefits
beyond emissions reduction, including cost-savings for consumers, reliability, and backup and
startup power during extreme events. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 35]
Vistra operates the Moss Landing Energy Storage Facility in California, the largest of its kind
in the world, and is pursuing an expansion that will bring 750 MW online in the second quarter
of 2023.135 This facility is particularly valuable in California, where the swift transition to
renewable energy, paired with a constantly growing demand for electricity, illustrates the need
for reliability in the electric grid and the role energy storage can play. As of 2021, non-
hydroelectric renewables provide approximately 35% of California's electricity, and electricity
demand has increased due to a variety of factors, including severe weather events, widespread
electrification, and electric vehicle deployment. 136 This combination was put to the test in
September 2022, when the state faced its most extreme September heat event in recorded history.
This weather event put unprecedented strain on the electric grid and set records for electricity
demand. To the surprise of many, the lights stayed on. During that event, batteries, including
Vistra's Moss Landing facility, provided about 4% of supply—over 3,360 MW, more than the
Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant (the state's largest electricity generator)—during the peak
demand, averting rolling blackouts. A report from the California Independent System Operation
(CAISO) following the September 2022 event specifically highlighted the increase in energy
storage resources as a key factor that supported the grid's reliability. 137 As a comparison, the
August 2020 heat wave, which occurred when California's energy storage resources were few
and far between, resulted in rolling blackouts over multiple days. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
2429-A1, pp. 35 - 36]
135 "Vistra Announces Expansion of World's Largest Battery Energy Storage Facility," Vistra, accessed
June 4, 2023 https://investor.vistracorp.com/2022-01-24-Vistra-Announces-Expansion-of-Worlds-Largest-
Battery-Energy-Storage-Facility
136 "2021 Total System Electric Generation," California Energy Commission, accessed June 5, 2023
https://www.energy.ca.gOv/data-reports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/2021-total-system-
electric-generation
137 "California ISO posts analysis of September heat wave," California ISO, accessed June 5, 2023
http://www.caiso.com/Documents/california-iso-posts-analysis-of-september-heat-wave.pdf
1146
-------
Recognizing that the replacement of fossil fuel-powered assets with zero-carbon resources is
not a one-to-one exchange, Vistra is working to maintain reliability by using energy storage and
installing zero-carbon investments on the sites of retired or soon-to-be-retired fossil fuel plants.
This also ensures that communities do not lose key energy supplies or ongoing tax revenue.
Vistra is also focused on ensuring that existing zero-carbon generation remains online, such as
the Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant in Texas, which is currently going through the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission's relicensing process to continue operations through 2053. This high-
performing plant is able to produce power—rain, snow, or shine—increasing grid reliability for
Texans and making it a keystone generator for the Electric Reliability Council of Texas
(ERCOT) grid. Alongside the transition to cleaner generation resources, Vistra has been able to
maintain reliability for its consumers and ensure that individuals and businesses are able to keep
their lights on, even during extreme weather events. During Winter Storm Uri in Texas in 2021,
Vistra's plants produced between 25-30% of the power on the grid during the storm, far beyond
its -18% market share. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 36]
As the energy supply mix shifts toward low- and zero-carbon resources, energy storage will
fill the reliability gap and allow that mix to evolve more reliably and flexibly. The Inflation
Reduction Act provides new tax incentives for investment in energy storage technologies and
resources to support the R&D of advanced and long-duration energy storage technologies. These
investments will enable the deployment of utility-scale energy storage and add reliability to the
grid, no matter what the future energy generation mix looks like. It is crucial that the United
States continues to make the transition to a carbon-neutral economy and electric grid in a way
that ensures the continued reliability of the grid at a reasonable cost to consumers. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 36]
3. Southern California Edison: Preparing the Grid for EV Adoption
About 40% of the nation's electric vehicles, more than 1.3 million, have been sold in the state
of California. More than 430,000 of those are in SCE's service area alone. Many have expressed
doubts that the grid is ready for the energy demand created by the need to charge so many EVs,
but electric power companies, including SCE, are keeping up with increasing levels of
adoption. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 36] In anticipation of growing EV demand in
Southern California, SCE is continuously taking the steps to upgrade the grid and promote
customers' transition to electric transportation and proactively solve near-term issues, while also
undertaking long-term investments to ensure the grid is ready for all levels of anticipated
electrification adoption. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 37]
Solving near-term challenges
One way SCE is addressing the near-term issues is its Power Service Availability (PSA)
initiative for Transportation Electric service
• SCE is focusing on (1) improving its internal processes to streamline interconnection, (2)
engaging fleet operators to better understand their plans for electrification, (3) improving
its ability to forecast and assess the impacts of transportation electrification (TE) growth,
and (4) leveraging new technologies as grid infrastructure solutions
• Because some projects require more time than others to build, SCE is encouraging fleet
owners to engage with the utility early in the process so that SCE can better understand
and plan for the fleets' needs [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 37]
1147
-------
SCE is also improving how we partner with customers to meet their needs.
• This includes streamlining buildout, developing deeper customer engagements that
include rate planning and load management education, and right-sizing grid solutions to
meet the expected charging demand growth in both the near and long term. These efforts
will provide more innovative and customer-focused solutions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-2429-A1, p. 37]
In addition to customer project deployment, SCE has also pushed to accelerate EV adoption
through customer-side infrastructure programs such as Charge Ready for light-duty vehicles.
• Through its Charge Ready program, SCE installs, maintains, and covers installation costs
for charging infrastructure while participants own, operate, and maintain the charging
stations. For those ready to invest in EV charging for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles,
SCE's Charge Ready Transport program similarly offers low- to no-cost site upgrades to
support the installation. The program provides funding to help electrify semi-trucks,
buses, and delivery vehicles, among others. Through its Charge Ready programs, SCE
has installed more than 3,000 charging ports throughout its service area and is targeting
30,000 charging ports by 2026. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 37]
SCE's Transportation Electrification Advisory Services program is also available for
commercial customers considering electric transportation options.
• On top of offering educational webinars and workshops, the program also offers to
develop site-specific EV-readiness studies to help determine the feasibility of proposed
projects and grant writing assistance to help customers secure zero-emission vehicle
grants. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 37]
Long-term Planning and investing in the grid for TE
SCE is improving the value of EV adoption forecasts used for grid planning by assessing
where, when, and how much EVs are likely to charge.
• SCE led the West Coast Clean Transit Corridor Initiative, composed of nine other electric
utilities and two agencies representing more than two dozen municipal utilities, to
conduct a multi-phase and multi-year research study to forecast EV truck populations and
determine the proper number and size of highway charging sites. Subsequent phases of
this initiative are supporting internal planning operations across the participating utilities.
• SCE developed a new forecasting approach for Medium-Duty / Heavy Duty (MDHD)
vehicles for the recent General Rate Case (GRC) Application.
o Because MDHD electrification is still nascent, current forecasting methodologies
that are based (in part) on historical adoption are insufficient
o For the GRC, SCE's new forecasting methodology leverages MDHD fleet
industry data to more accurately predict MDHD electrification adoption and
corresponding grid needs
o SCE (and the IOUs) are collaborating with CPUC on a new "Freight
Infrastructure Planning" (FIP) Framework to further address planning for MDHD
• SCE is working to expand the current distribution planning forecast window from 10
years to 20 years. Developing and implementing an interagency-sponsored forecast that
spans 20 years for distribution will bring benefits, such as:
1148
-------
o Identifying long lead time projects that are needed beyond the 10-year horizon
o Identifying important land acquisition needs
o Informing how the development of infrastructure may need to be levelized to
practically achieve the scale of development required by achieving state ZEV
policies and GHG targets
• SCE has proposed robust investments in its GRC application to support TE adoption and
load growth.
o The investments proposed are designed to ensure long-lead infrastructure projects
(such as new or expanded substations) will be completed when load growth
arrives. The plan especially focuses on high TE locations: freight corridors, fleet
hubs, Port of Long Beach, etc.
o Specific TE-focused projects include: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p.
38.] [See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, pages 38-39, for
Figure of TE-focused projects]
4. Con Edison
Con Edison is helping to accelerate New York State's transition to clean transportation and
EV adoption through grid and customer investments that support buildout of a widespread
charging network. The Company's PowerReady Program provides incentives to connect
thousands of new public and private charging stations to the electric grid. Authorized by the New
York State Public Service Commission's July 2020 Order Establishing Electric Vehicle
Infrastructure Make-Ready Program and Other Programs, the program offsets the electric
infrastructure costs associated with installing chargers for light-duty EVs, including cars and
small vans. To date, nearly 4,000 Level 2 and 175 DCFC chargers have been installed under the
program, with the goal of installing 18,539 Level 2 and 457 DCFC chargers by 2025, with the
potential for significant expansion of the program budget and goals as recently recommended by
the New York State Department of Public Service Staff. The Company provides a similar pilot
program for medium- and heavy-duty (MHD) vehicles, and a full-scale program is being
considered in the recently launched New York State proceeding to address barriers to MHD
charging infrastructure (MHD Proceeding). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 39]
Along with these infrastructure incentive programs, Con Edison also offers the SmartCharge
New York managed charging program that provides incentives for personal drivers to charge
outside of grid peak periods and the Company is launching a commercial managed charging
program later this year including eligibility for all fleets, public stations, and multi-unit
dwellings. SmartCharge New York is discussed below as an example of how managed charging
can help mitigate the impact of EV charging on the grid. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1,
p. 39]
An essential step in EV charger buildout is interconnection with the grid. Con Edison has
developed dedicated teams that support the growing number of EV charging interconnections,
including those that provide load evaluation, engineering review, project queue management, and
incentive deployments. The Company is implementing multiple efforts to improve the customer
experience and speed interconnection timelines and will continue to identify and implement
efficiencies and improvements. For example, the Company provides pre-application advisory
services for fleets and other customers to evaluate site feasibility and understand electric fueling
costs, automates internal processes such as service rulings for smaller stations, and
1149
-------
is coordinating with permitting agencies to identify and resolve challenges. Con Edison provides
load-serving capacity maps to help those seeking to install EV charging infrastructure identify
suitable sites with adequate grid capacity. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, pp. 39 - 40]
While Con Edison is supporting installation of increasing numbers of EV chargers under its
programs today, the Company is also working to evolve its robust planning processes to prepare
for the ramp in clean transportation loads. These loads are expected to drive significant grid
impacts in New York State and ambitious emissions regulations will further accelerate an
already rapidly growing EV market, with the exact timing in the inflection point unknown. The
timeline to install EV chargers is relatively short compared to that of other new customer
infrastructure, such as a new building, while the buildout of utility-side grid infrastructure to
meet the significant increase in demand from EV chargers requires longer timelines, sometimes
of 5 to 7 years. A proactive grid planning process to meet near-term needs and build out the grid
in advance to support long-term growth in the deployment of EVs is being considered in the New
York State MHD Proceeding. Con Edison, along with other NY State Utilities, filed comments
proposing a proactive utility infrastructure planning framework to prepare the grid in advance of
future transportation electrification needs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 40]
SmartCharge New York Managed Charging Case Study
In 2017, Con Edison launched SmartCharge New York program with the goal of instilling
gridbeneficial charging behavior in parallel with the upswing in electric vehicle adoption. The
goal was to influence driver behavior at the inflection point of transitioning from combustion-
engine fueling to electric battery charging and have drivers default to grid-optimizing charging
activity. Program participants received a free cellular-enabled device that plugs into the vehicle's
diagnostic port that allowed Con Edison to track time, energy, and power consumed when
charging in the utility's service territory. Incentives encourage drivers to 1) avoid charging
during the system peak (2 PM to 6 PM) during summer weekdays from June to September, and
2) charge overnight from 12 AM to 8 AM. Incentives were initially paid off-bill through gift
cards to the customer's business of choice, such as Amazon, Starbucks, or Home Depot. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 40]
As electric vehicle adoption continues to rise, managing charging behavior will grow
increasingly important in maintaining a healthy and reliable grid. Since its inception, the
SmartCharge New York program has evolved to meet customer needs and program objectives.
Starting in 2023 for example, the program was overhauled to allow participation through a
mobile application and payments are now issued through Venmo or Paypal, in line with
participant feedback. This shift also changed the way the program collects data, favoring more
cost-effective vehicle onboard telematics or networked electric vehicle supply equipment such as
a Wi-Fi-enabled charger or charging cable. This enables the program to scale efficiently with
the market and give a greater number of drivers insight into their behavior and how that activity
translates to incentive earnings. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, pp. 40 - 41]
In light of the EPA announcement of its heavy-duty and light/medium-duty proposed
emissions standards, Con Edison released the following statement:
"Con Edison applauds the Environmental Protection Agency's efforts to rev up the market for
electric vehicles, which will improve the air in the communities we serve and help in the fight
against climate change. A rapid shift to mass EV adoption looks more achievable all the time,
1150
-------
with vehicle options expanding and new charging stations being built across New York City and
Westchester County, including locations that serve the needs of disadvantaged communities. Con
Edison will continue to support the EV market's development through investment in the grid and
by offering a range of programs, from incenting new chargers to managing the grid impact by
rewarding drivers for charging overnight." 138 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 41]
138 "Con Edison Supports Effort to Encourage Electric Vehicle Adoption," Con Edison Media Relations,
(April 12, 2023) accessed June 5, 2023 https://www.coned.eom/en/about-us/media-center/news/2023/04-
12/con-edison-supports-effort-to-encourage-electric-vehicle-adoption
5. SRP
When EVs were still in the early stages of adoption, SRP recognized the importance of
exploring ways to identify EV households and analyze their charging behavior in order to help
prepare for greater EV uptake in the future. It was also important to begin engaging customers
who were EV drivers in order to understand their interests and their charging patterns and assess
ways to influence charging behaviors. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 41]
In 2014, SRP launched "EV Community" (EVC)—a program that offers customers a $50 bill
credit for each EV they register (up to two vehicles per household)—as a means to incentivize
EV drivers to identify themselves and engage with SRP. Participants provide basic information
about the electric vehicle and the type of charger they use. This provides a way for SRP to learn
more about EV customers and their charging behavior and needs while offering them an
incentive to help support EV growth in the region. There are currently more than 7,500
customers enrolled in the program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 41]
While EVC members only account for a small number of total EV households, they are a fair
overall representation of the EV customer base since all price plans are included, as well as
households with one vs. two EVs. The program offers SRP a good platform for analysis,
including the type of cars they drive (PHEV, BEV, brand, etc.) and the charge levels they use. In
addition, SRP found that EVC members are willing to share information and are eager to
participate in future pilot programs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 42]
The EVC program also provides SRP with a method and channel to promote their Electric
Vehicle Price Plan, a special time-of-use pricing plan which offers EV drivers the most
opportunity to save on EV charging costs by charging during super off-peak times (between 11
PM and 5 AM). Load research has shown that this program has been highly effective at shifting
EV charging loads away from peak periods. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 42]
The EVC program has helped SRP plan and prepare the grid for widespread EV adoption by
enabling them to:
• Anticipate load growth. A pilot study with EVC members that monitors their EV driving
and charging behavior through data telematics devices enables SRP to estimate typical
consumption and charging load profiles per EV.
• Understand the impacts of EV charging on the grid. EVC data is used to model the
impacts of EV charging on the electric grid, identify when transformers and wires may
need to be upgraded, and understand when and how customers need to charge.
1151
-------
• Recruit for Managed Charging pilot programs. The EVC program and channel have
enabled SRP to recruit participants for additional Managed Charging pilot programs to
test other active control technologies to control EV charging load on the grid.
• Survey participants for insights. EVC members are surveyed regularly to get more data
on their charging behaviors, including their use of home, workplace, and public charging
and their satisfaction with EVs overall.
• Engagement. EVC participants receive regular newsletters and other communications
with EV-related information. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 42]
6. Duke Energy
Electric fleet commitments are increasing as companies with ambitious sustainability goals
work to decarbonize operations. Fleet owners are also seeking ways to take advantage of the cost
savings available by transitioning to EVs. However, programs for fleet electrification and
managed charging options are still limited to date. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 42]
When transitioning to an electric fleet, it is important that fleet managers understand the full
scope of charging multiple vehicles while maintaining fleet operations and that larger
MHDVs bring with them additional factors to consider. Fleet owners who have electrified fleets
without consulting experts or an electric provider have likely been experiencing avoidable
operational and technological issues. Long-term energy cost and performance risk are also
potential issues for fleets and can hinder mainstream fleet electrification technology development
if not managed correctly. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, pp. 42 - 43]
Duke Energy's significant experience and large customer base make it well-positioned to
design and implement fleet electrification and charging programs. Duke Energy is building a
first-of-its-kind performance center that will model and accelerate the development, testing, and
deployment of zero-emission light-, medium-, and heavy-duty commercial electric vehicle EV
fleets. The site will be located in North Carolina at Duke Energy's Mount Holly Technology and
Innovation Center and incorporate microgrid integration. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1,
p. 43]
The fleet electrification center will provide a commercial-grade charging experience for fleet
customers evaluating or launching electrification strategies—reinforcing reliability, clean power,
and optimization by integrating solar, storage, and microgrid controls software applications. The
center will be connected to both the Duke Energy grid—charging from the bulk electric
system—and to 100% carbon-free resources through the microgrid located at Mount Holly. This
project is the first electric fleet depot to offer a microgrid charging option. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-2429-A1, p. 43]
In addition to fleet charging, the site will also function as an innovation hub, allowing Duke
Energy to collect data around charger use, performance, management, and energy integration
with various generation resources. It will also allow for the development of managed charging
algorithms for fleets connected to the bulk power system or integrated with renewables and
storage—which can be utilized to minimize the upgrades needed to the distribution system,
easing the transition to electrifying fleets. Identifying EV charging technologies and how they
may be used to power any type of fleet with vehicles (ranging from class 1) will help develop a
model to show the industry a clear, integrated, and cost-effective path to fleet
electrification. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 43]
1152
-------
Duke Energy is teaming up with Daimler Truck North America and Electrada on this
important work. Electrada, an electric fuel solutions company, is providing funding for research
and demonstration efforts. For fleets seeking to electrify, Electrada invests all required capital
"behind the meter" and delivers reliable charging to the fleet's electric vehicles through a
performance contract, eliminating the complexity and risk that fleets face in transitioning to this
new source of fuel. Electrada's investment in the depot allows Duke Energy to focus on
programs that simplify adoption for electric fleet customers and distribution system performance
to support the predictable addition of electric load over time. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-
Al, p. 43]
By the end of 2023, fleet operators will be able to experience a best-in-class, commercial-
grade fleet depot integrated with energy storage, solar, and optimization software. Moving
to zero-emission vehicles in this sector allows North Carolina to seize the large economic
potential of the transition and generate billions in net benefits for the state. Projects like Duke
Energy's fleet performance center will be key for fleet owners across the state to take advantage
of the cost savings of transitioning to electric vehicles. That said, fleet owners exploring
electrification should engage their electricity provider early and often to identify and address
site-specific considerations. As fleet electrification accelerates, it will be important for electricity
providers and policymakers to identify best practices to proactively plan for fleet electrification,
including readying the distribution grid. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, pp. 43 - 44]
7. Xcel Energy
Xcel Energy is committed to electrifying all of its light-duty fleet and 30% of its medium and
heavy-duty fleet by 2030, equating to over 2,500 EVs. It's part of their vision to be a net-zero
energy provider by 2050 and enable one out of five vehicles to be electric in the areas they serve
by 2030. This will save customers $1 billion annually on fuel by 2030 and deliver cleaner air for
everyone. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 44]
With a fleet that includes iconic bucket trucks, all-terrain service vehicles, and a host of
pickup trucks and pool cars across eight states, achieving these goals will be no small feat, but an
important one. There are notable hurdles, yet evolving technology presents solutions. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 44]
Electrifying the Marquee Fleet Vehicle
Xcel Energy is the first electric provider in the nation to add an all-electric bucket truck to its
fleet. The truck features two electric sources: one for the drivetrain and one for the lift
mechanism. It has a 135-mile driving range and can operate the bucket for an entire workday on
a single charge. Crews are collecting data from real working conditions in Minnesota and
Colorado that will be used to inform further improvement to the vehicle's technology and
operation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 44]
Optimizing Charging to Minimize Grid Impacts
To support a growing electric fleet, over 1,200 EV chargers must be brought into service by
2030, which will result in an electric load increase of 71 megawatts. Charge management
techniques enable low-cost charging for this growing electric fleet. It's a sophisticated approach
to optimize charging times by using time-of-day and grid demand efficiencies and builds on the
1153
-------
expertise Xcel Energy has developed through offering managed charging programs to customers
in multiple states. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 44]
For fleets, overnight charging schedules make the most sense. Demand and rates are lower,
and renewable wind sources are ample at that time. Yet, fast charging outside of these time
periods may be required to help larger vehicles make it through a workday. This is when
charging schedules need to be customized and highly specific. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-
Al, p. 45]
Enabling Cleaner Service Calls Through Bucket Truck Technology
Xcel is also taking immediate action on other high-impact emission reduction opportunities,
using technologies such as electric power take-off, idle mitigation, and solar systems to power
job site tools.
• Electric power take-off (ePTO) - An ePTO system is a device that uses battery power. It's
similar to an EV, but instead of moving the vehicle down the road, it powers equipment
and tools to avoid engine idling at the job site. These devices are recharged by plugging
into the same chargers that EVs use.
• Idle mitigation - An idling truck can consume 1.5 gallons of gas each hour. Idle
mitigation on Xcel Energy's utility bucket trucks works by automatically shutting down
the gas-powered engine when the vehicle is not in use or when the engine is idling for too
long. This helps to reduce emissions and conserve fuel. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
2429-A1, p. 45]
Fleet Electrification Solutions for Customers
Xcel Energy's experience and expertise with fleet electrification doesn't stop with their own
fleet. They have developed a mix of customer programs across service areas to support fleet
electrification for businesses and communities. These customer-centric solutions enable
sophisticated planning, lower upfront costs with various rebates and incentives, and minimize
impacts to the grid. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 45]
Xcel's approach for commercial EV fleet development includes:
• Advisory services: Xcel offers a "white-glove service" to meet customers where they are
on their electrification journey by guiding them through customized planning for their
infrastructure needs. For fleet operators, this includes a free assessment to help them
determine the best path to electrify their fleet and advise them on future electric fleet
considerations such as charging best practices.
• Infrastructure installation: Xcel designs and builds EV supply infrastructure to support
charging station installations at minimal to no cost to customers.
• Equipment recommendations and rental options: Xcel also provides recommendations for
charging equipment and offers customers the option to purchase their own qualifying
vehicle chargers or rent them at a monthly fee that includes installation and maintenance.
• Grid continuity: Xcel designs long-term clean energy resource and distribution plans to
consider the future impact of new EV load to ensure ongoing grid stability, reliability and
affordability.
• Equitable opportunities: Xcel supports EV adoption in higher emissions communities and
income-qualified neighborhoods through rebates and incentives. This includes facilitating
1154
-------
the electrification of carshare, refuse trucks, school buses, paratransit vehicles, and other
fleets operating in these disproportionately impacted communities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-2429-A1, pp. 45 - 46]
Fleet electrification is a key component of Xcel Energy's larger vision, which includes
enabling zero-carbon transportation by 2050 across our eight-state service footprint. This long-
term strategy balances affordability with sustainability across the entire grid. It's why Xcel is
dedicated to assisting fleet managers across the ecosystem in providing fleet electrification
solutions that empower and inspire a clean energy future while also leading by example. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 46]
iii. Transmission
A critical part of ensuring a smooth transition to an electrified heavy-duty sector will be a
robust build out of high-voltage transmission lines. Doing so will also enable increased
penetration of renewables into the grid mix, helping to further improve the environmental and
climate benefits of electric vehicles. While progress in this space has historically been slow and
bogged down by procedural delays, there are some signs of progress. In April 2023, the U.S.
Bureau of Land Management approved a 732-mile transmission line, which will carry wind
energy from Wyoming through to Nevada. 139 Also in April 2023, a Maine court granted
approval to restart work on the 145-mile New England Clean Energy Connect project, which will
carry hydropower from Canada to New England. 140 The line is expected to carry up to 1,200
megawatts of power. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 46]
139 "US approves $3bn Wyoming-Nevada power line," (April 12, 2023) accessed May 15, 2023
https://www.power-technology.com/news/us-approves-3bn-wyoming-nevada-power-
line/#:~:text=The%20US%20BLM%20has%20given,blustery%20Wyoming%20through%20to%20Nevada
.&text=US%20officials%20on%20Tuesday%20gave,running%20from%20Wyoming%20to%20Nevada
140 "Maine court greenlights embattled $1B transmission line," (April 17, 2023) accessed May 17, 2023
https://subscriber.politicopro.eom/article/eenews/2023/04/21/maine-court-greenlights-embattled-lb-
transmission-line-00093087
Electricity transmission is also a key focus of the Biden-Harris Administration. In May 2023,
the administration published its plan to decrease permitting timelines for new transmission
projects, among other key items. 141 Also in May 2023, the U.S. Department of Energy proposed
a rule on designating National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors. 142 There will also be a
role for Congress to play in improving transmission permitting times and this is a policy area
where some bipartisan support exists. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, pp. 46 - 47]
141 "FACT SHEET: Biden-.Harris Administration Outlines Priorities for Building America's Energy
Infrastructure Faster, Safer, and Cleaner," (May 2023) https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-
room/statements-releases/2023/05/10/fact-sheet-biden-harris-administration-outlines-priorities-for-
building-americas-energy-infrastructure-faster-safer-and-cleaner/
142 88 FR 30956
EPA Summary and Response:
Summary:
EPA received many comments about the nation's power supply and its ability to support the
demand from increased adoption of HD BEV (AFPM, EC, EDF). CFDC focused concern on the
1155
-------
power demand of HD plus LD BEV while power plant policy is proposed that could reduce
electricity supply and increase cost. AFPM, Arizona State Legislature, Clean Fuels Development
Coal., National Ass'n of Rural Electric Cooperatives stated that EPA had failed to account for
the combined impact of various EPA rules when assessing the issue of grid reliability
(adequacy). These rules (many of which are proposed) include not only the parallel rule
concerning GHG emission standards from LDV, but also the proposed rule for C02 emissions
from electricity generating units, the cross-state air pollution rule, the proposed rule for
discharge to navigable waters for steam electric units (Clean Water Act), and the proposed rule
to control leakage and other releases from of historic surface impoundments used to manage
waste from coal combustion (Resource Conservation and Recovery Act). Some commenters
stated that our power supply has insufficient margin now and that increased demand from this
policy and other energy related policy actions drive additional risk. ASL shares FERC concern
that dispatchable energy could be removed from the grid too quickly. NTEA focused on the long
lead times for adding power generation and questioned if the policy adoption rates can be
supported. Concerns were raised regarding the power supply quantity, quality, stability, and
transmission losses.
Many responses referenced reports by NERC (North American Electric Reliability
Corporation) and specific comments on summer 2023 reserve margins (AFPM, ASL, CFDC,
TRALA, Valero). Valero also shares NERC's concern with winter 2022/2023 reliability and
NERC's 2022 long term reliability assessment. AFPM also points out that regional issues exist
as the southwest US appears most at risk when generation capacity is compared to BEV load
added. Commenters maintained that the power increase to support HD BEVs is not 2.8% as
estimated by EPA but was higher, some values going as high as 14% (Arizona State legislature,
ATA per ATRI) and 40% power increase for LD plus HD. Note: ATRI 14% and 40% is driven
by full fleet electrification (100% adoption) which is significantly higher than the EPA adoption
scenario. NRECA asserted that generation needs to increase 170% along with a three-fold
increase in the transmission grid by 2050 (although this is total anticipated need, not need
attributable to the proposed vehicle GHG standards). Valero states that past success with
increasing power generation, including the increase of 25% in the near past in a period
comparable to the roll out of the Phase 3 rule cited by EPA, are not analogous since those
improvements were enabled by inexpensive natural gas which is no longer an option due to
emissions restrictions. AFPM raises concern with adding generation capacity quickly enough
due to time for permitting and approvals, supply chain issues, and availability of skilled workers.
Other commenters agreed that the power needed for an HD Phase 3 rule is a relatively small
share of the national electricity demand, that the annual demand growth is same or less than the
last few decades, and that power generating capacity will not be a constraint. These comments
came from the electric utility sector (EEI), from regulated entities themselves (DTNA, EMA),
from NGOs (EDF, MFN, CATF), and from affected States (CARB). CATF analysis shows the
HD BEV proposal (NPRM) to drive 0.5% average annual load growth while the 31 years up to
2021 has seen 1,1 percent growth with 10 of those years over 2% growth. Thus, EMA stated
"[t]he overall impact of MDHV charging demand on the grid is minimal and is well under
forecasted margins published in the NREC Long-Term Reliability Assessment from December
2022. "EMA Comments at Exh. 1 p. 29. EEI states that "Electricity companies can
accommodate increased demand" attributable to the modest EV growth projected in the rule.
Daimler states that it "generally agrees with EPA's assessment that scale-up of electric power
generation is not likely to significantly limit the development of BEV electric vehicle charging
1156
-------
infrastructure." (Daimler did, however, estimate increased demand on the national grid
attributable to the proposed rule slightly larger than EPA's estimate—3.9% above 2021 levels
rather than the 2.8% EPA estimated.) To the same effect, see Comments of Advance Energy
United, Electrification Coalition, ZETA. These commenters posited modest increase in demand
on the national grid attributable to the proposed rule (1% over 2021 grid demand) (ICCT) to
3.9% (DTNA). They indicated that these increases were modest in comparison with historic
increases in grid capacity. While CARB agrees that HD BEV demand can be met, they recognize
that private utilities, government, and public utilities commissions will need to work together and
be cognizant of all new demand to ensure that adequate power is available. MFN was not
concerned with power delivery but rather the carbon intensity of the power being supplied. MFN
highlights the need for sustainable power across the US to ensure that HD BEV use is delivering
net benefits. ZETA supported the deployment of renewable energy resources as well as nuclear,
carbon capture, and green hydrogen. Comments by MFN regarding projected emissions from
electricity generation are covered in RTC 13, health benefits in RTC 15, and LCA in RTC 17.
Energy Innovation shared analysis (Drive Clean Scenario) that specifies what a 90 percent clean
grid looks like that would be capable of handling 2% annual demand growth. They found, "the
U.S. would need to install on average 105 GW of new wind and solar and 30 GW of new battery
storage each year—nearly four times the current deployment rate. Even with additional electric
loads in the DRIVE Clean Scenario, grid modeling found a 90 percent clean grid would be
dependable without coal plants or new natural gas plants by 2035. The grid model also found
that during normal periods of generation and demand, wind, solar, and batteries provide 72
percent of total annual generation, while hydropower and nuclear provide 16 percent... The
increased electrification and pervasive renewable energy and battery storage deployments require
investments mainly in new transmission spurs connecting renewable generation to existing high-
capacity transmission, rather than new investments in bulk transmission".
AEU, ESC, ZETA pointed to potential measures to assist generation by reducing peak
demand, such as time of use rates, managed charging, demand response technologies, stationary
batteries, and vehicle-to-grid technologies. Advanced Energy Solutions, CARB, Energy
Innovation, Energy Strategy Coalition mentioned utilities are investing in part because of
benefits EVs "can provide to grid reliability". Other comments (EC, ESC, EDF) likewise
promote HD BEV as a way to support the grid during times of shortfall or shutdown by using
V2G. These comments promote HD BEV as assisting with peak power, backup power, or
simply freeing up power with charging flexibility.
A smaller number of commenters like AFPM maintain that there could also be shortages of
electricity transmission capacity. NAM asserts that, per a draft DOE report, the electrical
transmission infrastructure would need to grow 57% for LD, MD, and HD BEV. Commenters
AFPK and National Rural Electrical Cooperative Ass'n raised concerns such as a threefold
increase in transmission by 2050. AFPM raises concern that required infrastructure may not be
available by 2027. They shared data from DOE that the time for a typical interconnection
project, from initial request to commercial operation, is 5 years. EDF's report from Analysis
Group showed that the small growth needed would not be an issue for the transmission
infrastructure. Commenter ZETA, pointed to recent regulatory actions approving several large-
scale regional transmission expansions, plus Administration actions to expedite such expansions.
MFN reports that MISO is working on total energy needs and timing of annual peaks that could
change due to HD BEV adoption.
1157
-------
Response:
A. Response to Comments Relating to Overall Demand and Reliability
EPA performed emissions and power modeling with MOVES as described in RIA Chapter
4.2. HD BEV adoption rates (aligned with the modeled potential compliance pathway) are
applied to determine future power demand. This power demand is distributed geographically
based on current registrations and future expectations due to external forces like ACT. MOVES
supports granularity down to the county level. Power demand as determined by MOVES is then
input to IPM to determine how the power will be generated and transmitted. IPM takes into
consideration EGU additions and retirements. Concerns with specific geographic areas (like that
expressed by AFPM) are addressed as IPM showed all areas to have adequate generation and
transmission. IPM also understands that reserve margins must be maintained to protect grid
adequacy. The power demand increase from HD BEVs will be at levels that have been handled
by the electricity power sector for decades.
EPA acknowledges the quantified estimates from the utility industry, regulated entities,
NGOs, and other expert commenters, all of which corroborate EPA's conclusion that demand
from the Phase 3 rule is minimal and does not pose issues of grid reliability. Moreover, all of
these entities provided quantified estimates of demand which are quite similar to EPA's. Note
further that these estimates are for 2055, when there has been full fleet turnover and hence
maximum demand impact on the grid. The increased demand as the Phase 3 program
commences is roughly an order of magnitude less. See RTC Section 7 (Distribution) above; that
same section documents that there also will be only minor incremental increases in daily demand
attributable to standards somewhat more stringent from the standpoint of energy demand than the
Phase 3 rule. EPA agrees with this assessment from the Energy Strategy Coalition (speaking for
some of the nation's largest utilities, public power authorities and generators of electricity from
renewable, nuclear, and gas-fired sources): "[djemand for electricity will increase under both the
HDV Proposal and recently-proposed multi-pollutant standards for light-duty and medium-duty
vehicles ("LMDV Proposed Rule"), but the electricity grid is capable of planning for and
accommodating such demand growth and has previously experienced periods of significant and
sustained growth." The Edison Electric Institute, the trade association for the nation's investor-
owned utilities, agrees: "As EPA also notes, the increase in electricity use resulting from the
Proposed Rule also will be modest, increasing electricity end-use by less than 3 percent in 2055.
On a macro-level, meeting the increased energy usage from electric truck adoption as
contemplated in the Proposed Rule will not be a significant challenge for the electric power
sector." 577 Moreover, this comment, as well as the others summarized above, evaluated the
impact of EPA's proposed rule, which in its initial model years was somewhat more stringent
than the final rule; demand on the grid is correspondingly slightly lower with the final rule.
EPA further believes that these comments from the electric utility industry representatives serve
as a response to commenter Valero, which comment posited that historic growth rates were
predicated on availability of inexpensive natural gas, and that similar historic growth should not
be assumed.
EPA also notes that many of the comments appear to discuss general information about the
grid as opposed to impacts of the Phase 3 Rule, and therefore are of limited, if any relevance. For
example, NRECA's claim of a 170% increase by 2050 appears to reflect their estimate of total
577 Comments of Edison Electric Institute at 7.
1158
-------
demand increases across the entire economy, not demand associated with this rule. ATA and
ATRI's estimate of 14% increase due to heavy-duty BEVs and 40% due to light- and heavy-duty
BEVs reflects estimate in total demand associated with all 267 million light- and heavy-duty
vehicles in the light- and heavy-duty fleets being electrified, as opposed to the orders of
magnitude less electrification in the EPA modeled compliance pathways.578 NERC reviews of
our national and regional power supply, which do not directly address issues associated with
vehicle electrification and any associated grid impacts, continue to appropriately identify issues
and identify government and industry actions that can mitigate national power supply risk.
Similarly, the testimony by a FERC Commissioner referenced in several comments (Transfer
Flow, ASL) did not address potential grid impacts from electrification in the transportation sector
and so is not directly relevant to the issues discussed here of demand posed by EPA
transportation sector and other rules affecting the grid, or to EPA's analysis thereof.
As EPA noted at proposal, and as many commenters emphasize, many opportunities exist for
optimization due to placement of both distributed and dispatchable power sources, as well as
stationary batteries as the nation adds power supply. EPA notes the comment of the Energy
Strategy Coalition that these measures create a distinct incentive for utility investment. EPA
notes further that its estimate of grid demand is conservative because EPA included only the
most basic of mitigative measures.
B. Response to Comments Relating to Impact of EPA Vehicle Rules and other Potential
EPA Rules Affecting the Power Sector
EPA has also carefully evaluated the potential impact on grid resource adequacy or reliability
posed by various recent and projected EPA rules implementing the Clean Air Act: the LDMD
multi-pollutant rule establishing GHG and criteria pollutant emission standards for light and
medium duty vehicles, proposed emission limits and guidelines for C02 emissions from new and
existing fossil-fueled fired electricity generating units (CAA section 111 (d))(proposed), the
cross-state air pollution rule (CAA section 110 (a)(2)(D)) (88 FR 36654) (June 5, 2023)(final)),
and the Mercury and Air Toxics Risk and Technology Review proposed rule (section 112
(d)(6)).579 In response, we used power sector modeling to estimate emissions from electric
power plants for loads associated with vehicle electrification as well as to assess generation
resource adequacy and grid reliability of the rapidly-transitioning electric grid. For resource
adequacy, we considered the combined projected resource adequacy impacts of this Phase 3 rule
578 ATRI, Charging infrastructure Challenges for the U.S. Electric Vehicle Fleet (Dec. 2022) at 16-17.
579 Commenters also referred to the proposed rule for management of coal combustion residuals under subtitle D of
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. This proposed rule would only apply to residuals managed in
inactive surface impoundments at inactive electric utilities; to closed surface impoundments, closed landfills and
inactive landfills at operating utilities; and closed landfills and to inactive landfills at sites with a legacy surface
impoundment at utilities not generating power. 88 FR 31982, 31984 (May 18, 2023), No closures are projected for
the proposed rule for those operating facilities that would be affected. 88 FR at 32028-29..At this preliminary stage,
EPA does not see that this rule (assuming it is finalized as proposed) would have any adverse impact on grid
reliability or resource adequacy.
Commenters also referred to the proposed rule implementing sections 301 and 304 of the Clean Water Act, which
proposed rule would further limit discharge of toxic metals and other pollutants from coal-fired power. 88 FR
181824 (March 29, 2023). EPA projected a single plant closure attributable to this proposed rule (assuming it is
finalized as proposed). 88 FR at 18834. At this preliminary stage, EPA does not see that this rule would have
adverse impacts on grid resource adequacy or reliability. Our IPM modeling, described in the text, also reflects this
proposed rule
1159
-------
and EPA's Multi-Pollutant Emissions Standards for Model Years 2027 and Later Light-Duty and
Medium-Duty Vehicles (LMDV))) (collectively "Vehicle Rules") to demonstrate that the
impacts of both the Vehicle Rules alone and combined with other anticipated EPA actions
related to the EGU sector "Power Sector Rules" result in anticipated power grid changes that
adversely affect resource adequacy or grid reliability. .
Specifically, we considered whether the Vehicles Rules alone and combined with the Power
Sector Rules would result in anticipated power grid changes such that they 1) respect and remain
within the confines of key National Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) assumptions, 580 2)
are consistent with historical trends and empirical data, and 3) are consistent with goals, planning
efforts and Integrated Resource Plans (IRPs) of industry itself.581 We demonstrate that the
effects of EPA's vehicle and power sector rules do not preclude the industry from meeting
NERC resource adequacy criteria or otherwise adversely affect resource adequacy. This
demonstration includes explicit modeling of the impacts of the Vehicle Rules, an additional
quantitative analysis of the cumulative impacts of the Vehicles Rules and the Power Sector
Rules, as well as a review of the existing institutions that maintain grid reliability and resource
adequacy in the United States. We conclude that the Vehicles Rules, whether alone or combined
with the Power Sector Rules, satisfy these criteria and are unlikely to adversely affect the power
sector's ability to maintain resource adequacy or grid reliability.
Beginning with EPA's modeling of the Vehicle Rules, we used EPA's Integrated Planning
Model (IPM), a model with built-in NERC resource adequacy constraints, to explicitly model the
expected electric power sector impacts associated with the two vehicle rules. IPM is a state-of-
the-art, peer-reviewed, multi-regional, dynamic, deterministic linear programming model of the
contiguous U.S. electric power sector. It provides forecasts of least cost capacity expansion,
electricity dispatch, and emissions control strategies while meeting energy demand and
environmental, transmission, dispatch, and resource adequacy constraints. IPM modeling we
conducted for the Vehicle Rules includes in the baseline all final rules that may directly impact
the power sector, including the final Good Neighbor Plan for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), 88 FR 36654 (August 4, 2023).
EPA has used IPM for over two decades, including for prior successfully implemented
rulemakings, to better understand power sector behavior under future business-as-usual
conditions and to evaluate the economic and emissions impacts of prospective environmental
policies. The model is designed to reflect electricity markets as accurately as possible. EPA uses
the best available information from utilities, industry experts, gas and coal market experts,
financial institutions, and government statistics as the basis for the detailed power sector
580 NERC was designated by FERC as the Electric Reliability Organization (ERO) in 2005 and, therefore, is
responsible for establishing and enforcing mandatory reliability standards for the North American bulk power
system. Resource Adequacy Primer for State Regulators, 2021, National Association of Regulatory Utility
Commissioners (https://pubs.naruc.org/pub/752088A2-1866-DAAC-99FB-6EB5FEA73042).
581 Our analysis of the proposed Power Sector Rules is based on the modeling conducted for proposals. We believe
this analysis is a reasonable way of accounting for the cumulative impacts of our rules affecting the EGU sector,
including the proposed Power Sector Rules, at this time. Our cumulative analysis of the Vehicles and Power Sector
Rules supports this final rule, and it does not reopen any of the Power Sector Rules, which are the subject of separate
agency proceedings. Consistent with past practice, as subsequent rules are finalized, EPA will perform additional
power sector modeling that accounts for the cumulative impacts of the rule being finalized together with existing
final rules at that time.
1160
-------
modeling in IPM. The model documentation provides additional information on the assumptions
discussed here as well as all other model assumptions and inputs. EPA relied on the same model
platform at final as it did at proposal, but made substantial updates to reflect public comments.
Of particular relevance, the model framework relies on resource adequacy-related constraints
that come directly from NERC. This includes NERC target reserve margins for each region,
NERC Electricity Supply & Demand load factors, and the availability of each generator to serve
load across a given year as reported by the NERC Generating Availability Data System.
Therefore, the model projections for the Vehicle Rules are showing compliance pathways
respecting these NERC resource adequacy criteria. These NERC resource adequacy criteria are
standards by which FERC, NERC and the power sector industry judge that the grid is capable of
meeting demand. Thus, we find that modeling results demonstrating that the grid will continue to
operate within those resource adequacy criteria supports the conclusion that the rules will not
have an adverse impact on resource adequacy, which is an essential element of grid reliability.
EPA also considered the cumulative impacts of the Vehicle Rules together with the Power
Sector Rules, which as noted above are several recent proposed rules which would regulate the
EGU sector. In a given rulemaking, EPA does not generally analyze the impacts of other
proposed rulemakings, because those rules are, by definition, not final and do not bind any
regulated entities, and because the agency does not want to prejudge separate and ongoing
rulemaking processes. However, some commenters on this rule expressed concern regarding the
cumulative impacts of these rules when finalized, claiming that the agency's failure to analyze
the cumulative impacts of the Vehicle Rules and its EGU-sector related rules rendered this rule
arbitrary and capricious. In particular, commenters argued that renewable energy could not come
online quickly enough to make up for generation lost due to fossil sources that may retire, and
that this together the increasing demand associated with the Vehicle Rules would adversely
affect resource adequacy and grid reliability. EPA conducted additional analysis of these
cumulative impacts in response to these comments. Our analysis finds that the cumulative
impacts of the Vehicle Rules and Power Sector Rules is associated with changes to the electric
grid that are well within the range of fleet conditions that respect resource adequacy, as projected
by multiple, highly respected peer-reviewed models. In other words, taking into consideration a
wide range of potential impacts on the power sector as a result of the IRA and Power Sector
Rules (including the potential for much higher variable renewable generation), as well the
potential for increased demand for electricity from both this rule and the Phase 3 Heavy-Duty
GHG rule, EPA found that the Vehicle Rules and proposed Power Sector Rules are not expected
to adversely affect resource adequacy and that EPA's rules will not inhibit the industry from its
responsibility to maintain a grid capable of meeting demand without disruption. 582
Finally, we note the numerous are existing and well-established institutional guardrails at the
federal- and state-level, as well as non-governmental organizations, which we expect to continue
to maintain resource adequacy and grid reliability. These well-established institutions - including
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), state Public Service Commissions (PSC),
Public Utility Commissions (PUC), and state energy offices, as well as NERC and Regional
Transmission Organization (RTO) and Independent System Operator (ISO) - have been in place
for decades, during which time they have ensured the resource adequacy and reliability of the
582 See "Resource Adequacy Analysis Technical Memorandum for Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Heavy -
Duty Vehicles - Phase 3 available in the docket for this rulemaking.
1161
-------
electric power sector. As such, we expect these institutions to continue ensuring that the electric
power sector is safe and reliable by ensuring that owners of electric power generators will not
retire electric power plants in a haphazard or disruptive manner. We also note that EPA's
proposed Power Sector rules include built-in flexibilities that accommodate a variety of
compliance pathways and timing pathways, all of which helps to ensure the resource adequacy
and grid reliability of the electric power system.583 In sum, the power sector analysis conducted
in support of this rule indicates that the Vehicle Rules, whether alone or combined with the
Power Sector Rules, are unlikely to affect the power sector's ability to maintain resource
adequacy and grid reliability.584
C. Response to Comments Relating to Impacts on Transmission
With respect to new transmission, the need for new transmission lines associated with the
LMDV and HDP3 rules between now and 2050 is projected to be very small, approximately one
percent or less of transmission. Nearly all of the projected new transmission builds appear to
overlap with pre-existing transmission line right of ways (ROW), which makes the permitting
process simpler. Approximately 41-percent of the potential new transmission line builds
projected by IPM have already been independently publicly proposed by developers. The
approximate regional distribution of the potential new transmission line builds are:
• 24% in the West (excluding Southern California), which are largely Federal lands, that
are more-easily permittable for new transmission builds;
• 21% in the desert Southwest, which are largely Federal lands, that are more-easily
permittable for new transmission builds;
• 14%) in the Midwest;
• 9% for each of the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, and Southeast and Mid-Atlantic regions; and
• 5% for each for Southern California and New York State/City regions.585
We note further that with respect to impacts on transmission, the federal government has
limited authority to direct transmission system planning, although there are a myriad of programs
and efforts underway that will help support improvements to the grid and provide reliability
benefits. While there is congestion and delays in transmission buildout, utilities and other actors
have other ways to improve reliability, by deploying Grid Enhancing Technologies (GET) and
Storage As Transmission Asset (SATA).
For example, two 230-kV transmission lines used by PPL Electric Utilities, in Pennsylvania,
were found to be approaching their maximum transmission capacity in 2020. As a result, the
utility paid more than $60 million in congestion fees in the winters of 2021-2022 and 2022-2023.
Rather than rebuilding or reconductoring the two transmission lines, which would have cost tens
of millions of dollars, the utility spent under $300 thousand installing dynamic line rating (DLR)
sensors, which helped the utility to rebalance each of the two transmission lines and allowed
them to reliably carry an additional 18 percent of power 586
583 As noted above, EPA is not prejudging the outcome of any of the Power Sector Rules.
584 "Resource Adequacy Analysis Technical Memorandum for Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Heavy -
Duty Vehicles - Phase 3" available in the docket for this rulemaking.
585 See Multi-Pollutant Emission Standards for Model Years 2027 and Later Light-Duty and Medium-Duty
Regulatory Impact Analysis at 5-22 (2024).
586 PPL's Dynamic Line Ratings Implementation: https://www.energypa.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Dynamic-
Line-Ratings-H-Lehmann-E-Rosenberger.pdf
1162
-------
DOE recently announced several programs and projects to reduce transmission congestion
include the interconnection queue backlog.587 Examples of such programs and projects include
DOE's Interconnection Innovation e-Xchange (i2X), which aims to increase data access and
transparency, improve process and timing, promote economic efficiency, and maintaining grid
reliability; FERC Order 2023, discussed in an earlier comment response, which provides
generator interconnection procedures and agreements to address interconnection queue backlogs,
improve certainty, and prevent undue discrimination for new technologies; and DOE's Grid
Resilience and Innovation Partnerships (GRIP) program,588 with $10.5 billion in Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law funding to develop and deploy Grid Enhancing Technologies (GET), such as
Dynamic Line Ratings (DLR) and Advanced Power Flow Controllers (APFC). To facilitate
upgrading and rebuilding transmission lines, DOE issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to
update its National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA") implementing regulations. DOE also
conducted the National Transmission Planning Study to designate areas experiencing electricity
transmission constraints or congestion as National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors
(NIETCs). In February 2024, DOE announced a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the second
round of the Transmission Facilitation Program, a revolving fund supported by the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law to help overcome financial hurdles facing large-scale new and upgraded
transmission lines.
The capacity of existing electric power transmission lines can also be increased by a process
known as reconductoring, in which existing transmission lines, typically with steel cores, are
replaced with higher capacity composite conductors. Since the process makes use of existing
transmission towers, it typically does not require additional rights of way. As such, new
generation capacity can be rapidly added, which serves to improve resource adequacy. For
example, American Electric Power, a Texas-based transmission utility, replaced the aging
conventional conductors of a 240 miles transmission line with advanced composite core
conductors from 2012-2015589 The reconductoring resulted in an approximate doubling of the
previous transmission line capacity and was accomplished while the 345-kilovolt transmission
lines remained energized.590
Energy storage projects can also be used to help to reduce transmission line congestion and
are seen as alternatives to transmission line construction in some cases.591 These projects, known
587 DOE Interconnection Innovation e-Xchange (i2X), https://www.energy.gov/eere/i2x/interconnection-innovation-
e-xchange and Abboud, A. W., Gentle, J. P., Bukowski, E. E., Culler, M. J., Meng, J. P., & Morash, S. (2022). A
Guide to Case Studies of Grid Enhancing Technologies (No. INL/MIS-22-69711-Rev000). Idaho National
Laboratory (INL), Idaho Falls, ID (United States). https://inl.gov/content/uploads/2023/03/A-Guide-to-Case-
Studies-for-Grid-Enhancing-Technologies.pdf
588 DOE, Grid Deployment Office, Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships (GRIP)
Program, https://www.energy.gov/gdo/grid-resilience-and-innovation-partnerships-grip-program
589 AEP Raises Transmission Capacity https://www.tdworld.com/overhead-transmission/article/20963095/aep-
raises-transmission-capacity
590 American Electric Power - Energized Reconductoring Project in the Lower Rio Grande Valley
https://www.quantaenergized.com/project/574
591Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Managing Transmission Line Ratings, Docket No. RM20-16-000; Order
No. 881 (December 16, 2021), https://www.ferc.gov/media/e-l-rm20-16-000., and Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Staff Presentation Final Order Regarding Managing Transmission Line Ratings FERC Order 881
(December 16, 2021), https://www.ferc.gov/news-events/news/staff-presentation-final-order-regarding-managing-
transmission-line-ratings.
1163
-------
as Storage As Transmission Asset (SATA),592 can help to reduce transmission line congestion,
have smaller footprints, have shorter development, permitting, and construction times, and can
be added incrementally, as required. Examples of SATA projects include the ERCOT Presidio
Project,593 a 4 MW battery system that improves power quality and reducing momentary outages
due to voltage fluctuations, the APS Punkin Center,594 a 2 MW, 8 MWh battery system deployed
in place of upgrading 20 miles of transmission and distribution lines, the National Grid
Nantucket Project,595 a 6 MW, 48 MWh battery system installed on Nantucket Island, MA, as a
contingency to undersea electric supply cables, and the Oakland Clean Energy Initiative Projects,
a 43.25 MW, 173 MWh energy storage project to replace fossil generation in the Bay area. 596,
FERC has issued various orders to address interconnection queue backlogs, improve certainty,
and prevent undue discrimination for new technologies.597'598 FERC Order 2023, for example,
requires grid operators to adopt certain interconnection practices with the goal of reducing
interconnection delays. These practices include a first-ready, first-served interconnection
process that requires new generators to demonstrate commercial readiness to proceed, and a
cluster study interconnection process that studies many new generators together.599
Through such efforts, the interconnection queues can be reduced in length, transmission
capacity on existing transmission lines can be increased, additional generation assets can be
brought online, and electricity generated by existing assets will be curtailed less often. These
factors help to improve overall grid reliability.
EPA Summary and Response: PER
Summary:
Commenters (AFPM, Clean Fuels Development, NRECA) shared concern that removing
dispatchable energy too quickly from our power generation arsenal, while adding distributed
energy resources (DER), will lead to shortfalls and reliability concerns when DER like solar and
wind are not able to generate sufficient power. These commenters maintained that the agency's
proposed rule under CAA section 111 addressing C02 emissions from Electricity Generating
592Nguyen, T. A., & Byrne, R. H. (2020). Evaluation of Energy Storage As A Transmission Asset (No. SAND2020-
9928C). Sandia National Lab.(SNL-NM), Albuquerque, NM (United
States), https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1821846
593 Presidio NAS® Battery Project Facts at a Glance
http://www.ettexas.com/Content/documents/NaSBatteryOverview.pdf.
594 APS Integrated Resource Plan IRP 2023 https://www.aps.eom/-/media/APS/APSCOM-PDFs/About/Our-
Company/Doing-business-with-us/Resource-Planning-and-
Management/APS_IRP_2023_PUBLIC.ashx?la=en&hash=B0B8ED59F4698FE246386F3CD118DEC8.
595 Balducci, P. J., Alam, M. J. E., McDermott, T. E., Fotedar, V., Ma, X., Wu, D.,... & Ganguli, S. (2019).
Nantucket island energy storage system assessment (No. PNNL-28941). Pacific Northwest National Lab. (PNNL),
Richland, WA (United States), https://energystorage.pnnl.gov/pdf/PNNL-28941.pdf.
596 PG&E Proposes Two Energy Storage Projects for Oakland Clean Energy Initiative to CPUC
https://www.pgecurrents.com/articles/2799-pg-e-proposes-two-energy-storage-projects-oakland-clean-energy-
initiative-cpuc
597 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Improvements to Generator Interconnection Procedures and
Agreements, Docket No. RM22-14-000; Order No. 2023 (July 28, 2023), https://www.ferc.gov/media/e-l-order-
2023-rm22-14-000.
598 Staff Presentation | Improvements to Generator Interconnection Procedures and Agreements
https://www.ferc.gov/news-events/news/staff-presentation-improvements-generator-interconnection-procedures-and.
599 See generally FERC Order 2023, 184 FERC 61,054 (July 28, 2023) (Docket No. RM22-14-000).
1164
-------
Units would reduce supply due to intermittent power provided by renewables, while the vehicle
electrification rules would at the same time increase grid demand, (e.g., Arizona State
Legislature, AFPM.) Other commenters welcomed distributed energy resources, shared ways
that they add grid reliability, and added ways to leverage their strengths and mitigate their
weaknesses. As noted above, for example, MFN explained how demand from vehicle
electrification could smooth out a "negative valley" potentially posed by storage issues
associated with increased use of renewable sources. Energy Innovation noted that a grid
powered by increased use of renewables can readily accommodate demand posed by vehicle
electrification.
Response:
We respond to comments about the cumulative impacts of the 111 proposed rule and this rule
in our prior response. Here, we focus on DER. DER utilization has the potential to provide clean
sustainable power. They can be positioned throughout the grid, helping to reduce power
transmission across the grid. The decreased power transmission drives reduced power loss as
well as minimizes cost of the transmission hardware. EPA understands that DER cannot always
generate power at the same time that it is required. Mitigating actions like stationary batteries
and temporal electricity rates will help to leverage DER and increase grid resilience. In addition,
dispatchable power may be reduced but we do not expect it to be eliminated. As demand vs
power available is managed, the life of some existing dispatchable energy could be extended
while other appropriate dispatchable power may be added. DER, when combined with stationary
batteries, can help optimize existing grid infrastructure. The stationary battery is able to absorb
power when supplied by the DER and then deliver the energy when required by the HD BEV,
greatly reducing demand placed on the grid. The stationary battery is critical to optimize capture
of the DER output (as the HD BEV is not always charging) and providing power to the BEV as
the DER is not always providing output. EPA's analysis of potential impacts on grid (both
generation and distribution) is conservative in that it does not consider future DER. That is, we
find that the additional generation and distribution associated with this rule can be met even if no
additional DER are deployed. The potential for DER deployment is an additional strategy for
supporting the charging infrastructure associated with this rule. Future sources of electricity
generation, including DER from renewables, are reflected in the EGU emission factors
calculated from IPM runs but those DER are not modeled in the TEIS to reduce distribution
build out. See RIA section 4.2.4.2.
7.2 Resilience
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Alliance for Vehicle Efficiency (AVE)
Grid reliability
In the Proposal, EPA states that BEV trucks will have a negligible impact on the nation's
electrical grid.20 Unfortunately, it cannot be assumed that the U.S. grid will always be reliable.
There is growing evidence that fleet owners may be less likely to purchase BEVs without
improved grid reliability.21
1165
-------
• The average annual number of weather-related power outages increased by roughly 78%
during 2011-2021, compared to 2000-2010.
• From 2000-2021, there were 1,542 weather-related power outages, an average of four per
day.
• The states with the most reported weather-related power outages were the heavy trucking
corridors of Texas, Michigan, California, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania.22 [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1571-A1, p. 8]
20 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 81 / Thursday, April 27, 2023 / at 25983
21 Rocky Mountain Institute: Preventing Electric Truck Gridlock - Meeting the Urgent Need for a Stronger
Grid https://rmi.org/insight/preventing-electric-truck-gridlock/
22 https://www.climatecentral.org/climate-matters/surging-weather-related-power-outages
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1571-A1, p. 8]
Organization: Missouri Farm Bureau (MOFB)
Further, MOFB is greatly concerned that the proposed rule contains zero language regarding
what impact it will have on the severely aged and inadequate electric grid. In 2020, the U.S.
experienced 180 major electrical disruptions, up from fewer than two dozen in 2000.9 In this
proposed rule, EPA fails to illustrate how electricity will actually be delivered to thousands of
new charging stations that will be built in the near future, and what impact this action will have
upon every other aspect of our lives, much of which relies on the constant delivery of
electricity. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1584-A1, p. 2]
9 America's Power Grid Is Increasingly Unreliable - WSJ, accessed June 14, 2023.
In addition, but not separable from this conversation, MOFB is especially concerned with the
future buildout of electric transmission lines that will be needed to carry the proposed rule's
mandates into fruition. Unfortunately, and all too often, farmers and ranchers hear others say that
their land is needed for the 'public's benefit.' Government agencies and renewable energy
advocates often forget that farmers and ranchers are part of the 'public' as well, and need to be
fairly compensated for the continued buildout of transmission lines through their private property
which will take away the critical farm and ranch land necessary to run their businesses for
generations to come. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1584-A1, p. 3]
Organization: Transfer Flow, Inc.
Even the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has warned that a rapid transition
to electric vehicles would be devastating to the country's electric grid reliability. 18' 19 [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1534-A1, p. 4]
18 https://robertbryce.substack.com/p/epa-v-the-grid?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
19 https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/energy-environment/ev-push-threatens-to-strain-power-
grids-and-threaten-reliability
1166
-------
Organization: Truck Renting and Leasing Association (TRALA)
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) expressed great concern for the state of
the nation's energy infrastructure, and vulnerabilities to cybersecurity attacks, physical threats,
and extreme weather. In May 2023, during a congressional hearing, FERC Chairman Philips
informed the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 'We face unprecedented
challenges to the reliability of our nation's electric system,' and that, 'Our country urgently
needs more energy infrastructure of all kinds.'4 Exacerbating pressure to our energy grid, power
production from previously reliable electric generation sources has diminished. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1577-A1, p. 4]
4 Full Committee Hearing to Conduct Oversight of FERC: Hearing before the Senate Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources, 118th Cong. (2023) (testimony of Willie L. Phillips).
Power Outages Have Potential to Significantly Impact Goods Movement
States, particularly in the western U.S., are repeatedly learning what happens during brownout
or blackout periods. The truck renting and leasing industry relies on critical components to
provide services, vehicles, and energy sources - one missing element results in lost revenue,
disruptions to the supply chain, and essential products not being delivered throughout the
economy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1577-A1, p. 7]
Monitoring electric power generation and transmission are critical and difficult in the short
and long-term, let alone over a decade out and beyond under Phase 3. The North American
Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) closely monitors and forecasts the nation's power
needs. NERC is predicting two-thirds of North America could face elevated risks of blackouts
during extreme weather this summer alone. 11 (See Figure 2). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1577-
Al, p. 7] [Refer to Figure 2 on p. 7 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1577-A1]
11 2023 Summer Reliability Assessment, North American Electric Reliability Corporation (May 2023).
NERCs attributes geographical grid strain to a variety of factors including increased peak
demands; planned nuclear refurbishment outages; wildfire risks to transmission networks;
shortages of distribution transformers; new environmental rules restricting power plant emissions
for coal-fired generators in 23 states; hurricanes and extreme storms; supply chain issues
presenting maintenance and summer preparedness challenges and delays in some new resource
additions; and unseasonable temperatures coinciding with generator unavailability to just name a
few. 12 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1577-A1, p. 8]
12 Id.
Power outages can create obvious concerns for anyone who owns, rents, or leases a ZEV.
Generators can supply back-up power but for a fleet accustomed to Direct Current (DC) fast-
charging, generators will need to be substantially sized and will come at a steep price. Back-up
energy storage has its limitations as well given its temporary energy banking capabilities.
Unfortunately, electricity availability challenges create on-going questions and hesitation for an
industry being mandated to rely almost exclusively on a new energy source to move the nation's
freight consistently and reliably. Meanwhile, grid reliability risk is exacerbated by a rule that also
forces ZEV technology on vocational vehicle applications that are required to build and maintain
critical infrastructure. Converting all vehicle applications at once to BEVs compounds risk
1167
-------
factors that could make overall implementation more problematic. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1577-A1, p. 8]
EPA Summary and Response
Summary:
The electricity grid must be reliable in that it performs consistently well due to adequacy of
generation and transmission as covered in 7.1. The grid must also be reliable in that the existing
infrastructure (generation, transmission, distribution) keeps working during extreme weather
events (snow/ice storms, hurricanes, other high wind speed events, wildfires). The grid reliability
received a range of comments. Many of these comments deal with extreme weather, it's impact
on the grid, and its possible impact on HDBEV users. Some comments turn the tables and speak
to the possible benefits of using BEV to back up the grid in times of challenge. Power outage
frequency, level, and the impact to critical areas has been increasing per comments by AVE and
MFB. ASL points out the peak number of power outages in 2020. AFPM and TRALA
comment that fleets must keep operating to generate income but that power outages could keep
fleets from operating for days at a time and cause those fleets significant cost. AFPM suggests
that fleets will require expensive back up power systems consisting of generators and/or
stationary batteries. CFDC comments cover NERC statements from their Long-Term Risk
Assessment and from a NERC paper, Electric Vehicle Dynamic Charging Performance
explaining how grid disturbances, combined with BEV charging could have catastrophic
consequences. Similarly, the Arizona State legislature cited a Summer 2023 Reliability Study of
the North American Electric Reliability Corp. which described grid reliability issues already
being experienced in various regions of the country largely due to extreme weather. Transfer
Flow and ASL comment that FERC warns of a rapid transition being devasting to the grid and
that the US is heading for a reliability crisis and resource adequacy crisis. AmFree shared
concerns that HD BEV power needs could shorten the life of transformers. Other comments
(AEU, EC, ESC, EDF, MFN) promote HD BEV as a way to support the grid during times of
shortfall or shutdown via load management or by using V2G. Energy Strategy Coalition (ESC)
gave examples of investments in charging infrastructure driven by the grid reliability benefits.
They also shared trials being conducted regarding both load management and V2G technologies.
EDF and MFN promote the value in using school buses for grid reliability fromV2G and
provides information on pilot programs in process. These comments promote HD BEV as
assisting with peak power, back up power, or simply freeing up power with charging flexibility.
Response:
Available data suggests risk to grid reliability due to extreme weather events is increasing (the
greater frequency and severity of extreme weather events being a predicted consequence of
climate change, see 74 FR at 66497, 66498, 66524-25 (endangerment finding for section 202(a),
the endangerment to which GHG emissions from HDVs contribute and which the Phase 3 rule
addresses). As TRALA and others state, there will be times when grid infrastructure is damaged,
and HD BEV cannot get the power they need to recharge. While this is a small part of any given
calendar year, fleets should be aware of this risk when making vehicle choices. Power outages in
the U.S. are infrequent, occurring about 1.4 times per customer annually and typically lasting
between 2-5 hours (EIA, Average duration of total annual electric power interruptions, United
States (2013-2020) 2023). The effect of power outages on electric vehicle owners is expected to
be similar to that of non-electric vehicle drivers. Neither driver will be able to "fuel" during
1168
-------
power outages, as gasoline pumps are electric powered. However, electric vehicles can provide
their owners with residential power for a limited time. Moreover, electric vehicle chargers that
are attached to distributed energy resources, such as homes or businesses with solar and/or
stationary battery storage, would be unaffected by power outages and, thereby, can continue to
provide charge for electric vehicles via its independent capacity. In fact, electric vehicles could
be used to power gasoline pumps during electric power outages. Given that the physical extent of
typical power outages tends to be relatively small, electric vehicle drivers, as well as
conventional vehicle drivers, can be expected to drive out of the outage area and to unaffected
charging or refueling stations, should it become necessary. EPA does not add the cost of backup
power systems (batteries or generators) as suggested by AFPM. Backup power is a reliability
opportunity for fleet owners but is not required. Stationary batteries also provide the opportunity
to optimize charging costs by slowly drawing power from the grid during the best rates and then
charging trucks quickly. The cost / benefit analysis for backup power is best left to individual
fleets. Fleets should also consider that many severe weather events also block roads that would
affect the operation of vehicles generally, and they also shut down gas and diesel stations or
disrupt other petroleum or renewable fuel distribution infrastructure that would particularly
affect vehicles with ICE. Note that EPA also does not model these costs either, including the
additional costs to fleets with ICE (but not BEVs) associated with disruptions in liquid fuel
distribution infrastructure. Fleet owners may even benefit by having emergency electrical power
available from their HD BEV when the grid has been damaged. EPA is not mandating HD BEV,
and its modeled compliance pathway posits a majority of ICE vehicles in the fleet even in 2032,
so fleets that see electricity reliability as insufficient will be free to stay with other propulsion
systems or purchase back up power systems.
AmFree shares concern that integration of HD BEV could drive shortened life of
transformers. The article they cite makes use of a previous article ("Impacts of plug-in hybrid
electric vehicles on a residential transformer using stochastic and empirical analysis" (Razeghi,
2014)600) for this statement. Although the source article is for residential PEV, their highlights
apply to any properly designed electricity distribution system and support our case for HD BEV
adoption: Catastrophic failure of distribution transformers due to ZEV charging is unlikely, Off-
peak charging results in prolonged transformer life, ZEV demand is manageable for transformers
even if multiple vehicles exist.
There is also a general comment going to issues of overall grid reliability and not to the
relevant question of whether demand posed by the Phase 3 rule could pose an issue to grid
reliability and resilience. As we explained in RTC section 7.1 and earlier section, we can
reasonably show that no such adverse impacts will occur. With respect to the general issues
raised in the comment, CFDC brings up the challenge that is imposed by severe heat or cold
ambient temperatures hitting a portion of the country. The NERC report it cites speaks to long
term reliability of the generation and transmission systems with respect to handling unusually
high loads occasioned by extreme weather events by supplying all of the energy demanded.
Concerns raised by the report show that NERC is raising awareness such that timely actions can
600 Razeghi, Ghazal. "Impacts of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles on a residential transformer using stochastic and
empirical analysis". Highlights in April 15,
2014; https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378775313019320
1169
-------
be aligned. EPA applauds NERCS executive summary601 that states, "Reliably integrating
inverter-based resources (IBR), which include most solar and wind generation, onto the grid is
paramount. Over 70% of the new generation in development for connecting to the BPS over the
next 10 years is solar, wind, and hybrid (a generating source combined with a battery)." That
executive summary further states, "As new resources are introduced and older traditional
generators retire, careful attention must be paid to power system and resource mix reliability
attributes. Within the 10-year horizon, over 88 GW of generating capacity is confirmed for
retirement through regional transmission planning and integrated processes. Effective regional
transmission and integrated resource planning processes are the key to managing the retirement
of older nuclear, coal-fired, and natural gas generators in a manner that prevents energy risks or
the loss of necessary sources of system inertia and frequency stabilization that are essential for a
reliable grid." NERC's strategy is properly aligned with EPA's IPM modeling that, as described
in section 7.1, recognizes these EGU changes. With these changes the electricity generation will
continue to not only align with needs but have the proper resource adequacy for events such as
extreme temperatures.
CFDC also comments on NERC's paper on dynamic charging performance602. They are
correct that the paper explains how, if left unchecked, infrequent bulk power system disturbances
could interact with charging EVs (with future expected significant increase in EV charging
loads) and cause blackouts or power interruptions. The paper shows that NERC and the Western
Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) supports and has a MOU with the California Mobility
Center (CMC) and their EV Grid Reliability Working Group. CFDC comments also fail to share
that DOE and the national labs provided help with dynamic load modeling back in 2010 when
this issue, fault-induced delayed voltage recovery (FIDVR), was dealt with successfully in
relation to loads from residential air conditioners. The paper provides multiple actions to prevent
this EV charging scenario from occuring. It shows that EVSE that behave in a grid friendly
manner exist today suggesting that modest changes will allow all EVSE to respond as needed.
Commenter Transfer Flow states that "[e]ven the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC) has warned that a rapid transition to electric vehicles would be devastating to the
country's electric grid reliability." They cite as support a blog by Robert Bruce, and a newspaper
article from the Washington Examiner which proved to be inaccessible. In fact, it is clear from
the cited blog that the testimony of several FERC Commissioners before the Senate Environment
and Public Works Committee did not mention electrification of the transportation sector (or
mention any EPA rule), but rather dealt with challenges facing the grid generally. As explained
in RTC section 7.1 above, the Phase 3 rule is not associated with demands on the grid that would
cause significant adverse impacts to grid reliability, in the view (and analysis) not only of EPA
but of trade associations representing major segments of the electric utility industry. EPA
consequently views this comment as a mischaracterization.
Commenter Missouri Farm Bureau notes that farmers and other landowners should be
compensated should additional transmission lines be needed which require installation on private
property. EPA is projecting minimal (about 1%) need for additional transmission capacity that
601 NERC. 2022 Long Term Reliability Assessment. December 2022.
https://www.nerc.com/pa/RAPA/ra/Reliability%20Assessments%20DL/NERC_LTRA_2022.pdf
602 NERC. Electric Vehicle Dynamic Charging Performance Characteristics during Bulk Power System
Disturbances. https://www.nerc.com/comm/RSTC/Documents/Grid_Friendly_EV_Charging_Recommendations.pdf
1170
-------
will use existing right of ways as a result of the Phase 3 rule as explained earlier. Review of
energy pricing modeling (IPM conducted by ICF) with the increased loads shows no cost
increase due to transmission congestion. The stable prices are a clear indicator that transmission
is adequate. In addition, as the grid develops and DER are added, many DER will be logically
situated closer to demand and decrease transmission stress. Additional DER with location
optimization can help minimize buildout of electricity transmission and distribution but this
scenario was not applied in the TEIS.
1171
-------
8 Hydrogen Infrastructure
8.1 Hydrogen Infrastructure Readiness and Lead Time
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Alliance for Vehicle Efficiency (AVE)
Hydrogen infrastructure
According to the Department of Energy (DOE), only 59 hydrogen fueling stations operate
across the U.S. and there are approximately 50 stations under construction. DOE is bringing
together federal agencies, automakers, hydrogen providers, fuel cell developers, and additional
stakeholders to support the growth of hydrogen as a transportation option. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1571-A1, p. 8]
Bringing significant numbers of hydrogen trucks into production will incentivize the building
of more hydrogen stations. By removing any C02 penalty on hydrogen engine trucks, EPA can
help lead the way to developing the necessary infrastructure. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1571-
Al, p. 8]
Organization: American Free Enterprise Chamber of Commerce (AmFree) et al.
Hydrogen Refueling Stations. Although much of the available data focuses on charging
infrastructure for battery-electric vehicles, the state of hydrogen refueling is even worse.
According to EPA, every step of this supply chain is underdeveloped. Clean hydrogen
production is at "nearly zero today," Draft RIA at 82, and even accounting for tax incentives and
federal funding, the Department of Energy predicts that clean hydrogen will only be "emerging"
for heavy-duty vehicles during the timeframe of the proposed rule, id. at 83. There are also no
large-scale pipelines for distribution, which means that hydrogen will have to be delivered from
central production facilities by truck until at least 2031. Id. at 84. And the number of public
refueling stations will have to increase many times over to make the use of fuel-cell vehicles
possible—let alone preferred— for the fleet owners expected to adopt this technology. See id. at
85 ("[W]e considered FCEVs in the technology packages for select applications that travel
longer distances and/or carry heavier loads[,] . . . including] coach buses, heavy-haul tractors,
sleeper cab tractors, and some day cab tractors"). Currently, there are only 58 public hydrogen
refueling stations in the entire country, 57 of them are in California, and most are designed for
light-duty vehicles. See Alternative Fueling Station Counts - Public; 88 Fed. Reg. at 25,999
(noting that the existing public stations are "primarily for light-duty vehicles").6 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1660-A1, p. 47]
6 There are also 16 private en-route stations. See Dep't of Energy, Alternative Fuels Data Ctr., Alternative
Fueling Station Counts by State (Private), https://tinyurl.com/4xc8jfcs (last accessed June 14, 2023). These
are not generally accessible to the public.
And this ignores many of the upstream problems with hydrogen. While the feedstock for
hydrogen is abundant, it takes a huge amount of energy to produce. Using electricity to generate
hydrogen loses about a third of the power input as compared to transmitting it into the grid.
There are further losses when hydrogen is consumed by the fuel cells. Even if hydrogen is
1172
-------
readily available, there are still problems to solve because of hydrogen's propensity for
embrittling metal. Because of embrittlement, existing infrastructure is incapable of handling
hydrogen and that problem with continue to plague new infrastructure, exacerbating the safety
issues discussed below. American Institute of Physics, Hydrogen Embrittlement Creates
Complications for Clean Energy Storage, Transportation, ScienceDaily (Oct. 6, 2020),
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/10/201006114309.htm. And even if the hydrogen is safely
onboard, hydrogen suffers from some of the same energy density problems that plague electric
batteries. Hydrogen itself is very light, but compressing or liquifying hydrogen requires very
high-pressure tanks, which weigh far more than the hydrogen they contain. Jody Muelaner,
Comparing EV Battery and Fuel Cell Energy Density, Battery Power Tips (Nov. 18, 2021),
https://www.batterypowertips.com/comparing-ev-battery-and-fuel-cell-energy-density-faq/.
After accounting the tank, the gravimetric energy density of hydrogen is much lower than diesel,
making liquid fuels a better fit for heavy-duty vehicles. Id. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1660-A1,
pp. 47 - 48]
Despite the extraordinary challenges that lie ahead for hydrogen refueling, EPA provides little
by way of solutions. The agency notes that there are tax incentives and federal funding designed
to increase the production and distribution of clean hydrogen, but it identifies only one tax
credit—the "Alternative Fuel Refueling Property Credit"—aimed at increasing the number
hydrogen refueling stations. Draft RIA at 19-20, 85. As discussed above, that tax credit is
limited to infrastructure in low-income or non-urban area census tracts and is capped at
$100,000—a small fraction of the amount needed to construct a public station, which is
estimated to cost between $9 and $45.5 million. Id. at 19-20, 86. Moreover, EPA does not
identify any current private investment plans in the refueling industry other than noting that the
West Coast Collaborative's Alternative Fuel Infrastructure Corridor Coalition is "actively
considering buildout of a network for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles throughout the western
states" and has received 153 project proposals for hydrogen stations. Id. at 86. Under these
circumstances, emissions standards premised on the adoption of fuel-cell vehicles as soon as
2030 are not feasible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1660-A1, p. 48]
Organization: American Trucking Associations (ATA)
Hydrogen refueling
EPA assumes that hydrogen fuel technology will become the predominant technology of
choice for line-haul fleets by 2030 when long-haul tractor percentage sales requirements begin.
EPA's cost analysis relies on the availability of hydrogen fuel stations and low-cost green
hydrogen. Today, there are 57 hydrogen refueling stations in the United States, almost all of
them in California. To support hydrogen-fuel adoption in line-haul tractors, stations must be built
on interstate freight corridors. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1535-A1, p. 19]
Organization: BorgWarner Inc.
BorgWarner appreciates the Administration's support for EV charging and hydrogen
infrastructure.
BorgWarner applauds the Administration's support for EV charging and hydrogen
infrastructure. More infrastructure support is needed, however, for the HD, MD, and other
1173
-------
commercial vehicles to help these segment's shift to an electrified and hydrogen-powered future.
We urge federal agencies to align resources and goals to leverage the shared endeavors to
decarbonize the transportation sector. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1578-A1, p. 4.]
A key factor for expanding infrastructure is private sector charging support. Fleet owners will
need to not only bear higher costs for new ZEV vehicles, but also the charging and refueling
equipment as well. More support for these commercial facilities is crucial. Many products are
available to help fleet owners navigate this transition and we hope more federal and state
incentives will be forthcoming. BorgWarner is currently working with customers to install
needed charging stations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1578-A1, p. 4.]
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
The NPRM requests comments on lead time considerations related to the development of HD
hydrogen fueling infrastructure. Based on the CEC's experience, LD hydrogen refueling stations
on average take around two years to build. Post-pandemic, construction times have slowed, and
costs have increased, although this may be temporary. For MD/HD refueling stations, refueling
station construction times seem similar. For example, the CEC's Center for Transportation and
the Environment drayage project constructed a hydrogen station near the Port of Oakland,
capable of fueling 30 class 8 trucks. The project was approved in July 2021 and is expected to be
commissioned in September 2023. This timeline includes time lost to some permitting
challenges. A number of entities are developing and offering rapid deployment mobile or
transportable hydrogen dispensing solutions that can lessen the site preparation and permitting
challenges in some cases or provide a bridge during the construction of permanent hydrogen
stations. 177,178,179,180 Even with those challenges, U.S. EPA's proposal provides adequate
lead time, including for its more stringent alternative standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1591-A1, pp.48-49]
177 Nikola highlights its integrated hydrogen solution and introduces new hydrogen energy brand
"HYLA," January 25, 2023. https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/nikola-highlights-its-integrated-
hydrogen-solution-andintroduces-new-hydrogen-energy-brand-hyla-301731030.html
178 Hydrogen Fuel News: FirstElement Fuel's H2 refueling stations support Hyundai Motor's fuel cell
truck pilot program, March 16, 2023. https://www.hydrogenfuelnews.com/h2-refueling-firstelement~
hy undai/8557730/
179 Portable Hydrogen Fueler, last accessed June 13, 2023. https://www.airproducts.com/services/portable-
hydrogen-fueler
180 Nikola Motor: Chart Industries and Nikola Execute Strategic Partnership for Hydrogen-Related
Equipment, March 30, 2023. https://www.nikolamotor.com/press_releases/chart-industries-and-nikola-
execute-strategic-partnershipfor-hydrogen-related-equipment/Organization: CALSTART
Phased approach: Building the next level of implementation detail into this strategy, the
infrastructure needs assessment illustrates that infrastructure, while a near-term challenge, will
not be the limiting factor on meeting steeper penetration rates. This is due to the unique phased
and geographically targeted way infrastructure is most likely to deploy. Indeed, CALSTART's
findings show the network benefits of this clustered and phased rollout, which matches ZE-
MHDV penetration volumes with first-launch regions, will create charging network efficiencies
in deployment volume and utilization that can support more ZE-MHDVs than EPA's approach
assumes.37 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1656-A1, p. 18.]
1174
-------
37 Phasing In U.S. Charging Infrastructure, CALSTART, June 2023
The analysis considers that deployment will first occur where it makes sense, not
everywhere.38 That is, priority areas will be a focus of most private investment in the near term,
and prioritization will inform the coordination of several of the factors critical in reducing lead
times for the installation of infrastructure, developing the grid, and making costs more
predictable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1656-A1, p. 18.]
38 https://nacfe.Org/research/electric-trucks/#electric-trucks-where-they-make-sensehigh-poten..al-regions-
for-electric-truck-deployments Organization: Clean Air Task Force et al.
c. EPA should more fully incorporate the extent to which BIL incentives will hasten the
buildout of FCEV refueling infrastructure.
EPA should also consider the hydrogen hubs program currently being run by the Department
of Energy and how it may accelerate the building of necessary hydrogen infrastructure, which
could in turn expedite FCEV market growth. Hydrogen hubs are a key tool for demonstrating the
full value chain of clean hydrogen, including production, connective infrastructure, and end-use
in new off-taker markets, including HDVs. The BIL appropriates $8 billion for at least 4 regional
clean hydrogen hubs, $1 billion for the Clean Hydrogen Electrolysis Program, and $500 million
for the Clean Hydrogen Manufacturing Initiative. Furthermore, the National Alternative Fuel
Corridors Program has $2.5 billion for charging alternative fuel infrastructure along major
highways in the U.S., and the Port Infrastructure Development Program set aside $2.3 billion for
port infrastructure, including hydrogen refueling infrastructure for drayage trucks and trains that
service the port. Additionally, the Biden Administration recently published its final U.S. National
Clean Hydrogen Strategy and Roadmap,295 which details plans to substantially increase U.S.
hydrogen production. It outlines "pathways for clean hydrogen to decarbonize applications [that]
are informed by demand scenarios for 2030, 2040, and 2050 with strategic opportunities for 10
million metric tons (MMT) of clean hydrogen annually by 2030, 20 MMT annually by 2040, and
50 MMT annually by 2050."296 The DOE and other agencies are working with national
laboratories and industry through a program called the 21st Century Truck Partnership to use
hydrogen and medium and heavy-duty trucks and buses to reduce harmful emissions.297 [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985- 1640-A1, pp. 67 - 68]
295 U.S. DOE, U.S. National Clean Hydrogen Strategy and Roadmap (2023),
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/f/?id=00000188-8c84-db64-afd9-9fbd2ad70000&source=email.
296 Id. at 1.
297 Id. at 32.
In total, this $14.3 billion has led to an explosion of hydrogen activity, much of it centered
around massive hubs that will be scattered across the country.298 Heavy-duty trucking will
likely move between hubs, stopping in regions across the U.S. to refuel with clean hydrogen.299
Hubs will help to kick start the market, increasing the chance of realizing the cost reductions
discussed previously, which in turn will help more quickly boost FCEV stocks in U.S. truck
fleets. The synergy we expect to see between the hubs and the developing FCEV market is an
additional reason EPA should consider FCEV technology as feasible before 2030, giving cause
to further strengthen the proposed rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 68]
298 CATF, Hydrogen Hubs Map, https://www.catf.us/us-hydrogen-hubs-map/, (last visited June 6, 2023).
1175
-------
299 Anna Menke & Emily Kent, CATF, The outlook for U.S. hydrogen hubs: Who's applying and what
they could achieve (Mar. 29, 2023), https://www.catf.us/2023/03/outlook-us-hydrogen-hubs/.
Organization: Daimler Truck North America LLC (DTNA)
EPA's assumptions about the timing for hydrogen-fueled vehicles to become cost-competitive
are unreasonable.
Like EPA, DTNA believes that hydrogen-fueled vehicles, whether FCEV or hydrogen
combustion technologies, will be the primary pathway for decarbonizing segments that are more
challenging to electrify, including long-haul HHD applications where weight sensitivities or
dwell times prohibit BEV adoption, and applications where electrical infrastructure is cost-
prohibitive. However, EPA's assumption that FCEVs will be available in significant volumes
starting in 2030128 is overly optimistic based on the current state of the technology and
infrastructure. DTNA believes that FCEVs will not see significant market penetration until at
least 2032. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 58]
128 See Proposed Rule, 88 Fed. Reg. at 25,973 ('Though fuel cell technology is still emerging in HD
vehicle applications, FCEVs are a viable ZEV technology for heavy-duty transportation and will be
available in the 2030 timeframe.').
Relying on its assumptions regarding calculated payback periods and adoption rates, the
Agency input into its HD TRUCS tool values that reflect significant FCEV uptake in 2032, with
more than half of new Class 8 coach buses and regional day cab tractors indicated as FCEVs, as
shown in Table 18 below. Even if EPA's assumptions of TCO and adoption rates turn out to be
true (which is doubtful, as discussed in Sections II.B.3.a and II.B.3.b of these comments), EPA
should incorporate an infrastructure scalar into the equation used to calculate the Phase 3 C02
standards to reflect the current state of hydrogen infrastructure buildout, and it must regularly
review the state of this infrastructure and adjust the scalar accordingly to ensure standard
feasibility, as discussed in Section II.C of these comments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-
Al, p. 58] [Refer to Table 18 on p. 59 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1]
DTNA is optimistic about the future of hydrogen refueling infrastructure. Hydrogen
infrastructure can leverage some synergies from the nation's existing petroleum infrastructure
and is not hindered by the process and policy hurdles that pose challenges for electric
infrastructure development (as discussed in Sections I.B.4 and II.B.3.f of these comments).
Because hydrogen producers are not subject to utility-style regulation, the scale and pace of
capital investments for hydrogen infrastructure serving the transportation sector will be largely
driven by the free market and business cases, making for potentially more flexible and faster
development as compared to the electricity utility sector. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1,
p. 59]
In addition, as EPA notes in the Proposed Rule, DOE is supporting the development of at
least four clean hydrogen hubs through 2026 and there are numerous corridor-pending AFCs,
where public hydrogen stations will be separated by no more than 100 miles. 130 According to
DOE's Alternative Fuels Locator, however, as of May 2023 there are only two areas of the
country with 'ready corridor' designations for hydrogen, extending from the San Francisco Bay
Area along 1-80 toward Reno, Nevada, and in Southern California from Santa Barbara to San
Diego, reflected in Figure 8 below. 131 These corridor designations note only distances between
stations, and do not indicate whether or not these stations would be accessible to all types of
1176
-------
HDVs. It is also likely that as FCEV technology develops, current gaseous hydrogen stations
may need to undergo a conversion to liquid hydrogen to serve medium- and heavy-duty
applications. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 59] [Refer to Figure 8 on p. 60 of docket
number EP A-HQ-0 AR-2022-098 5 -15 5 5 - A 1 ]
130 See Proposed Rule, 88 Fed. Reg. at 25,944; 25,999.
131 See DOE, Alternative Fuels Data Center,'Alternative Fueling Station Locator,'
https://afdc.energy.gOv/stations/#/corridors ?fuel=HY&state=CA.
Hydrogen infrastructure in the United States is currently insufficient to enable the FCEV
volumes that EPA projects in the 2030 - 2032 timeframe. 55% of new day cab tractors, 25% of
new sleeper cab tractors, and 15% of new heavy haul day cabs clearly cannot be constrained to
operating around the California corridors and four hydrogen hub locations pictured above. Such
a constraint would have significant consequences for fleet operations and goods movement.
Further, the pace of infrastructure development outside of these corridors and hubs cannot be
accurately predicted. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 60]
EPA Request for Comment, Request #19: We request comment on our approach that focuses
primarily on BEVs, which currently are more prevalent in the HD vehicle market, and whether
there are additional vehicle types that should be evaluated as FCEVs along with BEVs.
• DTNA Response: DTNA agrees in principle with EPA's primary focus on BEVs at this
time, as these vehicles are more prevalent in the market. EPA should not consider FCEVs
until at least MY 2032, due to the current state of the technology and refueling
infrastructure. EPA also should not project ZEV uptake for any vehicle types outside of
the BEV and FCEV categories included in the Proposed Rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1555-A1, p. 161]
EPA Request for Comment, Request #60: We request comment on lead time considerations
related to the development of HD hydrogen fueling infrastructure.
• DTNA Response: According to the DOE's Alternative Fuels Data Center, there are
currently very few 'Ready Corridor' designations for hydrogen fueling stations (meaning
that there are enough stations on the corridor to support travel with a minimum distance
of 150 miles between hydrogen stations). The designated 'Ready Corridors' that do exist
are located in California, and it is unclear whether stations at these locations are
accessible to all types of HDVs. There is currently no data to accurately predict the pace
of hydrogen infrastructure expansion, but it is unlikely that significant infrastructure to
enable regional and long haul applications will be built out by 2030, when EPA projects
that the fuel is first expected to be cost-competitive, as discussed in Section II.B.3 of
these comments. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2022-0985-1555- A 1, p. 170]
EPA Request for Comment, Request #61: EPA requests comment on what, if any, additional
information and data EPA should consider collecting and monitoring during the implementation
of the Phase 3 standards; we also request comment on whether there are additional stakeholders
EPA should work with during implementation of the Phase 3 standards and what measures EPA
should include to help ensure success of the Phase 3 program, including with respect to the
important issues of refueling and charging infrastructure for ZEVs.
1177
-------
• DTNA Response: See DTNA Response to Request # 60, above. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1555-A1, p. 170]
Organization: Energy Innovation
IV. THE COMBINED IMPACT OF FEDERAL, STATE, AND PRIVATE INVESTMENTS
ON INFRASTRUCTURE DEPLOYMENT WILL HELP MEET THE NEEDS OF AN
INCREASINGLY ELECTRIFIED HDV FLEET OVER THE NEXT DECADE.
The EPA notes that"[uncertainty about ZEV technology, charging infrastructure technology
and availability for BEVs, or hydrogen refueling infrastructure for FCEVs, may affect ZEV
adoption rates. As ZEVs become increasingly more affordable and ubiquitous, we expect
uncertainty related to these technologies will diminish over time."42 We concur with this
assessment and recognize that vehicle adoption must occur apace with infrastructure
deployment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1604-A1, p. 19]
Organization: MEMA
Infrastructure Success is Critical
While MEMA urges EPA to consider other propulsion systems, we believe it is imperative to
address infrastructure challenges that will limit the success of a zero-emission vehicle
fleet. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2022-0985-1570-A1, p. 8.]
We note the timelines forecasted by the U.S. DOE for deployment of nationwide hydrogen
production, distribution and delivery are several years, almost a decade, behind the EPA
estimates for production of vehicles fueled by hydrogen (H2ICE or FCEV). The recently
released DOE paper titled "U.S. National Clean Hydrogen Strategy and Roadmap"6 shows, in its
generation and distribution studies, significant gaps in regional production and availability of
hydrogen through 2050. While it may be possible for national production of clean hydrogen to
reach the 50 million metric ton (MMT) capability noted in the paper, we call attention to figures
7, 8(a), 8(b) and 23, which show an infrastructure yet to emerge, and one that as forecasted is not
likely able to support HD trucking effectively. Furthermore, the timelines for growth of
hydrogen generation and distribution, pages 70-75, do NOT ALIGN with EPA forecast of
vehicle production. We note this gap so that it may be addressed, and hydrogen-powered trucks
manufactured using MEMA member technology will have the fuel they will need to deliver the
service they are built for. Left unattended, the national hydrogen infrastructure could lag vehicle
production by almost a decade. In practical terms, such mismatch will result in loss of consumer
confidence and low- to no-sales of hydrogen fueled trucks, leading to few financially and
technologically feasible options for fleets obliged to upgrade or replace existing diesel
trucks. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2022-0985-1570-A1, pp. 8 - 9]
6 https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/us-national-clean-hydrogen-strategy-roadmap.pdf
Organization: National Association of Manufacturers
In addition to building out the transmission system to accommodate a substantial increase in
electric vehicle usage, accompanying hydrogen fueling stations will need to be matched with
hydrogen fuel cell vehicle rollout, which will be accelerated under this proposed rule. We cannot
1178
-------
unlock the full market potential of zero emissions vehicles without the appropriate
infrastructure. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1649-A2, p. 2]
Organization: PACCAR, Inc.
PACCAR is working diligently to develop ZEVs for the future, but the necessary supporting
infrastructure must be in place before widespread ZEV market penetration and adoption.
Planning, developing, and implementing the charging infrastructure required to support battery
electric trucks is a major initiative. The hydrogen refueling infrastructure is also not well
developed. EPA's proposed standards are premised on the infrastructure being established and
functional. EPA should facilitate the feasibility of the regulation by including a mechanism to
adjust the applicable standards to correlate with the progress of the necessary infrastructure
development and readiness. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1607-A1, p. 2]
Organization: Schneider National Inc.
Hydrogen is assumed to become the sleeper technology solution.
• Schneider is currently testing hydrogen technology. However, the lack of existing
hydrogen infrastructure and equipment will make implementing this technology
challenging within the timeframe proposed by the EPA. As of today, there are
approximately six (6) existing hydrogen fueling locations in the country (all in southern
California). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1525-A1, p. 3]
Organization: South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD)
Finally, while most sites installing infrastructure are focused on their local needs (e.g., site
installation, local utility distribution infrastructure, etc.), when implemented at scale, additional
generation/production and transmission/transportation of electricity and hydrogen will be
needed, in many cases across state lines. The federal government can continue to facilitate these
interstate connections to ensure a streamlined market that will encourage the rapid growth of
zero emissions vehicles. Key factors in the adoption of zero emissions vehicles is the actual price
that end consumers will pay for electricity and hydrogen as well as a reliable supply of both,
especially in comparison to conventional fossil fuels. The federal government can play a role in
driving down the cost to consumers as well as ensuring stable and reliable fuel supplies to the
extent that they cross state lines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1575-A1, p. 4]
Organization: Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
• The envisioned level of deployment of ZEV trucks also will require the construction of
approximately 700 hydrogen refueling stations across the country by 2032, at an
aggregate cost of approximately $5.25 billion, not including any of the costs for the
hydrogen manufacturing or distribution systems. As a point of reference, there are
currently just six (6) operational MHD hydrogen refueling stations in California. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-2668-A1, p. 13]
5. The Critical Importance of Infrastructure Readiness
1179
-------
Even if the more reasonable outputs from EMA's HD TRUCS are used to frame the final
Phase 3 standards, there is no doubt that the infrastructures to power the ZEVs must be in place
for any Phase 3 rule to be implementable. For trucking fleets to operate BEVs or FCEVs,
whether a few or many, adequate battery-recharging or hydrogen-refueling infrastructures will be
needed to power the ZEVs. Without sufficient infrastructures in place in time to meet the needs
of the ZEVs implicitly required by EPA's GHG Phase 3 regulation, the rule will be destined to
fail. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 43]
The NPRM and HD TRUCS incorrectly assume that all commercial BEVs will be depot-
charged at night, and that any commercial ZEVs that need to operate further from home will be
FCEVs. The NPRM also assumes that trucking fleets will be able to devote up to 30% of each
vehicle's cargo carrying capacity for batteries large enough to provide enough power for the
vehicle's entire daily work. If a commercial vehicle cannot carry enough batteries to complete its
daily work, or if it must travel too far from its home terminal, the NPRM assumes that a FCEV
will be used instead of a BEV. Of course, those FCEVs will require an entirely separate
infrastructure of hydrogen-refueling stations, which still needs to be designed and developed.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, pp. 45 - 46]
The hydrogen needed to fuel FCEVs (and hydrogen-fueled internal combustion engines, or
H2-ICEs) may need to be a compressed gas (3,500 - 10,000 psi) or a cryogenic liquid (-423° F).
As this time, it is not clear which type of hydrogen will be most cost-effective to produce,
distribute and deliver to MHD ZEVs. Manufacturers are able to produce vehicles with either type
of on-board storage tanks; the technology choice will be determined by fleet customers and the
readiness of the infrastructures. Therefore, the necessary whole-of-government initiative also
should: (i) determine what type of hydrogen infrastructure is needed, (ii) identify where the
hydrogen-refueling stations will be needed, and (iii) ensure that the investments for the necessary
hydrogen-refueling infrastructure will be in place in time (i.e., by 2030) to power the MHD
FCEVs required by the GHG Phase 3 rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 46]
EPA has established as a foundational premise of the NPRM that the necessary battery-
recharging and hydrogen-refueling infrastructures will be developed in time to meet the needs of
the MHD ZEVs that the GHG Phase 3 rule will require manufactures to sell. However, there is a
significant chance that EPA's key premise - what really amounts to little more than a stated
aspiration - may prove fundamentally wrong, a prospect that would completely undermine this
rulemaking. Accordingly, a massive and focused whole-of-government initiative must come
together very quickly to ensure the development of the necessary ZEV-truck infrastructures in
time. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 46]
The current lack of the much-needed whole-of-government initiative already may be chilling
investments in the development of necessary battery-recharging and hydrogen-refueling
infrastructures. Without clarity about whether long-distance commercial vehicles will be BEVs
or FCEVs, investors may be hesitant to commit capital to develop the infrastructure for one of
the technologies. For example, clarity is needed regarding whether the required public stations
will deliver electricity or hydrogen. Without a long-term technology path identified, investors
may be sitting on the sidelines. Similarly, if hydrogen will be part of the solution, clarity is
needed to identify whether it will be a compressed gas or cryogenic liquid. Until that hydrogen
infrastructure direction is clear, more investors may stay on the sidelines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-2668-A1, p. 46]
1180
-------
Truck manufacturers are doing their part by developing all of the potential ZEV technologies:
BEVs, compressed hydrogen-fueled FCEVs, cryogenic hydrogen-fueled FCEVs, compressed
hydrogen-fueled H2-ICEs, and cryogenic hydrogen-fueled H2-ICEs. However, without adequate
assurances that the appropriate infrastructures will be in place in time, fleets simply will not
purchase any of those types of ZEVs. Thus, developing the necessary infrastructures represents
the most complicated, most expensive, and longest lead-time challenge to transition the U.S.
trucking industry to ZEVs. Without an effective whole-of-government initiative focused on
understanding, developing and ensuring those infrastructures, there may be little chance that the
GHG Phase 3 rule will be successful. Consequently, clear links between the phase-in of the
Phase 3 rule and the phase-in of the requisite infrastructure must be established, monitored, and
acted on if misalignment among the respective phase-ins is detected. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-2668-A1, pp. 46-47]
In that regard, EMA recommends that EPA work with other agencies, departments and
stakeholders to establish clear annual benchmarks for assessing progress in the deployment of
the necessary ZEV-truck infrastructures. For example, using the data developed by ICCT,
Ricardo, NREL and others, EPA could determine the top 100 counties across the country where
the greatest numbers of ZEV-trucks will be deployed under the Phase 3 and ACT regulations by
2032. For each of those counties, benchmarking assessments could be made of the number of
BEV-recharging and FCEV-refueling stations that will need to be installed on an annual basis to
support the annually increasing deployment of the anticipated numbers of ZEV-trucks in each of
those counties. Each year, evaluations could be made on a county-by-county basis to determine
whether and how the actual pace of installation of ZEV-truck recharging/refueling stations is
keeping up with the benchmark numbers of necessary recharging/refueling stations. If it is
determined that the aggregate actual progress in infrastructure development is falling behind the
benchmark rates of progress by, for example, 20% or more, the phase-in schedule of the Phase 3
standards could be deferred by one or more years as deemed appropriate by EPA, perhaps in
consultation with other agencies and departments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 47]
The foregoing is just an example of the type of direct linkage that needs to be made between
the implementation of the Phase 3 rule and the implementation of the fundamentally necessary
ZEV-truck infrastructure. Without that type of linkage, there is no real prospect for the proposed
rule to stand. To the contrary, much like a one-legged stool, it will be preordained to collapse.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 47]
Organization: Truck Renting and Leasing Association (TRALA)
TRALA requests EPA conduct annual reviews to ascertain whether charging infrastructure,
power demands, and hydrogen fuel (when/if available), will satisfy the needs for all ZEVs in
every state to meet trucking's charging and hydrogen needs. If the status of charging or hydrogen
fueling infrastructure identifies significant gaps that would impede truck mobility in any state,
EPA should not implement subsequent milestone year requirements until identified fueling gaps
are operational in keeping pace with vehicle needs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1577-A1, p. 8]
Organization: Valero Energy Corporation
Major hydrogen production and distribution infrastructure would need to be put in place
before FCEVs would even be serviceable. "[A]nalysis [also] suggests that the infrastructure for
1181
-------
the hydrogen pathway is generally costlier than battery electric," with hydrogen transport facing
"the largest cost-penalty in the near-term." 113 It is estimated that the capital cost for a single
hydrogen filling station is $1.5 to $2.0 million. 114 Moreover, there are currently no hydrogen
fuel cell tractor-trucks commercially available in North America or Europe to confirm their true
cost or economic viability. 115 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 25]
113 Hall, Dale and Lutsey, Nic, ICCT White Paper, "Estimating the Infrastructure Needs and Costs for the
Launch of Zero-Emission Trucks" at 18 (August 2019).
https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/ICCT_EV_HDVs_Infrastructure_20190809.pdf
114 For stations built between 2015 and 2017 for 400-500 kg/day. California Hydrogen Business Council,
"Hydrogen FAQs," https://californiahydrogen.org/resources/hydrogen-
faq/#:~:text=Capital%20costs%20in%20California%2C%20where,early%20(2013)%20market%20fueling,
accessed June 23, 2022.
115 Sharpe, Ben & Basama, Hussein, ICCT Working Paper 2022-09, "A meta-study of purchase costs for
zero-emission trucks" at 12 (February 2022), https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/purchase-cost-
ze-trucks-feb22-1 .pdf.
The transition of a large and complex transportation system to a BEV or FCEV technology is
a massive undertaking, requiring the establishment of new manufacturing, assembly and supply
chains; build-out of new charging/fueling infrastructure; interface with public utilities; re-
conception of fuel distribution logistics; and ultimate design of end-of-life resource recovery
strategies. Renewable diesel, on the other hand, can utilize existing infrastructure (i.e., pipelines,
terminals, and retail distribution supply chains), requiring far less investment when compared
against BEV charging and FCEV hydrogen fueling build-out. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-
A2, p. 25.]
Organization: Volvo Group
Of course, the availability of hydrogen (H2) fueling infrastructure is even further behind that
for battery electric vehicles and thus Volvo Group does not believe the requisite charging and
hydrogen fueling infrastructure will develop sufficiently on a year-over-year basis to support
penetrations of the magnitude EPA has determined in its stringency setting. We urge the agency
to include a provision in the Phase 3 regulation tying manufacturer compliance to minimum
infrastructure availability and density thresholds. Without some such mechanism it is beyond
OEMs' capacity to control their own compliance with the regulation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1606-A1, p. 9]
EPA Summary and Response:
Summary:
We received several comments on the topic of hydrogen infrastructure. Some commenters
were optimistic and provided support for their view. AVE noted that producing hydrogen trucks,
including H2 ICEVs, will incentivize the building of new stations. They suggested removing a
C02 penalty on H2 ICEVs could help make this happen. AVE and CATF expressed awareness
of DOE efforts to bring stakeholders together to support the growth of hydrogen as a
transportation option. CATF pointed out that a $14.3 billion federal investment via the BIL and
IRA in clean hydrogen production, alternative fuel corridors, ports, and the 21st Century Truck
Partnership is expected to heavily influence the market. They suggested that much of the
1182
-------
investment is centered around regional hydrogen hubs; there is opportunity for trucks to travel
between hubs, and expected synergies between hydrogen hubs and FCEVs can launch the
markets more than EPA anticipates, making FCEVs feasible before 2030. CARB agreed there is
enough infrastructure lead time based on experience with building LD hydrogen refueling
stations in the California. They shared an example of a hydrogen station for HD vehicles near the
Port of Oakland expected to move from approval to commissioning in just over two years,
despite permitting challenges. They cited numerous entities developing mobile refueling
solutions that could provide a fueling option "bridge" during the construction of permanent
stations.
Energy Innovation suggested that uncertainty could diminish over time as the technology
becomes more ubiquitous. CALSTART noted that infrastructure may be a near-term challenge,
but it will not be a limiting factor since it is likely to deploy in a phased or geographically
targeted way. They cited a paper specific to charging infrastructure.
Other commenters were more cautious about the readiness and availability of hydrogen
infrastructure. Several indicated there are few existing hydrogen refueling stations for HD
FCEVs—mostly in California—and stated that it is overly optimistic to expect buildout of a
national network by 2030. AmFree noted that hydrogen refueling infrastructure is nascent
compared to BEV charging infrastructure. They said that in the NPRM, EPA did not offer
solutions to the myriad of upstream problems with hydrogen refueling. They pointed out that
hydrogen production is energy-intensive and raised concerns about issues such as metal
embrittlement, safety related to the delivery of hydrogen, and the low gravimetric density of
hydrogen. They stated that the impact of the Alternative Fuel Refueling Property Credit, which
EPA referenced in the NPRM, is limited given that a public station can cost between $9 and
$45.5 million. AmFree also said that EPA did not sufficiently identify current private investment
plans, thus indicating that FCEVs by 2030 are not feasible. Valero said that a transition to BEV
or FCEV technology is a massive undertaking, particularly given that there is little now, and
transitioning to a fuel like renewable diesel would require far less investment. Schneider noted
that a lack of infrastructure will make it hard to implement HD FCEV technology. EMA
estimated that 700 hydrogen refueling stations will be needed by 2032, compared to six for HD
FCEVs in place in California now.
Several commenters identified refueling infrastructure challenges that need to be addressed.
ATA said that stations must be built along interstate freight corridors to support line-haul
tractors. MEMA observed a lag between EPA's forecast of vehicle production and timelines for
hydrogen production in the U.S. National Clean Hydrogen Strategy and Roadmap, which they
say could result in a loss of consumer confidence if left unchecked. Energy Innovation and the
National Association of Manufacturers called for a coordinated rollout of FCEVs and hydrogen
refueling stations. Borg-Warner and EMA suggested that more support for commercial facilities
is necessary, and they urged Federal agencies to align resources and goals to ensure that buildout
happens in a coordinated fashion and at a necessary pace. South Coast AQMD highlighted a
federal role to facilitate infrastructure development across state lines.
Industry commenters anticipated lead time issues beyond their control. Daimler stated that
there are good reasons to be optimistic about the future of hydrogen. They pointed out that
hydrogen infrastructure can leverage synergies from existing petroleum infrastructure and is not
hindered by the process and policy hurdles that pose challenges for BEV infrastructure
1183
-------
development, such as utility rate proceedings, but they also stated that there are still too many
unknowns to ensure adequate coverage in the 2030 to 2032 timeframe. Daimler, PACCAR, and
Volvo suggested adjusting the standards based on the pace of infrastructure deployment. TRALA
and EMA joined their calls to regularly evaluate infrastructure. EMA also highlighted numerous
uncertainties about the future of hydrogen in transportation—with regards to the form of the fuel
(gaseous vs liquid), location of stations, and investments—and called for a clear long-term
technology path with annual benchmarks for assessing progress towards deploying
infrastructure.
Response:
For more on how we accounted for hydrogen infrastructure uncertainties in assessing
corresponding technologies and developing the technology packages for the modeled potential
compliance pathway for the final rule and for responses about suggested post-rule actions,
including the concept of including an infrastructure scalar, please refer to RTC Chapters 2 and 3.
For a discussion of H2 ICEVs and related comments, please see RTC Section 9. For discussion
about upstream emissions impacts of hydrogen, please see RTC Section 13.
We agree with commenters who suggested that federal investment can encourage the buildout
of hydrogen refueling stations for HD FCEVs. EPA has seen progress since the NPRM on the
implementation of BIL and IRA funding and other provisions to incentivize the establishment of
a clean hydrogen market in the United States that could offer $140 billion in revenues and
700,000 jobs by 2030,603 as described in more detail in RIA Chapters 1.3 and 1.8. For example,
in June 2023, the U.S. National Clean Hydrogen Strategy and Roadmap was finalized604 Also in
June 2023, DOE updated Clean Hydrogen Production Standard (CHPS) guidance that establishes
a target for lifecycle (defined as "well-to-gate") GHG emissions associated with hydrogen
production.605 In October 2023, DOE announced the selection of seven Regional Clean
Hydrogen Hubs (H2Hubs) in different regions of the country that will receive a total of $7 billion
to kickstart a national network of hydrogen producers, consumers, and connective infrastructure
while supporting the production, storage, delivery, and end-use of hydrogen, expected to catalyze
nearly $50 billion in additional hydrogen investment.606 In December 2023, the Treasury
Department and Internal Revenue Service proposed regulations to offer income tax credit of up
to $3 per kg for the production of qualified clean hydrogen at a qualified clean hydrogen facility
603 U.S. Department of Energy. "Hydrogen Shot: An Introduction". August 2021. Available online:
https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/articles/hydrogen-shot-introduction.
604 U.S. Department of Energy. "U.S. National Clean Hydrogen Strategy and Roadmap". June 2023. Available
online: https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/docs/hydrogenprogramlibraries/pdfs/us-national-clean-hydrogen-strategy-
roadmap.pdf, https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/docs/hydrogenprogramlibraries/pdfs/us-national-clean-hydrogen-
strategy-roadmap.pdf.
605 U.S. Department of Energy, Hydrogen Program. "Clean Hydrogen Production Standard Guidance". June 2023.
Available online: https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/library/policies-acts/clean-hydrogen-production-standard,
https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/docs/hydrogenprogramlibraries/pdfs/clean-hydrogen-production-standard-
guidance.pdf.
606 U.S. Department of Energy. "Biden-Harris Administration Announces $7 Billion For America's First Clean
Hydrogen Hubs, Driving Clean Manufacturing and Delivering New Economic Opportunities Nationwide". October
13, 2023. Available online: https://www.energy.gov/articles/biden-harris-administration-announces-7-billion-
americas-first-clean-hydrogen-hubs-driving.
1184
-------
(Section 45V), as established in the IRA.607'608 In January 2024, DOE selected a consortium to
design and implement a $1 billion initiative to offer "demand pull" for H2Hubs.609 Also in
January 2024, DOE announced $98 million in grants to start build and enhance up to ten
hydrogen fueling stations for HD freight trucks in Texas, California, and Colorado.610
Furthermore in March 2024, DOE announced $750 million for 52 projects to dramatically reduce
the cost of clean hydrogen and help advance electrolysis technologies and improve
manufacturing and recycling capabilities for clean hydrogen systems and components.611
Meanwhile, several processes are getting started at the federal level that demonstrate that
federal agencies are taking steps to align resources and facilitate infrastructure development in a
coordinated manner. For example, consistent with EMA's recommendation for a whole-
government initiative relating to hydrogen production and deployment, a Hydrogen Interagency
Taskforce (HIT) has been established across 11 federal agencies to implement the U.S. National
Clean Hydrogen Strategy and Roadmap.612 There is a HIT workgroup goal to support the
establishment of 10 million metric tons per year (MMT/yr) of new, clean supply and end use by
2030, 20 MMT per year by 2040, 50 MMT per year by 2050. And in March 2024, the U.S.
released a National Zero-Emission Freight Corridor Strategy613 that, "sets an actionable vision
and comprehensive approach to accelerating the deployment of a world-class, zero-emission
freight network across the United States by 2040. The strategy focuses on advancing the
deployment of zero-emission medium- and heavy-duty vehicle (ZE-MHDV) fueling
infrastructure by targeting public investment to amplify private sector momentum, focus utility
and regulatory energy planning, align industry activity, and mobilize communities for clean
transportation."614 The strategy has four phases. The first phase, from 2024-2027, focuses on
establishing freight hubs defined "as a 100-mile to a 150-mile radius zone or geographic area
607 88 FR 89220. Section 45 V Credit for Production of Clean Hydrogen; Section 48(a)(15) Election To Treat Clean
Hydrogen Production Facilities as Energy Property. Available online:
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/12/26/2023-28359/section-45v-credit-for-production-of-clean-
hydrogen-section-48al5-election-to-treat-clean-hydrogen.
608 The White House. "Treasury Sets Out Proposed Rules for Transformative Clean Hydrogen Incentives".
December 22, 2023. Available online: https://www.whitehouse.gov/cleanenergy/clean-energy-
updates/2023/12/22/treasury-sets-out-proposed-rules-for-transformative-clean-hydrogen-
incentives/#:~:text=The%20%C2%A7%2045V%20tax%20credit,catalyze%20nearly%20%2450%20billion%20in.
609 U.S. Department of Energy. "Biden-Harris Administration to Jumpstart Clean Hydrogen Economy with New
Initiative to Provide Market Certainty and Unlock Private Investment". July 5, 2023. Available online:
https://www.energy.gov/articles/biden-harris-administration-jumpstart-clean-hydrogen-economy-new-initiative-
provide-market.
610 U.S. Department of Energy, Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies Office. "Biden-Harris Administration
Announces $623 Million in Grants for EV Charging and Alternative Fueling—Including More Than $90 Million for
Hydrogen Infrastructure". January 30, 2024. Available online: https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/articles/biden-
harris-administration-announces-623-million-grants-ev-charging-and.
611 U.S. DOE. "Biden-Harris Administration Announces $750 Million to Support America's Growing Hydrogen
Industry as Part of Investing in America Agenda." March 13, 2024. Available online:
https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/USEERE/bulletins/3905889.
612 U.S. Department of Energy. "Hydrogen Interagency Task Force". Available online:
https ://www. hydrogen, energy .gov/interagency.
613 Joint Office of Energy and Transportation. "National Zero-Emission Freight Corridor Strategy" DOE/EE-2816
2024. March 2024. Available at https://driveelectric.gov/files/zef-corridor-strategy.pdf.
614 Joint Office of Energy and Transportation. "Biden-Harris Administration, Joint Office of Energy and
Transportation Release Strategy to Accelerate Zero-Emission Freight Infrastructure Deployment." March 12, 2024.
Available online: https://driveelectric.gov/news/decarbonize-freight.
1185
-------
centered around a point with a significant concentration of freight volume (e.g., ports, intermodal
facilities, and truck parking), that supports a broader ecosystem of freight activity throughout
that zone."615 The second phase, from 2027-2030, will connect key ZEV hubs, building out
infrastructure along several major highways. The third phase, from 2030-2045, will expand the
corridors, "including access to charging and fueling to all coastal ports and their surrounding
freight ecosystems for short-haul and regional operations."616 The fourth phase, from 2035-2040,
will complete the freight corridor network. This corridor strategy provides support for the
development of HD ZEV infrastructure that corresponds to the modeled potential compliance
pathway for meeting the final standards. This kind of certainty can allow industry and other
stakeholders to develop emissions reduction solutions that work best for them related to details
such as the form of the fuel (e.g., gaseous or liquid) or the location of stations.
We also agree with commenters that the availability of HD FCEVs for select vehicle
applications in early market volumes by MY 2030, as discussed in RTC Section 5.1, can further
incentivize the deployment of hydrogen refueling stations.617'618 In consideration of comments,
we assessed infrastructure needs and lead time (see RIA Chapter 1.8.3), including California's
experience with building stations for FCEVs and the suggestion that mobile fueling can help fill
gaps as fleets start to adopt HD FCEVs (see RIA Chapter 1.8.3.2). And we re-evaluated our
assumptions about the retail price of hydrogen (see RTC Section 8.2 and RIA Chapter 2.5.3.1),
in consultation with DOE, along with FCEV technology-related costs (see RIA Chapter 2.5.2).
Based on all of these factors, our assessment is that early market buildout of a hydrogen
refueling station network to support the updated FCEV adoption levels in the modeled potential
compliance pathway is feasible in the 2030 to 2032 timeframe.
We are not suggesting that a full national hydrogen infrastructure network needs to be in place
by 2030 or even by 2032, as implied by a few commenters, and specifically note that a full
national hydrogen infrastructure network is not needed to accommodate the demand that we
posit for FCEVs in our modeled potential compliance pathway. First, we project that
manufacturers would choose to adopt FCEVs for a limited number of longer-range HD vehicles
(HD TRUCS coach bus 18 and tractors 41, 45, and 79), that such inclusion in the HD TRUCS
analysis does not begin until MY 2030, and that even then we project FCEVs for these limited
number of vehicle types only at modest adoption rates. For example, in MY 2032, we project
that there would need to be roughly 10,000 FCEVs sold, an adoption rate of 25 percent of long-
haul tractors would be ZEVs (Preamble Table II-4), and that just over 2 percent of new HD
vehicle sales would be FCEVs with most of them being long-haul tractors.
Second, as explained in RIA Chapter 1.8.3.5, through BIL and IRA incentives and private
investment spurred by H2Hubs, we conclude there is opportunity to concentrate HD FCEV
hydrogen demand from the modeled potential compliance pathway in priority areas. Secure and
615 Joint Office of Energy and Transportation. "National Zero-Emission Freight Corridor Strategy" DOE/EE-2816
2024. March 2024. Available at https://driveelectric.gov/files/zef-corridor-strategy.pdf. See page 3.
616 Joint Office of Energy and Transportation. "National Zero-Emission Freight Corridor Strategy" DOE/EE-2816
2024. March 2024. Available at https://driveelectric.gov/files/zef-corridor-strategy.pdf. See page 8.
617 Since at least 2014, a coordinated rollout has been a stated objective of California's program to install hydrogen
fueling stations, for instance—to establish fueling capacity of their station network ahead of hydrogen fuel demand.
618 CARB. "Annual Evaluation of Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle deployment and Hydrogen Fuel Station Network
Development". June 2014. Available online: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-
10/ab8_report_finalJune2014_ac .pdf.
1186
-------
sufficient demand from local or regional anchor fleets would offer certainty that could help lower
infrastructure costs in targeted regions and enable expansion over time. This strategy is supported
in the literature, which includes regional analyses that demonstrate that infrastructure buildout
can start in targeted regions. Similar to BEVs, as explained in RTC 7.1 above, the infrastructure
needed to meet this initial demand will likely be centered in a discrete sub-set of states and
counties where freight activity is concentrated. Thus, the select vehicle applications for which we
project FCEV adoption could start traveling within or between regional hubs in this timeframe
where hydrogen development is prioritized initially. For example, the projects that recently
received more than $90 million to deploy public hydrogen fueling stations along corridors in
Texas, California, and Colorado could be candidates for initial deployment.619'620 We agree with
commenters who pointed out that uncertainty can diminish over time as these technologies are
adopted and near-term challenges are resolved.
We note further, as commenter DTNA points out, that hydrogen infrastructure development
might have certain advantages over BEV infrastructure that favor its rapid deployment such as
existing petroleum infrastructure that can be leveraged in some instances and fewer potential
policy and process challenges (e.g., associated with utility commission regulations).
We agree with commenters that federal investment alone is insufficient (nor is it intended to
be all-encompassing). For example, as noted by AmFree, the impact of the Alternative Fuel
Refueling Property Credit of up to $100,000 may be limited given the cost of a public station.
NREL estimates that a station can cost nearly ~$4 million to up to ~$40 million, depending on its
size and use.621 Thus, we have also assessed private investment and coordination spurred by the
federal investment for hydrogen infrastructure buildout. See RIA Chapters 1.8.3.2. According to
Cipher's Clean Technology Tracker, as of September 2023, there is $45,752 billion in total clean
hydrogen production investment in the United States,622 with 1 percent in projects that are in
operation (close to $500,000), 7 percent ($3.2 million) under construction, and a majority still
classified as announced.623 DOE has started tracking announcements of domestic electrolyzers
and fuel cell manufacturing facilities. So far, over $1.8 billion has been announced in over 10
new and expanded facilities with the capacity to manufacture over 10 GW of electrolyzers per
year.624 We anticipate that private investment strategies will become clearer over time after the
rule is finalized as policy and process details start to settle. We expect this rule will provide
619 U.S. Department of Energy, Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies Office. "Biden-Harris Administration
Announces $623 Million in Grants for EV Charging and Alternative Fueling—Including More Than $90 Million for
Hydrogen Infrastructure". January 30, 2024. Available online: https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/articles/biden-
harris-administration-announces-623-million-grants-ev-charging-and.
620 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. "Charging and Fueling Infrastructure
Program Grant Recipients: FY 2022 and 2023 Grant Award Recipients". Available online:
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/cfi/grant_recipients/.
621 Bracci, Justin, Mariya Koleva, and Mark Chung. "Levelized Cost of Dispensed Hydrogen for Heavy-Duty
Vehicles". National Renewable Energy Laboratory. NREL/TP-5400-88818. March 2024. Available online:
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/Iy24osti/88818.pdf.
622 According to the Clean Technology Tracker, clean hydrogen production refers to the production of hydrogen fuel
with proton exchange membrane (PEM) electrolyzers and solid oxide electrolyzer cells (SOEC) or through other
methods such as methane pyrolysis and natural gas with carbon capture.
623 Cipher. "Tracking a new era of climate solutions: Cleantech growth across the U.S.". Available online:
https://ciphernews.eom/cleantech-tracker/#definitions.
624 U.S. Department of Energy. "Building America's Clean Energy Future". Available online:
https://www.energy.gov/invest.
1187
-------
greater certainty to the market to support timely development of hydrogen refueling stations,
which could consequently allow industry to capture more of the 45 V tax credit potential to
produce clean hydrogen.
We acknowledge the perceived differences noted by MEMA between FCEV projections in
the NPRM and the U.S. National Clean Hydrogen Strategy and Roadmap (Roadmap).625 EPA's
analysis for the NPRM was based on similar information and assumptions as the Roadmap
report, as our agencies have coordinated on this issue.
• The Roadmap report notes that at $4 per kg, the scenario analysis has shown that 10 to 14
percent of all MHD trucks would demand about 5 MMT per year of hydrogen by 2040
and up to 8 MMT per year by 2050.626 The NPRM referred to the same Ledna report but
focused more on the technology-based potential of specific use cases for HD FCEVs at
$4 per kg that resulted in less than 1 MMT hydrogen demand by 2032. The timeframes
are not inconsistent since hydrogen production is expected to ramp up quickly through
2035 and beyond. In the final rule, we revised our hydrogen price so that it is further in
line with DOE's Ledna analysis and Liftoff reports (see RIA Chapter 2.5.3.1).
• MEMA pointed to Figures 7, 8(a), 8(b), and 23 in the Roadmap, suggesting that they
show an infrastructure yet to emerge. However, none of these Figures deal with
infrastructure availability during the rule's timeframe: Figure 7 concerns present
conditions, Figure 8 deals with clean hydrogen production, and Figure 23 displays current
hydrogen and natural gas national pipeline networks. They are not projections of the
future given that there is $9.5 billion of federal investment available to kickstart the clean
hydrogen market, along with an all-of-government Roadmap in place to guide the private
and intergovernmental process. We do agree that hydrogen infrastructure for trucking is
at an earlier stage.
• MEMA also suggested that the timelines for growth of hydrogen generation and
distribution on pages 70 to 75 of the Roadmap do not align with EPA forecasts. As
outlined in RIA Chapter 1.8.3.6, our assessment is that a scenario for early market
buildout of hydrogen refueling stations is in line with the Roadmap timeline:
o Page 70 of the Roadmap report includes an action to, "deploy scalable hydrogen
fueling stations to support early fleet markets, such as heavy-duty trucks and
buses" in 2026 to 2029, which is before the introduction of FCEVs in the modeled
potential compliance pathway of the final rule,
o Page 71 of the Roadmap report includes an action to, "deploy at least two
Regional Clean Hydrogen Hubs, demonstrating hydrogen use in hard-to-
decarbonize sectors (e.g., industry and heavy-duty transport)" in 2026 to 2029,"
likewise consistent with timeline for FCEV introduction that we project in our
modeled potential compliance pathway,
o As mentioned on pages 73-74 of the Roadmap, long-haul heavy-duty trucks (for
example) are part of the "first wave" of hydrogen end uses. As noted above, our
625 U.S. Department of Energy, Hydrogen Program. "DOE National Clean Hydrogen Strategy and Roadmap". June
2023. Available online: https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/library/roadmaps-vision/clean-hydrogen-strategy-
roadmap, https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/docs/hydrogenprogramlibraries/pdfs/us-national-clean-hydrogen-
strategy-roadmap.pdf.
626 See page 19 and Figure 12 of the Roadmap report.
1188
-------
modeled compliance pathway likewise projects HD FCEV use for only a limited
percentage of longer-range vehicle types.
We recognize that these plans will represent increases in hydrogen infrastructure, and our
assessment, in consultation with relevant federal agencies, is that our projections are supported
and correspond to our measured approach in our modeled compliance pathway for FCEVs. EPA
is also committed to ensuring the Phase 3 program is successfully implemented and, as described
in preamble Section II.B.2.iii, in consideration of concerns raised regarding inherent
uncertainties about the future, we are including a commitment to monitor progress on
infrastructure development in the final rule.
AmFree pointed out that hydrogen refueling infrastructure is nascent compared to BEV
charging infrastructure. In December 2023, DOE announced plans to spend $59 million to
advance research, development, demonstration, and deployment of technologies for HD FCEV
stations.627 There is global momentum to continue to develop technologies to deliver hydrogen to
FCEVs as well. For example, in May 2023, European Union states reached an agreement to build
hydrogen refueling stations in all major cities at 200 km intervals along core highway networks,
including for HD FCEVs, starting in 2030.628
AmFree also raised certain issues regarding uncertainties relating to transport and
management of hydrogen. Specifically, they indicated that there are issues of metal
embrittlement, safety related to the delivery of hydrogen, and the low gravimetric density of
hydrogen, which they said EPA failed to address. We understand that hydrogen can permeate
cracked steel pipes and cause metal embrittlement. If left unattended, leakage or explosions are
possible. DOE's Liftoff report refers to embrittlement in relation to pipelines. They indicate that,
"like all pipelines (natural gas, ammonia, etc.), hydrogen pipelines are designed around codes
and standards to ensure safety and account for unique properties of the molecule)" and indicate
that proper monitoring and maintenance can reduce risk.629,630 We are not aware of major
concerns about metal embrittlement related to HD FCEVs but address a range of FCEV and
hydrogen safety issues in RTC Section 5.2 and RIA Chapter 1.7.4. In short, the entire hydrogen
627 U.S. Department of Transportation, Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies Office. "DOE Announces $59 Million
to Advance National Clean Hydrogen Strategy". December 15, 2023. Available online:
https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/articles/doe-announces-59-million-advance-national-clean-hydrogen-
strategy#:~:text=DOE%20Announces%20%2459%20Million%20to%20Advance%20the%20National%20Clean%2
0Hydrogen%20Strategy,-
December%2015%2C%202023&text=The%20Department%20of%20Energy%20(DOE,of%20affordable%20clean
%2Dhydrogen%20technologies.
628 Martin, Polly. "Europe to install hundreds of hydrogen filling stations by 2030 after EU ministers give final
approval to AFIR". Hydrogenlnsight. July 25, 2023. Available online:
https://www.hydrogeninsight.com/policy/europe-to-install-hundreds-of-hydrogen-filling-stations-by-2030-after-eu-
ministers-give-final-approval-to-afir/2-1-1491167.
629 U.S. Department of Energy. "Pathways to Commercial Liftoff: Clean Hydrogen". March 2023. Available online:
https://liftoff.energy.gOv/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/20230523-Pathways-to-Commercial-Liftoff-Clean-
Hydrogen.pdf.
630 Campari, Alessandro, et. al. "A review of hydrogen embrittlement and risk-based inspection of hydrogen
technologies". International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, Volume 48, Issue 90. November 9, 2023. Available
online: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360319923027106.
1189
-------
value chain—from production to distribution and end use—is regulated to address safety
concerns. 631,632
Regarding the density of hydrogen, please note that in RIA Chapter 1.8.1, we say that
hydrogen has low energy density (i.e., volumetric density), so it must be compressed or liquified
for use, but high specific energy (i.e., gravimetric density), with about 2.5 to 3 times the energy
content per unit of mass than gasoline or diesel.633 We recognize that hydrogen tanks can add
weight (see RTC Section 5) and volume (see RTC Section 5.3), but our assessment at this time is
that neither pose constraints on the feasibility of HD FCEVs as they are evaluated in HD
TRUCS.
8.2 Hydrogen Fuel Costs
Comments by Organizations:
Organization: American Trucking Associations (ATA)
ICCT's analysis of hydrogen pricing and refueling indicates a lack of cost competitiveness
before 2035, while EPA's preferred proposal would require 10 percent of the line-haul market to
be ZEV in 2030 with hydrogen-fuel cell winning out.26 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1535-A1, p.
19]
26 The International Council on Clean Transportation, Near-Term Infrastructure Deployment to Support
Zero-Emission Medium-and Heavy-Duty Vehicles in the United States, pgs. 16-17 May 2023.
"Our renewable hydrogen price projections of $8/kg-$10/kg in 2040 means there will be very
few cases of lower cost of ownership for hydrogen long-haul trucks over their battery-electric
counterparts. Hydrogen trucks could become cost-competitive in the late 2030s, if hydrogen
became significantly lower than our central estimate. However even with median hydrogen
prices as low as $3, we find no significant business case for hydrogen trucks before 2035 due to
lower technology maturity." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1535-A1, p. 19]
Organization: Clean Air Task Force et al.
b. EPA is correct that hydrogen prices will continue to fall.
As the hydrogen market grows, economies of scale will likely help bring the levelized cost of
hydrogen in line with EPA projections of $4/kg by 2030. Two key areas where costs are
expected to drop are electricity and electrolyzers, which have the potential over time, according
to a report from the International Renewable Energy Agency, "to cut hydrogen costs by
80%."290 If this occurs, it will be due to reductions in electrolyzer cost, increasing electrolyzer
capacity factors as more renewables come online, increasing electrolyzer durability that results in
631 Baird, et. al. "Federal Oversight of Hydrogen Systems". Sandia National Laboratories. March 2021. Available
online: https://energy.sandia.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/H2-Regulatory-Map-Report_SAND2021-2955.pdf.
632 Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. "Hydrogen Tools". Available online: https://h2tools.org/.
633 Chukwudi Tashie-Lewis, Bernard and Somtochukwu Godfrey Nnabuife. "Hydrogen Production, Distribution,
Storage and Power Conversion in a Hydrogen Economy—A Technology Review". Chemical Engineering Journal
Advances, Volume 8. November 15, 2021. Available online:
https://www.sciencedirect.eom/science/article/pii/S2666821121000880#bib0012.
1190
-------
lifetimes closer to 20 years rather than 10, increasing electrolyzer efficiency (greater than 70
percent by lower heating value), and electricity costs falling into the $20/MWh range. If all of
those things come to pass, hydrogen production costs, not including transport, storage, and
dispensing, could fall under $2/kg in 2030. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 66]
290 Int'l Renewable Energy Agency, Making the breakthrough: Green hydrogen policies and technology
costs 10-11, figs. 1-2 (2021), https://www.irena.org/publications/2020/Dec/Green-hydrogen-cost-reduction.
291 Energy Transitions Comm'n, Making the Hydrogen Economy Possible: Accelerating Clean Hydrogen
in an Electrified Economy 45 (2021), https://energy-transitions.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/ETC-
Global-Hydrogen-Report.pdf.
The UC Davis report292 used to model market penetration also included a model-based
projection for the cost of hydrogen that is broken down into production costs as well as transport,
storage, and dispensing costs. This analysis uses SERA to analyze the hydrogen supply chain for
a range of scenarios and sensitivity cases. Those scenarios look at both natural gas with carbon
capture and electrolyzer-based production methods for the 2025 to 2035 timeframe and find a
cost of $5-$6/kg at the pump in 2030. This analysis assumes that delivery trucks would be used
for local distribution (distances less than 32 miles) and pipelines would be used for longer
distances (up to 625 miles). The hydrogen production costs in 2030 are projected to be $2-$4/kg
and the transport, storage, and dispensing costs $2-$3/kg, where the larger volumes handled in
the pipeline scenarios resulted in cheaper production costs but more expensive
distribution. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 67]
292 Fulton et al., §6.1.
It is important to note that all three of these analyses do not include the effect of the hydrogen
production tax credit in the IRA.293 Taking that into account, all three would see the cost of
hydrogen at or below the $4/kg level projected by EPA. As such, $4/kg by 2030 is achievable
assuming the hydrogen and FCEV markets ramp up as expected and industry participants along
the supply chain make full use of available incentives. States are aiding this process by adopting
laws that further incentivize the use of hydrogen for heavy-duty vehicles.294 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 67]
293 See 26 U.S.C. § 45 V (providing a tax credit of up to $3 per kilogram of clean hydrogen produced)
294 For example, Colorado recently passed a law that provides tax credits for the use of hydrogen,
including in heavy-duty vehicles. See H.R. 1281, 2023 Leg., Reg. Sess. (Colo. 2023),
https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/2023a_1281_signed.pdf.
Organization: Daimler Truck North America LLC (DTNA)
DTNA agrees with EPA's projection that hydrogen may potentially be cost-competitive as a
fuel by 2030, but this projection must be regularly evaluated as the market develops. In addition,
there is not sufficient data to accurately project the rate of hydrogen station proliferation now,
seven years before the fuel is expected to be cost-competitive. The existing petroleum network
required several decades to build, and it is likely hydrogen will need additional time before
becoming available nationwide to enable hydrogen-fueled regional and long-haul applications.
For this reason, the availability of hydrogen fueling infrastructure must be factored in to the
infrastructure scalar that DTNA proposes be included in EPA's C02 stringency calculations, as
discussed below in Section II.C of these comments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 60]
1191
-------
Hydrogen pricing cannot be accurately forecasted, thus the hydrogen price inputs used in HD
TRUCS must be reviewed as the market develops. Today, hydrogen dispensed at California
hydrogen stations costs as much as $17.00 per kilogram. EPA projects that the cost of hydrogen
will fall to $4.00 per kilogram in 2030 and beyond, whereas ICCT projected the 2030 green
hydrogen price to be $9.86 per kilogram. Using ICCT's analysis, hydrogen-fueled vehicles will
not achieve cost parity with comparable ICE vehicles until after 2040. While DTNA is optimistic
that the price of hydrogen will fall, the Company does not believe that the future costs of
hydrogen can be accurately projected to inform adoption rate and CO2 stringency at this time.
Organization: Dana Incorporated
EPA should also conduct studies to analyze the impact of new federal incentives on the cost
of producing hydrogen, which could play an important role for long-haul trucks. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1610-A1, p. 2.]
Organization: International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT)
ASSUMPTIONS REGARDING THE RETAIL PRICE OF HYDROGEN EPA references
Argonne National Laboratory's BEAN model for a $4/kg hydrogen retail price in 2030 and
references the DOE's Liftoff report for a $4-$5/kg hydrogen price in 2030, and stating both
values incorporate IRA incentives from the Inflation Reduction Act in their prices (Islam et al.,
2022; Murdoch et al., 2023). However, both citations source the hydrogen price from a cost
parity analysis done by NREL published prior to the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act
(Ledna et al., 2022). This NREL study analyzed the required retail hydrogen price for fuel-cell
electric vehicles, including buses and long-distance trucks, to reach total cost of ownership parity
with diesel comparators. The hydrogen price at which the vehicles reach cost parity, determined
to be $4-$5/kg, was referenced as the 'willingness to pay' fuel price in the DOE's Liftoff report.
Therefore, the $4/kg hydrogen price used by EPA cannot reflect the real market. It is more
appropriate to take a bottom-up approach to understand what fleet owners would pay at the
hydrogen refueling station. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1553-A1, p. 15]
Islam, E. S., Vijayagopal, R., & Rousseau, A. (2022). A Comprehensive Simulation Study to Evaluate
Future Vehicle Energy and Cost Reduction Potential (ANL/ESD-22/6). Transportation and Power Systems
Division, Argonne National Laboratory.
https://anl.app.box.eom/s/qc3nov3w25qmxs20b2m2wmru0gadp83z
Murdoch, H., Munster, J., Satyapal, S., Rustagi, N., Elgowainy, A., & Penev, M. (2023). Pathways to
Commercial Liftoff: Clean Hydrogen. U.S. Department of Energy.
https://liftoff.energy.gOv/wpcontent/uploads/2023/05/20230523-Pathways-to-Commercial-Liftoff-Clean-
Hydrogen.pdf
Ledna, C., Muratori, M., Yip, A., Jadun, P., & Hoehne, C. (2022). Decarbonizing Medium- & Heavy-Duty
On-Road Vehicles: Zero-Emission Vehicles Cost Analysis. National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
https://doi.org/10.2172/1854583
A bottom-up analysis would estimate all the potential costs along the hydrogen supply chain
that would contribute to the final retail price. The main cost components are hydrogen
production, hydrogen distribution, and hydrogen dispensing. EPA references three studies for the
production cost of green hydrogen, including a past study from ICCT. Among the three studies
cited, only the Rhodium Group's cost ($0.39/kg -$1.92/kg) considered the hydrogen production
1192
-------
tax credit (PTC) under the Inflation Reduction Act. However, that report simply subtracted $3/kg
(the maximum value of the hydrogen PTC) from its estimated green hydrogen production cost
without PTC ($3.39-$4.92 /kg). This is not how the PTC works in the real world. To reflect the
impact of the PTC accurately, it is necessary to apply a discounted cash flow (DCF) model that
evaluates the annual incomes and expenses at a hydrogen production plant. This cash flow
analysis would determine the amount of annual tax liability by the hydrogen producer with and
without the PTC. Similarly, the DOE's Liftoff report provided a range for green hydrogen
production cost of $ 1.5/kg - $3.4/kg without the PTC and a less than or equal to $0.4/kg cost
with PTC, explaining that, '$0.40/kg is when the PTC is applied in a given year / point-in-time
and clean hydrogen costs can go negative. However, if investors apply a discounted cash flow
DCF) to calculate the value of the credit (10-years) over 25+ year asset life, the value of the
credit will fall from $3/kg (point-in-time) to ~$1.4/kg (applying DCF on the value of the PTC)'.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1553-A1, p. 15]
A more recent ICCT study estimated the retail green hydrogen price considering the PTC and
using a DCF model (Slowik et al., 2023). This analysis follows the detailed provisions in the
Inflation Reduction Act to best reflect the impact of the PTC. Specifically, the 10-year tax credit
starts in 2023 and ends in 2030, meaning that only producers that started operating early in 2023
would receive the full 10-year credits while plants start in 2030 would only receive 2 years of
PTC out of the plant's lifetime of 30 years. Besides the $3/kg clean hydrogen PTC, the
$0.026/kWh PTC for renewable electricity is also included, since the two are allowed to be
combined under the Act. In addition, the PTCs for clean hydrogen are refundable for the first
five years of operation per 'direct pay' provision under section 6417 of the Act. Further, tax
'transferability' under section 6418 was also included, where both renewable electricity and
clean hydrogen producers are eligible to sell their unused tax credits to a buyer who has the tax
value of the credit will fall from $3/kg (point-in-time) to ~$1.4/kg (applying DCF on the value of
the PTC)'. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1553-A1, p. 15]
value of the credit will fall from $3/kg (point-in-time) to ~$1.4/kg (applying DCF on the
value of the PTC)'. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1553-A1, p. 15]
value of the credit will fall from $3/kg (point-in-time) to ~$1.4/kg (applying DCF on the
value of the PTC)'. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1553-A1, p. 15]
burden. The ICCT result shows that the PTCs would reduce the levelized production cost of
green hydrogen by $2/kg for a plant start in 2023, decreasing to $0.3/kg for a plant start in 2030.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1553-A1, p. 15]
Slowik, P., Searle, S., Basma, H., Miller, J., Zhou, Y., Rodriguez, F., Buysse, C., Minjares, R., Kelly, S., &
Pierce, L. (2023). Analyzing the impact of the Inflation Reduction Act on electric vehicle uptake in the
United States. International Council on Clean Transportation, https://theicct.org/publication/ira-
impactevs- us-jan23/
For hydrogen distribution and dispensing costs estimates of $l/kg-$2/kg EPA references two
reports (Rustagi et al., 2018; Satyapal, 2022). However, the numbers cited are based on very
optimistic scenarios with aggressive fuel-cell electric vehicle market uptake, high-volume
hydrogen supply and refueling, and advanced research and development accomplishment. In
contrast, the same DOE 2018 document that is referenced by EPA (Rustagi et al., 2018)
projected distribution and dispensing cost of $4.2/kg-$4.9/kg in 2025, which is more realistic.
1193
-------
The ICCT analysis of the Inflation Reduction Act assumed a $4.6/kg cost in 2030, decreasing to
$2/kg in 2050, based on an Argonne National Laboratory study of prices in the United States and
an impact assessment of the Alternative Fuel Infrastructure Regulation in the EU (European
Commission, 2021; Reddi et al., 2017). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1553-A1, pp. 15-16]
Rustagi, N., Elgowainy, A., & Vickers, J. (2018). Current Status of Hydrogen Delivery and Dispensing
Costs and Pathways to Future Cost Reductions (No. 18003). U.S. Department of Energy.
https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/18003_current_status_hydrogen_delivery_dispen
sing_costs.pdf
Satyapal, S. (2022, June 6). 2022 AMR Plenary Session. 2022 Annual Merit Review Plenary Session.
https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2022-06/hfto-amr-plenary-satyapal-2022-l.pdf
European Commission. (2021). Impact Assessment Accompanying the Proposal for a
Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Deployment of Alternative
Fuels Infrastructure, and Repealing Directive 2014/94/EU of the European Parliament and of the
Council. https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-10877-2021-ADD-3/en/pdf
Reddi, K., Elgowainy, A., Rustagi, N., & Gupta, E. (2017). Impact of hydrogen refueling configurations
and market parameters on the refueling cost of hydrogen. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy,
42(34), 21855-21865. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.05.122
Taking all of this into consideration, ICCT estimates about $9.5/kg retail fueling price in
2030, assuming green hydrogen and meeting the 700-bar pressure requirement and high
hydrogen purity requirement by the FCEV. This estimate taken from Slowik et al., 2023 is
significantly greater than the price used in the EPA rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1553-A1,
p. 16]
Slowik, P., Searle, S., Basma, H., Miller, J., Zhou, Y., Rodriguez, F., Buysse, C., Minjares, R., Kelly, S., &
Pierce, L. (2023). Analyzing the impact of the Inflation Reduction Act on electric vehicle uptake in the
United States. International Council on Clean Transportation, https://theicct.org/publication/ira-impactevs-
us-jan23/
Organization: MEMA
g) Hydrogen needs support to reach Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) parity with conventional
technology. Hydrogen is not expected to have good TCO unless it gets to $5/gal and then it will
need deployment at stations.
EPA Summary and Response:
Summary:
We received a range of comments on hydrogen fuel costs. CATF highlighted several reports
that indicate large potential for the hydrogen price to rapidly drop with economies of scale,
particularly on the production side. For example, they cited a UC Davis study for California,
which estimated a potential retail price for green hydrogen of $5 to 6 per kg in 2030, where
production costs are projected to be $2 to $4 per kg and distribution and dispensing costs could
fall to $2 to $3 per kg. They noted that, after taking hydrogen production tax credit incentives
into account, the estimates from all three studies would fall within the range of EPA's proposal.
They pointed to reductions in electricity price and the cost of electrolyzers as two main factors
1194
-------
that could impact hydrogen production prices. CATF also noted that states such as Colorado are
adopting laws that further incentivize the use of hydrogen in HD vehicles.
Several commenters expressed concern about the hydrogen price assumption in the NPRM or
said that prices cannot be predicted at this time. ATA and OEMs pointed to ICCT's analysis,
which indicated that FCEVs would not be cost-competitive before 2035 due to low technology
maturity. ICCT said that it is better to conduct a bottom-up analysis that considers hydrogen fuel
production, distribution, and dispensing that uses a model to properly account for potential tax
credit benefits to understand what fleet owners would pay at hydrogen refueling stations. They
showed how they did this to estimate a final retail price for green hydrogen (at 700 bar and to
meet high purity needs of FCEVs) in 2030 of $9.50/kg, which is over twice the price that EPA
projected in the NPRM. They said that the DOE reports we referenced in the proposed rule
include a "willingness to pay" that reflects the total price at which FCEVs could reach cost parity
with diesel vehicles, which cannot reflect the real market.
DTNA agreed that hydrogen may be cost-competitive by 2030 but asserted that progress
needs to be regularly evaluated as the market develops. They stated there is not sufficient data to
project station buildout nationwide to enable regional and long-haul applications. They noted
that the petroleum fueling network took several decades to build. DTNA shared the high price of
hydrogen in California now and pointed to ICCT's report that found that HD FCEVs will not
reach cost parity with comparable ICE vehicles until after 2040. They suggested including an
infrastructure scalar to adjust the stringency of the standards based on the pace of buildout.
MEMA suggested that hydrogen would need to get to a price of $5 per kg to reach TCO
parity with conventional technology, and then the fuel will need to be deployed at stations.
Dana suggested that EPA should conduct studies to analyze the impact of federal incentives
on the cost of producing hydrogen.
Response:
EPA discusses the issue of hydrogen cost in detail in RIA Chapter 2.5.3.1, which includes a
review of literature that addresses the ICCT paper mentioned by several commenters. We note
here in summary that, after further consideration, including of public comment and in
consultation with DOE, our initial estimate of a retail hydrogen price of $4 per kg in 2030 in the
proposal was adjusted higher in this final rule to $6 per kg in 2030 and dropping to $4 per kg in
2035. This is intended to reflect a price that fleet owners would pay at hydrogen refueling
stations.
To evaluate our estimates further, and in response to comments, the National Renewable
Energy Laboratory (NREL) conducted a bottom-up analysis that explores the potential range of
levelized costs of dispensed hydrogen (LCOH) from hydrogen refueling stations for HD FCEVs
in 2030. The authors conclude that the overall system LCOH for stations in 2030 is estimated to
range from ~$3.80/kg-H2 to ~$13/kg-H2.634 This cost range is not the same as a retail price, but
we assume that any retail markup at the station is minimal, given that gas and diesel fuel retailers
634 Bracci, Justin, Mariya Koleva, and Mark Chung. "Levelized Cost of Dispensed Hydrogen for Heavy-Duty
Vehicles". National Renewable Energy Laboratory. NREL/TP-5400-88818. March 2024. Available online:
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy24osti/88818.pdf.
1195
-------
generally make very little selling fuel.635>636 Importantly, it does not consider any tax incentives
or other state or federal incentive policies that may further reduce the retail price that consumers
see at a fueling station in 2030. Therefore, we conclude that our retail price of hydrogen is within
a reasonable range of anticipated values. MEMA suggested that hydrogen would need to be $5
per kg to get to a total cost of ownership (TCO) parity with conventional technology. ICCT
noted that the National Clean Hydrogen Strategy and Roadmap637 and Liftoff Report638 identify
a willingness to pay (or threshold price) for clean hydrogen of $4 to $5 per kg for commercial
trucks and buses. We acknowledge that our revised hydrogen price projection for the final rule of
$6 per kg in 2030 is above $5 per kg and that our projection of $5.20 per kg in 2032 is still
slightly above the threshold price (see RIA Chapter 2.5.3.1). Importantly, however, our
projections indicate that the price would fall below $5 per kg by 2033 and thus the use of
hydrogen would become more at parity with diesel fuel within one to two years of HD FCEV
vehicle ownership. RIA Chapter 2.9.2 includes our payback calculations to determine the
number of years that it will take for the annual operational savings of a ZEV to offset the
incremental upfront purchase price of a BEV or FCEV. This analysis shows that when purchased
in 2030, two of the four HD FCEVs in the modeled potential compliance pathway pay back in
less than 10 years639 and, when purchased in 2032, all four HD FCEVs pay back in four to seven
years due to operational savings. See RIA Chapter 2.12 for a related TCO analysis.
CATF asserted that hydrogen prices will continue to fall, and possibly lower than we
projected in the proposed rule by 2030. We agree that many factors are at play that will
ultimately impact the price and recognize that the potential hydrogen market is larger than the
transportation sector, as outlined in RIA Chapter 1.8.3.5. According to the U.S. National
Strategy, long-haul heavy-duty trucks are within the "first wave" of hydrogen market
development in the U.S.640 There are BIL and IRA incentives in place to develop seven H2Hubs
that could start to produce clean hydrogen and deliver it to end uses during the timeframe of the
rule, possibly in addition to the 10 million metric tons that is produced annually today.641 This
includes up to $4 billion in tax credits for the manufacturing of hydrogen production equipment
635 West Virginia Oil Marketers and Grocers Association. "How Much Money Do Businesses Make on Fuel
Purchases?" Available online: https://www.omegawv.com/faq/140-how-much-money-do-businesses-make-on-fuel-
purchases.html#:~:text=Retailers%20Make%20Very%20Little%20Selling,cents%20per%20gallon%20in%20profit..
636 Kinnier, Alex. "I've analyzed the profit margins of 30,000 gas stations. Here's the proof fuel retailers are not to
blame for high gas prices". Fortune. August 9, 2022. Available online: https://fortune.com/2022/08/09/energy-
profit-margins-gas-stations-proof-fuel-retailers-high-gas-prices-alex-kinnier/.
637 U.S. Department of Energy. "U.S. National Clean Hydrogen Strategy and Roadmap". June 2023. Available
online: https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/library/roadmaps-vision/clean-hydrogen-strategy-roadmap,
https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/docs/hydrogenprogramlibraries/pdfs/us-national-clean-hydrogen-strategy-
roadmap.pdf.
638 U.S. Department of Energy. "Pathways to Commercial Liftoff: Clean Hydrogen". March 2023. Available online:
https://liftoff.energy.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/20230523-Pathways-to-Commercial-Liftoff-Clean-
Hydrogen.pdf.
639 As mentioned in RIA Chapter 2.9, vehicles with a payback of greater than 10 years (including the two HD
FCEVs that do not pay back in 2030) were not considered when developing the standards based on the modeled
potential compliance pathway.
640 This is based on estimated willingness to pay and the relative attractiveness of hydrogen as a decarbonization
solution as well as stakeholder input.
641 Satyapal, Sunita. "U.S. DOE Hydrogen Program Annual Merit Review (AMR) Plenary Remarks". U.S.
Department of Energy. June 5, 2023. Available online: https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2023-06/h2amr-
plenary-satyapal-2023_0.pdf.
1196
-------
and fuel cells, among other technologies.642'643 As suggested in DOE's Liftoff report, "as fleets
begin to transition to clean hydrogen, a reinforcing feedback loop could occur in which hydrogen
infrastructure catalyzes more FCEV production, and thus—more FCEV production leads to
lower cost vehicles, more customer demand, and more widely scaled, lower-cost hydrogen
infrastructure" as challenges such as those identified by commenters can be overcome.644 This
final rule provides greater certainty to early market HD FCEV participants who can initiate
market development so that lower hydrogen fuel costs are realized by MY 2030.
DTNA said that there is insufficient data to project hydrogen station buildout and related
pricing, noting that California's price for hydrogen is currently high. We understand that the
hydrogen price in California spiked recently, from an average of $14.95 per kg in the second
quarter of 2022 to $36 per kg in August 2023. According to the State, causes include supply
chain constraints, hydrogen supply disruptions, and equipment failures, and the State is taking
actions to address these issues, some of which are still related to COVID-19 pandemic-related
slowdowns.645 S&P Global found that key challenges affecting hydrogen supply and prices in
California reflect an immature FCEV fueling infrastructure market. According to data collected
by S&P Global, fuel availability and price volatility have not been issues for transit bus FCEVs
because transit agencies structure long-term fixed hydrogen price supply contracts to meet their
needs. Transit agencies require more fuel and more station operations and maintenance (O&M)
so are less risk-prone than smaller stations for light-duty vehicles.646 We expect that as hydrogen
production develops to meet higher levels of demand required by HD FCEVs, there will be fewer
issues with supply. Another challenge identified in California is the equipment failures at
stations. California issued a solicitation to support O&M, along with a manufacturing grant to
produce hydrogen refueling equipment, and they entered into a contract to conduct surveys to
investigate issues further.647 DOE is also funding efforts to advance research, development,
demonstration, and deployment of technologies for HD FCEV stations and to address station
642 Satyapal, Sunita. "U.S. DOE Hydrogen Program Annual Merit Review (AMR) Plenary Remarks". U.S.
Department of Energy. June 5, 2023. Available online: https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2023-06/h2amr-
plenary-satyapal-2023_0.pdf.
643 Internal Revenue Service. "IRS provides additional guidance for advanced energy projects". May 31, 2023.
Available online: https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/irs-provides-additional-guidance-for-advanced-energy-projects.
644 U.S. Department of Energy. "Pathways to Commercial Liftoff: Clean Hydrogen". March 2023. Available online:
https://liftoff.energy.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/20230523-Pathways-to-Commercial-Liftoff-Clean-
Hydrogen.pdf.
645 Crowell, et. al. "Joint Agency Staff Report on Assembly Bill 8: 2023 Annual Assessment of the Hydrogen
Refueling Network in California". CEC/CARB. CEC-600-2023-069. December 2023. Available online:
https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2023-12/CEC-600-2023-069.pdf.
646 Canel Soria, Santiago and Daniel Weeks. "Feature: Logistical woes and high pump prices stall California H2
market development". S&P Global: Commodity Insights. January 25, 2024. Available online:
https://www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights/en/market-insights/latest-news/energy-transition/012324-logistical-
woes-and-high-pump-prices-stall-california-h2-market-development.
647 Crowell, et. al. "Joint Agency Staff Report on Assembly Bill 8: 2023 Annual Assessment of the Hydrogen
Refueling Network in California". CEC/CARB. CEC-600-2023-069. December 2023. Available online:
https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2023-12/CEC-600-2023-069.pdf.
1197
-------
reliability issues.648'649 We expect equipment failures will decrease over time as both
manufacturers and operators of equipment gain experience with it while bringing it to scale. The
modeled potential compliance pathway in the final rule includes an early market level of FCEV
adoption, which allows for growth in technology maturity before and during the 2030 to 2032
timeframe and prior to more widespread adoption in later years. We anticipate that infrastructure
concerns can be addressed to meet the needs of an early market HD FCEV fleet by 2030.
DTNA also noted that the petroleum network took decades to build. MEMA suggested that
prices need to be cost-effective prior to station deployment. As discussed in RTC Section 8.1, we
are not suggesting that a full national hydrogen infrastructure network needs to be in place by
2030 or even by 2032, and specifically note that a full national hydrogen infrastructure network
is not needed to accommodate the demand that we posit for FCEVs in our modeled potential
compliance pathway. EPA does believe, however, that a full infrastructure network for hydrogen
can be achieved over the coming decades. To help accomplish this goal, the U.S. released a
National Zero-Emission Freight Corridor Strategy650 in March 2024 that, "sets an actionable
vision and comprehensive approach to accelerating the deployment of a world-class, zero-
emission freight network across the United States by 2040. The strategy focuses on advancing
the deployment of zero-emission medium- and heavy-duty vehicle (ZE-MHDV) fueling
infrastructure by targeting public investment to amplify private sector momentum, focus utility
and regulatory energy planning, align industry activity, and mobilize communities for clean
transportation."651 The strategy has four phases. The first phase, from 2024-2027, focuses on
establishing freight hubs defined "as a 100-mile to a 150-mile radius zone or geographic area
centered around a point with a significant concentration of freight volume (e.g., ports, intermodal
facilities, and truck parking), that supports a broader ecosystem of freight activity throughout
that zone."652 The second phase, from 2027-2030, will connect key ZEV hubs, building out
infrastructure along several major highways. The third phase, from 2030-2045, will expand the
corridors, "including access to charging and fueling to all coastal ports and their surrounding
freight ecosystems for short-haul and regional operations."653 The fourth phase, from 2035-2040,
will complete the freight corridor network. This corridor strategy provides support for the
development of HD ZEV infrastructure that corresponds to the modeled potential compliance
648 U.S. Department of Energy, Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies Office. "DOE Announces $59 Million to
Advance National Clean Hydrogen Strategy". December 15, 2023. Available online:
https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/articles/doe-announces-59-million-advance-national-clean-hydrogen-
strategy#:~:text=DOE%20Announces%20%2459%20Million%20to%20Advance%20the%20National%20Clean%2
0Hydrogen%20Strategy,-
December%2015%2C%202023&text=The%20Department%20of%20Energy%20(DOE,of%20affordable%20clean
%2Dhydrogen%20technologies.
649 National Renewable Energy Lab. "News Release: Predictive Model Could Improve Hydrogen Station
Availability". September 18, 2023. Available online: https://www.nrel.gov/news/press/2023/news-release-
predictive-model-could-improve-hydrogen-station-availability.html.
650 Joint Office of Energy and Transportation. "National Zero-Emission Freight Corridor Strategy" DOE/EE-2816
2024. March 2024. Available at https://driveelectric.gov/files/zef-corridor-strategy.pdf.
651 Joint Office of Energy and Transportation. "Biden-Harris Administration, Joint Office of Energy and
Transportation Release Strategy to Accelerate Zero-Emission Freight Infrastructure Deployment." March 12, 2024.
Available online: https://driveelectric.gov/news/decarbonize-freight.
652 Joint Office of Energy and Transportation. "National Zero-Emission Freight Corridor Strategy" DOE/EE-2816
2024. March 2024. Available at https://driveelectric.gov/files/zef-corridor-strategy.pdf. See page 3.
653 Joint Office of Energy and Transportation. "National Zero-Emission Freight Corridor Strategy" DOE/EE-2816
2024. March 2024. Available at https://driveelectric.gov/files/zef-corridor-strategy.pdf. See page 8.
1198
-------
pathway for meeting the final standards. EPA is committed to ensuring the Phase 3 program is
successfully implemented, and as described in preamble Section II, in consideration of concerns
raised regarding inherent uncertainties about the future, we are including a commitment to
monitor progress on infrastructure development in the final rule. Please see RTC Section 2.9 for
a response to comments about the need for an infrastructure scalar.
1199
-------
9 ICE Vehicle Technologies
9.1 Fuels
Comments by Organizations
Organization: American Free Enterprise Chamber of Commerce (AmFree) et al.
E. EPA Failed To Consider Alternatives
EPA also unreasonably ignored alternative solutions to the proposed heavy-duty emissions
standards. Agencies are required, as part of any reasoned decision-making process, to consider
all "significant and viable and obvious alternatives" to their proposed action. Dist. Hosp.
Partners, 786 F.3d at 59 (citation omitted); see Spirit Airlines, Inc. v. DOT, 997 F.3d 1247, 1255
(D.C. Cir. 2021) ("[T]he failure of an agency to consider obvious alternatives has led uniformly
to reversal." (quoting Yakima Valley Cablevision, Inc. v. FCC, 794 F.2d 737, 746 n.36 (D.C.
Cir. 1986))). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1660-A1, p. 67]
Here, EPA failed to consider any alternatives that did not fall within the narrow category of
tailpipe-emissions standards. The agency instead considered only whether emissions standards of
varying level of stringency or with differing phase-in periods may be appropriate alternatives.
See 88 Fed. Reg. at 26,082-83. But tailpipe-emissions standards are not the only means available
to achieve EPA's stated goal of "reducing] GHG air pollution from" heavy-duty vehicles. Id. at
25,928. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1660-A1, p. 67]
For instance, in its parallel proposed rule on emissions standards for light and medium-duty
vehicles, EPA asserted that it has authority to impose fuel controls—though it requested
comment only on whether fuel controls should be used in the future as a "complement" to
emissions standards, rather than as an alternative to them. 88 Fed. Reg. at 29,397-98. But the
heavy-duty rule at issue here does not address fuel controls as an alternative at all. That omission
violates the requirement of reasoned decisionmaking. 12 Cf. Am. Radio Relay League, Inc. v.
FCC, 524 F.3d 227, 242 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (remanding where agency did not "consider
responsible alternatives to its chosen policy and . . . give a reasoned explanation for its rejection
of such alternatives" (citation omitted)). EPA's failure to consider any non-emissions-standard-
based alternatives to the proposed rule renders the proposed rule arbitrary and capricious. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985- 1660-A1, p. 67]
12 We do not at this time express any view on any particular fuel-control measure, and any regulation
incorporating such measures would first have to be proposed for public comment. See 42 U.S.C. § 7607(d).
We simply note the proposed rule's failure to address this alternative.
Organization: American Highway Users Alliance
In addition, EPA seems to have given little or no consideration to incentives for lower
emission liquid fuels as part of the solution to reducing lifecycle emissions from heavy-duty
vehicles. Such fuels are already in the marketplace; increasing their use would appear to be
achievable. Policy approaches to help encourage the production of lower emission liquid fuels
could offer near-term emissions reductions from existing vehicles, potentially at a lower cost to
1200
-------
society. Yet, EPA's proposal in this docket focuses on electrification as the sole means of
reducing emissions from heavy-duty vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1550-A1, p. 3]
Greater use of lower-emission liquid fuels should be part of the overall approach to reducing
emissions from heavy-duty vehicles.
As noted earlier, the discussion in the NPRM seems to have given little or no consideration to
the potential gains in emissions reductions that medium- and heavy-duty fleets could achieve
through greater use of lower emission fuels. Fuels produced with lower emission renewable
feedstocks and traditional fuels produced with lower carbon intensities, such as in association
with carbon capture and sequestration, exist today and are scalable with the right policy support.
Greater use of these fuels could help progress emission reductions from existing fleets while
refueling infrastructure, recharging infrastructure and critical mineral supply chains develop.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1550-A1, p. 8]
Even with the accelerated fleet turnover the EPA's proposed standards seek, millions of
medium and heavy-duty vehicles with internal combustion engines will remain on the roads in
the coming decades. Instead of pursuing policies that focus on a sole technology pathway for
achieving transportation-related emissions reductions, EPA should allow for multiple technology
pathways - including pathways that recognize how to improve the overall lifecycle carbon
intensity for existing vehicles and fuels. This might include linked, carbon-intensity based
vehicle and fuel standards that enable consumers to retain the preference for engine type, while
still participating in societal aims to achieve emissions reductions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1550-A1, p. 8]
Organization: American Petroleum Institute (API)
As noted by the American Trucking Associations (ATA), in testimony before the U.S. Senate
Committee on Environment and Public Works8:
When battery electric vehicles are not the answer, federal support should refrain from playing
favorites, and instead assist in the buildout of alternative fuel facilities. Proposals for hydrogen
infrastructure for trucks need to ensure that the infrastructure is in place where that technology
best fits in supply chains. Where lifecycle emissions can be reduced by deploying renewable
diesel and renewable natural gas, those fuel stocks need to be available for trucking. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1617-A1, p. 8.]
8 U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, hearing on "The Future of Low Carbon
Transportation Fuels and Considerations for a National Clean Fuels Program", February 15, 2023
(https://www.epw.senate.gOv/public/index.cfm/2023/2/the-future-of-low-carbon-transportation-fuels-and"
considerations-for-a-national-clean-fuels-program).
Bio and renewable fuels, such as renewable diesel, renewable natural gas, and biodiesel can
and should be considered as part of an "all-of-the-above" approach to decarbonization of the
transportation sector, including biocircularity. Especially for HD vehicles (and other hard-to-
abate sectors) which may not be EV-ready or have infrastructure available, renewable fuels can
serve as a lower emission and cost option that is readily available. As previously noted, API
members are currently investing heavily in renewable fuel production - continued investment
and development will increase the available volumes of such fuels in the marketplace and allow
them to serve both as a viable lower carbon solutions leading up to the start of the Phase 3
1201
-------
program, throughout implementation, and beyond. Further, key findings of a study prepared for
the Diesel Technology Forum showed results (for the scenarios considered in the study) of
cumulative GHG reductions that were up to three times greater than BEVs for ICEVs fueled with
100 percent renewable diesel, and reductions from vehicles fueled with biodiesel blends were on
par with BEV reductions.9 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1617-A1, p. 8]
9 "Environmental Benefits of Medium- and Heavy-Duty Zero Emission Vehicles Compared with Clean
Bio- & Renewable-Fueled Vehicles 2022-2032," prepared for Diesel Technology Forum by Stillwater
Associates LLC, July 19, 2022.
Further, EPA's LCA modeling for the proposal is based on biocircularity with atmospheric
C02 consumed by biomass, resulting in zero tailpipe carbon emissions if the combusted biofuels
were made from renewable biomass. The agency is thus not taking the source of carbon into
account, and is classifying all carbon tailpipe emissions as the same related to their atmospheric
GHG impact. For example, the agency should have considered in its analysis that a Class 7/8
ICEV run on 100% Renewable Diesel made from used cooking oil would have a greater than 70
percent tailpipe carbon reduction. EPA's approach is not consistent with other existing EPA
policies (e.g., the Renewable Fuel Standard). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1617-A1, pp. 8-9]
Organization: American Soybean Association (ASA)
Through this rulemaking process, ASA urges EPA to recognize and maintain robust
opportunities for biomass-based diesel to make immediate carbon reductions in the heavy-duty
market now and in the future; and to consider the potential economic and environmental impacts
that the proposed Phase 3 rule may have on farmers through continued use of readily available
technologies and slower pace for implementation of new regulations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1549-A1, p. 1]
Biomass-Based Diesel Impacts As the federal government seeks to address climate change
both today and in the long-term, biomass-based diesel will remain an important tool in the
toolbox in both existing diesel engines and new ultra-low carbon liquid fuel engine technologies.
Carbon emissions continue to accumulate, and increased utilization of biomass-based diesel and
other biofuels can help mitigate increasing emissions occurring at present. The
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change notes in its sixth assessment report that using
existing low carbon technologies is a crucial component to avoiding catastrophic temperature
increases, stating that 'biodiesel and renewable diesel fuels.. .could offer important near-term
reductions' for several technologies, including buses, rail, and long-haul trucking.3 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1549-A1, p. 3]
3 Jaramillo, P., Ribeiro, S.K., et al. (2022). Transport. In IPCC, 2022: Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of
Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
(https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6wg3/pdf/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_FinalDraft_ChapterlO.pdf)
Of note, government and corporate entities around the country are already utilizing biomass-
based diesel as an opportunity to achieve lower emissions. For example, New York City requires
all 11,000 city fleet vehicles to use biomass-based diesel—from the police department and fire
department to the department of sanitation and off-road equipment vehicles. Other cities, like
Washington, D.C., are also transitioning their fleets to biomass-based diesel. In 2018, D.C. used
120,000 gallons of biomass-based diesel in its vehicle fleet, which resulted in 1,000 fewer tons of
1202
-------
greenhouse gas emissions. In 2020, the D.C. Department of Public Works announced it would
begin running 17 garbage trucks on B100, or 100% biomass-based diesel—an 86% greenhouse
gas emissions reduction from a traditional petroleum-fueled garbage truck. The results are so
clear that the city plans to double the size of its B100 vehicles in the next year. Through funds
granted by EPA's Diesel Emissions Reduction Act program, D.C. Water Authority is expanding
its use of B100 to 31 vehicles where it also benefits worker health. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1549-A1, p. 3]
Soy farmers are proud of the success of biomass-based diesel—not only for the new market
opportunities the fuel created for farmers, but also for being able to grow a clean energy solution
right in soybean fields. In fact, many soybean growers are using biomass-based diesel in their
own farming equipment. Soybean oil represents about half the feedstock used to produce
biomass-based diesel and, according to analysis by Clean Fuels Alliance America, biomass-
based diesel has led to a savings of 143.8 million metric tons of carbon since 2010. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1549-A1, p. 3]
Given the current boom in the biomass-based diesel sector, the continued development of
more efficient heavy-duty vehicles employing ICE technology that can utilize renewable fuels
will encourage purchase of newer model year technology and retirement of older trucks with
higher emissions in the agricultural hauling sector. New ZEV technologies are not yet widely
accepted in rural America, based on cost and infrastructure considerations mentioned earlier.
However, powertrain ICEs that can run on biomass-based diesel can provide real GHG emissions
reductions today. ASA believes that ensuring continued pathways for these technologies will
lead to increased utilization in the agricultural sector. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1549-A1, p. 3]
Organization: American Trucking Associations (ATA)
Fleets are evaluating and implementing cost-effective options to reduce emissions. Biodiesel is a
traditional plug-in fuel that yields lower carbon emissions. More recently, renewable diesel has
emerged as a desirable carbon reduction option, producing near-zero tailpipe emissions when
combined with the newest engine technologies. Fleets are also operating renewable natural gas
and propane-powered vehicles in locations where fueling infrastructure is established. These
fuel-based options present more cost-effective solutions and should be encouraged under the
proposed regulation. A crediting system that prorates the annual expansion of lower carbon fuel
use across new conventional vehicle sales is needed to capture existing carbon reduction efforts.
This system would help account for fleet efforts to purchase conventional or alternative fueled
vehicles rather than only ZEVs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1535-A1, p. 13]
Organization: Anonymous Public Comment
There should be provisions in the rule for the handling of biofuels and/or synthetic fuels
("efuels") in GHG emission calculations. Phasing out fossil fuels for ICEVs while phasing in
renewable fuels/efuels could be just as effective in achieving climate goals as a shift to so-called
"zero-emission" vehicles, possibly even more so. In fact, even if 100% of new vehicle sales are
BEV by 2035, or any other date for that matter, it could potentially be counterproductive from an
environmental perspective. ICEVs will be on the road for decades even if new ICEVs are
effectively banned by regulation, and those vehicles would be contributing to significantly
reduced GHG emissions with bio/efuels, while still in use. The European Union just adopted a
1203
-------
provision to allow new ICEVs to be sold after 2035 if efuels are used exclusively to fuel the
vehicles, in spite of efforts to "ban" ICEVs after 2035. Some consideration of biofuels/efuels
should be adopted. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1773]
According to Argonne National Laboratory (ANL), efuels produced by the Fischer-Tropsch
(FT) process can be carbon NEGATIVE from a well-to-wheels perspective if the system is
properly configure (https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.0c05893). Some FT biofuels can
also be carbon negative with CCS (e.g., https://velocys.com/2019/10/10/negative-emission-fuel-
agreement/), or by sequestering carbon produced as a byproduct from the process
(https://www.greencarcongress.com/2023/04/20230415-terrastar.html). There are no pathways
in ANL's GREET model for BEVs to be carbon negative, not even with 100% renewable
electricity. If GHG emission reduction is really the goal, these fuels should be given top priority
from a regulatory perspective. It should also be pointed out that FT ediesel fuel has very low
upstream (well-to-tank) criteria pollutant air emissions according to ANL's GREET model. The
Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) could be used as a mechanism for phasing out fossil-based fuels
in favor of biofuels/efuels. Alternatively, the U.S. could follow the European model and allow
only ICEVs that use efuels/biofuels exclusively to be produced post 2035. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1773]
Organization: Barry Supranowicz
I am pleased that the EPA is taking important steps to address global warming pollution from
trucks, but the heavy-duty vehicle standard needs to do much more to put us on a path to
eliminate all tailpipe emissions from new vehicles by 2035. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2252]
Black, Asian America, and Latin American communities and other marginalized communities
living in high traffic areas have suffered the health impacts of diesel trucks for too long. Now is
the time to set us on a path to eliminate toxic tailpipe emissions from trucks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-2252]
Technology currently exists in the US (see PLUG) to supply green-energy produced hydrogen
and oxygen as fuels for the trucking industry (as opposed to gray- or fossil fuel-based hydrogen-
oxygen of which would continue to foster pollution of our air). We need to move forward in
mandating green-energy produced hydrogen-oxygen fuel cell powered big rigs. Fact is, not only
do green hydrogen-oxygen fuel cell powered trucks offer zero pollution power plants to move
things around - they offer to said trucking industry vastly reduced costs for fuel purchases and
thereby reduced costs for goods and services - making those manufacturing-trucking industries
more competitive in their offerings of goods and services. Green hydrogen-oxygen use for
hydrogen-oxygen fuel cell powered power plants for trucks and businesses offers much lower
costs for energy-power production (compared to fossil fueled power plants) from a infinite (for
human purposes) supply of said power through accessing that hydrogen-oxygen from our oceans.
Fossil fueled power plants arise from limited and dwindling oil in our earth surface, a resource
increasingly more difficult and expensive to acquire, not to even consider the pollutive effects of
fossil fuel acquisition-extraction-refinement-transport-and usage - costs that arise in future time
from fossil fuel extraction-use and making fossil fuels even more expensive. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-2252]
1204
-------
The EPA has the power to accelerate the deployment of zero-emission vehicles. Please
finalize the strongest possible rule to deliver clean air. The clock is ticking, and zero-emission
trucks will save lives. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2252]
I strongly urge the EPA to adopt requirements that would address the disproportionate health
impacts for marginalized communities living near freight corridors and accelerate the rollout of
zero-emission trucks. Thank you for your consideration. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2252]
Organization: Chevron
4. The role of biofuels
Recent data from the EPA Moderated Transaction System shows 2022 annual production of
approximately 2.0 billion gallons of biodiesel, an additional 2.0 billion gallons of renewable
diesel, and 700 million gallons equivalents of renewable natural gas. These renewable fuels
represent over 8% of the total diesel demand in the U.S. In California, biodiesel and renewable
diesel together supplied 34% of total diesel demand in the state. Renewable fuels are
contributing significantly to GHG reduction in today's market using existing infrastructure. The
heavy-duty GHG standards should recognize the potential for additional GHG reduction from the
existing vehicle fleet using these renewable fuels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1552-A1, pp.5-6]
We believe there is ample feedstock, oilseed crush capacity, and fuel production capacity to
achieve an additional 500 million gallons per year of advanced biofuels through the end of 2025,
as outlined in Chevron's comments7 earlier this year for EPA's proposed regulations for the
Renewable Fuel Standard. The majority of these advanced biofuels will be made up of renewable
diesel and biodiesel. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1552-A1, p.6]
7 Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0427, Chevron Comment Letter in response to Renewable Fuel
Standard Program Proposed Rule: Standards for 2023-2025 and Other Changes. Available here: EPA-HQ-
O AR-2021-0427-0553
Several of our trade association partners highlight investments to expand lower carbon
intensity biofuels that are playing a key role today to reduce emissions from the hard to electrify
transportation sector. We reference the comments filed by Clean Fuels Alliance America and the
Natural Gas Vehicles for America noting advances in expanding biodiesel, renewable diesel, and
renewable natural gas supply. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1552-A1, p.6]
Additionally, Chevron is investing in capabilities to increase the supply of biofuels. In 2022,
Chevron acquired Renewable Energy Group (now Chevron REG) a leading biodiesel and
renewable diesel fuel producer. Chevron REG is scheduled to complete the expansion of the
renewable diesel facility in Geismar, LA in 2024 that will triple capacity to 340 million gallons
of lower carbon intensity renewable diesel. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1552-A1, p.6]
Chevron announced a collaboration with Corteva to introduce winter canola that will produce
lower carbon intensity feedstocks. Chevron has invested in CoverCress to develop and introduce
small winter oilseeds that will also produce lower carbon intensity feedstocks. A Chevron joint
venture with Bunge, a leading oilseed processor, will expand crush capacity to yield greater
access to lower carbon intensity feedstocks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1552-A1, p.6]
Chevron is also partnering with CalBio Energy, Brightmark and dairy farmers to market and
produce renewable natural gas, which is used as compressed natural gas (CNG) for vehicle
1205
-------
fueling. In January of 2023, Chevron acquired full ownership of Beyond6 with its network of 55
CNG stations across the United States. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1552-A1, p.6]
Finally, Chevron is forming creative alliances with partners such as Walmart, Cummins, and
Raven SR to develop alternative heavy-duty fuel and technology options. All of the above
technology pathways and commercial ventures are important contributors to reduce lifecycle and
tailpipe emissions from new vehicles and from the existing truck fleet and should be
incorporated into a strategy to reduce GHG emissions from heavy-duty trucks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1552-A1, p.6]
Organization: Clean Fuels Alliance America (Public Hearing Testimony)
[From Hearing Testimony, May 2, 2023] On behalf of Clean Fuels members, thank you for
the opportunity to testify on the immediate benefits of biodiesel and renewable diesel have and
will continue to bring as we de-carbonize the heavy-duty sector. Biodiesel and renewable diesel
are among the cleanest and lowest carbon fuels available today to help reduce greenhouse gas
emissions and are available now to meet President Biden's near- and long-term climate goals,
particularly in the hard-to-decarbonize heavy-duty sector. We appreciate EPA's
acknowledgement that the internal combustion engine will continue to play an important role in
the markets that Clean Fuels member serve. Low-carbon liquid fuels are the lowest cost option
towards decarbonization that can be used in every diesel-fueled application and every engine
technology. The heavy-duty sector will continue to rely on liquid fuels for decades to come.
Clean Fuels has a long history of working with users, fleets, and the OEM community to conduct
technically-credible research that validates the performance and positive impacts of biodiesel
when used in existing and future diesel engines. To date, the utilization of increasing volumes of
ultra-low carbon liquid fuels, like biodiesel and renewable diesel, reduces greenhouse gas
emissions by more than 70 percent on average, directly and immediately reducing GHG
emissions from the vehicles that use our fuels. Our fuels reduce more than just greenhouse gas
emissions. Biodiesel and renewable diesel also reduce criteria pollutants from existing diesel
engines, reduce health and environmental impacts in major trucking corridors, warehouse
distribution centers, and other diesel hotspots close to major population sectors. This means that
using these fuels today can lower healthcare costs and costs for all populations living in and near
these areas including, minority, low-income, and indigenous populations. Through our
continued partnership with Trinity Consultants, Clean Fuels quantified the health benefits and
corresponding economic savings from converting petroleum-based diesel to 100-percent
biodiesel at 23 sites across the country. This research finds that switching to 100-percent
biodiesel can provide immediate community health improvements, including more than 436,000
fewer reduced asthma cases per year, more than 137,000 few sick days per year, nearly 9,400
less cancer cases, the prevention of more than 885 premature deaths, over $7.4 four billion in
avoided healthcare costs annually, and a 45-percent reduction in cancer risk. And legacy heavy-
duty trucks, such as older semis, use B100. The immediate benefits of B100 usage can bring —
cannot be underscored enough, especially for disadvantaged communities when you consider the
longer, full, useful life requirements of existing diesel engines and the decades-old take to pursue
across-the-board electrification and other decarbonization strategies. Clean Fuels looks forward
to working with EPA to continue to optimize the immediate benefits of biodiesel and renewable
diesel to decarbonize the heavy-duty sector today and in the years to come. Thank you. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2666, Public Hearing Testimony, Day 1]
1206
-------
Organization: Clean Fuels Alliance America
Low carbon liquid fuels are the lowest cost option toward decarbonization that can be used in
every diesel fueled application and every engine technology. It cannot be overlooked that the
heavy-duty sector will continue to rely on the internal combustion engines when you consider the
longer full useful life requirements of existing diesel engines and the decades it will take to
pursue across the board electrification and other decarbonization strategies. As a result, EPA
cannot discount the immediate benefits biodiesel and renewable diesel have and will continue to
bring as we decarbonize the heavy-duty sector. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1614-A1, pp. 1-2]
Our fuels reduce more than just greenhouse gas emissions. Biodiesel and renewable diesel
also reduce criteria pollutants from existing diesel engines, reducing health and environmental
impacts in major trucking corridors, warehouse distribution centers and other diesel hot spots
close to major population sectors. This means that using these fuels today will also lower health
care impacts and costs for all populations living in and near these areas including minority, low-
income, and indigenous populations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1614-A1, p. 2]
We ask that EPA adjust the performance-based standards to reflect a more appropriate and
feasible mix of technologies available in the time-frame proposed to meet the revised standards
recognizing that EPA will still achieve both carbon reductions and environmental justice benefits
using biodiesel and renewable diesel in the heavy-duty sector. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1614-
Al, p. 2]
II. Proposed C02 Emission Standards
We appreciate EPA's acknowledgement of the role the internal combustion engine will
continue to play in the heavy-duty market. The heavy-duty trucking sector alone will be reliant
on liquids fuels until at least 2050 with the assumed average lifetime of 15 years. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1614-A1, p. 2]
The Ultra-Low Emissions Diesel Engines (ULEDEs) produced under the "Control of Air
Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards" are
substantially cleaner than New Technology Diesel Engines (NTDE) in the market today and will
approach near-zero regulated emissions of PM, NOx, unburned hydrocarbons, and carbon
monoxide. 3 Low-carbon liquid fuels will address the emissions of PM, NOx, unburned
hydrocarbons, and carbon monoxide in existing engines. Using renewable fuels in existing
internal combustion engines will remain an important option for decarbonizing the transportation
sector. In addition, these fuels continue to make improvements in emissions, are readily available
nationwide, have known predictable performance, and other known operating characteristics
such as higher cetane rating and improved lubricity, which help prolong engine life. Biodiesel
burns cleaner, reduces harmful emissions, and helps eliminate injector and fuel system deposits,
which can extend maintenance intervals. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1614-A1, p. 2]
3 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty
Engine and Vehicle Standards, EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055, 88 FR 4296 (January 24, 2022), available at
https://www.federalregister.gOv/d/2022-27957
Meeting clean air demands does not require switching to a zero-emissions vehicle. Biodiesel
and renewable diesel are drop-in alternatives, achieving valuable carbon reductions today at a
relatively low cost.4 These fuels offer owners, users, and fleet operators of heavy-duty vehicles
1207
-------
affordable, low-carbon solutions to immediately improve the sustainability of their operations.
These cleaner fuels are available now and can be used in every diesel fueled application and
every engine technology. Nearly all medium- and heavy-duty original equipment manufacturers
(OEMs) support using biodiesel blends of 20% or more in the vehicles they produce, and the vast
majority of OEMs support the use of biodiesel blends up to 20%. For those that do not,
warranties cannot be voided or impacted in any way using biodiesel, due to existing federal
law.5 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1614-A1, pp. 2 - 3]
4 Source: Frank, J. et al. Quantifying and comparing the cumulative greenhouse gas emissions and
financial viability of heavy-duty transportation pathways for the Northeastern, United States. Fuel, 323,
124243, Sep. 2022. https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.fuel.2022.124243. See Table 4.
5 Magnuson-Moss Warrant Act, P.L. 93-637
When compared to other decarbonization strategies such as zero emissions and specifically
electrification approaches, which require both new vehicles and infrastructure to realize the
benefits, biodiesel and renewable diesel remain the lowest cost option. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1614-A1, p. 3]
Organization: ClearFlame Engine Technologies
ClearFlame supports a strong Final Rule that accelerates the decarbonization of the all
vehicles in the heavy-duty truck sector in a manner that will meet the ambitious goals of the
Biden Administration's Transportation Decarbonization Blueprint (the 'Blueprint').Integrating
our recommendations and proposed solutions into the Final Rule will align the Phase 3 GHG
standards 3 More specifically, the Blueprint stated that we will need to deploy a range of
solutions to meet our climate goals, including biofuels and e-fuels (collectively referred to as
'Sustainable Liquid Fuels' or 'SLFs'), electric vehicles, and hydrogen-powered vehicles, and the
Final Rule with the Blueprint. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1654-A2, p. 2]
3 The U.S. National Blueprint for Transportation Decarbonization: A Joint Strategy to Transform
Transportation (the 'Blueprint').
We are pleased to see EPA acknowledge that there will be no 'one-size-fits-all' approach to
future heavy-duty vehicles and engines, and that it expects to see a mix of engine technologies as
part of the solution set.5 Our goal in submitting these comments is to support EPA by proposing
changes to the Final Rule that better aligns with the Administration's Blueprint, especially with
respect to ethanol, the most common SLF. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1654-A2, p. 2]
5 Proposal at 25932.
A Final Rule that is silent on ethanol and other SLFs - that does not even create a certification
pathway for engines that dedicated to ethanol usage - will stifle innovation in this sector, send a
signal to America's farms and rural communities that they will not participate in the exciting
economic opportunities presented by a decarbonized transportation future, and result in a longer,
slower, less cost-effective transition from petroleum-fueled, internal combustion engine ('ICE')
vehicles in the long-haul truck sector. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1654-A2, p. 2]
Currently, of the three strategies highlighted in the Blueprint to decarbonize our future trucks,
the Proposal only incentivizes electric vehicles and hydrogen vehicles. However, the Blueprint
concluded that, in the long-haul truck sector, biofuels and other SLFs will be a 'large, long-term'
1208
-------
opportunity that is even greater than the market opportunity for battery-electric vehicles
('BEVs').6 We believe that the Blueprint's recognition of the large, long-term opportunity of
biofuels and other SLFs in the long-haul truck sector should be embodied In the Final Rule.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1654-A2, p. 3]
6 The U.S. National Blueprint for Transportation Decarbonization: A Joint Strategy to Transform
Transportation, see page 5, Figure B
The Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to integrate the type of fuel into the Phase 3 GHG
emission standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1654-A2, p. 4]
This Proposal is based on authority granted to EPA under Clean Air Act Section 202(a).8
Section 202(a)(1) gives EPA authority to establish emissions standards for 'any air pollutant
from any class or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines.' On numerous
occasions, EPA has found that carbon dioxide (C02) and other GHG emissions have significant
impacts that endanger public health and welfare.9 Thus, we agree that EPA is authorized to
proceed with this Proposal to establish Phase 3 GHG standards for heavy-duty engines pursuant
to Section 202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1654-A2, p. 4]
8 42 U.S.C. 7521(a)(1).
9 See Proposal, p. 25928, footnote 4.
As EPA knows, GHG pollution is a global problem. Unlike pollutants that trigger asthma
emergencies, heart attacks, or other local health impacts, it does not matter whether GHG
emissions reductions occur at the tailpipe of a vehicle or from the shift from high-carbon
petroleum to low-carbon SLFs like ethanol. From the perspective of carbon pollution, the
location of these reductions is irrelevant. Thus, it makes sense to create a Final Rule that reduces
the total GHG emissions impact of America's future heavy-duty vehicles as much as possible, as
quickly as possible, wherever possible, and as cost-effectively as possible. Doing so makes it
more likely that the Final Rule will be a success. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1654-A2, p. 4]
Section 202(a)(3)(A)(ii) authorizes EPA to look beyond the basic engine to set its engine or
vehicle emission standards. Specifically, it states that, 'in establishing classes or categories of
vehicles or engines for purposes of regulations under this paragraph, the Administrator may base
such classes or categories on gross vehicle weight, horsepower, type of fuel used, or other
appropriate factors.'10 (emphasis added). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1654-A2, p. 4]
10 42 U.S.C. 7521(a)(3)(A)(ii)
In the case of a dedicated alternative fuel engine, the type of fuel used is an inherent part of
the engine system. In such an engine, the engine cannot be separated from fuel that powers it.
The fuel must be considered in determining whether the engine meets the relevant emission
standard. Indeed, EPA's GEM has a fuel input for natural gas, because the agency recognizes
that it is impossible to consider the emissions performance of a natural gas engine (and thus,
whether such an engine should receive its certificate of conformity) separate and apart from the
natural gas fuel that powers it. Similarly, it is appropriate - even imperative - that EPA
establishes a certification pathway for a class or category of dedicated alternative fuel engines. It
would be counter-productive if EPA simultaneously acknowledges that a low-carbon SLF like
ethanol should be an important component of the Administration's Blueprint, yet fails to provide
a certification pathway that acknowledges and integrates the GHG benefits of such a dedicated
1209
-------
alternative fuel engine that uses ethanol or other low-carbon SLF. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1654-A2, pp. 4-5]
EPA Should Update its Certification Pathways and GEM Inputs in the Final Rule to
Specifically Integrate ethanol and other SLFs [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1654-A2, p. 5]
In response to EPA's request for comment on the need to 'include additional GHG-reducing
technologies and/or higher levels of adoption rates of existing technologies for ICE vehicles' in
the Final Rule,11 and EPA's proposal to update 40 CFR 1036.505 to clarify that 'when
certifying vehicles with GEM, for any fuel type not identified in Table 1 of 40 CFR 1036.550,
the manufacturer would identify the fuel type as diesel fuel for engines subject to compression-
ignition standards,' 12 we strongly urge EPA to include an engine certification pathway for all
fuels that it reasonably expects to see used in dedicated alternative fuel engine. 13 Today, new
engines have to be certified using the GEM. GEM assumes that the only fuels to be used by
heavy-duty engines are gasoline, diesel, and natural gas. EPA recognizes that the absence of a
fuel-specific approach for hydrogen will chill investment or technology development and
recognizes that the emissions performance of a hydrogen-fueled engine cannot be separated from
the hydrogen fuel that powers it. Thus, it is seeking comment to determine how to create a
certification pathway for internal combustion engines that are fueled by hydrogen. 14 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1654-A2, p. 5]
11 Proposal at 25961.
12 Proposal at 26022.
13 To avoid confusion and to be consistent with EPA's traditional terminology (see., e.g., EPA's Part 1065
requirements for Alternative Fuel Engine Conversions), we are using the phrase 'alternative fuel'
throughout these comments, rather than the Blueprint's use of the phrase 'SLF.' However, for the purposes
of our comments and recommendations, these terms are interchangeable.
14 Proposal at 26024.
EPA's Final Rule must similarly provide a mechanism for certifying dedicated ethanol and
other dedicated alternative fuel engines. Failure to do so would be arbitrary and capricious as a
legal matter, chilling as an investment matter, scientifically unsound from a GHG perspective,
and extremely short-sighted from the perspective of creating a program to reduce GHGs at scale,
as quickly and as cost-effectively as possible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1654-A2, pp. 5-6]
Creating a certification pathway for dedicated alternative fuel engines that run on ethanol is
not just critical to the success of ClearFlame, it is the scientifically and technically correct way to
treat our engines, as well as other dedicated ethanol engines that may follow once EPA has sent
this market signal to the OEMs that their dedicated ethanol engines will provide emissions
certification benefits that are in sync with their real-world climate benefits. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1654-A2, p. 6]
The current system treats the ethanol-fueled engine as though it were actually dirtier than
diesel from a carbon perspective, because GEM treats a dedicated ethanol engine as though it is
running on high-carbon diesel fuel (in contrast to a CNG engine, which is not treated by GEM as
though it is running on diesel). By treating a dedicated ethanol engine as though it was running
on diesel, the resulting GEM calculations yield an unintended negative outcome that has no
1210
-------
bearing in reality - modeled emissions that are actually 'even dirtier than diesel,' despite their
obviously different contributions to climate change. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1654-A2, p. 6]
This 'ethanol penalty' happens (1) because GEM does not take the biogenic nature of ethanol
emissions into account, (2) it does not take the lower carbon Intensity of ethanol into account,
and (3) it does not take other combustion differences (like heating value and H/C ratio) between
ethanol and diesel into account. Taken together, this means that the GEM output masks the
climate benefit of the ethanol fuel choice, compared to diesel. Leading climate research indicates
that these errors result in overestimating the climate impact of ethanol by 3x. 15 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1654-A2, p. 6]
15 GEM currently estimates emissions from ethanol vehicles to be approximately 1.5 times worse than
diesel. However, GREET, based on national average, calculates ethanol to have 50% of the emissions
impact of diesel. Based on this information, GEM overestimates the climate impact of an ethanol-fueled
engine by 3x (1.5/.5).
GEM currently estimates emissions from ethanol vehicles to be approximately 1.5 times
worse than diesel. However, GREET, based on national average, calculates ethanol to have 50%
of the emissions impact of diesel. Based on this information, GEM overestimates the climate
impact of an ethanol-fueled engine by 3x (1.5/.5). EPA should create a fuel input for ethanol
within GEM, which would account for its heating value, H/C ratio, and biogenic carbon ratio.
This would enable GEM to accurately account for the different combustion properties and
decarbonization benefits of a compression-ignition engine that has been designed to run
exclusively on ethanol. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1654-A2, p. 6]
While it would be possible to achieve the same goal by adding a conversion or correction
factor to the calculation of GEM emissions, a fuel-specific fuel Input (such as is being
considered for hydrogen) is highly preferred to ensure GEM consistency across the various fuels
that will power future heavy-duty vehicles. 16 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1654-A2, pp. 6-7]
16 Adding such an after-the-fact conversion or correction factor to GEM could enable EPA to correctly
estimate that actual, real world GHG benefits of switching from diesel to ethanol. However, this approach
would not send the same market signal that a fuel-specific input does—a market signal enjoyed by engine
makers that use natural gas and, presumably soon, hydrogen. That said, using the Argonne National
Laboratory GREET model, we estimate a truck operating solely on E98 ethanol (i.e., 98% ethanol) would
receive a 32% conversion factor, which would account for the two GHG advantages of ethanol, i.e., its
lower heating value and significantly lower carbon intensity. See Argonne National Laboratory, The
Greenhouse gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy use in Technologies Model ('GREET'), accessible at
https://greet.es.anl.gov/.
We note that EPA has requested comment on whether the agency 'should add specifications
for alternative test fuels, like methanol, and fuels other than carbon-containing fuels like
hydrogen and ammonia, to 40 CFR part 1065, subpart H ('Subpart H').' 17 Currently, 40 CFR
1065.701(c) allows the use of test fuels that are not specified in Subpart H, but only with EPA's
prior written approval.18 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1654-A2, p. 7]
17 Proposal at 26025.
18 40 CFR 1065.701(c). See also Id. at Table 1.
The current approach enables a company like ClearFlame to request approval to use as an
alternative test fuel any of the following if we meet EPA's criteria: (1) E98 that meets ASTM
D4806 (i.e., uses gasoline as its denaturant), (2) another form of E98 that does not use gasoline
1211
-------
as its denaturant, or (3) ethanol that includes 5% water (as would result from the output of an
unaugmented distillation process). However, this approach does not guarantee that EPA will
approve any of these fuels as an alternative test fuel. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1654-A2, p. 7]
This approach adds an unnecessary layer of uncertainty into our product development, our test
plans, and even the expectations of our potential investors and customers. Since EPA's intent in
Subpart H seems to be to encourage innovators to develop new, low-emission technologies using
a wide range of alternative fuels, it should add specifications for all SLFs that are likely to be
used in future engine technologies that are developed to meet the standards and requirements of
the Final Rule, including the three examples cited above. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1654-A2,
p. 7]
Currently, the relevant section of 40 CFR part 1065, subpart H limits the use of high-blend
ethanol as a test fuel to E51-83 fuel that meets the specifications of ASTM D5798.19 We request
that EPA adds specifications for high-blend ethanol for each of the examples that we have
outlined above: (1) E98 that meets ASTM D4806 (i.e., uses gasoline as its denaturant), (2)
another form of E98 that does not use gasoline as its denaturant, and (3) ethanol that includes 5%
water (as would result from the output of an unaugmented distillation process). [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1654-A2, pp. 7-8]
19 See 40 CFR Part 1065.725.
EPA Should Treat Ethanol as Carbon-Neutral at the Tailpipe in the Final Rule, just as it treats
BEVs and FCVs [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1654-A2, p. 8]
In its Proposal, EPA proposes to treat future battery-electric vehicles and hydrogen-fueled
vehicles as carbon-neutral at the tailpipe.20 This disregards any upstream or life cycle emissions
that are associated with the power generation necessary to charge BEVs or the source or amount
of energy that is used to generate the hydrogen that is used in any hydrogen-fueled ICE or fuel
cell vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1654-A2, p. 8]
20 Proposal at 26022.
In its Final Rule, EPA should also treat a heavy-duty engine that is designed to operate solely
on ethanol as carbon-neutral at the tailpipe. Why? Because the carbon emissions from an
ethanol-fuel engine are 100% biogenic, i.e., they derive from photosynthesis pulling carbon from
the atmosphere in the natural carbon cycle. Stated another way, biogenic carbon does not
contribute to the process of moving carbon from the lithosphere to the atmosphere (e.g.
extracting fossil-based carbon from deep underground). Since these emissions do not derive from
fossil fuels, they do not contribute to climate change at the point of combustion in the engine.
And thus, just like battery-electric and hydrogen-fueled vehicles, dedicated ethanol engines and
vehicles should be treated as carbon-neutral at the tailpipe because they are not contributing to
global climate change at the tailpipe. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1654-A2, p. 8]
To be as scientifically sound as possible, the Phase 3 GHG standards should focus on
reducing the human-generated (or anthropogenic) climate impacts from America's future trucks
and buses by reducing anthropogenic GHG emissions from their engines. To achieve this goal,
EPA should recognize that biogenic and anthropogenic carbon are different in how -and even
whether—they contribute to climate change. Renewable SLFs like ethanol reduce overall GHGs
1212
-------
from heavy-duty transportation by keeping the carbon from petroleum diesel out of the
atmosphere—in the ground, where it should stay. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1654-A2, p. 8]
Failure to recognize the difference between biogenic and anthropogenic emissions would
yield an outcome that is not scientifically sound and that seems arbitrary and capricious. It would
yield an outcome where a hydrogen-fueled engine that is derived from coal combustion could be
certified at a lower emissions level than a dedicated ethanol engine that is derived from a low-
carbon (or even carbon-negative) feedstock. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1654-A2, p. 8]
It is worth noting that EPA already has a policy of treating certain biogenic carbon as carbon-
neutral in stationary sources. In 2018, EPA adopted a policy of treating carbon emissions
resulting from the combustion of biomass from managed forests at stationary sources as carbon-
neutral.21 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1654-A2, p. 9]
21 See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, policy statement, accessed on April 30, 2023 at
https://www.epa.gOv/sites/default/files/2018-04/documents/biomass_policy_statement_2018_04_23.pdf.
Given that EPA has requested comment on whether to include additional GHG-reducing
technologies for ICE vehicles in its technology assessment for the Final Rule, we do not believe
that EPA would need to publish an additional Notice of Proposed Rule Making or other
procedural step to integrate our recommendations.31 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1654-A2, p.
12]
31 Proposal at 25961.
Organization: Diesel Technology Forum (DTF)
One can reasonably conclude that both the acquisition of new ICEV and continued use of
ICEV in the existing fleet in the commercial trucking sector will continue at significant levels for
several decades at least. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1618-A1, p. 4]
As such, we believe EPA has failed to fully consider the GHG mitigation potential and factors
related to the expanded use of renewable biobased diesel fuels in the extensive population of
existing and expected future ICEVs that will be in service for decades to come. The resulting
GHG mitigation impacts from the potential for use of the renewable biofuels on the levels of
stringency in GHG standards proposed and the timing for their implementation as well as other
factors has not been considered, as discussed further below. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1618-
Al, p. 4]
III. The Proposal Fails to Consider the Current and Future Utilization of Biobased Diesel
Fuels as A Decarbonization Strategy for The Sector, And Its Resulting Implications for All
Aspects of The Proposed Rule.
While the proposed rule focuses on establishing emissions standards that govern future new
vehicles, the justification of all the aspects of the rule is based on the hazards of greenhouse
gases and the EPA's duty to reduce them. EPA notes in its arguments that
"Despite the significant emissions reductions achieved by previous rulemakings, GHG
emissions from HD vehicles continue to impact public health, welfare, and the environment. The
transportation sector is the largest U.S. source of GHG emissions, representing 27 percent of
total GHG emissions. Within the transportation sector, heavy-duty vehicles are the second largest
1213
-------
contributor to GHG emissions and are responsible for 25 percent of GHG emissions in the
sector.4 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1618-A1, p. 4]
4 Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2020 (EPA-430-R-22-003, published
April 2022).
Use of low-carbon renewable fuels is recognized as a proven means to reduce GHG emissions
of the transportation sector. In EPA's February 2023 proposed Renewable Fuel Standard (87 Fed
Reg 80585) EPA notes that
"This proposed rule is projected to reduce GHG emissions, which would benefit communities
with environmental justice concerns who are disproportionately impacted by climate change.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1618-A1, p. 5]
In the current proposal however, EPA provides only a single passing mention of biobased
diesel fuels (biodiesel and renewable diesel) (88 Fed Reg 25951)
"Manufacturers have responded to standards over the past decade by continuing to develop
and deploy a wide range of technologies, including more efficient engine designs, transmissions,
aerodynamics, and tires, air conditioning systems that contribute to lower GHG emissions, as
well as vehicles based on methods of propulsion beyond diesel- and gasoline fueled ICE vehicles
from mild hybrids and alternative fuels (such as natural gas, biodiesel, renewable diesel,
methanol, and other fuels), as well as various levels of electrified vehicle technologies from mild
hybrids, to strong hybrids, and up through batery electric vehicles and fuel cell electric vehicles."
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1618-A1, p. 5]
EPA has failed to factor in the use of biobased diesel fuels and their overall impact on
reducing GHG from this sector during the timeframe of the proposed rule. According to the
Energy Information Administration, in 2022, U.S. refiners produced 71,879,000 barrels of
biodiesel and renewable diesel combined, in addition to over 10,000,000 barrels imported. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1618-A1, p. 5]
By definition as an Advanced Biofuel, biodiesel and renewable diesel reduce C02 emissions
by at least 50 percent compared to petroleum diesel fuel. Depending on feedstocks, the use of
these fuels reduces greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 85%. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1618-A1, p. 5]
Given the significant role of renewable biobased diesel fuels today and projections for future
growth, the Agency's failure to consider the GHG mitigation potential of the use of these fuels in
the trucking sector ICEV undermines the analysis and justification for proposed future standards
and other aspects of this proposed rule. These biobased diesel fuels currently meet about 4% of
the nation's on-road diesel demand, and 38% in California. Biobased diesel fuels have generated
more cumulative Low-Carbon Fuel Credits (42% of total since 2013) than other transportation
fuels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1618-A1, p. 5]
Many aspects of the proposed Phase 3 GHG rule should be reevaluated by factoring in current
and future potential for GHG mitigation through the use of low carbon fuels, including the
overall role of ICEV using renewable fuels in helping the US achieve climate goals, the need for
the rule, the timing of the implementation of the rule, the stringency of GHG standards adopted
and other factors. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1618-A1, p. 5]
1214
-------
Research completed by Stillwater Associates for the Diesel Technology Forum in July 2022
evaluated options for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from commercial vehicles in 10
northeastern states over the ten-year period 2022-2032:
• Medium and heavy-duty trucks operating in 10 Northeastern states (Connecticut,
Delaware, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania,
Rhode Island, and Vermont) that have adopted California's low emission (LEV) and zero
emission vehicle (ZEV) regulations were studied by Stillwater Associates for the Diesel
Technology Forum.
• An analysis was undertaken to analyze the environmental benefits attainable from three
strategies in the 2022-2032 period; electrification, accelerated fleet turnover and use of
biodiesel and renewable diesel fuel.
• The considerable benefits of using low-carbon renewable biobased diesel fuels were
evident from this analysis. As these fuels can be used in all diesel vehicles today, fueling
the diesel vehicles in the study with 100% renewable diesel resulted in three times larger
cumulative GHG reductions by 2032 than the EV scenarios. Using B20 - a 20% blend of
biodiesel with 80% petroleum diesel - provided about the same cumulative GHG
reduction. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1618-A1, pp. 5 - 6.] [See the Figure, HD
Scenarios 2022-2023 GHG Reductions, on page 6 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1618-A1, pp.5-6]
Beyond GHG emissions, the research also highlighted impacts of an advanced diesel vs.
electrification strategy on regional air quality as well, finding that the business-as-usual case
replacing pre-2007 model year diesel vehicles which lacked diesel particulate filters with
advanced technology diesel vehicles provided the largest particulate matter (PM) reduction. This
is due to new technology diesel engines' 98% PM reductions compared to EVs' 95% PM
reduction assuming power from the U.S. Grid Mix. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1618-A1, p. 6]
As for nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions, EVs have 98.5% lower NOX than pre-2007 diesel
vehicles on a per mile basis, and 2010 and later MY vehicles have 79% less NOx emissions than
a 2007 diesel model. However, when replacing a diesel medium and heavy-duty vehicle with an
EV and evaluated on an annual miles driven basis, the NOx benefit is diminished. EVs are
generally deployed on shorter routes and have a shorter range of operation than that of a
comparable diesel vehicle, with about 87% of the mileage on a daily basis. Given this mileage
difference, NOx emission reductions for a fleet transitioning to EV will be less than the business-
as-usual turnover from older generation diesel to advanced technology with selective catalytic
reduction (SCR) systems that reduce NOx by 98%. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1618-A1, p. 6]
On a cumulative fleet conversion cost basis, turning over a medium and heavy-duty fleet of
10,000 vehicles in the 10-state region over to EV carries a price tag more than three times higher
than the equivalent cost for new technology diesel vehicles. The incremental EV cost for Class
7/8 vehicles is $250,000 for the vehicle and $45,000 for charging infrastructure. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1618-A1, pp. 6-7]
The full study and supporting infographic are appended to these comments. They are also
available for View and downloading as follows:
• View the full study at https://dieselforum.egnyte.com/dl/MWHPcRW4e6
1215
-------
• View and download the infographic at https://dieselforum.egnyte.com/dl/fZ9UzT4y6h
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1618-A1, p. 7.] [See the Appendix on pages 8-42 of docket
number EP A-HQ-0 AR-2022-0985-1618-A1. ]
Organization: Energy Vision
Energy Vision, a leading NGO in the clean energy sector, is submitting these comments in
strong support of EPA's goal of decarbonizing the US economy as quickly as possible. However,
our research shows that the country could achieve greater climate benefits on a much faster
timeline through an amendment to the proposed Greenhouse Gas Phase 3 regulations: one that
would indefinitely allow heavy-duty vehicles fueled by renewable natural gas (RNG), often a net
carbon-negative fuel. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1576-A1, p. 1]
Reasons for Allowing RNG-Fueled Heavy-Duty Vehicles in EPA Phase 3 Regulations
• Measuring greenhouse gas emissions on a lifecycle basis - meaning from all aspects of
production, transportation, and end-use - is the gold standard. This methodology was
developed by Argonne National Laboratory and is utilized by a number of states with
progressive climate laws. By contrast, a tailpipe 'zero emissions' requirement measures
just a slice of the whole picture. Having zero tailpipe emissions is misguided as a
criterion when the consideration that matters most to the global climate is getting total
lifecycle emissions down to zero - or negative, as with renewable natural gas (RNG).
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1576-A1, p. 1]
• RNG is the lowest carbon fuel available today. Energy Vision has found that the greatest
environmental benefits accrue from converting the methane biogases emitted by
decomposing organic wastes into RNG, also known as biomethane. When greenhouse
gas emissions from RNG as transportation fuel are compared to diesel on a lifecycle
basis, RNG from food waste, manure, and wastewater is deeply carbon-negative. This
means that more carbon is captured in producing the gas (in the form of potent methane)
than is ever released by combusting it (as far less potent C02). RNG also has 90% fewer
NOx emissions and 60% fewer particulate emissions than diesel; both are very damaging
to health and disproportionately affect environmental justice communities. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1576-A1, pp. 1-2]
• It is essential to decarbonize the economy as quickly as practicable. EPA's objectives are
critical in doing so, but RNG-fueled heavy-duty vehicles are a vital part of the solution.
These vehicles are not technically zero-emission, but as noted above, on a lifecycle basis,
they are actually net carbon negative, which is even better from a climate perspective. Put
another way, even if all vehicles were to become battery electric tomorrow, there would
still be a continuous flow of organic wastes - food waste, manure, wastewater, etc. - all
over that must be disposed of and would be emitting methane as they decompose. By
capturing that methane to produce RNG and displace the dirtiest vehicle fuel - diesel -
our country would maximize climate benefits right away. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1576-A1, p. 2]
• Incentivizing the capture and use of methane that is otherwise escaping into the
atmosphere or being flared is essential for the US to meet its climate goals. Organic waste
generates a large portion of US methane emissions. Landfills accounted for
approximately 16.9% in 2021 (the third largest source); when wastewater treatment,
composting, anaerobic digestion, and manure management are added, that proportion
1216
-------
rises to over 28% - almost as much as the 29% from the oil and gas industry. The US has
committed to reducing its methane emissions 30% from 2020 levels by 2030, so putting
that methane to use for RNG production is a win-win. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1576-
Al, p. 2]
• RNG technology is already well-established, high-performing, and available today, with
over 50,000 trucks running on it. RNG broke a new record in 2022, making up 69% of all
on-road fuel used in natural gas vehicles. There is sufficient feedstock for RNG to power
a quarter of the nation's heavy-duty trucks. It's slightly more expensive for trucks to use
a modern, efficient natural gas engine than a diesel engine but vastly less than a battery
electric truck, which currently often retails for over twice as much as a diesel truck.
While total cost of ownership for battery electric trucks is expected to come down in the
years ahead, relying solely on a technology that is largely unproven in the heavy-duty on-
road sector is unwise and misguided. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1576-A1, p. 2]
• The two leading market-based programs for transportation decarbonization in the U.S. -
EPA's very own Renewable Fuel Standard and California's Low Carbon Fuel Standard -
both treat RNG favorably. The vast majority of the 250+ domestic RNG projects
operating today send at least a portion of their fuel to the heavy-duty on-road vehicle
market. Yes, potential demand for RNG will always outpace supply, particularly for
stationery (non-road) applications. But much of the success we have tracked over the past
decade in seeing this country's waste-derived methane put to beneficial use has been tied
to investors' and developers' ability to see the direct link between supply and demand.
Eliminating RNG's eligibility for use in trucks and buses within the next decade may
seriously undermine efforts to drastically reduce unchecked methane emissions. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1576-A1, p. 2]
• Europe provides a noteworthy example of including - even mandating - RNG (aka
'biomethane') in its transport sector. The European Union (EU) measures greenhouse
gases on a lifecycle basis, and biomethane is among its accepted renewable energy
sources. This includes the EU-wide carbon Emissions Trading System, where biomethane
production generates valuable credits that higher-carbon producers must purchase to
offset their emissions. Furthermore, the EU has set a legally binding mandate for
aggregate annual production and usage of biomethane by member-states: 35 billion cubic
meters (bcm) by 2030. This builds upon its previous target for renewables to cover at
least 14% of the transport sector by 2030, with sub-targets for advanced biofuels and
biogas to reach 1% by 2025 and 3.5% by 2030. By 2024, EU countries must separately
collect organic waste, which should help scale up biomethane production. A whole host
of EU financing mechanisms are available to help meet this 35 bcm target by 2030 as
well. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2022-0985-1576-A1, pp. 2-3]
• RNG can also be used as a sustainable feedstock - 'bio-intermediate' - for producing
other low- and no-carbon gaseous and liquid fuels that will be essential for economy-
wide decarbonization. This includes production of sustainable aviation fuel, methanol and
hydrogen without the use of any fossil fuels, since organic waste will continue to be
generated. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1576-A1, p. 3]
• Battery electric trucks may have zero tailpipe emissions, but on a lifecycle basis, they
actually do have significant emissions (and human rights concerns) from mining lithium
and cobalt abroad - such as in the Democratic Republic of Congo and China - as well as
from transportation and manufacturing; they also have troublesome battery disposal
1217
-------
issues. Additionally, the batteries necessary to power a Class 8 truck are heavy, in turn
increasing wear on the tires, brakes, and the roads, all of which cause fine particulate
emissions. Some studies have even found particulate emissions from these non-tailpipe
sources on battery electric heavy-duty vehicles to be higher than what diesel trucks emit
(tailpipe and non-tailpipe). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1576-A1, p. 3]
• EPA projects that the proportion of battery electric trucks in the heavy-duty sleeper cab
category will rise from 0% in 2029 to 10% in 2030, 20% in 2031, and 25% in 2032.
Those figures seem unrealistic, but even at face value they leave the vast majority of
these sleeper cabs still presumably using diesel for at least the next decade, and likely
much longer. However, allowing RNG-fueled heavy-duty vehicles to count indefinitely
under Phase 3 regulations would lead to much faster adoption and massive greenhouse
gas reductions starting now, rather than waiting many years to make a difference. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1576-A1, p. 3]
On a final note, we want to underscore that we are totally supportive of the development of
battery electric technology and infrastructure for heavy-duty vehicles. It will take many years for
the US to scale up electric vehicle charging infrastructure for heavy-duty trucks; to improve
electric vehicle technology for heavy-duty models and thus their performance; and to eventually
reduce costs through economies of scale. In the meantime, trucking fleets can make a big
difference in emissions by switching to RNG-fueled trucks now, at reasonable cost and reliable
availability. Knowing that RNG-fueled trucks would be allowed indefinitely in the Phase 3 rules
would give fleet owners the certainty they seek, likely leading to a major increase in RNG usage,
at least until battery electric becomes a realistic option for many of these fleets performing an
essential service that is the lifeblood of our economy. In any case, RNG will never be able to
cover all diesel usage - even at full theoretical production from all feedstocks, it could displace
perhaps 20% of total diesel usage in the US. But to exclude it entirely from eligibility under the
EPA Phase 3 regulations would be a grave mistake. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1576-A1, p. 3]
Organization: Hexagon Agility Inc.
Vehicles with internal combustion engines running on renewable fuels should be given credit
under the Proposed Rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1507-A1, p. 1]
We request that as part of EPA's GHG emission standards analysis, EPA further investigate
the emissions reduction efficacy of renewable natural gas as it compares to other fuel types -
including electricity. As indicated in the graph below, and as further described in the following
link (Clean Energy Fuels - How sustainability goals become reality), RNG is the only fuel with a
negative carbon intensity. Indeed, RNG captures harmful methane that would otherwise be
released into the atmosphere, and repurposes it as a clean fuel that quickly and effectively
decarbonizes the heavy duty sector. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1507-A1, pp. 2-3] [See the
graph on p. 2 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1507-A1]
We believe that a wider and more agnostic approach to clean fuel technologies will allow the
market to determine whatever technology is best for a particular interest, while ensuring GHG
reductions are achieved over time. Remember, internal combustion architecture in the heavy-
duty sector has a 100+ year track record, whereas their electric counterparts have only a roughly
3-to-5-year history. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1507-A1, p. 2]
1218
-------
Heavy duty vehicles with renewable natural gas-powered internal combustion engines ('ICE')
and hydrogen ICE engines effectively allow for massive reductions in greenhouse gases,
particularly in the in the 10L to 15L heavy duty segment. Currently, battery electric and fuel cell
heavy duty vehicles do not replace their ICE and HICE counterparts on a 1:1 basis due to energy
storage capacity. Future iteratives may be able to replace these, however today they cannot.
Thus, achieving GHG emission reductions in this sector can only be accomplished through
utilization of ICE vehicles running on clean and renewable fuels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1507-A1, p. 2]
Hexagon Agility has the unique perspective of offering products within all fields of the clean
energy marketplace and therefore is keenly aware of the state of that marketplace. Renewably
fueled low emission heavy-duty vehicles are available, cost-effective, safe and reliable. Indeed,
Hexagon Agility has over two decades of experience with natural gas fuel systems and storage.
Medium- and heavy-duty trucks using renewable fuel remain one of the most cost-effective
remedies to address greenhouse gas and NOx emissions, especially in the near-term. LowNOx
technologies (i.e., trucks with 0.02 gram per brake horsepower (g/bhp-hr) engines) are certified
by CARB as 90 percent cleaner than diesel and are available today to help achieve emissions
goals on time. Moreover, medium- and heavy-duty trucks running on RNG are only continuing
to improve, with CARB recently certifying the lowest NOx engine ever. Simply put, these
trucks, specifically in classes 4 through 8, are commercially available and technologically
feasible and therefore should be evaluated and included in the Proposed Rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1507-A1, p. 2]
Practicality and cost-effectiveness support inclusion of ICE vehicles running on clean fuels in
the Proposed Rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1507-A1, p. 2]
Hexagon Agility's products have proven real-world reliability, having been used on over
60,000 commercial vehicles for more than 20 years, logging billions of miles. Common
examples of vehicles utilizing our RNG fueling systems are refuse trucks, transit buses and line
haul trucks. These customers have predictable routes, demand high vehicle up-time & reliability
while logging high miles and long days. These companies are highly sensitive to vehicle
lifecycles and total cost of ownership (TCO). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1507-A1, p. 3]
Currently, by taking a tailpipe only approach, EPA is really demanding a fuel cell and
electrification-only solution. This position will cause substantial up-front financial investment
for customers while being the highest risk option in terms of up-time and TCO, considering
vehicles are not replaced on a 1:1 basis. This will also drive all consumer goods up during a time
of inflation and threatened recession. There are faster and lower cost pathways to protecting
public health and driving carbon emissions down. As EPA is aware, low NOx technologies are
available today and have a proven track-record as a critical and cost-effective emissions
reduction strategy. It is imperative to fully consider faster and lower cost pathways to attaining
cleaner air for the public health. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1507-A1, p. 3]
Organization: Lubrizol Corporation (Lubrizol)
Lubrizol believes that vehicle owners and fleets in the heavy-duty vehicle sector will use a
range of fuels and technologies to meet their future operational and environmental needs. Thus,
we are pleased to see EPA acknowledge that it expects to see Original Engine Manufacturers
1219
-------
("OEMs") use an array of technologies to meet the requirements of the Final Rule. Lubrizol
strongly encourages EPA to promulgate a Final Rule that will advance all three strategies
highlighted in the Biden administration's Transportation Decarbonization Blueprint (the
"Blueprint"), i.e., Sustainable Liquid Fuels ("SLFs"), Battery-Electric Vehicles ("BEVs"), and
Hydrogen.2 While there is exciting progress being made to develop heavy-duty engines and
vehicles that will operate on electricity and hydrogen, the majority of new heavy-duty vehicles
will continue to use internal combustion engines ("ICE") for many years to come. This will be
especially true in the heavier vehicle classes in the heavy-duty vehicle market.3 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1651-A2, p. 2.]
2 The U.S. National Blueprint for Transportation Decarbonization: A Joint Strategy to Transform
Transportation (the "Blueprint"). Accessed on June 11, 2023 at The U.S. National Blueprint for
Transportation Decarbonization: A Joint Strategy to Transform Transportation | Department of Energy.
See, e.g., page 5, Figure B and similar references elsewhere in the Blueprint.
3 Lubrizol notes that, even in California and the other states that adopt California's Advanced Clean
Transportation ("ACT") rule (collectively, the "ACT States"), most new trucks sold in 2035 will still be
ICE vehicles fueled by petroleum diesel fuel, absent any further changes in state or federal fuel policy.
More specifically, manufacturers who certify Class 2b-8 chassis or complete vehicles with combustion
engines will be required to sell zero-emission trucks as an increasing percentage of their annual sales in the
ACT States from 2024 to 2035. By 2035, zero-emission truck/chassis sales will need to be 55% of Class 2b
- 3 truck sales, 75% of Class 4-8 straight truck sales, and 40% of truck tractor sales in the ACT States.
In the segments of the market that will continue to rely on ICE technologies, we note that the
Blueprint described SLFs as a "large, long-term opportunity" for long-haul heavy trucks. In fact,
the Blueprint found that SLFs represent an even greater opportunity in this market segment than
BEVs. We agree with this assessment, and we encourage EPA to integrate the potential market
growth of biofuels, e-fuels, and other SLFs into its Technology Assessment, certification
pathways, and other relevant aspects of the Final Rule. We believe that doing so will maximize
and accelerate the emissions reduction potential of ICE vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1651-A2, p. 2]
2) The Final Rule Should Include Certification Pathways for all emerging ICE Technologies
The Proposal acknowledges that further ICE technology development is likely to be needed to
meet the requirements of the Final Rule. For example, it notes the likely use of hybrid and
hydrogen-fueled ICE vehicles. Lubrizol anticipates that there will be additional ICE technology
development, including dedicated SLF engines, as well as new technologies for engines and
vehicles that will continue to operate on traditional petroleum diesel fuel. The Final Rule should
include certification pathways for each of these technologies and fuels, as well as flexibility to
enable the certification of new technologies that have not been developed yet. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1651-A2, p. 5]
We strongly urge EPA to update its Greenhouse Gas Emissions Model ("GEM") inputs to
account for the full range of fuels that are likely to power these emerging engine technologies. In
particular, limiting the GEM fuel inputs to gasoline, diesel, and natural gas masks the potential
emissions benefits of engines that are developed as dedicated SLF engines. Creating GEM inputs
for each SLF that may be used will create additional incentives for innovation and investment in
dedicated SLF-fueled ICE vehicles, which will help ensure that the Final Rule meets its goals as
fully, as expeditiously, and as cost-effectively as possible. In addition, it will help the lubricant
industry develop appropriate lubricants and oils for these engines by ensuring that we have
1220
-------
appropriate information when setting our performance specifications. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1651-A2, p. 5]
4) Lubrizol supports consideration for the creation of a diesel deposit control standard similar
to 40 CFR 1090.260
As warranty and useful life requirements are extended, it is imperative that in-use practices
for vehicles maintain emission and GHG performance as 'like-new" as possible. Deposits and
wear within the fuel system can lead to a significant deterioration of emissions and efficiency
through mechanisms such as:
• External injector tip deposits
• Internal injector deposits
• Fuel injection system wear [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1651-A2, p. 6]
Modern engines operate at much higher injection pressures, their fuel injectors have tighter
passages and tolerances, and injection strategies may include several injections per single piston
stroke. Extremely small deposits on the tip of the injector can dramatically alter fuel flow
affecting emissions. This is particularly critical in engines where the injector tip is subjected to
combustion related soot combined with high in-cylinder temperatures and pressures. Internal
deposits can affect the response of the injector needle, also leading to higher emissions.
Increased particulates can accelerate the rate of particulate filter soot accumulation (plugging),
which leads to more regenerative cycles and decreased fuel economy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1651-A2, p. 6]
In the US diesel market, different from many other countries, the average detergent additive
level is very low. In fact, most of the diesel fuel sold contains no diesel detergent, even though it
is known and demonstrated that the usage of diesel detergent is an effective way to keep the
engines clean or even clean them up (depending on the treat rate). Clean engines generate less
emissions than a dirty one and the use of detergent additives can extend that performance
throughout their serviceable lives. Thus, we request the EPA consider the creation of a diesel
deposit control standard similar to 40 CFR 1090.260. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1651-A2, p. 7]
Organization: Lynden Incorporated
Limiting Renewable Fuel Options
Lynden understands that the proposed rule is considered technology neutral, however
mandating 'Zero-Emission Vehicles' becomes a de-facto ban on the internal combustion engine,
limits viable options, and fails to consider renewable fuels and other currently available
technologies that are able to significantly reduce emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1470-
Al, p. 1]
For example,
• Engines manufactured after 2010 are 25% more fuel efficient and cut NOx (nitrous
oxide) and PM (particulate matter) by over 90% compared to older engines. Replacing
these older engines that remain in operation, estimated at 47%, would be the most cost
effective and reliable solution for reducing C02, PM, and NOX emissions.
1221
-------
• Renewable diesel, manufactured from biological feedstocks, emits 56% less C02 than
traditional diesel and 38% less C02 than a battery electric truck when considering the full
lifecycle emissions of vehicle production, use, and disposal. 1
• Renewable Natural Gas provides negative carbon emissions by capturing methane from
agricultural biogas and landfills. However, these 'carbon negative' trucks are not
considered 'zero-emissions' under the rule.
• Some of the high-horsepower engines that we rely on to haul very heavy loads in Alaska
are being phased out of production because of the inability to meet emission standards.
Using lower horsepower engines will require more trips and result in more overall
emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1470-A1, pp. 1-2]
1 American Transportation Research Institute (May 2022). Understanding the C02 Impacts of Zero-
Emission Trucks. Understanding the C02 Impacts of Zero-Emission Trucks - TruckingResearch.org
The proposed standards will not only increase the cost, weight, and complexity of compliant
diesel engines, they will force engine manufacturers to subsidize 'Zero Emission Vehicles' by
further increasing the cost of diesel and natural gas engines. By reducing our options and making
diesel engines more expensive, the most cost effective and reliable solutions for reducing
emissions: replacing pre-2010 engines with modern engines combined with the option to use
renewable diesel and renewable natural gas becomes artificially less economical and even further
out of reach. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1470-A1, p. 2]
Recommendations:
• Assist small fleets and owner-operators to replace pre-2010 diesel engines with modern
diesel engines.
• Take into account the lifecycle emissions of fuels such as renewable diesel, renewable
natural gas, and electrical generation as well as vehicle operation, production, and
disposal. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1470-A1, p. 5]
Organization: MEMA
Renewable fuels, such as hydrogen, ethanol, renewable natural gas (RNG) and carbon-neutral
renewable diesel are viable, proven pathways to lower emissions in the trucking sector almost
immediately. We are concerned the EPA has dismissed alternate fuel options, and as a result is
missing opportunities for greater emissions reductions. We refer the EPA to the U.S. DOE
alternate fuels data center for detailed examples of how alternate fuels can reduce vehicle
emissions.' Several studies and programs run by Argonne National Laboratory also point to
reduced emissions through alternate fuels.2 EPA should include more analysis of these
alternatives and do more to encourage investment and deployment of these technologies. We
note CARB recognizes renewable diesel fuel3 and allows it to be used for compliance with
certain regulations. EPA should consider similar provisions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1570-
Al, p. 5]
1 https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/
2 https://www.anl.gov/taps/fuels
3 See § 2449.1(f) of the CARB In-Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets Regulation
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2022/off-roaddiesel/ordl5dayatta-l.pdf
1222
-------
Trucks that use alternative, lower-carbon fuels can help advance EPA climate goals while also
contributing to national security by lowering our dependence on foreign oil. Additionally,
encouragement and investment in carbon-neutral fuels will also positively impact existing
vehicles already on the road. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1570-A1, p. 5]
Organization: Missouri Farm Bureau (MOFB)
MOFB urges EPA to thoroughly consider an all-of-the-above approach, and not overlook the
important role home-grown biofuels can and should play in this policy discussion. According to
a 2021 study conducted by the U.S. Department of Energy and published by Argonne National
Laboratory, ethanol has 52 percent less greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions than gasoline.2 In
addition, biodiesel and renewable diesel reduce GHG emissions 50-80 percent when compared to
petroleum diesel, depending on the feedstock used.3 Meanwhile, the proposed rule will upend
the transportation sector to 'achieve significant reductions in GHG emissions' to achieve a mere
17-18 percent decrease in GHG emissions.4 EPA should look to Missouri and the heartland of
America as a key part of the solution, instead of the approach taken by its proposed rule, which
will surely prop up the economies of foreign countries - namely China's - instead of our own.
EPA should acknowledge that higher utilization of biofuels can occur today with the majority of
vehicles on our nation's roadways, rather than attempting to replace all of the internal
combustion engines being driven by Americans on a daily basis. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1584-A1, pp. 1-2]
2 Ethanol vs. Petroleum-Based Fuel Carbon Emissions | Department of Energy, accessed June 14, 2023.
3 https ://cleanfuels.org/docs/default-source/one-pagers/2019-greenhouse-gas-
benefit.pdf?sfvrsn=d4909bbc_10, accessed June 14, 2023.
4 EPA Greenhouse Gas Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles - Phase 3, Vol. 88, Fed. Reg. 25926, p. 25935
(Apr. 27, 2023) (to be codified at 40 C.F.R. pts. 1036, 1037, 1054, 1065 & 1074).
Organization: National Association of Convenience Stores (NACS), NATSO, and SIGMA
The Proposed Rule Blunts Innovation and Competition.
EPA's effort to mandate a shift to EV technologies directly disincentivizes new technology
that could maximize diverse investments and achieve near-term and long-term emission
reduction goals. Indeed, EPA's proposal risks zeroing out new innovations in emissions
reductions for ICE vehicles. Because there is no way for manufacturers to comply based on ICE
vehicles alone, they would not achieve a return on new investments for and in developing that
technology. Finalizing regulations that push people to that conclusion will cause truck
manufacturers to miss an opportunity for innovative emissions reductions. Climate research has
consistently emphasized the importance of near-term emissions reductions relative to future
reductions.23 More efficient diesel engines coupled with low-carbon, biomass-based diesel can
reduce emissions immediately. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1603-A1, p. 9]
23 See G. Cornelis van Kooten, Patrick Withey, and Craig M.T. Johnston, BIOMASS AND BIOENERGY
151 'Climate Urgency and the Timing of Carbon Fluxes,' (August 2021) available at
https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2021.106162. ('The current climate emergency dictates that immediate
action is required to mitigate climate change, which implies that carbon fluxes occurring 20 or more years
from now are too late to have any mitigative effect.')
1223
-------
As just one example, there have been increasingly innovative technologies surrounding
expanded natural gas vehicle ('NGV') production in recent years. But the Proposed Rule fails to
provide the automotive sector with any meaningful incentive to continue developing such
technology or similar vehicles that can effectively rely on renewable natural gas ('RNG'). The
latest data available from the California Low Carbon Fuel Standard Program indicates that the
average carbon intensity of bio-CNG (compressed natural gas) sold in 2020 was -
5.85gC)2e/MJ.24 In the coming years, the carbon intensity of RNG is expected to be even lower
as greater amounts of low-carbon dairy gas is produced and used in NGVs. This is especially
important in light of market considerations for HD vehicles in particular. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1603-A1, p. 9]
24 California Air Resources Board, Low Carbon Fuel Standard Program, LCFS Pathway Certified Carbon
Intensities (2023) available at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/lcfs-pathway-certified-carbon-
intensities.
Further, existing alternative fuel incentives—such as the Renewable Fuel Standard ('RFS')
and biofuel blending and alternative fuel infrastructure tax credits—have allowed truckstops and
other fuel retailers to offer less expensive, lower carbon fuels to our customers, while also
supporting investments in renewable fuel production.25 The incentives Congress established
over the past few decades have caused the displacement of significant volumes of petroleum-
based fuel with renewable fuels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1603-A1, p. 9]
25 Importantly, renewable fuels significantly reduce carbon dioxide emissions through the lifecycle of
heavy-duty vehicles without requiring truck drivers to cover the upfront costs of a battery-electric truck,
which costs roughly twice as much as a comparable diesel-powered truck. See Todd Dills, OVERDRIVE,
'Cutting through Heavy-Duty E-Trucks Hype: 7 in 10 Owner-Ops Show 'Zero' Interest in Electric
Powertrain Techs,' (Dec. 15, 2021) available at
https://www.overdriveonline.com/equipment/article/15286428/cutting-through-the-heavyduty-etrucks-
hype.
Recent estimates indicate that renewable diesel reduces carbon intensity by 65% compared to
petroleum-based diesel.26 Increased utilization of renewable fuels could lead to significant
emissions reductions by improving the emissions profiles not only of new vehicles but existing
vehicles as well. The Proposed Rule surrenders the market's ability to deliver near-term
emissions savings by imposing a top-down, hurried transition to one technology. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1603-A1, p. 10]
26 U.S. Dep't of Energy, 'Renewable Diesel' (2023) available at
https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/renewable_diesel.html.
Organization: National Corn Growers Association (NCGA)
As producers of the primary feedstock for low-carbon ethanol and users of heavy-duty
vehicles, we support a final rule that will allow all solutions to accelerate decarbonization of the
heavy-duty vehicle sector. The final rule should follow the direction of the Biden
Administration's Transportation Decarbonization Blueprint (Blueprint), which directly stated
that we need to deploy a range of solutions to meet our climate goals, including ethanol and other
sustainable biofuels and e-fuels, clean electricity, and clean hydrogen. More specifically, in the
long-haul truck sector, the Blueprint concluded that these Sustainable Liquid Fuels (SLFs) will
be a 'large, long-term' opportunity that is even greater than the market opportunity for battery-
electric vehicles in the long-haul truck sector. 1 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1622-A1, p. 1]
1224
-------
1 The U.S. National Blueprint for Transportation Decarbonization: A Joint Strategy to Transform
Transportation, see page 5, Figure B
The final rule should send a clear signal to innovators who seek to use ethanol to reduce the
GHG emissions of future trucks that will still rely on traditional internal combustion engines.
Unfortunately, as currently proposed, the Phase 3 GHG standards will hamper - if not wholly
preclude—the use of affordable and readily available low-carbon ethanol to decarbonize the
hard-to-electrify long-haul truck market. Further, it risks creating a chilling precedent for
ethanol's potential to decarbonize even harder-to-electrify nonroad engines used in agriculture,
construction, mining, locomotives, and marine engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1622-A1, p.
1]
EPA's Final Rule must provide a mechanism for certifying dedicated ethanol and other
dedicated alternative fuel engines. Currently, a dedicated ethanol engine must certify its
emissions as though it were a diesel-fueled engine. This penalizes ethanol in two ways: First, it
overlooks the real-world difference between biogenic and anthropogenic carbon, and thereby
treats ethanol as dirty as fossil diesel fuel from a climate perspective. Second, it ignores other
attributes of ethanol that should be incorporated into EPA's Greenhouse Gas Emissions Model
that are different than diesel fuel. Together, these two penalties mask the climate benefit of a
dedicated ethanol engine, compared to diesel, and overestimates the climate impact of ethanol by
threefold.2 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1622-A1, p. 1]
2 GEM currently estimates emissions from ethanol vehicles to be approximately 1.5 times worse than
diesel. However, using national averages, GREET calculates ethanol to have 50% of the lifecycle emissions
impact of diesel. Based on this information, GEM overestimates the climate impact of an ethanol-fueled
engine by 3x (1.5/.5).
EPA has proposed to treat future battery-electric vehicles and hydrogen-fueled fuel cell
vehicles as carbon-neutral at the tailpipe. EPA should also treat a dedicated ethanol engine as
carbon-neutral because the carbon emissions from such an engine will be 100 percent biogenic,
i.e., they derive from photosynthesis pulling carbon from the atmosphere in the natural carbon
cycle. These emissions will not be derived from fossil fuels, and they will not contribute to
climate change at the point of combustion in the engine. For these reasons, dedicated ethanol
vehicles should be treated as carbon-neutral at the tailpipe. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1622-A1,
p. 2]
Fixing the 'ethanol penalty' in EPA's current certification structure will enable SLFs to do
their job decarbonizing America's hard-to-electrify long-haul trucks as envisioned by the
Administration's Blueprint. The GEM calculations for a dedicated ethanol engine yield a
perverse outcome that has no bearing in reality - modeled emissions that are actually 'even
dirtier than diesel,' despite their obviously different contributions to climate change. Without
fixing the ethanol penalty in the final Phase 3 rule, it will be impossible for ethanol, and likely
other SLFs, to provide the 'large, long-term decarbonization opportunity' that the
Administration's Blueprint hopes for. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1622-A1, p. 2]
Correcting this penalty in the final rule will:
• Make the overall program more scientifically robust.
1225
-------
• Avoid the unintended climate backsliding that would result from a rule that
disincentivizes—if not precludes—investment in SLF-based engines that will help
accelerate decarbonization of hard-to-electrify vehicles.
• Provide a certification pathway that is aligned with Blueprint's prioritization of SLFs for
long-haul trucking and consistent with EPA's authority under Title II of the Clean Air
Act, as well as the Agency's proposed treatment of battery-electric and hydrogen-fueled
fuel cell vehicles.
• Reward American innovation and create new economic opportunities for the many farm
and rural communities that produce the fuels that will be used in future compression-
ignition engines that are designed to operate exclusively on SLFs like low-carbon
ethanol; and
• Result in faster, greater, more cost-effective decarbonization, air quality, and related
health benefits overall. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1622-A1, p. 2]
The bottom line is that to meet its decarbonization goals, EPA must finalize a rule that sends
the right market and regulatory signals to encourage and reward performance-based innovation
that delivers near-term, cost-effective emission reductions at scale. This includes sending the
signal that dedicated ethanol-fueled engines will be rewarded for their decarbonization potential,
rather than treating them as dirty as diesel from the perspective of tailpipe climate impacts.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1622-A1, p. 2]
Organization: Natural Gas Vehicles for America (NGVAmerica)
EPA must act now to adopt regulations that reward, credit, or account for the emission
reductions provided by biofuels. Without this requested action, eventually there could be no new
natural gas vehicles or other biofuel vehicles, and consequently no use of biofuels in
transportation unless they are used to produce electricity for electric vehicles. To continue to
certify and sell new natural gas vehicles, the current and proposed approach means that natural
gas vehicle manufacturers will eventually be forced to subsidize electric vehicle truck sales to
offset their tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions. This factor combined with regulations adopted by
California and approved by EPA that mandate the sale of zero-tailpipe vehicles eventually will
force manufacturers to stop offering natural gas trucks despite delivering substantial criteria
pollutant and greenhouse gas emission reductions, and supplying a significant portion of the on-
and off-road vehicles that will not be able to be electrified. This will have a negative impact on
emission reductions and will be extremely financially detrimental to businesses that have
invested in and employ workers in supporting the use of natural gas in transportation. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1522-A1, p. 2]
Numerous studies and analyses support the conclusion that there are significant environmental
benefits associated with powering natural gas vehicles with RNG to displace petroleum motor
fuels. Many of these studies support the conclusion that RNG fueled vehicles offer superior
benefits to electric vehicles. To be fair, that should not be a requirement for equitable treatment.
It should not be the job of RNG advocates to prove that RNG is superior to electricity or
hydrogen, or that it is more cost-effective, or more readily deployable, or doesn't rely on rare
earth minerals, etc. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1522-A1, p. 3]
EPA must stop favoring one technology over others by relying on outdated methods of
certifying vehicles and engines. There is not a single environmental journal that would publish a
1226
-------
paper or study that evaluates greenhouse gas emissions by only looking at tailpipe emissions or
tank to wheel emissions. They would not do it because it is not defensible and would be an
absurd comparison. The same is true for retaining greenhouse gas vehicle regulations that only
look at tailpipe emissions. It is no longer rational, defensible, or equitable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1522-A1, p. 3]
As noted in the introduction, data from California's Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS)
program demonstrates how clean and low carbon these RNG fueled heavy-duty vehicles truly
are. The most recent data confirms that the average carbon intensity (CI) value of California's
bio-CNG is negative 99 gC02e/MJ and has been negative for three consecutive years. In
California, 97 percent of the natural gas consumed or credited to on-road transportation fuel in
2022 was renewable natural gas. Nationally the percentage was 69 percent in 2022 including fuel
used in California. California continues to be a critical market for natural gas vehicles, but it is
noteworthy that nearly 50 percent of the RNG reported in 2022 was for use in areas outside of
California. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1522-A1, p. 3]
RNG Supply Can Support Additional NGV Uptake Here and Abroad
The International Energy Agency's (IEA) World Energy Outlook 2022 projects that, under its
different scenarios to 2050, renewable biogases (hydrogen and others) reach more than 400
billion cubic meters (bcm) by 2050; around 65 percent of that (260 bcm) is biomethane.5 The
World Biogas Association's far more aggressive outlook estimates that biomethane could
substitute 993 to 1380 bcm of natural gas, equivalent to 26-37 percent of the current natural gas
consumed globally.6 European authorities recently set a target of achieving 35 bcm of
biomethane by 2030.7 That target is roughly the energy equivalent of 8.9 billion diesel gallons.
The European target is notable in that if achieved it would represent a ten-fold increase in
production levels in less than ten years.8 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1522-A1, p. 5]
5 International Energy Agency, World Energy Outlook, Chapter 8, Outlook for Gaseous Fuels pp. 370,
377, and 380.
6 https://www.worldbiogasassociation.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/WBA-execsummary-
4ppa4_digital-Sept-2019.pdf
7 European Parliament supports 35 bcm biomethane target in EU Gas Package (gasworld.com)
8 EBA: 30% increase in European biomethane plants since 2021 | Bioenergy Insight Magazine (bioenergy-
news.com)
Part of the reason NGV advocates are confident there are ample supplies is that the RNG
industry and technology associated with it is very mature and existing domestic resources have
not been fully exploited. Another reason is that NGVs are expected to make up a portion of the
on-road market but not totally displace all gasoline or diesel vehicles. For example,
NGV America projects that successful future commercialization of NGVs in the heavy-duty
market segment, specifically Class 8 trucks, in the U.S. could begin to displace between 10-15
percent of annual sales in the next several years. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1522-A1, pp. 5-6]
If NGVs sales attain and maintain a level of 10 - 15 percent of new Class 8 sales, over the
next decade that could result in several hundred thousand Class 8 NGV trucks consuming the
equivalent of roughly 3-3.5 billion diesel gallon equivalents of fuel. Based on projections
developed by the America Gas Foundation and other organizations, this level of fuel
1227
-------
consumption — even if the vehicles were operated 100 percent on biomethane — would represent
only a small portion of the available RNG supplies projected to be available in the U.S. As noted
above, natural gas vehicles operating on blends considerably less than 100 percent still offer
significant greenhouse gas benefits. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1522-A1, p. 6]
Various reports include projections of U.S. renewable natural gas supply. The most recent is a
2019 report prepared by ICF for the American Gas Foundation.9 Based on the projections in that
report and shown below, there is more than sufficient potential supply of RNG to meet the
demand posed by on-road NGVs. NGVs today consume approximately 75 trillion Btu per year
(tBtu/y) and based on NGVAmerica's projections could grow to about 485 tBtu/y by 2035. This
amount is far below what the AGF report projects is possible in the future. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1522-A1, p. 6.] [See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1522-A1, pages 6-
7, for referenced figures.]
9 AGF 2019 RNG Study Full Report - FINAL 12-18-2019 (l).docx (gasfoundation.org)
EPA Must Amend its Proposal to Account for Benefits of Biofuels
NGV America is not alone in making the case that EPA must amend its proposal. Other
organizations including the refinery industry, independent fuel retailers, and the ethanol industry
have argued that EPA must make a course correction and following through on its prior
commitment to do so. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1522-A1, p. 7]
In 2012, EPA10 committed to sunset the use of the 0 g/mi allowance for electric vehicles as
explained below:
EPA is finalizing the full net upstream GHG emissions approach for the compliance treatment
for EV/PHEV/ FCVs beyond the per-company vehicle production threshold caps in MYs 2022-
2025. EPA is not adopting any type of "phase-in", i.e., the compliance value will change from 0
g/mi to the full net upstream GHG emissions value once a manufacturer exceeds the cap. EPA
believes that the levels of the per company vehicle production caps in MYs 2017-2025 are high
enough to provide a sufficient incentive such that any production beyond those caps should use
the full net upstream GHG emissions accounting. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1522-A1, p. 7]
10 2012-21972.pdf (govinfo.gov)
The preamble to that rule included the following discussion aptly summarizing the opposition
to the use of the 0 g/mi standard.
Two automakers opposed the use of 0 g/mi. Honda "believes that EPA should separate
incentives and credits from the measurement of emissions. Honda believes that without
accounting for the upstream emissions of all fuels, inaccurate comparisons between technologies
will take place * * *. EPA's regulations need to be comprehensive and transparent. By zeroing
out the upstream emissions, EPA is conflating incentives and credits with proper emissions
accounting." EcoMotors International "encourages EPA to drop the 0 g/mile tailpipe
compliance value." Environmental advocacy groups also opposed the 0 g/ mi compliance
treatment. The Natural Resources Defense Council claimed that 0 g/mi "undermines" the
pollution and technology benefits of the program. Along with other environmental groups, the
American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy also opposed 0 g/mi, but added that "[m]ost
important, however, is that a zero-upstream treatment of plug-in vehicles not be continued
indefinitely, and that full upstream accounting be applied to these vehicles by a date certain.
1228
-------
EPA's proposed treatment of EVs largely accomplishes this, so we strongly support that aspect
of the proposal." The American Petroleum Institute argued that "[ijgnoring the significant
contribution of (and extensive compilation of published literature on) upstream C02 emissions
from electricity generation, defies principles of transparency and sound science and distorts the
market for developing transportation fuel alternatives. It incentivizes the electrification of the
vehicle fleet with a pre-defined specific and costly set of technologies whose future potential is
not measured with the same well-to-wheels methodology against that of advanced biofuels or
other carbon mitigation strategies." Organizations advocating fuels other than electricity also
opposed the use of 0 g/mi. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1522-A1, p. 8]
Despite the expressed views, EPA nevertheless retained the 0 g/mi standard. In defense of
continuing to retain the 0 g/mi treatment and providing multiplier credits, EPA stated that:
EPA believes that it is both reasonable and appropriate to accept some short-term loss of
emissions benefits in the short run to increase the potential for far-greater game-changing
benefits in the longer run. The agency believes that these multipliers may help bring some
technologies to market more quickly than in the absence of incentives. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1522-A1, p. 8]
The European Biogas Association eloquently explained why the EU Commissions rules
should account for well-to-wheel emissions and their explanation is worth including here:
The current "tank-to-wheel" approach does not compare the different technologies
appropriately because it ignores emissions associated with the production of the fuel. It does not
recognise the positive contribution of renewable fuels such as biomethane to climate protection,
and thus biases one technology over others without a climate protection rationale. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1522-A1, p. 8]
The revised C02 regulation should propose technology-neutral solutions to reduce emissions
in an accelerated and cost-effective way. It should avoid one-size-fits-all options that could prove
insufficient in the long-term and may lead to a slow, unfair and costly emissions reduction
process. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1522-A1, p. 8]
The C02 regulation should be amended to ensure an integrated transition that picks no single
green technology over others and leaves no-one behind. All alternative fuels are necessary if
transport decarbonisation is to be delivered at pace. 11 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1522-A1, pp.
8-9]
11 SMART C02 STANDARDS FOR LEAN MOBILITY (europeanbiogas.eu)
The Frontier Economics report similarly offers an excellent case for ensuring proper treatment
and inclusion of biomethane.
Our analysis shows that gas mobility can help to contribute to reducing GHG emissions in
road transport at comparably low system cost. As gas mobility - in contrast to other drivetrain
technologies which are less mature - is readily available on vehicle, infrastructure and fuel
supply levels and thus quickly scalable now, it can contribute to ambitious early GHG emission
reduction by 2030 at low cost.
• Technological diversification. The immense challenge and high urgency for the mobility
sector to achieve emissions reductions does not allow for cherry picking of individual
1229
-------
technologies. Rather, we have to go "all-in" by enabling as many options to contribute as
possible.
• Freedom of choice and competition of technologies. The heterogeneity of mobility
applications with many individual factors determining the most efficient technology in
each case rules out any central planning approach - there is no "one size fits all" solution.
• Keeping options open. There is a high degree of uncertainty around the optimal
technology options in the future. Regulation therefore should avoid prematurely ruling
out any pathway (e.g. by banning combustion engines which may in the future be fuelled
by renewable or low-carbon fuels or gases). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1522-A1, p. 9]
We fervently believe that the Administration's decarbonization and clean air goals will only
be achieved by focusing on a multi-technology approach that includes cost-effective carbon-
negative solutions like RNG trucks that can begin accruing and compounding significant clean
air and carbon reductions right away. We, therefore, respectfully request that EPA provide
credits for natural gas vehicles based on the well-to-wheel benefits of the consuming natural gas
which increasingly includes larger amounts of RNG. We also believe that any additional
incentives finalized in this rulemaking to offer aid in the commercialization of electric vehicles
or fuel-cell vehicles should be extended to NGVs based on the extraordinary emission reduction
potential of these vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1522-A1, pp. 9-10]
Developing a Credit Mechanism for Biofuels
For greenhouse gas emissions, NGVAmerica previously requested that EPA use the 0.15
factor for greenhouse gas emissions to give credit to manufacturers for RNG use and to create an
efficient method of calculating the benefit of renewable natural gas until EPA moves to adopt a
well-to-wheels regulatory approach for all fuels, or until EPA can develop a detailed assessment
and emission factor specific to RNG use. A benefit of the 0.15 factor is that it is consistent with
the fuel efficiency credits and has been used in the past in EPA's regulations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1522-A1, p. 11]
Given the recent state of developments and based on the increasing amount of carbon
negative RNG that is being used in transportation, a factor of 0.15 may not adequately represent
the credit that is warranted for RNG use. A factor of 0.15 would represent an 85 percent
reduction and therefore is not carbon neutral or carbon negative. Developing a precise factor
based on WTW comparisons of different fuels is complicated for various reasons: moving
baseline targets; year-over-year changes in fuel mix; truck lifetimes, etc. That is probably part of
the reason that EPA decided to abandon developing factors for electric vehicles and retained the
0 g/mi factor. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1522-A1, p. 11]
One solution might be to adopt a similar approach for NGVs as has been adopted for electric
vehicles. Such a concept has been developed and is explained in the attached European Biogas
and NGVA Europe documents. NGVA Europe has proposed using a carbon correction factor
(CCF) that treats biomethane as having a carbon content of zero, and then providing an emission
offset related to the percentage of biomethane distributed in a country. In the example provided
in the NGV Europe document, 10 percent displacement with biomethane equates to a CCF
discount of 10 percent that is applied to a vehicle's tailpipe emissions of C02. In the case of the
U.S., the CCF for 2022 would be 69 percent if the national average were used or 97 percent if the
California average were used and credits were assigned based on state registration of motor
vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1522-A1, pp. 11 - 12]
1230
-------
One limitation of this approach is the fact that if RNG levels go up in the future manufacturers
selling trucks today would not receive the full benefit of future increases, and thus the credit or
CCF used would underrepresent the benefit of their trucks. This could be addressed by
periodically revising the levels of RNG use projected to occur during a vehicle's lifetime and
using that level of displacement to offset emissions. EPA previously proposed a similar concept
for electric vehicles that would have based emissions on future EIA forecasts of renewable
electricity. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1522-A1, p. 12]
(6) Federal agencies should work with state authorities to ensure that transportation policies
include performance metrics and consider a variety of different technologies as opposed to only
promoting specific technologies regardless of their cost; [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1522-A1, p.
13]
Organization: POET
Renewable fuels, such as bioethanol, already significantly reduce lifecycle carbon emissions
relative to fossil fuels. POET and other companies are exploring ways to further reduce those
lifecycle emissions. Bioethanol may soon achieve net-zero, or even net-negative, lifecycle
emissions by utilizing carbon capture, renewable power for process energy and biomass for
process heat at bioethanol plants, as well as requiring the use of climate-smart farming practices
by our producers. Renewable fuels will be particularly critical in decarbonizing heavy-duty
internal combustion engine ('ICE') vehicles that will remain on the road for the next several
decades. EPA's proposed GHG standards should credit vehicles that use renewable fuels to
reduce their net GHG emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1528-A1, pp. 1-2]
Renewable fuels are a well-proven technology. Many federal and state programs, such as the
federal Renewable Fuel Standard ('RFS') and California's Low Carbon Fuel Standard ('LCFS'),
among others, support the production of significant quantities of low-carbon renewable fuels.
Renewable fuels are also key to the Administration's renewable energy policies. They receive
funding and tax credits under the recently enacted Bipartisan Infrastructure Law ('BIL') and
Inflation Reduction Act ('IRA'). The U.S. National Blueprint for Transportation
Decarbonization, which EPA co-authored, also calls for more renewable fuels as one of its many
decarbonization strategies. 1 EPA's Proposed Rule should align with those policies by
incorporating renewable fuels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1528-A1, p. 2]
1 The U.S. National Blueprint for Transportation Decarbonization (Jan. 2023), available at
https://www.energy.gOv/sites/default/files/2023-01/the-us-national-blueprint-for-transportation-
decarbonization.pdf.
EPA Should Revise the Proposed Rule to Credit Lifecycle Emissions Reductions from
Renewable Fuels.
The Proposed Rule should credit renewable fuels and their lifecycle GHG emissions
reductions as an additional technology pathway for meeting EPA's emissions reduction
standards. EPA's focus on ZEVs ignores that renewable fuels are available now to significantly
reduce emissions from ICE vehicles. This is critical because, even under the most optimistic
ZEV projections, ICE vehicles, especially heavy-duty ICE vehicles, are expected to remain on
the road for decades. Renewable fuels offer one of the best solutions to decarbonizing those
legacy ICE vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1528-A1, p. 4]
1231
-------
Incorporating renewable fuels will have myriad benefits.
i. Renewable fuels significantly reduce carbon emissions on a lifecycle basis and may soon
achieve net-zero or net-negative emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1528-A1, p. 4]
The carbon-reducing benefits of renewable fuels are immense. Bioethanol, for instance,
reduces lifecycle GHG emissions by at least 46 percent relative to fossil transportation fuels.8
This figure represents the latest scientific research on land-use impacts, energy consumption, and
other processes that affect carbon emissions from bioethanol production.9 Other renewable
transportation fuels achieve similarly significant and, in some cases, even greater lifecycle
emissions reductions relative to fossil fuels. 10 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1528-A1, p. 4]
8 See Scully MJ, Norris GA, Alarcon Falconi TM, Macintosh DL. 2021a. Carbon intensity of corn ethanol
in the United States: state of the science. Environmental Research Letters, 16(4), pp. 043001. The 46
percent reduction figure relates to typical corn starch ethanol on an energy-adjusted basis. Cellulosic
ethanol that is currently being produced is associated with even greater reductions, and corn starch ethanol
may also have greater benefits when its octane value is accounted for.
9 See generally id.
10 See, e.g., U.S. EPA, Proposed Rule, Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) Program: Standards for 2023-2025
and Other Changes, 87 Fed. Reg. 80582, 80611 (Dec. 30, 2022).
POET and others are pursuing ways to reduce lifecycle emissions of renewable fuels even
further. By deploying carbon capture and storage technologies, switching to renewables such as
wind and solar for process energy at production facilities, utilization of renewable biomass rather
than natural gas for process heat, and encouraging farmers to implement climate-smart farming
practices, renewable fuel producers would reduce the carbon footprint of their processes even
further and may even achieve net-negative lifecycle emissions—removing carbon from the total
atmospheric carbon load. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1528-A1, p. 5]
POET is taking bioethanol production in this direction. For example, it is taking concrete
steps towards reducing bioethanol's carbon footprint by working to capture and store the
concentrated biogenic carbon dioxide emitted during bioethanol production. EPA has recognized
the immense benefits of this approach. In its most recent proposed RFS rulemaking, EPA
observed:
• Corn ethanol facilities produce a highly concentrated stream of C02 that lends itself to
carbon capture and sequestration (CCS). CCS is being deployed at ethanol plants and has
the potential to result in negative emissions at the ethanol production facility, especially if
mills with CCS use renewable sources of electricity and other advanced technologies to
lower their needs for thermal energy.11 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1528-A1, p. 5]
11 U.S. EPA, Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis: RFS Standards for 2023-2025 and Other Changes, at 175.
By POET's calculations, bioethanol production could achieve significant emissions
reductions from such measures, and could even achieve net-negative emissions. The latest
scientific assessments assign bioethanol a carbon intensity of 51.4 gC02/MJ.12 POET estimates
that sequestering the biogenic carbon dioxide byproduct of bioethanol production would reduce
bioethanol's carbon intensity by 30 gC02/MJ. Switching to renewable electricity for process
energy at bioethanol plants would reduce bioethanol's carbon intensity by another 5 gC02/MJ.
And climate-smart farming practices could lower bioethanol's carbon intensity by at least an
1232
-------
additional 30 gC02/MJ. The Proposed Rule should encourage these developments by crediting
renewable fuels for vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1528-A1, p. 5]
12 Scully et al., supra note 8.
Renewable fuels are a proven technology in a growing industry.
Renewable fuels are proven technology with a sophisticated regulatory incentive system and a
well-developed industry. That industry is also growing. This is due in part to existing federal and
state programs, including the RFS, California's LCFS, and Oregon's Clean Fuel Standard. It is
also due in part to the industry's genuine desire, and proven track record, to use biofuels to
reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and combat climate change. EPA can rely on the existing
incentive programs in the same way it relies on the BIL and IRA—which also promote
biofuels—when assessing technology pathways in the Proposed Rule. The existing programs
have given EPA years of real-world evidence showing how renewable fuels have succeeded in
reducing and replacing fossil transportation fuels at scale. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1528-A1,
pp. 5-6]
Beyond innovation in renewable fuels themselves, other companies are making significant
carbon-reducing advancements for heavy-duty vehicles. ClearFlame Engine Technologies, for
example, is deploying fleets of bioethanol-powered heavy-duty vehicles. 13 And Remora, another
heavy-duty vehicle company, designs carbon capture and sequestration systems that are fitted to
semi-trucks and capture carbon emitted directly from those vehicles as they travel. 14 Those
technologies greatly reduce carbon emission from heavy-duty vehicles. They, too, deserve a
boost from the Proposed Rule. Ignoring them, in fact, would run counter the very purpose of
utilizing 202 to address greenhouse gas emissions. Instead of encouraging these incredibly
promising greenhouse gas reduction technologies, the EPA approach would move towards
eliminating them from the marketplace by treating those technologies the same as engines that
utilize traditional fossil fuel. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1528-A1, p. 6]
13 ClearFlame Engine Technologies, https://clearflame.com/about/ (last visited June 16, 2023).
14 Remora, https://remoracarbon.com/vision/ (last visited June 16, 2023).
Renewable fuels crediting would give vehicle manufacturers more options to comply and
make for a more durable emissions reduction program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1528-A1, p.
6]
Adding a renewable fuel crediting mechanism would also make it more feasible for
automakers to meet EPA's stringent standards. Renewable fuels would further diversify the
pathways for manufacturers to comply with the proposed standards. This would be especially
important in places, particularly rural areas with lower population densities, where battery-
electric and hydrogen infrastructure will be difficult to develop and may not be cost-effective.
Renewable fuels would serve as a viable alternative to attain significant heavy-duty vehicle
emissions reductions in such areas. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1528-A1, p. 6]
EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ('NHTSA') have experience
with exactly this type of crediting. In prior iterations of EPA's 202 standard, and in the existing
NHTSA fuel economy standards, 'flexible fuel vehicles' ('FFVs') receive compliance benefits
because they can run on alternative fuels such as E85.15 This ability to utilize lower greenhouse
gas fuels is adjusted by an 'F Factor' that represents how much renewable fuel is actually used in
1233
-------
the real world. 16 EPA should re-introduce crediting for vehicles that can utilize higher blends of
renewable fuels, and should expand the program to include technologies other than just FFVs.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1528-A1, pp. 6-7]
15 49 CFR 523.2 (definition of dual-fuel vehicle includes flexible fuel vehicles); 49 CFR 536.10
(indicating that dual-fuel vehicles can earn credits under the standards); 2017 and Later Model Year Light-
Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards, 77 Fed. Reg.
62624 (Oct. 5, 2012) (providing that FFVs could generate credits under the standards).
16 40 CFR 600.510-12(k).
Crediting vehicle engines that run on biofuels would also create a more durable program.
Enabling a broader suite of technologies could avoid supply chain and other problems that are
plaguing industry generally and threatening to undermine the Proposed Rule as currently
structured. EPA should take a broader, more diversified approach to guard against other
unforeseen events that may affect the flow of critical materials in the international economy.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1528-A1, p. 7]
Finally, a broader set of technologies may protect the rule from being withdrawn by future
administrations. Biofuels enjoy broad bipartisan support, as evidenced by the recent debt ceiling
negotiations between members of Congress. 17 Both Republicans and Democrats in the House of
Representatives successfully pressed for the removal of provisions in an early version of the debt
ceiling bill that would have cut biofuels subsidies, and Congress remained steadfast in including
important biofuels incentives that should not be undermined by the Proposed Rule. 18 A rule that
moves the needle too far toward one or two technologies risks political pushback if those
technologies lose public support. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1528-A1, p. 7]
17 K. Brugger, Clean Energy, Ethanol Concerns Dog Debt Ceiling Bill, E&E Daily (Apr. 25, 2023),
https://subscriber.politicopro.eom/article/eenews/2023/04/25/clean-energy-ethanol-concerns-dog-debt-
ceiling-bill-00093594; J. Dillon et al., GOP Scrambles to Address Energy Concerns with Debt Bill, E&E
Daily (Apr. 26, 2023), https://www.eenews.net/articles/gop-scrambles-to-address-energy-concerns-with-
debt-bill/.
18 Id.
EPA Should Credit Renewable Fuels for Their Lifecycle Emissions Reductions or By
Treating the Biogenic Emissions from Renewable Fuels as Zero-Emissions Sources.
Because carbon dioxide differs from other air pollutants, a different regulatory approach is
warranted. EPA's crediting programs, like the Proposed Rule, should include renewable fuels
because they replace fossil fuels, reducing their use and the need to extract and burn them.
Although renewable fuels emit carbon when burned, those emissions are biogenic: the carbon
dioxide naturally recirculates when the plants and other biomass sources absorb the carbon
dioxide as they grow. The result is no net increase in atmospheric carbon. The more we can rely
on fuels utilizing biogenic carbon, the less we will need to use fossil fuels that increase the
atmosphere's total carbon load. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1528-A1, p. 10]
This phenomenon is widely recognized by lifecycle greenhouse gas models such as the
GREET model developed and maintained by Argonne National Laboratory. EPA regularly
utilizes lifecycle greenhouse gas modeling in its implementation of the RFS. EPA could utilize
the Argonne GREET model and its own experience with lifecycle assessments to establish
nationwide average carbon intensity scores for renewable fuels. Vehicles that utilize those fuels
1234
-------
could be credited based on the degree of GHG reductions compared to fossil fuels and a factor
that represents real-world use of renewable fuels in the vehicle (an 'F Factor'). [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1528-A1, p. 10]
To the extent EPA does not wish to examine lifecycle emissions in detail, an alternative
approach could be to assign zero tailpipe emissions to renewable fuels because their biogenic
emissions are canceled out by the carbon intake of biofuels feedstocks. Such an approach would
be consistent with EPA's lack of consideration of lifecycle emissions associated with ZEVs.
EPA already largely assumes zero tailpipe emissions for renewable fuels when determining
whether to approve new RFS production pathways for biofuels.30 EPA also considers 'biogenic
C02 emissions resulting from the combustion of biomass from managed forests at stationary
sources for energy production as carbon neutral,' per the agency's 2018 statement of policy.31
Additionally, the California Air Resources Board ('CARB') treats biogenic emissions as carbon
neutral under its cap-and-trade regulations. Under CARB's regulations, C02 emissions from
certain biomass-derived fuels (biogenic solid waste; waste pallets, crates, dunnage,
manufacturing and construction wood wastes, tree trimmings, mill residues, and range land
maintenance residues; all agricultural crops and waste; and certain wood and wood wastes) do
not count towards an entity's compliance obligations.32 The same assumptions could apply
here.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1528-Al, pp. 10-11]
30 See, e.g., ENVIA Energy, LLC, Landfill Biogas to Diesel, Naphtha for D-Code 3 or D-Code 7 RINs
(May 8, 2015), available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-08/documents/envia-energy-
merged-deter-ltr.pdf; Oberon Fuels, Inc., Waste-derived Biogas to Demethyl ether ('DME') (Aug. 12,
2014), available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-08/documents/oberon-fuels-
determination.pdf.
31 EPA's Treatment of Biogenic Carbon Dioxide (C02) Emissions from Stationary Sources that Use
Forest Biomass for Energy Production at 6 (Apr. 23, 2018), available at https://www.epa.gov/air-and-
radiation/epas-treatment-biogenic-carbon-dioxide-emissions-stationary-sources-use-forest.
32 Cal. Code Regs. tit. 17, 95852.2.
U.S. EPA Fails to Account for the Potential of Ethanol and Other Renewable Fuels to
Achieve GHG Reductions from HD Vehicles as Alternatives to Electric and Hydrogen Vehicles
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1528-A1, p. 31]
Although HD BEVs, FCEVs, and H2-ICE vehicles have zero tailpipe emissions of C02, they
are still sources of C02 emissions because of the emissions associated with fossil fuels used to
produce the electricity or hydrogen used to power them. It then follows that the magnitude of the
effective C02 emissions from these vehicles will not be zero and will in fact vary depending on
the source of that electricity or hydrogen. In contrast, while HD vehicles fueled by ethanol or
other renewable biofuels fuels will have tailpipe C02 emissions, they may have lower overall
effective C02 emissions than electric or hydrogen vehicles. This is because there may be less
fossil fuel used in their production and the fact that the C02 emitted at the tailpipe will
ultimately be removed from the atmosphere by the growing of the next generation of feedstock
plants. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1528-A1, p. 31]
Given that the purpose of the Proposed Rule is to reduce GHG emissions is to 'further reduce
GHG air pollution from highway heavy-duty engines and vehicles across the United States' and
not to mandate the use of HD ZEVs, U.S. should consider the addition of provisions in the
Proposed rule that would lead to greater substitution of ethanol and other fuels for gasoline and
1235
-------
diesel used in conventional vehicles These would include creating appropriate tailpipe GHG
credit provisions for new HD vehicles designed to operate on ethanol blends above E10 and up
to E99 that recognize the renewable nature of ethanol and similar provisions for HD vehicles
capable of operating on other renewable fuels. An obvious advantage of this approach is that it
would provide vehicle and engine manufacturers with compliance options other than
overreliance on HD ZEV technology that may or may not be accepted in the marketplace and
help to ensure that substantial reductions in HD GHG emissions are actually realized by the
Proposed Rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1528-A1, p. 31]
Organization: South Dakota Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources (DANR)
Biofuels
The proposed emissions standards and the effort to use regulations to essentially mandate EV
use ignores the benefits of continued use of renewable biofuels to power our vehicles. South
Dakota's primary industry is agriculture, and we are the nation's fifth-largest ethanol producer.
Ethanol is clean burning, renewable fuel used in our existing vehicle fleet allowing our citizens
to travel across our state safely and reliably. Instead of working to mandate EV use, DANR
recommends EPA look for ways to support the continued production and use of renewable
biofuels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1639-A2, p. 3]
South Dakota is a rural state with a small population, wide open spaces, and clean air. South
Dakota is in full compliance or attainment with all federal criteria pollutants and the proposed
emissions standards will not significantly improve our air quality. However, by essentially
mandating EV use, they will limit the ability of our citizens to live and work in rural South
Dakota. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1639-A2, p. 3]
Organization: Truck Renting and Leasing Association (TRALA)
Continued EPA Support is Needed for the Use of Low-Carbon Fuels
TRALA requests EPA support and incentivize the continued use of lower carbon intensity
fuels throughout the coming decades instead of limiting itself to zero-emission technology
pathways that reduce C02 at tailpipe under the proposed rule. By way of example, data from
California's Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) program demonstrates how clean and low-
carbon emitting Renewable Natural Gas (RNG) fueled HD vehicles truly are. Recent data
confirms that the average carbon intensity value of California's bio-compressed natural gas has
been characterized as being a negative carbon fuel for three consecutive years. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1577-A1, p. 22]
Renewable diesel fuel is another low carbon alternative. Drop-in renewable diesel fuels,
produced from forest residues or wood waste feedstock via thermochemical conversion
technologies, could also potentially reduce GHG emissions more than 75% despite the varying
energy efficiency of the conversion routes and feedstocks used.28 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1577-A1, p. 22]
28 Journal of Sustainable Energy & Fuels, Decarbonization potential of on-road fuels and powertrains in
the European Union and the United States: a well-to-wheels assessment, (Published Sept. 1, 2022)
(Decarbonization potential of on-road fuels and powertrains in the European Union and the United States: a
well-to-wheels assessment - Sustainable Energy & Fuels (RSC Publishing).
1236
-------
Transitioning to a zero-emissions future is not about flipping a switch. Such unprecedented
efforts will not occur overnight and must consider the fact that internal combustion engines will
remain necessary for the trucking industry nationwide for decades to come. EPA has the
opportunity to support the continued growth and use of low-carbon alternative fuels within the
scope of this rulemaking. TRALA therefore recommends that EPA adopt a regulation that
rewards, credits, and accounts for the emission reductions provided by biofuels and other low-
carbon fuel options. Without the inclusion of biofuels and other low-carbon fuels under Phase 3,
the agency is picking technology winners and losers as in the nation's transportation mix. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1577-A1, p. 23]
Organization: Urban, William
The industry upheaval and Herculean infrastructure requirements associated with battery and
hydrogen powered trucks could be reduced by 80% while fulfilling 80% of clean air goals with
clean fuels such as Dimethyl ether. Dme requires no more complicated storage arrangements or
moderate pressure needs than propane. It uses existing ICE designs with a different fuel system.
Those in authority need to ask themselves why this is not a no-brainer. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1686.html, p. 1]
Organization: Volvo Group
Incorporation of emission reductions realized from renewable fuels
In January of this year, the Biden Administration released its National Blueprint for
Transportation Decarbonization which emphasizes the importance of battery electric, hydrogen,
and sustainable liquid fuels for reaching a net-zero economy in 2050. The report notes that
renewable diesel fuels are "already being developed using standards to ensure they are safe for
use and are fully compatible with existing vehicle fleets and fueling infrastructure and minimize
emissions in their full life-cycles" while going on to say that "even greater opportunities lie
ahead to leverage existing industrial infrastructure by converting petroleum refineries and other
facilities for sustainable fuel production."8 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1606-A1, p. 13]
8 U.S. Departments of Energy, Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (2023, January). The U.S. National Blueprint for Transportation Decarbonization, A
Joint Strategy to Transform Transportation. Accessed on 14 June 2023 at
https://www.energy.gOv/sites/default/files/2023-01/the-us-national-blueprint-for-transportation-
decarbonization.pdf.
Renewable diesel fuel is a 100% drop in fuel that can use the existing diesel distribution
system. When used, it can reduce GHG emissions 50-85% or even more compared to petroleum
diesel and while also reducing nitrogen oxide (NOx), particulate matter (PM) and other
emissions. One of the biggest challenges to greater renewable diesel use has been its availability;
however according to a recent Today in Energy article by the U.S. Energy Information Agency,
eight new renewable diesel refineries recently began production which could result in more of a
doubling of available supply by 2025.9 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1606-A1, p. 13]
9 U.S. Energy Information Administration. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=55399
With such growth in volumes, the lack of needed infrastructure investments and the
significant levels of emission reductions, it seems counter to the administration's own
1237
-------
Decarbonization Blueprint not to account for the significant contribution renewable diesel can
play in meeting the reductions being sought through the Phase 3 proposal. According to a study
released by the Diesel Technology Forum last year, it was found that "accelerating fleet turnover
and use of renewable and biodiesel fuels can deliver significantly more benefits (3X) that
outweigh those possible from EVs in the region in the study period." 10 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1606-A1, p. 13-14]
10 Unknown (2022, July 22). Research Finds More Emissions Benefits at Lower Cost from Accelerated
Fleet Turnover and Use of Bio- and Renewable Fuels than Switching to Electrified Medium and Heavy -
Duty Trucks. Waste Advantage Magazine. Accessed 14 June 2023 at
https://wasteadvantagemag.com/research-finds-more-emissions-benefits-at-lower-cost-from-accelerated-
fleet-turnover-and-use-of-bio-and-renewable-fuels-than-switching-to-electrified-medium-and-heavy-duty-
trucks/
While we recognize new mechanisms to account and verify the reductions gained through use
of renewable diesel would be required, it is certainly no more difficult than trying to ensure the
development or expansion of an entirely new vehicle fueling infrastructure that, depending on
the power source, may not offer significantly more full life-cycle emission reductions. Achieving
our mutual greenhouse gas reduction goals and keeping to no more than 1.5 degrees Celsius (C)
increase in global warming will require an "all of the above" approach to emissions reductions.
The Volvo Group is investing heavily in zero-emission powertrains and while we want to enable
an environment for their utilization, we also want to see emissions reduced in the most cost-
effective and quickest way for the benefit of our customers and the country. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1606-A1, p. 14]
Organization: Westport Fuel Systems
Emissions reductions can be achieved with a variety of fuels. The use of renewable, and low
carbon fuels such as renewable natural gas (RNG) and hydrogen in internal combustion engines,
particularly in the heaviest of vehicle classes, can result in significant reductions in carbon
emissions. In our comments, we respectfully encourage the EPA to re-examine its stance on
setting C02 emissions standards for vehicles using tailpipe only emissions. While this may be a
viable approach for lighter duty vehicles and some class 8 trucks where many electric models are
commercially available and costs are more competitive with conventionally fuelled vehicles due
to a mix of incentives and lower costs, this may not be the case for the heavy-duty class 8 sleeper
cab segment. In this segment, despite the expected gains in electrification, there is still a need for
alternative advanced technology options that can provide the power density and efficiency
provided by internal combustion engines, using low carbon fuels. We urge the EPA to recognize
the benefits of advanced internal combustion technologies using renewable gaseous fuels,
including those with pilot fuels, and their ability to significantly reduce emissions in this
segment. Adoption of hydrogen combustion technologies can reduce C02 emissions by 90% or
more. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1567-A1, p. 2]
Long haul road freight is recognised as one of the most challenging transport sectors to
decarbonise due to the demanding use profiles, and the pressures of cost competitiveness. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1567-A1, p. 2]
There is considerable expectation that Battery Electric Vehicle (BEV) and Hydrogen Fuel
Cell Electric Vehicle (FCEV) technologies can provide the solutions to a future sustainable road
1238
-------
freight sector within the next decade, and the trajectory of many US policy initiatives is
presumptive of these technologies being ubiquitous across the freight fleet. However, there are
applications in heavy-duty long-haul vehicles, specifically long-haul class 8 sleeper cabs, where
performance characteristics may not be fully served by these technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1567-A1, p. 2]
While battery electric and fuel cell technologies can play a role, based on our analysis, the
most cost-effective approach to decarbonising freight must include a central role for Internal
Combustion Engines (ICE), fuelled by RNG or hydrogen (). ICE solutions using Westport Fuel
Systems' HPDITM fuel system technology can significantly reduce emissions both at the tailpipe
and across the lifecycle. As such, changes to policy frameworks that recognise more than the
singular metric of tailpipe emissions will enable a greater diversity of solutions. This approach
will better suit the diverse needs of the freight sector, and deliver faster, larger, C02 reductions,
at the lowest cost. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1567-A1, p. 2]
Providing a Level Playing Field for Advanced ICE Technologies
Westport supports a technology neutral performance-based approach to emission reductions
and requests that the EPA move further to provide equal compliance pathways for hydrogen
combustion technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1567-A1, p. 5]
Although the EPA seeks to make this proposed ruling technology agnostic, the developing
policy landscape is moving sharply towards incentives and other subsidies for BEV and FCEVs
based on zero tailpipe emissions. 3 While incentives are not part of this Rule, they do play a role
in influencing the greater policy environment. Companion or complementary regulations, such as
the ACT Advanced Clean Truck Act in California and the Inflation Reduction Act, have factored
into the decision-making process in the Phase 3 rulemaking around vehicle deployment rates and
costing and increasing stringency of emissions. This policy direction prioritizes vehicles with
zero tailpipe emissions over other low emissions technologies, including those that use RNG or
other carbon neutral or negative fuels. Part of the policy direction to recognize the full impacts of
transportation emissions is accounting for well to wheels analysis, the other is to ensure that
other technologies are measured on not only emissions but also on cost effectiveness metrics.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1567-A1, p. 5]
3 Clean Vehicle Tax Credits in the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN11996. The IRA defines "qualified vehicles" for purposes
of incentives as "draws electricity from a battery has the capacity to be recharge or is propelled by power
derived from certain fuel cells.
EPA Summary and Response:
Summary:
A group of commenters urged EPA to develop a standard that provides certification pathways
which recognize environmental benefits of various biofuels (e.g., Clean Fuels Alii., NGV
America, Diesel Tech. Forum, Missouri Farm Bur., Westport). These commenters touted
biofuels' benefits, including:
• ICE vehicles will remain, and biofuels are a means of curbing their GHG emissions
• biofuels are available now, and are highly cost effective, and do not require supportive
infrastructure, meaning that benefits can commence immediately rather than in MY 2027;
1239
-------
• use of biofuels could provide reductions while critical mineral supply chains are
developed;
• criteria pollutant emissions are lower than from diesel vehicles;
• biofuels are an especially good alternative for vehicles which are not natural ZEV
candidates, such as Class 8 sleeper tractors.
Many of these comments urged EPA to establish standards on a lifecycle basis, and
maintained that so measured, C02 (and, for one commenter, Diesel Tech. Forum, criteria
pollutant) emissions would be less. Several of these commenters cited a study of Stillwater
Associates from July 2022 asserting that switching to 100% renewable diesel would have three
times more C02 emissions reductions than the BEV scenarios, that MY 2021 diesel engines
have greater PM reductions than BEVs, and that NOx reductions need to be determined on a
miles traveled basis instead of a per vehicle basis. (API, Volvo, Diesel Tech. Forum).
Commenters' views of what should count as lifecycle emissions went not just to upstream
production and fuel/electricity generation, but to battery disposal, and overseas mining emissions
and other actions. (Energy Vision, Lynden Renewable Fuels, POET). Commenters also noted
steps now being taken to reduce upstream emissions related to processing of biofuels, as well as
to reduce the carbon intensity of the biofuels themselves. (NACS, POET.)
Others pointed to regulatory and policy support for a biofuel-based compliance pathway.
They pointed to the Administration's Blueprint for Decarbonisation, which mentions biofuels
and lifecycle reductions favorably, to EPA's 2018 Policy Statement regarding C02 emissions
from combustion of biomass in managed forests as carbon neutral (Clean Flame, citing U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, policy statement,654 POET), and more generally, to the CAA
RFS program, and CARB cap-and-trade program (which counts biofuel emissions as zero) and
Low Carbon Fuel standard (MEMA, POET, Energy Vision ).
A group of commenters stressed the benefits of Renewable Natural Gas, stating that it is
derived from captured methane, a potent GHG, and emitted as the less potent C02. (TRALA,
Lynden Renewable Fuel, Energy Vision, Hexagon Agility.) In addition, other commenters
maintained that EPA was improperly ignoring the difference between anthropogenic emissions
(from fossil fuels) and biogenic emissions (from plants). The asserted difference by these
commenters is that plants remove C02 from the ambient air, so their later combustion nets out as
zero, unlike the case with fossil fuels. (Clean Flame, National Corn Growers Ass'n.) MFN, on
the other hand, noted that natural gas fueled vehicles have significantly higher VOC emissions
than conventional vehicles (including methane emissions), although slightly lower PM emissions
(without needing filters), and lower NOx emissions.
Commenters had various suggestions on how to account for biofuels in a certification
pathway. In addition to suggesting EPA develop standards on a lifecycle basis, commenters
recommended the following:
• developing a Utility Factor on a case-by-case basis representing the amount of time the
vehicle runs on some type of biofuel (POET)
• update GEM to recognize fuel types in addition to the three (gasoline, diesel, CNG) now
recognized (Lubrizol)
654 Available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2018-
04/documents/biomass_policy_statement_2018 04 23 .pdf.
1240
-------
• include some type of credit mechanism for biofuels (Natural Gas Veh. For America)
• adopt the same approach as the Flexible Fuel Vehicle standards (POET)
Commenter Urban states that EPA should consider use of dimethyl ether (without further
explication).
The American Free Enterprise Chamber of Commerce (Am Free) asserted that EPA's failure
to consider use of biofuels is arbitrary, violating the principle that agencies must consider
reasonable alternatives as part of a process of reasoned decision-making. This commenter also
stated that EPA asserted in the parallel light duty proposed rule that it has authority to impose
fuel controls though its requested comment on whether fuel controls should be used in the future
as a "complement" to emissions standards (though the commenter conceded that EPA did not
request comment on such controls as an alternative to emissions standards), and that this further
indicated arbitrariness in the heavy-duty proposal.
American Petroleum Institute stated that "EPA's approach is not consistent with other
existing EPA policies (e.g., the Renewable Fuel Standard)".
American Soybean Association stated that the standards should still provide a pathway for
ICE that can run on biomass-based diesel, since it will lead to increased utilization of these
engines in the agricultural sector.
Clean Fuels Alliance America commented that emissions warranties cannot be voided or
impacted because of the use of biodiesel blends.
Lubrizol commented that they support consideration for the creation of a diesel deposit
control standard similar to 40 CFR 1090.260.Lynden Incorporated commented that high-
horsepower engines are being phased out because of the inability to meeting emissions standards.
Lynden and NGVAmerica stated that the emission standards will force manufacturers to
subsidize ZEV by increasing the cost of engines. Lynden also recommended that EPA should
assist small fleets in replacing pre-2010 diesel engines with modern diesel engines.
National Association of Convenience Stores (NACS), NATSO, and SIGMA, commented that
the proposed standards risk zeroing out new innovations in emissions reductions from ICE
vehicle, because the standards cannot be met with ICE vehicles alone.
Response:
Implicit (or in some cases, explicit) in many of these comments is that the proposed standard
in some manner mandates use of ZEVs. It does not. See Sections I and II of the preamble and
RTC 2. In short, the final standards are numerical performance-based standards, and can be met
in any manner a regulated entity (i.e. manufacturer) sees fit that achieves compliance with that
numerical standard. In assessing a modeled potential compliance pathway that includes a
technology mix of ICE vehicle technologies and ZEV technologies, EPA was demonstrating that
the final standards were feasible and appropriate; EPA was not requiring that manufacturers
utilize that modeled potential compliance pathway. This is the Agency's approach for all of its
CAA Title 2 standards, following the template set forth initially by the D.C. Circuit in NRDC v.
EPA, 655 F. 2d at 332, and echoed many times since in succeeding rules and court opinions.
EPA is not mandating the use of the technology included in the technology packages for this
compliance pathway, just as EPA has not mandated the technology included in such technology
packages in prior rules (and which manufacturers have previously either only partially or not at
1241
-------
all adopted in complying with previous rule standards). See generally responses in RTC section
2.1, which notes further that there are many additional examples of compliance pathways to meet
the final standards open to manufacturers. See also additional example potential compliance
pathways that support the feasibility of the final standards in preamble Section II.F, which
include a suite of technologies ranging from ICE engine, transmission, drivetrain, aerodynamics,
and tire rolling resistance improvements, to the use of low carbon fuels like CNG and LNG, to
hybrid powertrains (HEV and PHEV) and H2-ICE. Low carbon fuels, like CNG and LNG, may
be accounted for subject to certain requirements if the use of the fuel results in lower CO2
emissions in the vehicle exhaust. This similarly applies to biofuels, if the use of the fuel results in
lower CO2 vehicle exhaust emission. However, to use fuels (including biofuels) as part of the
engines and vehicles certification, the manufacturer is required to get approval from the EPA and
one of the requirements of this approval is that the manufacturer must show that the vehicle and
engine only use the specific fuel when operating in-use.655
EPA's Phase 3 GHG standards are CO2 vehicle exhaust emission standards, and EPA
considers all comments asserting that EPA must, or should, set or determine compliance with
such standards in a manner other than measuring (directly or via GEM) vehicle exhaust CO2
emissions as comments asserting that EPA must, or should, consider life cycle assessment. For
EPA's response to comments on life cycle assessment, see RTC section 17.1. EPA recognizes
that changes to fuel requirements can result in changes in emissions but disagrees that such
changes are within the scope of this rulemaking or that EPA is required to consider them as
alternatives to this rulemaking, which is concerned with vehicle and engine standards under
CAA section 202(a). The CAA has a separate and distinct set of requirements for engaging in
fuels regulations and EPA has not at this point undertaken the requisite analyses to regulate
GHGs under CAA section 211(c). Indeed, section 211(c)(2)(A) provides that fuel may not be
regulated to control harmful air pollution except after "consideration of other technologically or
economically feasible means of achieving emissions standards under section [202]." Thus, it is
entirely appropriate (if not required) for the Administrator to take the technologically and
economically feasible steps of this rule before undertaking further controls on fuels to address
emissions reduction. In light of this statutory structure, with very different regulatory programs
for vehicles standards under section 202 and fuels standards under section 211, EPA disagrees
that it is required to consider fundamentally altering this rulemaking from a vehicles rulemaking
to a fuels rulemaking. "While an agency must consider and explain its rejection of 'reasonably
obvious alternative[s],' it need not consider every alternative proposed nor respond to every
comment made. Rather, an agency must consider only 'significant and viable' and 'obvious'
alternatives."656 At this point, given that the EPA has not met the statutory prerequisites for new
fuels controls, much less proposed new fuels controls, the adoption of new fuels controls is not a
viable alternative. EPA of course continues to separately implement the RFS program, which
also has the goal of promoting lower GHG fuels, and the most recent renewable fuel volume
standards require the largest volumes of renewable fuels to date to be used for transportation.657
Similarly, in response to the specific comments on using a utility factor to account for the
relative use of non-biofuels and biofuel (for example diesel and biodiesel), the comment that a
credit mechanism should be created to account for the LCA, and the comment to adopt the same
655 See the response to the ClearFlame comments in this RTC Section 9.1.
656 Nat'l Shooting Sports Found., Inc. v. Jones, 716 F.3d 200, 215 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (citations omitted).
657 See 88 FR 44468 (July 12, 2023).
1242
-------
approach as the Flexible Fuel Vehicle standards, we disagree that such changes are within the
scope of this rulemaking.
Regarding the comment on biogenic emissions, EPA notes that ever since the section 202
Endangerment Finding was made, it has considered GHG pollution as being comprised of six
well-mixed gases (one of which is C02), based on their properties and behaviors in the
atmosphere that are relevant to the climate change problem, including characteristics and
attributes related to radiative forcing, chemical reactivity, and atmospheric lifetime. As EPA
stated, in reiterating this position in the 2016 Endangerment Finding for GHG Emissions from
Aircraft, "[i]n the record for the 2009 Endangerment Finding, the Agency stated that 'all C02
emissions, regardless of source, influence radiative forcing equally once it reaches the
atmosphere and therefore there is no distinction between biogenic and non-biogenic C02
regarding the C02 and the other well-mixed GHGs within the definition of air pollution that is
reasonably anticipated to endanger public health and welfare."658 EPA finds it appropriate to
continue this policy of treating all vehicle exhaust C02 emissions equivalently, since once they
have been emitted to the atmosphere the C02 molecules have equivalent impacts on the climate,
regardless of the origin and constitution of the fuel prior to combustion.
EPA has reviewed the Stillwater Associates study from July 2022, stating that switching to
100% renewable diesel will provide three times the CO2 reductions as can be achieved from
ZEVs, and determined that the information it provides is not applicable to the vehicle tailpipe
standards being set in this rule. First, the final standards in this rule are for new vehicles, so
comparing the emissions reductions from the rule to a scenario where 100% of the nation's
diesel is switched to renewable diesel is not an apples-to-apples comparison. Second, the
upstream emissions modeling performed in the Stillwater Associates study doesn't reflect the
impacts of the IRA on emissions from EGUs, which is significant. RIA Chapters 4.1 and 4.2.4
contain more discussion regarding changes in EGU emissions over time driven by economic
conditions, Congressional action such as the IRA, and other finalized rules by EPA and others
affecting power sector emissions. EPA's power sector model, IPM, models significant reductions
in GHG emissions from EGUs in future years. This makes the study's conclusions outdated.
Finally, see also RTC section 17.1 for EPA's response to comments regarding life cycle
assessment.
In response to the claim that "new technology diesel engines '98% PM reductions compared
to EVs' 95% PM reduction assuming power from the U.S. Grid Mix," we first note that EPA is
setting GHG emission standards for HD vehicles in this rulemaking, though we also analyze
impacts of the rule, including impacts on non-GHG emissions. See Section II.G.4 of the
preamble for EPA's consideration of such impacts. Additionally, this commenter's assertion
doesn't reflect the impacts of the IRA on emissions from EGUs, which is significant. RIA
Chapters 4.1 and 4.2.4 contain more discussion regarding changes in EGU emissions over time.
We disagree with the comment that NOx reductions need to be determined on a miles traveled
basis instead of a per vehicle basis. The comment is based on the assumption that ZEV have
lower VMT than ICE vehicles, which is not consistent with feasibility assessment that was
conducted for the rule. See RIA Chapter 2.5.1 on how we sized the powertrain components of
658 See 81 FR 54422 (August 15, 2016).
1243
-------
ZEV, which includes the sizing of the battery, to meet the duty cycle requirements for each of
the 101 vehicle IDs in HD TRUCS.
Regarding the comments that changes to GEM are needed for fuels other than gasoline and
diesel to be recognized in GEM, GEM is configured to accept inputs for all carbon-containing
fuels. GEM has explicit inputs for gasoline, diesel, natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas,
dimethyl ether, and high-level ethanol-gasoline blends. In Table 1 of 40 CFR 1036.550, EPA
specifies the reference fuel properties for these fuel types.659 In addition, footnote "a" to Table 1
of 40 CFR 1036.550 allows for manufacturers to seek approval for reference fuel properties that
are not listed in Table 1 of that section. 40 CFR 1036.505 contains the instruction for how
manufacturers must generate fuel maps for input in GEM and, with the final addition described
in Section III.C of the preamble, specifies that for any fuel type not listed in Table 1 of 40 CFR
1036.550 manufacturers are required to identify the fuel type as diesel fuel for engines subject to
compression-ignition standards and as gasoline for engines subject to spark-ignition standards.
Thus, the test procedures set out in 40 CFR 1036.505 and 40 CFR 1036.550, allow for carbon-
mass-specific net energy content of all carbon containing fuels to be accounted for in GEM. See
also our further response to commenter Clear Flame below.
Regarding Am Free's comment comparing the light duty proposal, first, the discussion in the
light and medium duty proposal to which the commenter refers dealt with PM control, not with
GHG emissions. The light-duty proposal is multi-pollutant; the heavy-duty rule only sets GHG
emission standards. Moreover, all the light and medium duty preamble announces is the
possibility of a different rulemaking at a later date and requests comments on potential
approaches for that rulemaking, not as part of the light duty rulemaking at issue. EPA
consequently does not agree that EPA took a meaningfully different approach in the two rules.660
Regarding the supply of critical materials, see our response in RTC section 17.2. and
Preamble section II.D.2.ii.c.
Clean Fuels Alliance America's comment is outside the scope of this final rule; see existing
40 CFR 1068.115.
The comment from Lubrizol on the consideration for the creation of a diesel deposit control
standard is outside the scope of this final rule.
We disagree with the Lynden Incorporated comment that high-horsepower engines are being
phased out because of the inability to meet emissions standards. EPA's HD GHG engines
standards are work specific and the engine duty cycles are denormalized with the torque curve of
the engine, so higher horsepower engines have higher cycle work over the duty cycles, which
results in lower CO2 emission than their lower horsepower counterparts.
We also disagree with the comment from Lynden and NGVAmerica that the emission
standards will force manufacturers to subsidize ZEV by increasing the cost of engines. Our
analysis include in Preamble Section II and RIA Chapter 2 shows payback periods under the
modeled potential compliance pathway that are acceptable for heavy-duty vehicle purchasers.
659 Under 40 CFR 1037 (e.g., 1037.520(f)), manufacturers are required to followi the 40 CFR 1036 regulations on
test procedures, including fuel mapping and related requirements.
660 See generally 88 FR 29397-98.
1244
-------
The comment from Lynden that recommended EPA should assist small fleets in replacing
pre-2010 diesel engines with modern diesel engines is out of scope for this rule.
We disagree with the comment from National Association of Convenience Stores (NACS),
NATSO, and SIGMA, that the proposed standards risk zeroing out new innovations in emissions
reductions from ICE vehicle, because the standards cannot be met with ICE vehicles alone. As
discussed in Preamble Section II and RIA Chapter 2.11, the standards are performance-based and
manufacturers could meet the standards with the use of hydrogen engines, hybrids, natural gas
engines and improvements to ICE vehicles.
Response to Individual Comments
Comment:
ClearFlame Engine Technologies stated that the proposal to update 40 CFR 1036.505 to
clarify that "when certifying vehicles with GEM, for any fuel type not identified in Table 1 of 40
CFR 1036.550, the manufacturer would identify the fuel type as diesel fuel for engines subject to
compression-ignition standards" is not sufficient to provide an engine certification pathway for
all fuels that are reasonably expected for use in dedicated alternative fuel engines. They state that
GEM assumes that the only fuels to be used by heavy-duty engines are gasoline, diesel, and
natural gas and EPA must provide a mechanism for certifying dedicated ethanol and other
dedicated alternative fuel engines, as it is the scientifically and technically correct way to treat
these engines. They state that GEM treats a dedicated ethanol engine as though it is running on
high-carbon diesel fuel (in contrast to a CNG engine, which is not treated by GEM as though it is
running on diesel). They state that treating a dedicated ethanol engine as though it was running
on diesel fuel results in GEM calculations that yield an unintended negative outcome because
GEM:
(1) Does not take the biogenic nature of ethanol emissions into account.
(2) Does not take the lower carbon Intensity of ethanol into account.
(3) Does not take other combustion differences (like heating value and H/C ratio) between
ethanol and diesel into account.
ClearFlame Engine Technologies believes that GEM currently estimates emissions from
ethanol vehicles to be approximately 1.5 times worse than diesel, while GREET, based on
national average, calculates ethanol to have 50% of the emissions impact of diesel. They state
that, thus, GEM overestimates the climate impact of an ethanol-fueled engine by 3x (1.5/.5).
They would like EPA to create a fuel input for ethanol within GEM, which would account for its
heating value, H/C ratio, and biogenic carbon ratio. They state that this would enable GEM to
accurately account for the different combustion properties and decarbonization benefits of a
compression-ignition engine that has been designed to run exclusively on ethanol.
They state that 40 CFR 1036.505 and 40 CFR 1065.701(c)(1) enables a company to request
approval to use the following alternative test fuels with EPA approval:
(1) E98 that meets ASTM D4806 (i.e., uses gasoline as its denaturant).
(2) Another form of E98 that does not use gasoline as its denaturant.
1245
-------
(3) Ethanol that includes 5% water (as would result from the output of an unaugmented
distillation process).
ClearFlame Engine Technologies requested that EPA add specifications for high-blend
ethanol for each of the examples outlined above, to provide certainty to the certification process.
ClearFlame Engine Technologies stated that "possible to achieve the same goal by adding a
conversion or correction factor to the calculation of GEM emissions, a fuel-specific fuel Input
(such as is being considered for hydrogen) is highly preferred".
They also commented that 40 CFR part 1065, subpart H limits the use of high-blend ethanol
as a test fuel to E51-83 fuel that meets the specifications of ASTM D5798.19 and request a high-
blend ethanol E98 fuels.
Response:
ClearFlame Engine Technologies requested updates to 40 CFR 1036.505 to allow GEM to
treat a dedicated ethanol engine in a manner different than an engine running on diesel. EPA
made changes to the base fuel properties within GEM to allow for accounting for the carbon
content of E85 fuel via a test procedure technical amendment finalized in 2022.661 We also note
that the footnote "a" in Table 1 to Paragraph (b)(4) of § 1036.550—Reference Fuel Properties
allows for approval of other fuels. This allows a manufacturer to request other fuels, like E98,
and to account for its carbon mass fraction differences. In this scenario, with a preapproved E98
fuel, the fuel map would be preprocessed with the E98 fuel properties, which would eliminate
the commenter's asserted need for any changes to GEM with respect to the ability to generate
accurate results for an E98 fuel.
Regarding their comment on well-to-tailpipe emissions, see our response above in this section
of the RTC and see RTC chapter 17.1 for our response on life cycle assessment.
EPA is not adding additional reference fuel properties in Table 1 of 40 CFR 1036.550 at this
time and this request is outside the scope of this final rule. Please see our response above in this
section of the RTC regarding what Table 1 already includes in the existing regulation. Under the
existing regulations, the mechanism exists for manufacturers to request approval by EPA for use
of these fuels in 40 CFR 1036.550 and 40 CFR 1065.701(c)(1). In addition, equation 4 of 40
CFR 1036.535, already accomplishes the correction for fuels that are not in Table 1 of 40 CFR
1036.550 that was suggested by ClearFlame Engine Technologies. In response to the comment
that 40 CFR part 1065, subpart H limits the use of high-blend ethanol, preventing the use of E98
fuels, this is simply not the case. While 40 CFR 1065 subpart H does not directly list E98 as a
fuel, 40 CFR 1065.701(c) provides a process to allow a manufacturer to obtain approval for any
fuel, provided it meets the qualifications in 40 CFR 1065.701(c)(1).
661 See Improvements for Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Test Procedures rule (87 FR 45259 (July 28, 2022).
1246
-------
9.2 Phase 2 Vehicle and Engine Technologies
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Alliance for Vehicle Efficiency (AVE)
In 2012, EPA saw fit to incentivize near zero technologies and embraced their role to support
ZEVs while achieving significant GHG reductions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1571-A1, p. 2]
"EPA believes that these temporary regulatory incentives are justified under CAA section
202(a) as they promote the commercialization of technologies that have, or of technologies that
can be critical facilitators of next-generation technologies that have, the potential to transform
the light-duty vehicle sector by achieving zero or near-zero GHG emissions and oil consumption,
but which face major near-term market barriers." 1 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1571-A1, p. 2]
1 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 199 / October 15, 2012, at 62811
The enormous challenges of decarbonizing the heavy-duty vehicle market will take decades
and require all available technologies. AVE encourages EPA to seek additional pathways to
incentivize the near-term introduction of as many advanced technologies as possible into future
heavy-duty trucks. Prior to the effective implementation of this Proposal, nearly one million
Class 8 trucks will be produced. These vehicles will be on American roads for well over 20
years. By expanding the definition of ZEVs even slightly, EPA can ensure greater emission
reductions for decades. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1571-A1, p. 2]
Recognizing the challenges of decarbonizing Class 8 trucks, the European Union now
includes HD vehicles that emit not more than 5 g/(t.km) or 5 g/(p.km) of C02 as ZEVs.3 AVE
encourages EPA to adopt the EU's amended standard. Doing so will allow for greater emission
reductions in the heavy-duty sector and faster penetration of already commercialized
technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1571-A1, p. 2]
3 https://climate.ec.europa.eu/eu-action/transport-emissions/road-transport-reducing-co2-emissions-
vehicles/reducing-co2-emissions-heavy-duty-vehicles_en#incentive-mechanism-for-zero~and-low-
emission-vehicles-zlev
Organization: Advanced Engine Systems Institute (AESI)
AESI supports the EPA proposal to reduce GHG emissions from heavy-duty trucks by setting
performance standards that drive the improved efficiency of diesel ICE engines while
accelerating the introduction of electric and hydrogen powertrains. AESI believes that certain
critical engine and powertrain technologies, which were not economically viable or fully
developed 10 years ago and are not considered in EPA's proposed Phase 3 GHG standards, can
be further deployed to reduce the GHG emissions of combustion engines. HD hybrid
powertrains, and hydrogen ICE have seen significant advances during the past few years. These
technologies are cost effective and can deliver substantial GHG emission reductions. EPA should
account for recent data regarding the performance of these carbon reduction technologies in the
final rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1600-A1, p. 1]
A just released study by the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) finds that
'cost effective ICE efficiency improvements remain important to the de-carbonization of the HD
1247
-------
sector.' AESI agrees with that conclusion. HD Hybrid powertrains, with existing incentives, can
deliver up to a 31% GHG reduction in vocational vehicles and 25% in long haul at a small
fraction of the cost of an HD BEV powertrain. It is essential that EPA conduct technical analysis
and encourage deployment of these cost-efficient Hybrid powertrains, which can provide an
important short-term solution to the de-carbonization of long-haul freight, our most difficult
sector challenge in MY 2027-2032. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1600-A1, pp. 1-2]
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
b. Plug-in Hybrid Technologies
Affected page: DRIA 181
Plug-in hybrid technologies are a bridge technology which offers advantages and
disadvantages versus pure BEVs. Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV) offer greater
flexibility than BEVs and can be operated in a similar manner to existing ICE vehicles today.
However, the additional complexity of simultaneously including both ICE and BEV powertrains
in each PHEV adds cost versus BEV powertrains, and operational savings from PHEVs are
already expected to be lower than for BEVs due to higher fuel and maintenance expenses further
reducing potential cost effectiveness. Applications with low daily mileage but occasional high
mileage trips such as utility applications may be well served by PHEVs before a full transition to
ZEV technologies. Certain recent federal funding opportunities may further support rollout of
PHEVs. PHEVs freight vehicles are expected to come to market in the near future before 2027
by manufacturers such as Hyliion.90 ZE-capable PHEV technology is already being fielded in
emergency response vehicles in the U.S. by at least three fire apparatus manufacturers.91 Diesel
and compressed natural gas PHEVs are also available today in streetsweepers.92 Vehicles using
these types of powertrains can address parts of the market which might otherwise default to ICE
vehicles in the early years of implementation. Market interest in freight applications of hybrid
and PHEV systems is further underscored by explorations of trailer-based hybrid systems to add
regenerative braking and plug-in energy to whatever conventional (or ZEV) tractor is
connected.93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100 Electrification on board conventional ICE HDVs is already
anticipated to increase significantly with the addition of higher voltage chassis electrical systems
(48-Volt and above), the announced usage of electric exhaust heaters, and the broad component
availability of electric exhaust heaters, electrically heated mixers, and electrically heated
catalysts. 101,102,103 One manufacturer already announcing electric exhaust heaters for their
medium heavy-duty engine (HDE) offering has seen historic market share >85 percent for class 8
engines under 10L104 and similarly dominates the medium HDV market outside of HD pickups
and vans. 105,106,107,108,109,110 Another example illustrative of existing LD powertrains that
could be applicable to launching PHEV technology up into the lightest end of the HD range is
the RAM gasoline pickup, which has applied a default 48-Volt mild hybrid on their largest
engine offering since MY 2019.111 Adding as little at as 15 kWh of energy storage to any of
these types of mild hybrids (less than two-thirds the size of an original Nissan Leaf battery and
still smaller than an electric Smart ForTwo batteryl 12) could trigger the IRA commercial vehicle
tax credits, likely covering the entire incremental cost of such storage and the cost of the entire
hybrid system itself. 113 Putting moderate amounts of stored energy on a vehicle (e.g. the 15
kWh needed to qualify for IRA tax credits) can also unlock other non-propulsion user benefits
like replacing Auxiliary Power Units, providing export power on jobsites and robustly
underpinning the power needs of advanced driver assistance systems. As discussed further in the
1248
-------
HDVs with ICE Technologies in Part I. Section C.2. below, U.S. EPA did not assume significant
market penetration of PHEVs in setting the proposed Phase 3 GHG standards. Given these
aligned technology availability, user and manufacturer interests and favorable economic drivers,
CARB staff suggests U.S. EPA reflect expected PHEV market conditions more accurately (and
strengthen stringency accordingly) based on projecting a significant fraction of vehicle sales as
PHEVs, a fraction that could foreseeably approach the remaining non-ZEV share of the market.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1591-A1, pp.34-36]
90 Hyliion https://www.hyliion.com/
91 Firerescuel: 'Yesterday's crazy is today's obvious': Electric apparatus in the fire service, June 7, 2022.
https://www.firerescuel.com/fire-products/fire-apparatus/articles/yesterdays-crazy-is-todays-
obviouselectric-apparatus-in-the-fire-service-2185qDLEvE2k5NNV/
92 Streetsweepers examples.
https://www.elginsweeper.com/products/mechanical/hybrid-broom-bear
https://www.elginsweeper.com/products/mechanical/hybrid-pelican
https://globalsweeper.com/products/mechanical/global-m4-hybrid
93 Charged Electric Vehicles Magazine: Carrier partners with ConMet to add regen braking to Class 7 and
8 trailer wheels, February 7, 2022. https://chargedevs.com/newswire/carrier-partners-with-conmet-to-add-
regen-braking-to-class-7-and-8-trailer-wheels/
94 Bosch presents electromobility for semitrailers, August 28, 2018. https://www.bosch-
presse.de/pressportal/de/en/bosch-presents-electromobility-for-semitrailers-168963.html
95 HDT Truckinginfo: How Trailers Are Harnessing 'Free' Energy, October 8, 2020.
https://www.truckinginfo.com/10127672/harnessing-energy-in-trailers
96 Technology & Maintenance Council: Future Truck Position Paper: 2022-2 — Trailer Energy
Harvesting: Regenerative Braking Systems for Trailer Applications, February 11, 2022.
https://tmc.trucking.org/blog/future-truck-position-paper-2022-2 trailer-energy-harvestingregenerative-
braking-sy stems
97 SAF-Holland Working on Trailer e-Axles for North America, March 6, 2022.
https://www.truckinginfo.com/10162828/saf-holland-reports-on-its-trakr-e-axles-for-north-america
98 NACFE: Consider Trailer Technologies and Practices to Improve Efficiency Efforts, last accessed May
26, 2023. https://nacfe.Org/research/trailer-general/#powered-axle
99 Trailer Dynamics & Mars Logistics to deploy 500 eTrailers, June 9, 2023.
https://www.electrive.com/2023/06/09/trailer-dynamics-mars-logistics-to-deploy-500-etrailers/
100 Green innovation in land transport: Using eTrailers as a game changer for decarbonizing long hauls,
October 25, 2022. https://www.dbschenker.com/de-en/insights/news-and-stories/press-releases/using-
etrailers-as-a-gamechanger-for-decarbonizing-long-hauls-946138
101 Cummins Announces New X10 Engine, Next in the Fuel-Agnostic Series, Launching in North
America in 2026, February 13, 2023. https://www.cummins.com/news/releases/2023/02/13/cummins-
announces-new-xlO-engine-next-fuelagnostic-series-launching-north
102 Watlow's New ECO-HEAT® Smart Internal Load Bank, October 13, 2015.
https://www.watlow.com/about-watlow/news/eco-heat-press-release
103 Transport Topics: Eaton Offers 48-Volt Programmable ECU for Heated Catalysts, June 6, 2022.
https://www.ttnews.com/articles/eaton-offers-48-volt-programmable-ecu-heated-catalysts
104 Transport Topics: Cummins Top Supplier of Class 8 Engines in 2020, February 17, 2021.
https://www.ttnews.com/articles/cummins-top-supplier-class-8-engines-2020
1249
-------
105 HDT Truckinginfo: Medium-Duty Update: Growing Sales, Diesel Developments, Vertical Integration,
October 18, 2016. https://www.truckinginfo.com/157008/medium-duty-update-growing-sales-diesel-
developmentsvertical-integration
106 Cummins and Navistar Announce New Long-Term Agreement, August 10, 2020.
https://www.cummins.com/news/releases/2020/08/10/cummins-and-navistar-announce-new-long-
termagreement
107 MackMD Series Specs, last accessed June 1, 2023. https://www.macktrucks.com/trucks/md/specs/
108 Daimler Truck AG AND Cummins Inc. Announce Global Plan for Medium Duty Commercial Vehicle
Engines, February 23, 2021. https://www.cummins.com/news/releases/2021/02/23/daimler-truck-ag-and-
cummins-inc-announceglobal-plan-medium-duty
109 Hino Trucks and Cummins Announce Medium and Heavy-Duty Engine Offering, March 12, 2021.
https://www.cummins.com/news/releases/2021/03/12/hino-trucks-and-cummins-announce-mediumand-
heavy-duty-engine-offering
110 Cummins and Isuzu Announce Global Mid-Range Powertrain and Advanced Engineering
Collaboration, February 5, 2021. https://www.cummins.com/news/releases/2021/02/05/cummins-and-
isuzu-announce-global-mid-rangepowertrain-and-advanced
111 Green Car Congress: 2019 Ram drops weight, gains 48V eTorque mild hybrid system, January 15,
2018. https://www.greencarcongress.com/2018/01/20180115-ram.html
112 Used 2013 smart fortwo Electric, last accessed May 26, 2023.
https://www.edmunds.com/smart/fortwo/2013/electric/
113 IRS: Commercial Clean Vehicle Credit, last accessed May 26, 2023. https://www.irs.gov/credits-
deductions/commercial-clean-vehicle-credit
Organization: Cummins Inc.
VI. Hybrid Certification and Test Procedures
Hybrids are essential to the success of EPA's Phase 3 Greenhouse Gas proposal. Hybrids can
bridge the gap between conventional internal combustion engines and future zero emissions
technology. They are not as dependent on the electrical grid as battery electric vehicles and are a
technology that fleets can use today. Below we have identified several significant EPA
certification and compliance barriers that make hybrids much more challenging to certify than
either internal combustion engines or fully electric vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1598-
Al, p. 11]
EPA streamlining heavy-duty hybrid certification and compliance requirements would
improve the durability of Phase 3 by providing another viable path toward compliance,
directionally decreasing the likelihood that the Phase 3 standards would need to be delayed
should the recharging infrastructure not be ready. Hybrids can achieve early success by
decreasing GHGs during a period in which the recharging infrastructure is still growing toward
supporting the shorter range of fully electric vehicles. Hybrids also maximize the use of critical
battery materials to achieve greater GHG reductions with a greater number of vehicles. Heavy-
duty vehicles will evolve from hybrids to fully electric, and manufacturers should be able to
leverage all technology options, without today's disproportionate heavy-duty hybrid certification
and compliance barriers. Streamlining and eliminating the certification and compliance barriers
for hybrids will also allow manufacturers to take advantage of hybrid credits which will
incentivize additional development and further production. Lastly, if the certification and
1250
-------
compliance barriers to hybrids are not streamlined, EPA's Phase 3 rule will be at the mercy of
the status of the nation's electric grid and heavy-duty BEV charging infrastructure. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1598-A1, p. 11]
Organization: Daimler Truck North America LLC (DTNA)
EPA Request for Comment, Request #11: We request comment on whether we should include
additional GHG-reducing technologies and/or higher levels of adoption rates of existing
technologies for ICE vehicles in our technology assessment for the final rule.
• DTNA Response: DTNA believes it is inappropriate to add additional GHG technologies
at this time.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-Al, p. 160]
EPA Request for Comment, Request #52: We request comment on ICE vehicle technologies
that could support more stringent standards than those proposed (in both tractor and vocational
sections)
• DTNA Response: DTNA believes it is inappropriate to require additional GHG
technologies for ICE vehicles at this time. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 167]
Organization: Diesel Technology Forum (DTF)
a. Hybrid diesel engine technology is readily available, cost efficient (compared to BEVs and
FCVs), and can make a significant impact on fuel consumption reduction and C02 reduction
now.
In the proposed rule, the utility of hybrid powertrains as a compliance strategy has not been
fully considered. Newer data is being established by SwRI as part of their Clean Hybrid Electric
Diesel Engine (CHEDE), a consortium of leading manufacturers and suppliers. Results indicate
that particularly for Class 7 trucks (the smallest class of HD trucks), used primarily as garbage
trucks, street sweepers, straight trucks such as for furniture delivery, when hybrid technology is
incorporated, they can significantly reduce C02 due their stop-and-go duty cycle. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1618-A1, p. 3]
In the case of hybrids, EPA notes (88 Fed. Reg 25896) that tax credit eligibility of a "qualified
commercial clean vehicle" is limited to those powered to a significant extent by a battery-
powered electric motor, thereby excluding hybrid powertrains that utilize ICE while including
plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. Unfortunately, the IRA legislation failed to take a technology-
neutral approach for eligibility in incentivizing investments in all technologies that can
substantially reduce GHG, instead favoring only battery-based and electrified technology. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1618-A1, pp. 3 - 4]
This unfortunate defect in the credit eligibility in the legislation does not however preclude
EPA from factoring in greater credit and other provisions for ICE vehicles that utilize hybrid
electric powertrains in its Phase 3 rule which we strongly encourage. Given the fact that ICE
powertrains will continue to play a major role in the commercial trucking sector for decades to
come, having more of the future trucks outfitted with hybrid technology would translate into
lower GHG emissions perhaps sooner than fuel cell electric or battery electric vehicles. The
earlier the technology is adopted, the more impact it can have. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1618-
Al, p. 4]
1251
-------
Organization: Eaton
3. GHG regulations need to be based on data, include evaluations of recent technologies,
allow multiple pathways for achieving emissions reduction, and remain technology-neutral
While the NPRM describes high penetration of Zero-Emissions Vehicles (ZEV) as the path to
achieve low GHG emissions, there are also uncertainties such as infrastructure availability, clean
electrical energy or Hydrogen production, robust and affordable Battery Electric Vehicles (BEV)
or Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle (FCEV) technology. Therefore, the Phase 3 rule needs to also
consider technologies that lower emission for ICE powertrains, based on technology progress
since Phase 2 that is not in conflict with the recent low NOx rules. Since 2017, Eaton and other
suppliers have developed an array of technologies based on conventional, robust and very cost-
effective components, ranging between ICE improvements and hybridization, with reductions in
the range of 5% to 50% lower GHG while achieving 2027 EPA NOx limits (in both certification
test environment as well as real-world cycles). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1556-A1, p. 2]
The Phase 2 GHG rule proved to be a great success. The rule included engine and vehicle-
level standards that drove technology improvements that are currently in production, while
additional improvements are planned for production through 2027. Examples include high
compression ratio engines, waste heat recovery, cylinder thermal insulation, reduced friction
losses, improved aerodynamics, and efficient transmissions to name a few. The industry is on
path to achieve the upcoming 2024 and 2027 Phase 2 GHG goals on time. However, the
technology landscape has also changed since the Phase 2 regulations were adopted in 2016. In
addition to the advent of BEV and FCEV trucks and the deployment of many technologies
evaluated for Phase 2, other significant changes in ICE-based powertrains are as follows: [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1556-A1, p. 2]
1. GHG benefits associated with compliance with 2027 Low NOx limits
Low NOx technologies were developed for meeting new NOx regulations in 2025 - 2027,
that in isolation increase C02 emissions through increased backpressure of larger catalysts and
increased energy for faster heat-up of the catalysts. However, by balancing the trade-off between
C02 and NOx, the ICE and Aftertreatment systems can in fact achieve simultaneously C02
reductions while achieving the new stringent NOx limits. Eaton components such as Variable
Valve Actuation (VVA) and electrical and/or fuel based aftertreatment heater, in conjunction
with advanced catalysts and aftertreatment architectures, have demonstrated 1.5% C02 savings
of Federal Test Procedure (FTP) as shown in Figure 1 and up to 5.1% on the Low Load Cycle
(LLC), as seen in Figure 2. These results were achieved at the Southwest Research Institute and
are published in [1], [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1556-A1, p. 3.] [See Docket Number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1556-A1, page 3, for Figures 1 and 2.]
1. McCarthy, J. Jr., Zavala, B. and Matheaus, A., "Technology Levers for Meeting 2027 NOx and C02
Regulations," SAE 2023-01-0354, 4/20/2023
2. GHG benefits associated with improved ICE air handling
At the engine level, Eaton has developed and demonstrated technologies that reduce GHG
such as Cylinder Deactivation (CDA) and variable Miller cycles, and pairing Exhaust Gas
Recirculation (EGR) Pumps with High Efficiency Turbochargers that improve engine open cycle
efficiency.
1252
-------
For example, CD A achieves 40% C02 reductions at idle, and more importantly, 1% C02
reductions on the 55 mph GHG cycle illustrated in Figure 3 and described in 2017 [2], with
further improvements in the meantime. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1556-A1, p. 3.] [See Docket
Number EPA-HQ-0AR-2022-0985-1556-A1, page 3, for Figure 3.]
2. McCarthy, J., Jr., "Cylinder Deactivation Improves Diesel Aftertreatment and Fuel Economy for
Commercial Vehicles," 17th Stuttgart International Symposium, Vol. 2, pp. 175-202, 3/15/2017
In [3], significant C02 savings are found on real world driving cycles due to cylinder
deactivation: 6% reduced C02 on the Low Load Cycle, 3% on Orange County Transit Authority
cycle, 8% on the New York Bus Cycle and 5% on the Beverage cycle. Finally, CDA offers a 4%
to 35% fuel / C02 savings on the Port Drayage Cycle as shown in Figure 4 and described in [4],
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1556-A1, p. 3.] [See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1556-A1, page 4, for Figure 4.]
3. Reinhart, T., Matheaus, A., Sharp, C., Peters, B., Pieczko, M. and McCarthy, J. Jr., 'Vibration and
emissions quantification over key drive cycles using cylinder deactivation.' Int. J. Powertrains, Vol. 9, No.
4. pp. 315-344, Nov. 16, 2020
4. Joshi, M., Gosala, D., Allen, C., Srinivasan, S., Ramesh, A., VanVoorhis, M., Taylor, A., Vos, K.,
Shaver, G., McCarthy, J. Jr., Farrell, L. and Koeberlein, E., "Diesel Engine Cylinder Deactivation for
Improved System Performance over Transient Real-World Drive Cycles," SAE 2018-01-0880, 4/3/2018
The EPA proposes a 1.5 "intelligent controls" adjustment factor in GEM for engines that
include full CDA during coasting where both exhaust and intake valves are closed, justifying it
as similar in effect to neutral coasting estimated at 1.5% C02 reduction. However, the full effect
of CDA on C02 is more significant, as this approach also prevents the cooling of the
aftertreatment system through idle flow during coasting, thus avoiding additional fuel spent on
thermal management after coasting, as illustrated in Figure 3. On the 55 mph cycle, this effect
was measured as 1% incremental fuel or C02 reduction. Given the significant benefits at low
load illustrated in Figure 4, we believe a 2.5 GEM "Intelligent controls" adjustment factor is a
conservative adjustment for CDA that includes all cylinders deactivated during coasting. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1556-A1, p. 4]
The ICE has seen improvements for the boosting and EGR systems for reducing C02 that
were not included in Phase 2 GHG assessments. Replacing the production turbocharger,
normally designed to also flow EGR for today's engines, with a high efficiency turbocharger
while using an EGR pump to flow EGR shows a 5% improvement in fuel economy and C02 as
shown in Figure 5. Significant GHG reductions were measured, up to 5.5% at A-speed, 6.2% at-
B speed and 5.3% at C-speeds on the SET test. For the HD FTP, the combination of high
efficiency turbocharger and EGR pump showed a 1.7% to 3.6% savings of C02 [5], These C02
gains are additive to the gains from CDA. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1556-A1, p. 4.] [See
Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1556-A1, page 4, for Figure 5.]
5. Bitsis, D.C., Matheaus, A., Hopkins, J. and McCarthy, J. Jr., "Improving Brake Thermal Efficiency
Using High Efficiency Turbo and EGR Pump While Meeting 2027 Emissions," SAE 2021-01-1154,
9/21/2021
Overall, the technologies developed and tested by Eaton improve ICE GHG emissions in the
range of 3% - 7%. Our ICE partners have demonstrated the potential for an additional 3%
improvement through their ICE technologies such as higher compression ratios, reduced thermal
loss in the cylinder and reduced friction loss. For example, The Volvo Supertruck II showed that
1253
-------
up to 1.4% BSFC improvement (i.e., 1.4% C02 improvement) with optimum LIVC timing [6]
on its path for a low C02 powertrain. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1556-A1, p. 4]
6. McLaughlin, S., Bond, E. and Li, J., "Volvo SuperTruck 2 Pathway to Cost-Effective Commercialized
Freight Efficiency," DOE Annual Merit Review, 6/24/2021.
3. GHG benefits associated with micro- and mild-hybrids (48V systems)
Eaton has demonstrated micro- and mild-hybridization enabled by 48V technology, in the
form of 48V energy recovery and management systems that achieve additional 5% - 8% GHG
reductions at the vehicle level, by enabling engine-off while coasting (1.5% benefit), anti-idle
and hoteling modes (up to 6% benefit for sleepers), and efficient electrical accessories (1.5%
benefit), while recovering the energy for these systems from the vehicle dynamics (braking and
coasting) [7], It should be noted that 48V technology is also a key enabler for enhanced value-
adding performance, such as electrical HVAC and/or automated and driver assist functions.
These results corroborate well with the major US OEM's demonstrations in the SuperTruck II
program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1556-A1, p. 5]
7. Hergart, C and Brown, M., "Development and Demonstration of Advanced Engine and Vehicle
Technologies for Class 8 Heavy-Duty Vehicle (SuperTruck II)," DOE Annual Merit Review, 6/21/2018.
4. GHG benefits associated with hybridization
Eaton has recently demonstrated HD Hybrid technology (HEV) using 600 - 800V technology
that improves GHG emissions by 9% on tractor certification cycles and 13%-19% on the
vocational cycles, while enabling both anti-idle and hoteling function. The model predictions [8]
were recently verified at Oak Ridge National Laboratory on TRL 4 hardware on the powertrain
test cell, and TRL 5 was recently achieved in vehicle, with significantly improved performance
(acceleration and grade-ability). A similar approach is deployed in the market in Europe by
Scania since 2022. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1556-A1, p. 4]
8. Patil C., Thanom W., Dykes E., Kreucher J., Genise T., "Model-based Assessment of Fuel Economy and
Performance of a Switchable P2/P3 Hybrid Powertrain for Heavy Truck", In Proceedings of the Ground
Vehicle Systems Engineering and Technology Symposium (GVSETS), NDIA, Novi, MI, Aug. 10-12,
2021.
HEV technology also improves productivity through both faster acceleration (40% reduction
in time to road speed), 2x or better grade-ability improvement, and the ability to drive at
controlled low speed. It also enables ultra-low NOx emissions (e.g., less than 10 mg NOx/ kWh)
by eliminating the high emissions cold start conditions. With a battery pack in the range of 100
kWh, the plug-in hybrid (PHEV) version achieves as much as 25% - 50% GHG reduction. The
increased productivity further lowers GHG emissions, though not measured on certification
cycles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1556-A1, p. 5]
HEV and PHEV technologies are particularly attractive for the Class 7 and Class 8 vehicles,
in applications such as long-haul freight and performance vocational segments that are the
hardest to decarbonize due to the massive energy requirements (750 kWh - 1,200 kWh daily
energy needs) and where the lack of an ubiquitous MW-level charging or Hydrogen refueling
infrastructure is a formidable barrier to operations. MD BEV applications are already achieving
penetration in the market and that creates a supply chain and an infield support structure that can
be readily leveraged by HD HEV and PHEV trucks. Such powertrains are in fact composed of
1254
-------
HD ICE mated with MD BEV electrical equipment (150 - 250 kW) and batteries (50- 150 kWh).
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1556-A1, p. 5]
Figure 7 illustrates the significant C02 reduction that are possible. An HEV powertrain in line
haul can reduce C02 by 15% while an urban vocational PHEV can reduce it by 52%. These
reductions do not increase NOx, rather, Eaton has shown that it can further reduce NOx to less
than 10 mg / hp-hr (vs the 35 mg standard). Improvements in the ICE with cylinder deactivation,
EGR pumping etc are not included in this HEV analysis and would further improve C02. Figure
7 also uses simplified powertrain cost estimates based on ACT Research recent modeling [9],
with battery costs estimated at $200/kWh (at pack level, but also considering one battery per
truck), and $40,000 BEV incentives quoted by the EPA analysis in the NPRM, prorated based on
range for PHEV applications. This analysis shows that the significant GHG reductions (including
hoteling and anti-idle credits) are also cost-effective, in some cases being cost neutral to the
baseline Diesel ICE powertrain. In this example, the difference between PHEV and HEV is just
the battery size (100 kWh vs 30 kWh). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1556-A1, pp. 5 - 6.] [See
Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1556-A1, page 6, for Figure 7.]
9. ACT Research Co, "Charging Forward 2024 - 2040 Decarbonization Forecast & Analysis", draft April
2023
Consider multiple pathways to achieve the proposed C02 emissions level, including ICE
improvements and technology packages not considered in Phase 2 and especially the reduction
associated with low voltage (48V) and high voltage hybrids. There are multiple pathways for
internal combustion-based powertrains to achieve 10-15% GHG reduction in long haul
applications and 15-25% reduction in vocational applications, while HEV and PHEV technology
enable 25 - 50% GHG reduction, all while still achieving stringent NOx levels for 2027 and
beyond. Considering these pathways re-affirms the technology-neutral nature of the rule and
allows the market and technology innovation to find the best solutions mix to achieve the
proposed emissions goals, while creating and maximizing the economic benefit and reducing
compliance cost. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1556-A1, p. 7]
Simplify the Phase 2 certification methodology for PHEV. HEV and PHEV technologies can
play significant roles in reducing C02 and are viable alternative paths for applications that are
hard to fully electrify. For PHEV, the current methodology (described in Phase 2) relies on both
a Powertrain test and a complex formula to determine the number of charge depleting and charge
sustaining cycles per application. The Agency could simplify the latter procedure in the final rule
or technical amendments, for example, by defining default utility factor curves for specific
applications. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1556-A1, p. 7]
Organization: Howmet Wheel Systems
Comments on Aerodynamics
The Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis for Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency
Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles - Phase 3 ('DRIA') cites "extensive description of
aerodynamic improvements for Class 8 tractors" done in previous phases of the regulation. It
also describes updated tractor aerodynamic designs from several manufacturers developed as
part of the Department of Energy's SuperTruck program that demonstrate aerodynamics that are
better than those used in existing MY 2027 standards' Heavy-Duty Greenhouse Gas - Phase 2
1255
-------
technology package for high roof sleeper cab tractors in MYs beyond 2027. 6 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1599-A1, p. 5]
6 "Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis: Greenhouse House Emissions Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles -
Phase 3," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P10178RN.pdf, April 2023.
Howmet agrees with EPA's focus on aerodynamics, and we note that the state of technology
and product offerings supports this focus. As noted previously, Alcoa® Wheels Aerodynamic
Steer and Drive Cover Solutions provides an aerodynamic solution that minimizes drag and
delivers significant fuel savings which enables commercial transportation customers to secure a
combined savings of 1.35 gallons of fuel per 1,000 miles and can be applied at the factory. The
drive system's unique inspection window allows for a clear view of all wheel end components,
enabling an operator to conduct safety checks without removing the wheel cover. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1599-A1, p. 5]
Howmet agrees with EPA's assessment that there is an opportunity for further improvements
and increased adoption of factory installed aerodynamic technologies through MY 2032 and
believes that wheel covers should be considered as part of that overall aerodynamic design
technology package. We further appreciate that the DRIA recognizes both the C02 emission
reduction benefits of improved aerodynamics as well as additional consideration that
aerodynamics plays a role in extending the range of ZEV tractors. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1599-A1, p. 5]
Organization: International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT)
ICE EFFICIENCY TECHNOLOGIES BEYOND THOSE REQUIRED UNDER THE
PHASE 2 PROGRAM [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1553-A1, p. 16]
ADDITIONAL ICE TECH PACKAGES CAN DELIVER PAYBACK WITHIN TWO
YEARS This section is ICCT's response to EPA's request for comment on whether to include
additional GHG-reducing technologies and/or higher levels of adoption rates of existing
technologies in the proposed Phase 2 GHG standards. For the purposes of setting the stringency
of the rule, EPA does not assume the adoption of new technologies to improve the efficiency of
internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles beyond those already being deployed to meet the
Phase 2 standards. In our view, the proposal can deliver greater benefits with minimal cost by
revising the stringency of the proposed standards to reflect the deployment of additional
commercially available and cost-efficient technologies like those considered in the Phase 2
standard that manufacturers have not found necessary to deploy. The ICCT conservatively
estimates that incorporating such additional technologies in the stringency of its rule - not
including engine technology improvements - would generate an additional 537 million tonnes of
cumulative C02 emissions avoided between 2020 and 2050. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1553-
Al, p. 16]
Several technologies are available to improve ICE vehicle efficiency beyond what is required
to meet existing Phase 2 greenhouse gas standards. In recently published research, ICCT
identified significant efficiency improvement potential from a list of technologies with a two-
year payback period across tractor and vocational regulatory categories (Buysse et al., 2021;
Ragon, Buysse, et al., 2023). EPA considered some of these technologies in its Phase 2
1256
-------
rulemaking, but only a few were incorporated into the stringency of the Phase 2 rule. These
technologies are available to further increase ICE vehicle efficiency and should be reflected in
the stringency of the Phase 3 final standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1553-A1, p. 16]
Buysse, C., Sharpe, B., & Delgado, O. (2021). Efficiency technology potential for heavy-duty diesel
vehicles in the United States through 2035. International Council on Clean Transportation.
https://theicct.org/publication/efficiency-technology-potential-for-heavy-duty-diesel-vehicles-inthe-united-
states-through-2035/
Ragon, P.-L., Buysse, C., Sen, A., Meyer, M., Benoit, J., Miller, J., & Rodriguez, F. (2023). Potential
benefits of the U.S. Phase 3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Regulation for Heavy-Duty Vehicles. International
Council on Clean Transportation, https://theicct.org/publication/hdv-phase3-ghg-standards-benefits-apr23/
Our research suggests a potential improvement in ICE vehicle efficiency of up to 23% in the
highroof sleeper cab vehicle category, reflecting both engine and non-engine improvements.
Table 2 shows the efficiency improvement potential of each identified technology. [Refer to
Table 2, Two-Year Payback ICE Vehicle Technology Potential Sleeper Cab, on p. 17 of docket
number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1553-A1] The largest contributions are from engine
improvements, followed by aerodynamics, tires, and predictive cruise control. Without engine
improvements (e.g., hybridization, alternative fuel injection systems, etc.), a smaller efficiency
improvement up to 13% can still be realized. These percentages assume no contribution from
trailer technologies such as trailer tires, aerodynamics, or weight reduction. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1553-A1, p. 16]
Our research also suggests a potential ICE vehicle efficiency improvement of up to 31%
exists for a diesel-fueled Class 6 multi-purpose vocational vehicle. Table 3 shows the efficiency
improvement potential of each technology. [Refer to Table 3, Two-Year Payback ICE Vehicle
Technology Potential Class 6-7, on p. 17 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1553-A1]
The largest contributions are from engine improvements, followed by stop-start, weight
reduction, and tires. Without improving engine technology, efficiency improvements of up to
20% can still be realized. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1553-A1, p. 17]
We identified meaningful efficiency packages across a range of vehicle types. Across tractor
regulatory categories, we identified 11%—13% in unrealized efficiency improvements, as well as
6% for heavyhaul tractors. Across vocational vehicle categories, we identified 15%—20% in
unrealized efficiency improvements. Original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) like Navistar
and Volvo Trucks currently offer ICE products with technology options similar to the ones listed
(Advances In International® LT® Series And RHTM Series Drive Improved Fuel Efficiency
And Uptime, 2019; Volvo Trucks Makes Latest-Generation D13 Turbo Compound Engine
Standard in All VNL 740, 760 and 860 Models, 2020). The benefits of the rule would be greater
by encouraging the industry-wide adoption of these technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1553-A1, p. 17]
Advances In International® LT® Series And RHTM Series Drive Improved Fuel Efficiency And Uptime.
(2019, October 24). Navistar. https://news.navistar.com/2019-10-24-Advances-In-International-R-LT-R-
Series-And-RH-TM-Series-Drive-Improved-Fuel-Efficiency-And-Uptime
Volvo Trucks Makes Latest-Generation D13 Turbo Compound Engine Standard in all VNL 740, 760 and
860 Models. (2020, November). Volvo Trucks USA. https://www.volvotrucks.us/news-and-
stories/pressreleases/2020/november/volvo-trucks-makes-latest-generation-dl3-turbo-compound-
enginestandard-in-all-vnl/
1257
-------
EPA uses projected ZEV adoption as the sole determinant when setting the MY 2028 - MY
2032 GHG standards and neglected cost-effective ICE vehicle technology efficiency
improvements. EPA can revise the stringency of its standards to reflect industry-wide ICE
vehicle efficiency improvements that are additional to ZEV adoption alone. This would enable
unrealized ICE efficiency improvements to be incorporated into the final stringency, while
retaining OEMs' flexibility in achieving compliance. Table 4 gives suggested stringency levels
based on ICE vehicle efficiency improvements for EPA to consider [Refer to Table 4, ICE
Technology Potential for HD Vehicles, on p. 18 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1553-A1.] These efficiency potential projections are described in more detail in Ragon et al.
(2023). The use of these technology improvements can only strengthen the EPA proposal if they
are treated as additional technologies - not complementary technologies - to the deployment of
zero-emission vehicles. We encourage EPA to treat them as such in order to maximize the cost-
effective reduction of greenhouse gas emissions achieved from the rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1553-A1, pp. 17-18]
Ragon, P.-L., Buysse, C., Sen, A., Meyer, M., Benoit, J., Miller, J., & Rodriguez, F. (2023). Potential
benefits of the U.S. Phase 3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Regulation for Heavy-Duty Vehicles. International
Council on Clean Transportation, https://theicct.org/publication/hdv-phase3-ghg-standards-benefits-apr23/
Beyond the technology improvements outlined in Table 2 and Table 3, OEMs are
demonstrating additional technology packages to improve ICE efficiency in vehicle prototypes.
The U.S. Department of Energy's SuperTruck Program acts as a testbed for innovative
technology packages to improve the freight efficiency of tractor trailers. Launched in 2010, the
first phase of the program aimed to develop and demonstrate long-haul tractor trucks that achieve
50% improvement in overall freight efficiency. By 2016, all SuperTruck I participant OEMs
reported efficiency improvements ranging from 80% to 116%. (Adoption of New Fuel Efficient
Technologies from SuperTruck, 2016). Through the program, the OEMs developed and validated
technologies like improved aerodynamics, low rolling resistance tires, and engine downsizing,
and deployed them in their commercial products (Park, 2022). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1553-
Al, p. 18]
Adoption of New Fuel Efficient Technologies from SuperTruck. (2016). [Report to Congress]. U.S.
Department of Energy, https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/report-adoption-new-fuel-
efficienttechnologies-supertruck
Park, J. (2022, January 24). Is SuperTruck Worth the Money? Truckinginfo.
https://www.truckinginfo.com/10160190/is-supertruck-worth-the-money
All the major tractor-trailer OEMs (Peterbilt/Cummins, Daimler, Navistar, Paccar, and Volvo)
are participating in the second phase of the program, SuperTruck II (Bashir, 2022; Bond & Li,
2022; Dickson & Mielke, 2022; Meijer, 2022; Zukouski, 2022). The second phase doubles the
vehicle freight efficiency improvement target to 100% compared with a 2009 baseline and
emphasizes cost-effective technologies. All participating OEMs are reporting the development of
final trucks that exceed 125% of efficiency improvements, and their designs incorporate 48 V
mild hybrid, electrification of auxiliary systems, improved aerodynamics, and enhanced waste
heat recovery. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1553-A1, p. 18]
Bashir, M. (2022, June 23). Improving Transportation Efficiency through Integrated Vehicle, Engine, and
Powertrain Research—SuperTruck 2. 2022 Annual Merit Review.
https ://www 1. eere .energy ,gov/vehiclesandfuels/downloads/2022_AMR/ace 100_Villeneuve_2022_ o_4-
301116am_ML.pdf
1258
-------
Bond, E., & Li, J. (2022, June 23). Volvo SuperTruck 2 Pathway to Cost-Effective Commercialized Freight
Efficiency. 2022 Annual Merit Review.
https://wwwl.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/downloads/2022_AMR/acel01_bond_2022_o_5-
l_129pm_ML.pdf
Dickson, J. A., & Mielke, D. (2022, June 23). Cummins-Peterbilt SuperTruck II. 2022 Annual Merit
Review.
https://wwwl.eere.energy.gOv/vehiclesandfuels/downloads/2022_AMR/acel02_dickson_2022_o_rev2%20
-%20TrailLife-GCCC%20IN0110%20REVISED.pdf
Meijer, M. (2022, June 23). Development and Demonstration of Advanced Engine and Vehicle
Technologies for Class 8 Heavy-Duty Vehicle (SuperTruck II). 2022 Annual Merit Review.
https://wwwl.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/downloads/2022_AMR/acel24_Meijer_2022_o_4-
29_1056pm_KF.pdf
Zukouski, R. (2022, June). Navistar SuperTruck II Development and Demonstration of a Fuel-Efficient
Class 8 Tractor & Trailer. 2022 Annual Merit Review.
https://wwwl.eere.energy.gOv/vehiclesandfuels/downloads/2022_AMR/acel03_%20Zukouski_2022_o_4-
29_1232pm_ML.pdf
Organization: Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association (MECA)
Component suppliers have continued to innovate, and many technologies that were not even
considered as compliance options in the Phase 2 rule are now likely to be deployed on limited
engine families in 2024 and more broadly in 2027. Furthermore, engine efficiency technologies -
such as cylinder deactivation, advanced driven turbochargers, and hybridization - have also been
demonstrated in combination with advanced aftertreatment technologies on heavy-duty diesel
engines. Testing has shown the ability of these engine technologies to be optimized to reduce
both GHG and criteria pollutant emissions including NOx. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1521-A1,
p. 4]
Cylinder Deactivation
Cylinder deactivation (CDA) is an established technology on light-duty vehicles, with the
primary objective of reducing fuel consumption and C02 emissions. This technology combines
hardware and software computing power to, in effect, "shut down" some of an engine's
cylinders, based on the power demand, and keep the effective cylinder load in the more efficient
portions of the engine map reducing fuel consumption. Based on decades of experience with
CDA on passenger cars and trucks, CDA is now being adapted to heavy-duty diesel engines. On
a diesel engine, CDA is programmed to operate differently than on gasoline engines, with the
goal of the diesel engine running hotter in low load situations by having the pistons that are
firing do more work. This programming is particularly important for vehicles that spend a lot of
time in creep and idle operation modes. During low load operation, the use of CDA results in
exhaust temperatures increasing by 50°C to 100°C to maintain effective conversion of NOx in
the SCR [1]. In some demonstrations, CDA has been combined with a 48V mild hybrid motor
with launch and sailing capability to extend the range of CDA operation over the engine, and this
may deliver multiplicative C02 reductions from these synergistic technologies [2,3], In another
study, CDA combined with an electric heater or fuel burner has been shown to reduce NOx as
well as C02 to levels below the capabilities of each technology individually [4], CDA has also
been synergistically combined with high efficiency turbochargers, and an electrically driven
1259
-------
EGR pump to yield an additional 1.7 to 3.6% reduction in C02 [5], [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1521-A1, p. 4]
[1], Morris, A. and McCarthy, J., "The Effect of Heavy-Duty Diesel Cylinder Deactivation on Exhaust
Temperature, Fuel Consumption, and Turbocharger Performance up to 3 bar BMEP," SAE Technical Paper
2020-01-1407, 2020, https://doi.org/10.4271/2020-01-1407.
[2], MECA, "Technology Feasibility for Heavy-Duty Diesel Trucks in Achieving 90% Lower NOx
Standards in 2027," 2020. Online at https://www.meca.org/wp-
content/uploads/resources/MECA_2027_Low_NOx_White_Paper_FINAL.pdf.
[3], Dhanraj, F., Dahodwala, M., Joshi, S., Koehler, E. et al., "Evaluation of 48V Technologies to Meet
Future C02 and Low NOx Emission Regulations for Medium Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines," SAE
Technical Paper 2022-01-0555, 2022, https://doi.org/10.4271/2022-01-0555.
[4], McCarthy, Jr., J., Zavala, B., and Matheaus, A., "Technology Levers for Meeting 2027 NOx and C02
Regulations," SAE Technical Paper 2023-01-0354, 2023, https://doi.org/10.4271/2023-01-0354.
[5], Bitsis, D.C., Matheaus, A., Hopkins, J. and McCarthy, J. Jr., "Improving Brake Thermal Efficiency
Using High Efficiency Turbo and EGR Pump While Meeting 2027 Emissions," SAE 2021-01-1154,
https://doi.org/10.4271/2021-01-1154.
We support the provision in the proposed rule of a 1.5% GEM credit for engines that include
full CDA during coasting where both exhaust and intake valves are closed. As presented above,
CDA and other advanced engine and powertrain technologies are still developing and often in
combination to synergistically yield higher values of C02 reduction. As a result, EPA should
allow manufacturers to request variable GEM credit values for CDA and for other engine and
powertrain technologies based upon the submission of performance data. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1521-A1, p. 5]
Advanced Turbochargers
Advances in turbochargers are providing a variety of available design options enabling lower
C02 emissions by improving thermal management capability, such as: i) state of the art
aerodynamics, ii) electrically actuated wastegates that allow exhaust gases to by-pass the
turbocharger to increase the temperature in the aftertreatment, and iii) advanced ball bearings to
improve transient boost response. More advanced turbochargers are designed with a variable
nozzle that adjusts with exhaust flow to provide more control of intake pressure and optimization
of the air-to-fuel ratio for improved performance (e.g., improved torque at lower speeds) and fuel
economy. These variable geometry turbochargers (VGT), also known as variable nozzle turbines
(VNT) and variable turbine geometry (VTG), also enable lower C02 emissions through
improved thermal management capability to enhance aftertreatment light-off Finally, modern
turbochargers have enabled engine and vehicle manufacturers the ability to downsize engines,
resulting in fuel savings without sacrificing power and/or performance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1521-A1, p. 5]
The latest high-efficiency turbochargers are one of the more effective tools demonstrated in
the DOE SuperTruck program [6], In addition to affecting the power density of the engine,
turbochargers play a significant role in NOx and C02 regulations compliance. Continuous
improvement in turbocharger technology is making it possible to run very lean combustion (high
air/fuel ratios), which reduces C02, particulate and engine-out NOx. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1521-A1, p. 5]
1260
-------
[6], Navistar, "Final Scientific/Technical Report for SuperTruck Project: Development and Demonstration
of a Fuel-Efficient, Class 8 Tractor & Trailer Engine System," 2016.
Turbo-compounding
Turbo-compounding is a variant of turbocharger technology that allows for the energy from
the exhaust gas to be extracted and mechanically added to the engine crankshaft. Alternatively,
waste exhaust energy can also be extracted by using an electric turbine to recover the waste
exhaust energy electrically (see Driven Turbochargers) and used to increase primary
turbocharger response and efficiency or to power other electric vehicle systems. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1521-A1, p. 5]
Mechanical turbo-compounding has been employed on some commercial diesel engines, and
EPA estimated penetration to reach 10% in the U.S. by the time the Phase 2 GHG Regulation is
fully implemented in 2027 [7], An early 2014 version of a turbo-compound-equipped engine was
used during the first stage of testing at SwRI under the CARB HD Low NOx Test Program, and
the results from this engine with advanced aftertreatment have been summarized in several SAE
technical papers [8, 9, 10], While turbo-compounding has the potential to reduce fuel
consumption, it can result in lower exhaust temperatures that can challenge aftertreatment
performance. Therefore, it is important to consider turbo-compound designs that incorporate
bypass systems during cold start and low load operation or electrically driven turbo-
compounding systems where the unit can be placed after the aftertreatment system. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1521-A1, pp. 5 - 6]
[7], U.S. EPA, "Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty
Engines and Vehicles ~ Phase 2," Federal Register, pp. 73478-74274, 25 October 2016.
[8], C. Sharp, C. C. Webb, G. Neely, J. V. Sarlashkar, S. B. Rengarajan, S. Yoon, C. Henry andB. Zavala,
"Achieving Ultra Low NOx Emissions Levels with a 2017 Heavy-Duty On- Highway TC Diesel Engine
and an Advanced Technology Emissions System - NOx Management Strategies", SAE Technical Paper
2017-01-0958, https://doi.org/10.4271/2017-01-0958, SAE International Journal of Engines, vol. 10, no. 4,
pp. 1736-1748, 2017.
[9], C. Sharp, C. C. Webb, G. Neely, M. Carter, S. Yoon and C. Henry, "Achieving Ultra Low NOx
Emissions Levels with a 2017 Heavy-Duty On-Highway TC Diesel Engine and an Advanced Technology
Emissions System - Thermal Management Strategies", SAE Technical Paper 2017-01- 0954,
https://doi.org/10.4271/2017-01-0954, SAE International Journal of Engines, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 1697-1712,
2017.
[10], C. Sharp, C. C. Webb, S. Yoon, M. Carter and C. Henry, "Achieving Ultra Low NOx Emissions
Levels with a 2017 Heavy-Duty On-Highway TC Diesel Engine - Comparison of Advanced Technology
Approaches", SAE Technical Paper 2017-01-0956, https://doi.org/10.4271/2017-01-0956, SAE
International Journal of Engines, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 1722-1735, 2017.
Driven turbochargers
Driven turbochargers can be used to control the speed of the turbomachinery independently of
the engine's exhaust flow and vary the relative ratio between engine speed and turbo speed.
Driven turbochargers may be utilized for several reasons, including performance, efficiency, and
emissions. Considered an 'on-demand' air device, a driven turbocharger also receives transient
power from its turbine. During transient operation, a driven turbocharger will behave like a
supercharger and consume mechanical or electrical energy to accelerate the turbomachinery for
improved engine response. At high-speed operation, the driven turbocharger will return
1261
-------
mechanical or electrical power to the engine in the form of turbo-compounding, which recovers
excess exhaust power to improve efficiency [11], This cumulative effect lets a driven
turbocharger perform all the functions of a supercharger, turbocharger, and turbo-compounder.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1521-A1, p. 6]
[11]. Suelter, B., Itou, T., Waldron, T., and Brin, J., "Optimizing Steady State Diesel Efficiency and
Emissions Using a SuperTurboTM on an Isuzu 7.8L Engine," SAE Technical Paper 2019-01-0318, 2019,
https://doi.org/10.4271/2019-01-0318.
NOx emission control uniquely benefits from the application of driven turbochargers in
several ways, including the ability to decouple EGR from boost pressure, reduce transient
engine-out NOx, and improve aftertreatment temperatures during cold start and low load
operation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1521-A1, p. 6]
Bypassing a driven turbine can provide quick temperature rises for the aftertreatment while
still delivering the necessary boost pressure to the engine through supercharging, which also
increases the gross load on the engine to help increase exhaust temperature [11], Testing has
shown that routing engine exhaust to the aftertreatment by bypassing a turbocharger is one of the
most effective methods to heat up the aftertreatment [2], [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1521-A1,
p. 6]
[11]. Suelter, B., Itou, T., Waldron, T., and Brin, J., "Optimizing Steady State Diesel Efficiency and
Emissions Using a SuperTurboTM on an Isuzu 7.8L Engine," SAE Technical Paper 2019-01-0318, 2019,
https://doi.org/10.4271/2019-01-0318.
[2], MECA, "Technology Feasibility for Heavy-Duty Diesel Trucks in Achieving 90% Lower NOx
Standards in 2027," 2020. Online at https://www.meca.org/wp-
content/uploads/resources/MECA_2027_Low_NOx_White_Paper_FINAL.pdf.
Electrification: Mild Hybridization
In the near future, 48-volt mild hybrid electrical systems and components are expected to
make their way onto medium and heavy-duty vehicles. These 48-volt systems can be found on
many light- duty vehicle models (primarily in Europe) from Mercedes, Audi, VW, Renault and
PSA. In the U.S., FCA is offering a 48-volt system on the RAM 1500 pick-up and the Jeep
Wrangler under the eTorque trademark. Because the safe voltage threshold is 60 volts, which is
especially important when technicians perform maintenance on the electrical system, 48-volt
systems are advantageous from an implementation standpoint. From a cost perspective, 48-volt
systems include smaller starter and wire gauge requirements, offering cost savings from a high
voltage architecture of a full hybrid. The U.S. Department of Energy's SuperTruck II program
teams employed 48-volt technologies on their vehicles to demonstrate trucks with greater than
55% brake thermal efficiency. A recent study demonstrated through model-based simulations
that a 48-volt technology package combined with advanced aftertreatment can achieve a
composite FTP emission level of 0.015 g/bhp-hr [3], [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1521-A1, p. 6]
[3], Dhanraj, F., Dahodwala, M., Joshi, S., Koehler, E. et al., "Evaluation of 48V Technologies to Meet
Future C02 and Low NOx Emission Regulations for Medium Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines," SAE
Technical Paper 2022-01-0555, 2022, https://doi.org/10.4271/2022-01-0555.
Similar to the passenger car fleet, truck OEMs are considering replacing traditional
mechanically driven components with equivalent or improved electric versions to gain
efficiency. Converting electrical accessories from 12-volts to 48-volts reduces electrical losses
1262
-------
and this is particularly advantageous for components that draw more power, such as pumps and
fans. The types of components that may be electrified include electric turbos, electronic EGR
pumps, AC compressors, electrically heated catalysts, electric cooling fans, oil pumps and
coolant pumps, among others. Another technology that 48-volt systems could enable is electric
power take-offs rather than using an engine powered auxiliary power unit or idling the main
engine during hoteling while drivers rest. MECA members supplying commercial 48V
components for commercial vehicles believe that the technology may be feasible to apply to a
limited number of engine families by 2024, and it is likely to see greater penetration by 2027,
especially on Class 8 line-haul where full hybridization is less practical. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1521-A1, pp. 6-7]
Mild hybridization covers a range of configurations, but a promising one includes an electric
motor/generator, regenerative braking, electric boost and advanced batteries. Stop/start
deployment also provides a thermal management benefit to the aftertreatment by preventing
cooling airflow through the aftertreatment during hot idle conditions. In this way, 48-volt mild
hybridization is complementary technology to CDA and start-stop capability, allowing the
combination of multiple technologies on a vehicle to yield synergistic benefits to reduce C02 by
an additional 5-8% at the vehicle level by enabling engine-off while coasting (1.5% benefit),
anti-idle and hoteling modes (up to 6% benefit for sleepers), and efficient electrical accessories
(1.5%) benefit), while recovering the energy for these systems from the vehicle dynamics
(braking and coasting) [12, 13], By shutting off the engine at idle or motoring using start/stop,
micro hybrid technology can help to reduce C02 while maintaining aftertreatment temperature
by avoiding the pumping of cold air through the exhaust. Capturing braking energy and storing it
in a small battery for running auxiliary components when the engine is off offers another C02
reducing strategy for OEMs to deploy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1521-A1, p. 7]
[12], M. Dorobantu, "Affordable Simultaneous Emissions and Efficiency Improvements from an Integrated
Powertrain Systems Perspective", 2019 SAE Government and Industry Conference.
[13], Hergart, C and Brown, M., "Development and Demonstration of Advanced Engine and Vehicle
Technologies for Class 8 Heavy-Duty Vehicle (SuperTruck II)," DOE Annual Merit Review, 6/21/2018.
In lighter medium-duty applications, advanced start-stop systems have been developed that
use an induction motor in a 48-volt belt-driven starter-generator (BSG). When the engine is
running, the motor, acting as a generator, will charge a separate battery. When the engine needs
to be started, the motor then applies its torque via the accessory belt and cranks the engine
instead of using the starter motor. The separate battery can also be recharged via a regenerative
braking system. In addition to the start-stop function, a BSG system can enhance fuel economy
even during highway driving by cutting off the fuel supply when cruising or decelerating. Such
systems can also be designed to deliver a short power boost to the drivetrain. This boost is
typically 10 to 20 kW and is limited by the capacity of the 48 V battery and accessory belt linking
the motor to the crankshaft. New designs are linking the BSG directly to the crankshaft and
allowing additional power boost of up to 30kW to be delivered, giving greater benefits to light
and medium commercial vehicles [2], [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1521-A1, p. 7]
[2], MECA, "Technology Feasibility for Heavy-Duty Diesel Trucks in Achieving 90% Lower NOx
Standards in 2027," 2020. Online at https://www.meca.org/wp-
content/uploads/resources/MECA_2027_Low_NOx_White_Paper_FINAL.pdf.
Electrification: Full hybridization and electric vehicles
1263
-------
Full hybrid configurations are currently found on a growing number of models of light-duty
passenger cars and light trucks in the U.S. and a limited number of medium-duty trucks and
urban buses. These include models that can also be plugged-in (PHEVs) to enable electric
operation for a determined "all- electric" range (AER). A full hybrid (HEV) can enable enhanced
electrification of many of the components described above for mild hybrid vehicles as the higher
voltages allow for more parts to be electrified and to a larger degree. Full hybrids also employ
larger electric motors and batteries, which support greater acceleration capability and
regenerative braking power. Full hybrid and plug-in hybrid vehicles have made the highest
penetration into vocational applications such as parcel delivery, beverage delivery and food
distribution vehicles because they can take advantage of regenerative braking in urban driving
[14] and operate from a central location. Model predictions of HD HEV 600-800V technology
recently verified at Oak Ridge National Laboratory [15] have shown that GHG emissions
reductions of 9% on tractor certification cycles and 13%-19% on the vocational cycles, while
enabling both anti-idle and hoteling function. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1521-A1, pp. 7-8]
[14], CARB, "Draft Technology Assessment: Heavy-Duty Hybrid Vehicles," 2015.
[15], Patil C., Thanom W., Dykes E., Kreucher J., Genise T., "Model-based Assessment of Fuel Economy
and Performance of a Switchable P2/P3 Hybrid Powertrain for Heavy Truck", In Proceedings of the
Ground Vehicle Systems Engineering and Technology Symposium (GVSETS), NDIA, Novi, MI, Aug. 10-
12, 2021.
We expect to see the increasing application of strong / parallel and serial hybrids combined
with a low NOx engine to reduce C02 emissions in several vocational applications. Integrated
electric drivetrain systems, consisting of a fully qualified transmission, motor and power
electronics controller, are now commercially available. With power levels of over 160kW and
the ability to meet high torque requirements, these systems enable electrification of medium-duty
commercial vehicles. There is also an increasing number of electric drivetrain solutions up to and
over 300kW that are suitable for Class 8 vehicles that can be used with either hybrid [16], battery
or fuel cell power sources [2], [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1521-A1, p. 8]
[16], "Hyliion and Cummins optimizing Cummins ISX12N natural gas engine as generator for Hypertruck
ERX powertrain", https://www.greencarcongress.eom/2022/06/20220629-hyliion.html.
[2], MECA, "Technology Feasibility for Heavy-Duty Diesel Trucks in Achieving 90% Lower NOx
Standards in 2027," 2020. Online at https://www.meca.org/wp-
content/uploads/resources/MECA_2027_Low_NOx_White_Paper_FINAL.pdf.
Organization: MEMA
MEMA and its members support the objectives of the agency to improve national air quality
through improvements to heavy duty trucks. The supplier industry directly manufactures vehicle
components and systems that enable the transformation of the transportation sector to more
environmentally friendly vehicles. The industry also supports advancements in internal
combustion engine technologies, needed to serve the vocational and long-haul sectors where
zero-tailpipe emission vehicles are not yet feasible due to weight, load, and infrastructure
limitations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1570-A1, p. 1]
Lightweighting Will Continue to be Important and Should be Encouraged. Lightweighting is
an important part of the overall strategy for improving vehicle emissions performance. The use
of lighter weight materials (high strength steel, aluminum, plastics, polymer composites, carbon
1264
-------
fiber, magnesium, etc.) and designs - otherwise known as mass reduction or lightweighting -
continues to be an important cost-effective strategy in meeting emissions reduction standards.
Lightweighting is well-recognized to increase trucking efficiency and there are three primary
ways that this occurs:
• By lowering rolling resistance, less energy is needed to start the vehicle moving and then
overcome the friction of its contact with the road.
• By allowing carriers to add more cargo to each truck, which reduces the number of trucks
on the road and/or trips that need to be made.
• By facilitating the adoption of other efficiency and emissions reductions technologies
higher payloads through utilization of heavier components for battery, fuel cell, and
efficient engines as well as other emissions reductions, improvements are possible, and
can negate the concerns about the added weight of those technologies.
Furthermore, lightweighting also includes the unsprung mass of suspension and brake
components as well as, but not limited to, wheels. The North American Council for Freight
Efficiency's Confidence Report on Lightweighting noted that the aluminum wheel is the,
"...single most effective product for saving weight on both a tractor and trailer." [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1570-A1, p. 13]
11 North American Council for Freight Efficiency, 'Confidence Report on Lightweighting,'
January 10, 2021 https://nacfe.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Lightweighting-Confidence-
Report-Feb2021.pdf
We commend EPA for continuing to recognize the contributions of wheel-related weight
reductions and non-wheel-related weight reductions to the agency's overall emissions reductions
goals. This is reflected in Table 6 to ci 1037.520 and Table 8 to ci 1037.520 of the proposed rule
which provide specific vehicle weight reduction credit inputs. The NPRM relies on prior
assumptions around lightweighting that were part of the Regulatory Impact Analysis for
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty
Engines and Vehicles - Phase 2 as the weight reduction credits for Phase 2 appear to have been
extended to Phase 3. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1570-A1, p. 13]
EPA should recognize that suppliers have introduced new technologies and products since the
Phase II rule was finalized in 2016 and seek comments from suppliers to update the agency's
assumptions around weight reduction inputs to reflect the latest available technologies on the
marketplace. For example, lightweight forged aluminum wheel producers have continuously
improved their product offerings to the heavy-duty truck, bus, and trailer markets. More recent
generations of products - introduced to the market since the Phase 2 was promulgated - offer
weight savings of nearly 10% as compared to similar steer or dual-drive, and wide base wheels
which were part of the analysis EPA previously conducted. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1570-
Al, p. 13]
Recommendation: EPA should continue to grant credit for lightweighting and weight
reduction and update GHG Ph2 assumptions on lightweighting in the GHG Ph3 GEM model.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1570-A1, p. 13]
1265
-------
Organization: Moving Forward Network (MFN) et al.
7.3.1. Assessing the impact of CNGVs
There is no clean or safe natural gas fuel source. Natural gas based options are false solutions,
with upstream and downstream pollution impacts for frontline and fenceline communities from
production, distribution, etc., and the ensuing infrastructure required for the fuel. To assess the
harms from these vehicles, we rely upon data from EPA's heavy-duty in-use test program and
required emissions tests. For fuel efficiency, we assume that these vehicles are just as energy-
efficient as their diesel-fueled alternatives. This is an optimistic assessment, as EPA notes that
CNGVs can be expected to be 5-15 percent less efficient (81 FR 73925), but differences in
required emissions control to meet newly finalized federal standards could reduce this efficiency
gap in the future. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 47]
To assess the impacts of NGVs, we utilize the default values in GREET to assess the
upstream emissions associated with the production and distribution of methane. EPA's HDIUT
shows that CNGVs today emit lower levels of NOX but significantly higher levels of VOCs than
modern diesel trucks. There are also modest increases in PM2.5 emissions since CNGVs can
meet current particulate matter standards without the need for particulate filters found on modern
diesel vehicles. We anticipate little improvement to current CNGVs to meet future NOX
standards; therefore, we assumed that emissions would be the lesser of current values or the
future in-use requirements for NOX, PM2.5, and VOC. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p.
47]
We also used data from the HDIUT program to correct for the direct emissions of greenhouse
gases—while EPA intended for CNGVs to reduce excess methane emissions beginning with the
Phase 1 program, manufacturers have instead been taking advantage of the credit program to
offset these additional methane reductions with C02 credits (81 FR 73925). We assume this
trend will continue and use hydrocarbon speciation data to assign a relationship between direct
VOC and CH4 emissions, 104 converting CH4 into C02-equivalent greenhouse gas emissions
consistent with the global warming potentials used in GREET. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1608-A1, p. 47-48]
104 Section 3.6 in EPA. Speciation of total organic gas and particulate matter emissions from onroad
vehicles inMOVES3. EPA-420-R-22-017. (2022). https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-
07/420r22017.pdf.
9.1.1. Compression-ignition engine technologies (diesel)
EPA appropriately identifies manufacturers' plans to deploy new engines in order to meet the
2027 NOX standards finalized last year. 88 Fed. Reg. at 25958. However, in its analysis, the
Agency inappropriately freezes the progress of diesel engines at the bare minimum requirements
on the books today, with no improvement required beyond the 2027 Phase 2 diesel engine
standards and no assumed improvement in any truck technology beyond 2027 Phase 2 ICE
vehicle requirements. This is inconsistent with both the literature and the Agency's own analysis
of what is possible in the 2027-2032 time period. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 65]
In its Phase 2 regulation, EPA identified multiple pathways and approaches to achieving the
Phase 2 diesel engine regulations (Phase 2 FRIA 2.7.10 and 2.7.11). In assessing what is
achievable, the Agency relied significantly upon manufacturer-submitted data from the
1266
-------
SuperTruck research program in partnership with the Department of Energy (Phase 2 FRIA
2.7.5). However, the second phase of the SuperTruck program has far exceeded the level of
efficiency deployed in the data EPA relied upon, particularly for engines: the Navistar and
Cummins/Peterbilt teams were able to demonstrate 55 percent brake-thermal efficiency (BTE),
compared to the 50 percent target for the first phase, while Daimler, Volvo, and PACCAR all
demonstrated over 50 percent BTE, with a clear pathway towards the 55 percent target. 116 The
PACCAR team's progress is particularly illuminating, as they undertook an additional challenge
to meet "ultra low NO X " targets consistent with EPA's recent regulation as part of their overall
efficiency effort, indicating that these levels of thermal efficiency are not incompatible with
achieving the 2027 standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 65]
116 Zukouski, R. Navistar. SuperTruck II: Development and demonstration of a fuel-efficient class 8
tractor & trailer. Presentation, DOE 2022 Annual Merit Review, June 21-23. (2022).
https://wwwl.eere.energy.gOv/vehiclesandfuels/downloads/2022_AMR/acel03_%20Zukouski_2022_o_4-
29_1232pm_ML.pdf; Mielke, D. 2022 Annual Merit Review: Cummins/Peterbilt SuperTruck II.
Presentation, DOE 2022 Annual Merit Review, June 21-23. (2022).
https://wwwl.eere.energy.gOv/vehiclesandfuels/downloads/2022_AMR/acel02_dickson_2022_o_rev2%20
-%20TrailLife-GCCC%20IN0110%20REVISED.pdf; Bashir, M. Daimler: Improving transportation
efficiency through integrated vehicle, engine, and powertrain research - SuperTruck 2. Presentation, DOE
2022 Annual Merit Review, June 21-23. (2022).
https://wwwl.eere.energy.gOv/vehiclesandfuels/downloads/2022_AMR/acel00_Villeneuve_2022_o_4-
30_1116am_ML.pdf; Bond, E. Volvo SuperTruck 2: Pathway to cost-effective commercialized freight
efficiency. Presentation, DOE 2022 Annual Merit Review, June 21-23. (2022).
https://wwwl.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/downloads/2022_AMR/acel01_bond_2022_o_5-
l_129pm_ML.pdf; Meijer, M. Development and demonstration of advanced engine and vehicle
technologies for class 8 heavy-duty vehicle ([PACCAR] SuperTruck II). Presentation, DOE 2022 Annual
Merit Review, June 21-23. (2022).
https://wwwl.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/downloads/2022_AMR/acel24_Meijer_2022_o_4-
29_1056pm_KF.pdf
Eaton partnered with the PACCAR team in the development of its SuperTruck II truck, and
they have demonstrated that it is possible to outperform simultaneously the 2027 NOX standards
and the Phase 2 C02 standards through a number of different aftertreatment and powertrain
combinations. 117 A recent research paper by Eaton demonstrates various combinations of
control technologies manufacturers can tune C02 and NOX emissions over different regulatory
cycles to develop a technology package that is suitable for compliance, including packages that
can achieve C02 reductions beyond Phase 2 while meeting EPA's future 2027 standards. 118
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 66]
117 Dorobantu, M. Eaton considerations on MD/HD GHG Phase 3. Presentation, OIRA-Eaton meeting,
March 23. (2023).
https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eoDownloadDocument?pubId=&eodoc=true&documentID=215442
118 McCarthy, J., et al. Technology levers for meeting 2027 NOX and C02 regulations. SAE Technical
Paper 2023-01-0354. (2023). https://doi.org/10.4271/2023-01-0354.
One of the strategies deployed by Eaton is a 48V electric heater, which could be deployed
easily with a 48V mild hybrid powertrain, again illustrating the complementary technology
packages available to manufacturers. The 48 V mild hybrid powertrain can not just power
accessories, including those related to emissions control, but it can also help reduce engine-out
NOX. This was also demonstrated through testing by FEV as a strategy particularly relevant to
1267
-------
MHDVs, whose engines are required to meet tighter NOX standards than those of HHDVs. 119
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 66]
119 Fnu, D., et al. Application of 48V mild-hybrid technology for meeting GHG and low NOX regulation
for MHD vehicles. SAE Technical Paper 2023-01-0484. (2023). https://doi.org/10.4271/2023-01-0484.
9.1.2. Spark-ignition technologies (gasoline)
A significant opportunity for increased improvement lies in spark-ignition (SI) engines, for
which Phase 2 required no engine improvements beyond the 2016 SI engine standard. The
weakness in EPA's Phase 2 targets for SI engines and vehicles is apparent in looking at the
compliance credits to-date, particularly for Ford Motor Company, the largest SI engine supplier.
Ford has run a credit surplus in every year of the vocational engine program, but this surplus
exploded in MY2020 with the release of its latest 7.3L V8 engine, codenamed "Godzilla." 120
Even though the engine platform is relatively low-tech (naturally aspirated, pushrod V8),
utilizing variable cam timing and a variable-displacement oil pump, it's a significant
improvement in efficiency. The engine was also designed with fuel economy at load in mind for
applications like towing. A smaller engine built on the same platform replaced the older base
engine in 2023, no doubt increasing Ford's over compliance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-
Al, p. 66]
120 EPA. Final Phase 1 EPA Heavy-Duty Vehicle and Engine Greenhouse Gas Emissions Compliance
Report (Model Years 2014-2020). (2022). Appendix B: Individual Manufacturer Detailed Credit
Summaries. https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/P1016962.PDF?Dockey=P1016962.pdf.
General Motors is not standing still, either—their fifth-generation small-block V8 platform is
getting a next-generation update to a 5 percent improvement over the current generation, 121 and
the current generation is already a credit generator for its heavy-duty vehicles under the Phase 2
program. 122 No further details are available about the heir to the current iron-block direct-
injection L8T variant found in its heavy-duty offerings, but again this underscores the significant
amount of fuel efficiency still available from heavy-duty gasoline engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1608-A1, pp. 66 - 67]
121 Wren, W. This is why GM is launching a new small block V8. Autoweek (online). (February 3, 2023).
https://www.autoweek.com/news/industry-news/a42746723/why-gm-is-launching-a-new-small-block-v8/.
122 U.S. EPA. Final Rule for Phase 2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards
for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles. (2022). https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-
vehicles-and-engines/final-rule-phase-2-greenhouse-gas-emissions-standards
9.1.4. Non-powertrain technologies
In the Phase 2 regulation, EPA identified numerous improvements to every class of heavy-
duty vehicle which could be applied in the timeframe of the rule (through 2029), including non-
engine technologies to reduce road load regardless of the propulsion source. Most of these
technologies were not exhausted in setting the standards. Given the longer timeframe of this rule
(through 2032) and the steady increase from 2021-2029 for which EPA applied these
technologies, EPA should naturally have continued to assume a steady increase in such
technology adoption over the course of the Phase 3 rule, particularly since they are largely
powertrain agnostic and thus affected neither by the 2027 NOX rule nor a transition to electric
trucks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 68]
1268
-------
As EPA identified in Phase 2, many of these are evolutionary technologies that have gradually
improved over time: aerodynamics, rolling resistance, weight reduction, accessory load
reduction, etc. There are also technologies which have seen a gradual increase in market share
that is likely to continue, such as 6x2 axles and neutral idling. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-
Al, p. 68]
Below, we've summarized a simple extrapolation of EPA's Phase 2 GEM analysis, wherein
we assume no changes to the 2027 engine or transmission but have simply extrapolated the
continuous evolution of improvements to vehicles from 2021-2029, through 2032, for each
regulatory class at the pace EPA adopted in finalizing the Phase 2 regulation, and run these
technology deployment scenarios through EPA's GEM Compliance model. As can be seen by
Tables 4 and 5, even without the improvements identified above or any wholesale shifts in the
market, ICE-powered trucks would be expected to improve by up to 8.4 percent by 2032 just by
continuing the same pace of improvement from Phase 2 with already-identified technologies.
This is the barest of minimal level of improvement EPA should assume ICEVs are capable of in
Phase 3 because it doesn't reflect synergies with improvements identified above for gasoline and
diesel-powered vehicles that would be deployed to achieve 2027 NOX standards such as 48V
hybridization and cylinder deactivation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 68]
Any improvement in ICEVs not considered by EPA in setting its standards is a one-to-one
decrease in the market share of ZEVs needed for compliance. If manufacturers continue at the
pace set by the Phase 2 program, with no additional changes to reflect the increase in available
technology, EPA's Phase 3 proposal would yield at least 7 percent fewer electric trucks in the
regulatory timeframe (27.0 percent compared to 29.2 percent for 2027-2032). Since these
technologies were already identified by EPA in setting the Phase 2 standards, they are all
available at scale by 2027—if manufacturers instead accelerated the pace to the 2032 levels
identified, this alone would lead to a 16.9 percent reduction in electric trucks required (24.3
percent compared to 29.2 percent for 2027-2032). For comparison, EPA's weaker alternative is
based on a 21.3 percent reduction (23.0 percent compared to 29.2 percent for 2027-2032). Thus,
just by ignoring its own Phase 2 analysis, EPA's rule could lead to electric truck deployment
comparable to the proposed weaker alternative. 127 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p.
68.] [See Table 4, Phase 2-based Tractor-Trailer Improvement and Table 5, Phase 2-based
Tractor-Trailer Improvement located on p. 69 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1608-A1.]
127 It is crucial to emphasize that this exercise ignores other aspects of EPA's rule which will also lead to a
reduced share of electric trucks, including the current, inappropriate treatment of H 2 ICEVs as 0 g/ton-
mile vehicles.
Organization: Odyne Systems LLC
Ensure that PHEV systems can be easily qualified to provide credits if they significantly
improve driving fuel economy by increasing mpg by over 40% compared to non-electrified
propulsion systems, regardless of whether PHEV systems use parallel or series configurations.
Odyne encourages the EPA to continue to focus on GHG reductions rather than specific
powertrain configurations. Some PHEV systems can be effectively integrated into medium and
heavy-duty chassis without modifications to exhaust systems or engine control systems and
1269
-------
without major powertrain modifications, significantly improving fuel efficiency while
minimizing increases in vehicle manufacturing costs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1623-A1, p. 4]
Organization: PACCAR, Inc.
PACCAR requests that EPA clarify its cylinder deactivation proposal. EPA proposes to credit
vehicles with engines that include full cylinder deactivation during coasting at a rate of 1.5
percent under "Intelligent Controls" in the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Model (GEM). EPA
should clearly define "full cylinder" in this context by specifying that "full" refers to the scenario
where both the intake and exhaust valves are closed, and not deactivation of all cylinders. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1607-A1, p. 10]
Organization: Strong Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle (PHEV) Coalition
EPA, the DOE or the national labs should conduct a comparative analysis on PHEV and BEV
costs with a stakeholder input or working group and collect more data from truck makers as part
of the final regulation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1647-A2, p. 2]
EPA should consider a scenario in the final rulemaking that reduces the total costs.
Specifically, this new scenario should include a modest number of PHEV trucks as that will
impact the cost analysis by reducing the cost of charging infrastructure, the amount of critical
minerals and by using BEV batteries in strong PHEVs (see appendices C and D in this letter.)
Further, a modest amount of bidirectional charging for BEVs and PHEVs should be included as
this has a positive total cost of ownership and further reduces costs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1647-A2, p. 2]
Summary of our main recommendations
1) We understand that utility factor (UF) data is available for EPA to calculate the UF for
light-duty PHEVs. But due to lack of product, this is not possible for heavy-duty PHEVs. For
this reason, we support EPA's proposal that this be done on a case-by-case basis by EPA using
data from a truck manufacturer. We also support EPA not including the upstream GHG
emissions from battery manufacturing in this rule. However, there are very substantial benefits in
reduced GHG from battery manufacturing emissions for a plug-in hybrid electric truck having a
much smaller battery than a long-range battery electric truck as well as other environmental and
supply chain benefits. Based on this, we recommend that this large benefit of PHEV trucks be
considered informally when EPA is determining the utility factor for a truck manufacturer and
that EPA should not be conservative when determining the UF for the plug-in hybrid electric
truck. See Appendix C for additional details on the GHG reduction benefits of smaller batteries
and a comparison of GHG emissions from long-range BEVs and strong PHEVs. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1647-A2, pp. 4 - 5] [[See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1647-
A2, pages 13-14, for Appendix C]]
4) EPA, the DOE or the national labs should conduct an analysis on the value and feasibility
of PHEVs as a platform for low-carbon alternative fuels (e.g., adequate supply of feedstocks)
including whether to allow PHEVs with 85% or more low carbon liquid biofuels blended with
gasoline or diesel to be treated as zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) in future regulations and
incentives. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985- 1647-A2, p. 2]
1270
-------
9) EPA should take special care in the final regulation to encourage work trucks that idle most
of the day (power take-off operations) as PHEVs, especially strong PHEVs are a good candidate
for this market and some of the only PHEV trucks in class 4-8 so far.2 This may require
modifying the test cycles to capture the long-duration times that these trucks use batteries to
power their booms and other equipment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1647-A2, p. 3]
2 For example, utility trucks made by Odyne or the former EDI.
10) The EPA should encourage manufacturers to share anonymized actual data from the
Strong PHEVs so that in future years, the EPA can make informed decisions based upon real
world data. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1647-A2, p. 3]
3) In the longer term, EPA, the DOE or the national labs should conduct a comparative
analysis on PHEV and BEV costs with a stakeholder input or working group). PHEVs can be
made in a less costly manner than shown in most analyses. Technical maturity, engineering
advances, supply chain issues, changes in mineral prices, war and scale-up issues are impacting
the costs of BEV and PHEV up-front and operating costs. Today, costs are rapidly changing,
especially for batteries. In addition, Argonne National Lab's recent report8 shows that PHEVs
are less expensive than BEVs for cars, and our experts at Strong PHEV coalition assert that
several additional technical modifications can lower the cost of PHEVs that most analyses do not
consider. We think this likely applies to plug-in hybrid trucks but recognize that more analysis is
needed. A common mistake we find in reports is not understanding the difference between a
strong PHEV and other PHEVs because a strong PHEV can use the same batteries as a BEV
which results in significant cost savings. See Appendix D for a more detailed explanation. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1647-A2, p. 6] [[See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1647-A2,
page 15, for Appendix D]]
8 https://www.anl.gov/argonne-scientific-publications/pub/167396
4) In the longer term, EPA, the DOE or the national labs should conduct an analysis on the
value of PHEVs as a platform for low-carbon alternative fuels including whether to allow
PHEVs with 85% or more low carbon liquid biofuels blended with gasoline to be treated as zero-
emission vehicles (ZEVs) in future EPA regulations. The issue to be studied is feedstock
availability in the long run for both diesel and gasoline substitutes that could be used in PHEVs
to make them have lower life cycle emissions. Related environmental issues could be studied.
Justification: Some biomass feedstocks used in gasoline can't or won't be used in diesel or jet
fuel powered transportation. This should result in large amounts of unused feedstocks because
biomass feedstocks for spark-ignited engines will not be needed in the long run (e.g.,2050).
However, using some of these existing feedstocks would make future PHEVs have even lower
full fuel cycle GHG emissions than they have today. Strong plug-in hybrid cars and light trucks
using gasoline already can have lower GHG than long range electric cars and light trucks due to
the GHG emissions from battery manufacturing and the slightly poorer fuel economy of long-
range BEVs. (See appendix C in this letter). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1647-A2, p. 6]
6) In order to show additional ways that costs can be reduced and that hard-to-reach markets
are served, we respectfully request that EPA develop a scenario in the final rulemaking that
reduces the total costs. Specifically, this new scenario should include a modest number of PHEV
trucks as that will impact the cost analysis by reducing the cost of charging infrastructure, the
amount of critical minerals and by using BEV batteries in strong PHEVs. This scenario could
1271
-------
reduce the number of BEVs and FCEVs by a small amount (say 10% collectively) and be instead
served by a mix of Strong PHEV trucks and other PHEV trucks. The PHEV battery costs should
be based on using BEV batteries as explained in appendix D in this letter. The use of away-from-
home DC fast chargers should be modestly reduced, and the cost of the PHEV including total
cost of ownership should be based on work by Argonne national lab for light-duty
PHEVs.9 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1647-A2, p. 7]
9 Ibid
Finally, bidirectional charging using DC off-board chargers should be assumed in our
recommended alternative cost analysis for a reasonable percentage of BEVs and PHEVs in order
to further reduce the total cost of ownership. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1647-A2, p. 7]
10) The EPA should encourage manufacturers to share anonymized actual data from Strong
PHEVs so that in future years, the EPA can make informed decisions based upon real world data.
Strong PHEV trucks are further behind in commercialization compared to BEV trucks and fuel
cell EV trucks, so more data would be useful to EPA. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1647-A2, p. 8]
Benefits of Strong PHEVs
Allowing PHEV trucks to be in the proposed regulation helps low-income truck drivers (class
2b-8)
• The flexible nature of Strong PHEV trucks and cars makes them an important solution for
low-income drivers of used PHEV trucks and cars. Many drivers need flexibility in their
choice of vehicle because they either change residences often, change jobs often, work
two or more jobs or live in areas where charging at night is difficult. This applies to some
vocational vehicles that park at home, or commercial businesses that don't have easy
access to charging or that move relatively often. In addition, we understand that low-
income drivers in the California Clean Cars for All program preferred PHEVs (e.g., Volt
and BMW i3 REX) over BEVs and we think this will hold true for PHEV trucks.
Eventually used PHEV trucks will enter the market and they will be attractive to low- and
moderate-income owners and renters of trucks. Small businesses often rent their home
base or move their business and a PHEV truck provides needed flexibility for this hard-
to-reach market segment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1647-A2, p. 9]
Because of the urgency of the climate and air pollution crises worldwide and the challenges of
predicting consumer acceptance, it is important to take an all-hands-on-deck approach and have
multiple types of zero-emission truck technologies in the final regulation including Strong
PHEVs.
• Strong PHEVs offer more options for consumers which means a faster path to zero C02
worldwide.
• Many areas of the world are relying on EPA's leadership to commercialize new zero
carbon solutions to transportation such as Strong PHEVs.
• The longer-term goal should be PHEVs with 100% zero carbon electricity generation for
almost all of their electric miles, and advanced biofuels or other ultra-low carbon fuel for
the remaining miles.
• The experience of the last fifteen years has shown that many residential and commercial
users of vehicles will first adopt a PHEV instead of a BEV. In addition, we believe that
1272
-------
long range PHEVs are a no-regrets solution for EPA to encourage in the long term. In
other words, uncertainty in speed of adoption of battery EVs and fuel cell EVs, especially
by fast followers and late adopters, requires agencies such as EPA to be fuel and
technology neutral in their regulations.
• We believe the uncertainty in CARB's report on 2045 fuel neutralitylO argues for EPA to
be broad minded and nimble in adopting regulations, plans and incentives to reach the
2045 carbon neutrality goal and implies long-term use of low carbon fuels with Strong
PHEVs. In addition, reaching very high levels of ZEV sales in the next decade frees up
large amounts of biofuels for use in spark-ignited and compression-ignited engines such
as the strong PHEVs allowed in the proposed rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1647-A2,
pp. 9 - 10]
10 E3 report for CARB at 11. " Many key uncertainties remain around the achievement of carbon neutrality
in California. One of these uncertainties is the optimal use and deployment of zero-carbon fuels in hard-to-
electrify sectors, including certain high temperature industrial processes, heavy-duty long-haul trucking,
aviation, trains and shipping. These fuel uses may be met with a combination of fossil fuels, hydrogen,
synthetic zero-carbon fuels or biofuels. It is still uncertain how the relative costs of these technologies will
evolve over time. As the cost of wind and solar decline, the cost of renewable hydrogen production is also
falling, making hydrogen a more attractive solution than biofuels for some applications. The market for
sustainable biofuels remains nascent, making it uncertain how much sustainable biomass supply will be
available, and what the best uses for these biomass resources will be through mid-century."
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/achieving-carbonneutrality-california-final-report-e3
Allowing PHEV trucks in the HDV regulation provides a better solution especially for
commercial vehicles that provide services during major catastrophes and daily emergencies.
• Because Strong PHEV trucks are dual fuel that means they are particularly suited to
provide services for society to recover from wildfires, earthquakes, hurricanes, floods,
riots, and other catastrophes, as well as provide needed services in more typical daily
emergencies (e.g., police, ambulance, fire, power outage recovery). PHEVs for some of
their fleet provide the flexibility they need to deal with catastrophes and emergencies as
public servants. CARB's Advanced Clean Truck program recognized this by providing
exemptions for emergency vehicles, and this emphasizes the need for dual fuel vehicles
that can provide the flexibility that some fleets need.
• Because PHEVs and Strong PHEVs are dual fuel vehicles, they provide truck owners
who also sometimes use their truck for personal use or who park their work truck at home
with a second fuel to travel in case of emergencies. Further, many PHEVs will come with
vehicle-to-load and vehicle-to-building technology that will allow emergency power for
their home or a few appliances. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1647-A2, p. 10]
Strong PHEV trucks are an excellent solution for many parts of the world and a long
commercialization period is needed to scale up this technology.
• In addition, we believe that at least some truck manufacturers will find a better business
case to reach scale and get higher levels of vehicle adoption by producing both PHEVs
and BEVs than only producing battery electric vehicles. Such a result is good for truck
and car maker competition, for consumers and the planet. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1647-A2, p. 10]
Strong PHEV trucks are an excellent solution for the unique needs of rural areas, mountainous
areas and cold weather areas.
1273
-------
• Strong PHEV trucks are potentially a better option for the portion of the US and other
countries that cover small and mid-size towns where trip distances (when needed) exceed
urban megacity regions.
• Strong PHEVs do well compared to other ZEVs in mountainous areas or cold weather
regions around the world because they are dual fuel vehicles and technology exists to
make the second fuel ultra-low carbon.
• While many trips in these regions are local, fleet vehicles do take long distance trips,
including to remote areas, where charging is lacking or inadequate. Mountainous terrain
and very cold weather both significantly reduce the range of battery EVs, but PHEVs are
not impacted. Even California's recently adopted Advanced Clean Fleet regulation defers
compliance for government fleets in 25 of the State's 58 "low population counties." This
is an acknowledgement that the State's rural counties will not have the infrastructure to
support ZE trucks and buses in the near term. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1647-A2,
p. 10]
Strong PHEVs are needed in this regulation for trucks that tow or haul for work or recreation.
• Due to the large energy requirements of towing, Strong PHEVs are better than other
ZEVs. In addition, Strong PHEVs as dual fuel vehicles offer advantages when towing
over mountains and rural areas where charging or hydrogen refueling is not common or
not feasible from a business case perspective. (Many class 2b vehicles serve as both work
and personal transportation and this is a relatively large class of vehicles.) Mountain
grades are particularly known for reducing the all-electric range of battery EVs, but
PHEVs are dramatically less impacted and/or have better access to refueling.
• Larger trucks may not tow but face the same issue in mountainous terrain when hauling a
full payload and would benefit from a strong PHEV truck. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1647-A2, p. 11]
Allowing Strong PHEV trucks to be eligible should result in less need and cost for away-from
home charging stations for commercial fleets.
• Strong PHEVs do not need public charging and can rely on fleet-only or, in some cases,
home-only charging which reduces the societal cost (e.g., grid upgrades, public
incentives for charging stations). For example, this translates to less expense for and
impact on the grid including new transformers, distribution feeders and substations
compared to battery EVs. PHEVs reduce the need for fast charge stations and potentially
for other types of away-from-home charging stations.
• Strong PHEVs charging in residential or fleet applications have less cost to the grid
because they typically charge at home or depots at lower kW levels than battery electric
vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1647-A2, p. 11]
Allowing Strong PHEV trucks to be eligible will help with several scale-up issues including
reducing the pressure to quickly scale up away-from-home and depot DC fast chargers and
facilities for battery production and mineral extraction.
• Strong PHEVs do not need public charging (depot or home only charging is adequate)
and use smaller batteries which means more efficient use of mineral resources especially
in the near-term. See Appendix C in this letter. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1647-A2,
1274
-------
p. 11] [[See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1647-A2, pages 13-14 for
Appendix C]]
Allowing Strong PHEV trucks to be eligible can help fleet operators avoid a weight penalty
• For trucks and buses, large battery packs will add weight (a weight penalty). For the fleet
operator, they will likely have to purchase a larger truck - such as a Class 4 instead of a
Class 3, in order to have the same payload. This becomes a bigger issue in use cases such
as class 8 refuse haulers where lack of payload means second truck will be need to be
purchased (two trucks replacing the original truck). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1647-
A2, p. 11]
Allowing Strong PHEV trucks to be eligible will help reach skeptical consumers and other
late adopters.
• Strong PHEVs provide the flexibility that is key to convincing the hard-to-convince fleets
to adopt advanced technology. Many consumers for political or personal reasons are very
skeptical about BEVs and FCEVs, but we have found that Strong PHEVs appeal to
them. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1647-A2, p. 11]
We support the more stringent electric range, emission control and testing requirements
placed on PHEVs in regulations in general, including, but not limited to, new requirements to
limit high power cold starts, increase minimum all electric range, require higher engine turn-on
speeds in order to meet the US06 driving cycle test, more stringent requirements on particulate
matter. These requirements enable Strong PHEVs to have very low criteria pollutants over their
lifetime and improve the consumer driving experience. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1647-A2, p.
12]
Regarding the reduced GHG benefit of manufacturing smaller batteries, we do not have data
for large trucks (PHEVs vs BEVs), but we believe the analyses below for light-duty PHEVs and
BEVs show this benefit and it should apply to large trucks. Strong PHEV battery utilization
maximizes value of battery manufacturing and materials capacities. PHEV trucks, especially,
Strong PHEV trucks, can electrify most daily commuting miles while occasionally using some
gasoline, while BEVs have a lot of battery capacity that only gets "used" on very long trips. We
assert that this could be considered wasted or underutilized lithium and other battery minerals.
Thus, because PHEVs use their batteries more, the USA gets more EV miles per tonne of lithium
by driving PHEVs and Strong PHEVs as shown below. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1647-A2, p.
13. Refer to the graph on p. 13 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1647-A2.]
For light-duty PHEVs, our coalition has found that many researchers incorrectly find that
PHEVs are high cost compared to BEVs. However, Argonne National Lab's recent reportl6
shows that light-duty PHEVs are less expensive than BEVs for cars, and our experts at Strong
PHEV coalition assert that several additional technical modifications can lower the cost of
PHEVs that most analyses do not consider. We think this likely applies to plug-in hybrid trucks
but recognize that more analysis is needed. For example, A common mistake we find in reports
is not understanding the difference between a strong PHEV and other PHEVs because a strong
PHEV can use the same batteries as a BEV which results in significant cost savings. The chart
below shows how a light-duty PHEV should use the same batteries as a BEV and not have to use
a special low-volume production battery with a different (higher) power to energy ratio. We
1275
-------
believe this finding should translate to class 2b to 8 trucks, and that most PHEV trucks will need
BEV batteries. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1647-A2, p. 15.] [Refer to the graph on p. 15
of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1647-A2.]
16 See footnote 7.
Organization: U.S. Tire Manufacturers Association (USTMA)
USTMA appreciates that the proposed HD Phase 3 regulations consider the ongoing
technological innovation in the HD vehicle space.2 USTMA advocates and supports
technologies that improve fuel economy but not when there are unintended consequences that
can affect driver safety and tire performance as explained below. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1635-A1, p. 2]
2 88 Fed. Reg. 25926 at 25930 (April 27, 2023)
The NPRM states, "The proposed standards do not mandate the use of a specific technology,
and EPA anticipates that a compliant fleet under the proposed standards would include a diverse
range of technologies (e.g., transmission technologies, aerodynamic improvements, engine
technologies, battery electric powertrains, hydrogen fuel cell powertrains, etc.). The technologies
that have played a fundamental role in meeting the Phase 2 GHG standards will continue to play
an important role going forward as they remain key to reducing the GHG emissions of HD
vehicles powered by internal combustion engines."3 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1635-A1, p. 2]
3 88 Fed. Reg. 25926 at 25932 (April 27, 2023)
USTMA supports aerodynamic improvements in fleets. However, recent evolutions in vehicle
aerodynamic designs and emissions equipment have created conditions that contribute to heat
build-up in tires and that can adversely impact tire performance. It is critical to closely monitor
and manage tire heat-contributing factors that are within the operator's control. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1635-A1, pp. 2 - 3]
To improve fuel economy, OEM and aftermarket manufacturers recently have introduced
aerodynamic body features on their vehicles such as ground clearance air dams and side fairings.
These aerodynamic features may have the unintended consequence of reducing airflow in the
fender wells, which prevents the dissipation of heat and increases tire operating temperatures.
These recent developments in truck technology have resulted in an increase in the number of tire
claims related to heat damage. The tire industry has been evaluating tire performance on late
model vehicles equipped with certain newer aerodynamic configurations and found both front
fender well and tire operating temperatures to be significantly higher than ambient air
temperatures. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1635-A1, p. 3]
Testing conducted by some USTMA members at equivalent tire operating conditions
concluded that these higher than ambient air temperatures associated with certain newer
aerodynamic configurations significantly decreases tire performance across multiple products
and manufacturers, which is further impacted by more severe operating conditions that increase
internal tire operating temperatures. For years, the tire industry has warned that operating tires
over-loaded, under-inflated, or at high speeds could cause excessive heat to build up in tires.
Factors contributing to tire heat are additive and due to the introduction of aerodynamic
technologies, the list of factors is expanding. The tire industry believes that recent aerodynamic
1276
-------
technology and these more severe operating conditions create an unprecedented high heat
environment that substantially contributes to reducing the life span of tires on certain vehicles.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1635-A1, p. 3]
EPA Summary and Response:
Summary:
A group of commenters noted that further improvements to ICE engine and vehicle fuel
efficiency are feasible, cost effective, and readily available. These commenters, for the most
part, did not specify what numeric standards predicated on ICE vehicle and engine improvements
would be, with the exception of several commenters urging that standard stringency be increased
to reflect feasible improvements to ICE vehicle fuel efficiency (ICCT, MFN and others,
quantifying those improvements; see summaries and responses in RTC chapter 2.4).
Many commenters spoke to the advantages of hybridization (including both strong hybrids
and PHEVs). In addition to dramatically improved fuel efficiency compared to diesel vehicles,
which commenters estimated at 31% for vocational vehicles and 25% for long haul tractors
(Advanced Engine Systems Inst., Eaton) and 5-50% reductions when combined with other
improvements, commenters noted:
• Much lower purchase price than ZEVs since a much smaller battery is needed (Strong
Plug-In Hybrid Coalition)
• Significantly less supportive electrical infrastructure needed, and so easier and quicker to
implement (Cummins)
• A good fit for applications like Class 8 tractors, work vehicles with long idle times, and
stop and go duty cycles for which ZEVs are less suitable (Diesel Technology Forum,
Eaton, Strong Plug-In Hybrid Coalition)
• A good alternative for lower income purchasers (Strong PHEV Coal.)
• Useful in areas or conditions for which ZEVs are either less suitable or unlikely to be
adequately supported, including rural areas and cold weather areas (Strong PHEV Coal.)
• There is no cargo capacity penalty, unlike BEVs (Strong PHEV Coal.)
• Battery capacity is used more efficiently than a BEV (Strong PHEV Coal, (using a EV
mile per ton of lithium ratio)
• Considered on a lifecycle basis, C02 emissions may be less than a BEV due to less
resources expended in battery production (Strong PHEV Coal.)
• A potential bridge technology, especially given that some may be eligible for the
commercial vehicle tax credit (CARB)
These commenters had a number of suggestions as to how hybrid performance could be
reflected in a Phase 3 standard. These included:
• Acknowledging that there is insufficient data to develop a Utility Factor for HDV
hybrids, either include a case-by-case factor based on user engineering judgment, or
include a credit for PHEV with long documented battery ranges, possibly reflecting the
lifecycle advantages of PHEVs in either that Utility Factor or credit (Strong PHEV Coal.)
• Include either credits or some other type of incentive for hybrids (Diesel Tech. Forum)
Some of these commenters urged modifications to the current hybrid certification regime:
1277
-------
• Streamline the testing regime (Odyne, Cummins)
• Simplify the Phase 2 formula, for example by defining a utility factor curve (Eaton)
• Increase the GEM credit for ePTO (Odyne, Strong PHEV Coal, (urging modification of
test cycles to capture the long duration times when the batteries are in use)
Strong PHEV Coalition voiced its support for the following test protocols: "the more stringent
electric range, emission control and testing requirements placed on PHEVs in regulations in
general, including, but not limited to, new requirements to limit high power cold starts, increase
minimum all electric range, require higher engine turn-on speeds in order to meet the US06
driving cycle test, more stringent requirements on particulate matter", noting further that "[tjhese
requirements enable Strong PHEVs to have very low criteria pollutants over their lifetime and
improve the consumer driving experience."
Commenters also mentioned other engine and vehicle improvements available now. Engine
improvements included cylinder deactivation (including in combination with Miller cycle
engines) (Eaton), high efficiency turbo charging with EGR (Eaton), 48V mild hybrid (ICCT,
MECA, MFN), and lightweighting (MEMA). Several commenters mentioned improvements
available from use of advanced aerodynamic technologies (Howmet, ICCT), although USTMA
commented that new vehicle technologies should consider unintended consequences for driver
safety and tire performance. Specifically, USTMA described concerns with aerodynamic designs
and emissions equipment creating conditions that may contribute to heat build-up in tires and
may adversely impact tire performance. USTMA indicated aerodynamic features such as ground
clearance air dams and side fairings may reduce air flow in fender wells resulting in increased
tire operating temperatures.
Several of these commenters requested changes to the way some of these technologies are
credited in GEM. MEMA indicated that the Phase 2 assumption on lightweighting reflected in
GEM need updating ("EPA should recognize that suppliers have introduced new technologies
and products since the Phase II rule was finalized ... and seek comments from suppliers to update
the agency's assumptions around weight reduction inputs to reflect the latest available
technologies on the marketplace. For example, lightweight forged aluminum wheel producers
have continuously improved their product offerings to the heavy-duty truck, bus, and trailer
markets. More recent generations of products - introduced to the market since the Phase 2 was
promulgated - offer weight savings of nearly 10% as compared to similar steer or dual-drive, and
wide base wheels which were part of the analysis EPA previously conducted", recommending
that "EPA should continue to grant credit for lightweighting and weight reduction and update
GHG Ph2 assumptions on lightweighting in the GHG Ph3 GEM model"). Eaton provided
information to support their assertion that cylinder deactivation is also not properly assessed in
GEM, recommending a 2.5 "intelligent control" adjustment factor rather than the current factor
of 1.5.
ICCT and MFN asserted that various engine and vehicle improvements should be reflected in
standard stringency. MFN stated that even just assuming further year-over-year improvements
equivalent to those in Phase 2 through MY 2027, there should be a further 8.4% improvement
reflected in the Phase 3 standard stringency. MFN also noted the ready availability of
improvements for SI engines, stating that Phase 2 required no engine improvements beyond the
2016 SI engine standard.
1278
-------
AVE commented that "By expanding the definition of ZEVs even slightly, EPA can ensure
greater emission reductions for decades." DTNA responded to EPA's request for comment on
whether EPA should include additional GHG-reducing technologies of existing technologies for
ICE vehicles in our technology assessment for the final standards, that DTNA believes it is
inappropriate to add additional GHG technologies at this time.
PACCAR commented that in the proposed changes to 40 CFR 1037.520(j)(l), EPA should
clearly define "full cylinder".
Strong PHEV Coalition commented that the battery costs for PHEVs should be the same as
BEVs and that we should include the benefits of bidirectional charging in our TCO. Investigate
use of strong PHEVs with low carbon fuels, including the possibility that this combination
should be considered zero emission, and, generally, distinguish strong PHEVs from other
PHEVs (Strong PHEV Coal.)
Response:
We agree with the comments that there are technologies other than ZEVs that can be used to
meet the final standards. Regarding the stringency of the final standards, EPA has undertaken a
balanced and measured approach to setting performance-based standards under our CAA section
202(a)(l)-(2) authority. See Preamble Section II and RTC 2. In short, the final standards can be
met in any manner a regulated entity {i.e. manufacturer) sees fit that achieves compliance with
that numerical standard. In assessing a modeled potential compliance pathway that includes a
technology mix of ICE vehicle technologies and ZEV technologies, EPA was demonstrating that
the final standards were feasible and appropriate; EPA was not requiring that manufacturers
utilize that modeled potential compliance pathway. In fact, as discussed in Preamble Section
II.F.4, we have assessed additional example potential compliance pathways that support the
feasibility of the final standards, which include a suite of technologies ranging from ICE engine,
transmission, drivetrain, aerodynamics, and tire rolling resistance improvements, to the use of
low carbon fuels like CNG and LNG, to hybrid powertrains (HEV and PHEV) and H2-ICE. See
also responses in RTC 9.1 and 2.1 further responding to the explicit or implicit incorrect
assertion that the Phase 3 rule mandates use of ZEVs.
As for the comment related to recognizing the emissions performance of hybrid powertrains,
the current procedures in Subpart F of 40 CFR 1036 provide such a pathway. These procedures
rely on a powertrain test procedure that EPA has refined over the years. The procedure defines
how to generate a fuel map for use in GEM for both hybrid and plug-in hybrid powertrains.
While the commenters' request for the future addition of hybrid powertrain utility factors is not
within the scope of this rulemaking, we agree that the future addition of EPA- defined utility
factor curves could be an improvement to the procedure and are committed to working with
stakeholders to consider defining these curves in the future. In the meantime, as commenters
acknowledge, the test procedures allow for manufacturers to get approval for a utility factor
curve. In addition, the powertrain test procedure may be used to demonstrate the criteria
pollutant performance of hybrids on the FTP, SET, and LLC duty cycles. As for comments on
streamlining the powertrain test procedures, EPA continually works towards developing
improved, less burdensome test procedures and intends to continue to work with manufacturers
and stakeholders towards that end, including in future rulemaking actions. See RTC Section 24
and Preamble Section III.C for more information on powertrain testing.
1279
-------
In response to the commenters that EPA should increase the GEM credit for ePTO through
changes in the duty cycle, we didn't propose changes to or reopen the duty cycles so this
comment is out of scope in this final rule.
With respect to the comments on credit multipliers for hybrids, please see Preamble Section
III. A and response to comment Section 10.3.1.
As for the comments that engine and vehicle improvements are available now, the test
procedures in 40 CFR 1037.520 and Subpart F of 40 CFR 1036 provide a pathway for
manufacturers to get credit for the use of these technologies. These test procedures are designed
to capture the performance of many different technologies from engine improvements to vehicle
lightweighting and technologies that reduce the aerodynamic drag of vehicles. As noted above,
nothing in the Phase 3 rule precludes compliance strategies utilizing these technologies.
We do not agree with commenters advocating for more stringent standards reflecting further
improvements to ICE vehicles and engines beyond the Phase 2 2027 improvements in our
modeled compliance pathway, as our assessment is that manufacturers do not have the resources
to pivot between different technology improvement strategies within the lead time provided by
the Phase 3 program (e.g., the modeled potential compliance pathway versus an additional
example potential compliance pathway discussed in Preamble Section II.F.4). See also RTC
Section 2.4.
Regarding the comments from MEMA that EPA should update the credit for lightweighting,
we provide a pathway in the existing regulations for manufacturers to seek approval for such
cases. 40 CFR 1037.520(e)(5) states: "You may ask to apply the off-cycle technology provisions
of § 1037.610 for weight reductions not covered by this paragraph (e)."
As for the comment from Eaton that the 1.5% credit doesn't reflect the full C02 reduction of
cylinder deactivation, we note the existing fuel mapping test procedures in 40 CFR 1036.540 and
40 CFR 1036.545 are test procedures that can be used and are designed to capture the C02
benefits from integrating multiple technologies, like the use of CDA (cylinder deactivation, the
technology noted in the comment) to minimize additional fuel for thermal management.
EPA agrees with USTMA regarding the need to maintain safe tire operation with the use of
HD vehicle emission reduction technologies; however, USTMA did not provide specific data or
describe specific emission reduction technologies that result in safety issues.
In response to AVE comment on expanding the definition of ZEV, EPA is not defining ZEV
in our regulations in this rulemaking and the final rule is not requiring ZEVs, but rather is setting
performance-based standards.
Regarding DTNA's comment, see discussion in Preamble Section II.G as well as our response
in RTC Section 2.4 responding to comments advocating for more stringent standards than those
proposed.
We agree with PACCAR's comment that "full cylinder" should be clarified and have
finalized changes to 40 CFR 1037.520(j)(l), to clearly define "full cylinder". See Preamble
Section III.C.3 .viii for more information.
In response to the comments on critical minerals, see RTC Section 17.2.
1280
-------
We agree with Strong PHEV Coalition that the costs for batteries in PHEVs should be the
based on the cost of batteries in BEVs and have included this approach in our assessment of
those technologies in our additional example potential compliance pathways supporting the
feasibility of the final CO2 standards in RIA Chapter 2.11. We agree with Strong PHEV
Coalition that bidirectional charging and related technologies may offer numerous benefits and
potentially save money for fleets, as discussed further in RIA Chapter 1.6.4, RTC 6.4 and RTC
Section 7. We did not quantitatively include these benefits in our analysis for the rule so to the
extent that fleets monetize such benefits, our costs analysis may be considered conservative.
In response to the comment from Strong PHEV Coalition that PHEVs should be considered
zero emissions if fueled with low carbon fuels see our response to LCA in RTC 9.1 and RTC 17.
Finally, existing 40 CFR 1037.610 provides a pathway for manufactures to seek approval for
alternative test procedures for technologies that are not reflected in GEM and that will result in
measurable, demonstrable, and verifiable real-world C02 emission reductions.
9.3 H2 ICE Vehicles
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Alliance for Vehicle Efficiency (AVE)
AVE seeks stronger support for hydrogen engine platforms as a way for the U.S. to meet its
environmental goals. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1571-A1, p. 5]
AVE supports EPA's recognition of hydrogen internal combustion engines (H2-ICE) as
emitting zero C02 at the tailpipe. Still, EPA is limiting support for this technology in propulsion
systems ".. .where a diesel pilot is used for combustion." 14 This limitation is not reasonable
given that C02 emissions from pilot ignition are minimal. More importantly, EPA should
recognize that advanced aftertreatment solutions, emission control technology, and selective
catalytic reduction systems exist to further reduce tailpipe emissions to almost untraceable levels
where a diesel pilot is used. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1571-A1, p. 5]
14 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 81 / Thursday, April 27, 2023 / at 26021
H2-ICE is ideal for high load and high utilization vehicle applications where BEV or fuel cell
solutions cannot meet the long haul, heavy load requirements or the need for quick refueling.
H2-ICE trucks have an advantage over BEVs in operating within long range fleet conditions
because it can haul heavier loads for longer periods of time. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1571-
Al, p. 5]
Furthermore, H2-ICE technology is more mature and economically feasible, so it is a fast-to-
market propulsion solution, ready to be rapidly deployed in high volume. H2-ICE has the ability
to quickly transform the heavy-duty marketplace at many weight classes as a scalable retrofit to
existing internal combustion engines overcoming enormous costs to fleet owners. H2-ICE is a
zero-tailpipe emission technology. By including H2-ICE in its clean transportation strategy, the
EPA will create demand that will nurture and grow the developing hydrogen fuel market, which
in turn, will help accelerate hydrogen fuel cell adoption. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1571-A1, p.
5]
1281
-------
When analyzing predictions for U.S. energy consumption through 2050, support for H2-ICE
deployment becomes more prescient. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration,
U.S. petroleum consumption will continue to increase by nearly 13% from 2021 levels (see chart
below). The best pathway forward is by supporting all GHG reducing technologies. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1571-A1, p. 6.] [See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1571 -Al,
page 6, for the referenced chart.]
We recommend that EPA fully analyze how H2-ICE can dramatically offer faster more cost-
effective compliance with future standards. H2-ICE technology is being developed and deployed
all over the world and has the opportunity to bring significant manufacturing growth and
investment to the U.S. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1571-A1, p. 6]
Organization: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE)
H2-ICEVs are likely to provide smaller efficiency gains over diesel vehicles than H2-FCEVs
provide and could even result in GHG emissions increases relative to diesel well into the time
frame of the Phase 3 rule, as indicated by Table 2.28 Yet EPA states in the proposal that, "a new
technology under development that would reduce GHG emissions from heavy-duty vehicles with
ICEs is hydrogen-fueled internal combustion engines (H2-ICE)" (FR 25960). EPA's enthusiasm
is premature. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1560-A1, p. 14.]
28 GREET does not currently include HD H2-ICEs. We obtained the (rough) values shown in Table 2 for
such a vehicle by scaling the diesel combination truck values by ElO/liquid H2 LD (SI) ICE vehicle ratios
from GREET 2022.
EPA should not incentivize hydrogen-fueled vehicles without strong evidence that hydrogen
fuel for transportation will be clean in the foreseeable future. For H2-ICEVs in particular, for
which intrinsic efficiency advantages are modest, actual GHG benefits may be negative, and
potential future benefits are based largely on changes to the fuel rather than to the vehicle, the
zero-upstream incentive is inappropriate. It would offer manufacturers the same compliance
benefit for an H2-ICEV as for a BEV or FCEV but require only relatively small changes to the
engine, as described At FR 25960. The fact that H2-ICEVs produce NOx makes conferring ZEV
benefits on them all the more inappropriate. Low-carbon hydrogen-fueled vehicles are best
incentivized through performance-based standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1560-A1, pp. 14
-15.]
Organization: American Petroleum Institute (API)
While still in the early stages of development and prove out, hydrogen-based vehicles
(FCEVs and H2-ICE) are a promising technology that many stakeholders are considering. API
members are engaged in hydrogen projects to support development of hydrogen focused
technology. Companies are partnering with HD OEMs to explore commercial business
opportunities to build demand for commercial vehicles and industrial applications powered by
hydrogen. Demonstration projects target hard-to-abate applications like rail and marine, with a
goal to develop viable large-scale businesses and advance a thriving hydrogen economy. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1617-A1, p. 8.]
1282
-------
Organization: BorgWarner Inc.
BorgWarner supports hydrogen engine development and expanding hydrogen infrastructure.
BorgWarner supports efforts to accelerate development of the hydrogen transportation sector.
We are concerned, however, that regulations may not go far enough to allow the technology to
develop quickly. EPA should support both H2FC and H2ICE platforms because they
complement the overall deployment of hydrogen infrastructure. H2FC and H2ICE address
different vehicle use cases; however, both utilize the same hydrogen infrastructure. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1578-A1, p. 3]
Both technologies currently have market challenges. The cost of H2FC is still quite high and
needs more time before reaching price competitiveness. Currently, the H2ICE market is nearly
nonexistent in the U.S. because of the lack of refueling infrastructure and H2ICE product is not
yet released commercially. It is also facing headwinds as California and EPA regulations do not
presently recognize H2ICE as a zero-tailpipe emissions technology. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1578-A1, p. 3]
EPA's proposal is inclusive of H2ICE in its clean transportation strategy, however, EPA is
proposing strict limitations based on pure hydrogen as the fuel, as well as counting trace amounts
of tailpipe C02. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1578-A1, p. 3]
Hydrogen has one of the lowest lifecycle emissions of any powertrain option when using
renewable hydrogen. Certain stakeholders may be concerned that H2ICE does not result in 100%
zero tailpipe emissions. There are, however, new technologies, such as aftertreatment in higher
performing selective catalytic reduction (SCR) systems, emissions controls, and air-fuel controls,
which can nearly eliminate particulate matter and remaining tailpipe emissions to background
levels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1578-A1, p. 4]
The H2ICE market is maturing in other regions of the world, where policymakers recognize
H2ICE as a viable and critical technology to address air quality and environmental issues. The
U.S. is already losing its innovation leadership for hydrogen trucks and will continue to miss this
opportunity if H2ICE is not included in the clean transportation transformation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1578-A1, p. 4]
A heavy-duty vehicle powered by a hydrogen combustion engine will produce close to zero
C02 when compared to current Class 8 trucks. By comparison, natural occurring processes in
nature like a human breathing produce a limited amount of C02 (1kg per day of C02 for average
human) or decaying plants (plants release V2 the C02 they absorb in total life). [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1578-A1, p. 4]
Currently, there are no on-road demonstration vehicles being supported in the U.S. that can
help regulators fully understand and assess H2ICE as a solution to meeting climate goals. We
recommend the EPA incentivize and partner with technology providers to demonstrate H2ICE's
capabilities and GHG emissions reductions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1578-A1, p. 4]
Defining vehicle emissions exclusively at the tailpipe creates a de facto technology mandate
and excludes technologies that could make a timely real-world difference in C02 emissions. As
stated above, H2ICE is a cost-effective advanced technology that is under development and more
1283
-------
ready to be rapidly deployed in high volumes to make an impact on the environment. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1578-A1, p. 6]
BorgWarner supports EPA's decision to include H2ICE as a clean vehicle technology. An
additional benefit of H2ICE is how the technology can be readily adapted from existing systems
and therefore, could be used as a strategy to significantly decrease C02 faster for the current HD
fleet and help advance the development of fuel cell vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1578-
Al, p. 6]
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
3. HDVs with Hydrogen Internal Combustion Engine (H2 ICE)
Affected pages: 25960-25961 and 26022
The NPRM is proposing to include vehicles with engines using fuels other than carbon-
containing fuels as another potential technology to meet Phase 3. U.S. EPA is proposing to
amend 40 CFR 1037.150(f) to include H2 ICE as a zero-tailpipe emission technology and
exempt H2 ICE technologies from C02-related emission testing. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1591-A1, p.43]
CARB staff asks that U.S. EPA consider that manufacturers may respond to Phase 3 by
making H2 ICE instead of deploying HD ZEVs. Although H2 ICE engines have near zero C02
tailpipe emissions, their NOx emissions are of concern as is the sustainability of their use of
finite supplies of low carbon hydrogen. As indicated above, California needs significant NOx
and C02 reductions to meet its air quality and climate goals and hence is taking rigorous actions
that will accelerate the deployment of HD ZEVs. Since federal certified trucks sold outside of
California contribute about 50 percent of the total HD trucks NOx emissions in California,
standards applicable in other States (including U.S. EPA's standards) nonetheless remain
crucially important, and California would benefit from greater deployment of ZEVs elsewhere.
In addition, H2 ICE engines are less efficient than FCEVs, meaning they will require
substantially greater amounts of hydrogen needed to perform the same amount of work over real-
world duty cycles. This additional hydrogen will result in greater upstream GHG emissions. U.S.
EPA should consider requiring quantification of H2 ICE hydrogen fuel use via fueling map
disclosure, just as it does for all previous combustion fuels, a requirement which is necessary for
U.S. EPA and others to properly assess the upstream GHG emissions from H2 ICE technologies.
U.S. EPA has existing precedent for measuring vehicle energy usage even if the energy carrier
does not contain carbon as seen in the plug-in hybrid and ZE LDV test procedures. Hydrogen
should not be given a special exemption in HD for its lack of carbon when similar metrics are
already reported for electricity and hydrogen used on-board a LDV. U.S. EPA C02 standards
should intentionally account for potential H2 ICE adoption rates by including estimated costs
and emissions impacts of this projected H2 ICE technology for use to meet the Phase 3 emission
standards in the final rulemaking. It appears that U.S. EPA's small assumed technology
penetrations of H2 ICE do not analyze the possibility of such technology potentially becoming
the default approach for certain high energy demand sectors for which industry is promoting H2
ICE with statements like "These [H2 ICE] engines look like engines, they sound like engines,
and fit where engines normally fit."141 More than one HDV manufacturer is public about
bringing H2 ICE class 8 engines in the 2027 timeframe, 142,143 and development continues on
1284
-------
other similarly sized engines. 144,145,146 U.S. EPA should conduct sensitivity analysis of the
emissions risks should industry elect to produce many H2 ICEs. U.S. EPA should also consider
commensurate production caps to limit such potential risks, particularly if U.S. EPA is not going
to fully assess those risks at this time. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1591-A1, pp.43-44]
141 HDT Truckinginfo: Cummins Debuts 15L Hydrogen Engine, May 11, 2022.
https://www.truckinginfo.com/10170361/cummins-debuts-151-hydrogen-engine
142 KoreaTechToday: HD Hyundai Infracore plans to commercialize Hydrogen Combustion Engines in
Korea, April 6, 2023. https://www.koreatechtoday.com/hd-hyundai-infracore-plans-to-commercialize-
hydrogen-combustionengines-in-korea/
143 Cummins Inc. Debuts 15-Liter Hydrogen Engine at ACT EXPO, May 9, 2022.
https://www.cummins.eom/news/releases/2022/05/09/cummins-inc-debuts-15-liter-hydrogen-engineact-
expo
144 Iveco Group: FPT Industrials New XC13 Hydrogen Combustion Engine Makes Its Field Debut At
Flachau Ski World Cup Together With Prinoth, January 24, 2023.
https://www.ivecogroup.com/media/brand_press_releases/2023/EMEA-
(English)/FPT/fpt_industrials_new_xcl3_hydrogen_combustion_engine_makes_its_field_debut_at_flacha
u_ski_world_cup_together_with_prinoth
145 Volvo Penta & CMB.TECH partner on dual-fuel hydrogen engines, June 10, 2022.
https://www.volvopenta.com/about-us/news-page/2022/oct/volvo-penta-cmb-tech-partner-on-dualfuel-
hydrogen-engines/
146 An H2 ICE Concept for the Very Heavy (16L) Applications by Volvo Group, 2023 https://wiener-
motorensymposium.at/en/papers/935d57c0-6904-49e0-8e2d-427faa573d40
Organization: Cummins Inc.
Hydrogen engines will help ready the infrastructure and market for fuel cells by creating
demand for hydrogen before fuel cells are commercially ready. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1598-A1, p. 9]
Organization: Daimler Truck North America LLC (DTNA)
Treatment of H2-ICE Vehicles. DTNA supports EPA's proposal to deem tailpipe C02
emissions from vehicles with H2-ICE to be zero and not to require GHG emission testing for
such engines or their input to vehicle certification applications.23 EPA rightly recognizes that
these engines emit nearly zero C02, with any C02 almost entirely from ambient environmental
sources. DTNA supports these proposed changes as a minimum step to help enable H2-ICE
penetration. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 17]
23 See id. at 25,960; 26,022 (proposing changes to 40 C.F.R. § 1037.150(f) to specify that tailpipe C02
emissions from vehicles with engines fueled with neat hydrogen 'are deemed to be zero').
The Company also agrees with EPA's decision not to include H2-ICE vehicles in the
technology packages that form the basis of its C02 standard stringency proposal. Not only is this
technology still in the development stage, but its increased costs, fleet hesitance to adopt
alternative powertrain solutions, and most importantly, the lack of available fueling
infrastructure will limit the early rollout of H2-ICE vehicles to customers and applications best
suited to them. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 17]
1285
-------
In addition, many of the potential early adopters of H2-ICE technology are the same ones that
EPA assumes will adopt other ZEV technologies. As explained in these comments, the ZEV
penetration rates assumed in the Proposed Rule are likely already overly-optimistic and
unobtainable. Proposing additional C02 standard stringency to reflect anticipated H2-ICE
vehicle proliferation would thus be inappropriate. While it is possible that H2-ICE vehicles will
displace BEVs and fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs) over the long-term, particularly in
applications for which BEVs and FCEVs are not well-suited, the timeframe for such a shift is not
at all certain, thus it would be unreasonable to base the proposed C02 standards on significant
H2-ICE penetration at this time. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 17]
EPA can and should further reduce regulatory burdens for H2-ICE technologies by making
changes to how H2-ICE vehicles are certified, as detailed below in Section IV. A of these
comments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 18]
This rulemaking presents an important opportunity to foster innovation and accelerate
penetration of innovative technologies with zero C02 emissions and near-zero NOx emissions
such as H2-ICE engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 77]
H2-ICE technology provides an important pathway to rapid penetration of vehicles with
effectively zero C02 emissions and near-zero NOx emissions. This rulemaking presents an
opportunity for EPA to encourage innovation in alternate fuel engine development generally, and
H2-ICEs specifically. Currently H2-ICE new technology is in the primitive proof-of-concept
stage of innovation, and regulatory pathways are needed to bring this new near-zero C02 and
NOx technology to the market. Such technology could bring carbon-neutral transportation to
sectors that are not currently ripe for battery or fuel-cell applications, given the current state of
technology development. It could also create a use-case for widespread hydrogen fueling, which
could spur the development of hydrogen infrastructure and lay the groundwork for future fuel
cell vehicles, which would rely on the same infrastructure. The Company also believes that H2-
ICE is a favorable technology, even in the long term, for vehicles with high power demands and
high daily mileage requirements (which BEVs and FCEVs may not serve well). DTNA's vision
for H2-ICE applicability in a zero-emissions future is illustrated in Figure 10 below: [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 77] [Refer to Figure 10 on p. 77 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1555-A1]
Importantly, this technology can be implemented more rapidly, using existing products,
processes, and technical expertise. In concept, H2-ICEs are very similar to existing combustion
engines and can leverage the extensive technical expertise manufacturers have developed with
existing products—in many cases, using the same components for many key systems. Similarly,
these products can be built on the same assembly lines, by the same workers and with existing
supply chains already in place, preventing costly plant retooling and preserving good-paying
American manufacturing jobs. H2-ICEs thus have an important role to play in facilitating the
ZEV transition with minimal supply chain and economic disruptions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1555-A1, p. 77]
Although H2-ICE technology is promising, it is in an infant state, and near-term penetration
potential is relatively low. By developing a regulatory framework that facilitates H2-ICE
development, EPA could speed the adoption of such technology. This could be achieved by
eliminating regulatory obstacles to market introduction of H2-ICEs. Specifically, EPA should
use the opportunity presented in this rulemaking to create a favorable regulatory environment for
1286
-------
these engines by providing relief in areas such as DF testing, GHG certification and testing
requirements (under Parts 1036 and 1037), and expensive diagnostic requirements. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 78]
H2-ICE is a promising concept, with effectively zero C02 emissions and extremely low
criteria pollutant emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 78]
DTG has performed a concept study of H2-ICE by converting a diesel engine to adapt all the
relevant hardware components to accommodate H2 combustion. The results are shown in Figure
11. Along with effectively zero C02 emissions, near-zero NOx emissions are also possible with
H2-ICE innovative technology. Engine-out NOx levels are extremely low when compared to
diesel emissions, and the temperatures created are extremely favourable for adapting existing
SCR aftertreatment technologies—leading to further NOx reductions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1555-A1, p. 78] [Refer to Figure 11 on p. 78 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1555-A1]
Similarly, when measured at the tailpipe, C02 emissions from these vehicles are extremely
low—two orders of magnitude lower than a conventionally-fueled heavy duty engine. Figure 12
below shows a typical breakdown of C02 emissions as measured at the tailpipe of an H2-ICE.
Most of these emissions are ambient in nature (e.g., from the ambient air, or from the carbon
content of urea) and do not represent a net increase of C02 to the environment. EPA already
allows the removal of background C02 from emissions calculations; in these conditions, H2-ICE
engines are as close as practical to zero, and are competitive with BEVs and FCEVs from a total
carbon lifecycle perspective. Accordingly, DTNA supports EPA's proposal to declare H2-ICE
engines as zero C02. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 78] [Refer to Figure 12 on p. 79
of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1]
Other regulatory bodies already provide regulatory relief for H2-ICE engines, incentivizing
their adoption. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 79]
As manufacturers move aggressively towards decarbonization, global consistency in the
regulatory approach to ZEVs is essential to provide the certainty and predictability necessary to
spur investment, especially in markets that are likely to adopt such technologies first. European
Union (EU) regulators have already recognized the advantages of H2-ICE engines, and the EU
framework provides a path for these engines to be certified as 'zero-emission heavy-duty
vehicles' by defining such vehicles as follows:
• 'Zero-emission heavy-duty vehicle' means a heavy-duty vehicle without an internal
combustion engine, or with an internal combustion engine that emits less than 1 g CO 2
/kWh as determined in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 595/2009 and its
implementing measures, or which emits less than 1 g CO 2 /km as determined in
accordance with Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 of the European Parliament and of the
Council and its implementing measures.146 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 79]
146 See Regulation (EU) 2019/1242, Art. 3(11) (June 20, 2019).
It is also expected that the EU regulations will be further updated to more explicitly recognize
these engines as a zero-emission technology. Such recognition provides significant benefits for
manufacturers by reducing regulatory burdens, as well as development and certification costs,
and by otherwise incentivizing commercialization. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 79]
1287
-------
Similarly, CARB ZEV standards for passenger cars and light-duty trucks already recognize
extremely low-emissions from H2-ICEs, providing a mechanism for manufacturers to generate
credits for producing such vehicles that can be applied towards their ZEV sales obligations:
• (E) Credit for Hydrogen Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles. A hydrogen internal
combustion engine vehicle that meets the requirements of subdivision 1962.2(c)(2) and
has a total range of at least 250 UDDS miles will earn an allowance of 0.75, which may
be in addition to allowances earned in subdivision 1962.2(c)(3)(A), and subject to an
overall credit cap of 1.25.147 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 80]
147 See 13 CCR § 1962.2(c)(3)(E).
We recommend that EPA recognize, as CARB and the EU have, the potential of H2-ICE
engines to play an important role in the zero-emission transition, and to take further steps to
reduce regulatory burden and incentivize manufacturers to introduce this technology. As a global
manufacturer with deep roots in U.S. and European markets, Daimler Truck AG and DTNA
support global alignment in recognizing H2-ICE as a zero-emission technology. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 80]
DTNA supports EPA's proposal to declare neat H2-ICE as zero-C02. EPA could further
reduce manufacturer burden, and thereby accelerate the penetration of zero-C02 technologies in
the commercial truck sector, by removing the most costly and onerous engine certification
requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 80]
Currently the market for H2-ICE technology, especially in the near-term, is limited. Since H2
infrastructure does not exist in any significant quantity, it is expected that manufacturers will
face difficulties recouping their H2-ICE investment costs, and a high regulatory burden may
prevent manufacturers from bringing these technologies to market. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1555-A1, p. 80]
In the Proposed Rule, EPA proposes to declare H2-ICE products as zero-C02 without the
need to perform costly GHG testing—for engine regulations or for their input to vehicle
certification. EPA rightly recognizes that these engines emit nearly zero C02, with any C02
almost entirely from ambient environmental sources. DTNA supports these proposed changes as
a minimum step to help enable H2-ICE penetration. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 80]
By making additional changes to how H2-ICE vehicles are certified, EPA could further
reduce regulatory burdens in a manner that would help to ensure the success of these new
technologies, enabling immediate carbon reductions at low cost and while preserving American
jobs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 80]
First, we recommend that EPA recognize vehicles powered by H2-ICEs as effectively zero-
emission, placing them in a category similar to BEVs and FCEVs, which do not require costly
certification, demonstration, diagnostic, and compliance requirements. The Company does not
believe such compliance obligations have any value with respect to H2-ICE emissions
performance, since the engines already emit effectively no C02, NOx, PM, and other constituent
pollutants of concern—even in degraded or failed states, based on the fundamental physics
governing this combustion cycle and fuel. ZEV recognition for these products would
significantly incentivize their production, as they would qualify for emissions credits and
1288
-------
advanced credit multipliers in the same manner as BEVs and FCEVs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1555-A1, p. 80]
Alternatively, if EPA decides to continue to require H2-ICEs to be certified under its program
for traditional combustion engines, we recommend that EPA significantly reduce the certification
burden by making the following modifications to its certification requirements:
• Reduced DF validation burden and Durability requirements.
o DF validation is extremely expensive and burdensome, and carries a several-year
lead-time to complete for new technologies,
o EPA could allow manufacturers to attest to durability and useful life
requirements.
o EPA could consider an assigned DF for criteria pollutants for H2-ICE engines,
o EPA could consider a reduced Useful Life standard for H2-ICE in the HHD
category, consistent with how SI engines in the LHD and MHD categories are
treated. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 81]
• Simplified OBD regulation.
o The development and demonstration of an OBD system, as required in EPA's
Section 1036.110, is extremely time consuming, expensive, and risky for
manufacturers.
o It also drives significant material cost to the engine, as sensors are added purely
for the purpose of diagnostic requirements,
o The combustion mechanisms of an H2-ICE mean that, even in a failed condition,
increased emission potential is extremely limited. C02, PM, and hydrocarbon
emissions are effectively zero in any combustion regime with H2 fuel, and even in
the case of a failed catalyst, engine-out NOx emissions are extremely low with
this technology. The value of an OBD system in an H2-ICE-powered vehicle is
extremely limited—especially when considered in light of its cost,
o EPA could reduce this burden by requiring the OBD system only to detect circuit
faults and failed actuators—which make up the vast majority of real world
failures—and avoid requirements for threshold diagnostics and rationality checks
which add cost and complexity and are onerous to develop and demonstrate,
o At a minimum, EPA should allow manufacturers to propose an alternate
monitoring plan for H2-ICE engines, avoiding monitors for failures which good
engineering judgement shows a significant impact to emissions is unlikely or
impossible. If a manufacturer can demonstrate, either with good engineering
judgement, or with testing, that a particular failure mode cannot cause the engines
emissions to exceed the thresholds regulated in 1036.110, the EPA should exempt
the manufacturer from monitoring for those failure modes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1555-A1, p. 81]
EPA has an important opportunity in this rulemaking to encourage the development of
technologies with effectively zero C02 emissions today, in applications that might not otherwise
be ripe for ZEV penetration in the foreseeable future. DTNA recommends that EPA work with
manufacturers to determine the best path to enable these technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1555-A1, p. 81]
1289
-------
EPA Request for Comment, Request #42: We welcome comment, including additional data,
on our approach and assessment of HD ICE vehicle M&R costs.
• DTNA Response: See DTNA Response to Request # 20, above. [Refer to section 2 of
this comment summary] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 165]
EPA Request for Comment, Request #70: We request comment on this proposed revision to
include H2 ICE in 40 CFR 1037.150(f).
• DTNA Response: DTNA supports EPA's proposal to include H2-ICE engines in 40 CFR
1037.150(f), as discussed in Sections II and IV. A. of these comments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 172]
Organization: Environmental Defense Fund (EPF)
c) H2 ICE vehicles emit NOx and should not be considered full ZEVs.
While BEVs and FCEVs do not generate any intended emissions at the tailpipe, H2-ICE
vehicles still emit nitrogen oxides (NOx) and should be required to employ aftertreatment
devices analogous to those required for diesel engines (primarily SCR). Even if EPA considers
H2-ICE vehicles as a carbon-free technology, they should not be considered a full ZEV. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, 86]
Organization: Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association (MECA)
Hydrogen-Fueled Internal Combustion Engines
Another promising technology that is being commercialized to both reduce the NOx and
carbon footprint of heavy-duty vehicles is the hydrogen internal combustion engine (H2ICE).
These engines, when coupled with advanced NOx aftertreatment, have the potential to meet the
MY 2027 NOx limits while emitting zero tailpipe carbon emissions when operated on hydrogen
fuel and zero lifecycle carbon emissions when operated on renewable green hydrogen. There is
broad industry support for internal combustion engines fueled with clean hydrogen and most
engine manufacturers and component suppliers are conducting significant development work and
testing with ongoing on-road demonstrations in Europe and North America. H2ICEs are
attractive options for commercial trucking where challenges exist in applying current BEV or
H2FC technology. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1521-A1, pp. 8 - 9]
One of the main benefits of H2ICE is their lower upfront capital costs due to the leveraging of
existing investments in manufacturing capacity in engines, emission controls and powertrain as
well as vehicle servicing. H2ICE vehicles share many components with today's diesel and
natural gas-powered vehicle fleet, including the base engine, installation parts, powertrain
components and aftertreatment system architectures. Furthermore, H2ICE can borrow
technology from currently available natural gas engines, such as cylinder heads, ignition
systems, fuel injection, turbochargers, cooled exhaust gas recirculation (EGR), and engine
control unit/software, among others. Nearly all on-road and off-road engine OEMs, along with
their suppliers, are developing H2ICE for commercial introduction in the MY 2026-2027
timeframe. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1521-A1, p. 9]
1290
-------
Suppliers of on-vehicle hydrogen storage tanks are looking at this H2ICE transition
technology to grow the manufacturing capacity for 350 bar and 700 bar high pressure hydrogen
tanks and bring down their costs. This will accelerate the introduction of fuel cell trucks that will
rely on the same high pressure fuel tanks and hydrogen infrastructure that they will share with
H2ICE trucks. Truck and engine manufacturers are targeting the introduction of H2ICE trucks at
least 10 years before fuel cell trucks will become cost competitive. The early introduction of
H2ICE trucks will help to accelerate the build-out of the hydrogen infrastructure and allow fleets
to seamlessly transition from operating H2ICE trucks to operating fuel cell trucks in their fleet.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1521-A1, p. 9]
Organization: MEMA
Furthermore, EPA should support both hydrogen fuel cell technology and H2ICE because
they complement the overall deployment of hydrogen infrastructure. FCEV and H2ICE address
different vehicle use cases; however, both utilize the same hydrogen infrastructure. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1570-A1, p. 5]
MEMA supports EPA's proposal to include H2ICE in the GEM model credited as a zero C02
technology. MEMA believes H2ICE has potential as another technology that fits within a
performance-based standard regulatory framework to decarbonize applications that are more
challenging to electrify from a performance standpoint. H2ICE holds promise as a bridge
technology to encourage building out hydrogen infrastructure that will be shared with FCEV
applications. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1570-A1, p. 15]
We also note that the California Air Resources Board has few exceptions, most temporary, for
ICE in its Advanced Clean Fleets' program and ask EPA to encourage CARB to respect
technological limitations and provide more exceptions beyond case-basis. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1570-A1, p. 15]
Recommendation: EPA should retain the technology multiplier for FCEV and include H2ICE
in the GEM model with zero C02 emissions. EPA should also encourage CARB to find space
for H2ICE within its ZEV mandate regulatory structure which is set up to allow exemptions from
conventional ICE to fill technology readiness gaps. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1570-A1, p. 15]
Organization: Moving Forward Network (MFN) et al.
EPA must not allow alternative combustion fuels ("false solutions") to be included in their
zero-emission definition. Instead, EPA should adhere to the precautionary approach, which turns
traditional environmental policy on its head. Instead of asking, "How much harm is allowable?"
the precautionary approach asks us to consider, "How little harm is possible?" The precautionary
approach urges a full evaluation of available alternatives to prevent or minimize harm. 90 [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 38]
90 Rachel's Democracy & Health News (formerly Rachel's Environment & Health News). #770 ~
Environmental Justice and Precaution, May 29, 2003. (July 31, 2003).
http://web.archive.org/web/20071219020722/http://www.rachel.org:80/bulletin/index.cfm?issue_ID=2359
any discussion must include specific parameters.
Since the Agency focuses solely on reducing C02 the Agency focuses solely on reducing
C02 and not cumulative impacts and other pollutants, harmful technologies like hydrogen
1291
-------
combustion technologies and natural gas remain options. Although hydrogen combustion
technology may not produce C02 when combusted, it does produce other pollutants, including
nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 38]
Unfortunately, the Agency's proposal does not appropriately take into account the impact
hydrogen combustion engines will have on the communities this rule is meant to protect. For
example, EPA's proposal accounts for hydrogen ICE vehicles as having zero tailpipe emissions,
even though upstream emissions from the production and distribution of hydrogen can be
significant. This is particularly concerning because 99 percent of hydrogen is produced from
fossil fuels, and only 0.02 percent of hydrogen produced today is green hydrogen (derived from
using 100% renewable energy to split hydrogen from water molecules). 91 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 38]
91 Sasan Sadaat and Sara Gersen. Reclaiming Hydrogen for a Renewable Future. (August 2021). p. 21-30.
https://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/files/hydrogen_earthjustice_2021.pdf.
Additionally, hydrogen (despite the color; blue, green, etc.) itself can indirectly contribute to
greenhouse gas emissions through leakage from within its infrastructure system throughout the
various lifecycle stages (e.g., storage, refueling, and transportation stages). According to a 2022
study on the climate consequences of hydrogen leakage, hydrogen leakage may significantly
diminish the climate benefits linked to hydrogen. In fact, if leaks are high .. .fossil-derived
hydrogen may initially yield more warming than would the use of the fossil fuel system it
replaces. 92 There was a study by the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) that
analyzed the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of hydrogen across eleven hydrogen pathways.
This study found that a wide range of carbon intensities exist and also found that some methods
have an even greater carbon intensity than diesel fuel (e.g., coal gasification). 93 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 38]
92 IlissaB. Ocko and Steven P. Hamburg. Climate consequences of hydrogen emissions. Atmos. Chem.
Phys. V. 22. Iss. 14. p. 9349-9368. (2022). https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-9349-2022
93 ICCT. Life Cycle Analysis of Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Hydrogen, and Recommendations for
China. (October 19, 2022). https://theicct.org/publication/china-fuels-lca-ghgs-hydrogen-oct22/
EPA should apply the precautionary principle when thinking about compliance pathways and
structure this regulation to provide certainty that alternative, safer, and more environmentally
friendly and truly zero-emissions options for transportation are applied. A pathway to ensure this
could be by incentivization of EVs powered by increasingly renewable electricity. Another such
regulatory design strategy is a multipollutant rule which would set vehicle emissions standards
not just for greenhouse gas emissions, as proposed, but for NOX and PM2.5 as well. This is the
strategy currently deployed by the administration for light- and medium-duty vehicles (88
FR29184-446), and a design for a heavy-duty program easily integrated into the agency's current
regulatory structure was presented to EPA as part of the EO 12866 process for the Phase 3 GHG
rule. 94 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 39]
94 Union of Concerned Scientists. EO 12866 Meeting 2060-AV50. UCS - Multipollutant HDV proposal -
2023-03-15.pdf. (March 15, 2023).
https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eoDownloadDocument?pubId=&eodoc=true&documentID=213242.
Regardless of the hydrogen fuel type (green, blue, or otherwise), it is clear that combustion-
based hydrogen technology allows for direct and unintended consequences and harm to
1292
-------
environmental justice communities as a heavy-duty vehicle fuel source. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1608-A1, p. 39]
In addition, it appears that EPA did not account for emissions from petroleum refineries in
analyzing the scenarios due to potential uncertainty about refinery behavior due to reduced diesel
demand. However, leaving out the potential benefits from reduced demand for diesel (and
reduced refining of petroleum producers needed) undercuts the overall emission reduction
benefits (and climate and public health benefits) from switching to battery electric trucks on an
increasingly cleaner grid. In contrast, emissions from hydrogen that may largely be produced by
SMR technologies at refineries (even with the Inflation Reduction Act investments) would also
not be captured in EPA's analysis. EPA's assumptions that the historical investments from
Congress will lead to a shift to cleaner hydrogen production pathways as well as manufacturer
compliance through ZEVs is insufficient, especially since the proposed rule structure doesn't
include upstream emissions accounting - which would provide increased certainty that
compliance would occur through truly clean technologies. The basis for this assumption alone is
wholly insufficient, and the Agency must finalize a version of the rule that appropriately
addresses this and discourages compliance by using technologies that will continue to pollute
communities and harm the public. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 39]
EPA's current, ill-conceived crediting of H 2 ICEVs as 0 g/ton-mile is inconsistent with these
vehicles' climate and public health impact, as noted in Section 7.3.2. When fueled by today's
dominant source of hydrogen (as identified by EPA, DRIA Figure 1-11), H2 ICEVs have
virtually no climate benefit over a Phase 2 diesel vehicle, and there is no public health benefit
regardless of the source of the fuel. This suggests that EPA's current regulatory approach to H2
ICEVs is misguided and misaligned with the Agency's requirement under the Clean Air Act to
"establish emission standards for air pollutants from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle
engines, which, in the Administrator's judgment, cause or contribute to air pollution that may
reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1608-A1, p. 39]
While we do not support using natural gas as a fuel source, we note that EPA acknowledged
the need for an assessment process that could better account for lifecycle impacts. To assess the
path forward for H 2 ICEVs, the Agency should consider its approach to natural gas vehicles in
Phase 2. In that case, the Agency conducted a thorough lifecycle analysis of CNGVs and LNGVs
to assess the full lifecycle harms compared to diesel (Phase 2 FRIA, Chapter 13). EPA then
adopted specific test procedures for CNGVs and LNGVs to mitigate the upstream harms from
the vehicles (81 FR 73931). Finally, EPA adopted standards that "in essence, applies a one-to-
one relationship between fuel efficiency and tailpipe C02 emissions for all vehicles, including
natural gas vehicles" (81 FR 73524). In the case of hydrogen combustion, EPA is now proposing
to break with its prior approach. Given the evidence on the lifecycle impacts of H 2 ICEVs, EPA
should instead hew to a model that treats energy efficiency of the gaseous fuel equivalently for
combustion vehicles. In this way, manufacturers could still submit a fuel map (g/s), and then for
certification purposes, the g/s hydrogen would be converted to an energy-equivalent
consumption of gasoline or diesel, depending on the intended service class and engine cycle (40
CFR § 1036.140). The C02 rates for certification would then be based on the rates for the diesel
or gasoline-equivalent engine, using the respective C02 rates for diesel or gasoline. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 40]
1293
-------
EPA already allows manufacturers to use fuel flow rate as a determinant in establishing C02
measurements, so this alteration fits within EPA's well-established Phase 2 test procedures. This
would simply adopt a corrective factor for use within GEM for vehicle certification to more
accurately reflect the relative emissions impacts of H 2 ICEVs with other combustion-powered
vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 40]
To account for tailpipe pollution from combustion vehicles, we have used data traces from the
GEM-modeled truck runs to obtain information about engine loads. For today's diesel vehicles,
we have largely relied upon the updated MOVES model to reflect the latest real-world
information for levels of pollution at different engine operating conditions. For future
combustion vehicles, we have accounted for the real-world emissions required under the in-use
standards for EPA's latest emissions standards for heavy-duty engines, including additional
emissions allowance under the temperature adjustment and interim adjustment. These tailpipe
emissions are considered over the average lifetime of the vehicle, accounting for differences in
warranty and lifetime requirements for emissions controls but acknowledging, as EPA's MOVES
model does, that emissions control equipment is susceptible to tampering and mal-maintenance,
particularly outside the mandated warranty period. Obviously, for electric trucks, tailpipe
emissions remain zero throughout the vehicle's entire lifetime. To assess upstream emissions
from the grid, we use the latest version of EPA's eGRID model (eGRID2021). For future grid
emissions, we rely primarily on modeling done by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory
(NREL) for its Cambium project. 100 For all sources of energy, we use the latest version of the
GREET model to estimate the upstream emissions of all pollutants of concern. 101 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 43-44]
100 Gagnon, P., etal. Cambium Documentation: Version 2021. Technical Report NREL/TP-6A40-81611.
(2021). https://www.nrel.gov/docs/ly22osti/8161 l.pdf.
101 Argonne National Laboratory. The Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy use in
Technologies (GREET) Model. Version 2022 rev 1. (2022). https://greet.es.anl.gov/.
7.3. Emissions of gaseous-fuel powered trucks
BEVs are not the only non-diesel technology considered by EPA in the proposed rule—
hydrogen is identified as a potential alternative fuel, either through vehicles powered by
hydrogen internal combustion engines (H 2 ICEVs) or through fuel cell electric vehicles
(FCEVs). Additionally, combustion vehicles powered by compressed methane (compressed
natural gas vehicles, or CNGVs) are an alternative considered in the Agency's Phase 2 and Phase
3 rulemakings. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 47]
7.3.2. Assessing the impact of hydrogen-powered vehicles
While there are no direct tailpipe emissions from FCEVs, H2 ICEVs emit both NOx and
PM2.5 directly. The available data indicate that such engines will need emissions controls (at the
very least, exhaust gas recirculation 105 ) to achieve the required level of emissions for
combustion engines finalized last year, just as their diesel counterparts. Thus we assume, as in
the case for future diesel vehicles, that direct emissions will exactly achieve the real-world
requirements of those standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 48]
105 Section 7.1.1 in North American Council for Freight Efficiency (NACFE). Hydrogen trucks: Long
haul's future? (2023). https://nacfe.org/research/electric-trucks/hydrogen/.
1294
-------
There are additional impacts from hydrogen throughout its life cycle-from creation, storage,
transportation, and waste-and those impacts remain uncertain. The infrastructure for developing
this fuel is likely to put already overburdened communities at risk based on the historical
precedent of other fueling infrastructure. To assess the impacts of hydrogen-fueled trucks, we
utilize the default values in GREET, as above, to assess the upstream emissions associated with
the production and distribution of hydrogen. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 48]
In order to assess the potential harms or benefits of hydrogen-powered trucks, we consider
two different possible sources for hydrogen representing the predominant source of hydrogen
today, produced from cracked methane gas and a more sustainable form of hydrogen, produced
from electrolysis and powered by solar energy. For both of these cases, we have assumed the
hydrogen is produced in central plants, which is the dominant method of producing hydrogen
today. This hydrogen must then also be compressed and transported for sale. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 48]
For efficiency, we assume that H2 ICEVs will achieve the same level of energy efficiency as
a Phase 2 diesel truck—while this may be optimistic since the thermal efficiency of an Otto-
cycle engine is significantly less than a compressed-ignition engine, the limited data on H 2
ICEVs does seem to indicate this as reasonable. 106 For the efficiency of the fuel cell, we use the
vehicle-level efficiency of the BEV (i.e., excluding charger-related losses) and assume a fuel cell
efficiency of 60 percent based on data from light-duty FCEVs. 107 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1608-A1, p. 48]
106 Section 7.1.1 inNACFE. (2023).
107 Kurts, J. et al. Fuel cell electric vehicle durability and fuel cell performance. Technical report
NREL/TP-5400-73011. (2019). https://www.nrel.gov/docs/ly 19osti/7301 l.pdf.
Greenhouse gas emissions and public health impacts for drayage trucks are summarized in
Figure 6. These data make clear that not only does the production method of hydrogen matter,
but the type of vehicle in which it is deployed is critical in determining the harms of that fuel.
Most importantly, if H2 ICEVs are fueled on hydrogen from natural gas, they would provide
virtually no benefit to the climate over a Phase 2-compliant diesel vehicle, and the public health
impacts from such a vehicle could actually be worse. Consistent with EPA's approach in Phase
2, CNGVs are found to be roughly comparable to diesel trucks in terms of greenhouse gas
emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 49] [Refer to Figure 6, Comparison of
drayage trucks powered by different fuels on p. 49 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-202-1608-
Al.]
When it comes to the greenhouse gas emissions from hydrogen-powered trucks, today's
dominant form of hydrogen is virtually indistinguishable from diesel: the only climate benefit
from FCEVs comes as the result of the substantial improvement in efficiency resulting from an
electric powertrain, and for H2 ICEVs there is almost no climate benefit whatsoever over Phase
2. Regarding public health, the adverse impacts of fossil fuel extraction are notable—for H2
ICEVs powered by hydrogen generated from methane, the public health outcomes are actually
worse than diesel. Even if hydrogen for these vehicles were made from electrolysis powered by
solar energy, the processing steps involved in compressing and distributing the fuel would still
yield significant harm such that for an H2 ICEV the direct impacts would be just as harmful as a
future diesel truck. The lack of tailpipe emissions and more efficient use of hydrogen mitigate
1295
-------
some of these factors in an FCEV, which shows an emissions profile more comparable to a BEV.
However, even in an FCEV there is a more than a two-fold increase in harm if the hydrogen is
generated from methane as opposed to solar-powered electrolysis. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1608-A1, p. 49]
It is clear from this analysis that H2 ICEVs are no better than diesel trucks when it comes to
public health and has no climate benefits over Phase 2 vehicles when fueled by the dominant
source of hydrogen today. Their treatment under the Phase 3 program should be comparable to
other combustion vehicles rather than vehicles that lack tailpipe emissions (see Section 6.4).
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1, p. 50]
9.1.3. Hydrogen combustion engines
EPA has acknowledged the existence of vehicles powered by hydrogen combustion engines
(H2 ICEVs), but the agency has misstated the emissions impacts of these vehicles. As noted
earlier, H 2 ICEVs emit PM 2.5, contrary to the Agency's assertion. 123 This is a critical
oversight because of the importance of particulate matter with respect to public health. While
gaseous H 2 fuel lacks hydrocarbons, there is a significant body of research on hydrogen
combustion showing that particulate matter is generated in the combustion process, most likely
from the lubricants. 124 In fact, in-cylinder direct injection of hydrogen, which avoids the
substantial power losses of pre-cylinder injection and enhances the efficiency of the engine, can
lead to even greater PM 2.5 emissions than a gasoline engine. 125 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1608-A1, p. 67]
123 H2-ICE is a technology that produces zero hydrocarbon (HC), carbon monoxide (CO), and C02
engine-out emissions. 88 Fed. Reg. at 25960.
124 Miller, A.L., et al. Role of lubrication oil in particulate emissions from a hydrogen-powered internal
combustion engine. Environ. Sci. Technol. V. 41. No. 19. (2007). p. 6828-6835.
https://doi.org/10.1021/es070999r.
125 Thawko, A., and L. Tartakovsky. The mechanism of particle formation in non-premixed hydrogen
combustion in a direct-injection internal combustion engine. J. Fuel. V. 327. (2022). p. 125187.
https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.fuel.2022.125187.
Cummins, the largest engine manufacturer in the United States, has announced plans to bring
a direct-injection engine to market in the timeframe of EPA's proposed rule. 126 Yet, the
Agency has excluded them from its analysis. As the Agency astutely acknowledges,
manufacturers have a predilection towards the deployment of H2 ICEVs: they take advantage of
assets that are already being utilized for the production of diesel engines. 88 Fed. Reg. at 25960.
As a recent ICCT report shows, H2 ICEVs have a total cost of ownership advantage over FCEVs
under low hydrogen prices. Given the clear incumbency advantage for the combustion platform
vis-a-vis manufacturers' investments, it is likely that, even under a hydrogen price where FCEVs
offered a theoretical TCO advantage, manufacturers may neglect to give purchasers such a
choice, particularly when there is no regulatory advantage. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1608-A1,
p. 67]
126 Wolfe, M. Hitting the gas on hydrogen tech for commercial trucks. SAE International. (May 3, 2022).
https://www.sae.org/news/2022/05/hydrogen-technology-commercial-trucks.
1296
-------
Organization: Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) and the
Ozone Transport Commission (OTC)
Hydrogen Internal Combustion Engines
Hydrogen internal combustion engines are listed as a potential technology for compliance
with the GHG standards. We request that EPA further evaluate the disbenefits associated with
using hydrogen-fueled ICEs. NOx emissions related to hydrogen combustion should be more
fully evaluated prior to finalizing the rule. We note that with the persistent ground-level ozone
problems in the Northeast Corridor and other urban areas across the country where on-road
transportation emissions dominate the NOx emissions inventory, NOx emissions from hydrogen
combustion in ICEs can delay progress towards achieving ozone air quality standards. In
addition, hydrogen-fueled ICE vehicles will use considerably more hydrogen than FCEVs and
have greater leakage potential of hydrogen within the fueling infrastructure. Because of this,
there can be significant issues with hydrogen ICEs related to use of scarce resources of low
carbon hydrogen and greater upstream emissions associated with the production and transport of
hydrogen. We request EPA evaluate these issues prior to finalizing the rule and institute
production caps for hydrogen-fueled ICEs if the issues cannot be fully evaluated. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1562-A1, p. 13-14]
Organization: Westport Fuel Systems
Westport supports the reduction of transportation emissions and is continually working to
create products that reduce emissions, especially in hard to decarbonize sectors, such as long-
haul heavy-duty applications. We understand the importance of setting standards on C02
emissions but stress the importance of creating a level playing field and leaving space for a
variety of technologies including those that utilize combustion technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1567-A1, p. 1]
Compared to a reference diesel heavy-duty truck, analysis of purely tailpipe C02 (Tank To
Wheel, TTW) yields the expected 100% reduction via FCEV. The H2 HPDI ICE vehicle exhibits
very high tailpipe C02 reductions (93% to 95%) but falls short of the zero tailpipe C02 metric
used in the majority of policies due to the use of small quantities of diesel for ignition, the use of
which is fundamental to the high efficiency and power density of H2 HPDI compared to H2
spark ignition ICE. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1567-A1, p.4]
Due to the high efficiency of HPDI, H2 HPDI can deliver equivalent C02 reductions as fuel
cell vehicles, though even with green hydrogen neither technology results in zero C02 on a Well
to Wheel basis including vehicle manufacturing emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1567-
Al, p. 4]
While the transition to battery electric vehicles or fuel cell electric may be appropriate in
some lighter vehicle classes, it is not yet viable for Class 8 sleeper cabs. Flexibility to
acknowledge the benefits of advanced combustion technologies is needed to create space for low
emissions vehicles in this segment. In the Rule, the EPA has addressed hydrogen combustion
ICEs and has acknowledged C02 emissions benefits from mono fuel hydrogen engines, however
it has not defined the role of Hydrogen ICE technologies that utilize pilot fuel. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1567-A1, p. 5]
1297
-------
To fully recognize the benefits of hydrogen ICE vehicles in reducing heavy duty truck
emissions, we propose the following options and their details for consideration and further
discussion.
1. Adopt the European Union proposed definition of ZEV, which encompasses hydrogen
combustion engines and vehicles.
OR
2. Recognize vehicles with less than 10% energy use as a pilot fuel perform the same as
monofuel hydrogen combustion engines and designate them as having zero C02 emissions.
OR
3. Create a new category for near zero emissions heavy-duty vehicles that are powered by
internal combustion engines and pilot fuel of less than 10%. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1567-
Al, p. 5]
1. The EU Approach to Hydrogen Combustion Heavy Duty Vehicles
In February 2023, as part of the review of its C02 Standards for heavy-duty vehicles, the
European Commission has proposed the following definition of zero-emission heavy-duty
vehicle:
'zero-emission heavy-duty vehicle' means a heavy- duty motor vehicle with not more than 5
g/(t.km) or 5 g/(p.km) of C02 emissions as determined in accordance with Article 9 of
Regulation (EU) 2017/2400. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1567-A1, p. 6]
which is a change from the previous limit of 1 g C02/kWh. This change was proposed
because it was found that due to the "heterogenous structure of the total truck fleet", it wasn't
"possible to fully predict whether for all niche uses, technological developments will be quick
enough to ensure that zero-emission tailpipe technology is a viable choice." The importance of
this is to highlight that some flexibility in regulation is being proposed to allow for future
technologies that may be needed to accommodate different vehicle types and uses, and that a one
size fits all approach may not be in the best interest of reducing overall emissions. This
designation also impacts the ability of vehicles to qualify for incentives. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1567-A1, p. 6]
Access to the ZEV label is critical to the customer value proposition. The proposed ZEV
definition will provide regulatory and economic support to a wider portfolio of technologies,
leading to higher market adoption of high performing, C02 reducing solutions in the new vehicle
market. It offers the potential for heavy-duty vehicles powered by different H2 ICE technologies,
including both monofuel hydrogen and H2 HPDI engines, to be considered as ZEV. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1567-A1, p. 6]
For the European market, regulatory approaches are also being developed for the type-
approval of hydrogen combustion engines, both monofuel hydrogen and H2 HPDI which is
being considered as a type of dual fuel engine "Type 1 A" according to UNECE Regulation 49
(R49). This is a specific designation for engine technologies that use less than 10% diesel fuel
over parts of the test cycle and do not idle on diesel nor have a diesel operational mode. The
operation of H2 HPDI equipped engines share many similarities with that of monofuel,
1298
-------
especially in regard to power output being purely determined by control of hydrogen injection.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1567-A1, p. 6]
Table 1 below has been provided to illustrate a comparison of the attributes of a Hydrogen
monofuel ICE and H2 HPDI based on an EU analysis on EU vehicle classes but still provides
relevant information for the EPA. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1567-A1, p. 6.] [See Docket
Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1567-A1, page 7, for Table 1.]
Preliminary testing of the H2 HPDI product has so far been conducted using European engine
test cycles and protocols. As Table 1 illustrates, initial testing using European test cycles has
estimated that C02 emissions are reduced by approximately 93% to 95% relative to diesel
engines. Tailpipe emissions including aftertreatment are estimated to be 30-40 g/kWh. Of note,
the Well to Wheel C02 reduction relative to diesel is the same as for hydrogen monofuel ICE
engines. It is also expected to be very similar to FCEVs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1567-A1,
pp. 6 - 7]
Additional preliminary data has established that the system exhibits attributes that are
equivalent or better than monofuel engines in key areas, such as higher efficiency, power density
and equivalent well to wheel C02 reductions as monofuel engines (the higher efficiency of H2
HPDI compensates for the WTW C02 impacts of the pilot fuel). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1567-A1, p. 7]
Going back to the EPA Rule, Westport estimates that on average vehicles equipped with the
H2 HPDI system will be more that 90% lower than the MY 2032 fleet target for the Class 8
vehicle class as illustrated in the proposed rule. Further testing using appropriate US test cycles
must be conducted for more accurate results. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1567-A1, p. 7]
2. Recognize Hydrogen ICE Vehicles with less than 10% Pilot Fuels as Zero C02 Emissions
in the Same Way As Monofuel Hydrogen ICE [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1567-A1, p. 8]
The EPA in the Phase 3 Rule has addressed the development of mono fuel hydrogen
combustion technologies but has not provided a pathway for evaluating other combustion
technologies such as those that use pilot fuels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1567-A1, p. 8]
In the Rule, monofuel hydrogen combustion engines using "neat' hydrogen are considered to
have no engine out emissions and it is being proposed that their tailpipe emissions are "deemed
to be zero" for C024. Westport proposes that this treatment be extended to other hydrogen
combustion technologies including those with pilot fuels of 10% or less. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1567-A1, p. 8]
4 See: Phase 3 Proposed Rule, page 26022, section ii. Vehicles With Engines Using Fuels Other than
Carbon Containing Fuels and page 25958, Section II, D. 1. Technologies to Reduce GHG Emissions From
HD Vehicles With ICEs
Given the low emissions expected from H2 HPDI, as illustrated by preliminary results in
Table 1 above, it would be reasonable to also consider it as a monofuel (zero C02) vehicle given
the pilot fuel energy used is less than 10% and does not significantly impact C02 emissions.
Remaining combustion emissions are dealt with through aftertreatment systems. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1567-A1, p. 8]
1299
-------
3. Work with Other Agencies to Create a Near Zero Emissions Technology Category for
Hydrogen ICEs with Pilot Fuel for the Class 8 Segment [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1567-A1, p.
8]
In response to providing feedback that emissions should be less stringent for some market
segments where high energy content is needed for certain applications, we urge the EPA to
consider the benefits of creating a new class of emission reducing vehicles, "near zero emissions
technologies", which would include hydrogen internal combustion engines with diesel pilot to be
considered on par with Zero Emissions Vehicles in the Class 8 segment. Broadening the ZEV
definition to create a "carve out" for specific vehicle segments such as Class 8, where few
options are available until 2032 (25% deployment rate) will allow more technologies with very
low C02 emissions to be recognized as viable technologies in other regulatory and legislative
incentive programs (like those implemented by CARB and the IRA) that Phase 3 helps to inform.
This action could accelerate the transition of these heavy fuel users away from diesel fuel faster
than the proposed timeline of 2030 where EPA shows a 10% adoption rate and 2030 with a 25%
rate in this segment. These targets if accurate still leave the remainder of vehicles in this class
(75%+) using non-ZEV technologies in 2032. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1567-A1, p. 8]
The H2 HPDI system, having less than 10% diesel, contributes nominally to C02 emissions.
Westport has longer term plans to further reduce the percentage of pilot fuel over time. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1567-A1, p. 9]
The EPA has proposed the introduction of "Neat" hydrogen monofuel vehicles and has
combined dual fuel (mixed fuels that contain carbon) and pilot diesel engines5 to determine test
procedures. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1567-A1, p. 9]
5 See: Phase 3 Proposed Rule, page 26021, xi. Updates to 40 CFR Part 1036 definitions.
Pilot diesel ignition, such as used in the H2 HPDI is less than 10% of fuel use and thus C02
and criteria emissions are substantially lower than a diesel ICE vehicle or a traditional dual fuel
vehicle. HPDI technology uses diesel for ignition only and it is not mixed with hydrogen as a
blend. The C02 emissions resulting from pilot ignition is considered nominal overall. H2 HPDI
cannot operate on diesel fuel alone at any time other than service mode. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1567-A1, p. 9]
Future testing on a full U.S. cycle with mixed loads will be needed to further optimize the
system. However, in the interim period before 2032, any technology with at least 90 %
reductions in C02 emissions should be recognized as contributing significantly to emissions
reductions efforts and should be considered as near zero. A similar approach was adopted by
California relating to low NOx engines, which were given consideration as "near zero" NOx and
had access to deployment incentives. Access to incentives has been a key factor in the
deployment of all alternative technologies in many markets. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1567-
Al, p. 9]
The EPA has already recognized that H2 ICE engines share similar components and can
leverage existing manufacturing capabilities and supply chains to produce these products, in
addition requiring simpler and smaller aftertreatment systems.6 More hydrogen powered
vehicles will also help to build out fuelling infrastructure. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1567-A1,
p. 9]
1300
-------
6 See: Phase 3 Proposed Rule, page 25960, Section II, D.l. Technologies to Reduce GHG Emissions From
HD Vehicles With ICEs
H2 HPDI has the potential to be production-ready and deployed relatively quickly, given
natural gas versions of this technology are commercially available in Europe today. The
emissions reduction potential of this technology can be realized sooner than 2030 when EPA
projections estimate a ZEV adoption rate of 10% of vehicles in sleeper cab tractors with 15% in
2031 and 25% in 2032. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1567-A1, p. 10]
Development of a US Test Protocol for Pilot Ignited Engines such as H2 HPDI
We encourage the EPA to engage in further discussions and analysis on the benefits of
Hydrogen combustion technologies and develop a test protocol for the type approval of pilot
ignited engines such as H2 HPDI. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1567-A1, p. 10]
The EPA has proposed changes to engine test procedures 40 CFR part 1037 for certain
highway heavy duty engines in 40 CFR parts 1036 and 1065. To our knowledge, there are
currently no test procedures for a product like H2 HPDI. As mentioned earlier, in the EU there is
a task force focused on H2 ICE, including H2 pilot ignited hydrogen CI engines, to aid in the
development of procedures for testing hydrogen combustion engines. It is important to have
applicable testing procedures and protocols specifically for hydrogen combustion that recognize
that testing is different from procedures established for natural gas or diesel engines and
vehicles. In addition, guidelines for equipment may need to be established, because the same
equipment used in testing procedures for diesel and natural gas may not be sensitive enough to
detect the low emissions produced by hydrogen combustion. In absence of a test procedure, it
may not be possible to homologate and commercialize engines equipped with an H2 HPDI fuel
system. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1567-A1, p. 10]
EPA Summary and Response:
Summary:
AVE, API, BorgWarner, DTNA, MECA, MEMA, and Westport Fuel Systems commented in
support of the changes to 40 1036.150(f) and 40 1037.150(f) deeming C02 emissions zero for
engines fueled with neat hydrogen. In addition, some commenters stated that EPA did not go far
enough to support H2-ICE and should deem C02 emissions zero for engines fueled with neat
hydrogen that also have a diesel pilot. These comments included comments from DTNA that we
should follow the EU framework, that defines a C02 emissions level to qualify the engines are
deemed to be zero C02. Westport Fuel Systems commented that engines with less than 10%
energy coming from carbon -containing fuels also should be deemed to be zero.
Westport also commented that access to the ZEV label is critical to the customer value
proposition. Westport also commented that they are not aware of any test procedures for a
product like H2 HPDI (high pressure direct injection).
MEMA supports including H2ICE as a technology with zero C02 emissions and suggested
that EPA add an H2-ICE credit multiplier, similar to FCEV. MEMA also requested that EPA
"encourage CARB" to include H2ICE in its regulatory program.
DTNA commented that standards should not be based on the use of H2-ICE, since there is too
much uncertainty on the adoption of H2-ICE.
1301
-------
DTNA comments included specific changes to the Deterioration Factor (DF) and On Board
Diagnostic (OBD) requirements for H2-ICE. For DF the commenter requested EPA allow
manufacturers to attest to durability and useful life requirements, that EPA assigned the DF for
criteria pollutants, and that EPA revise our regulations to include a reduced useful life standard.
For OBD, DTNA commented that EPA should simplified the OBD requirements in 40 CFR
1036.110. They suggest that EPA could reduce this burden by requiring the OBD system only to
detect circuit faults and failed actuators, and avoid requirements for threshold diagnostics and
rationality checks. DNTA also commented that EPA should allow manufacturers to propose an
alternate monitoring plan for H2-ICE engines.
CARB and MFN commented that they do not support treating H2-ICE as zero emissions
technology.
EDF commented that even if EPA considers H2-ICE vehicles as a carbon-free technology,
they should not be considered a full ZEV.
CARB commented that including H2 ICE as ZEVs for GHGs even though they're not ZEVs
for criteria pollutants, could become a default option, which is not great for California. CARB
also commented that hydrogen engines are less efficient than FCEVs which could have upstream
impacts. CARB commented that EPA should consider requiring fuel maps for H2-ICE to allow
for tracking of hydrogen production. CARB commented that EPA consider production caps for
H2-ICE that are deemed to have zero C02 emissions.
MFN doesn't support treating H2-ICE as zero emissions technology. MFN commented that
hydrogen itself can indirectly contribute to greenhouse gas emissions through leakage from
within its infrastructure system and throughout the various lifecycle stages (e.g., storage,
refueling, and transportation stages). With further regard to lifecycle emission impacts, MFN
notes that 99 percent of hydrogen is produced from fossil fuels, and only 0.02 percent of
hydrogen produced today is green hydrogen (derived from using 100% renewable energy to split
hydrogen from water molecules). MFN goes on to cite an ICCT study that analyzed the life cycle
greenhouse gas emissions of hydrogen across eleven hydrogen pathways. MFN states that this
study found that a wide range of carbon intensities exist and also found that some methods have
an even greater carbon intensity than diesel fuel (e.g., coal gasification). See ICCT. Life Cycle
Analysis of Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Hydrogen, and Recommendations for China. (October
19, 2022). https://theicct.org/publication/china-fuels-lca-ghgs-hydrogen-oct22/. . MFN further
indicated that Steam Methane Reforming - i.e., using fossil fuels to generate hydrogen - is high
GHG emitting and that EPA's assumptions that IRA incentives would result in so-called green
hydrogen (MFN's terminology) are overly sanguine. MFN commented that EPA acknowledged
the need for an assessment process that could better account for lifecycle impacts of natural gas
and commented that to assess the path forward for H2 ICEVs, the Agency should consider its
approach to controlling refueling and evaporative emissions from natural gas vehicles in Phase 2.
NESCAUM commented that hydrogen-fueled ICE vehicles will use considerably more
hydrogen than FCEVs and have greater leakage potential of hydrogen within the fueling
infrastructure. NESCAUM commented that because of this, there can be significant issues with
hydrogen ICEs related to use of scarce resources of low carbon hydrogen and greater upstream
emissions associated with the production and transport of hydrogen. ACEEE noted that H2-
ICEVs have modest efficiency advantages at best. They believe the zero-upstream incentive is
1302
-------
inappropriate since benefits are largely based on the carbon intensity of the hydrogen, not to
mention the NOx. They suggest that low-carbon hydrogen-fueled vehicles are best incentivized
through performance-based standards.
Response:
As explained in Preamble Sections I and II and RTC Section 2, the final standards can be met
in any manner a regulated entity (i.e. manufacturer) sees fit that achieves compliance with that
numerical standard. In assessing a modeled potential compliance pathway that includes a
technology mix of ICE vehicle technologies and ZEV technologies, EPA was demonstrating that
the final standards were feasible and appropriate; EPA was not requiring that manufacturers
utilize that modeled potential compliance pathway. In fact, as discussed in Preamble Section
II.F.4, we have assessed additional example potential compliance pathways that support the
feasibility of the final standards, which include a suite of technologies ranging from ICE engine,
transmission, drivetrain, aerodynamics, and tire rolling resistance improvements, to the use of
low carbon fuels like CNG and LNG, to hybrid powertrains (HEV and PHEV) and H2-ICE. See
also responses in RTC 9.1 and 2.1 further responding to the explicit or implicit incorrect
assertion that the Phase 3 rule mandates use of ZEVs. Thus. OEMs have many different potential
technology mixes that can utilize to achieve compliance with the final Phase 3 standards,
including a mix of technologies that includes H2-ICE. Regarding NOx emissions from H2-ICE,
the HD 2027 Low NOx Rulemaking set NOx and other criteria pollutant standards (40 CFR
1036.104) that all HD engines must meet. Manufacturers of H2-ICE will be required to
demonstrate that the engines meet the part 1036 standards, including the criteria pollutant
standards set in the HD2027 final rule, and thus H2ICE engines will be required to be equipped
with advanced emissions control devices for both PM and NOx.
Several comments, notably MFN's, stressed the potential adverse environmental implications
of H2 ICE vehicles if upstream emissions are taken into account and hydrogen production is
fossil fuel based. EPA is reasonably projecting that the IRA will work as intended in
incentivizing the production of clean hydrogen. Additionally, we have conducted a comparative
analysis of the potential impacts of various hydrogen production methods in our assessment of
emissions impacts of the Phase 3 rule. More specifically, our emissions inventory modeling
assumes that hydrogen fuel produced for the HD FCEVs in our modeled potential compliance
pathway would be produced via grid electrolysis as a simplifying assumption.662 To further
analyze the environmental implications of future methods of hydrogen production, for the FRM,
we also performed a comparative analysis to assess how emissions between multiple alternative
hydrogen production pathways could compare. RIA Chapter 4.8. We concluded that "[rjelative
to the emission inventory impacts presented earlier in this chapter..., we therefore expect that an
emission inventory impacts analysis which assumes more hydrogen produced via SMR to
estimate decreased upstream GHG emissions in earlier years and increased upstream GHG
emissions in further out years. Given that these are offsetting trends and given the uncertainty
inherent in projecting how the hydrogen needed to fuel FCEVs will be produced, we feel that our
modeling assumption that all hydrogen will be produced via grid electrolysis does not
meaningfully skew the overall GHG emission inventory impacts attributable to the final
standards."
662 See RIA Chapter 4.3.
1303
-------
We disagree with CARB's comment that EPA should consider requiring fuel maps for H2-
ICE to allow for tracking of hydrogen production, as at this time our assessment is that there are
more direct ways to track hydrogen production for use in vehicles. As for setting production caps
for H2-ICE that are deemed to have zero C02 emissions, we are finalizing performance-based
standards for CO2 and so disagree with an approach that would limit a particular technology
beyond meeting such performance-based standards.
Regarding the various comments that upstream emissions associated with hydrogen
production should be reflected in the standards themselves, as opposed to emissions modeling for
assessing the impacts of the final rule, please see our response to comments on life cycle
assessment in RTC 17.1. We also note that we disagree with any assertion that we should treat
only H2 ICE technology differently for purposes of assessing lifecycle emissions.
Regarding comments on hydrogen leakage, commenters did not provide data and we do not
have data on the leakage rate of FCEVs versus H2-ICEVs.
Regarding the comment from Westport on labeling vehicles with H2 ICEs, we are finalizing
performance-based standards, not setting a ZEV mandate, and we are not defining the term ZEV
in 40 CFR 1037. Regarding the comments on available test procedures for H2 HPDI engines, we
are finalizing changes to 1065 to address this issue. See Preamble Section III.C.5 for more
information on engine testing and certification with fuels other than carbon-containing fuels.
Regarding comments that H2-ICE is not as efficient, with respect to hydrogen use, as a
FCEV, we reiterate that the Phase 3 GHG standards are C02 vehicle exhaust emission standards.
We acknowledge that a recent study by FEV identified that a Class 8 tractor with a 500-mile
range using an H2-ICE powertrain would use 84 kg of H2 while a fuel cell electric vehicle would
use 77 kg of H2. We account for the difference in efficiency between FCEVs and vehicles with
H2-ICEs in our assessment of H2-ICE vehicles, as described in RIA Chapter 2.11.
We disagree with the comments that EPA should encourage H2-ICE that are also fueled with
a carbon containing fuel by deeming CO2 emissions from these engines to be zero. As with the
EU proposal and the proposal from Westport Fuel systems, this designation would need to be
based on results from testing. For example, we cannot determine that an engine will have CO2
emission below a certain threshold or have less than 10% of its fuel come from carbon
containing fuels without testing that engine. In addition, the final changes to 40 CFR 1036.150(f)
and 40 CFR 1037.150(f) are not defining these H2-ICE engines/vehicles that use neat hydrogen
as zero emissions engines/vehicles, but rather are providing an option for manufacturers to be
exempt from testing these engines/vehicles for certain pollutants. As explained in Preamble
Section III.C, this testing exemption for certain pollutants can be clearly defined for engines that
use neat hydrogen, as the fuel does not contain carbon (e.g., zero engine-out C02 emissions).
Finally, the test procedures in 40 CFR 1036, 40 CFR 1037, and 40 CFR 1065 define how to test
engines that are fueled with a mix of hydrogen and carbon containing fuels, so the test
procedures provide a pathway for the CO2 reduction from these engines to be credited at
certification. EPA's approach of deeming emissions for certain pollutants at a specific level is
reasonably reserved for technologies where it is clear, without additional testing, that the
emissions are zero or near zero.
We disagree with the comment from MEMA that an advanced technology credit multiplier
should apply to H2-ICE. As noted in Section III.A.2 of the final rule preamble, the proposal
1304
-------
regarding Phase 2's credit multipliers was limited to evaluating whether to end their existing
Phase 2 phase out date earlier or leave existing end date in place. We did not propose or request
comment on extending credit multipliers to apply for other technologies under the Phase 2
program (and did not reopen that aspect of the Phase 2 multipliers) and did not propose or
request comment on including credit multipliers as part of the Phase 3 program for any
technology. Thus, these comments requesting new multipliers are out of scope for this final rule.
Regarding the comment from DTNA that the standards should not be based on the use of H2-
ICE technology in addition to ZEV technologies included in the proposals compliance pathway
to support the feasibility of the Phase 3 standards, please see our response in RTC Section 9.2
regarding the stringency of the final performance-based standards. See also RIAI and Preamble
Section II regarding our assessment of H2-ICE technology in supporting the feasibility of the
Phase 3 final standards.
Comments from DTNA that the DF and OBD requirements should be streamlined/reduced for
H2-ICE are outside the scope of this final rule, however we also note that we disagree. Both the
DF and OBD requirements are in place for engines to ensure that engines meet the criteria
pollutant standards in 40 CFR 1036. Specifically, the DF requirements provide a means for
manufacturers to demonstrate that the emissions standards will be met through useful life. The
OBD requirements are in place such that malfunctions in the emissions control systems are
detected and fixed quickly. As mentioned by other commenters, even H2-ICE that use neat
hydrogen do emit certain pollutants, including but not limited to NOx and PM, so the
requirements in 40 CFR 1036 remain critical for their intended purposes. The comments that
EPA should reduce the useful life for H2-ICE are out of scope as we didn't propose or request
comment on any changes to the useful life for engines under the emissions standards in 40 CFR
1036.
For addition information on the final changes to 40 CFR 1036.150(f) and 40 CFR
1037.150(f), see Preamble Section III.C.2.xviii and Section III.C.3.ii, respectively.
9.4 Other Technologies
Comments by Organizations
Organization: American Chemistry Council Fuel Additives Task Group (FATG)
The FATG supports EPA's recognition that multiple technologies can lead to a reduction in
greenhouse gas emissions and supports the use of performance-based standards. The longevity of
the internal combustion engines (ICE) of the current commercial fleets means that they, and
carbon-based liquid fuels, will continue to play an important role in the transportation needs of
the United States. There is ongoing research to continue to improve the thermal efficiency of
diesel internal combustion engines3. There is also an increasing diversity of fuels in the distillate
market and biobased and renewable fuels are growing in usage to help reduce the carbon
intensity of the fuel pool. Fuel additives have and will continue to play a vital role in the
optimization of the fuel and engine system combination with the aim of reducing carbon
emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1573-A1, p. 1]
3 DOE, "The Road Ahead Toward a Net-Zero-Carbon Transportation Future" Co-Optima Findings and
Impact FY15-FY21. link
1305
-------
Fuel Additive Benefits
Fuel additives provide benefits to the environment and the consumer4. Additive technologies
help enhance desired performance capabilities and suppress undesirable properties in fuel, which
in turn leads to improved function and performance. Diesel additives have been used for almost
100 years at all points in the diesel distribution system, from the refinery, through pipelines and
terminals, to the distributors, fleets, and aftermarket end users. These additives allow fuel
producers, distributors, and marketers to not only meet certain basic specification requirements5
for engines, but also to provide additional protection to critical distribution and vehicle
components, and to improve the overall performance of the fuel powering the diesel engine.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1573-A1, pp. 1 - 2]
4 Additive Technical Committee, "Fuel Additives: Use and Benefits," Document 113, September 2013.
link
5 For example ASTM D975, EN590.
The most common performance-enhancing additives for diesel and biomass based diesel and
blends currently used in the United States include cold flow improvers, lubricity improvers,
injector, and fuel system detergents6.
• In regions with low winter temperatures, cold flow improvers help with pour point and
filter blocking issues associated with all fuels and blends.
• Refineries employ corrosion inhibitors to help protect storage tanks and pipelines against
corrosion to prevent asset leakage during transport, lubricity improvers to help protect
engine components against wear, and conductivity improvers to help safely move fuel
through the supply chain minimizing risk of Static Discharge Ignition.
• Diesel detergents can help avoid deposits during normal operation of equipment
associated with diesel and renewable duels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1573-A1, p. 2]
6 ACC FATG, "FATG Diesel Additives and Fuel Issues." 2018. link
Fuel additives help to optimize the functional efficiency of the internal combustion engine
leading to the reduction of fuel consumption. Often, additive suppliers combine these and other
components into customized multi-functional diesel additive packages in order to simplify
additives injection and storage needs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1573-A1, p. 2]
Organization: American Chemistry Council Product Approval Protocol Task Group (PAPTG)
Engine and driveline lubricants are an important component of heavy duty vehicle design and
have been demonstrated to impact fuel economy and durability performance. To help ensure that
vehicle performance remains as close to the design and certification level as possible, ACC
suggests that EPA include language in the proposed standard which recognizes and highlights
the importance of using the appropriate OEM or industry certified lubricants in factory fill and
service fill (aftermarket) applications. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1574-A1, p. 1]
Organization: Lubrizol Corporation (Lubrizol)
Each of the Blueprint's strategies can yield extremely low-carbon performance. However, the
lifecycle emissions of each technology should be considered and integrated into the Final Rule.
We are concerned about the unintended consequences of a "tailpipe-only" approach that neglects
1306
-------
upstream emissions and other emissions impacts of future engines and vehicles. Our concern is
equally valid, whether the technology is an ICE vehicle operating on petroleum diesel, an ICE
vehicle operating on a SLF, an ICE vehicle operating on hydrogen, a battery-electric vehicle, or
fuel cell vehicle. The end goal should be a heavy-duty vehicle market that emits as few GHGs as
possible, on a lifecycle basis. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1651-A2, p. 2]
As we have noted in our comments on prior EPA rule-makings, Lubrizol remains concerned
about real-world, in-use emission levels over the full useful life of the engines and vehicles we
serve. We encourage EPA to include provisions in the Final Rule that will help ensure that the
appropriate fuel additives and lubricants are used throughout the useful life of future engines and
vehicles that will be manufactured to meet the requirement of the Final Rule in years to
come. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1651-A2, p. 3]
1) The Final Rule Should Help Ensure that the Highest Quality Lubricants Are Used
Throughout Useful Life
Lubrizol is committed to ensuring that OEMs have the engine, axle, and transmission
lubricants and oils that they will need to ensure that their engines will meet the final Phase 3
GHG standards, both for certification purposes and throughout their useful life. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1651-A2, p. 3]
Compared with prior generations of internal combustion engines ("IC engines"), future IC
engines will operate with extremely high temperatures, high pressure, high shear, and other
extremely sensitive operating environments. In order to operate efficiently, durably, and with
low emissions, these IC engines will need to use the appropriate engine oil or lubricant at all
times throughout their useful life. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1651-A2, p. 3]
Using the wrong lubricant can impact the engine's performance and durability, as well as the
performance and durability of the vehicle's emissions control systems and Emissions-Related
Components.4 Numerous studies have been done in the past that highlighted the relationship
between lubricant composition and emission system durability. It can be expected that lubricant
compatibility will become even more important when the next generation of emission control
systems and Emissions-Related Components is deployed to meet the Phase 3 GHG standards,
especially in combination with the new NOx standards that will be in place, starting in MY
2027. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1651-A2, p. 3]
4 The list of "Emissions-Related Components" is contained in 40 C.F.R. Park 1068, Appendix I.
Under Section 207 of the Clean Air Act, OEMs are required to provide emissions-related
warranties.5 These warranties are typically limited to the Emissions-Related Components that
are listed in 40 C.F.R. Part 1068, Appendix I. However, using the appropriate lubricant or oil is
critical to the performance of many of the components on the Appendix I list.6 Thus, while we
recognize that these warranties would not require specific oils or lubricants to be used, we do
believe that OEMs can and should require their customers to use the same or higher quality oil or
lubricant that was used by the OEM in its certification testing as part of their warranty
requirements to protect their Emissions-Related Components. This can be accomplished by
adding lubricants or engine oils to the list of covered components in the proposed new language
for 40 C.F.R. Section 1037.120(c).7 Indeed, the new language directs emission-related
warranties to covers other added emission-related components to the extent they are included in
an OEM's application for certification, as well as any other components whose failure would
1307
-------
increase a vehicle's C02 emissions. Because the use of a sub-standard lubricant or engine oil
would deviate from the lubricant or oil used in the OEM's certification application and could
lead to increased C02 emissions, it should not be allowed to be used under the OEM's
emissions-related warranties. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1651-A2, pp. 3 -4.]
5 Proposal at 25949, citing 42 U.S.C. 7541.
6 Appendix A to these comments provides a list of references to studies that review the impact of lubricants
and oils on the performance of various emission control technologies and "Emission-Related Components."
[See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1651-A2, pages 8-9, for Appendix A.]
7 Proposal at 26124-26125. "The emission-related warranty also covers other added emission-related
components to the extent they are included in your application for certification, and any other components
whose failure would increase a vehicle's C02 emissions."
Lubrizol strongly urges EPA to include language in the Final Rule that will achieve this goal.
For example, EPA could require emissions-related warranties to include regular service intervals
for oil changes, as well as require that engines are consistently using the appropriate higher-
performing lubricant oil for each particular engine - at all times throughout its useful life. Such
specified lubricants would provide the engine with the appropriate level of performance, engine
protection, and protection of emission control technology, according to objective characteristics
as determined by the OEMs. These characteristics could be in the form of an OEM performance
specification or an industry category defined by an entity like the American Petroleum Institute
(API) or the European Automobile Manufacturers' Association (ACEA), along with a maximum
viscosity level. (As we have stated in previous comment letters, and to be clear, Lubrizol does
not suggest that EPA should specify particular lubricant brands or servicing locations as a
warranty requirement.) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1651-A2, p. 4]
OEMs already use these higher performing lubricants in the development and certification of
their powertrain systems. They rely on them to demonstrate that their engines will meet EPA's
requirements throughout the full useful life of their engines and emissions systems. By requiring
OEMs to take steps to ensure that the same category and maximum viscosity level that is used
for certification and initial fill is used when the vehicle is serviced to maintain vehicle
powertrains, engines, emission control technologies, and Emissions-Related Components," EPA
will help ensure that engines maintain their emissions durability throughout their useful life,
thereby helping to ensure that real world emissions remain at the levels EPA seeks to achieve in
the Final Rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1651-A2, p. 4]
In addition, Lubrizol urges EPA to require OEMs to communicate important maintenance
information related to engine oils and lubricants to their customers in three ways. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1651-A2, p. 4]
First, EPA should require OEMs to include maintenance information related to engine oils
and lubricants in their owner's manuals. The owner's manual is relied upon by heavy-duty
vehicle owners or operators to describe appropriate engine maintenance, applicable warranties,
and any other information related to operating or maintaining the engine or vehicle. By requiring
information about the minimum lubricant and oil performance specifications in the owner's
manual, EPA will be taking an important step towards reducing mal-maintenance, better service
experiences for independent repair technicians, specialized repair technicians, owners who repair
their own equipment, and possibly vehicle inspection and maintenance technicians. Most
important, we believe that this step will provide greater assurance of long-term in-use emission
1308
-------
reductions by reducing likelihood of occurrences of tampering. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1651-A2, pp. 4-5]
Second, Lubrizol urges EPA to require lubricant specification information on an engine label
that is placed at the appropriate place in the engine compartment. The agency has had similar
requirements in the past, such as when EPA required vacuum hose diagrams to be included on
the emission labels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1651-A2, p. 5]
Third, both the owner's manual and engine label should include an internet link that would
enable owners or operators to obtain this information online. For example, manufacturers could
include a Quick Response Code or "QR Code" in the owner's manual and on the emission label
that would direct repair technicians, owners, and inspection and maintenance facilities to a
website which provides critical emissions systems information at no cost. This information
should include engine-specific lubricant requirements, including the recommended lubricant,
service intervals, and other relevant information that is necessary to ensure that the correct high-
performing lubricant is used throughout the engine's useful life. Providing this information will
help ensure that the engine and emissions control systems are adequately protected during all
modes of operation throughout their useful lives. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1651-A2, p. 5]
Organization: Odyne Systems LLC
Odyne supports efforts by the EPA to reduce medium and heavy-duty vehicle GHG
emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1623-A1, p. 1]
Ensure delegated assembly can be used to transfer credits to truck chassis OEMs by
intermediate or final stage manufacturers that install emissions reduction components and
systems, such as PHEV and ePTO systems.
Trucks are built in a multi-stage manufacturing process. Chassis manufacturers may not be
aware of the final application or truck configuration when the truck is built initially, making it
difficult to know whether to install an ePTO. Later in the vehicle manufacturing process, after
the application has been determined, intermediate-stage or final-stage manufacturers may install
ePTO or PHEV systems that reduce GHGs. To encourage the installation of ePTO and PHEV
systems on incomplete vehicles at other vehicle manufacturing stages, the regulatory benefits for
those systems need to accrue to the chassis OEM through delegated assembly provisions or some
other method. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1623-A1, p. 3]
Ensure that testing requirements for ePTO systems are effective and streamlined to encourage
greater use of ePTO technology. Streamlined, effective, and affordable verification requirements
will help ePTO system manufacturers sell systems enabling trucks to meet more stringent GHG
regulations. Required test procedures that are too expensive, narrow, or complex can
unnecessarily impede the sale and use of effective emission-reducing products for trucks. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1623-A1, p. 4]
Increase credits for ePTO systems that reduce GHG and NOx emissions over a wider variety
of use cases and duty cycles.
Electric power take-off systems that reduce emissions over a wider variety of use cases and
duty cycles should be given greater regulatory benefit over less capable systems. Specifically,
charge-depleting ePTO systems that also reduce emissions through hybrid ePTO operation once
1309
-------
batteries become depleted should be given greater regulatory credit than systems that don't
effectively function if not plugged in or if batteries become depleted. Some ePTO systems will
not provide GHG reductions if not plugged in or if batteries need recharging in the field due to
depletion from atypically large amounts of energy use at worksites or extended mutual aid events
where the grid is unavailable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1623-A1, p. 4]
Organization: Volvo Group
NOx regulation impacts on engine greenhouse gas emissions
With respect to the engine standards, EPA's stringency setting for the 2027 model year did
not provide any consideration for EPA's new NOx standards within the Clean Trucks Plan
finalized in December of last year. This regulation includes an 82.5% greater stringency in NOx
in 2027 in addition to increased useful life and warranty periods, resulting in the need to provide
a significantly higher margin on certified engine levels to meet those extended useful life
periods. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1606-A1, p. 14]
Reductions in NOx have a direct impact on greenhouse gas emissions for compression
ignition combustion engine technology. NOx can be mitigated with on-engine technologies or
aftertreatment devices. Engine based NOx reduction is achieved by reducing peak temperature
during combustion, inherently less efficient combustion by modifying fueling such as retarding
timing or increasing exhaust gas recirculation. Aftertreatment systems have grown in volume
significantly also, requiring advanced reductant mixing geometries and complex packaging, all
increasing exhaust backpressure which further decreases engine efficiency. Additionally, the
aftertreatment system must be warmed to enable chemical reactions to reduce NOx, and the
warming of the catalyst via any means requires fuel energy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1606-
Al, p. 14]
The key technology required to achieve 2027 NOx emission levels could increase actual fuel
consumption up to 25% for some applications, with vehicles in all applications experiencing
some level of increased fuel consumption. Today's diesel engines are very advanced in
technology and further refinements are planned. However, many OEMs are approaching 50%
brake thermally efficient capable engines and are near the theoretical limit of the capabilities of a
combustion engine. Therefore, any further engine specific requests for reduction in greenhouse
gas emissions or increase in fuel economy will not be reliable, cost effective or even theoretically
possible if we maintain the requirement to comply with ultra-low NOx emission requirements.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1606-A1, p. 14]
In summation, Volvo Group firmly supports EPA's proposal not to promulgate additional
engine standards beyond the 2027 model year standards finalized with Phase 2. We believe this
is justified given the Clean Trucks Plan's significant impact on fuel economy and greenhouse gas
performance that will need to be clawed back just to meet the Phase 2 MY 2027 National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and EPA fuel economy (FE) and greenhouse
gas standards. Additionally, as the Phase 2 and proposed Phase 3 benefits are calculated solely
on a complete vehicle level, separate engine standards provide no additional benefit; rather they
artificially inflate costs and unreliability by forcing technologies onto the engine, as opposed to
allowing manufacturers to utilize potentially lower cost and risk technologies on the vehicle that
provide the same, or greater benefit. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1606-A1, p. 14-15]
1310
-------
EPA Summary and Response:
Summary:
A number of commenters noted the importance of fuel additives and high quality lubricants to
the performance of both ICE and ZEV vehicles. (American Chemistry Council Fuel Additives
Task Force, American Chemical Council Product Approval). Lubrizol made the same points, but
offered detailed suggestions of how use of high quality lubricants could be incorporated into the
commercial, and potentially regulatory, warranty process. Specifically,
"Under Section 207 of the Clean Air Act, OEMs are required to provide emissions-related
warranties.5 These warranties are typically limited to the Emissions-Related Components that
are listed in 40 C.F.R. Part 1068, Appendix I. However, using the appropriate lubricant or oil is
critical to the performance of many of the components on the Appendix I list. Thus, while we
recognize that these warranties would not require specific oils or lubricants to be used, we do
believe that OEMs can and should require their customers to use the same or higher quality oil or
lubricant that was used by the OEM in its certification testing as part of their warranty
requirements to protect their Emissions-Related Components. This can be accomplished by
adding lubricants or engine oils to the list of covered components in the proposed new language
for 40 C.F.R. Section 1037.120(c)... Because the use of a sub-standard lubricant or engine oil
would deviate from the lubricant or oil used in the OEM's certification application and could
lead to increased C02 emissions, it should not be allowed to be used under the OEM's
emissions-related warranties."
Lubrizol then offered suggestions as to how EPA could effectuate this goal:
"EPA could require emissions-related warranties to include regular service intervals for oil
changes, as well as require that engines are consistently using the appropriate higher-performing
lubricant oil for each particular engine - at all times throughout its useful life. Such specified
lubricants would provide the engine with the appropriate level of performance, engine protection,
and protection of emission control technology, according to objective characteristics as
determined by the OEMs. These characteristics could be in the form of an OEM performance
specification or an industry category defined by an entity like the American Petroleum Institute
(API) or the European Automobile Manufacturers' Association (ACEA), along with a maximum
viscosity level.
In addition, Lubrizol urges EPA to require OEMs to communicate important maintenance
information related to engine oils and lubricants to their customers in three ways:
"First, EPA should require OEMs to include maintenance information related to engine oils
and lubricants in their owner's manuals.. ..
Second, Lubrizol urges EPA to require lubricant specification information on an engine label
that is placed at the appropriate place in the engine compartment. The agency has had similar
requirements in the past, such as when EPA required vacuum hose diagrams to be included on
the emission labels. ...
Third, both the owner's manual and engine label should include an internet link that would
enable owners or operators to obtain this information online."
1311
-------
Odyne requested that EPA's delegated assembly rules or some other methods be used to
transfer credits to truck chassis OEMs by the intermediate or final assembler where ePTO or
PHEV are installed. Odyne described that chassis manufacturers may not be aware of the final
application or truck configuration before they ship the chassis for the next stage of
manufacturing, and that downstream or secondary manufacturers are in a better position to
determine the application and decide whether to install ePTO or PHEV systems that reduce GHG
emissions. Odyne advocated for allowing those secondary manufacturers to gain regulatory
benefits from installing ePTO and PHEV systems to encourage greater use of those technologies.
Odyne stated that required test procedures are too expensive, narrow, or complex, which can
unnecessarily impede the sale and use of emission-reducing products for trucks. Odyne
advocated for more effective and streamlined testing requirements to encourage greater use of
ePTO technology.
Odyne also noted that some ePTO and PHEV systems are able to effectively reduce GHG and
NOx emissions even when their battery is depleted, and that these systems should have more
credit-generating recognition than ePTO and PHEV systems which are less effective in depleted
battery mode.
Volvo supported EPA's proposal not to increase the Phase 2 engine standards, noting that
increased engine standards stringency would be especially problematic given the need to achieve
the recent HD2027 NOx standards.
Response:
Lubrizol's comment is out of scope. We note that their comment suggests that they would like
to ensure more frequent oil changes, but EPA's minimum maintenance intervals do not serve that
purpose. Rather, we are specifying minimum maintenance intervals to prevent the manufacturers
from creating unrealistic expectations for maintenance from users beyond what is necessary for
maintenance and at intervals that would be less likely to occur in-use. Furthermore, we also note
that lubricants are a consumable product and are not considered to be components.
Regarding the comments on the importance of fuel additives and high-quality lubricants, the
existing requirements in 40 CFR 1037.135(c)(7) require the label to include this information:
"Identify any requirements for fuel and lubricants that do not involve fuel-sulfur levels."
In addition, existing 40 CFR 1036.135(d) and 40 CFR 1037.135(d), state that the label may
include any additional information to ensure that the engine and vehicle will be properly
maintained.
With these existing requirements we believe that users have the information needed to ensure
that the correct fuel additive and lubricants are used. While outside the scope of this rulemaking,
we also note that we disagree that lubricants should be included in the list of covered
components in 40 CFR 1037.120(c).
Regarding commenters requests for revisions to delegated assembly or other provisions, these
requested revisions are outside the scope of this rulemaking. We note that, under the current
regulations, EPA adopted provisions for delegated assembly at 40 CFR 1037.621 and for
partially complete vehicles at 40 CFR 1037.622 in recognition of multiple manufacturers
sequentially producing vehicles in a certified configuration. In all cases, we depend on the
certifying manufacturer to properly account for all emission-related features in the
1312
-------
documentation for certification. This includes nine months after the end of the model year to
track all adjustments and additions at different stages of manufacturing before delivery to the
ultimate purchaser, resulting in a credit report that properly describes how the certifying
manufacturer complies with emission standards. In the case of delegated assembly at 40 CFR
1037.621, the original manufacturer ensures that secondary manufacturers take necessary steps
to finish vehicle assembly in a way that conforms to the original manufacturer's plans as
documented in their compliance demonstration. In the case of provisions for partially complete
vehicles at 40 CFR 1037.622, we allow original manufacturers to shift all the compliance
obligations to a secondary manufacturer. In either case, the certifying manufacturer has the
obligation to comply based on the final vehicle configuration. We note that any future
consideration of revisions to the existing provisions would likely involve evaluation of
requirements needed to ensure EPA could accurately quantify credits for incremental technology
improvements and have compliance oversight to ensure that the secondary manufacturer is
properly executing their responsibilities for the emission controls they are adding. For example,
without certification there would be no mechanism for recalling defective systems.
EPA adopted the current test procedures through a rulemaking process that included
engagement with and consideration of submitted comments from stakeholders. The procedures
as adopted are targeted to achieve effective measurements for evaluating the performance of
vehicles and vehicle systems in determining whether vehicles meet emission standards. Odyne
expressed dissatisfaction with EPA's published procedures, but failed to make any specific
suggestions. We continue to be open to feedback on suggested changes to measurement
procedures for potential consideration in future rulemakings.
1313
-------
10 ABT Program
10.1 General ABT
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Advanced Engine Systems Institute (AESI)
EPA should maintain the off-cycle credit procedures that encourage innovation in technology,
opening additional pathways which include increasingly cost-effective solutions that have not
been validated yet in the market. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1600-A1, p. 2]
Organization: Allergy & Asthma Network et al.
EPA Should Ensure Real-World Benefits
We have also noted that even when vehicle manufacturers comply with the rules on paper,
there remains the possibility of cheating or tampering with emissions controls for any non-zero-
emission vehicle. The stronger the final standards and the more of a nationwide transition to
zero-emission heavy-duty vehicles results from them, the lower the possibility of tampering with
gas- or diesel-powered vehicle pollution controls. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1532-A1, p. 4]
Organization: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE)
EPA should ensure that credits from Phase 2 do not undermine the Phase 3 standards
Manufacturers' credits carried over from the Phase 2 program could substantially affect the
efficacy of Phase 3. The proposal states: "In considering feasibility of the proposed standards,
EPA also considers the impact of available compliance flexibilities on manufacturers'
compliance options" (FR 26002). Yet EPA has not offered any projection of the credit balances
to be carried over from Phase 2 to Phase 3, much less indicated how these credits might affect
the levels of electrification achieved or the potential for backsliding on ICEV emissions under
the proposed standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1560-A1, p. 17]
For the final rule, EPA should present its analysis of likely credit balances in Phase 3 and
adjust the stringency of the standards accordingly to ensure they deliver the intended C02
reductions and technology advancement under the program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1560-
Al, p. 17]
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
2. Standards for Qualifying Small Businesses
Affected pages: 26022 and 26124 (1037.150(c))
The NPRM proposes the following language:
1314
-------
"(v) Small manufacturers may bank emission credits only by certifying all their vehicle
families within a given averaging set to the Phase 3 standards that apply for the current model
year." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1591-A1, p.27]
CARB staff suggests adding the limitation that small manufacturers certified to the Phase 3
custom chassis standards are not eligible to bank credit. The existing Phase 2 GHG regulation
does not allow manufacturers who certify to the custom chassis standards to bank or trade
emission credits. Therefore, this limitation should also apply to small manufacturers certified to
the custom chassis standards. Banking credit under an exemption allowing the weaker custom
chassis standards could inadvertently create windfall credits from vehicles that would barely
meet or not at all meet the governing vocational standards if that same vehicle were produced by
a large manufacturer. While allowing flexibility for the small manufacturers, CARB staff
encourages U.S. EPA to not erode the stringency of the program by also awarding bankable
credits on top of the direct flexibility of the custom chassis provision. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1591-A1, p.27]
Organization: Clean Air Task Force et al.
2. The averaging, banking, and trading program continues to be an important way for
manufacturers to maintain flexibility in meeting EPA's greenhouse gas emission standards.
Like its Phase 1 and Phase 2 HD GHG emission standards, and standards for certain criteria
HD emissions dating back to 1985, EPA's proposed standards rely on an ABT approach
allowing manufacturers to meet the standards by averaging emissions across subcategories of
their HD vehicles. EPA has employed similar approaches in certain standards issued under
section 202 of the Clean Air Act since 1983, including in its light-duty vehicle GHG standards
beginning in 2010. Given its longstanding use of this approach under section 202, EPA's
proposal emphasizes that EPA is "not reopening the general availability of ABT" or the general
structure of the compliance provisions it uses to enforce and implement the ABT approach. 88
Fed. Reg. at 25952 n.211; id. at 26008 n.567. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 16]
We agree with EPA's determination that there is no reason to reopen the question whether it
is permissible to use an ABT approach under section 202. EPA has not only repeatedly used
ABT in section 202 standards but also repeatedly explained that ABT is consistent with and
gives full effect to the requirements of section 202 as well as the Clean Air Act's compliance and
enforcement provisions applicable to standards issued under section 202. Under such
circumstances, it is eminently reasonable for EPA not to reconsider a question that has been
settled for decades. See Growth Energy v. EPA, 5 F.4th 1, 13 (D.C. Cir. 2021).
Organization: Colorado Department of Transportation et al
• EPA requested comment on the use of credits, including consideration of a program
similar to CARB's ACT credit provisions. Aligning with the ACT rule can help ensure
consistency, and avoid weakening the effectiveness of the rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1530-A1, pp. 2-3]
1315
-------
Organization: Eaton
While existing technologies offer multiple pathways to compliance, the EPA should maintain
the off-cycle credits procedures that encourage innovation in technology, opening additional
pathways and allow for increasingly cost-effective solutions that have not been validated yet in
the market or not yet realized. As was the case with previous regulations, once the first
generation of new technology was introduced, driven by increasingly stringent limits, the market
learned and quickly corrected issues while also significantly reduced costs. Therefore, it is key to
the success of the regulations to maintain flexibility in the form of ABT credits as well as off-
cycle credits. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1556-A1, p. 6]
Organization: Environmental Defense Fund (EPF)
b) EPA Properly Decided Not to Reopen its Longstanding Use of Averaging, Banking, and
Trading in its Rules
EPA has used an ABT approach in standards for light- and heavy-duty vehicles since the
1980s, including the Phase 1 and Phase 2 medium- and heavy-duty GHG rules that this proposal
builds upon.28 Within this decades-long history, EPA has repeatedly explained why such an
approach is reasonable and consistent with the text of Section 202.29 Based on EPA's settled and
longstanding use of ABT in its Section 202 rules and ABT's well-established basis in the statute,
the agency's decision not to reopen "the general availability of ABT" is reasonable.30 [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985- 1644-A1, p. 14]
28 76 Fed. Reg. 57106, 57127-28 (Sept. 15, 2011) (HD Phase 1 GHG standards); 81 Fed. Reg. 73428,
73495 (Oct. 25, 2016) (HD Phase 2 GHG standards).
29 See, e.g., 55 Fed. Reg. 30584, 30593-94 (1990) (EPA explaining in the context of its 1990 programs for
HD banking and trading of NOx and particulate matter why it "continues to believe . . . that trading and
banking are consistent with the statutory aims").
30 88 Fed. Reg. 25952 n. 211.
Organization: Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association (MECA)
Off-Cycle Provisions for Innovative Technologies
MECA strongly supports the generation of credits through the off-cycle provisions for
innovative technologies so manufacturers can deploy all possible technologies to address the
C02 emission limits. The value of the credits must be verified by actual technology testing
submitted to EPA. We believe that in the absence of advanced technology credit multipliers, a
broader range of advanced technologies will see greater implementation by manufacturers to
ensure their compliance. For this reason, MECA believes off-cycle provisions should be retained
as an option under a performance-based regulatory framework. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1521-A1, p. 10]
Organization: Navistar, Inc.
Navistar supports EPA's proposal to include ABT provisions, which provides manufacturers
the flexibility necessary to meet the proposed GHG standards.
1316
-------
Averaging, banking and trading ('ABT') provisions provide manufacturers with the needed
flexibility to plan investments and manage product costs, while at the same time meeting
stringent GHG standards. Heavy-duty commercial fleets are incredibly diverse. Navistar's
customers have an enormous variety of applications and we essentially produce custom vehicles
for their use in large quantities. This means the engineering task of creating the right zero
emissions vehicle for a particular application is an achievable, but still very significant task.
Many fleets are confronted with the challenge of upgrading their charging infrastructure while at
the same time considering investments in new diesel vehicles. The proposed rule's ABT
provisions provide manufacturers a degree of flexibility necessary to meet the diverse range of
heavy-duty applications and customer needs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1527-A1, p. 4]
Navistar agrees with EPA's statements on the importance of providing manufacturers with
compliance flexibilities through the inclusion of ABT provisions. Specifically, EPA stated that
the 'proposed performance-based standards with ABT provisions give manufacturers a degree of
flexibility in the design of specific vehicles and their fleet offerings, while allowing industry
overall to meet the standards and thus achieve the health and environmental benefits projected
for this rulemaking.' 88 Fed. Reg. at 26002. EPA noted further that it has considered:
• [T]he averaging portion of the ABT program in the feasibility assessments for previous
rulemakings and continues that practice here. We also continue to acknowledge that the
other provisions in ABT that provide manufacturers additional flexibility also support the
feasibility of the proposed standards. By averaging across vehicles in the vehicle
averaging sets and by allowing for credit banking across years, manufacturers have the
flexibility to adopt emissions-reducing technologies in the manner that best suits their
particular market and business circumstances. ... It is clear that manufacturers are widely
utilizing several of the credit programs available, and we expect that manufacturers will
continue to take advantage of the compliance flexibilities and crediting programs to their
fullest extent, thereby providing them with additional tools in finding the lowest cost
compliance solutions in light of the proposed standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1527-A1, p. 4]
88 Fed. Reg. at 26002 (emphasis added). Flexibility is particularly important in the early years
of this rule. In Navistar's view, that is the period most likely to be impacted by infrastructure
shortfalls. Flexibility is needed to allow infrastructure to reach a certain scale, such as the
availability of public charging on key transportation routes or concentrations of key depot
charging availability. Public charging infrastructure is particularly significant and must come
first to give fleets that operate over long-distance routes the confidence to electrify their fleets.
Maximum flexibility is necessary, both in time and across vehicle categories. We strongly
encourage EPA to expand the flexibilities in the proposed rule to allow manufacturers and,
crucially, customers who will need to develop the necessary infrastructure to be able to manage
through balancing across averaging sets and model years with enough flexibility to mitigate
potential issues outside of the control of the manufacturer and customer, particularly
infrastructure development. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1527-A1, pp. 4-5]
Organization: Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
CARB Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT) Rule - The EPA GHG Phase 3 regulation, like the
current Phase 2 rule, is a national requirement on vehicle OEMs to sell vehicles across all 50
1317
-------
States that comply, in the aggregate, with a set of stringent GHG standards. The regulations
require OEMs to track all sales and to "score" each vehicle type for its GHG performance. The
aggregated scores are submitted annually to EPA to demonstrate compliance with the
regulation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 49]
California will be implementing a ZEV-truck sales mandate, the Advanced Clean Trucks
(ACT) Rule, starting in 2024. Other states are adopting that regulation as well. The ACT
regulation will mandate a yearly increase in the percentage of trucks sold that must be
ZEVs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 50]
EPA has requested comment on the interaction between the two regulations when it comes to
the tracking and reporting of vehicle sales and the associated credits and debits that are earned by
each. EMA sees the regulations as being distinct. Both regulations require the tracking of
vehicles and reporting of all vehicles sold, either at a national or state level (for California and all
other states that adopted the ACT regulation). There is no necessary interaction between the
regulations. The sales at a state level, regardless of the state, contribute to the total sold within
the U.S. based on the structure of these regulations. EMA believes there is no need for any
regulatory ties between them. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 50]
EPA Summary and Response:
Summary:
ACEEE requested that EPA provide information regarding the credit balances it projects will
be carried over from Phase 2 to Phase 3 and that EPA adjust the stringency of the standards in
the final rule to account for those credits.
Allergy & Asthma Network et al. also expressed concern with ICE emission controls
tampering and states that a "nationwide transition" to ZEVs lowers the possibility of tampering.
CARB noted that the proposed interim provision (40 CFR 1037.150(c)(2)) allowing small
business manufacturers to continue to be subject to the Phase 2 MY 2027 and later standards did
not include a limitation on the use of ABT if those small business manufacturers certified to
custom chassis standards. CARB pointed out that the custom chassis provisions for vocational
vehicles in 40 CFR 1037.105(h) disallows banking and trading of credits from vehicles certified
to the custom chassis standards and they requested the same limitation apply to small business
manufacturers certifying custom chassis vehicles.
Clean Air Task Force et al. agreed with EPA's decision not to reopen the general ABT in this
proposal and agreed that EPA adequately justified its use of the ABT approach for the proposed
standards. Clean Air Task Force et al. also provided a history of EPA's use of ABT in previous
rules and suggested EPA could further note the existing regulations that already provide a more
detailed description of how ABT relates to the CAA testing, certification, warranty, in-use
compliance, and penalty provisions.
Colorado Department of Transportation et al. commented that aligning with the credit
program of the ACT rule can "ensure consistency, and avoid weakening the effectiveness of the
rule".
EDF noted EPA's long history of using ABT in its rulemakings and commented that EPA's
decision not to reopen the availability of ABT was "reasonable".
1318
-------
Navistar commented in support of EPA's continued use of ABT, noting that the ABT
provisions are a necessary flexibility for manufacturers to plan investments, manage costs, and
meet the "diverse range of heavy-duty applications and customer needs". Navistar noted that
ABT will be particularly important in the early years of the rule when infrastructure is growing
and fleets are gaining confidence in the new vehicles. Navistar encouraged EPA to expand the
flexibilities to across averaging sets and model years.
AESI, Eaton, and MECA expressed support for existing off-cycle credit provisions.
EMA commented that there is no need for a regulatory tie between the ACT regulation and a
future federal regulation in terms of sales and credit reporting. They also state: "The sales at a
state level, regardless of the state, contribute to the total sold within the U.S. based on the
structure of these regulations."
Response:
We note that some of the general comments in this Section 10.1 referred to credit multipliers
and averaging sets, which we respond to in more detail in Section 10.3 of this Response to
Comment document.
Without reopening the general issue of necessity for ABT programs, we appreciate the
comments from Clean Air Task Force et al., Eaton, EDF, and Navistar in acknowledging the
continued value of our ABT provisions. , We share Allergy & Asthma Network et al.'s concern
over tampering and agree that reducing the number of HD ICE vehicles in use would reduce the
number of HD vehicles available for conventional tampering methods; however, we remind the
commenter that we are finalizing performance-based standards and manufacturers can choose to
comply with a mix of technologies that may continue to include HD ICE vehicles.
ACEEE requested that EPA share a projection of credits that manufacturers will have
available in MY 2027 and that the agency consider available credits when setting the stringency
of MY 2027 and later standards. While we do have record of manufacturers' credit balances for
the current model year, we do not have sufficient information to make an accurate projection of
how manufacturers will apply those credits moving forward. We have considered the potential
for large credit balances to be carried over from Phase 2 into Phase 3 as a result of the Phase 2
credit multipliers, which informed some of the restrictions we are applying for credits from
multipliers in Section 10.3 of this Response to Comment document. As described in Section II.G
of the Preamble to this final rule, and Section 10.2.1 of this RTC document, we considered
averaging in setting the emission standards for previous rulemakings and continue that practice
in this rule. While we also considered the existence of other aspects of the ABT program (e.g.,
banking, trading) as supportive of the feasibility of the Phase 3 GHG standards, we did not rely
on those other aspects in justifying the feasibility of the standards.
Regarding the Colorado DOT et al. comment about aligning with CARB's ACT credit
provisions, the commenter did not provide enough specificity for the aspects of the CARB
program with which they wish EPA to align. See Section 2 of this RTC document for comments
and responses relating to other considerations of CARB ACT provisions and other incentive
programs and see Section 10.3.2 for comments and our response relating to CARB's weight class
modifiers for the ACT program.
1319
-------
CARB's request to restrict small manufacturers from banking and trading credits generated
from certifying custom chassis vehicles is outside the scope of this rulemaking. CARB correctly
noted that the broader custom chassis provisions (specifically 40 CFR 1037.105(h)(2)) disallow
banking and trading of custom chassis credits. However, in Phase 2, we explicitly provided
qualifying small manufacturers the flexibility to bank and trade from any averaging set (See 81
FR 73688 and 74061, October 25, 2016). In this rulemaking, we did not reopen these existing
provisions for qualifying small manufacturers in this rulemaking and thus the existing Phase 2
provisions' flexibilities for qualifying small manufacturers continue to apply. We may consider
new or revised small business provisions and flexibilities in a future rulemaking.
We appreciate AESI's, Eaton's, and MECA's support for the off-cycle credit provisions. We
did not reopen the existing off-cycle credit provisions in the proposed rule and manufacturers
will continue to have the option to pursue off-cycle credits for future advanced technologies.
10.2 ABT in Setting Standards
10.2.1 Fleet averaging methodology
Comments by Organizations
Organization: American Free Enterprise Chamber of Commerce (AmFree) et al.
BACKGROUND
A. Clean Air Act Section 202 And EPA's Fleetwide-Averaging Approach
Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to promulgate "standards applicable to
the emission of any air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor
vehicle engines, which in [EPA's] judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may
reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare." 42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(1). Those
standards must apply to "such vehicles and engines for their useful life." Id. The standards
cannot take effect until "after such period as [EPA] finds necessary to permit the development
and application of the requisite technology, giving appropriate consideration to the cost of
compliance within such period," id. § 7521(a)(2)— commonly known as the "feasibility"
requirement. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1660-A1, pp. 6-7]
EPA has previously invoked its Section 202(a) authority to set maximum motor-vehicle
emission levels for criteria pollutants (i.e., pollutants for which minimum acceptable standards
have been established, such as particulate matter, ozone, and nitrogen oxides)—and, more
recently, for greenhouse gases ("GHGs"). See Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 532 (2007).
But instead of prescribing maximum levels of particular pollutants that each vehicle within a
covered "class" may emit, in prior regulations EPA has set maximum fleetwide-average
emission levels, which consider a manufacturer's fleet collectively. 40 C.F.R. §§ 1037.701(a),
1037.710(a)-(b). EPA annually determines each manufacturer's compliance with those
fleetwide-average standards, issuing "deficits" (resulting in civil penalties) to manufacturers
whose fleets fail these average standards and "credits" to those whose fleets emit less than EPA
allows. Id. §§ 1037.241(a), 1037.710(c); see id. § 1068.101(a)(1). Credits can be used
immediately to offset deficits in a manufacturer's other fleets, "banked" to offset deficits in
1320
-------
future years, or"trad[ed] . . . between manufacturers." Id. §§ 1037.710(a), 1037.715(a),
1037.720(a). EPA refers to this approach as its "averaging, banking, and trading (ABT)
program." 88 Fed. Reg. at 25,929. This regulatory creation largely mirrors the system Congress
enacted in the Corporate Average Fuel Economy provisions of the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1660-A1, p. 7]
B. The Proposed Heavy-Duty Rule
That fleetwide-averaging approach is at the heart of EPA's proposed rule at issue—which sets
stringent new GHG-emission standards for heavy-duty vehicles (such as delivery trucks, refuse
haulers, and buses) for model years 2027 and beyond, Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for
Heavy-Duty Vehicles—Phase 3, 88 Fed. Reg. 25,926 (Apr. 27, 2023)—and its parallel proposed
rule for light and medium-duty motor vehicles, Multi-Pollutant Emissions Standards for Model
Years 2027 and Later Light-Duty and Medium-Duty Vehicles, 88 Fed. Reg. 29,184 (May 5,
2023). Although prior EPA rules issued under Section 202 have employed fleetwide averaging—
including a light-duty motor-vehicle rule for earlier model years, currently being litigated, see
Texas v. EPA, No. 22-1031 (D.C. Cir.)—EPA's proposed Heavy-Duty and Light- and Medium-
Duty rules do so in a fundamentally different way to achieve a different end. Previously,
averaging was presented as merely a flexibility. Now, prompted by an Executive Order calling
for a massive shift to "zero-emission vehicles" by 2030 and directing EPA to undertake
rulemakings on these issues with that goal in mind, Exec. Order 14,037, 86 Fed. Reg. 43,583
(Aug. 5, 2021); see 88 Fed. Reg. at 25,929 & n.12, EPA openly seeks in both rules to shift a
substantial portion of motor-vehicle production toward vehicles that produce zero GHG
emissions in operation. Fleetwide averaging is the linchpin of that ambition—it is this that allows
EPA to reverse engineer its preferred outcomes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1660-A1, pp. 7-8]
To that end, the proposed Heavy-Duty rule would revise the existing GHG standards for
model year 2027 and introduce new standards for heavy-duty vehicles (varying by type and use)
for model years 2028 through 2032, which become more stringent each year. 88 Fed. Reg. at
25,929, 25,932. Although the proposed rule portrays those emission standards as "performance-
based" and as allowing manufacturers to choose which emissions-control technologies to adopt,
id. at 25,972, EPA has stated openly that it expects manufacturers to shift from internal-
combustion engines toward battery-electric or fuel-cell vehicles, id. at 25,932. By 2032, EPA
projects that 50 percent of vocational vehicles and 35 percent of day-cab tractors will be battery-
electric or fuel-cell vehicles, and that 25 percent of sleeper-cab tractors will be fuel-cell vehicles.
See id. at 25,933. In a break from its historic practice, EPA now overtly proposes to wield its
Section 202 authority over emission levels to mandate the adoption of alternatives to internal-
combustion engines—replacing pollutant-emitting motor vehicles that Section 202 governs with
other, non-emitting vehicles that the statute does not cover. The proposed Heavy-Duty rule seeks
to accomplish that unprecedented transformation on a highly compressed timeline, remaking the
heavy-duty sector within less than a decade. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1660-A1, p. 8]
EPA cannot justify the proposed rule's attempted transformation of the heavy-duty-vehicle
sector as an application of its fleetwide-averaging approach to emissions. Fleetwide averaging
itself contravenes the Clean Air Act. At a minimum, it is not clearly and unmistakably authorized
as a back-door means of remaking the auto industry, as the major-questions doctrine
requires. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1660-A1, p. 9]
B. EPA May Not Mandate Electrification Through Fleetwide Averaging
1321
-------
EPA has no clear congressional authorization for the proposed rule's electrification mandate.
Under Section 202 of the Clean Air Act, EPA may "prescribe . . . standards" applicable to GHG
emissions "from any class or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines" that
EPA determines "cause, or contribute to, air pollution." 42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(1); see also
Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 532 (2007); 74 Fed. Reg. 66,496 (Dec. 15, 2009). Section
202 specifies that "[s]uch standards shall be applicable to such vehicles and engines for their
useful life . . . whether such vehicles and engines are designed as complete systems or
incorporate devices to prevent or control such pollution." 42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(1). Nothing in the
statutory text clearly authorizes EPA to mandate a compulsory shift toward zero-emission
vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1660-A1, pp. 12 - 13]
EPA has attempted to ground its electrification mandate in its standard-setting authority under
Section 202 through fleetwide averaging. Averaging and its corollaries in EPA's ABT
program—crediting (whereby manufacturers can use "credits" generated for one fleet that
surpassed the emissions level to offset a deficit in another fleet), banking (saving credits earned
one year to offset deficits in future years), and trading (selling credits to competitors for
money)— are crucial to EPA's effort to mandate electrification. The proposed rule specifies
emissions standards that would operate not as maximum-emission thresholds for particular
pollutants that any individual vehicle must meet, but rather as fleetwide-average emission levels
that manufacturers' fleets must collectively satisfy. See 88 Fed. Reg. at 25,956 ("In this proposal,
we continue to expect averaging would play an important role in manufacturer strategies to meet
the proposed standards."). That averaging approach is essential to EPA's electrification mandate
because it plainly would not be feasible for EPA to set maximum permissible GHG emissions at
zero for individual vehicles: the "cost of compliance" with a zero-emissions mandate for every
heavy-duty vehicle would doom such a requirement. 42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(2). Instead, by
allowing lower-emitting vehicles in a manufacturer's fleet to offset higher-emitting vehicles (in
its own fleet or that of another manufacturer, through trading of credits), and by setting very
stringent fleetwide-average GHG-emission standards that no conventional motor vehicle could
satisfy, EPA's proposed rule forces manufacturers to produce a significant number of zero-
emission (i.e., electric) vehicles. See 88 Fed. Reg. at 26,002; see also id. at 26,015 ("BEVs and
PHEVs generate credits that can be traded among manufacturers and used to offset debits
generated by vehicles using other technologies that do not themselves meet the proposed
standards."). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1660-A1, p. 13]
The Clean Air Act, however, does not authorize EPA to employ that fleetwide- averaging
approach at all—much less with the unmistakable clarity the major-questions doctrine demands.
EPA's contrary interpretation has no foundation in the statutory text and would make a hash of
the statutory structure, which repeatedly uses language that makes sense only in the context of
emissions standards applicable to individual vehicles. Even if fleetwide averaging were
permissible as a general matter, it cannot be exploited to shoehorn zero-emission vehicles—i.e.,
vehicles that do not "cause, or contribute to, air pollution," 42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(1), and thus fall
outside Section 202 entirely—into the fleetwide-average calculation as a means of mandating
electrification. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1660-A1, p. 14]
1. The Clean Air Act Does Not Permit Fleetwide Averaging
Nothing in the text of Section 202 authorizes a fleetwide-averaging approach. To the contrary,
Section 202's relevant provision authorizes emissions standards for "any class or classes of new
1322
-------
motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines" that EPA determines "cause, or contribute to, air
pollution." 42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(1) (emphases added). Those standards must "be applicable to
such vehicles and engines for their useful life." Id. The text thus permits EPA to adopt a standard
applicable to all of the vehicles (or engines) in a particular class. Whatever discretion EPA may
exercise in defining a "class" of vehicles, the text requires standards for the vehicles in that class,
not for the class as a collective. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1660-A1, p. 14]
The absence of any affirmative authorization for fleetwide averaging should come as no
surprise because, as EPA acknowledged four decades ago, "Congress did not specifically
contemplate an averaging program when it enacted the Clean Air Act." 48 Fed. Reg. 33,456,
33,458 (July 21, 1983). EPA's entire averaging edifice is based on the purported fact that the Act
"does not explicitly preclude standards" based on fleetwide averaging. 54 Fed. Reg. 22,652,
22,665 (May 25, 1989) (emphasis added). Under the major-questions doctrine, however, the
absence of a statutory prohibition on the approach the agency seeks authority to pursue is
categorically insufficient: EPA needs "'clear congressional authorization' for the power it
claims," West Virginia, 142 S. Ct. at 2609 (citation omitted), not congressional silence on the
subject. Even outside of major- questions cases, congressional silence is not an invitation to
make things up. See Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper, Inc., 556 U.S. 208, 223 (2009) ("statutory
silence, when viewed in context," often is "best interpreted as limiting agency discretion"); Marx
v. Gen. Revenue Corp., 568 U.S. 371, 381 (2013) ("[I]t is fair to suppose that Congress
considered the unnamed possibility and meant to say no to it[.]" (citation omitted)); Univ. of
Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338, 353 (2013). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1660-A1,
pp. 14-15]
In any event, the Clean Air Act refutes EPA's view that Congress left the door open to
fleetwide averaging. Other provisions in Section 202 itself and Title II as a whole make clear that
fleetwide averaging is fundamentally incompatible with the statutory structure and design. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1660-A1, p. 15]
Other portions of Section 202 confirm Section 202(a)(1)'s focus on emission standards
applicable to individual vehicles. For example:
• Under 42 U.S.C. § 7521(b)(1)(A), the standards for light-duty vehicles and engines in
model years 1977-79 must provide that "emissions from such vehicles and engines may
not exceed 1.5 grams per vehicle mile of hydrocarbons and 15.0 grams per vehicle mile
of carbon monoxide." Id. (emphasis added). This provision contemplates that "such
vehicles"—i.e., individual light-duty vehicles—will not exceed these limits. Under an
averaging approach, however, individual vehicles would be permitted to exceed these
statutorily mandated standards.
• Similarly, 42 U.S.C. § 7521(b)(3) authorizes EPA to grant waivers from certain nitrogen-
oxide emission "standards," see id. § 7521(b)(1)(B), for no "more than 5 percent of [a]
manufacturer's production or more than fifty thousand vehicles or engines, whichever is
greater." Id. § 7521(b)(3). The provision thus provides a default rule under which every
vehicle must meet a per-vehicle emissions standard, then permits a waiver from that
default rule for up to 5 percent of the fleet. Averaging is inconsistent with this provision,
which depends on a set number of individual vehicles meeting the standards.
• And under 42 U.S.C. § 7521(m)(l), EPA must require manufacturers to install
"diagnostic systems" on "all" new light-duty vehicles and trucks that are capable of
1323
-------
identifying malfunctions that "could cause or result in failure of the vehicles to comply
with emission standards established under this section." Requiring diagnostic equipment
on "all" vehicles makes no sense on an averaging approach; each vehicle must have a
diagnostic system that ensures that vehicle's "compliance] with emission standards
established under [Section 202]," id., yet under EPA's averaging approach, no particular
vehicle need be in compliance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1660-A1, p. 15]
Beyond Section 202 itself, averaging is also deeply in tension with "the design and structure
of [Title II] as a whole." Util. Air, 573 U.S. at 321 (citation omitted). Consider Title II's
provisions addressing testing, warranties, and penalties:
• Testing. EPA must "test. . . any new motor vehicle or new motor vehicle engine" to
determine whether "such vehicle or engine" conforms with Section 202 emissions
standards. 42 U.S.C. § 7525(a)(1). If the "vehicle or engine conforms to such
regulations," EPA must issue the manufacturer a "certificate of conformity." Id. And a
manufacturer may not sell a vehicle or engine not "covered by a certificate of
conformity." Id. § 7522(a)(1). These provisions are not compatible with fleetwide-
averaging for at least two reasons: first, the use of singular terms "vehicle" and
"engine"—along with "any" and "such"—indicates that testing individual vehicles is
required; and second, EPA cannot determine compliance with Section 202 standards
before issuing a certificate of conformity—as the statute contemplates— under a
fleetwide-averaging approach. (Instead, conformity is determined at "the end of the
model year," when the manufacturer knows the quantity of "vehicles . . . produced in
each vehicle family during the model year." 40 C.F.R. §§ 1037.705(c), 1037.250(a))
• Warranties. Title II's warranty provisions require a manufacturer to "warrant to the
ultimate purchaser and each subsequent purchaser" "at the time of sale" that each new
vehicle complies with applicable Section 202 standards. 42 U.S.C. § 7541(a)(1). Under
an averaging approach, however, a manufacturer cannot determine compliance "at the
time of sale," because actual compliance with an average standard can be determined
only at year's end. Manufacturers may be able to make a rough predictive judgment ex
ante, but they would be effectively warranting an unknown.
• Penalties. Under 42 U.S.C. § 7524(a), any violation of applicable standards "shall
constitute a separate offense with respect to each motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine,"
with each offense subject to a civil penalty of up to $25,000. But under a fleetwide-
averaging approach, "each motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine" cannot violate
applicable emissions standards—only the fleet as a whole. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1660-A1, p. 16]
EPA also finds no quarter for fleetwide averaging in the case law. The best it can muster is a
single decision that found no "clear evidence that Congress meant to prohibit averaging."
Thomas, 805 F.2d at 425 (emphasis added); see 88 Fed. Reg. at 25,929 & n.9. But as explained
above, under the major-questions doctrine, the absence of a "clear" prohibition is irrelevant: on
the contrary, Congress must have specifically and clearly authorized the action. See West
Virginia, 142 S. Ct. at 2609. Moreover, the Thomas court recognized inconsistencies between
averaging and other statutory provisions, including Title II's "testing and certification provision,
42 U.S.C. § 7525," discussed above. 805 F.2d at 425 n.24. The court reserved judgment on that
issue only because "it was not raised by any party before the agency." Id. EPA's best (indeed,
1324
-------
only cited) case thus provides no support for construing Section 202 to authorize
averaging. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1660-A1, pp. 16 - 17]
2. EPA Cannot Use Fleetwide Averaging To Mandate Electrification
Even if Section 202 authorized fleetwide averaging in some circumstances, that approach
cannot be used, as EPA proposes, to blend together the emissions levels of conventional,
pollutant-emitting vehicles with vehicles that (according to EPA) emit zero pollutants. By its
terms, Section 202(a)(1) authorizes EPA to promulgate "standards applicable to the emission of
any air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines,
which in [its] judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution." 42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(1) (emphases
added). The text's focus on the "emission" of pollutants that "cause ... air pollution"
demonstrates that Congress intended to cover only vehicles that actually emit the relevant
pollutant—and to authorize EPA to set standards for the quantity of pollutants those vehicles
may acceptably emit. Nothing in the text authorizes EPA to dragoon heavy-duty vehicle
manufacturers into producing a separate line of vehicles that do not themselves emit the
regulated pollutant at all. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1660-A1, p. 17]
EPA has elsewhere contended that the statute's reference to "classes" of vehicles or engines
permits it to treat polluting and non-polluting vehicles on the same footing. See EPA Br. 76-78,
Texas, v. EPA, No. 22-1031 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 24, 2023). But that term cannot rescue EPA's flawed
interpretation. The relevant feature of a "class" of "motor vehicles" that "cause, or contribute to,
air pollution" is that the vehicles in the class all emit the relevant pollutant. 42 U.S.C. §
7521(a)(1). A vehicle that emits zero pollutants is necessarily not part of that class. Given EPA's
own assumption that electric vehicles do not emit pollutants, electric vehicles cannot be among
the "class or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines" that EPA may
consider in setting Section 202 standards and they therefore may not be factored into a fleetwide
average. If EPA were right, the relevant "category" EPA purports to be regulating would vanish
at the point when EPA reaches the President's goal that 100 percent of the heavy-duty fleet be
"zero-emissions vehicles." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1660-A1, pp. 17 - 18]
Organization: American Petroleum Institute (API)
iii. EPA has no authority under CAA §§ 202(a)(1) and (2) to establish emissions standards
based on the average performance of two emissions control technologies.
The Proposed Rule is fundamentally different from the Phase 1 and Phase 2 GHG standards
for heavy-duty vehicles in the manner in which the emission standards are established. EPA
explains that the prior Phase 2 GHG standards for HD vehicles were not premised on the
application of hybrid powertrains or ZEV technology. 88 Fed. Reg. at 25957. In contrast, the HD
3 proposal "include[s] both ICE vehicle and ZEV technologies." Id. at 25958. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1617-A1, p. 20]
In particular, averaging is incorporated into EPA's standard setting analysis in the Proposed
Rule. EPA for each model year and for each vehicle type conducts an analysis of what standards
could be met by traditional ICE vehicles and whether ZEVs are available for that model year for
that vehicle type and, if so, at what volume. EPA then proposes an emissions standard for each
model year and vehicle type that is a blended rate of the ICE value and the ZEV value (which is
1325
-------
presumed to be zero) that is based on EPA's projection of how much of the market could be met
withZEVs. Id. at 25991-2. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1617-A1, p. 21]
EPA asserts that it "has long included averaging provisions for complying with emission
standards in the HD program and in upholding the first HD final rule that included such a
provision the D.C. Circuit rejected petitioner's challenge in the absence of any clear evidence
that Congress meant to prohibit averaging." 88 Fed. Reg. at 25950. That is the only legal
justification EPA asserts for using averaging in standard setting. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1617-A1, p. 21]
The use of averaging in standard setting is legally flawed for two reasons. First, EPA's
asserted legal justification is inadequate. It is true that EPA has long used emissions averaging as
a compliance method under its vehicle emissions standards. But here EPA is doing more - EPA
uses averaging in setting the standards themselves. EPA provides no explanation of its legal
authority for this novel approach. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1617-A1, p. 21]
Second, and in any event, EPA does not have legal authority to consider emissions averaging
in standard setting. CAA § 202(a)(1) authorizes EPA to establish emission standards for
"classes" of motor vehicles. In this case, EPA has used emissions data from two distinctly
different classes of vehicles (ICE-powered vehicles and BEVs) in setting a single standard. That
exceeds EPA's authority under CAA § 202(a)(1). Moreover, using averaging is unreasonable
because there is no identifiable vehicle configuration that corresponds to EPA's proposed
standards. That means the industry as a whole would have to certify at least two fundamentally
different types of vehicles to satisfy the proposed standards. As a result, EPA is effectively
setting two different standards for the same pollutant for the same class of vehicles under the
guise of establishing a unitary standard for a single class of vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1617-A1, p. 21]
Furthermore, CAA § 202(a)(3)(A)(i) requires that HD standards reflect the "greatest degree of
emissions reduction achievable through the application of technology which the EPA determines
will be available." 42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(3)(A)(i). Congress specifically directed EPA to set
emissions for vehicles, not fleets of vehicles. Congress further required EPA to test these "motor
vehicles or motor vehicle engines" to ensure they "conform to the standards." 42 U.S.C. §
7525(a)(2); see also id. § 7525(a)(1) (requiring certificates of conformity for specific vehicles).
And Congress authorized EPA to grant waivers from certain nitrogen-oxide emissions standards
"of no more than 5 percent of [a] manufacturer's production or more than fifty thousand vehicles
or engines, whichever is greater." The testing of specific vehicles or engines and the presence of
the waiver provisions cannot be implemented as intended under an averaging structure in which
a significant portion of the fleet can be above the emissions standard so long as other vehicles
perform sufficiently well to create average compliance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1617-A1,
p. 21]
Organization: American Thoracic Society (ATS)
The ATS further recommends EPA use caution when adopting any fleet averaging
approaches. The ATS is concerned that if heavy duty truck manufacturers are allowed to meet
emission reductions requirements through averaging of emission over an entire fleet, it will
1326
-------
create perverse incentives for sellers and purchasers alike leading to a reduction in zero-emission
vehicle sales. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1517-A1, p. 4]
Organization: Clean Fuels Development Coalition et al.
B. EPA lacks clear authority to use fleetwide averaging.
The reality, moreover, is that Congress has expressly precluded EPA from using Section
202(a) to phase out internal-combustion vehicles. EPA achieves that result only by
misconstruing the standard-setting tools at its disposal. The text and structure of Section 202, and
of Title II more broadly, unambiguously require that emission standards under Section 202(a)
apply to individual vehicles, not to manufacturers' fleets on average. EPA claims to find
authority for fleetwide averaging in Section 202(a), which authorizes the agency to issue
"standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor
vehicles ... which in [its] judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger public health or welfare." 42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(1). This says nothing
about averaging across fleets. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1585-A1, p. 8]
EPA has already conceded as much. When the agency first adopted fleetwide averaging, it
recognized that "Congress did not specifically contemplate an averaging program when it
enacted the Clean Air Act." 48 Fed. Reg. 33,456, 33,458 (July 21, 1983). And "[j]ust as the
statute does not explicitly address EPA's authority to allow averaging, it does not address the
Agency's authority to permit banking and trading." 54 Fed. Reg. 22,652, 22,665 (May 25, 1989);
see also 55 Fed. Reg. 30,584, 30,593 (July 26, 1990) (same). That is the end of the analysis. The
statute does not "explicitly" allow averaging and so EPA lacks "clear congressional
authorization" to enact the proposal. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1585-A1, p. 9]
Indeed, even if the phasing out of the internal combustion engine were not a major question,
EPA's claim to authority here is unlawful. As discussed below, the Clean Air Act's text and
structure are incompatible with averaging (and banking and trading). But even on the terms EPA
itself has articulated, its interpretation is impermissible. When a statute "says nothing about" a
potential regulatory power, it "would be improper to conclude that what Congress omitted from
the statute is nevertheless within its scope." Univ. of Texas Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 570 U.S.
338, 353 (2013); see also Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper, Inc., 556 U.S. 208, 223 (2009)
("statutory silence, when viewed in context," is in many situations "best interpreted as limiting
agency discretion," not creating it). After all, "[a]n agency ... 'literally has no power to act' ...
unless and until Congress authorizes it to do so by statute." FEC v. Cruz, 142 S. Ct. 1638, 1649
(2022). And agencies no less than courts have a "duty to respect not only what Congress wrote
but, as importantly, what it didn't write." Va. Uranium, Inc. v. Warren, 139 S. Ct. 1894, 1900
(2019) (plurality op.). "And supplying the extra words 'on average' would have a significant
substantive effect: 'roller coaster riders must be 48 inches tall' means something very different
from 'roller coaster riders must be 48 inches tall on average.'" Opening Brief of Private
Petitioners at 41, Texas v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 22-1031). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1585-A1,
p. 9]
The inference against EPA's claim to be able to write into its authority a fleetwide averaging
power is especially strong because Congress knows full well how to create such a program—it
did so not only in EPCA, but also in other provisions of Title II of the Clean Air Act. See 2
1327
-------
U.S.C. § 7545(k)(l)(B)(v)(II) (directing EPA to take certain actions if "the reduction of the
average annual aggregate emissions of toxic air pollutants in a [designated district] fails to meet"
certain standards). Simply put: "if Congress had wanted to adopt an [averaging] approach" for
motor vehicle standards under Section 202(a), "it knew how to do so." SAS Inst., Inc. v. lancu,
138 S. Ct. 1348, 1351 (2018). That Congress didn't is dispositive. See Marx v. Gen. Revenue
Corp., 568 U.S. 371, 381 (2013) ("[I]t is fair to suppose that Congress considered the unnamed
possibility and meant to say no to it[.]"); Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16, 23 (1983);
Rotkiske v. Klemm, 140 S. Ct. 355, 360-361 (2019) ("Atextual judicial supplementation is
particularly inappropriate when, as here, Congress has shown that it knows how to adopt the
omitted language or provision ").6 To quote Justice Frankfurter: "It is quite impossible... when
Congress did specifically address itself to a problem.. .to find secreted in the interstices of
legislation the very grant of power which Congress consciously withheld." Youngstown Sheet &
Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 609 (1952) (Frankfurter, J., concurring) [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1585-A1, pp. 9 - 10]
6 At the very least, EPA should await the Supreme Court's decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v.
Raimondo (22-451), which will consider "[w]hether the Court should overrule Chevron or at least clarify
that statutory silence concerning controversial powers expressly but narrowly granted elsewhere in the
statute does not constitute an ambiguity requiring deference to the agency."
Add to this that the "silence" argument is simply not correct. That fleet-wide averaging is not
permitted—and is in fact forbidden—is confirmed by multiple parallel provisions from the Clean
Air Act. For example, the testing requirements that accompany the Section 202(b) standards
confirm that those standards apply to all vehicles individually. EPA must "test any emission
control system incorporated in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine ... to determine whether
such system enables such vehicle or engine to conform to the standards required to be prescribed
under [Section 202(b)]" 42 U.S.C. § 7525(a)(2). If the system complies with the testing, then
EPA must issue a "'verification of compliance with emission standards for such system." Id.
These provisions plainly require standards that apply to individual vehicles.7 The fundamental
premise of this testing regime is that a vehicle can meet individually applied emission standards.
Thus "the broader context of the statute as a whole," Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337,
341 (1997), confirms that EPA is out over its skis here. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1585-A1,
p. 10]
7 See also, Petitioners Brief, Texas et al. v. EPA et al., No. 22-1031 at 51-62 (D.C. Cir., Nov. 3, 2022)
(detailing myriad ways in which statutory text, structure, and related provisions confirm that fleetwide
averaging is not authorized).
C. Even if EPA could use fleetwide averaging, this cannot be used to force electrification.
Part of the reason EPA has traditionally been granted deference in its averaging schemes is
because the agency has historically used averaging as an accommodation to regulated parties,
allowing them flexibility that the statute does not in fact permit in exchange for setting standards
that themselves go beyond what is permissible. Thus, while some commentors have pointed out
the illegality of this scheme, vehicle manufacturers have not opposed EPA's averaging approach
because it provided them with the flexibility necessary to achieve otherwise unachievable
standards. But in this new proposal EPA is not offering an extra statutory accommodation, but is
instead taking an additional step away from the statutory text by using fleetwide averaging to
mandate electrification. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1585-A1, pp. 10-11]
1328
-------
In prior rules, the use of fleet-wide averaging meant that a vehicle manufacturer could comply
by making some vehicles that emitted more and others that emitted less. But the proposal is now
setting emissions standards in such a way that no fleet of internal combustion engine vehicles
can meet the standards. This means that averaging no longer provides flexibility, but instead
amounts to a de facto mandate to incorporate electric vehicles to comply with its proposed
standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1585-A1, p. 11]
When considering EPA's authority to use averaging, courts have consistently found important
that the averaging was a flexibility. See NRDC v. Thomas, 805 F.2d 410, 425 (D.C. Cir. 1986)
("EPA's argument that averaging will allow manufacturers more flexibility in cost allocation
while ensuring that a manufacturer's overall fleet still meets the emissions reduction standards
makes sense.") (emphasis added); White Stallion Energy Ctr., LLC v. EPA, 748 F.3d 1222, 1253
(D.C. Cir. 2014) (permitting averaging across multiple utility units under 42 U.S.C. § 7412(d)
because averaging is a "more flexible, and less costly alternative."). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1585-A1, p. 11]
But in the proposed rule averaging does not represent an "alternative" or "flexibility,"
rather—just as in the Clean Power Plan—it is deployed as a tool for reverse engineering a
preferred outcome by setting targets that cannot be achieved by disfavored fuel sources. "The
proposed C02 emission standards for each model year are calculated" by "projecting the]
fraction of ZEVs that emit zero grams C02/ton-mile at the tailpipe" and "by multiplying the
[remaining] fraction of ICE-powered vehicles in each technology package by the applicable
existing MY 2027 C02 emission standards." DRIA at 247-48. In other words, either a
manufacturer builds electric vehicles to comply with the standards or it goes out of business.
Even with extreme deference to an agency interpretation, this result is impermissible. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1585-A1, p. 11]
II. EPA lacks the Statutory Authority to Ignore Upstream Emissions for Electric Vehicles.
EPA has statutory authority to prescribe "standards applicable to the emission of any air
pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, which in
[its] judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to
endanger public health or welfare." 42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(1). This presents an interpretive
dilemma. On the one hand, if electric vehicles are not "vehicles" "which cause, or contribute to"
a given type of air pollution, then EPA may not set standards for them. Id. On the other, if
electric vehicles are "vehicles" "which cause, or contribute to" a given type of air pollution, then
EPA must set "standards applicable to the[ir] emissions." Id. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1585-
Al, p. 12]
The proposal tries to solve this problem by splitting the baby.8 EPA reasons that electric
vehicles are vehicles that "cause or contribute to air pollution," but EPA just chooses to set their
contribution to zero. This cannot be right. Cf. C.S. Lewis, That Hideous Strength 291 (Samizdat
ed., 2015) ("Just imagine a man who was too dainty to eat with his fingers and yet wouldn't use
forks!"). If electric vehicles truly emit no emissions, then they are not the sort of vehicle EPA
can regulate. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1585-A1, p. 12]
8 Of course, the point of the story about Solomon is that the baby wasn't split. See 1 Kings 3:16- 28 ("Give
the living child to the first woman, and by no means put him to death; she is his mother.").
1329
-------
Organization: Valero Energy Corporation
a) The statutory structure confirms EPA lacks statutory authority to use fleetwide averaging to
mandate ZEVs.
EPA's proposal would require electrification by setting average emission standards for
manufacturers' nationwide fleets and "averaging" in more and more zeros to represent the
electric vehicles it wants to see in future years. Manufacturers that exceed the standards may
bank credits and trade them to other manufacturers that fall short. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1566-A2, p. 64]
EPA relies on NRDC v. Thomas, 805 F.2d 410 (D.C. Cir. 1986), for the proposition that it is
authorized to average HDVs. That case found EPA could average a manufacturer's different
engine families. Id. at 425. It did so, however, with some caveats. First, its reasoning was based
on a deference to EPA's interpretation of the statute "in the absence of clear evidence Congress
meant to prohibit averaging." This standard, of course, is directly contrary to the standard
applicable in this case in which EPA is proposing regulations that affect a major question—clear
Congressional authority to permit averaging to mandate electric vehicles. Second, the parties
failed to raise a textual argument against averaging. Id. at n.24 ("Although it was not raised by
any party before the agency, and accordingly cannot be dispositive here ... there is an additional
argument against emissions averaging. The Act's testing and certification provision, 42 U.S.C. §
7525, speaks of 'any,' 'a,' or 'such' motor vehicle or engine being tested and certified. With
averaging, some vehicles or engines would not be required to comply with the standards and
would not be subject to NCPs for failing to so comply. This practice appears inconsistent with
the requirement that 'any,' 'a,' or 'such' vehicle or engine be tested and required to comply with
emissions standards."). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 64]
On the other hand, EPA has previously acknowledged that the Act is silent on the
mechanisms of averaging, banking, and trading (ABT). When EPA first adopted fleetwide
averaging, it recognized that "Congress did not specifically contemplate an averaging program
when it enacted the Clean Air Act." 48 Fed. Reg. 33,456, 33,458 (July 21, 1983). And "[j]ust as
the statute does not explicitly address EPA's authority to allow averaging, it does not address the
Agency's authority to permit banking and trading." 54 Fed. Reg. 22,652, 22,665 (May 25, 1989);
see 55 Fed. Reg. 30,584, 30,593 (July 26, 1990) (same). By definition, then, the Act does not
address—let alone clearly authorize—the use of averaging, banking, and trading to electrify the
Nation's vehicle fleet. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 64]
That should be the end of the analysis. Section 202 of the Clean Air Act does not itself "direct
[conventional vehicles] to effectively cease to exist." West Virginia, 142 S. Ct. at 2612 n.3. EPA
has instead relied on mechanisms that are not themselves spelled out in the statute and that have
never before been used to mandate HD electric vehicles. Just as in West Virginia, EPA has
nothing "close to the sort of clear authorization" necessary for such a transformational policy
shift. 142 S. Ct. at 2614. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 64]
But in truth, the problem is far worse for EPA than that. As explained below, the Act
unambiguously precludes fleetwide-average emission standards under Section 202(a). And even
if the statute permitted some fleetwide averaging, it does not allow EPA to take the additional
step of incorporating non-emitting vehicles into emission averages and thus forcing the market
1330
-------
toward electric vehicles. The proposal is not merely stretching vague statutory language. It is
defying clear statutory text. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 65]
The text and structure of Section 202, and of Title II more broadly, unambiguously require
that emission standards under Section 202(a) apply to individual vehicles, not manufacturers'
fleets on average. EPA claims to find authority for fleetwide averaging in Section 202(a), which
authorizes EPA to issue "standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any class
or classes of new motor vehicles ... which in [its] judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution
which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare." 42 U.S.C. §
7521(a). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 65]
On its face, that provision authorizes EPA to set standards for vehicles that emit harmful air
pollutants. It says nothing about averaging across fleets. As noted, when EPA first adopted
fleetwide averaging, it acknowledged that "Congress did not specifically contemplate an
averaging program when it enacted the Clean Air Act." 48 Fed. Reg. at 33,458. EPA claimed to
have the authority because the Act "does not explicitly preclude standards" based on averaging.
54 Fed. Reg. at 22,666 (emphasis added). EPA was wrong. "[T]he broader context of the statute
as a whole," Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337, 341 (1997), makes clear that Section
202(a) does not permit fleetwide averaging. And, even if EPA could somehow show that the
statute tacitly or implicitly allows (or does not expressly preclude) averaging, that would still be
insufficient to meet the necessary clear congressional authority to use fleetwide averaging as a
means to force a transition from internal-combustion engines to ZEVs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1566-A2, p. 65]
a. Other provisions in Section 202 demonstrate that emission standards may not be based on
averaging.
Title II is replete with provisions that necessarily apply to vehicles individually, not to fleets
on average. That is evident first in the emission standards prescribed by Section 202 itself. For
example, in Section 202(b), the Act sets forth specific light-duty vehicle emission standards that
EPA must promulgate in "regulations under" Section 202(a). 42 U.S.C. § 7521(b). For vehicles
in model years 1977 to 1979, the standards must provide that "emissions from such vehicles and
engines may not exceed 1.5 grams per vehicle mile of hydrocarbons and 15.0 grams per vehicle
mile of carbon monoxide." Id. § 7521(b)(1)(A). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 65]
Those provisions require that the "regulations under [Section 202(a)]" apply to "vehicles and
engines," not "vehicles and engines on an average basis across a fleet." Construing those
provisions to allow averaging would, in effect, add words to the statute that change its meaning.
Neither courts nor agencies may "supply words ... that have been omitted." Antonin Scalia &
Bryan Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 93 (2012); accord Rotkiske.v.
Klemm, 140 S. Ct. 355, 360-361 (2019). And supplying the extra words "on average" would
have a significant substantive effect: "roller coaster riders must be 48 inches tall" means
something very different from "roller coaster riders must be 48 inches tall on average." [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 65]
The testing requirements accompanying the Section 202(b) standards confirm that those
standards apply to all vehicles. In particular, EPA must "test any emission control system
incorporated in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine ... to determine whether such
system enables such vehicle or engine to conform to the standards required to be prescribed
1331
-------
under [Section 202(b) of the Act]." 42 U.S.C. § 7525(a)(2). If the system complies, EPA must
issue a "verification of compliance with emission standards for such system." Id. Those
requirements plainly contemplate standards that apply to individual vehicles and their emission-
control systems. Not only does the statutory text frame the inquiry as whether an individual
"vehicle" or "engine" conforms to the emission standards, but the provision's foundational
premise-that an emission-control system can enable a vehicle to meet emission standards
depends on individually applied standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, pp. 65 - 66]
Other parts of Section 202 further demonstrate that emission standards under Section 202(a)
cannot rely on averaging. Section 202(b)(3), for example, authorizes EPA to grant waivers from
certain nitrogen-oxide emission standards—which, again, are standards "under" Section 202(a),
see 42 U.S.C. § 7521(b)(1)(B)—for no "more than 5 percent of [a] manufacturer's production or
more than fifty thousand vehicles or engines, whichever is greater." Id. § 7521(b)(3). This
provision would be nonsensical under a fleetwide-averaging regime. It contemplates a default
under which every vehicle meets a standard, then gives manufacturers a waiver from that default
for up to 5% of the fleet. But under fleetwide averaging, no waiver is needed. Instead, a vast
proportion of a manufacturer's fleet—perhaps 50% or more—effectively has a "waiver" so long
as a sufficient number of vehicles outperform the standard. Likewise, Section 202(g), which
specifies an increasing "percentage of each manufacturer's sales volume" of each model year's
vehicles that must comply with specified emission standards, is fundamentally incompatible with
averaging. Id. § 7521(g)(1). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 66]
Similarly, under Section 202(m), EPA must require manufacturers to install on "all" new
light-duty vehicles and trucks "diagnostic systems" capable of identifying malfunctions that
"could cause or result in failure of the vehicles to comply with emission standards established
under this section." Id. § 7521(m)(l). As this requirement makes clear, individual vehicles must
"comply with emissions standards established under [Section 202]." Id. Otherwise, requiring
diagnostic equipment on "all" vehicles makes no sense. In a fleetwide-averaging regime, this
requirement would be pointless, as the deterioration or malfunction of an individual vehicle's
emission-related systems would provide virtually no information about whether the fleet as a
whole is compliant. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 66]
b. Title II's compliance and enforcement provisions for emission standards confirm that EPA
cannot use fleetwide averaging.
Fleetwide averaging also clashes with "the design and structure of [Title II] as a whole."
Utility Air, 573 U.S. at 321 (citation omitted). Title II sets forth a comprehensive, interlocking
scheme for enforcing emission standards through testing, certification, warranties, remediation,
and penalties. Fleetwide-average standards are incompatible with these provisions, which are
"designed to apply to" individual vehicles and "cannot rationally be extended" to fleets. Id. at
322. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 66]
Testing and Certification. Under Title II, EPA must "test, or require to be tested in such
manner as [it] deems appropriate, any new motor vehicle or new motor vehicle engine submitted
by a manufacturer to determine whether such vehicle or engine conforms with the regulations
prescribed under [Section 202]." 42 U.S.C. § 7525(a)(1). If the "vehicle or engine conforms to
such regulations," EPA must issue the manufacturer a "certificate of conformity." Id. EPA may
later test a manufacturer's vehicles and engines, and if "such vehicle or engine does not conform
with such regulations and requirements, [EPA] may suspend or revoke such certificate insofar as
1332
-------
it applies to such vehicle or engine." Id. § 7525(b)(2)(A)(ii). A manufacturer may not sell a
vehicle or engine not "covered by a certificate of conformity." Id. § 7522(a)(1). [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1566-A2, pp. 66 - 67]
Fleetwide averaging is incompatible with these requirements in at least two respects. First, by
using the singular terms "vehicle" and "engine," along with "any" and "such," the statute
contemplates that individual vehicles may be tested, determined to "not conform" with the
standards, and have their certificates of conformity suspended or revoked. In a fleetwide-
averaging regime, testing an individual vehicle or engine does not enable EPA to determine
whether it "conforms with the regulations prescribed under [Section 202]," 42 U.S.C. §
7525(a)(1), because conformity turns not on an individual vehicle's emissions but on the fleet's
average performance overall. Second, fleetwide averaging also makes it impossible to determine
compliance with applicable emission standards before a vehicle is sold, as required to obtain the
certificate of conformity needed for a sale. See 42 U.S.C. § 7522(a)(1). Under fleetwide-average
standards, a vehicle's "conformity] with the regulations prescribed under [Section 202]" cannot
be determined until the manufacturer calculates its production-weighted average at "the end of
each model year," when the manufacturer knows the quantity and model of "vehicles produced
and delivered for sale." 40 C.F.R. §§ 86.1818-12(c)(2)(2), 86.1865-12(i)(l), (j)(3). [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 67]
For similar reasons, fleetwide averaging is inconsistent with the statutory definition of an
"emission standard," which "limits the quantity, rate, or concentration of emissions of air
pollutants on a continuous basis." 42 U.S.C. § 7602(k). It is impossible to know on a "continuous
basis" whether a manufacturer's fleet complies with EPA's proposed average standards, because
a manufacturer cannot calculate its production-weighted average until the end of the year.
Simply put, an after-the-fact compliance regime is incompatible with the Act's testing and
certification scheme. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 67]
Warranties and Remediation. Fleetwide-average standards similarly clash with Title II's
warranty provisions. Under Section 207, a manufacturer must "warrant to the ultimate purchaser
and each subsequent purchaser" "at the time of sale" that each new vehicle complies with
applicable regulations under [Section 202], 42 U.S.C. § 7541(a)(1) (emphasis added). Yet, as
with certificates of conformity, manufacturers cannot warrant conformity with fleetwide-average
emission standards at the time of sale, because compliance can be determined only at the end of
the year. See 40 C.F.R. § 86.1865-12(i)(l) (requiring manufacturers to compute their "production
weighted fleet average" by "using actual production [ data]" for the year in question). [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 67]
Fleetwide-average emission standards are also inconsistent with Title II's remediation and
notification provisions. Those provisions state that if EPA "determines that a substantial number
of any class or category of vehicles or engines ... do not conform to the regulations prescribed
under [Section 202]," the manufacturer must remedy "the nonconformity of any such vehicles or
engines." 42 U.S.C. § 7541(c)(1). If "a motor vehicle fails to conform," the manufacturer bears
the cost. Id. § 7541(h)(1). Further, "dealers, ultimate purchasers, and subsequent purchasers"
must be given notice of any nonconformity, id. § 7541(c)(2), which requires identification of
specific nonconforming vehicles. None of this is possible where the nonconformity is tied to a
fleet on average. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 67]
1333
-------
Penalties. Finally, EPA's fleetwide-averaging regime is inconsistent with the statute's penalty
provision. Under Section 205, any violation "shall constitute a separate offense with respect to
each motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine," with each offense subject to its own civil penalty of
up to $25,000. 42 U.S.C. § 7524(a) (emphasis added). Under EPA's approach, however, no
individual vehicle or engine violates the applicable standard, only the fleet as a whole. The
statute provides no method for calculating penalties when a fleet fails to meet its fleetwide-
average standard-because it does not authorize fleetwide-average standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1566-A2, pp. 67 - 68]
c. The broader text and history of Title II confirm that the rule exceeds EPA's authority
through fleetwide averaging.
Other indicia of statutory meaning demonstrate that the proposed rule exceeds EPA's
statutory authority under Section 202(a). Elsewhere in Title II, Congress showed that it knew
how to legislate with respect to "average annual aggregate emissions." 42 U.S.C. §
7545(k)(l)(B)(v)(II) (directing EPA to take certain actions if "the reduction of the average annual
aggregate emissions of toxic air pollutants in a [designated district] fails to meet" certain
standards). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 68]
Thus, "if Congress had wanted to adopt an [averaging] approach" for motor vehicle standards
under Section 202(a), "it knew how to do so." SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1351
(2018); seeRotkiske, 140 S. Ct. at 360-361 ("Atextual judicial supplementation is particularly
inappropriate when, as here, Congress has shown that it knows how to adopt the omitted
language or provision."). It did not choose that approach in Section 202(a). [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 68]
The Energy Policy Conservation Act, enacted just two years before the 1977 Clean Air Act
amendments, reinforces that conclusion. There, Congress directed the Secretary of
Transportation to issue regulations setting "average fuel economy standards for automobiles
manufactured by a manufacturer" in a given model year. 49 U.S.C. § 32902(a). That Congress
has not used similar language in Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act is a "telling clue" that the
Act does not permit fleetwide averaging. Epic Sys. Corp. v. Lewis, 138 S. Ct. 1612, 1626
(2018). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 68]
The Clean Air Act's history also reflects Congress's understanding that emission standards
would apply to all vehicles individually. Congress was so focused on reducing emissions at the
level of the individual vehicle that, in the 1970 amendments, Congress permitted EPA to test any
individual vehicle as it comes off the assembly line. See Pub. L. No. 91-601, § 8, 84 Stat. 1676,
1694-1696. Such a vehicle-by-vehicle test was meant to supplement the pre-1970 testing of
prototypes. Congress explained that while testing of prototypes "will continue," "tests should
require each prototype rather than the average of prototypes to comply with regulations
establishing emission standards." H.R. Rep. No. 91-1146, at 6 (1970). And if Congress forbade
averaging across prototypes, it certainly did not permit averaging across entire fleets. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 68]
d. Related provisions confirm that Section 202(a) does not authorize averaging of non-
emitting electric vehicles.
1334
-------
Other provisions of the Clean Air Act drive home the lack of statutory authorization to
mandate electrification as well. In the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Congress spoke
directly to the phase-in of electric vehicles on America's roads. Congress instructed EPA to
establish standards for "clean-fuel vehicles" operating on "clean alternative fuel," including
"electricity." Pub. L. No. 101-549, § 229, 104 Stat. 2399, 2513 (codified at 42 U.S.C. §§
7581(2), (7), 7582(a)). Congress required that certain areas of the country with the worst
pollution would have to "phase-in" a "specified percentage" of "clean-fuel vehicles" using
"clean alternative fuels" (defined to include "electricity") in certain fleets. 42 U.S.C. § 7586; see
id. § 7581(a). The 1990 amendments highlight that Congress knows how to clearly establish
standards that apply to electric vehicles, and to directly require that such vehicles be phased into
a particular fleet. But Congress chose to do so only on a targeted, regional basis. The contrast
between the 1990 amendments and Section 202(a) highlights the absence of any statutory
authority for EPA's rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, pp. 68 - 69]
Other related statutes also suggest the same. In the Energy Policy Act of 1992, Congress
directed NHTSA to set fuel-economy standards based on averages, but prohibited NHTSA from
setting fuel-economy standards that average in the fuel economy of electric vehicles. See Pub. L.
No. 102-486 §§ 302, 403, 106 Stat. 2776, 2870-2871, 2876 (later codified at 49 U.S.C. §
32902(h)). This prohibition bars NHTSA from doing exactly what EPA is doing here: misusing
its regulatory authority to force a transition from conventional vehicles to electric vehicles by
artificially tightening the "average" standard a fleet must meet. Of course, when Congress
finalized the language of Section 202(a)(1) in 1977, it had no need to explicitly block EPA from
considering electric vehicles, because it did not contemplate that EPA would set emission
standards using averaging in the first place (or that EPA would be setting standards for
greenhouse gases). The prohibition on NHTSA nevertheless underscores just how far EPA is
reaching here: it is straining statutory language to seize a power that Congress expressly denied
to a sister agency that actually has authority to promulgate fleetwide-average standards. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 69]
e. EPA's lack of authority for a credit-trading scheme further confirms its lack of authority to
set fleetwide averages.
The proposal's credit banking and trading program is critical to EPA's electrification
mandate. But the agency also lacks authority under Title II to establish a credit scheme as part of
its emission standards under Section 202(a). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 69.]
As with fleetwide averaging, EPA has previously acknowledged that Title II says nothing
about banking and trading credits in connection with motor-vehicle emission standards. See 54
Fed. Reg. at 22,665. What EPA has ignored, however, is that Title II is not silent regarding
banking and trading in other contexts. Indeed, in multiple other provisions under Title II,
Congress expressly authorized the use of bankable and tradable credits. See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. §
7545(k)(7) (reformulated gasoline credits); § 7545(o)(2)(A)(ii)(II)(cc), (5)(A)(i) (renewable fuel
credits); id. § 7545(o)(2)(A)(ii)(II)(cc), (5)(A)(ii) (biodiesel credits); id. §
7545(o)(2)(A)(ii)(II)(cc), (5)(A)(iii) (small refineries credits); id. § 7586(f) (clean-fuel fleet-
operator credits); id. § 7589(d) (California pilot test program's clean-fuel vehicle manufacturer
credit). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 69.]
Under EPA's proposed approach, those provisions would all be superfluous, because EPA
already had the discretion to adopt a credit-trading regime for any program. If Congress had
1335
-------
wanted to permit credits in connection with emission standards under Section 202(a), it knew
how to and would have done so expressly. See SAS Inst., 138 S. Ct. at 1351. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 69.
For all these reasons, courts have cast substantial doubt on EPA's authority to set fleetwide-
average emission standards. As the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals explained in NRDC v.
Thomas, 805 F.2d 410 (D.C. Cir. 1986), the "engine specific thrust" of Title II's "testing and
compliance provisions" is evident both in Congress's choice to "spea[k] of 'any,' 'a,' or 'such'
motor vehicle or engine" in the text of the statute and in the "troubling" legislative history
recounted above. Id. at 425 n.24. The arguments were not dispositive in Thomas only because
the parties there had failed to present them. Id. But the Court nevertheless recognized that the
arguments were relevant to "future proceedings." Id.. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p.
69.]
f. At a minimum, EPA may not use fleetwide averaging to require electrification.
Despite the absence of statutory authorization for fleetwide averaging, EPA has long
employed that mechanism without significant industry pushback. That is likely because fleetwide
averaging has generally been offered as an accommodation to regulated parties, allowing them
flexibility that the statute does not in fact permit. In its current proposal, however, EPA is not
offering an extra-statutory accommodation. It is taking an additional step away from the statutory
text by using fleetwide averaging to mandate electrification. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-
A2, pp. 69 - 70.]
To be clear, in prior rules EPA set an average emission standard and allowed manufacturers to
make some vehicles that emitted more and some that emitted less. Here, EPA has set tailpipe
greenhouse-gas emission standards at a level so stringent that manufacturers must incorporate an
increasing percentage of HD electric vehicles—which EPA treats as zero-emission vehicles—
into their averages in order to comply with the "standards." See p. 13, supra. Put differently, the
agency is proposing an emission standard that is artificially low because it incorporates electric
vehicles, which EPA treats as emitting zero pollutants for averaging purposes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 70.]
Whatever the permissibility of fleetwide averaging, the text and structure of Title II make
plain that EPA cannot manipulate averaging as a means to force production of an increasing
market share of electric vehicles. Section 202 does not grant EPA the power to make the
internal-combustion engine go the way of the horse and carriage. At the very least, Section 202 is
hardly clear in granting that awesome power—which is what matters under West Virginia. For
automobiles as for power plants, EPA has purported to discover in the Clean Air Act the
authority to "forc[e]" manufacturers to "cease making" a particular type of energy "altogether."
142 S. Ct. at 2612. We have seen that play recently before, and it should end the same way.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 70.]
EPA Summary and Response:
Summary:
AmFree et al. provided some background on EPA's use of fleetwide averaging in past
regulations. AmFree et al. questions EPA's legal authority under the CAA for use of averaging
in setting standards, suggests that non-emitting vehicles are not covered under the statute, and
1336
-------
claims the rule constitutes a transformative change which implicates the Major Question
Doctrine, and remakes the sector on a highly compressed timeline of less than a decade. AmFree
et al. suggests the proposed standards are not "performance-based" when EPA states that it
expects a shift from ICEs to EVs. AmFree et al. argues that fleetwide averaging is necessary (as
no "conventional" individual vehicle could meet the Phase 3 standards) and not a flexibility in
EPA's approach for this rule, unlike past rules' use of fleetwide averaging, and is used "in a
fundamentally different way to achieve a different end" to mandate a shift of a substantial
portion of production to certain preferred technologies (referencing one or more of the following
in different parts of their comment: ZEVs, zero GHG emission vehicles, electrification, and/or
alternatives to ICE). AmFree et al. further stated the following:
• Even if fleetwide averaging were permissible as a general matter, it cannot be exploited
to shoehorn zero-emission vehicles—i.e., vehicles that do not "cause, or contribute to, air
pollution,"663 and thus fall outside Section 202 entirely—into the fleetwide-average
calculation as a means of mandating electrification.
• "Congress did not specifically contemplate an averaging program when it enacted the
Clean Air Act."664
• Under the Major Questions Doctrine, EPA needs "'clear congressional authorization' for
the power it claims (to promulgate such a mandate, including through employing
fleetwide averaging),"665 not congressional silence on the subject, and it lacks such
authorization.
• ... averaging is also deeply in tension with "the design and structure of [Title II] as a
whole."666 referencing provisions on testing, warranties, and penalties.
API, AFPM, Clean Fuels Development Coal., and Valero offered similar arguments
challenging EPA's authority to implement any of the proposed provisions regarding fleetwide
averaging and averaging in setting standards (and, to some extent, certain commenters (e.g.
Valero also raise these arguments for banking and trading).
More specifically, first, the commenters acknowledge that EPA has included ABT in prior
Title II emission standards rules for decades. The difference here, in their view, is that in prior
rules, ABT has been offered as a flexibility, whereas here it is an integral part of the standard-
setting mechanism. (AmFree et al., API, Clean Fuels Dvl. Coal.)
Second, these commenters all maintained that the ABT standard-setting feature of the rule
was part and parcel of the transformational change to mandate electrification of the heavy duty
sector, triggering the Major Question Doctrine. The commenters argued that since EPA concedes
there is no explicit delegation in the statute regarding utilization of ABT, EPA lacks authority to
use it here.
Third, the commenters argue that not only does the statute not explicitly authorize the use of
ABT, but its text indicates that EPA lacks such authority. The commenters argue that section
202(a)(1) itself applies to "class" or "classes" of new motor vehicles. They argue that because
BEVs and ICE vehicles are distinctly different types, they cannot be averaged together, and
663 42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(1).
664 48 Fed. Reg. 33,456, 33,458 (July 21, 1983).
665 West Virginia, 142 S. Ct. at 2609 (citation omitted).
666 Util. Air Regul. Group, 573 U.S. at 321 (citation omitted).
1337
-------
moreover that "class" implies a singular standard, since a class cannot be treated as a collective
(AmFree et al., AFPM). Commenters argue further that "the relevant feature of a "class" of
"motor vehicles" that "cause, or contribute to, air pollution" is that the vehicles in the class all
emit the relevant pollutant.667 A vehicle that emits zero pollutants is necessarily not part of that
class". (AmFree et al., AFPM; to the same effect, API and Valero). The commenters suggest that
no single vehicle configuration can meet the standards, so OEMs would have to certify two
"fundamentally different vehicle types" to do so. (API). They indicate that EPA is essentially
trying to add the words "on average" to the statute and that doing so would significantly change
the meaning.
Looking beyond section 202(a)(1), these commenters point to other provisions which they
claim are either fundamentally inconsistent with the standards including averaging, or, by
alluding to or otherwise authorizing averaging, show that that Congress knew how to authorize
averaging when it wished EPA to have that authority, so the absence of that authorization in
section 202(a)(1) indicates EPA lacks the authority (invoking the so-called Russello canon of
statutory construction). Provisions these commenters indicate are inconsistent with ABT are the
following, as the commenters characterize the provisions:
• 42 U.S.C. § 7521(b)(1) requires that the "regulations under [Section 202(a)]" apply to
"vehicles and engines," not "vehicles and engines on an average basis across a fleet"
And supplying the extra words "on average" would have a significant substantive effect:
"roller coaster riders must be 48 inches tall" means something very different from "roller
coaster riders must be 48 inches tall on average." The testing requirements accompanying
the Section 202(b) standards confirm that those standards apply to all vehicles. In
particular, EPA must "test any emission control system incorporated in a motor vehicle or
motor vehicle engine ... to determine whether such system enables such vehicle or engine
to conform to the standards required to be prescribed under [Section 202(b) of the
Act]."668 If the system complies, EPA must issue a "verification of compliance with
emission standards for such system."669 Those requirements plainly contemplate
standards that apply to individual vehicles and their emission-control systems. Not only
does the statutory text frame the inquiry as whether an individual "vehicle" or "engine"
conforms to the emission standards, but the provision's foundational premise-that an
emission-control system can enable a vehicle to meet emission standards depends on
individually applied standards. (Chamber of Commerce, Valero). They also argue that 42
U.S.C. section 7521(b)(3) indicates that each individual vehicle or engine must meet a
standard before EPA can grant a waiver based on use of innovative powertrain
technologies (Chamber of Comm., API, Clean Fuels Dvl. Coal.). Valero argues more
specifically that "Section 202(b)(3) authorizes EPA to grant waivers from certain
nitrogen-oxide emission standards—which, again, are standards "under" Section 202(a),
see 42 U.S.C. § 7521(b)(1)(B)—for no "more than 5 percent of [a] manufacturer's
production or more than fifty thousand vehicles or engines, whichever is greater', but this
provision makes no sense under a fleetwide-averaging regime: "It contemplates a default
under which every vehicle meets a standard, then gives manufacturers a waiver from that
default for up to 5% of the fleet. But under fleetwide averaging, no waiver is needed.
667 42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(1).
668 42 U.S.C. § 7525(a)(2).
669 Id.
1338
-------
Instead, a vast proportion of a manufacturer's fleet—perhaps 50% or more—effectively
has a "waiver" so long as a sufficient number of vehicles outperform the standard."
• 42 U.S.C. § 7521(g)(1) indicates that specific percentages of vehicles must comply with
the standards each model year, whereas they argue an averaging regime would allow
higher percentages not to achieve if offset on a fleetwide basis. (Valero).
• 42 U.S.C. § 7521(m)(l) references diagnostic system requirements for light-duty vehicles
and trucks applicable to "all" light duty vehicles, which system must be capable of
identifying "failure of the vehicles to comply with emission standards under this section".
The argument is that with a fleet average standard, the diagnostic results of any
individual vehicle convey no useful information about compliance with an averaging-
based standard. (AmFree et al., Valero, Chamber of Commerce).
• 42 U.S.C. § 7525(a)(1) and 7525(b)(2) direct EPA to test and certify individual motor
vehicles or engines as meeting the applicable standards. They argue that since a
manufacturer submits their ABT report at the end of the model year, a manufacturer
doesn't truly know if its vehicles comply when they are sold. (AmFree et al., Chamber of
Comm., API, Valero).
• 42 U.S.C. § 7541(a)(1) indicates that manufacturers must warrant that each new vehicle
sold complies with the regulations "at the time of sale." They argue manufactures can't
know a compliance from a fleet average perspective until they calculate their production-
weighted averages at the end of the year. (AmFree et al., Chamber of Comm., Valero).
• 42 U.S.C. § 7541(c) states that manufacturers must remedy nonconforming vehicles and
engines if EPA determines a "substantial number" of a class do not conform to the
regulations. They argue it is not possible to do this when many vehicles are inherently not
meeting the standard under an averaging program. (Valero).
• 42 U.S.C. § 7524(a) refers to civil penalties as separate offenses for each vehicle or
engine. They argue the provision does not provide a method to calculate penalties for
fleetwide-average standards where an entire fleet may fail to meet the standards.
(AmFree et al., Chamber of Comm., Valero).
• 42 U.S.C. § 7602(k) defines an emission standard as a limit that applies on a continuous
basis. They argue manufacturers don't know their compliance continuously under an
averaging program, because they don't calculate the production-weighted average until
the end of the model year. (Valero).
• They argue Congress directed EPA to test individual vehicles and explicitly forbade
testing the average of prototypes in their 1970 amendments, which would have similarly
applied to a broader averaging across fleets (citing H. Rep. No. 91-1146 at 6).
The commenters cite the following provisions (as characterized by the commenters) as
evidence that Congress knew how to specify an averaging or ABT regime when it wished
agencies to utilize one:
• 42 U.S.C. § 7545(k) explicitly directs EPA to consider "average annual aggregate
emissions" for toxic air pollutants.
• Various Clean Air Act provisions specifically speak to averaging and credits.
Commenters argue these are unnecessary provisions if such authority can be implied
1339
-------
absent an express delegation, and in any case, they are an indication that Congress knew
how to specify use of ABT. 670
• Relatedly, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7581 (7), 7582(a), 7586, 7589(d), which are among the clean-
fuel vehicle provisions added as part of the 1990 CAA Amendments, direct EPA to
establish standards that phased in a percentage of clean-fuel vehicles, including those
fueled by clean alternative fuels such as electricity. Sections 7586(f) and 7589(d) refer to
credit generation explicitly, which they argue indicates that Congress could authorize
credit-based standards when it wished to. They argue Congress specifically chose to
phase in electric vehicles "on a targeted, regional basis" which is in contrast to section
202(a). They also argue the definition of "clean alternative fuel" itself, in 42 U.S.C.
section 7581(2) refers to "electricity", indicating that Congress knew how to specify use
of electrification when it wished to.
• They argue that 49 U.S.C. § 32902(h) directs NHTSA to set fleet average fuel-economy
standards, but "prohibited NHTSA from setting fuel-economy standards that average in
the fuel economy of electric vehicles" and EPA was not given a similar restriction in
202(a) because Congress "did not contemplate that EPA would set emission standards
using averaging in the first place." (Valero).
These commenters stated that they acknowledge that the D.C. Circuit has upheld EPA's use
of ABT in Title II programs but distinguish these cases on several grounds. These commenters
stated that if the rule triggers the Major Question Doctrine, then these cases indicate that ABT is
not explicitly authorized. In addition, these commenters stated that these cases mistakenly
consider Congressional silence as creating a gap which EPA has authorized discretion to fill.
They also asserted that the dicta in NRDC v. Thomas footnote 24 cites to the CAA certification
provisions671 as contemplating a vehicle-by-vehicle certification regime and recognizes
inconsistencies between averaging and other statutory provisions (noting the court "reserved
judgment on that issue only because 'it was not raised by any party before the agency'").
ATS cautioned that a fleet averaging approach could "create perverse incentives" for sellers
and purchases that could reduce zero-emission vehicle sales.
Response:
Many commenters maintained that both under the major questions doctrine and normal
principles of statutory construction, standards using a fleet averaging form are impermissible
under the Act. EPA disagrees with these comments for several reasons as explained in section
I.C of the preamble and as further detailed below. First, EPA has employed fleetwide averaging
in standard-setting and compliance since 1985. The final rule merely maintains and did not
reopen the existing ABT programs, such that these comments are untimely and outside the scope
of this final rule. Without reopening the ABT program, we respond to the comments raised
substantively as well. Second, ABT is consistent with the standard-setting authority conferred by
Congress in section 202(a)(1) and (2). Indeed, ABT furthers the goals of the statute in enabling
manufacturers to achieve any given level of emissions reductions with lower costs and more
flexibility. Third, ABT is consistent with the compliance and enforcement provisions of the Act.
Commenters are simply wrong that ABT precludes compliance and enforcement vis-a-vis
individual vehicles; rather, the regulatory program explicitly requires compliance by individual
670 See, e.g., CAA sections 211(k)(7), 211 (o)(2)(A)(ii)(II)(cc), 211(o)(5).
671 CAA section 206.
1340
-------
vehicles, and EPA can and does enforce the program's requirements with respect to such
individual vehicles. Fourth, the fact that Congress required EPA or other agencies to provide for
tradable credits in some other programs outside of the motor vehicle emissions control context is
not relevant in ascertaining the agency's authority to provide for ABT in our motor vehicle
programs. Fifth, the statute does not preclude EPA regulating all HD vehicles—regardless of
whether they emit or have an ICE powertrain—in the same class. Indeed, EPA previously
defined the class as HD vehicles in the 2009 Endangerment Finding and did not reopen that
finding in this proceeding. Moreover, the commenters' preferred classification is unreasonable as
it would delay the adoption of effective and available pollution control technologies and forgo
large benefits for the public health and welfare. EPA responds to comments about the major
questions doctrine in RTC 2.1.672
Response 10.2.1.a: The Comments Are Untimely.
These comments are untimely and beyond the scope of this final rule. EPA did not reopen in
this rulemaking whether it is permissible to use an averaging approach to setting standards under
section 202(a)(l)-(2), or the general ABT program's flexibilities. EPA disagrees that EPA's
approach in this rulemaking is novel from past rulemakings: EPA has not only repeatedly used
averaging in setting standards under section 202(a)(l)-(2), including in setting the most recent
HD GHG Phase 2 standards in 2016,673 and noted the importance of ABT program flexibilities
overall, but also repeatedly has explained that ABT is consistent with and gives full effect to the
requirements of section 202 as well as the broader statutory scheme, including Title II's
compliance and enforcement provisions applicable to such HD vehicles. Under such
circumstances, it is eminently reasonable for EPA not to reconsider a question that has been
settled for decades.674 Additionally, as further discussed in this response and Section 2 of this
RTC document, as well as in the final rule Preamble Sections I and II, the commenter's
assertions of a change from EPA's historical approach rest on a false assertion that this rule
mandates adoption of a specific compliance pathway; rather, the HD Phase 3 standards are
performance-based standards with many potential compliance pathways, of which we provide
several examples to further support that EPA is agnostic as to what technologies are ultimately
applied in complying with the HD GHG Phase 3 standards.675
672 Commenter AFPM attached its brief in Texas v. EPA, No. 22-1031 (D.C. Cir.) to its comments and referenced
arguments therein. To the extent applicable, EPA also incorporates its responsive brief in that case by reference.
EPA's Br., Texas v. EPA, No. 22-1031 (D.C. Cir.).
673 See, e.g., 81 FR 73715 ("[W]e have developed the final vocational vehicle standards using the same
methodology as for all of the other Phase 2 standards, where we apply fleet average technology mixes to fleet
average baseline vehicle configurations, and each average baseline and technology mix is unique for each vehicle
subcategory.").
674 See Growth Energy v. EPA, 5 F.4th 1, 13 (D.C. Cir. 2021).
675 Commenters frame this assertion of a mandate in several different ways, all of which the rule's administrative
record shows are false. Our additional example potential compliance pathways comprised of vehicles with ICE
(relative to the reference case) that all emit criteria and GHG pollutants show that the Phase 3 standards are not a
"ZEV" mandate, "Zero GHG vehicle" mandate, or "non-ICE" mandate, and also show that they are not an
"electrification" mandate (even if one were to adopt this false premise of electrification as only applicable to
PHEVs, BEVs, and FCEVs, which is incorrect as ICE vehicles also have electrified components, since at least one
example potential compliance pathway is comprised of vehicles without those technologies relative to the reference
case).
1341
-------
Commenters' claims that this rule is novel in treating ABT as integral to standard-setting,
while prior rules viewed ABT only as a flexibility, are misplaced. As an initial matter, EPA
considered only the availability of averaging, but not banking or trading, in identifying the level
of the standards.676 EPA has relied on the availability of averaging in countless standard-setting
rulemakings since 1985. For example, the 1985 rule found that averaging was a key
consideration in supporting the technological feasibility and lead-time of the standards. That rule
stated:
Particulate trap technology is heretofore untried on the fleet level. EPA believes
that the ... standard which, through averaging, effectively requires use of traps on
70 percent of all heavy-duty vehicles will significantly reduce the risk of
widespread noncompliance while allowing manufacturers to gain valuable
experience with this new technology. To promulgate this standard without allowing
averaging ... would increase the technological risk associated with the standard
because traps would have to be used in even the most difficult design
applications.677
Numerous subsequent rules have followed the same approach.678 For example, the 1990 rule
stated that "the standards were set with averaging in mind, making averaging integral to the
standard."679 Further, EPA has always viewed averaging as integral to standard-setting in the HD
GHG program. For example, the HD Phase 2 GHG final rule stated that "ABT programs are
more than just add-on provisions included to help reduce costs. They can be, as in EPA's Title II
programs generally, an integral part of the standard setting itself... .Without ABT provisions (and
other related flexibilities), standards would typically have to be adjusted to accommodate issues
of feasibility and available lead time."680
Moreover, the legality of averaging under section 202(a) has already been litigated in NRDC
v. Thomas, 805 F. 2d 410 (D.C. Cir. 1986), where the court of appeals ruled in favor of the
agency. Commenters rely heavily on footnote dicta from that case to allege that the court
identified potential statutory inconsistencies but did not reach them only because they were not
raised in the litigation. We address the substance of these points later in our response. However,
we note here that the footnote dicta were comprehensively addressed by EPA's 1989 proposal681
676 While banking and trading provide manufacturers with additional flexibilities in meeting the standards, they are
not necessary to EPA's judgment as to the feasibility of the standards. See preamble II.G. As such, they are also
severable from the final standards.
677 5 0 FR 10634-35.
678 See also, e.g., 2010 LD GHG final rule, 75 FR 25412-13 (describing setting fleet average LD GHG standards, as
EPA had previously set for Tier 2 NOx standards, and the integral role of ABT in standard setting itself for Title II
engine and vehicle programs); 65 FR 6698, 6743-46 (Feb. 10, 2000) (Tier 2) ("An ABT program is an important
factor that EPA takes into consideration in setting emission standards that are appropriate under section 202 of the
Clean Air Act."); 64 FR 58471, 58481 (Oct. 29, 1999) (describing how EPA set the 2004 and later model year
NOX+NMHC standards forHD diesel engines (62 FR 54694) in consideration of modified ABT provisions: "The
final rule also contained modified ABT provisions for heavy-duty diesel engines ... .").
679 5 5 FR 30594.
680 81 FR 73495/3 (Oct. 25, 2016); see also HD Phase 1 GHG Final Rule, 76 FR at 57127 (Sept. 15, 2011).
681 54 FR 22652, 22665-66 (May 25, 1989) ("EPA does not believe that the statutory text or legislative history cited
by the court necessarily means that the CAA requires or that Congress intended that every vehicle or engine family
emit at the same level. As the court itself noted, the Act gives EPA broad latitude in the testing of vehicles and, more
fundamentally, in the formulation of standards. EPA promulgated the HDE NOx and PM emissions standards as
1342
-------
and 1990 final rule,682 where we also received copious comments on this specific issue. Any
party wishing to challenge EPA's authority for averaging in light of the Agency's interpretation
of NRDC v. Thomas had ample opportunity to do so following EPA's promulgation of the 1989
and 1990 rulemakings, and yet, no party did so.
EPA also disagrees with commenters who claim this is the first time EPA has considered
electrified technologies in establishing standards based on averaging. As we explain in Preamble
I.B-C and our major questions doctrine response in RTC 2.1, all vehicles—including all ICE
vehicles—today are electrified to some extent, and electrification exists on a large spectrum. The
agency has considered powertrain electrification specifically since at least the 1998 NLEV rule
and the 2000 Tier 2 standards. In the HD GHG program itself, EPA has previously adopted
vehicle standards under 202(a)(l)-(2) where compliance pathways supporting the standards
reflected inclusion of powertrain electrification technologies and included averaging with ICE
vehicle technologies. For example, in promulgating the HD GHG Phase 2 standards in 2016, we
explained that in the technology mix for the compliance pathway supporting the final standards
for the full implementation year of MY 2027, we projected an overall vocational vehicle
adoption rate of 12 percent mild hybrid electrified vehicles, which we estimated will be 14
percent of vehicles certified in the Multi-Purpose and Urban subcategories.683 We also explained
that the stringency of the HD GHG Phase 2 standards was derived on a fleet average technology
mix basis and that the emission averaging provisions of ABT meant that the regulations did not
require all vehicles to meet the standards. 684 No one challenged EPA's authority to adopt such
standards relying on averaging or a technology mix that included electrified technologies in
judicial challenges to the HD GHG Phase 2 rule.
EPA also notes that given the lengthy pedigree of the ABT program, manufacturers have
come to rely on it for compliance with many of EPA's motor vehicle programs. As we explain in
Preamble II.C.4, the majority of certified vehicle families (93%) and manufacturers (29 out of
40) rely on ABT to comply with the Phase 2 GHG rule.685 Unsurprisingly, no directly regulated
manufacturer is opposing the agency's authority for ABT or to establish standards with a fleet
averaged standards. It thus follows that in testing 'any' engine for compliance with those standards, EPA may hold
particular engine families to different control levels as part of an averaged set of engine families so long as the
engine families' average emission levels meet the applicable standard.").
682 5 5 FR 30584, 30593-94 (July 26, 1990) ("In [NRDC v. Thomas], the court upheld averaging, but expressed some
reservations about averaging in light of a statutory provision and some legislative history not raised by the parties to
the case. The court pointed out that under averaging some vehicles would not be required to comply with the
standards and that this appeared inconsistent with the requirement that "any," a" or "such" vehicle or engine be
tested and required to comply with emission standards. At the same time the court noted that the statutory language
was ambiguous and that the testing and certification provisions empower the Agency to test vehicles and engines in
the manner it 'deems appropriate' so as to conform to the prescribed standards. EPA fully discussed in the preamble
to the proposed rule why the statute and its legislative history should be read to allow the Agency discretion to
determine the manner of testing and certification of vehicles. EPA also found that the broad type of averaging
represented by trading and banking would be consistent with the Congressional scheme. ... EPA continues to
believe that the statute provides the Agency discretion in this matter, and that trading and banking are consistent
with the statutory aims.").
683 81 FR at 73708.
684 81 FR at 73715; see also 11 FR at 62854-55 and 62856-57 (October 15, 2012) (company by company projection
of potential compliance pathways for MY 2021 and 2025 light duty vehicle GHG emission standards, indicating
hybrid electrified vehicle penetrations of up to 15% for some companies).
685 Most of the manufacturers that did not use ABT produced vehicles that were certified to the optional custom
chassis standards where the banking and trading components of ABT are not allowed, and averaging is limited.
1343
-------
average form. Major manufacturers generally support ABT, and as we summarize in RTC 2.1,
they specifically support EPA's decision to average ICE vehicles with ZEVs in establishing the
standards. Indeed, many manufacturers affirmatively asked EPA to expand the ABT program in
discrete ways to allow them additional flexibility, a topic which we address in RTC 10.3 and
Preamble Section III. A. While the agency has authority to change its policies when warranted,
commenters have advanced no persuasive justification for reopening ABT at this time,
particularly in light of manufacturers' reliance interests and the ABT program's ability to
effectuate greater emissions reductions at lower costs. Indeed, their comments do not appear to
even recognize the considerable reliance interests of directly regulated entities, recycle legal
arguments that the agency considered and rejected long ago in the 1990 rule,686 and effectively
concede that abandoning averaging would delay the application of pollution control technologies
and forgo otherwise feasible emission reductions. The little that commenters do say about
manufacturers' interests is fundamentally wrong. They erroneously claim that the reason
manufacturers have not pushed back on ABT is because the manufacturers view it solely as an
extra-statutory accommodation that allows them greater flexibility. In this rulemaking, EPA
relied solely on averaging (and not banking or trading) in supporting the feasibility of the
standards, and EPA thinks manufacturers understand very well how the agency has relied on
averaging to establish countless standards since 1985. In sum, commenters have not adduced
sufficient reasons to adopt a policy, much less revisit a longstanding, foundational part of the
motor vehicle program with a forty-year pedigree.
We reiterate that EPA did not reopen this issue in this rulemaking and the comments are
outside the scope of the rule. In responding, EPA notes that we are not here "undertaking] a
serious, substantive reconsideration of the existing" position.687 EPA's response is intended
solely to clarify and correct the misstatements and misrepresentations made by commenters
concerning EPA's historical approach to averaging in standard setting and ABT program
flexibilities, how EPA's ABT program is implemented, and the corresponding statutory basis. In
providing this response, EPA also notes the extraordinary nature of commenters' claims: given
the widespread use of ABT across EPA's section 202(a) programs, commenters—none of whom
are regulated entities under section 202(a)—are implying that the agency has continually violated
countless Title II compliance provisions for nearly forty years. That is completely false, and the
agency wants to set record straight.
Response 10.2.1.b: Section 202 (a) Delegates Authority to EPA to Adopt Standards With
a Fleet Average Form.
686 See, e.g., 55 FR 30584, 30593-94.
687 Growth Energy v, EPA, 5 F. 4th 1, 21 (D.C. Cir. 2021). See also Pub. Emps. for Env 'tResp. v. EPA, 11 F.4th 899,
913 (D.C. Cir. 2023) ("PEER cites no cases, and we are aware of none, in which an agency reopened an issue by
merely responding to a petition for rulemaking submitted by a third party" citing Am. Rd.& Transp. Builders Ass 'n
v. EPA, 105 F.3d 453, 457 (D.C. Cir. 2013) ('[A]n agency's response to a petitioner's comments cannot provide the
sole basis for reopening'); Banner Health v. Price, 867 F.3d 1323, 1341 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (quoting Kennecott Utah
Copper Corp. v. U.S. Dep't of Interior, 88 F.3d 1191, 1213 (D.C. Cir. 1996)) ("As here, when an 'agency merely
responds to ... unsolicited comment[s] by reaffirming its prior position, that response does not' open the agency's
position up to a challenge. Moreover, an agency does not 'reopen an issue by responding to a comment that
addresses a settled aspect of some matter, even if the agency had solicited comments on unsettled aspects of the
same matter.'").
1344
-------
Commenters maintained that section 202(a) does not mention averaging, banking, and
trading. They assert that, whether under standard principles of statutory construction or under the
major questions doctrine, Congressional silence is not tantamount to a delegation of authority.
The commenters are correct that section 202(a)(1) does not include the words "averaging,
banking, and trading."688 But the standard-setting framework in section 202(a)(1) readily
encompasses performance-based standards that are based on consideration of averaging. We
address the statutory text in this subsection 10.2.1.b. In later subsections, we explain how such
standards fit well within the Act's implementation and enforcement mechanisms, and how other
provisions in section 202 and elsewhere confirm EPA's authority under section 202(a)(1) to set
such standards.
Section 202(a)(1) mandates that EPA "prescribe ... standards applicable to the emission of
any air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicles...". The Supreme Court has
made clear that fleet average and other requirements applicable at the fleet-wide (as opposed to
individual vehicle) level are "standards" within the meaning of Title II of the Act. In Engine
Mfrs. Ass'n v. S. Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist., 541 U.S. 246 (2004),689 the Court indicated that
"standards" encompass "fleet average emission requirements," which "decrease over time,
requiring manufacturers to sell progressively cleaner mixes of vehicles, and under which
"[manufacturers retain flexibility to decide how many vehicles in each emission tier to sell in
order to meet the fleet average."690 The Court also found that "standards" include other types of
fleet-wide requirements like mandates that fleet owners purchase vehicles of a given type,691 and
that a certain percentage of a manufacturer's new vehicle sales must consist of vehicles of a
given type.692
Section 202(a)(1) also applies to "class or classes of new motor vehicles." "Class or classes"
necessarily refers to groups of vehicles, as opposed to individual vehicles. So Section 202(a)(1)
is naturally read to authorize EPA to set standards for groups of vehicles, which would include a
manufacturer's fleet of vehicles that are in this group.
Regulation under Section 202(a)(1) is also conditioned on the Administrator finding that
emissions from a class or classes of motor vehicles "cause, or contribute to, air pollution which
688 EPA's response here focuses on averaging. However, "trading and banking are simply forms of averaging
between manufacturers and over time. Thus, they pose similar legal issues." 54 FR 22665. With respect to the
arguments raised by the adverse comments, EPA believes trading and banking are justified on similar bases as
averaging. See also generally 54 FR 22665-67 (discussing the legal bases for trading and banking), 55 FR 30593-99
(same). In addition, EPA disagrees that banking and trading are necessary to standard-setting rather than being a
flexibility for these Phase 3 standards. EPA did not rely on banking and trading to justify the feasibility of the
standards. See preamble II.G.
689 The Court in. S. Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist was construing CAA section 209(a), which refers to "any standard
relating to control of emissions from new motor vehicles". This language is similar to the text of section 202(a). The
South Coast Court made clear that there is no reason to read "standard" in section 202(a) differently than in section
209(a)): "A 'standard' is defined as that which 'is established by authority, custom, or general consent, as a model or
example; criterion; test.' This interpretation is consistent with the use of 'standard' throughout Title II of the CAA
(which governs emissions from moving sources) to denote requirements such as numerical emission levels with
which vehicles or engines must comply, e.g., [CAA section 202] (a)(3)(B)(ii), or emission-control technology with
which they must be equipped, e.g., [CAA section 206](a)(6)." Id. at 253.
690Id. at 250, n.3.
691 Id. at 250, 258.
692 Id. at 255.
1345
-------
may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare." In enacting section
202(a)(1), Congress was concerned with classes of motor vehicles contributing to dangerous air
pollution, not with individual vehicles doing so. Indeed, it is ordinarily only emissions from a
group of vehicles (i.e., a class) not a single vehicle that could cause dangerous air pollution. As
we explain further in Section 10.2.1 .f, this is also how EPA has long interpreted the statute,
including in making the 2009 GHG endangerment finding for motor vehicles. This further
indicates that EPA may regulate the class of vehicles as a whole, including at the fleet-wide
level, not just individual vehicles.
The statute explicitly subjects regulation under Section 202(a)(1) to the requirements of
Section 202(a)(2), which states that "[a]ny regulation prescribed under paragraph (1) of this
subsection (and any revision thereof) shall take effect after such period as the Administrator
finds necessary to permit the development and application of the requisite technology, giving
appropriate consideration to the cost of compliance within such period." Fleet average standards
relate directly to Section 202(a)(2)'s considerations of technical feasibility, cost, and lead time.
As we explain in RTC 10.2.1 .a above, EPA has found for decades that establishing fleet average
standards allows the agency to set standards at a given stringency for lower cost. It also affords
regulated entities more flexibility in determining how to meet those standards, accommodating
practical realities of vehicle redesign cycles and market fluctuations, and allowing additional
lead-time for a portion of the fleet to meet the standards if the regulated entity decides to have
another portion of the fleet achieve the standards more rapidly.693 Similarly, the ability to
generate credits promotes earlier introduction of advanced technologies, furthering the Act's
emission reduction and technology advancement goals.
The D.C. Circuit reviewed and upheld EPA's use of averaging in promulgating section 202(a)
standards in NRDC v. Thomas, 805 F.2d 410 (D.C. Cir. 1986). Observing that there was no
"clear congressional prohibition of averaging," the Court held that "the EPA's argument that
averaging will allow manufacturers more flexibility in cost allocation while ensuring that a
manufacturer's overall fleet still meets the emissions reduction standards makes sense."694 While
the Court noted in dicta that its analysis did not consider certain potential arguments not raised
by the litigants—arguments which we addressed in a subsequently rulemaking695 and which we
discuss later in this response—its holding was unquestionably to uphold EPA's averaging
program.
Congress subsequently ratified EPA's and the Court's interpretation in the 1990 Clean Air
Act Amendments. "Congress is presumed to be aware of an administrative or judicial
interpretation of a statute and to adopt that interpretation when it re-enacts a statute without
change."696 Ratification is particularly applicable here because there is explicit evidence in both
the House and Senate legislative history indicating that Congress knew of EPA's and the Court's
693 See also White Stallion Energy Ctr., LLC v. EPA, 748 F.3d 1222, 1253 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (allowing averaging
across multiple utility units under CAA section 112(d), which "neither expressly allows nor disallows emissions
averaging," where averaging is a "more flexible, and less costly alternative" than unit-by-unit compliance, even
though "this may allow individual units to exceed the emissions limitation"), rev'd on other grounds, Michigan v.
EPA, 516 U.S. 743 (2015).
694 NRDC v. Thomas, 805 F.2d at 425.
695 55 FR 30584, 30593-94 (July 26, 1990); 54 FR 22652, 22665-66 (May 25, 1989).
696 See Lorillard v. Pons, 434 U.S. 575, 580 (1978).
1346
-------
interpretation on this issue.697 Legislative history from the House recognized that, under the
Clean Air Act:
EPA has promulgated regulations for averaging (50 Fed. Reg. 10606) and for
banking and trading (55 Fed. Reg. 30584). Cognizant of these rules and the Court's
decision in NRDC v. Thomas, 805 F.2d 410 (D.C. Cir. 1986) the House-Senate
conferees chose not to amend the Clean Air Act to specifically prohibit averaging,
banking and trading authority.
Averaging, banking and trading programs, in fact, have very positive impacts on
air quality. Such programs preserve the requirement that each family of engines
must meet or exceed a preassigned standard. Furthermore, averaging programs
create an incentive to produce engines lower than the applicable standard, and
encourage the development and early use of improved emission control
technologies, and the development and sale of alternative-fueled vehicles. Such
programs also aid manufacturers in reducing the costs of controlling emissions.698
As such, "[t]he intention was to retain the status quo," that is, the agency's continued application
of averaging in establishing the standards following NRDC v. Thomas 699 Similar legislative
history is found in the Senate.700
The text of the Act further corroborates Congress's ratification of EPA's use of averaging in
setting section 202(a) standards. In section 219 of the Act, Congress directed EPA to establish
standards for urban buses pursuant to section 202(a). Section 219(b)(1) provides:
The standards under section 7521(a) of this title applicable to urban buses shall
require that, effective for the model year 1994 and thereafter, emissions of
particulate matter (PM) from urban buses shall not exceed 50 percent of the
emissions of particulate matter (PM) allowed under the emission standard
applicable under section 7521(a) of this title as of November 15, 1990, for
particulate matter (PM) in the case of heavy-duty diesel vehicles and engines
manufactured in the model year 1994.
The referenced 1994 HD PM standard (i.e., "the emission standard applicable under section
7521(a) of this title as of November 15, 1990, for particulate matter (PM) in the case of heavy-
duty diesel vehicles and engines manufactured in the model year 1994") was a standard with a
fleet average form. Indeed, it was one of the standards litigated in NRDC v. Thomas on the issue
of averaging.701 Thus, Congress expressly recognized an EPA standard with an averaging form
and endorsed such a standard as the basis for further standard-setting under section 202(a).
697 136 Cong. Rec. 35,367 (1990), 1990 WL 1222469, at *1; 136 Cong. Rec. 36,713 (1990), 1990 WL 1222468, at
*1.
698 136 Cong. Rec. 35,367, 1990 WL 1222469, at *1.
699 Id.
700 1 36 Cong. Rec. 36,713, 1990 WL 1222468, at *1. (Congress, noting NRDC v. Thomas, instead opted to let the
existing law "remain in effect.").
701 See NRDC v. Thomas, 805 F.2d 410, 425 (D.C. Cir. 1986) ("The NRDC challenges the EPA's program of
emissions averaging for the 1991 and 1994 PM standards and the 1991 NOx standard.").
1347
-------
Pursuant to this provision, EPA promulgated urban bus standards, and those standards provided
for averaging, as well as banking and trading.702
Following the 1990 Amendments, EPA continued to establish many other motor vehicle
standards based on averaging, and the use of ABT became a well-settled part of the regulatory
landscape. Consistent with this, in enacting the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007,
Congress specifically recognized the possibility of fleet average GHG standards. The statute
generally barred Federal agencies from acquiring "a light duty motor vehicle or medium duty
passenger vehicle that is not a low greenhouse gas emitting vehicle."703 It directed the
Administrator to promulgate guidance on such "low greenhouse gas emitting vehicles," but
explicitly prohibited vehicles from so qualifying "if the vehicle emits greenhouse gases at a
higher rate than such standards allow for the manufacturer's fleet average grams per mile of
carbon dioxide-equivalent emissions for that class of vehicle, taking into account any emissions
allowances and adjustment factors such standards provide."704 In other words, Congress
explicitly contemplated the possibility of fleet-average GHG standards for motor vehicles.705
In light of the clear congressional authorization for averaging, EPA also does not agree with
commenters who claim that averaging is precluded by the major questions doctrine. We further
address the applicability of the major questions doctrine in RTC 2.1. We also disagree with
commenters who claim that EPA is relying on silence as an implicit delegation of authority.706
EPA is not asserting authority for ABT based on statutory silence; as explained above, the basis
for ABT is the statutory text of section 202(a)(l)-(2), read in light of the context, purpose, and
history.707
702 See 58 FR 15781, 15784, 15787.
703 42 USC 13212(f)(2)(A).
704 42 USC 13212(f)(3)(C) (emphasis added).
705 42 USC 13212 does not specifically refer back to section 202(a). However, we think it is plain that Congress
intended for EPA to consider relevant section 202(a) standards in implementing section 13212. See 42 USC
13212(f)(3)(B) ("In identifying vehicles under subparagraph (A), the Administrator shall take into account the most
stringent standards for vehicle greenhouse gas emissions applicable to and enforceable against motor vehicle
manufacturers for vehicles sold anywhere in the United States.").
706 In addition, the commenters' selective quotation from Entergy v. Riverkeeper, 556 U.S. 208, 223 (2009), is
inapposite. That case upheld EPA's determination that the delegation for EPA to issue standards reflecting "best
technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact" allowed standards based on cost-benefit
analysis, notwithstanding that such an authorization appears nowhere in the statutory text. Id. at 218, 226. The
commenters cite the following language from the opinion in support of their argument: "sometimes statutory silence,
when viewed in context, is best interpreted as limiting agency discretion." Id. at 223. The following sentence of the
opinion, however, states that "|f|or the reasons discussed earlier, § 1326(b)'s silence cannot bear that interpretation."
Id. The Court thereupon concluded, "This extended consideration of the text of § 1326(b), and comparison of that
with the text and statutory factors applicable to four parallel provisions of the Clean Water Act, lead us to the
conclusion that it was well within the bounds of reasonable interpretation for the EPA to conclude that cost-benefit
analysis is not categorically forbidden." Id. In any case, this case is not applicable because EPA is not relying on
statutory silence here.
707 Notwithstanding commenters' selective citations of past preambles, the agency has never touted statutory silence
as the basis for the ABT program. We have, as we do today, noted the fact that the statute does not explicitly specify
an ABT program. But in promulgating such programs, we have also consistently justified them in light of the text
and purpose of the Act. See, e.g., 55 FR 30593-99 (describing in detail the legal bases for ABT and concluding on
page 30599 that "EPA believes that trading, banking and expanded averaging are consistent with and support the
goals and provisions of the Act. Compliance with the technology forcing 1991 and 1994 NOX and PM emissions
1348
-------
Response 10.2.1.c: Standards with a Fleet Average Form Are Consistent with the
Statutory Context and Structure.
As explained above, in section 202(a)(1), Congress delegated to EPA the authority to adopt
standards for new motor vehicles and to revise the standards as appropriate. Specifically,
Congress entrusted to the Administrator the determination of the class or classes of vehicles
subject to the standards, the form of the standard, the lead time provided, the consideration of the
costs of compliance, and, taking these elements and other factors into account, the stringency of
the standards. As we explain further in RTC 2.1, this delegation provides EPA the flexibility
needed to appropriately address the widely varying circumstances that can arise under section
202, such as developments in the need for emissions control, technologies, and their costs. This
provision's authority readily encompasses the kind of fleet averaging standards EPA has adopted
over many years and covering many different types of vehicles and pollutants.
At various points, Congress directed EPA to exercise its section 202(a) authority to adopt
certain specific standards.708 These various provisions identify the specific group of vehicles to
which they apply, as well as the specific model years, pollutants, and stringency of the standards.
Although Congress limited EPA's discretion for those specific vehicles, model years, and
pollutants, even in those cases Congress recognized and adopted provisions reflecting a variety
of the flexibilities authorized in standard setting under section 202(a). For example, Congress
directed that EPA provide for waivers; alternative standards for small volume manufacturers;
phase-ins over time based on a percentage of a manufacturer's production; as well as standards
that changed over the useful life of the vehicles.
In addition, Congress specifically addressed to what extent if any EPA's authority to revise
these standards in the future, including under its general section 202(a)(1) authority, was limited.
In general, Congress placed only a few limitations on EPA's future standard setting. Congress
typically specified that EPA's future revisions of the standards for these vehicles and pollutants
had to preserve a specified degree of stringency and in some cases, Congress specified the
number of model years before revisions were allowed. But these provisions do not constrain
EPA's general authority to set standards under section 202(a)(1) in other circumstances. Most
importantly for purposes of this response, none of these provisions limit fleetwide averaging or
otherwise limit EPA's authority to structure the form of future section 202(a)(1) standards in this
rulemaking.
These provisions place no other limits on EPA's standard setting under section 202(a)(1).
They did not limit EPA's ability to structure the form and level of future standards for these
vehicles and pollutants, only the stringency and lead time. Through these provisions Congress
placed no limits at all on EPA's authority to set standards under section 202(a)(1) for other
vehicles and other pollutants. Congress directly addressed the specific limits it placed on EPA's
future standard setting, and those are the only limits it imposed on the authority it provided EPA
in setting standards under section 202(a).
standards will be enhanced, emissions will be reduced, not increased, and the important role of NCPs will not be
supplanted. Furthermore, as indicated in the discussion above, EPA does not think that banking, trading or expanded
averaging contradict the provisions of section 206 regarding certification and testing.").
708 See, e.g., CAA section 202(a)(3)(A)(i), 202(b), (g), (h).
1349
-------
EPA's past fleet averaging standards, as well as the standards at issue in this rulemaking, are
fully consistent with the grant of authority in section 202(a)(1). In no case do these standards
violate the limited conditions Congress placed on future standard setting in the provisions
discussed in section 202.
We now discuss each of these provisions that commenters cite. Commenters refer to section
202(a)(3)(A)(i) as evincing Congressional intent not to include averaging as part of the standard
setting process for heavy duty vehicles. But, this provision, like section 202(a)(1), refers to
standards for emission from "classes" of heavy-duty vehicles (and from "categories" as well).
This language is most naturally applicable to groups of vehicles like fleets.709
Commenters viewed sections 202(b)(1) and 206(a)(2) as showing incompatibility with
standards predicated on averaging. The argument goes that section 202(b)(1) commands
standards for "vehicles and engines," and that the testing of "any emission control system
incorporated in a motor vehicle or engine" provisions in section 206(a)(2) only make sense on a
per vehicle basis. They further point to the 5 percent waiver authority in section 202(b)(3) and
the testing provision for section 202(b) standards found in section 206(a)(2). They maintain that
the waiver provision is unnecessary in a fleet averaging regime since well over 5% of a
manufacturer's vehicles could be above a fleet average limit without the need of a waiver, and
note further that the testing provision is written in the singular ("vehicle or engine"), and so can
only be read to mean vehicle-by-vehicle testing.
These arguments are misplaced. First, section 202(b)(1) is an explicit and narrow exception
to EPA's general standard-setting authority under section 202(a)(1), which applies "[ejxcept as
otherwise provided in subsection (b)." Section 202(b)(1) establishes standards for certain
pollutants, model years, and classes of vehicles. It thus cannot derogate from the general scope of
authority in section 202(a)(1). Specifically, it does not address HDV standards for GHGs and
therefore has no applicability to the final standards at issue here. Moreover, on its face, section
202(b)(1) accords with fleet-average standards because it specifically refers to standards for
certain classes of vehicles (e.g., light-duty vehicles for certain model years), as opposed to
individual vehicles; the provision also uses the term "such vehicles and engines," which naturally
refers back to the classes identified in the provision.
CAA section 206(a)(2) adds nothing to the commenters' argument. That provision requires
EPA in some cases to test emission-control systems to determine whether they enable vehicles to
conform with standards Congress prescribed in section 202(b). As such, section 206(a)(2)
prescribes duties relating to standards under section 202(b), and as just discussed, that section
has no bearing on the section 202(a) authority beyond the specific circumstances to which it
applies, circumstances inapplicable here. Moreover, in section 206(a)(2), Congress had a
specific reason to speak to individual vehicles. Added in 1970, it enabled a private party that
developed a new "emission control system," such as a new catalyst, to submit a vehicle or engine
incorporating that system for testing "to determine whether such system enables such vehicle or
engine to conform to the [Subsection 202(b)] standards."710 It was sensible for Congress to
establish this mechanism for testing new technologies in the context of specific vehicles and
individuals, rather than fleets. But there is no basis in section 206(a)(2) to think Congress meant
709 See also Response 10.2. l.b and Response 10.2.l.f.
710 CAA section 206(a)(2); see Environmental Policy Division of the Congressional Research Service, Volume 1,
93d Cong., 2d Sess., A Legislative History of the Clean Air Amendments of 1970, at 128, 200 (Comm. Print 1974).
1350
-------
to prohibit fleet averages even under section 202(b), let alone section 202(a). To the extent that
it is relevant, section 206(a)(2) confirms that Congress intended EPA to consider all feasible
emission-control technologies, even those that had not been developed as of 1970.
The commenters' reference to section 202(b)(3) is also mistaken. That provision allows EPA
to impose standards less stringent than subsection (b)(1) standards for nitrogen-oxides emissions
for up to 5% of production of model-years 1977-1979 light-duty vehicles, where an automaker
"demonstrates that such waiver is necessary to permit the use of an innovative power train
technology." Under subsection (b)(3), an automaker identifies its total production for the year
and the specific emission standards to which each vehicle was certified. EPA would then assess
whether at least 95% of the fleet met the subsection (b)(1)(B) standard and whether the rest met
the subsection (b)(3) standard. But this would be true whether each of those standards was a
vehicle specific standard, a fleet-average standard, or both. None of these approaches would be
inconsistent with subsections (b)(1) and (b)(3). More basically, nothing in either subsection
speaks to EPA's authority under section 202(a)(1). We reiterate that nothing in section 202(b),
including the waiver provision in (b)(3), has any applicability beyond the specific circumstances
to which it applies, which circumstances are inapplicable here.
Nor does anything in section 202(g) constrain standards with a fleet average form. This
provision—as well as the parallel provision in section 202(h) —is another example of Congress
directing EPA to use its section 202(a) authority in a specific manner, for specific vehicles (light-
duty trucks and light-duty vehicles), pollutants (NMHC, CO, NOx, and PM), and model years.
Under this provision for these specified pollutants and model years, such vehicles must meet one
or the other of the specified phase-in standards. These provisions say nothing about EPA's
authority to establish standards for different types of vehicles, pollutants, or model years. It is
worth noting, however, that the phase-in of standards Congress specified in section 202(g) is an
example of the range of forms available to EPA. As we explain further below in RTC 10.2.1.d.3,
a phase-in form of a standard requiring specified percentages of a manufacturer's production of
vehicles to meet a standard is similar to the fleet averaging-based form used in this rule.
Commenters also assert that compliance with a fleet average is inconsistent with the definition
of "emission standard" in section 302(k): "a requirement ... which limits the quantity, rate, or
concentration of emissions of air pollutants on a continuous basis." The argument is that one
cannot "know" "on a continuous basis" whether a manufacturer is meeting its fleet-average
standard. It is not clear that the definitions in section 302 apply to Title II,711 but even if they do,
the emission standard definition requires standards to apply continuously, not that compliance be
measured continuously. In general, fleet-average standards (including the vehicle specific
numerical standards that apply both when the vehicle is new and when it is in use) control
emissions from vehicles on a continuous basis. More specifically, as explained in Response
10.2.1.d., the Family Emission Limit for GHGs to which individual heavy-duty vehicles are
certified are both applicable continuously and measurable at any time throughout the vehicle's
useful life.
Finally, we note that the commenters' reliance on specific provisions in section 202 to limit
EPA's more general authority under section 202(a)(l)-(2) is at odds with normal tenets of
711 Motor & Equip. Mfrs. Ass 'n. 627 F.2d at 1112 n.35. The commenters' arguments are also inconsistent with the
Supreme Court's interpretation of "standard' in the context of Title II provisions on controlling emissions from
motor vehicles in South Coast, as explained in Response 10.2. l.b. above.
1351
-------
statutory construction. Broad grants of discretionary authority like section 202(a)(1) are
generally not limited by other narrower provisions focused on particular situations.712 Moreover,
Congress has expressly indicated what limitations the specific provisions impose on future EPA
standard setting, but they do not impose any limitations which preclude fleet average standards,
indicating that no such limitations should be implied. 713
Response 10.2.1.d: Standards Using a Fleet Average Standard Form Fit the Act's
Implementation and Enforcement Provisions
A number of commenters viewed fleet average standards as fundamentally incompatible with
the certification of conformity provisions of section 206. They maintain that these provisions are
written as vehicle specific: they refer to "engine" and "vehicle" in the singular, and they require
a determination "whether such vehicle or engine" (referring back to the individual vehicle or
engine) "conforms with the [section 202 emission standards] " They argue that testing of an
individual vehicle, however, does not indicate whether or not a fleet average is achieved, since in
their view conformity cannot be determined until the conclusion of a model year. For similar
reasons, these commenters claim that fleet average standards are inconsistent with section
203(a)(1), which prohibits sale of a vehicle or engine not "covered by a certificate of
conformity," and section 205(a), under which any violation of applicable standards "shall
constitute a separate offense with respect to each motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine."
These commenters further maintain that fleetwide-average emission standards are inconsistent
with Title II's remediation and notification provisions. Those provisions state that if EPA
"determines that a substantial number of any class or category of vehicles or engines...do not
conform to the regulations prescribed under [Section 202]," the manufacturer must remedy "the
nonconformity of any such vehicles or engines."714 If "a motor vehicle fails to conform," the
712 See Catawba Cnty. v. EPA, 571 F.3d 20, 36 (D.C. Cir. 2009) ("[A] congressional mandate in one section and
silence in another often suggests ... a decision not to mandate any solution in the second context, i.e., to leave the
question to agency discretion."); Corbettv. Transportation Sec. Admin., 19 F.4th 478, 489 (D.C. Cir. 2021), cert,
denied, 143 S. Ct. 395 (2022) ("Petitioner turns the holding in Alabama Realtors on its head by asking this court to
apply limiting constructions to provisions plainly granting TSA broad authority to act by drawing on entirely
separate provisions that appear throughout 49 U.S.C. Chapter 449. .. There is no viable canon of construction that
endorses this interpretive approach."); Helicopter Ass'n Int'l, Inc. v. FAA, 722 F.3d 430, 435 (D.C. Cir. 2013)
(holding that specific statutory provisions amplifying the FAA's regulatory authority merely indicated that Congress
intended to address the matters subject to regulation in several different ways, not to limit the statute's broad grant of
authority); Farrellv. Blinken, 4 F.4th 124, 136-37 (D.C. Cir. 2021).
713 See Odhiambo v. Republic of Kenya, 764 F. 3d 31 (D.C. Cir. 2014) ("the [Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act] is
the sole way for a plaintiff suing a foreign sovereign to invoke the jurisdiction of U. S. courts, and the exceptions
enumerated by the FSIA are exhaustive."); cf. Law v. Siegel, U.S. , 134 S.Ct. 1188, 1196, 188 L.Ed.2d 146
(2014) (enumeration of exemptions "confirms that courts are not authorized to create additional exceptions")."; Air
Transp. Ass'n of Am., Inc. v. United States Dep't ofAgric., 37 F.4th 667, 677 (D.C. Cir. 2022) (standing for the
proposition that one does not infer a limitation from a provision authorizing a different sort of activity: "[t]he section
containing the "commensurate" language is a limitation on how much can be collected in fees from a particular user
class. It is not a limitation on how those fees may be spent. Therefore, Appellants' argument that fees collected from
multiple user classes cannot be comingled in a fund that pays for the inspections of fee-paying user classes fails
because the FACT Act does not prohibit this form of cross-subsidization"); GPA Midstream Ass'n v. United States
Dep't of Transp., 67 F.4th 1188, 1196 (D.C. Cir. 2023) ("Section 4 creates neither a condition precedent nor a ban.
As the petitioners themselves explain at length in their opening brief, § 4 does not apply to gathering pipelines.
Section 4 by its plain terms applies only to "transmission pipeline facilities." We do not understand how § 4 could
plausibly be read to create a condition precedent for a different type of pipeline facility.").
714 CAA section 207(c)(1).
1352
-------
manufacturer bears the cost.715 Further, "dealers, ultimate purchasers, and subsequent
purchasers" must be given notice of any nonconformity,716which requires identification of
specific nonconforming vehicles. These commenters maintain that none of this is possible where
the nonconformity is tied to a fleet average.
EPA disagrees with these comments. The regulatory provisions for demonstrating compliance
with emissions standards have been successfully implemented for decades, including provisions
in our regulations for demonstrating compliance through our ABT program. Commenters who
alleged inconsistency with the compliance and enforcement provisions fundamentally
misapprehend the nature of EPA's HD GHG program and its ABT regulations, where
compliance and enforcement do in fact apply to individual vehicles, consistent with the statute.
Both the emission standard and FEL are specified in each vehicle's individual certificate of
conformity, and apply both at certification and throughout that vehicle's useful life. As
appropriate, EPA can suspend, revoke, or void certificates for individual vehicles.
Manufacturers' warranties apply to individual vehicles. EPA and manufacturers perform testing
on individual vehicles, and recalls can be implemented based on evidence of non-conformance
by a substantial number of individual vehicles within the class. The details of the certification
and enforcement process are set out in the remainder of this Response 10.2.1 .d. The ultimate
conclusion is that the regulatory scheme—including the use of FELs as the applicable in-use
standard for all of the vehicles a manufacturer produces, combined with the pre-production
testing, pre-production projection of production before certification, the required reporting of
actual production and calculation of credits or deficits at the end of the model year, plus the
ability to test in-use for compliance—fully satisfies the compliance and enforcement
requirements of the statute.
Response 10.2.1.d.l: Overview of HD GHG Certification and Compliance
For the standards at issue in this rulemaking, as well as those adopted in many previous
rulemakings for heavy duty vehicles, manufacturers may choose to demonstrate compliance with
the applicable emission standard by using the regulatory provisions for averaging, banking, and
trading.717 They do so by dividing their vehicles into "families" or "subfamilies". For each
family or subfamily, the manufacturer must designate a "Family Emission Limit", which is an
"emission level.. .to serve in place of the otherwise applicable emission standard" for each
family or subfamily.718 The designated FEL applies to every vehicle within a family or sub-
family and must be complied with throughout the vehicle's useful life. Manufacturers choosing
to demonstrate compliance with the applicable emission standards using the ABT program must
show compliance based on (among other things) production levels and emissions level of
FELs.719
Each family or subfamily has a designated FEL, and credits are generated if the FEL is lower
than the applicable standard, and debits are generated if the FEL is higher than the applicable
715 CAA section 207(h)(1).
716 CAA section 207(c)(2),
717 40 CFR 1037.241(a)(2).
718 40 CFR 1037.801 (definition of "Family emission limit").
719 See 40 CFR 1037.705(b).
1353
-------
standard.720 The manufacturer can use those credits to offset higher emission levels from vehicles
in the same averaging set such that the averaging set meets the standards on "average", ' 'bank''
the credits for later use, or ' 'trade'' the credits to another manufacturer. In other words, under the
existing ABT program, a manufacturer has two obligations - (1) all vehicles are certified to and
must comply throughout their useful life with the FEL applicable to that vehicle's family or
subfamily, and (2) the manufacturer's vehicles must comply with the applicable emission
standard as a group, e.g., using a production-weighted average of the various FELs across the
applicable averaging set.721 Across an averaging set, all vehicle families must show a net zero or
positive credit balance as detailed in the existing regulation.722
Before certification, manufacturers submit test results demonstrating projected compliance of
their vehicles with the manufacturer's chosen FELs for each vehicle family and sub-family.
Manufacturers also demonstrate that the projected production levels of each family and sub-
family and the associated calculation of projected emission credits are in compliance with the
applicable emission standard, averaged across the averaging set. If EPA determines that this
initial demonstration is satisfactory, it issues a certification of conformity specifying the
applicable vehicle standard and FEL for that vehicle family. The certificate is conditioned on a
manufacturer's further demonstration of compliance based on its actual model year production,
its demonstration of positive and negative credits for each vehicle family, and the ultimate
demonstration that the net balance of emission credits across its vehicle families in each
averaging set are either zero or positive.
The certificate of conformity itself contains the applicable emission standard for that category
and subcategory of vehicle and the range of allowable FELs for vehicles in that family. See an
example of an actual certificate of conformity appended at the end of this comment response.
In addition to the testing performed before production to obtain the certificate of conformity,
in-use testing may be used by EPA to determine if vehicles comply with the FEL to which they
are certified. If EPA determines that a substantial number of the vehicles in a family or
subfamily do not meet their FEL in-use, EPA can, for example, issue a recall order under section
207(c)(1).
Response 10.2.1.d.2: Detailed Description of Existing General Part 1037 ABT Program
We now provide a more detailed description of the HD GHG ABT program. Prior to
certification, manufacturers divide their vehicles into "families", which correspond to the
categories and subcategories for vocational vehicles and for tractors. 723For HD vocational
vehicles, the subcategories are Urban, Rural, and Multi-purpose for each of the following: Light
HDV, Medium HDV, and Heavy HDV. For HD tractors, day cabs and sleeper cabs are further
720 "[F]or each family or subfamily... positive credits [are generated] for a family or subfamily that has an FEL
below the standard." 40 CFR 1037.705(b).
721 We explain later in Response 10.2.1.d.2 what averaging sets are, and further discuss their significance.
722 Manufacturers must show "that [the manufacturer's] net balance of emission credits from all [the manufacturer's]
participating vehicle families in each averaging set is not negative". 40 CFR 1037.730(c)(1), and 40 CFR
1037.241(a)(2) ("vehicle families within an averaging set are considered in compliance with the CO2 emissions
standards, if the sum of positive and negative credits for all vehicle configurations in those vehicles lead to a zero
balance or a positive balance of credits").
723 See 40 CFR 1037.230(a) ("divide your product line into families of vehicles based on regulatory subcategories").
1354
-------
subcategorized by roof height.724 Manufacturers submit test results for ten (10) configurations
from each vehicle family.725 These ten test results are to be from vehicles representative of
production vehicles726 and are to include the highest and lowest results.727 This range of test
results establishes a range of "Family Emission Limits" (FEL), which is an "emission level.. .to
serve in place of the otherwise applicable emission standard."728 Families are then often further
divided into sub-families - a sub-family being vehicles within a family that have identical
emission levels.729 The ten test results establish the "highest and lowest FELs to which [the
manufacturer's] subfamilies will be certified."730 The FELs which a manufacturer specifies "may
not be less than the result" of the emission testing specified in 40 CFR 1037.520.731 Based on the
range of allowable FELs, manufacturers then identify the emission standards or FELs to which
the vehicles in the vehicle family will be certified.732
There is one further refinement. Vehicle families are further grouped by "averaging sets":
LHD, MHD, and HHD.733 The manufacturer's application for certification must show that the
individual families or subfamilies are projected to comply throughout their useful life with the
FEL chosen by the manufacturer for that family or subfamily. The certification demonstration
724 40 CFR 1037.105 and 1037.106. Engine types are also subcategorized in 1037.105, although this is not relevant
for purposes of the text discussion.
725 40 CFR 1037.205(o)(l). A "configuration" is "a unique combination of vehicle hardware and calibration ...
within a vehicle family." 1037.801.
726 Since most heavy duty vehicles are built to order, testing of prototypes and estimating production are necessary
whether or not a manufacturer is certifying on an averaging basis. See Comment of ATA in RTC 4.1 noting that
HDVs are invariably highly customized.
727 40 CFR 1037.235(a) and 1037.205(o)(l).
728 40 CFR 1037.801.
729 40 CFR 1037.230(b).
730 40 CFR 1037.205(k).
731 40 CFR 1037.105(d) (vocational vehicles); 40 CFR 1037.106(d) (tractors).
732 See 40 CFR 1037.205(k) ("|i Identify the emission standards or FELs to which you are certifying vehicles in the
vehicle family"); see also 40 CFR 1037.710 (b) ("You may certify one or more vehicle families.. .to an FEL above
the applicable standard") and 1037.750 (b) (a manufacturer "may certify [its] vehicle family or subfamily to an FEL
above an applicable standard based on a projection that [it] will have enough emission credits to offset the deficit for
the vehicle family". As EPA explained more than three decades ago, "Within a given manufacturer's product line,
averaging allows certification of one or more engine families at levels above the applicable emission standard,
provided their increased emissions are offset by those from one or more families certified below the same emission
standard, such that the average emissions from all the manufacturer's families (weighted by horsepower and
production) are at or below the level of the emission standard. This allows a manufacturer to optimize its emission
compliance strategies and minimize compliance costs. The specific mechanism by which this is accomplished is
certification of the engine family to a family emission limit (FEL) set by the manufacturer. The FEL may be above
or below the emission standard, but not higher than an emission ceiling set by EPA. The FEL essentially replaces the
emission standard for certification, assembly-line testing (SEA) and recall purposes." 55 FR at 30585 (July 26,
1990). Similarly, see 54 FR at 22666 (May 25, 1989) ("EPA does not believe that the statutory text or legislative
history cited by the court necessarily means that the CAA requires or that Congress intended that every vehicle or
engine family emit at the same level. As the court itself noted, the Act gives EPA broad latitude, in the testing of
vehicles and, more fundamentally, in the formulation of standards. EPA promulgated the HDE NOx and PM
emissions standards as averaged standards. It thus follows that in testing "any" engine for compliance with those
standards, EPA may hold particular engine families to different control levels as part of an averaged set of engine
families so long as the engine families' average emission levels meet the applicable standard."). Although EPA was
speaking in the context of standards for engines, the statements are equally applicable to vehicle standards.
733 40 CFR 1037.740 (via cross references in 40 CFR 1037.801 and 1037.701(a)(2)).).
1355
-------
must also show, based on projected production levels, that the manufacturer's vehicles will
comply with the applicable standard across their vehicle families across the averaging set.734
The certificate itself is vehicle-specific, and identifies the vehicle family, emission standard
applicable to the type of vehicle in that family (i.e., the subcategory-specific emission standard in
40 CFR 1037.105 and 1037.106), the applicable averaging set, the range of FELs for that vehicle
family expressed as the range established from pre-certification testing, and conditions to which
the certificate remains subject. Thus, in the certificate appended below, the vehicle is in the class
8 low-roof sleeper cab tractor subcategory with weight over 33,000 pounds; it is in the heavy
heavy-duty averaging set; the CO2 emission standard for this type of vehicle is 72.3 g CCh/ton
mile;735 and the range of FELs for this family is 113.2 and 55.7 g/ton-mile. The certificate
further specifies that it is subject to conditions, including all of the provisions in section 1037
subpart H specifying requirements for averaging.736
Manufacturers certifying using the ABT pathway must then submit an end-of-year report to
EPA. The report shows the manufacturer's calculation of positive or negative credits for each
family.737 Credits are generated relative to the emissions standard: "for each family or
subfamily.. .positive credits [are generated] for a family or subfamily that has an FEL below the
standard."738 Negative credits (i.e., debits) are the reverse: families or subfamilies with an FEL
above the standard generated a deficit (a negative credit). Id. The report also must show "that
[the manufacturer's] net balance of emission credits from all [the manufacturer's] participating
vehicle families in each averaging set is not negative".739
If a manufacturer is not able to demonstrate that it meets the applicable standard through
averaging across its families, it may use surplus credits from prior years (banking), or credits
obtained from other manufacturers (trading) to offset its credit deficit and show compliance.740 If
that is not done, the manufacturer must designate which families or subfamilies are causing the
deficit in credits compared to the standard.741
Putting this together, under the ABT certification pathway, prior to certification a
manufacturer performs tests to show that the vehicles in that family will meet the FEL standard
the manufacturer assigns for those vehicles. The manufacturer also makes a demonstration prior
to certification that the levels of production for the various families will result in compliance
734 See 40 CFR 1037.241(a)(2) ("your vehicle families within an averaging set are considered in compliance with the
C02 emissions standards.. .if the sum of positive and negative credits for all vehicle configurations in those vehicle
families lead to a zero balance or a positive balance of credits"); see also 1037.725(a), (b) (application for
certification must include, among other things, "the FELs you select for the vehicle family or subfamily", and "a
statement that.. .you will not have a negative balance of emission credits for any averaging set when all emission
credits are calculated at the end of the year").
735 40 CFR 1037.106(b), Table 1.
736 See also 40 CFR 1037.255(a) ("[w]e may make the approval subject to additional conditions").
737 40 CFR 1037.730(b)(6).
738 40 CFR 1037.705(b).
739 40 CFR 1037.730(c)(1) and 1037.241(a)(2) ("vehicle families within an averaging set are considered in
compliance with the CO2 emissions standards, if the sum of positive and negative credits for all vehicle
configurations in those vehicles lead to a zero balance or a positive balance of credits"). As explained in section
III.A.3 of the preamble, and RTC 10.3.2 below, the Phase 3 rule contains a temporary flexibility whereby, among
other things, credits generated by HDVs can be used across all of the HDV averaging sets in MYs 2027-2032.
740 40 CFR 1037.715, 1037.720.
741 See example set out in 40 CFR 1037.730(b)(7).
1356
-------
with its projected fleet average for each vehicle family averaging set by averaging set. Vehicle
families and subfamilies are then certified to the applicable standard and FEL. Conditions are
placed on the certificates to ensure compliance with the fleet average after the year's production
is completed. The production-weighted sum of the families and their FELs within each
averaging set must be equal to or less than the applicable emission standard.
Should manufacturers run a credit deficit for the year for any vehicle family for any averaging
set, and fail to utilize the various options in the rules for eliminating a credit deficit within a
specified amount of time, EPA may void the certificate of the relevant vehicle family or
subfamily. 40 CFR 1037.745. Conditions on certificates of conformity expressly provide that
EPA can void certificates.742 The vehicles whose certificates have been voided are then
considered not covered by the certificates,743 and the manufacturer is potentially subject to civil
penalties for committing an act prohibited under CAA section 203 - introducing vehicles into
commerce that are not covered by a certificate of conformity.
EPA may perform in-use testing "of any vehicle subject to the standards".744 This in-use
testing is compared to the FEL to which the vehicle is certified.745
Response 10.2.1.d.3: These Provisions Conform to All Requirements of the Act
The ABT program has been in place for decades and has worked admirably in practice. The
elements of the program—including the certification of individual vehicles to an FEL, the
requirement that vehicle families in an averaging set meet (or surpass) the emission standards
across that averaging set, the system of pre-certification testing, the conditioning of certificates
of conformity on end-of year demonstrations of compliance— are entirely consistent with the
Act, including all the provisions cited by commenters.746
The argument that the regulatory approach is unlawful because conformity cannot be
determined until the end of the model year is incorrect. Congress itself used this kind of
approach when it mandated certain standards under section 202. For example, Congress
mandated phase-ins over time of certain emission standards for certain vehicles and model
years.747 Each of these provisions requires that a specified percentage of a manufacturer's
production has to meet a specified standard. This made the level of a manufacturer's production
742 See appended certificate ("It is also a term of this certificate that this certificate may be revoked or suspended or
rendered void ab initio for other reasons specified in 40 CFR Part 1068").
743 See, e.g., 40 CFR 1068.101(a)(1).
744 40 CFR 1037.401(a).
745 See 40 CFR 1037.241(a)(2) ("Note that the FEL is considered to be the applicable emissions standard for an
individual configuration"). See also 40 CFR 1037.250(a) (which facilitates individual compliance by requiring
manufacturers to report "by vehicle identification number and vehicle configuration and identify the subfamily
identifier").
746 See CAA section 206(a)(1) (which leaves to EPA the means of determining "whether such vehicle... conforms
with" the section 202 emissions standards and authorizes the Administrator to "test, or require to be tested in such
manner as he deems appropriate" for purposes of vehicle certification); see also EDF v. Thomas, 805 F.2d 410, 425
n. 24 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (noting this discretion).
747 Sections 202(a)(6), (g)(1) (as noted earlier), (g)(2), and (j) (all of which require EPA to issue standards pursuant
to section 202(a)).
1357
-------
over a model year a core element of the standard.748 The form of the standard mandated by
Congress recognized that pre-production certification would need to be based on a projection of
production for the upcoming model year, with actual compliance with the required percentages
not demonstrated until after the end of the model year.749 EPA's ABT provisions use this same
kind of approach, that also makes the level of a manufacturer's production a core element of the
standard. In both forms, compliance is evaluated not only with respect to individual vehicles, but
with respect to the fleet as a whole. The difference is that EPA's provisions provide
manufacturers with greater flexibility in meeting the performance-based standards, allowing
them the ability to achieve the required level of emission reductions even more cost-
effectively. That is, Congress' approach required a specific number of vehicles each year to
meet more stringent standards, while EPA allows manufacturers to choose how many vehicles
each year will meet the more stringent standards, subject to the overall constraint of a fleet
average standard that gradually increases in stringency.
Vehicle manufacturers also warrant at the time of sale that each new vehicle is designed to
comply with all applicable emission standards and will be free from defects that may cause
noncompliance consistent with CAA section 207. Under 40 CFR 1037.120, manufacturers must
warrant to the ultimate purchaser, and to subsequent purchasers, that the vehicle is "designed,
built, and equipped" to conform at time of sale with all applicable standards, and is free of
defects that will cause it to fail to conform in use during the applicable warranty period.751
Components covered by the warranty include all emission-related components included in the
manufacturer's application for a certificate of conformity, which are keyed to the FEL assigned
to those vehicles. These provisions comport entirely with section 207 of the Act and are readily
determinable at time of sale by reference to the certified FEL limit.
Consistent with section 205, civil penalties are prescribed in 40 CFR Part 1068 subpart B,
which prohibits sale or offering into commerce any equipment not covered by a valid certificate
of conformity, and authorizes assessment of civil penalties up to $44,539 per vehicle in
violation.752 As explained above, and illustrated in the appended Certificate of Conformity,
individual certificates are conditioned on compliance with all regulatory requirements including
all those pertaining to compliance demonstrations via averaging. A certificate can be voided "ab
initio" in the event of a violation of averaging requirements. For example, if a manufacturer fails
to meet the required standard using averaging, they can be required to identify the vehicle
families or subfamilies that are causing the deficit.753 The conditions in the certificates mean
EPA may declare that the deficit causing vehicles are not covered by the certificate. If EPA
exercises that authority, the vehicles causing the deficit would no longer be considered to be
covered by the certificate and would be deemed to be introduced into commerce without a valid
748 See, e.g., CAA section 202(g)(1) (defining "standards which provide that emissions from a percentage of each
manufacturer's sales volume of such vehicles and trucks shall comply with the levels specified in table G"
(emphasis added)).
749 See 56 FR 25724, 25733-34 (June 5, 1991).
750 In any case, it is often a practical necessity that conformity be determined at end of year for heavy duty vehicles,
whether or not they choose the ABT or individual certification path (the individual certification option is found in
1037.241(a)(1)). This is because so many heavy-duty vehicles are built to order, and precise specifications are not
known by manufacturers at the model year's commencement.
751 40 CFR section 1037.120(a)(1) and (2).
752 40 CFR 1068.101(a)(1).
753 40 CFR 1037.730(b)(7).
1358
-------
certificate of conformity. This could lead to enforcement action and civil penalties for each of the
vehicles not covered by a certificate, consistent with sections 203 and 205 of the Act. Contrary to
commenters' assertions, the regulations thus establish a straightforward means of calculating per
vehicle violations of the HDV standards if the applicable standard is not achieved on average
across the manufacturer's families in each averaging set.754 In addition, manufacturers can be
penalized for prohibited acts like selling uncertified vehicles or failing to honor the emissions
warranty, all of which apply under a fleet-average standard in the same way as they do under
vehicle-specific standards.
Failure of vehicles to achieve their FEL in-use could lead to a recall under section 207(c)(1) if
EPA determines that a substantial number of vehicles fail to achieve their FEL. Commenters'
arguments that there is no way to assess if a substantial number of heavy-duty vehicles are non-
conforming is incorrect. The certified FEL limit and in-use testing provide a ready means of
determining if and how many vehicles fail to meet their applicable standard in-use.
Similarly incorrect is the commenters' argument that the standards do not allow for section
202(m) emission control diagnostic systems that accurately identify emission control-related
deterioration that could result in failure of vehicles to comply with emission standards. Once
again, every vehicle is certified to an FEL that is immediately determinable, as are means of
diagnosing potential deterioration of the vehicle's emission control system relative to this
FEL.755
Further, commenters reliance on the NRDC v. Thomas dicta is misplaced. First, the Court
noted that Section 206(a)'s testing and certification provisions refer to vehicles, not to classes of
vehicles.756 As explained above, however, the certification is conditioned not only on
compliance with the fleet-average standards, but also on each vehicle complying with its FEL.757
Second, the NRDC Court noted that in legislative history to the 1970 amendments, Congress
indicated that each prototype, rather than the average of prototypes, should meet emission
standards.758 EPA addressed this concern in the preamble to a 1990 rule. Congress's concern was
that "we did not have an adequate testing program" to "get to this problem of cleaning up the
auto emissions,"759 and that the testing of a small number of prototypes and averaging of those
prototypes did not provide an accurate assessment of vehicle compliance with standards. But
EPA's current certification and in-use standards are vehicle-specific and "ensure that each engine
meets the [applicable] limit."760 Averaging as used in the current program does not create any
uncertainty as to whether manufacturers are in compliance with the standards because every
754 See 1037.730(b)(7). We note again that the Phase 3 rule contains a temporary flexibility whereby compliance in
MYs 2027-2032 can be demonstrated across all of the HDV averaging sets.
755 Cf. 40 CFR Part 1037.201(1) (requirement for certification application to identify vehicle family's deterioration
history) and 1037.241(c) (EPA may require certification applicant to provide analysis "showing that the
performance of your emission controls will not deteriorate during the useful life" and potentially requiring applicant
to develop deterioration factors for the vehicle and its emission control components).
756 NRDC v. Thomas, 805 F.2d at 425 n.24.
757 The NRDC Court also noted the "counterargument" to its concern, that "the manner of testing deemed
appropriate or the content of the standards themselves is within the discretion of the agency." NRDC v. Thomas, 805
F.2d at 425 n.24.
758 Id.
159 Id.
760 5 5 Fed. Reg. at 30594/1.
1359
-------
vehicle must achieve its certified emission performance as part of the fleetwide compliance
framework.
Response 10.2.1.d.4: Illustrative Certificate of Conformity
13&J)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
2023 MODEL YEAR
C ERTIFICATE OF C ONFORMITY
WITH THE CLEAN AIR ACT
OFFICE OF TRANSPORTATION
AND AIR QUALITY
ANN ARBOR MIC HIGAN 48105
Certificate Issued To: Volvo Group Trucks Technology, Powertrain
Engineering, a Division of Mack Tracks
(U.S. Manufacturer or Importer)
Certificate Number: P\TT2TR\CS00-Q19-R03
Effective Date:
Expiration Date:
12/31/2023
Byron J/Bunker, Division Director
Compliance Division
07/18/2022
Revision Date:
Model Year: 2023
Vehicle Family: PVPT2TRACS00
Vehicle Regulatorv Sub-categorv: Class 8 low-roof sleeper cab tractors above 33,000 pounds
GVWR
Av eraging Set: Heavy Heavy-Duty Vehicles (8)
C02 Emission Standard (g C02/ton-mile): 72.3
Highest Projected C02 Family Emission Limit (g'ton-urile): 113.2
Lowest Projected C"02 Family Emission Limit (g/ton-mile): 55.7
Pursuant to Section 206 of the Clean An Act (42 U.S.C. section 7525), 40 CFR Part 1037 and subject to the terms and conditions prescribed in those provisions, tins certificate of conformity is hereby issued
with respect to the test vehicle which represents the vehicle family, and is subject to the terms and conditions prescribed in those provisions. This certificate of conformity covers only those new motor
vehicles which conform in all material respects to the design specifications that applied to those vehicles described in the documentation required by 40 CFR Part 1037 and which are produced during the
model year stated on this certificate of the said manufacturer, as defined in 40 CFR Part 1037.
This certificate of conformity is conditional upon compliance of said manufacturer with the averaging, banking and trading provisions of 40 CFR Part 103 7. Subpart H Failure to comply with these
provisions may render this certificate void ab initio.
It is a term of this certificate that the manufacturer shall consent to all inspections described in 40 CFR 1068 and authorized in a warrant or court order. Failure to comply with the requirements of such a
warrant or court order may lead to revocation or suspension of this certificate for reasons specified in 40 CFR Part 1068. It is also a term of this certificate that this certificate may be revoked or suspended or
rendered void ab initio for other reasons specified in 40 CFR Part 1068.
This certificate does not cover vehicles sold, offered for sale, or introduced, or delivered for introduction, into commerce in the U.S. prior to the effective date of the certificate.
Response 10.2.I.e. The Russello Canon Is Inapplicable
Commenters invoked the Russello and expressio imins canons of statutory construction,
claiming that various provisions of both the CAA and other statutes indicate that Congress knew
how to specify ABT-based standards when it wished, and therefore that the absence of such an
explicit delegation in section 202(a)(1) is an indication that no such delegation is intended. We
disagree with the relevance of these canons here, which we refer to collectively as the Russello
canon. To begin with, the "canon does not apply unless it is fair to suppose that Congress
considered the unnamed possibility and meant to say no to it, and that the canon can be
overcome by contrary indications that adopting a particular rule or statute was probably not
meant to signal any exclusion."761 As explained above, a more direct and explicit indication of
Congressional intent vis-a-vis ABT is available, as Congress ratified EPA's use of ABT as
upheld by the DC. Circuit's decision in NRDC v. Thomas, 805 F. 2d 410, 425 (D.C. Cir.
1986).762 For this reason alone, the Russello canon does not apply.
Moreover, the Russello canon has limited if any utility where wording is not identical or
otherwise substantially similar.763 That is the case with respect to the provisions cited by the
761 Marx v. Gen. Revenue Corp., 133 S. Ct. 1166, 1175 (2013).
762 See 88 FR at 25950.
763 See Nat'! Postal Pol'y Council v. Postal Regitl. Comm'n, 17 F.4th 1184, 1191 (D.C. Cir. 2021), cert, denied, 142
S. Ct. 2868 (2022) ("The Mailers also invoke the presumption in Russello v. United States — that the inclusion of a
phrase in one provision and its absence in another is deliberate, 464 U.S. 16, 23, 104 S.Ct. 296, 78 L.Ed.2d 17
(1983) — to argue that the exception to the price cap for emergencies in § 3622(d)(1)(E) demonstrates that Congress
decided not to grant the Commission the authority to override the price cap in § 3622(d)(3). Mailers Br. 20-21. That
canon has limited force here, however, because the two provisions use different words and are not otherwise
1360
-------
commenters. Commenters cite the Clean Fuels Vehicle provisions in Part C of Title II for the
proposition that Congress knew how to specify an ABT program.764 This program is found in a
separate Part of the statute, uses different language than section 202, and is not otherwise parallel
to section 202. Namely, the Part C provisions direct EPA to set standards for clean-fuel vehicles
operating on clean alternative fuel including electricity, but only on a targeted regional basis.
This was a specific project to advance alternative fuels and technologies,765 not a limit on EPA's
general Section 202(a)(1) authority. Moreover, the credit provisions are highly detailed, and in
some cases, mandatory. For example, the credit provisions in section 246(f) are mandatory,
specific to certain State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions, and subject to limits on how the
credits can be used, such as "to demonstrate compliance with other requirements applicable
under this section in the same nonattainment area."766 By contrast, section 202(a)(1) does not
explicitly mandate or specify a credit program, and it also provides for nationally applicable
standards. EPA's decision to implement ABT and fleet-average standards falls within Congress's
delegation to the agency to establish the standards. Thus, sections 246 and 249 are quite different
from section 202(a)(1), and the Russello canon is inapplicable.
Commenters cited the Reformulated Gasoline and Renewable Fuel Standards provisions of
the Act as further examples of Congress knowing how to specify averaging or credit programs
when it wished to adopt them.767 These provisions involve fuels, not emission from motor
vehicles, and so are not the same or parallel to section 202(a). Moreover, the credit programs in
those provisions are also mandatory.768 Further, Congress explicitly specified that the RFS
program does not limit the agency's authority to promulgate other GHG programs.769
EPA notes that the ABT program for section 202(a) standards is not unique in lacking an
explicit statutory ABT provision. Over the decades, EPA has also promulgated ABT programs in
other similar instances. For instance, EPA has also implemented a highly successful ABT
program for fuels standards under section 211(c).770 Indeed, many fuels companies, such as
members of commenters API and AFPM, have historically supported and benefited from these
ABT programs. Like the section 202(a) ABT programs, fuels programs containing ABT
provisions that are promulgated under section 211(c) also lack an explicit statutory ABT
provision. Such absence is also in marked contrast to the section 211 (k) ABT program.
More broadly, in light of the history of Federal environmental law, it is not surprising that the
later-enacted clean fuel vehicles, reformulated gasoline, and RFS programs have explicit
parallel. See City of Columbus v. Ours Garage & Wrecker Serv., Inc., 536 U.S. 424, 435-36, 122 S.Ct. 2226, 153
L.Ed.2d 430 (2002).").
764 Commenters also cite to the Clean Fuel Vehicles program as evidence that Congress knew how to explicitly
specify a program for electric vehicles. We respond to these comments in RTC 2.1.
765 See H. Rep. No. 101-490, pt. 1, at 283 (1990), 1990 WL 1222133, at *65-66 (Congress wanted "to encourage a
broad range of vehicles," including those using electricity, and break the "chicken and the egg" supply-and-demand
problem among automakers, consumers, and fuel producers).
766 CAA section 246(f)(2)(A).
767 See CAA section 21 l(k)(7) (credits relating to reformulated gasoline), section 21 l(o)(5) (credit program for
RFS).
768 See CAA section 21 l(k)(7) (regulations "shall provide" for credits for certain reformulated gasoline), section
21 l(o)(5) (RFS regulations "shall provide" for credits).
769 CAA section 21 l(o)(12).
770 See, e.g., 65 FR 6698 (Feb. 10, 2010); 79 FR 23416 (Apr. 28, 2014); 66 FR 5002 (Jan. 18, 2001); 72 FR 8428
(Feb. 26, 2007).
1361
-------
provisions relating to credits, while earlier-enacted the sections 211(c) fuels and 202(a) motor
vehicle programs do not. Credit programs generally and ABT programs specifically were not
widely used in the early days of federal air pollution control, and the lawmakers likely had
limited knowledge of such programs.771 For instance, at the time of the Motor Vehicle Air
Pollution Control Act of 1965, there was no ABT program for any federal air pollution
regulatory program. Congress, recognizing the need for regulatory flexibility so as to avoid
obsolescence, declined to specify the details of how the standards should be implemented,
entrusting those technical judgments to the expertise of the administrative agency.
Even further afield is Valero's assertion that the Energy Policy Conservation Act provision
directing NHTSA to issue regulations setting "average fuel economy standards for automobiles
manufactured by a manufacturer"772 constrains EPA's section 202(a) authority. EPCA is a
different statute from the CAA, and it is also concerned with entirely different purposes. Section
202(a) is concerned with preventing or controlling emissions of air pollutants from motor
vehicles which contribute to endangerment, not with vehicular fuel economy.773 The Russello
canon has no applicability here.
Response 10.2.1.f: EPA May Include ZEV and ICE Heavy Duty Vehicles Within a Single
Regulatory Class.
Several of the commenters argue that even if section 202(a)(1) authorizes fleet average
standards, ICE and non-ICE vehicles' performance cannot be averaged together because they are
not of the same "class" as required by section 202(a)(1). There are two versions of this argument:
that all members of the class being averaged must emit the pollutant(s) which are contributing to
endangerment, or that they have fundamentally different powertrains and so cannot be
reasonably grouped together.
EPA disagrees. As discussed in Section I.A of the preamble, section 202(a) requires EPA to
prescribe standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any class or classes of
new motor vehicles, which in the Administrator's judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution
which endangers public health and welfare. Congress defined "motor vehicles" by their function:
"any self-propelled vehicle designed for transporting persons or property on a street or
highway."774 Likewise, with regard to classes, Congress explicitly contemplated functional
categories: "the Administrator may base such classes or categories on gross vehicle weight,
horsepower, type of fuel used, or other appropriate factors."775 It is indisputable that ZEVs are
771 See Ellerman, P.L. Joskow & D. Harrison, Jr., Emissions Trading in the U.S.: Experience, Lessons and
Considerations for Greenhouse Gases (2003), available at https://globalchange.mit.edu/publication/13922
(discussing the history of ABT and other credit programs in US environmental law, summarized on p. 7 tab. 1).
77249 U.S.C. § 32902(a).
773 See Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 532 (2007) ("that DOT sets mileage standards in no way licenses EPA
to shirk its environmental responsibilities. EPA has been charged with protecting the public's "health" and
"welfare," 42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(1), a statutory obligation wholly independent of DOT's mandate to promote energy
efficiency. See Energy Policy and Conservation Act, § 2(5), 89 Stat. 874, 42 U.S.C. § 6201(5). The two obligations
may overlap, but there is no reason to think the two agencies cannot both administer their obligations and yet avoid
inconsistency").
774 CAA section 216(2).
775 CAA section 202(a)(3)(A)(ii). This section applies to standards established under section 202(a)(3), not to
standards otherwise established under section 202(a)(1). But it nonetheless provides guidance on what kinds of
classifications and categorizations Congress thought were appropriate.
1362
-------
"new motor vehicles" as defined by the statute and that they fall into the weight-based "classes"
that EPA established with Congress's explicit support.
Under section 202(a), regulation of motor vehicle emissions has two distinct aspects: (1) if the
Administrator finds that "any class or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle
engines, ... in his judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger public health or welfare," then (2) "[t]he Administrator shall by
regulation prescribe (and from time to time revise) in accordance with the provisions of this
section, standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from" such class or classes. The
first step of this inquiry is the endangerment finding, while the second step is setting the
standards.776 As the Supreme Court held in Massachusetts and the D.C. Circuit reaffirmed in
Coalition for Responsible Regulation, the Endangerment Finding is a matter of "scientific
judgment"—whether air pollution endangers and whether the class of motor vehicles contributes
to such pollution.777 By contrast, the decision on what standards to set is a policy decision
subsequent to the endangerment finding based on technical determinations of technology
availability, cost of compliance, and lead-time.778
In making the GHG Endangerment Finding in 2009, EPA defined the "classes" of motor
vehicles and engines for GHG regulation as "Passenger cars, light-duty trucks, motorcycles,
buses, and medium and heavy-duty trucks."779 Heavy-duty ZEVs fall within the class of heavy-
duty trucks. In making the Endangerment Finding, EPA satisfied the statutory prerequisite for
establishing GHG standards for the entire class of HD vehicles, which includes zero-emitting HD
vehicles that do not emit pollutants.780 That is, the Administrator's judgment as to endangerment
applied to the above-stated classes as wholes, with no qualification as to the level of emissions,
powertrain, or any other characteristic. The Endangerment Finding was upheld after extensive
litigation.781 EPA did not reopen the 2009 Endangerment Finding in this rulemaking, and
comments collaterally challenging it are beyond the scope of this rulemaking. Once EPA made
776 See 74 FR 66544 ("the decisions on cause or contribute and endangerment are separate and distinct from the
decisions on what emissions standards to set under CAA section 202(a)."); see also id. at 66501-02; Endangerment
and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act: EPA's
Response to Public Comments, Volume 11: Miscellaneous Legal, Procedural, and Other Comments, 11.3.
111 Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 534 (2007); Coal, for Responsible Regul., Inc. v. EPA. 684 F.3d 102, 117-
19 (D.C. Cir. 2012).
778 See Coal, for Responsible Regul., Inc. v. EPA, 684 F.3d 102, 118 (Policy inquiries "muddle the rather
straightforward scientific judgment about whether there may be endangerment by throwing the potential impact of
responding to the danger into the initial question. To be sure, the subsection following § 202(a)(1), § 202(a)(2),
requires that EPA address limited questions about the cost of compliance with new emission standards and the
availability of technology for meeting those standards, but these judgments are not part of the § 202(a)(1)
endangerment inquiry. The Supreme Court made clear in Massachusetts v. EPA that... policy concerns were not
part of the calculus for the determination of the endangerment finding in the first instance."); see generally id. at
117-19.
779 74 FR 66496, 66537 (Dec. 15, 2009).
780 We note that this is not special to GHGs. For example, EPA has also made endangerment findings and
established criteria pollutant standards for an entire class or classes of vehicles (e.g., for light-duty vehicles and
heavy-duty vehicles), with includes ICE only vehicles, hybrid vehicles, and ZEV vehicles. Of course the nature of
compliance demonstration may differ by vehicle. For example, it would be a waste of resources to test BEVs for
tailpipe emissions, and thus EPA allows BEVs to certify to certain standards without testing.
781 Coal, for Responsible Regul., Inc. v. EPA, 684 F.3d 102, 117 (D.C. Cir. 2012) ("We ultimately conclude that the
Endangerment Finding is consistent -with Massachusetts v. EPA and the text and structure of the CAA, and is
adequately supported by the administrative record.").
1363
-------
the endangerment finding for the class, EPA was required to set emission standards for vehicles
in that class to address the contribution to endangerment. In the final rule, as in prior GHG rules,
EPA acts consistently with the endangerment finding in promulgating GHG regulations for the
class of HD vehicles.
Some commenters nonetheless contend that ZEVs fall outside of EPA's regulatory reach
under this provision because they do not cause, or contribute to, air pollution which endangers
human health and welfare. That misreads the statutory text. Section 202(a)(1)'s focus on
regulating emissions from "class or classes" indicates that Congress was concerned with the air
pollution generated by a class of vehicles, as opposed to from individual vehicles. Accordingly,
Congress authorized EPA to regulate classes of vehicles, and EPA has concluded that the class
of heavy-duty vehicles as a whole causes or contributes to dangerous pollution. As noted, the
class of heavy-duty vehicles includes ZEVs, along with ICE and hybrid vehicles. EPA has
consistently viewed heavy-duty motor vehicles as a class of motor vehicles for regulatory
purposes, including in the HD GHG Phase 1 and Phase 2 rules.
Commenters do not seriously question that HD vehicles as defined by EPA are a "class,"
which they clearly are. A "class" is a "set, group, collection.. .containing members having.. .at
least one attribute in common."782 Heavy duty motor vehicles are a "set" or "group" of vehicles
"containing members" having two key attributes in common. They are all motor vehicles as
defined in section 216(2) of the Act, and they also share the further common attribute of gross
vehicle weight of 8,500 pounds or greater.783 These HD vehicles, along with certain other
vehicles (regulated by EPA under a separate rulemaking), are a subset of the statutory definition
of "heavy duty vehicles," which refer to motor vehicles with "a gross vehicle weight... in excess
of six thousand pounds."784 The statute plainly permits such a classification as it often speaks of
"classes" of "heavy duty vehicles."785
The class of HD vehicles, then, includes all HD vehicles without regard to whether or not they
emit or have a specific propulsion system. This is consistent with EPA's historical approach to
defining vehicle classes. Congress ratified this historical approach in the 1990 amendments to the
CAA. Congress added definitions in section 216 that incorporated into the statute EPA's prior
inclusive definitions of "light duty vehicle" and "light duty truck" which "have the meaning
provided in regulations promulgated by the Administrator and in effect as of November 15,
1990." Congress then mandated certain standards for light duty vehicles and light duty trucks
that incorporated those inclusive definitions,786 which do not include any distinction based on
whether a vehicle emits pollutants or has a certain powertrain. CAA sections 202(g), (h)(1), and
0X1).
782 Webster's II Universal Dictionary.
783 8 8 FR at 25938/1; 40 CFR 86.1803-01.
784 CAA section 202(b)(3)(C).
785 See, e.g., CAA section 202(a)(3)(A)(i).
786 See 40 CFR 86.082-2 ("Light-duty truck means any motor vehicle rated at 8,500 pounds GVWR or less which as
a vehicle curb weight of 6,000 pounds or less and which has a basic vehicle frontal area of 45 square feet or less,
which is: (1) Designed primarily for purposes of transportation of property or is a derivation of such a vehicle, or (2)
Designed primarily for transportation of persons and has a capacity of more than 12 persons, or (3) Available with
special features enabling off-street or off-highway operation and use. * * * Light-duty vehicle means a passenger car
or passenger car derivative capable of seating 12 passenger) or less."); 46 FR 50464-01, 50476-77 (Oct. 13, 1981).
1364
-------
Commenters fail to seriously grapple with these arguments, but nonetheless claim that the
prerequisite for EPA regulation is the agency finding that individual regulated vehicles must
themselves emit air pollutants. This claim is completely unmoored from the statutory text and
purpose, which speaks in terms of "classes" of vehicles that emit pollutants. Section 202(a)(1)
does not speak to emissions from individual vehicles at all. For that view to be right, Section
202(a) would have to be rewritten to say the emission of air pollutants "from any new motor
vehicle."
Furthermore, while an individual vehicle could possibly "contribute" to dangerous air
pollution warranting regulation, it would not typically "cause" such pollution. Instead, the more
common "cause" would be a group of vehicles aggregated as a class. This confirms that "cause,
or contribute to" clause as a whole modifies emissions from a "class or classes" of vehicles,
rather than emissions from individual vehicles.787
These commenters also misunderstand the broader statutory scheme. Congress directed EPA
to apply the standards to vehicles whether they are designed as complete systems or incorporate
devices to prevent or control pollution. Thus, Congress understood that the standards may be
premised on and lead to technologies that prevent pollution in the first place. It would be
perverse to conclude that in a scheme intended to control the emissions of dangerous pollution,
Congress would have prohibited EPA from premising its standards on controls that completely
prevent pollution, while also permitting the agency to premise them on a technology that reduces
99 percent of pollution. Such a nonsensical reading of the statute would mean that the
availability of technology that can reduce 99 percent of pollution could serve as the basis for
highly protective standards, while the availability of a technology that completely prevents the
pollution could not be relied on to set emission standards at all. Such a reading would also create
a perverse safe harbor allowing polluting vehicles to be perpetually produced, resulting in
harmful emissions and adverse impacts on public health, even where available technology
permits the complete prevention of such emissions and adverse impacts at a reasonable cost.
That result cannot be squared with section 202(a)(1)'s purpose to reduce emissions that "cause or
contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or
welfare,"788 or with the statutory directive to not only "control" but also "prevent" pollution.
Commenters' suggestion that EPA define the class to exclude ZEVs would also be
unreasonable and unworkable. Ex ante, EPA does not know which vehicles a manufacturer may
produce and, without technological controls including add-on devices and complete systems, all
of the vehicles have the potential to emit dangerous pollution.789 Therefore, EPA establishes
standards for the entire class of vehicles, based upon its consideration of all available
technologies. It is only after the manufacturers have applied those technologies to vehicles in
actual production that the pollution is prevented or controlled. To put it differently, even
787 The rule of last antecedent does not alter that conclusion. That rule is sometimes used to interpret "a list of terms
or phrases followed by a limiting clause." Lockhartv. United States, 577 U.S. 347, 351 (2016). But Section
202(a)(1) presents no such list, and thus no conundrum of whether the final modifier applies to everything in a
preceding list or just the last item.
788 See also Coal, for Responsible Regul., 684 F. 3d at 122 (explaining that the statutory purpose is to "prevent
reasonably anticipated endangerment from maturing into concrete harm").
789 As noted above, manufacturers in some cases choose to offer different models of the same vehicle with different
levels of electrification. And it is the manufacturer who decides whether a given vehicle will be manufactured to
produce no emissions, low emissions, or higher emissions controlled by add-on technology.
1365
-------
hypothetically assuming EPA could not set standards for vehicles that manufacturers intend to
build as electric vehicles—a proposition which we do not agree with—EPA could still regulate
vehicles manufacturers intend not to build as electric vehicles and that would emit dangerous
pollution in the absence of EPA regulation.790 When regulating those vehicles, Congress
explicitly authorized EPA to premise its standards for those vehicles on a "complete system"
technology that prevents pollution entirely, like ZEV technologies.
Commenters' claim that EPA must classify or categorize vehicles by powertrain is also
misplaced. For any given class of vehicles, the Administrator may make appropriate
subcategorizations in establishing the standards.791 Section 202(a)(1) does not explicitly
delineate how EPA should categorize, indicating that Congress entrusted this subsidiary
technical determination to the Administrator's judgment.792 EPA routinely makes categorizations
based on characteristics like vehicle weight and functionality, and establishes different standards
for each category where that is warranted, for instance, often establishing less stringent standards
for heavier vehicles as compared to lighter vehicles of the same functionality in light of
differences in technological feasibility and costs. This rulemaking proposed to generally
maintain the pre-existing regulatory categories of vocational vehicles and tractors, as well as
further subcategorizations within each of those categories, e.g., by weight (light heavy duty,
medium heavy duty, and heavy heavy-duty vocational vehicles) and functionality (rural, urban,
and multi-purpose vocational vehicles; day cabs and sleeper cab tractors, plus custom chassis
subcategories).
Commenters do not identify anything in the statute that mandates categorization based on
whether a vehicle emits or whether it has a certain powertrain. And in fact, Section 202(a)(1)
does not require categorization (or classification) on these bases. Moreover, the intention
underlying the commenters' preferred categorization is to delay the introduction of effective
pollution control technologies like ZEVs, with the result of perpetuating dangerous air pollution.
That is not a reasonable way to implement section 202(a)(1).
Although it does not directly apply to section 202(a)(1) standards, Section 202(a)(3)(A)(ii)
provides guidance on what kinds of classifications and categorizations Congress thought were
appropriate. 793 That section states "[i]n establishing classes or categories of vehicles or engines
for purposes of regulations under this paragraph, the Administrator may base such classes or
790 In other words, the additional ZEVs EPA projects in the modeled potential compliance pathway exist in the
baseline case as pollutant-emitting vehicles with ICE. We further note that it would be odd for EPA to have
authority to regulate a given class of motor vehicles—in this case heavy-duty motor vehicles—so long as those
vehicles emit air pollution at the tailpipe, but to lose its authority to regulate those very same vehicles should they
install emission control devices to limit such pollution or be designed to prevent the endangering pollution in the
first place.
791 We acknowledge that we have not always clearly delineated between the terms "class" versus "category." But the
key point here is not the semantics of these two words, but rather a substantive distinction: the "classes" of vehicles
that contribute to dangerous pollution for which EPA makes the endangerment finding and are thereby subject to the
regulation for the relevant pollutant, and the "categories" or "subcategories" of vehicles within a class for which the
agency may in its discretion establish different standards based on the characteristics of those subcategories.
792 Congress, however, did provide indicia as to what appropriate categorizations could be in section
202(a)(3)(A)(ii), which we discuss further below. This section does not apply directly to this rulemaking but is
nonetheless instructive as to potential means of categorizing (as well as classifying) heavy duty vehicles.
793 Section 202(a)(3)(A)(ii) applies to standards established under section 202(a)(3), not to standards otherwise
established under section 202(a)(1). Nonetheless, we think it provides guidance more generally on what
classifications and categorizations Congress thought appropriate.
1366
-------
categories on gross vehicle weight, horsepower, type of fuel used, or other appropriate factors."
The class of HD vehicles is distinguished from other motor vehicles by its members having a
"gross vehicle weight" exceeding 8,500 pounds. The categories within HD vehicles are also
distinguished by weight (e.g., light HD versus heavy HD vocational vehicles) as well as by
function (e.g., vocational vehicles versus tractors), which the Administrator views as an "other
appropriate factor."794
Moreover, we note that other parts of the statute do actually require distinctions based on
powertrain or based on fuel type (which corresponds to powertrain). Even within section 202
itself, Congress specified certain standards applicable only to some "gasoline and diesel-fueled"
vehicles.795 In section 216(1), Congress also limited the definition of a nonroad engine to mean
only certain kinds of "internal combustion engine."796 This treatment shows that when Congress
wants to require distinctions related to powertrain, it knew how to do so. The conspicuous
absence of any such limitation in section 202(a)(1) suggests that no such limitation should be
inferred.
Commenters' suggestion that ZEVs are somehow so fundamentally different from ICE
vehicles as to require different classification or categorization is also misplaced. EPA has
conducted comprehensive analysis in this rule demonstrating that, during the timeframe for this
rule, ZEVs are generally capable of performing the same functions as ICE vehicles of their
respective types and established the standards accordingly. Indeed, manufacturers will
sometimes produce the same vehicle model with varying levels of electrification.797 We also
determined that ZEVs would not be reasonably available in certain applications—for example,
those involving some custom chassis types, or operation in extreme weather conditions or at
extreme daily VMT—and we accordingly assumed solely ICE vehicles would continue to be
used for those applications.
Relatedly, a commenter claims that because there is no identifiable vehicle configuration that
corresponds to the standards, industry as a whole would have to certify at least two
fundamentally different types of vehicles to satisfy them. It is not entirely clear what this
comment means. HD vehicles are a highly diverse class of vehicles, and different manufacturers
produce different subsets of such vehicles, with diverse vehicle configurations. We expect
manufacturers to continue to produce the kinds of vehicles they have traditionally produced as
794 See White Stallion Energy Center v. EPA, 748 F. 3d 1222, 1249 ("[NJothing in the Clean Air Act 'requires' EPA
to create a CFB subcategory. Rather, the statute gives EPA substantial discretion in determining whether
subcategorization is appropriate. See also CAA § 112(d)(1), 42 U.S.C. § 7412(d)(1) (EPA "may distinguish among
classes, types, and sizes of sources"); Nat'lAss'n of Clean Water Agencies v. EPA, 734 F.3d 1115, 1159
(D.C.Cir.2013) ("EPA's subcategorization authority under § 112 involves an expert determination, placing a heavy
burden on a challenger to overcome deference to EPA's articulated rational connection between the facts found and
the choice made."); NRDC v. EPA, 489 F. 3d 1364, 1375 (D.C. Cir. 2007) ("Because Congress has vested EPA with
subcategorization authority under Section 112(c)(1), and its exercise of that authority involves an expert
determination, L-P carries a heavy burden to overcome deference to the agency's articulated rational connection
between the facts found and the choices made.").
795 CAA section 202(a)(3)(B)(ii), (h) tab. H, (i)(l); see also CAA section 202(a)(5)(A) ("gasoline vapor recovery"),
(g) tab. G ("diesel-fueled LDTs"), (k) ("gasoline-fueled motor vehicles").
796 CAA section 216(10).
797 For example, the Freightliner Cascadia and eCascadia are ICE and BEV versions of Freightliner's HD semi
truck. Or for example, the Ford F-150 has been offered in ICE and EV versions, while the Hyundai Ioniq and Kia
Niro has been offered in HEV, PHEV, and EV versions. Jaguar Land Rover has also indicated that every model will
be available with a fully electric version by the end of the decade.
1367
-------
the standards do not limit manufacturers to only producing a single vehicle configuration or
applying only a single type of pollution control technology. Moreover, it is up to manufacturers
to decide how to comply with EPA's standards, and we expect each manufacturer to choose the
compliance pathway that best suits its business.
Commenters suggest that calculating a fleetwide average that includes both ZEVs and other
vehicles creates an illogical or false average, but EPA rejects that suggestion. It is entirely
consistent with the history of motor vehicle regulation under the CAA for pollution control
technologies to be phased in across the fleet, and there is nothing false about the tailpipe
emissions compliance figures being averaged together under this rule. After all, ZEVs do indeed
produce no tailpipe emissions, so it is accurate to account for them as such. Indeed, it would be
more inaccurate to exclude ZEVs in calculating fleetwide compliance. And there is nothing false
about regulatory averages that include electric vehicles. Emission standards generally apply to all
motor vehicles in the relevant class. Manufacturers count the emissions of every vehicle in their
fleet when calculating fleet-average emissions. Electric vehicles are thus treated just like any
other vehicle with emission-control technology. For that reason, averaging is technology neutral.
The impact a particular technology has on a fleet's performance depends on its effectiveness.
And electric vehicles are very effective at reducing greenhouse-gas emissions. But that
effectiveness does not mean EPA must categorize electric vehicles separately or that such
vehicles are beyond EPA's regulatory authority.
Some commenters latch onto the fact that EPA has historically established separate categories
for spark ignition and compression ignition vocational vehicles for purposes of HD GHG
regulation.798 EPA is retaining this categorization scheme in this rule. We expect manufacturers
to continue producing both spark and compression ignition ICE vocational vehicles during the
timeframe of this rule; that is, manufacturers will likely comply with the Phase 3 standards, as
with their Phase 2 predecessors, in whole or in part based on the GHG performance of both types
of vocational vehicle engines. Given technological differences, spark and compression ignition
ICE emit different amounts of pollutants, including GHGs, and including when using the same
pollution control technologies.799 As such, EPA's standards and categorization scheme
appropriately reflect the different feasible emissions performance of these two types of internal
combustion engines and vehicles. In principle, this is no different than having different GHG
standards for, say, an ICE long-haul tractor and an ICE light HD vocational vehicle: they emit
different amounts of pollutants, even when using the same pollution control technologies, and
the standards appropriately reflect this difference.
We note the key difference between this scheme and the one that commenters say is
compelled. Under Phase 3, vocational vehicles with all engine types must meet GHG standards
whose stringency is supported by the feasible emission reductions under the modeled potential
compliance pathway, which includes both ZEVs and vehicles with ICE technologies.800 Under
the commenters' approach, EPA is precluded from requiring any emission reductions associated
with ZEV technologies that are available at a reasonable cost, and the nation has to forgo large
public health and welfare benefits. We do not think such a result is reasonable.
798 See 40 CFR section 1037.105 (b)(1).
799 See, e.g., 81 FR at 73562, 73679, 73703 (Phase 2 rule discussions of engine technologies considered in vehicle
standard-setting).
800 The standard can of course be met by any means a manufacturer chooses.
1368
-------
Finally, many of commenters' arguments rest on a false premise that ZEVs cannot emit any
air pollutants. But ZEVs can in fact emit GHGs through their HVAC systems.801 They can also
emit GHGs and criteria pollutants when using fuel operated heaters.802 And of course, ZEVs like
any other motor vehicle emit PM through brake and tire wear.803
10.2.2 U.S.-Directed Production Volume
Comments by Organizations
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
I. Definition
1. U.S.-Directed Production Volume
Affected pages: 26019-26020
The NPRM requests comments on changing the definition of U.S.-directed production volume
used in calculating credits beginning in the MY 2024. This proposed definition would include
vehicles certified to a state's emission standard that is different from U.S. EPA's. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1591-A1, pp.67-68]
The U.S.-directed production volume definition should continue to exclude vehicles certified
to a state's emission standard that is different from U.S. EPA's. Because California and a number
of Section 177 states have adopted the ACT regulation, the inclusion of these vehicles in the
production volume for the Phase 3 rulemaking could be appropriate only if the Phase 3 final
rules will produce similar emission reductions— e.g., by encouraging similar ZEV penetration
rates as those of the ACT regulation. In addition, California recently adopted the ACF regulation
which establishes ZEV purchase requirements greater than required in the ACT regulation and a
100 percent manufacturer ZEV sales requirement in 2036, both of which exceed the stringency
of U.S. EPA's NPRM. As such, CARB staff does not support the change in the definition of
U.S.-directed production volume. The current definition of U.S.-directed production volume,
which excludes vehicles certified to California and Section 177 state standards, should be
maintained so that Phase 3 GHG achieves benefits beyond what the standards in California and
the Section 177 states will already achieve. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1591-A1, p.68]
Eroding the effective Phase 3 GHG stringency in the U.S. EPA-only regulated states by
averaging the California and Section 177 ACT states into the national average would work
counter to the CAA purpose of state actions being additive beyond national actions. The flow of
the vehicles sold subject to the effectively eroded standards back into California and Section 177
states on the used market and in the course of interstate commerce would result in emission
increases and exacerbate our air pollution, public health, and climate challenges. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1591-A1, p.68]
801 See 40 CFR sections 86.1819-14 (h) and 1037.115 (e) prescribing standards to control those emissions.
802 See RTC section 4.10 responding to comments of CARB and Roush regarding fuel operated heaters in ZEVs.
803 See RIA Chapter 4.1 discussing EPA's modelling of these emissions in calculating emission inventories
associated with the Phase 3 rule. EPA has not to date adopted standards for such PM emissions; such standards
would present a number of complex and novel issues.
1369
-------
In fact, if the U.S.-directed production volume definition is changed as proposed, CARB staff
expects that manufacturers would be able to comply with the proposed Phase 3 2027 standards
(preferred alternative) without taking any compliance actions (such as selling HD ZEVs or other
lower emitting vehicles) outside California and Section 177 states. This is due to the early credit
bank manufacturers can generate due to expected action by California and other Section 177
states. Per data in the DRIA, U.S. EPA expects nationwide vocational ZEV sales to increase
from 1.1 percent in 2024 to 2.4 percent in 2026, and nationwide tractor ZEV sales to increase
from 0.3 percent in 2024 to 1.0 percent in 2026. Assuming these vehicles are sold as BEVs
eligible for a 4.5 ATC multiplier, these ZEV sales would provide manufacturers with a credit
bank sufficient to offset a nationwide 25 percent ZEV sales requirement for vocational vehicles
and nationwide 9 percent ZEV sales requirement for tractors. Given the 2027 standards for
vocational vehicles and tractors are 20 percent and 10 percent respectively, these banked credits
would almost completely offset the entire MY 2027 requirements under the NPRM. Given that
U.S. EPA's reference case does not include the impacts of the ACF regulation, potential early
action by manufacturers in California or other Section 177 states, nor the impacts of Vermont,
Colorado, and Maryland or future states adopting the ACT regulation, the actual size of the
credit bank will be greater than assumed in the reference case, and CARB staff expects that
manufacturers would be able to comply with the proposed Phase 3 2027 standards without
making any HD ZEVS or otherwise improving their average, nationwide emissions. This sizable
bank will hinder U.S. EPA's overall program and reduce the number of ZEVs other states
receive. Overall, maintaining separate programs by continuing to exclude vehicles certified to a
state's emission standard that is different from U.S. EPA's in the definition of U.S.-directed
production volume is critical to avoid these negative effects. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1591-
Al, pp.68-69]
If U.S. EPA does finalize this change in definition, U.S. EPA should not make the change
effective until MY 2027 (or later if U.S. EPA does not finalize more stringent standards for MY
2027). U.S. EPA argues that the expanded definition is appropriate because U.S. EPA is
considering nationwide production volumes when setting these standards. But U.S. EPA is only
doing so beginning with MY 2027. U.S. EPA has not proposed to (re)set its standards that way
for MYs 2024 through 2026, and it should not, therefore, make any related definitional change
for those years. Indeed, doing so would effectively change those standards without any
determination (or basis for one) that those standards should be changed. And the same is true for
U.S. EPA's other justification for this change. There cannot be any "potential difficulties
surrounding manufacturers' long-term compliance planning" for MYs 2024 through 2026 of
U.S. EPA's existing Phase 2 regulation, as those standards have been in place for a decade.
Whatever justification U.S. EPA may have offered for this definitional change to accompany its
revised standards for MY 2027 or its new standards for MY 2028 and later, there does not appear
to be any justification for making this definitional change before any revised or new federal
standards take effect. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1591-A1, p.69]
As an additional note, for clarity and consistency, CARB staff suggests that U.S. EPA ensure
that the regulatory language concerning U.S.-directed production volume for vehicles generating
and using emission credits in 40 CFR 1037.705 is consistent with that for engines in 40 CFR
1036.705(c)(4). It appears U.S. EPA has proposed changing 40 CFR 1036.705(c)(4) for engines
but not proposed the adoption of consistent language in 40 CFR 1037.705. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1591-A1, p.69]
1370
-------
Organization: Clean Air Task Force et al.
G. EPA should not adopt the proposed definition of "U.S.-directed production volume"
without strengthening its standards, and any change to the definition should take effect no earlier
than 2027.
EPA's proposal would include vehicles certified to the ACT in California and other states
within the "U.S.-directed production volume" eligible for credits. 88 Fed. Reg. at 26009-10
(proposing new definition of term). EPA proposes this change because "the ZEV production
volumes destined for California and other states would correspond to a large portion of the
nationwide production on which the proposed EPA standards are based," such that "it would be
challenging for vehicle manufacturers to comply with the proposed standards if they could not
account for those ZEVs." Id. at 26010. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, pp. 78 - 79]
For the reasons set forth above, a standard that includes vehicles produced pursuant to the
ACT (both in California and in states that have already adopted ACT) should be much more
stringent than the standards that EPA proposes. The proposed change to the definition of "Un-
directed production volume" should therefore be accompanied by a significantly more stringent
final rule—one at least as protective of public health and welfare as the ACT implemented
nationwide. Otherwise, there is no reason to conclude that it would be "challenging" for
manufacturers to comply without accounting for vehicles in California and states adopting
California's standards. Id. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 79]
Additionally, EPA offers no basis to implement the definitional change in 2024, well before
the proposed standards take effect. Id. at 26009 (proposing that revision take effect in 2024).
EPA's Phase 2 standards are not premised on ACT-certified vehicles, and there is no reasonable
basis to believe that those standards will be difficult to meet without including ACT vehicles.
EPA's desire for "consistent treatment of any production volumes certified to ACT" does not
allow it to unmoor its regulatory change from its rationale: the need to match its definition to
"the production on which the [Phase 3] standards are based," Id. at 26009-10, which does not
apply to EPA's Phase 2 standards. And especially for those years in which EPA's final rule
allows credit multipliers, including ACT-certified vehicles will deeply undermine the
effectiveness of EPA's standards. Therefore if EPA finalizes its proposed change to the
definition of "U.S.-directed production volume," that change should take effect no earlier than
2027. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 79]
Organization: Colorado Department of Transportation et al
• EPA proposes changes to the definition of 'U.S. directed production volume' a term that
defines the geographic boundaries in which sales count toward manufacturers'
compliance with EPA's heavy-duty GHG standards. Under the current Phase 2
regulations, this term excludes 'production volumes that are certified to different state
emission standards,' meaning that sales in California and the Section 177 States that have
adopted the ACT Rule do not count toward compliance with EPA's Phase 2 standards.
Under EPA's proposed redefinition, 'total nationwide production volumes' would count
toward compliance with its standards, 'including vehicles certified to state emission
standards that are different than EPA's'. If EPA moves forward with a proposal that is
less stringent than the ACT regulation, our state would not support this change, which
1371
-------
would reduce the emission reduction impact of the rule in states that have not adopted the
ACT rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1530-A1, pp. 2-3]
Organization: Cummins
11. Cummins proposes improved wording for 40 CFR §1036.705(c)(4).
40 CFR §1036.705(c)(4) should be reworded to align and be more consistent with 40 CFR
§1036.801. Cummins proposes the following wording:
"Engines produced by a manufacturer for which the manufacturer has a reasonable assurance
that sale was or will be made to ultimate purchasers in a state that has implemented emissions
standards that are different than the emissions standards in this part." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1598-A1, p. 10]
Organization: Daimler Truck North America LLC (DTNA)
Inclusion of Nationwide Production Volumes in ABT. DTNA agrees with EPA's proposal to
allow vehicles produced and certified to meet ACT sales volume requirements in California and
other states to generate credits under the federal ABT program starting in MY 2024. Inclusion of
nationwide production volumes—including those vehicles that are certified to state-specific
emission standards—in credit calculations is in fact necessary to ensure that the Phase 3
standards, which are based on nationwide adoption rates, are feasible and appropriate. As EPA
notes, HD ZEV production volumes destined for California and other states correspond to a large
portion of the nationwide production on which EPA's proposed standards are based, and it would
be extremely challenging for vehicle manufacturers to comply with the proposed standards if
they could not account for those ZEVs.21 Including nationwide production volumes in ABT
credit calculations is thus necessary to encourage nationwide HD ZEV proliferation, one of the
main objectives of the Proposed Rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, pp. 16-17]
21 See Proposed Rule, 88 Fed. Reg. at 26,010.
Applicable Engine Production Volume for Calculating ABT Credits.
EPA proposes a new 40 C.F.R. 1036.705(c)(4) to maintain the current exclusion of engines
that are certified to state-specific engine standards from the engine production volumes used as
the basis for ABT credit calculations under Part 1036.144 This modification is needed in light of
EPA's proposal to broaden the definition of 'U.S.-directed production volume' (in both Parts
1036 and 1037) to allow GHG ABT credit calculations to encompass nationwide production
volumes, as discussed in Section II. A. of these comments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1,
p. 75]
144 See Proposed Rule, 88 Fed. Reg. at 26,019.
DTNA requests that EPA take this opportunity to make a needed clarification that engines are
excluded from credit calculations based upon the states in which they are sold, rather than the
standards to which they were certified. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 75]
As EPA is likely aware, it is common practice for manufacturers to seek dual CARB and EPA
certifications for their engines, including engines that are not ultimately sold in California or a
CAA Section 177 opt-in state, so that they can be sold anywhere in the country. Because engines
1372
-------
that are sold outside of California or Section 177 states would not be credit-eligible under these
states' credit programs, 145 it stands to reason that they should not be excluded from the federal
ABT credit program just because of their CARB certification. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-
Al, p. 75]
145 As such, these engines do not present the 'double-counting' problem that originally motivated EPA to
exclude products certified to state-specific emission standards from the production volumes used as the
basis for federal ABT credit calculations. In enacting this exclusion, EPA sought to ensure that engines
already required to be certified under the California program (for sale there or in other states that require
CARB certification) could not generate credits under the federal ABT program. This concern is not
presented in the case of engines for which federal certification is required but CARB certification is
optional because the engines are produced for sale outside of California/opt-in states. We understand that
EPA concurs with this interpretation, as evidenced in its statements in the recently finalized Low-NOx Rule
preamble. See 81 Fed. Reg. at 4,395, n. 413 (observing that while the 'final ABT program does not allow
manufacturers to generate emissions credits from engines certified to state emission standards that are
different than the federal standards,' this does not preclude manufacturers from generating emission credits
'if they produce larger volumes of engines to sell outside of those states that have adopted emission
standards that are different than the federal standards') (emphasis added).
The requested clarification to Section 1036.705(c)(4) would make plain in the regulations that
an engine with dual certification (i.e., one that is certified to both EPA and CARB emission
standards) would not be excluded from a manufacturer's credit calculation where it is sold in a
state where only EPA is certification is required. To effectuate this change, the Company
proposes the following revision to the proposed new Section 1036.705(c)(4):
(c) Compliance with the requirements of this subpart is determined at the end of the model
year by calculating emission credits based on actual production volumes, excluding the
following engines:
(4) Engines certified to state emission produced by a manufacturer for sale in a state that has
adopted emissions standards that are different than the emission standards in this part. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, pp. 75-76]
Organization: Ford Motor Company
EPA has proposed a revision to the definition of "U.S.-directed production volume" as
defined in 40 CFR §§ 1036.801 and 1037.801 in order to include vehicles sold in California or
Section 177 states that have adopted the Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT) regulation, to take effect
in 2024MY. Ford supports this proposed change and 2024MY timing. We agree with EPA that
the revised definition is appropriate, and so is EPA's rationale in considering the impact of ACT
on this HD GHG regulation. The revised definition will align with EPA's goal of increasing
heavy-duty ZEV sales nationwide and will help avoid the need to predict or account for any
distortionary impact that ACT may have on non-Section 177 state ZEV sales. We believe it is
appropriate for EPA to consider nationwide ZEV sales as a whole in this rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1565-A1, p. 7]
At the same time, we also support the proposed revision to 40 CFR § 1036.705(c) to continue
separate emission credit averaging, banking, and trading for engines certified to different state
emission standards when those state standards are materially different than EPA's standards. As
articulated by EPA, such a case will continue to exist between California's (and adopting Section
177 states') Heavy-Duty Omnibus rule and EPA's Clean Trucks Plan HD2027 rule, both of
1373
-------
which regulate criteria emissions from heavy-duty engines but at different standards, useful lives,
and in-use requirements. Engine emission standards for 2027MY and beyond do not include EVs
in their averaging sets, for EPA or California, so the overlap in balancing Section 177 and non-
Section 177 state ZEV sales does not exist as it does for EPA's proposed HD GHG rule and
ACT. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1565-A1, p. 7-8]
Organization: International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT)
TREATMENT OF ACT COMPLIANCE TOWARDS COMPLIANCE WITH PHASE 2 This
section responds to EPA's request for comment on how to account for ZEV adoption rates that
would arise from compliance with the California ACT program in setting the proposed Phase 2
GHG standards. We are concerned that EPA's decision to revise the definition of 'U.S.-directed
production volume' will allow manufacturers to comply with the proposed C02 standards
through the sale of zero-emission trucks they are already required to sell under state law. This
flexibility dilutes the stringency of the proposed standards, reinforces investments in fleet
deployment and charging infrastructure in ACT states at the expense of non-ACT states, and
limits the benefits of the rule in non-ACT states. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1553-A1, p. 14]
In our view the simplest solution would be to retain the existing definition of 'U.S.' directed
production volumes that has been in effect since the adoption of the Phase 2 standards. This
would ensure manufacturers are investing in more efficient and zero-emission vehicles in non-
ACT states. This would also ensure utility companies and charging infrastructure providers are
investing in non-ACT states. And this would provide greater certainty that the rule would deliver
its intended benefits in non-ACT states. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1553-A1, p. 14]
If EPA chooses to adopt its proposed revision to the definition of 'U.S. directed production
volume,' we suggest the agency determine the stringency of its standards based on a weighted
average of ZEV sales required in ACT states and the additional forecasted ZEV sales in non-
ACT states. In this way, EPA is aligning the stringency of its standards with the benefits of ZEV
sales required under state laws, and it is reinforcing and securing the additional market potential
for ZEV deployments in non-ACT states. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1553-A1, p. 14]
A hypothetical example of a sales-weighted average can be illustrated for Class 7-8 short haul
tractors. The EPA proposal assumes a 35% ZEV sales share in MY 2032 in this segment. We
assume nine states that have adopted the ACT account for 24% of national Class 7-8 short-haul
tractor sales. We also assume the ACT requires 74% of MY 2032 sales of these vehicles to be
zero-emission. The weighted national average ZEV sales share for Class 7-8 short-haul tractor
trucks is 44.4%. This weighted average would be the basis for setting the stringency of the
standard for this vehicle category. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1553-A1, pp. 14-15]
Organization: Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association (MECA)
Averaging, Banking and Trading
U.S. Directed Production
EPA's analysis supporting this proposed rule is based on a 50-state approach which provides
greater flexibility to address the complexities and fluid nature of heavy-duty vehicle purchases,
1374
-------
licensing and operation. For these reasons, MECA believes that it is appropriate that U.S.
directed production should include all 50 states. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1521-A1, p. 9]
Organization: Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) and the
Ozone Transport Commission (OTC)
Definition of U.S.-Directed Production Volume
EPA asks for comment on its proposal to change the definition of the U.S.-Directed
Production Volume in 40 CFR 1037.801 such that it represents the total nationwide production
volumes, including vehicles certified to state emission standards that are different than the
emission standards of 40 CFR part 1037. We request that EPA retain the definition of U.S.-
Directed Production Volume as it currently is defined in 40 CFR 1037.801 so that Phase 3 GHG
standards achieve benefits beyond what the standards in California and the Section 177 states
achieve. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1562-A1, p. 14]
The current definition excludes vehicles certified to a state emission standard that is different
from U.S. EPA's, in this case, vehicles certified to California and Section 177 state standards.
The change in definition would allow inclusion of the Section 177 states' and California's MHD
ZEV production volumes in the national average. Information in EPA's Draft RIA shows the
agency expects nationwide vocational ZEV sales to increase from 1.1 percent in 2024 to 2.4
percent in 2026, and nationwide tractor ZEV sales to increase from 0.3 percent in 2024 to 1.0
percent in 2026. Assuming these vehicles are sold as BEVs eligible for a 4.5 advanced
technology credit multiplier, these ZEV sales would provide manufacturers with a credit bank
sufficient to offset a nationwide 25 percent ZEV sales requirement for vocational vehicles and
nationwide 9 percent ZEV sales requirement for tractors. Given the 2027 standards for
vocational vehicles and tractors are 20 percent and 10 percent respectively, these banked credits
would almost completely offset the entire 2027 MY requirements under the proposed rule. As
stated previously, EPA's reference case does not include the impacts of Vermont, Colorado, or
future states adopting the ACT regulation, the ACF regulation, or potential early action by
manufacturers. Because of this, the amount of banked ZEV credits will likely be greater than
assumed in the reference case. This sizable bank will reduce the number of ZEVs other states
receive. Thus, continuing to exclude vehicles certified to a state's emission standard different
from EPA's in the definition of the U.S.-Directed Production Volume is critical to avoid these
negative effects. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1562-A1, p. 14-15]
Organization: ROUSH CleanTech
We do not agree with EPA's proposed approach to combine all US sales into a single GHG
credit pool, even if they are certified to alternate state standards. We recognize that by including
California certified vehicles in the EPA credit pool it will give the appearance of higher
BEV/FCEV adoption rates than if the EPA pool was federal only, but we do not believe this is a
reasonable justification for a combined pool. States which adopt the ACT are forcing
manufacturers to sell BEV/FCEV's, and in California and states which adopt the ACF, are
forcing fleets to buy them. This behavior would totally distort the credit pool and market for the
Phase 3 program, and almost certainly will result in little or no incentive for manufacturers to
sell BEV's in federal states as BEV's sold in ACT states would receive valuable ACT credits in
addition to valuable EPA GHG credits. We recommend that EPA follow current practice (and
1375
-------
past precedent) and continue to maintain a separate credit pool that applies only to federal states
and allow the ACT states to maintain their own pools (as they will otherwise have to under the
ACT program). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1655-A1, p.3]
Organization: State of California et al. (2)
IV. EPA SHOULD NOT CHANGE THE DEFINITION OF "U.S.-DIRECTED
PRODUCTION VOLUME," AND CERTAINLY SHOULD DO SO NO EARLIER THAN
MODEL YEAR 2027
EPA has proposed to change its definition of "U.S.-directed production volume."241 This
term defines the geographic boundaries in which sales count toward manufacturers' compliance
with EPA's heavy-duty GHG standards.242 Under the current Phase 2 regulations, this term
excludes "production volumes that are certified to different state emission standards," meaning
that sales in California and the Section 177 States that have adopted California's ACT
Rule would not currently count toward compliance with EPA's Phase 2 standards. EPA seeks
comment on whether it should change this definition so that EPA would count "total nationwide
production volumes" toward compliance with its standards, "including vehicles certified to state
emission standards that are different than" EPA's.243 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1588-A1,
pp. 35-36]
241 40 C.F.R. §§ 1036.801, 1037.801.
242 88 Fed. Reg. at 26,009.
243 Id. at 26,010.
Our States and Cities oppose this change. Congress intended EPA's standards to reduce
harmful vehicular emissions, thereby protecting public health and welfare, through new vehicle
sales in States that have not adopted California's standards. EPA's standards should be based on
an assessment of technological development and applications manufacturers can make in those
other States, and compliance should be determined accordingly. Certainly, EPA must consider
the vehicles being produced for, and anticipated to be produced for, California and Section 177
States pursuant to those States' standards. That information is directly relevant to questions of
technological feasibility and cost-effectiveness. This is so not because those vehicles facilitate
compliance with EPA's standards, but because the ability to produce and use cleaner vehicles
anywhere is one part of the picture of what may be feasible elsewhere. Thus, simply because
EPA is "considering such production volumes in setting the stringency of the Phase 3 standards
in this rulemaking," it does not logically follow that EPA should "allow[] inclusion of such
production volumes in demonstrating compliance with" EPA's standards.244 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1588-A1, p.36]
244 Id.
Moreover, if EPA follows the path it has proposed here—changing the definition of "Un-
directed production volume" beginning with MY2024, preserving the multiplier credits through
MY2026, and finalizing its preferred alternative standards beginning in MY2027—EPA's
standards will not protect the public health and welfare as the CAA requires. First, the timing of
EPA's proposed definitional change would allow manufacturers to get credit for any ZEVs they
sell to comply with state ACT regulations under EPA's existing Phase 2 standards for MY2024-
1376
-------
2026 which are not changing here. In other words, EPA would make compliance significantly
easier (perhaps even effortless) in States outside California and the Section 177 States in
MY2024-2026, even though EPA has made no finding that manufacturers face challenges with
the federal Phase 2 standards in those years (nor could EPA do so). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1588-A1, p.36]
Second, and even worse, EPA would allow manufacturers to receive between 3.5 and 5.5
times the credit for any ZEVs they sell in ACT States for those three model years (2024-
2026).245 So, even by simply meeting their compliance obligations in ACT States,
manufacturers will rack up enormous credit banks under EPA's program. Manufacturers could
then use banked credits, rather than emissions reductions, to comply in later years, which would
slow, rather than advance, progress. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1588-A1, p.36]
245 Our States and Cities support the comments of others (including the California Air Resources Board)
in urging EPA to end the multipliers earlier than MY2026.
Third, EPA's preferred alternative for MY2027 and beyond is not projected to provide the
emissions benefits or to encourage technology-deployment levels equivalent to ACT. If EPA
counts ACT compliance toward those weaker standards, it means the non-ACT States (including
some joining this comment) can see technology deployment and public health protections at
lower-than-average levels. If EPA sets a nationwide standard that it forecasts might result in 30
percent ZEVs nationally for vocational vehicle sales in MY2029, but ACT requires 40 percent in
that same year,246 the actual ZEV sales in the non-ACT States can clearly fall well below the 30
percent nationwide forecast. EPA's approach clouds how much protection EPA anticipates its
standards will provide in non-ACT States (where those standards are the only protection) and
fails to adequately serve the markets EPA's standards are intended to cover. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1588-A1, p.37]
246 88 Fed. Reg. at 25,933.
If EPA intends to finalize the proposed change to the definition of "U.S.-directed production
volume," it should, at a minimum, mitigate these adverse outcomes by:
• Making the definitional change effective no sooner than the model year for which EPA
revises its Phase 2 standards or promulgates new ones—i.e., MY2027, if EPA revises
those standards through this rulemaking; and
• Finalizing standards that produce protections equivalent to ACT. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1588-A1, p.37]
The first of these requests—delaying the effective date of the definitional change—comports
with EPA's rationale for making the change at all. EPA says it is proposing this "revision [as]
consistent with our intended approach of considering [national] production volumes in setting the
stringency of the Phase 3 standards."247 That rationale ties the revision of the definition to
EPA's standard-setting in this rulemaking, meaning the definition should be revised, if at all,
when standards are newly set—in other words, in MY2027 (at the earliest), not MY2024. EPA
also points to what it describes as "potential difficulties surrounding manufacturers' long-term
compliance planning (due to the uncertainty surrounding whether additional states may adopt the
California ACT program in the future)."248 EPA does not explain why any such "difficulties"
are appropriate for EPA to address in advance, rather than for the State considering adoption of
ACT in the future to address pursuant to its state law authority and the authority and
1377
-------
requirements established in Section 177. EPA likewise does not explain how additional state
adoptions would cause "difficulties" for manufacturer compliance with EPA's standards if
EPA's standards remained as they are—based on, and complied with through, what can be
achieved in non-ACT States. In any event, if EPA's concern is about long-term planning for
EPA's standards, there is no reason for this change to take effect in MY2024-2026, as EPA's
standards for those years have been in place since 2016 and the current definition of "Un-
directed production volume" has been in place even longer. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1588-
Al, p.37]
247 Id. at 26,010.
248 Id.
The second request—finalizing standards more stringent than the preferred alternative—
would ensure that EPA is not overstating the protectiveness of its own standards by effectively
taking credit for protectiveness actually provided by States' adoption of ACT. As shown above,
standards that produce benefits and technological-deployment levels at least equivalent to ACT
are both feasible and needed nationwide. If EPA finalizes standards that stringent, it would
obviate both the lack of transparency and the lack of sufficient public protection that otherwise
results from EPA disclosing only nationwide technology levels, all the while aware that those
levels need not be achieved in the areas for which EPA itself has regulatory responsibility. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1588-A1, p.38]
In sum, our States and Cities do not see a need for EPA's proposed definitional change and
urge EPA to leave the existing definition in place. In any event, manufacturers should get no
credit—and certainly not multiplied credit—for vehicles sold in ACT States in model years for
which EPA is making no change to its standards. Any such credits would only undermine the
existing Phase 2 standards about which EPA has made no findings of infeasibility. And, if EPA
proceeds with its definitional change (in MY2027 or later), it should do so only if it also makes
its own standards stringent enough to provide transparent and sufficient benefits to the non-ACT
States—i.e., by recognizing that ACT-like levels of technological deployment and protection are
feasible nationwide. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1588-A1, p.38]
Organization: Tesla, Inc. (Tesla)
Tesla Supports the Definition Change in 'U.S. Directed Production Volume
'As proposed, Tesla supports the agency's revision of the definition of 'U.S. directed
production volumes' to ensure nationwide production is included within the Phase 3 program
starting in MY 2024.184 Compliance with ACT is based upon, inter alia, credits for ZEV sales in
a set geographic market and not nation-wide fleet level emission standards. 185 Given these
dramatically different compliance regimes, there is no 'double counting' in allowing vehicles
sold in ACT states to be included in the national emissions standards. Ensuring inclusion of all
nationwide sales in the compliance regime will be consistent with the EPA light-duty regime and
provide manufacturers with a consistent context for long-term compliance planning. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1505-A1, p. 25]
184 88 Fed. Reg. at 26019.
185 See 13 CCR 1963 et seq.
1378
-------
Organization: Volvo Group
Definition of U.S.-directed Production Volume
Volvo Group agrees that the agency must codify new language as noted in Section III. A. 1 of
the NPRM revising the current definition of "U.S.-directed production volume" to include all
vehicles produced for sales and delivery in the U.S., regardless of whether the vehicles are
certified to federal, or state emissions standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1606-A1, p. 22]
EPA Summary and Response:
Summary:
A number of commenters supported all aspects of the proposed revision to the definition of
U.S.-directed production volume (DTNA, Ford, MECA, Tesla, Volvo.) Tesla indicated that
there would be no double-counting of credits given the significantly different compliance
regimes under ACT (a sales mandate), and a federal fleet-average standard. DTNA maintains
that since standards are based on a nationwide adoption rate, the revised definition is the only
way standards might be 'feasible and appropriate'. Ford added a cautionary note not to adjust the
current approach for the Phase 2 engine standards.
Other commenters opposed the revised definition asserting that, combined with the
multipliers available for advanced technology credits in that period, the new definition would
erode the Phase 3 standard stringency as to result in no improvements beyond what would occur
in the absence of the rule (CARB, CATF et al, Colorado DOT et al, ICCT, NESCAUM, State of
California et al). The commenters argue that any emission reductions would be attributable to
ZEV sales compelled by ACT and so would occur only in California and the section 177 states.
The State of California et al. characterized any such credits as "windfall" since they would occur
in the absence of federal regulatory standards. ICCT maintained further that the provision would
create a disincentive for utilities, as well as for OEMs, to direct resources for ZEVs to non-ACT
states. In addition to ACT, CARB also noted that they recently adopted the ACF regulation
requiring fleets to purchase ZEVs at levels beyond what is reflected by the proposed Phase 3
standards and that "eroding the effective Phase 3 GHG stringency" by revising the U.S.-directed
production volume definition would also erode the effectiveness of ACT and ACF by allowing
vehicles subject to "eroded standards" to flow back into the state through interstate commerce or
the used vehicle market.
CARB, ICCT, and NESCAUM quantified their concern of offsetting the Phase 3 standards.
CARB and NESCAUM highlighted their concern over the BEV multiplier by projecting BEV
sales volumes mandated by ACT in California and the section 177 states, and multiplying by 4.5
from MYs 2024-2026. In their calculation, they show that credits would be available to offset
BEV penetration levels of 25% for vocational vehicles, and 9% for tractors (either exceeding or
roughly the same as the potential compliance pathways projected at proposal for MY 2027).
Some of the commenters further suggested that these credits could even dilute the stringency
of the Phase 2 standards, without justification, by making the revised definition effective in MY
2024 (CARB, CATF et al, Colorado DOT et al., State of California et al). CATF commented that
"EPA's desire for "consistent treatment of any production volumes certified to ACT" does not
allow it to unmoor its regulatory change from its rationale: the need to match its definition to
1379
-------
"the production on which the [Phase 3] standards are based," Id. at 26009-10, which does not
apply to EPA's Phase 2 standards.
These commenters consequently urged that if EPA amends the U.S. Directed Production
Volume definition as proposed, it either commence the change in MY 2027 rather than MY 2024
or that EPA must make a corresponding adjustment in stringency of the national standard.
(CATF et al., ICCT, State of California et al. (2).) CATF et al. commented that the Phase 3 final
rule should be as protective as ACT implemented nationwide, or EPA should not "conclude that
it would be 'challenging' for manufacturers to comply without accounting for vehicles in
California and states adopting California's standards." ICCT offered a second alternative to
avoid diluting standard stringency: "If EPA chooses to adopt its proposed revision to the
definition of 'U.S. directed production volume,' we suggest the agency determine the stringency
of its standards based on a weighted average of ZEV sales required in ACT states and the
additional forecasted ZEV sales in non-ACT states. In this way, EPA is aligning the stringency
of its standards with the benefits of ZEV sales required under state laws, and it is reinforcing and
securing the additional market potential for ZEV deployments in non-ACT states."
In addition to reflecting these concerns regarding dilution of standard stringency, a number of
these commenters challenged EPA's rationale for the proposed changes. One of these
commenters stated that if that rationale is to be consistent with the approach of setting standards
considering national sales volumes of ZEVs (referring to 88 FR 26009/2), then the amended
definition should commence in MY 2027 (State of California). Roush commented that including
ACT-based sales in the national credit pool would give the misleading appearance of higher ZEV
adoption rates, but that this was not an adequate justification for the amendment. Roush
recommended that EPA "continue to maintain a separate credit pool that applies only to federal
states and allow the ACT states to maintain their own pools".
Several organizations commented with specific suggestions relating to the proposed
regulatory language.
CARB suggested that EPA ensure that the regulatory language concerning U.S.-directed
production volume for vehicles generating and using emission credits in 40 CFR 1037.705 is
consistent with that for engines in 40 CFR 1036.705(c)(4). CARB stated that it appears U.S.
EPA has proposed changing 40 CFR 1036.705(c)(4) for engines but not proposed the adoption of
consistent language in 40 CFR 1037.705.
Cummins states that 40 CFR 1036.705(c)(4) should be reworded to align with 40 CFR
1036.801 and proposes the following: "Engines produced by a manufacturer for which the
manufacturer has a reasonable assurance that sale was or will be made to ultimate purchasers in a
state that has implemented emissions standards that are different than the emissions standards in
this part."
DTNA states that EPA's proposed new 40 CFR 1036.705(c)(4) is needed in light of EPA's
proposal to broaden the definition of 'U.S.-directed production volume' (in both Parts 1036 and
1037) to allow GHG ABT credit calculations to encompass nationwide production volumes, as
discussed in Section II. A. of these comments. DTNA requests that EPA make a needed
clarification that engines are excluded from credit calculations based upon the states in which
they are sold, rather than the standards to which they were certified. DTNA stated that since
engines that are sold outside of California or Section 177 states would not be credit-eligible
1380
-------
under these states' credit programs, they should not be excluded from the federal ABT credit
program just because of their CARB certification.
DTNA proposes the following revision to the proposed new Section 1036.705(c)(4):
(c)(4) Engines certified to state omission produced by a manufacturer for sale in a state that
has adopted emissions standards that are different than the emission standards in this part.
Ford expressed support for the proposed revision to 40 CFR 1037.705(c) and EPA's approach
to continue separate credit ABT from engines certified to different state emission standards. Ford
notes that both EPA and California do not include EVs in the MY 2027 and later engine CO2
standards, so "the overlap in balancing Section 177 and non-Section 177 state ZEV sales does
not exist as it does for EPA's proposed HD GHG rule and ACT."
Response:
As described in Section III.A.l of the final rule preamble, we are finalizing a revised
definition such that U.S.-directed production volume represents nationwide production, including
any production in states that have adopted different standards. After considering comments, we
are also finalizing the proposed effective date of MY 2024. In the final rule preamble, we include
responses to comments expressing concerns that the new definition would erode the Phase 3
standard stringency and result in no improvements beyond what would occur in the absence of
the rule (CARB, ICCT, NESCAUM). We also address comments urging that any definition
change not occur until MY 2027 for concern over diluting the Phase 2 program (CARB, CATF
et al, Colorado DOT et al., State of California et al).
We have considered ICCT's suggested alternative approach for setting the stringency of the
Phase 3 standards. While we did not determine the stringency of the standards exactly as ICCT
suggested, we did update our baseline in the FRM to model ZEV adoption in ACT states and
non-ACT states separately as described in preamble Section V and RIA Chapter 4. This updated
baseline was used in the analyses for the impacts of the final rule standards; for discussion of
EPA's basis for concluding the final standards are feasible and appropriate, see preamble Section
II.G. We note that our technology assessment in preamble Section II and RIA Chapter 2 is a
national assessment of emission-reducing technologies and, as shown in preamble Section V,
RIA Chapter 4, and RTC Section 2.4, we anticipate that the Phase 3 standards will lead to greater
adoption of emission-reducing technologies (principally ZEVs) in non-ACT states. In Section
III.A.l of the final rule preamble, we note additional concerns with complexity and uncertainty
in commenters' suggestions for different approaches to setting the Phase 3 standards while using
the previous definition of U.S-directed production volume.
We disagree with Roush's recommendation that EPA maintain a federal credit pool and ACT
states maintain their own pools, to the extent Roush is implying these pools should be maintained
without any overlap in production volumes between the two pools. As we stated in final rule
preamble III.A.l, even under the previous definition of US-directed production volume,
manufacturers should be eligible to generate credits under the federal program for production
and sales in excess of those required by ACT in states where ACT is applicable804, as otherwise
804 We note that commenter CATF appears to accept a similar principle, since it suggests that federal credits in states
which have adopted ACT should be available once ACT requirements are surpassed. See the comment summary in
the following Section 10.3.
1381
-------
the federal program could create a disincentive for such excess production and sales in such
states. Indeed, as commenter Tesla suggests in a similar context, not recognizing such credits
federally could also discourage states from adopting the ACT program. See section 10.3 below.
It is also unclear how EPA could appropriately distinguish which credits should be treated as
excess and part of compliance with the Phase 3 program, and the complexity involved in such a
scheme raises verification concerns. These concerns are compounded given that the national
standards reflect national production volumes, and the Roush comment would exclude not only
ACT sales, but credit-generating sales as well, compounding the disconnect between federal
standard setting and federal compliance.
We note further that, unlike a number of commenters, we do not regard an amended definition
as a sharp change of approach. It in fact preserves the status quo that existed from the beginning
of the HD GHG program through March 2023. That is, up until California enacted its ACT
program and EPA granted a preemption waiver for that program, the regulatory definition of
U.S. Directed Production Volume had no practical effect because the federal and California
programs were identical. All credits were consequently generated nationwide. The change in
definition thus preserves that status quo for the existing Phase 2 program, now that the federal
and California programs differ, and carries that approach forward in promulgating the Phase 3
program (with corresponding consideration of the ACT program, as explained in final rule
Preamble Sections II and V). Regarding the existing Phase 2 program in particular, we recognize
that OEMs have brought existing compliance plans to our attention in public comments on this
rule reflecting that status and, given the timing of the divergence of the federal and California
programs and the proximity with existing compliance plans, EPA views preserving the status
quo, whereby all credits are national, as appropriate.
We therefore proposed and are adopting the new definition of U.S.-directed production
volume, in part, to avoid the risk that manufacturers may not be able to account for vehicle sales
to Section 177 states in their credit calculations under a definition that excludes production
volumes meeting different standards. See Section III. A. 1 of the final rule preamble for additional
reasons that further motivated our decision to revise the definition.
As described in Section III.C.2 of this final rule preamble, we proposed a new 40 CFR
1036.705(c)(4) as the location where we exclude engines certified to different state emission
standards from being used to calculate emission credits in the HD engine program. After
considering the comments from Cummins and DTNA, and noting that we never intended to
discourage manufacturers from certifying a complete engine family to California-level standards,
we are further revising the proposed provision to exclude engines if they are certified to different
state standards and intended for sale in a state that adopted those different emission standards..805
In comment, CARB suggested EPA use consistent regulatory language for vehicles and engines
in 40 CFR 1037.705 and 1036.705, respectively. We decline CARB's request, noting that the
vehicle and engine ABT programs intentionally differ under Phase 3 and we did not reopen the
substance of the engine provisions in this rulemaking. The recently promulgated NOx standards
for HD engines were developed excluding production volumes certified to different state NOx
805 We are finalizing as proposed revisions that replace several instances of "U.S.-directed production volume" with
a more general "production volume" where the text clearly is connected to ABT or add a more specific reference to
the production volume specified in 40 CFR 1036.705(c). See revisions in 40 CFR 1036.150(d) and (k), 1036.725(b),
and 1036.730(b).
1382
-------
standards and we are not revising the CO2 standards for HD engines in the Phase 3 rule, and we
also did not reopen any of these engine standards in this rulemaking. Thus, the final regulatory
text retains the existing approach of excluding HD engine production volumes certified to
different state standards for the credit calculations of 40 CFR 1036.705 to maintain the substance
of the existing regulatory provisions. We note that we appreciate Ford's support of EPA
continuing to exclude HD engines certified to different state standards from engine ABT
calculations, and for recognizing that there is not the same need to account for the ACT
regulation with respect to engines in the Phase 3 program.
10.3 ABT as a Compliance Flexibility
10.3.1 Credit Multipliers
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Advanced Engine Systems Institute (AESI)
AESI favors the termination of multipliers for PHEV and BEVs. These technologies are
sufficiently incentivized, and the continued use of these multipliers may delay deployment of
zero emission trucks. Multiplier incentives should continue for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles,
which remain in the early deployment stage of that technology. EPA should also consider
appropriate incentives for hydrogen combustion trucks; this would accelerate hydrogen
infrastructure capacity and the deployment of fuel cell powered trucks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1600-A1, p. 2]
Organization: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE)
EPA should ensure that credits from Phase 2 do not undermine the Phase 3 standards
Manufacturers' credits carried over from the Phase 2 program could substantially affect the
efficacy of Phase 3. The proposal states: "In considering feasibility of the proposed standards,
EPA also considers the impact of available compliance flexibilities on manufacturers'
compliance options" (FR 26002). Yet EPA has not offered any projection of the credit balances
to be carried over from Phase 2 to Phase 3, much less indicated how these credits might affect
the levels of electrification achieved or the potential for backsliding on ICEV emissions under
the proposed standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1560-A1, p. 17]
This concern is heightened by the proposal to leave in place the advanced technology
multipliers for BEVs through 2026 (FR 26013). As discussed in ACEEE's comments on the
2022 heavy-duty NPRM, these very high multipliers together with sales mandates at the state
level and market forces will generate sufficient credits to allow stagnation of average truck
emissions levels in the early years of Phase 3, exactly when momentum must build toward rapid
decarbonization of the commercial fleet.32 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1560-A1, p. 10]
32 https://www.aceee.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/aceee_hd_phase_2_ghg_comments.pdf
As an example of the ability of carryover credits to undermine the standards, consider the
effects of maintaining the advanced technology multipliers in MY 2024-2026. Based on EPA's
estimates of ZEV penetration in MY 2024-2026 in the DRIA (Tables 4-6), carryover of
1383
-------
advanced technology multiplier credits would more than nullify EPA's proposed increase in
stringency in the MY 2027 standards, which therefore would no longer serve to prompt the
industry to start meaningful production of BEVs by MY 2027.33 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1560-A1, p. 17]
33 https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P10178RN.pdf
Organization: American Trucking Associations (ATA)
Drawing upon past experiences, fleets are concerned that manufacturers will limit diesel
product availability to ensure they can comply with their GHG 3 target, which requires a certain
percentage of ZEVs to be sold as part of the OEM's fleet mix. Under the GHG 2 regulation,
fleets were obligated to purchase aero packages, specific tire configurations, and start-stop
technology to ensure compliance with the EPA's technology package. This resulted in a
restricted range of options when fleets placed vehicle orders. EPA's elimination of the Advanced
Technology Credit for MY 2027, which provides a steeper incline for manufacturers to hit their
new GHG 2027 proposed targets with ZEVs, will likely limit fleet technology choices. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1535-A1, p. 9]
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
E. Credits
1. Advanced Technology Credit (ATC) Multipliers for C02 Emissions
Affected pages: 25934 and 26010-26013
The NPRM requests comment on the proposed elimination of the ATC multipliers for PHEVs
and BEVs in MY 2027, one year earlier than provided in the existing Phase 2 GHG regulation.
U.S. EPA is proposing to retain the existing ATC multiplier for FCEVs due to this technology
still being in the early stage of development. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1591-A1, p.52]
During the development of federal Phase 2 GHG regulation in 2015, CARB staff advocated
for larger credit multipliers compared to Phase 1 to encourage early development of technologies
that were not yet commercially available, and to provide incentives to manufacturers who would
like to produce HD ZEVs. U.S. EPA agreed and included ATC multipliers in the final Phase 2
GHG regulation. Federal Phase 2 GHG regulation offers credit multipliers for three types of
advanced technologies: PHEVs with a multiplier of 3.5, BEVs with a multiplier of 4.5, and
FCEVs with a multiplier of 5.5. While CARB staff appreciates that U.S. EPA took CARB's
2015 comments seriously and added the ATC multipliers, with the commercialization of HD
ZEVs, CARB staff now believes the time has come to phase out these multipliers. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1591-A1, p.52]
CARB submitted more up-to-date comments in this regard to the U.S. EPA's March 2022
NPRM "Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle
Standards"(HD2027 NPRM). 185 CARB staff is now urging U.S. EPA to reduce and phase out
the magnitude of the ATC multipliers over time as recommended in their third proposed HD2027
NPRM approach. Furthermore, CARB staff recommends the elimination of ATC multipliers for
HD ZEVs that are certified under CARB's ACT regulation. CARB staff continues to urge U.S.
EPA to reduce the magnitude of the ATC multipliers in MYs 2024 through 2026, as described in
1384
-------
U.S. EPA's third proposed HD2027 NPRM approach.186 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1591-A1,
p.52]
185 Comment submitted by California Air Resources Board (CARB) Posted by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency on May 15, 2022. https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1186
186 Fed. Reg. 17606-17607. March 28, 2022.
In addition to supporting U.S. EPA's proposal to eliminate ATC multipliers for PHEVs and
BEVs for the MY 2027, CARB staff would also like to recommend elimination of ATC
multipliers for FCEVs due to the HD ZEV sales mandate in California and Section 177
states. 187 As a result of these states' sales mandates, there is no need for ATC multipliers for
any HD ZEVs including FCEVs, and removing the multipliers would avoid the double counting
of benefits from complying with a regulation while using the ATC multiplier. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1591-A1, pp.52-53]
187 States that have Adopted California's ACT regulation under Section 177 of the Federal CAA
Organization: China WTO/TBT National Notification & Enquiry Center
4. It is suggested to clarify the basis for terminating the credit coefficient of electric vehicles
on page 9 of Regulation 88 Federal Register (FR) 25926. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1658-A2,
p.4]
88 Federal Register (FR) 25926 regulation proposes on page 9 to terminate the credit rating
for electric vehicles one year in advance, while retaining the FCEV credit rating. It is
recommended to treat all models equally and either terminate them all or postpone the
cancellation for one year simultaneously. The current modifications are not conducive to
encouraging relevant enterprises to continuously invest in and improve new technology research
and development. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1658-A2, p.4]
Organization: Clean Air Task Force et al.
F. EPA Should Eliminate or Restrict the Availability of Advanced Credit Multipliers in 2025.
We support EPA's proposal to phase out advanced technology multipliers, which provide
additional credits for PHEVs, BEVs, and FCEVs. 88 Fed. Reg. at 26010-13. We further request
that EPA consider phasing those multipliers out in 2025 rather than 2026, or otherwise restricting
their availability and use (e.g., by only providing them for long-haul sleeper cabs and other
vehicles for which those technologies currently remain genuinely advanced, or eliminating them
for vehicles necessary to satisfy ACT standards in California and states that have adopted those
standards). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 76]
EPA adopted the credit multipliers as part of the Phase 2 program, "to create a meaningful
incentive for those manufacturers considering developing and applying [the] qualifying advanced
technologies into their vehicles." 88 Fed. Reg. 26010. They were based on a 2016 "cost analysis
that compared the costs of these advanced technologies to the costs of other GHG-reducing
technologies," and set at a level that, according to then-available data, "would make these
advanced technologies more competitive" and "allow manufacturers to more easily generate a
viable business case to develop these advanced technologies and bring them to market." Id. at
1385
-------
26,010-11. EPA recognized when it adopted them that the multipliers were appropriate only for
"very advanced technology," and that "because they are so large" they should not "continue
indefinitely." Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and
Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles-Phase 2, 81 Fed. Reg. 73478, 73497-98 (Oct. 25, 2016).
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, pp. 76 - 77]
EPA's current proposal recognizes that the circumstances that justified the multipliers have
changed dramatically since the Phase 2 program was finalized. 88 Fed. Reg. at 26012 ("[W]e did
not expect the level of innovation since observed, the IRA or BIL incentives, or that California
would adopt the ACT rule at the same time these advanced technology multipliers were in
effect"). Consequently "the multiplier credits could allow for backsliding of emission reductions
expected from combustion vehicles for some manufacturers in the near term." Id. (describing
"the generation of excess credits which could delay the introduction of technology in the near or
mid-term"). EPA's modeling and standard-setting does not account for the use of those credits,
88 Fed. Reg. 26012, and EPA has proposed altering the ABT program (by redefining "Un-
directed production volume") from MY 2024 onwards to make production volumes certified to
ACT standards eligible for credits, id. at 26009. Those provisions, taken together, effectively and
substantially dilute the nominal stringency of EPA's proposed standards—the effects of which
are already overstated by virtue of EPA's underestimate of ZEV penetration in its baseline
scenario. See Section III.B, above. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 77]
In response, EPA proposes to phase out the credit multipliers for BEVs and PHEVs one year
early, in MY 2026. Id. That one-year change fails to respond adequately to the speed with which
BEVs and PHEVs are reaching cost parity and entering the heavy-duty market. The ACT rule,
and its adoption by other section 177 states, will result in significant BEV manufacture in 2025.
Those programs require between 7 and 11 percent of heavy-duty vehicles (depending on class)
certified and offered for sale to be ZEVs and have been adopted in California and seven other
states. As EPA acknowledges, the multipliers generated in those states threaten to "create a large
bank of credits with the potential to delay the real world benefits of [EPA's] proposed program."
88 Fed. Reg. at 26012. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 77]
The market analyses cited in EPA's proposal suggest that rapid technological development
together with state rules and the IRA will render BEVs in many sectors cost-competitive and
widely available before 2026. ERM determined that a variety of Class 5 and 6 ZEVs would reach
purchase price parity with combustion vehicles by 2025, with many Class 8 vehicles at parity by
2026.347 ERM's analysis projects average Class 4-8 ZEV sales in 2025 between 8.8 percent
(44,110 vehicles) and 20 percent (102,700 vehicles).348 ICCT's projections similarly indicate
steep growth in BEV sales in the heavy-duty sector before 2025, especially buses and class 4 and
5 vehicles, with some sectors nearing 30 percent BEV penetration in 2025.349 Those projections
sharply contrast with the projections that served as the basis for EPA's adoption of the
multipliers. See Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium-and
Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles - Phase 2; Regulatory Impact Analysis 2-194 (August 2016)
(concluding that "fully electric vocational vehicles" will not "be widely commercially available"
before 2027). They suggest that allowing BEVs and PHEVs to accrue credits through the
proposed multipliers would significantly and unnecessarily reduce the effectiveness of EPA's
standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, pp. 77 - 78]
347 Robo & Seamonds, Technical Memo, at 4.
1386
-------
348 Id. at 9-11. ERM's analysis excludes PHEVs. Id. at 2.
349 Slowik et al., at 14-15, 24 (projecting that in some heavy-duty sectors ZEV shares near 30 percent,
dominated by BEV).
The countervailing reason EPA offers for retaining the multipliers is an ostensible need to
"continue to incentivize the development of BEVs," and concern regarding "impact on current
manufacturer product plans." 88 Fed. Reg. at 26012. The IRA, however, provides more than
adequate new incentives to secure any product plans that were premised on the availability of
multipliers. The IRA provides substantial tax credits for battery manufacturers, and additional
credits for heavy-duty vehicles. DRIA p. 18-19 (Section 1.3.2.2). Indeed, the overall effect of the
IRA is to eliminate "incremental cost (with the tax credit) of a BEV compared to a [combustion]
vehicle," aside from supply equipment (which is itself subject to additional incentives under the
IRA). Id. at 19-21. Manufacturers can, consequently, be safely expected to continue and expand
their BEV-related product plans even without credits generated by the multipliers; the benefits
those credits would have provided are more than offset by the addition of the IRA's tax credits.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 78]
By MY 2025, consequently, there will be little need for advanced technology multipliers,
while retention of the multipliers risks major reductions in the real-world benefits of the
standards in subsequent years. We therefore urge EPA to further reduce the availability and use
of credit multipliers for BEVs and PHEVs. It should consider, for example: phasing out
multipliers for BEVs and PHEVs in MY 2025; preventing vehicles certified in California and
other states that have adopted ACT from receiving the credit multipliers ("Approach 1,"
described at 88 Fed. Reg. at 26011) unless they exceed the ACT sales requirements in those
states; imposing a two-year limit on the use of any credits generated through advanced
technology multipliers; allowing credits only for certain vehicles (e.g., long-haul sleeper cabs,
see id. at 26013 (inviting comment on differentiating between weight classes)); or reducing the
multipliers available for BEVs and PHEVs (e.g., from 4.5 and 3.5 to 2.5 and 1.5, respectively) in
2025. At a minimum, EPA should account for the use of the credits generated by the multipliers
in setting its standards; their effects are likely to be too significant for EPA to reasonably ignore.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 78]
Organization: Clean Fuels Development Coalition et al.
Adding insult to regulatory injury, EPA has decided to remove its flexibilities all in one go.
The agency previously doled out unlawful credit "multipliers" to electric vehicle manufacturers
and that practice continues today under the rules currently in force. 88 Fed. Reg. 25,972
("instead of including ZEV technologies in the technology packages for setting the Phase 2
standards, we provided advanced technology credit multipliers to help incentivize the
development of ZEV technologies"). In other words, EPA's Phase II heavy-duty standards
unilaterally created a regulatory cross subsidy program for electric vehicles by giving them
double-credit for meeting the standards. This program results in higher prices for gasoline and
diesel vehicles because manufacturers must generate or purchase the credits that EPA has created
to meet standards. EPA has no authority to create such a subsidy program. It gets to set
standards; it has no power to set standards beyond where it thinks they should be and then agree
to relax those standards if a manufacturer gives money to the cause of electrification. "Pay our
friends if you want more favorable standards" is, to put it mildly, not consistent with the rule of
1387
-------
law. Nor is there any logical stopping point to which "friends" might be eligible for such cross-
subsidies. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2022-0985-1585- A 1, pp. 11 - 12]
The proposal does not acknowledge this lack of authority to create these subsidy programs,
but, thankfully, it does propose to end the multiplier program. EPA must do so for both this rule
and with respect to the rule currently in place— ideally through an interim final rule addressing
that specific issue. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1585-A1, p. 12]
Organization: Daimler Truck North America LLC (DTNA)
EPA should not eliminate the Advanced Technology Credit multiplier for BEVs starting in
MY 2026.
As discussed in Section I.B.2 of these comments, regulatory stability and adequate lead-time
are key considerations in establishing and implementing new vehicle emission standards. These
considerations are embedded in CAA Section 202 because they are necessary for manufacturers
to be able to adequately plan their product portfolios, make wise investment decisions in new
technology, and develop and validate successful, robust products. This is especially true as new
regulatory requirements for certification and useful life have driven more onerous testing
requirements and longer validation periods. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 74]
DTNA has supported EPA's GHG Phase 2 rules both during the original rulemaking process
and during implementation. That support was conditioned on the totality of the Phase 2 program
that EPA proposed, including compliance provisions like the Advanced Technology Credit
multipliers. During the previous administration, DTNA, and the commercial vehicle industry as a
whole, continued to support EPA's GHG Phase 2 rule—again, based upon belief in the
importance of regulatory stability and that Agency rulemakings should be respected and not
subject to a see-saw effect based on political considerations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-
Al, p. 74]
The purpose of Advanced Technology Credit multiplier is to incentivize manufacturers to
develop commercial ZEVs to facilitate compliance with EPA's increasingly stringent emission
standards. Now that many manufacturers have relied upon the availability of credit multipliers to
plan their compliance strategies, exactly as EPA intended, the Agency is considering eliminating
them out of concern that the incentives they provided to develop clean technologies may have
led to the introduction of more ZEVs than EPA intended. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2022-0985-1555-A1,
p. 74]
DTNA has invested considerable time in developing a product portfolio to meet GHG Phase 2
standards under the rules as originally promulgated, which include Advanced Technology Credit
multipliers. The Company does not support removing these credits, especially now that we have
defended preservation of the Phase 2 program and built compliance plans in reliance on the rules
as written. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 74]
This is especially true for the alternate approaches EPA discusses in the Proposed Rule, which
would phase out the Advanced Technology Credit multipliers even earlier—potentially as early
as MY 2024. Changing these rules now would undermine manufacturer reliance interests on the
availability of these credits in planning their compliance strategies, as well as the regulatory
1388
-------
stability on which capital-intensive long lead-cycle businesses like DTNA depend. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 74]
EPA Request for Comment, Request #7: We are proposing in this action to eliminate the
advanced technology vehicle credit multipliers for BEVs and PHEVs for MY 2027, one year
before these credit multipliers were set to end under the existing HD GHG Phase 2 program. We
propose retaining the existing FCEV credit multipliers, because the HD market for this
technology continues to be in the early stage of development. We request comment on this
approach.
DTNA Response: DTNA does not support the elimination of advanced technology vehicle
credit multipliers for BEVs and PHEVs for MY 2027. The availability of these credit multipliers
are an integral part of the Phase 2 greenhouse gas (GHG) regulatory program, and manufacturers
have relied upon them to build their product and compliance strategies. DTNA addresses this
issue in Section III.B.l of these comments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 159]
EPA Request for Comment, Request #65: We request comment on our proposed MY 2026
phaseout date or whether we should consider other approaches to account for ACT or incentive
programs.
• DTNA Response: DTNA discusses this issue in detail in Section III.B. 1. of these
comments. EPA should not eliminate the Advanced Technology Credit multiplier for
BEVs starting in MY 2026, as this would undermine manufacturer reliance interests on
the availability of these credits in planning their compliance strategies, as well as the
regulatory stability on which capital-intensive long lead-cycle businesses depend. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 170]
Organization: Eaton
While no ZEV penetration was assumed in Phase 2, the reality is that the market demands and
provides ZEV solutions. Furthermore, the financial incentives of the bipartisan Inflation
Reduction Act and many state programs like California HVIP, do provide additional support to
these technologies. In fact, the most likely barrier to ZEV adoption is the lack of charging and
Hydrogen infrastructure that is not within the purview of this NPRM. In the current situation,
ZEV and PHEV multipliers are no longer a driving force for new technology, and with
increasing ZEV adoption, they risk distorting the market and thus reduce the technology-neutral
character of the regulations. We support the EPA position in sun-setting multipliers as outlined
in the recent low NOx rule and recommend the same approach for Phase 3. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1556-A1, p. 6]
Organization: Environmental Defense Fund (EPF)
b) EPA should adopt a protective framework that helps to minimize any potentially adverse
climate and health impacts associated with hydrogen usage.
Under the proposal's current framework, hydrogen powered vehicles are incentivized both
through credit multipliers and their treatment as having zero-emissions for compliance with the
standards. These incentives are misguided given that, as shown above, hydrogen powered
vehicles' emissions impacts are worse than diesel vehicles using current, dominant forms of
1389
-------
hydrogen production and, in many certain scenarios, using projected future grid electricity. We
encourage EPA to strengthen its standards by removing blanket incentives and adopting
protections that do not credit or incentivize hydrogen fueled vehicles as having zero-emissions
when that is not the case. Instead, EPA should tailor its standards to encourage use of low-GHG
hydrogen.218 We offer a few two specific suggestions related to these issues below. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, 83]
218 In their assessment of low-GHG hydrogen, EPA should be consistent with standards set in the IRA
production tax credit for clean hydrogen as well as other EPA standards such as the recently proposed
Greenhouse Gas Standards and Guidelines for Fossil Fuel-Fired Power Plants.
Removing credit multipliers. EPA should remove credit multipliers for hydrogen fueled
vehicles — which, as proposed, provide greater incentives for the production of FCEVs than for
lower-emitting BEVs. EPA proposes to retain its existing Advanced Technology Credit
Multipliers for FCEVs (which are higher than the multipliers for BEVs) through 2027, even
though it will remove these same incentives for BEVs in 2026.219 Given that the emissions
benefits of hydrogen powered vehicles vary widely — and are, in all cases, worse than that of
BEVs — these incentives are counterproductive. EPA should phase out these credit multipliers
for FCEVs by 2026, just as they have for BEVs. If EPA is going to maintain these incentives, it
should do so only for manufacturers that can demonstrate their vehicles are producing real world
emissions benefits by certifying they are running on green hydrogen.220 As the above analysis
demonstrates, EPA must not allow any credits for vehicles fueled with hydrogen produced using
SMR or grid electrolysis - both of which produce emissions outcomes worse than diesel vehicles
in the 2027 timeframe. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, 83-84]
219 88 Fed. Reg. 26012.
220 In passing the IRA, Congress recently recognized the importance of an approach to hydrogen powered
vehicles that incentivizes clean hydrogen production through its tax credits for clean hydrogen production,
which increase with lower lifecycle emissions. 26 U.S.C. §45V.
Apply a Utility / Correction Factor to Vehicles Fueled with Hydrogen. We also urge EPA to
account for the wide variation in hydrogen fueled vehicles' emissions benefits in measuring their
emissions for compliance with the standards. EPA proposes to count hydrogen powered vehicles
as having zero emissions, similar to how it has treated BEVs in the past. However, EPA's prior
justifications for treating BEVs this way do not apply to hydrogen powered vehicles.221 Not
only do hydrogen powered vehicles not provide clear emissions benefits absent further controls
on where the hydrogen they operate on comes from, but due to potential leakage of hydrogen
from the vehicles and criteria pollutant emissions from H2ICEVs, they do have vehicle and
tailpipe emissions that must be accounted for. Additionally, EPA has previously noted the
existence of other emissions reduction programs or controls related to upstream emissions as
justifying its focus on tailpipe emissions.222 However, emissions from hydrogen production are
currently unregulated, making it especially important that EPA adopt an approach that considers
and reflects how hydrogen fueled vehicles are powered and operated. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1644-A1, 84-85]
221 EPA's decision to treat BEVs as having zero-emissions was based on a careful consideration of the
emissions benefits associated with BEVs because the original purpose of this approach was to "recognize
the benefits of. . . dedicated alternative-fueled vehicles." 76 Fed. Reg. 57123. Because of the emissions
issues associated with hydrogen powered vehicles, including the fact that they likely do have tailpipe
emission through hydrogen leakage, this same justification cannot justify their parallel treatment.
1390
-------
Additionally, EPA has previously considered it important to its focus on tailpipe emissions that the
upstream emissions are regulated by other rules.
222 76 Fed. Reg. 51705 (Aug. 27, 2012) ("There is no good reason to consider [the lifecycle emission of
different types of fuels] here, especially where there already is a separate fuel based program, the RFS
program, that is directly aimed at achieving the result POP Diesel seeks~a fuel program that achieves a
reduction in lifecycle GHG emissions associated with the diesel fuel used by motor vehicles, through a
mandate to use certain renewable diesel fuels.).
In this regard, EPA should not treat hydrogen fueled vehicles like BEVs but instead similarly
to how the agency treats PHEVs,223 where EPA recognizes that sometimes PHEVs operate on
battery power with real emissions benefits and other times the vehicle is powered by its ICE
engine with emissions profiles more similar to fossil-powered vehicles. 224 For hydrogen fueled
vehicles, EPA could adopt an approach to calculating their GHG emissions that includes a
conservative low- GHG utility factor representing emissions attributable to hydrogen fueled
vehicles assuming those vehicles are fueled using average, current forms of hydrogen
production. For instance, a current factor would need to reflect the fact that most hydrogen is
produced using SMR and does not result in real-world emission benefits when compared to
diesel vehicles.225 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, 85]
223 See 40 CFR § 600.116-12.
224 88 Fed. Reg. 29253 (May 5, 2023) ("Because the tailpipe C02 produced from PHEVs varies
significantly between [charge depleting] and [charge sustaining] operation, both the charge depleting range
and the utility factor curves play an important role in determining the magnitude of C02 that is calculated
for compliance.").
225 This utility factor should also differ for H2ICEs, and FCEVS, which have differing emissions benefits.
EPA could, of course, update this factor over time as the relative mix of hydrogen production
sources changes. Moreover, as with the credit multipliers, EPA should incentivize manufacturers
who can demonstrate their hydrogen fueled vehicles are driving actual emissions benefits. It can
do so by allowing manufacturers to adjust the low-GHG utility factor applied to their vehicles
where they can show they are resulting in real world emissions benefits through emissions
testing or certifying the vehicles run exclusively on low-GHG hydrogen. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1644-A1, 85]
We emphasize the importance of EPA adopting these protections and guardrails now, given
the potential near term proliferation of hydrogen fuels and the absence of regulatory structures to
ensure any hydrogen produced is done so in a way that minimize climate and health harming
pollution. At the same time, we urge EPA to adopt future leakage standards related hydrogen
fueled vehicles and explore and pursue all other regulatory authorities to reduce and eliminate
harmful pollution associated with hydrogen production and use. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1644-A1, 86]
Organization: Fermata Energy
EPA should add in the final regulation a small multiplier credit for vehicles that have on-
board AC bidirectional chargers or are integrated with multiple DC off-board chargers. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1662-A2, p.8]
1391
-------
The promise of bidirectional charging (AC or DC) to address air pollution, GHG emissions,
and challenges to the electric grid is very significant with BEVs and PHEVS in medium- and
heavy-duty vehicles. While we understand the desire by the EPA to simplify the regulation and
reduce the use of bonus multiplier credits, we believe a small bonus credit in this regulation is
justified and needed to unlock this technology because of the large emissions reduction benefits
and other grid services enabled by bidirectional charging as described in Section II above. The
EPA has a long history of providing multiplier credits to emerging technology and we strongly
encourage the EPA to adopt in the final regulation a modest multiplier credit for class 2b-8
vehicles that appropriately phases out over time. This approach will not only will help enable the
emerging V2G industry, but will also help consumers achieve lower operating costs, 16 reduce
GHG and traditional pollutants from fossil fueled power plants by shifting electricity use to
renewable energy in the cleanest hours of the day, and reduce the need for high-emitting peaker
plants. V2G also provides a zero-emission, lower cost alternative to high-emitting portable back-
up generators, and saves utility ratepayers money with a low-cost resource compared to battery
stationary storage. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1662-A2, p.8]
16 See footnote 11
Organization: International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT)
ICCT supports the proposal to eliminate advanced technology credit multipliers. Historically,
these multipliers were appropriate to provide manufacturers an incentive to invest in the research
and development of battery electric and fuel-cell electric vehicles that had yet to be
commercialized. Since the adoption of the Phase 2 standards, these technologies have entered the
commercial market on a broad scale and, beginning in model year 2024, nine states will require
manufacturers to sell them. We do not think multipliers have any further role to play in this rule.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1553-A1, p. 5]
Organization: International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America (UAW)
We are also concerned that the proposal plans to end the HD GHG Phase II credit multipliers
for BEVs and PHEVs. Electrification is still in its infancy in the medium- and heavy-duty
sectors. Credit multipliers are an important tool to provide industry with a pathway to
compliance while rewarding the introduction of advanced technologies. There is no one-size-fits-
all approach to improved efficiency and each manufacturer faces a unique set of challenges due
to differences in fleet make-up. Overcompliance and credit multipliers give the industry the
ability to deploy cleaner vehicles in segments and applications where it is technically and
economically feasible, while continuing to meet customer demands. Where credits are phased
down, EPA should consider options for the credit system that incentive domestic manufacturing
on advanced technology vehicles and guard against manufacturers importing their way to
compliance, particularly where vehicles, batteries, and other key components are built without
robust environmental regulations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1596-A1, p. 5]
Organization: Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association (MECA)
Analyses by ICCT and researchers at Carnegie Mellon have shown that extended use of super
credits in the light-duty sector has resulted in the unintended consequence of increased emissions
1392
-------
from the non-ZEV fleet as it is allowed to emit more under a fleet average regulatory structure
that includes averaging, banking and trading provisions [17, 18], [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1521-A1, p. 9]
[17], A. Jenn, I. L. Azevedo and J. J. Michalek, "Alternative-fuel-vehicle policy interactions increase U.S.
greenhouse gas emissions," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, vol. 124, pp. 396-407,
2019.
[18], R. Minjares and J. Hannon, "Adapting US heavy-duty vehicle emission standards to support a zero-
emission commercial truck and bus fleet," 2022.
Given the considerable incentives created by the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) and other federal and state programs supporting the
production, sale and operation of heavy-duty zero tailpipe emitting vehicles, MECA agrees that
Advanced Technology Multipliers for PHEVs, BEVs and FCEVs are no longer needed beyond
MY 2027. Similar to the light-duty sector, an over-incentivized credit scheme for heavy-duty
ZEVs is likely to result in market distortions that will reduce the broader deployment of electric
and other advanced efficient powertrains and thus decrease the benefits anticipated by the
standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1521-A1, p. 10]
MECA also supports the need for the inclusion of lifecycle analysis under the Phase 3
program to determine appropriate levels of crediting for zero emissions vehicles. To date, the
assigning of zero C02 emissions results in an arbitrarily large number of credits which impedes
the adoption of all advanced C02 reduction technologies. For this reason, MECA supports the
accelerated retirement of advanced technology multiplier credits generated under the Phase 2
program by reducing their five-year lifetime. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1521-A1, p. 10]
Organization: MEMA
Advanced Technology Multipliers
Considering advanced technology multipliers, the agency has proposed to retain the
technology multiplier for FCEV "because it has been slower to develop in the HD market."
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1570-A1, p. 14]
MEMA urges that the same consideration be made for H2ICE technology and that it be
included along with FCEV in the credit multiplier calculation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1570-
Al, p. 15]
Organization: National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA)
Eliminate Advanced Technology Multipliers After MY 2026
In its Phase 2 heavy-duty GHG rule, adopted in 2016, EPA provided Advanced Technology
Multipliers through MY 2027 for battery electric vehicles (BEVs), plug-in hybrid electric
vehicles (PHEVs) and fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs) to incentivize development and sales
of these technologies. Since that time, the feasibility, availability and cost-competitiveness of the
technologies EPA intended to incubate have far outpaced EPA's expectations. Accordingly, the
agency proposes to eliminate the Advanced Technology Multipliers for BEVs and PHEVs after
MY 2026 and to retain the 5.5 multiplier for FCEVs through MY 2027. NACAA supports EPA's
proposal to end the BEV and PHEV Advanced Technology Multipliers with MY 2026 and,
1393
-------
further, recommends that the agency also end the multiplier for FCEVs with MY 2026. Given
the multiple commercialized heavy-duty fuel cell vehicles an Advanced Technology Multiplier
beyond MY 2026 is not necessary and retaining one through MY 2027 could result in the
significant generation of credits and an erosion of the C02 emission standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1499-A1, p. 9]
Organization: National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA)
Lastly, NPCA wishes to express support for EPA's proposal to phase out advanced
technology multipliers for various hybrid or ZEV models, and request that EPA expedite such a
phase out to occur in 2025 instead of the proposed 2026 date. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1613-
Al, p. 4]
Organization: Navistar, Inc.
Navistar is opposed to EPA's proposal to eliminate the credit multipliers under the Phase 2
program for MY 2027. In the proposed rule, EPA seeks to end credit multipliers for vehicles
incorporating battery-electric technologies (BEVs) one year earlier than provided in the existing
heavy-duty vehicle GHG Phase 2 program (i.e., no credit multipliers for BEVs in MY 2027 and
later). Changes to the Phase 2 credit multiplier are unwarranted. As discussed above, multipliers
are still very much necessary for the development and integration of new and higher-cost
technologies into existing and new markets. Navistar has relied on the certainty of the GHG
standards in engineering and manufacturing ZEV trucks. A transition of the trucking industry to
ZEVs requires regulatory consistency and certainty, and well-designed incentives. EPA's
proposal to change the Phase 2 GHG standards at this time undermine these important
considerations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1527-A1, p. 6]
Organization: Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) and the
Ozone Transport Commission (OTC)
Advanced Technology Multipliers
We agree with EPA's proposal to remove the BEV advanced technology multiplier in MY
2026. The multiplier, if left in place, could result in significant production of credits and a
dilution of the stringency of the GHG standards. We encourage EPA to remove the FCEV
multiplier in 2026 as well. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1562-A1, p. 14]
Organization: Odyne Systems LLC
Extend or do not change the date for the PHEV credit multiplier rather than reduce it.
The EPA is considering reducing the credit multiplier timeframe for PHEVs and BEVs to
2027 rather than 2028. Odyne recommends extending the time frame or keeping it the same
because, while there is much discussion about PHEVs and BEVs, very few are built. Credit
multipliers will provide needed incentives for manufacturers to quickly sell PHEVs and BEVs
and benefit from their investments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1623-A1, p. 4]
1394
-------
Organization: PACCAR, Inc.
A. EPA Should Reconsider Its Proposed Credit Multiplier Changes
EPA's proposed changes to the battery electric and hybrid credit multipliers undermine the
regulatory certainty on which OEMs have reasonably relied. EPA's HD GHG Phase 2
rulemaking included MY2027 advanced technology credit multipliers and successfully led
OEMs to develop zero emissions powertrains earlier than they likely would have without the
credit multipliers. Since then, OEMs have designed their product portfolios and compliance
plans accordingly, including by increasing ZEVs because of the credit multipliers. The NPRM
proposes to eliminate the battery electric and hybrid credit multipliers for MY2027 with less than
four years lead-time for manufacturers to adjust their compliance plans. PACCAR therefore
respectfully requests that EPA not eliminate the battery electric and hybrid credit multipliers for
MY2027. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1607-A1, p. 9]
PACCAR also urges EPA to revise § 1037.150(p) to extend the fuel cell multiplier through at
least MY2030. Doing so would incentivize further fuel cell technology investment, which
remains immature. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1607-A1, p. 9]
EPA should also modify the advanced technology credit to add a hydrogen internal
compression engine (ICE) credit multiplier through MY2030, which would incentivize hydrogen
ICE technology investment. Increased use of hydrogen ICE powertrains would spur hydrogen
refueling infrastructure development, which would benefit hydrogen ICE and fuel cell trucks
because both vehicles rely on the same refueling infrastructure. The current lack of hydrogen
refueling infrastructure is a significant impediment to both hydrogen ICE and fuel cell electric
vehicle adoption and the credit multipliers would encourage growth. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1607-A1, p. 9]
Organization: Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC)
We therefore support EPA's proposal for stronger GHG emission standards for model year
2027 heavy-duty vehicles and the discontinuance of credit multipliers for BEVs and PHEVs after
model year 2026. Any compliance flexibilities included in the standards must not unnecessarily
dilute the stringency of the standards. BEVs and PHEVs are no longer "new advanced
technologies" that need to be incentivized—especially considering the level of innovation and
deployment of ZEV technology that has occurred since the Phase 2 rulemaking. As EPA notes,
"the multiplier credits could allow for backsliding of emissions reductions expected from
[internal combustion engine] vehicles for some manufacturers in the near term ... as sales of
advanced technology vehicles which can generate the incentive credit continue to increase."48
Getting ZEVs on the road should be a priority, but efforts to incentivize their deployment cannot
erode improvements in internal combustion engine vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1554-
Al, p. 6]
48 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles—Phase 3, 88 Fed. Reg. 25926, 26012
(Apr. 27, 2023).
1395
-------
Organization: Strong Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle (PHEV) Coalition
EPA should add a small bonus credit (multiplier) for vehicles that have on-board AC
bidirectional chargers or are integrated with multiple DC off-board chargers, as this will bring
overall cost savings, help the grid and send a strong signal to accelerate this needed technology.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1647-A2, p. 2]
EPA should consider providing small bonus credits (multipliers) in 2027 to 2030 for several
advanced technologies including PHEVs with a long all-electric range and not just for fuel cell
EVs as these technologies need extra lead time to develop given offerings for the heavy-duty
market. As we describe below, having multiple technologies helps in reaching many hard-to-
reach customer segments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1647-A2, p. 2]
2) EPA should consider adding a small bonus for vehicles that have on-board AC
bidirectional chargers or are integrated with multiple DC off-board chargers. Alternatively, at
minimum, EPA should conduct an analysis on how EPA can advance bi-directional charging in
the future. Justification: The promise of bi-directional charging (AC or DC) to address air
pollution, GHG and electric grid issues is very significant with BEVs and PHEVS in light-,
medium- and heavy-duty vehicles, or off-road equipment. For example, a recent May 2022
presentation by the World Resources Institute using Bloomberg NEF and Energy Information
Administration data found the power capacity in 2030 for EVs to be 10 to 20 times more than the
2030 power capacity of stationary storage.6 While these numbers are for light-duty EVs,
electrified trucks can also contribute and some fleets (e.g., school buses, municipal trucks, trucks
in one-shift operations) are expected to be early adopters. EPA can and should play a role in
helping to unlock this potential.
a. For example, the internal combustion engine in a PHEV has a much lower emission
signature than a stand-alone, backup generator.
b. Bidirectional charging, like battery stationary energy storage, can reduce GHG and
traditional pollutants from fossil fueled power plants by shifting electricity use to renewable
energy in the cleanest hours of the day and reducing the need for high-emitting plants (such as
traditional peaker power plants).
c. Bidirectional charging can also provide many types of grid services including ancillary
services, providing resource adequacy, and helping with the evening transition from renewables
to other generation resources. Because the batteries are already paid for by the truck owners,
utilities can gain a low-cost resource compared to battery stationary storage.
d. The potential value is significant and can contribute to lower operating costs for BEVs and
PHEVs.7 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1647-A2, p. 5]
6 See slide 5 at https://www.slideshare.net/emmaline742/building-resiliency-with-v2g-in-residential-
homes-bycamron-gorguinpour
7 California Energy Commission, March 2019, Distribution System Constrained Vehicle-to-Grid Services
for Improved Grid Stability and Reliability, Figure 42
While we understand the desire by EPA to simplify the regulation and reduce the use of bonus
multiplier credits, we believe a small bonus credit in this regulation is justified and needed to
1396
-------
unlock this technology because of the large emission reduction benefits and other benefits
enabled by bidirectional charging. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1647-A2, p. 6]
8) However, the above incentive is not enough. Regarding EPA's question of whether to
provide a longer period of credit multipliers (bonus credits) for fuel cell EVs, our coalition
recommends a modest multiplier be provided in the final rule not just for FCEVs but also for
PHEVs with a long all-electric range and for MY 2027 to 2030. These technologies need extra
lead time to develop given offerings for the heavy-duty market, and it is in EPA's interest to
have multiple technologies that provide customer choice and help EPA in reaching many hard-
to- reach customer segments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1647-A2, p. 7]
Organization: Tesla, Inc. (Tesla)
Tesla Supports Elimination and Rapid Phasedown of All GHG Credit Multipliers
Even though it is a scaling heavy-duty BEV manufacturer, Tesla supports eliminating
advanced technology multipliers to ensure overall program integrity and supports firmly
establishing a one-for-one credit ratio that is a more rational and transparent compliance
mechanism and creates actual BEV vehicle deployment, thereby enabling deeper emission
reduction targets. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1505-A1, p. 24]
Tesla also agrees with the agency that providing credit multipliers can unnecessarily dampen
actual deployment of BEVs and lead to backsliding of emission reductions. 178 This is true
regardless of the technology to which a multiplier may be attached and is not applicable just to
BEVs. Accordingly, Tesla supports an elimination on credit multipliers for all heavy-duty ZEVs
and encourages EPA to tailor Approach 3 to reflect a rapid phasedown of multiplier credits,
including eliminating the credit multipliers after MY 2026.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1505-A1,
p. 24]
178 88 Fed. Reg. at 26012.
Furthermore, each of the other proposed options for reforming the existing credit multipliers
presented by EPA all have substantial weaknesses. Approach 1 would provide multipliers only to
those BEV sales in non-ACT states. 179 This creates a disincentive for states to adopt ACT and
will reduce adoption of a regulatory framework that would yield greater GHG reductions from
the heavy-duty sector. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1505-A1, p. 24]
179 88 Fed. Reg. at26011-12.
Similarly, Approach 2 allowing for the use of multipliers and then capping the credit use, is
equally flawed. Under this architecture, manufacturers will likely deploy ZEVs to maximize
generation of multiplier credits up to the cap limit but move no further. 180 In the E.U, a similar
'Super Credit' multiplier exists for light-duty vehicles which emit <50g C02/km, which can be
earned from 2020-2022 inclusive. In the first year of the Super Credit eligibility, eight out of ten
manufacturers reached the cap. 181 This was achieved by aggressive sales practices (pricing and
pre-registrations) to capture the maximum value of the credits up to the cap, and then halting
further sales once the cap was reached. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1505-A1, pp. 24-25]
180 Id.
1397
-------
181ICCT, C02 emissions from new passenger cars in Europe: Car manufacturers' performance in 2020
(August 2021) at 4, Table 1. available at https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/eu-co2-pvs-
performance-2020-aug2 l_0.pdf
Finally, as a general matter of policy development, in setting an emissions performance
standard the regulation should be agnostic with respect to what technology is used to meet, and
ideally outperform, the standard. Allowing the continuation of credit multipliers for FCEVs in
the proposed regulation's crediting provisions will promote the inefficient investment into a
technology with little near-term ability to address the critical GHG emissions problem. As one
recent study concluded, hydrogen fuel cell trucks are unlikely to be commercially viable and the
urgency of the climate crises should compel a focus on BEV deployment. 182 EPA should ensure
this focus and eliminate the credit multipliers for all ZEVs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1505-
Al, p. 25]
182 Plotz, Nature Electronics, Hydrogen technology is unlikely to play a major role in sustainable road
transport (Jan. 31, 2022) available at https://www.nature.com/articles/s41928-021-00706-6
Organization: Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
FCEV Credit Multiplier - The Phase 2 regulation provides credit multipliers for vehicles
incorporating BEV and FCEV technologies. For Phase 3, EPA proposes to eliminate the credit
multiplier for BEVs because the technology is now in production for most OEMs, so the extra
incentive is no longer critical to bring the technology to market more quickly. EPA is proposing
to maintain the credit multiplier for FCEVs. EMA supports EPA's proposal to continue to
provide incentives for fuel-cell technology vehicles to encourage the quicker development and
deployment of this still-nascent zero-emission technology. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1,
p. 49]
Organization: Truck Renting and Leasing Association (TRALA)
Carbon Offset Credit Periods Should be Extended
TRALA recommends OEM multiplier credits for BEV sales remain in effect through 2030 for
Classes 2-7 and for Class 8 vehicles through 2035. If ZEV technologies accelerate at the levels
envisioned by the agency, multiplier credits will not be utilized or needed by OEMs. But if lack
of capable infrastructure delays mainstream adoption of ZEV technologies, credit multipliers will
offer a needed path for OEMs to maintain compliance while also incentivizing further private
investment in infrastructure. With respect to Class 8 vehicles, FCEVs will likely continue to lag
years behind their BEV counterparts, so applying the FCEV multiplier to hydrogen ICE vehicles
(H2-ICE) will enable ready H2-ICE technology to develop infrastructure necessary to deploy
FCEVs. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2022-0985-1577-A1, p. 22]
Organization: Volvo Group
Expiring BEV and Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle (PHEV) Advanced Technology credit
multiplier in 2026
The Volvo Group is still concerned that the conditions and enablers within the market will not
be available at levels allowing any finalized standards to be achieved across all averaging sets.
Thus, we suggest the agency set specific MY2026 total industry EV sales penetration thresholds
1398
-------
within an averaging set as a criterion for reducing or removing the multiplier at the end of the
2026 Model Year. For example, the EPA could set a threshold ratio comparing actual model year
2026 EV sales percentages within an averaging set to the MY 2027 adoption rate used to set
stringency. If the decided ratio were met, the multiplier would expire as proposed. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1606-A1, p. 22]
The agency could also set a range for this ratio. If the minimum level were met, the multiplier
would be reduced, ramping down until meeting the maximum threshold, where it would expire
as proposed. A method such as this would help to minimize potential risk in the early years of
the transition, while also minimizing, or potentially eliminating concern over credit windfalls, as
any credit multiplier would be dependent on the market readiness for EVs within a specific
averaging set, and not applied to all equally. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1606-A1, p. 22]
Organization: Zero Emission Transportation Association (ZETA)
ZETA supports the proposed accelerated phaseout of HDEV credit multipliers by MY 2027.
HDEV technology has progressed rapidly since the Phase 2 GHG emissions standards finalized
in 2016. HDEVs will soon penetrate the market to a much greater degree than was previously
anticipated. EPA has recognized that multipliers present a tradeoff between driving emissions
reductions and incentivizing new technology. Based on the technology available today,
multipliers are no longer required to incentivize HDEV technology investments, and a more
stringent GHG standard would most effectively drive HDEV adoption and, in turn, emissions
reductions. While we believe it is appropriate to phase out credit multipliers for HDEVs, we
recognize that other zero-emission technologies, such as hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, are in a
different stage of development and deployment. While we are not recommending phasing out
credit multipliers for these technologies, we request EPA articulate clear guidelines for when it
would be appropriate to do so. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 16]
EPA Summary and Response:
Summary:
Commenters' support for EPA's proposed approach for phasing out advanced technology
credit multipliers ("multipliers") varied. As noted in this summary, some commenters supported
EPA's proposal to phase out PHEV and BEV multipliers after MY 2026 and retain the FCEV
multiplier through MY 2027. Others commented that EPA should retain the multipliers through
MY 2027 as finalized in the Phase 2 program. Some commenters requested EPA eliminate some
or all multipliers before 2026, while others recommended EPA extend the availability of some or
all multipliers beyond MY 2027. A few commenters offered other suggestions for credit
multipliers.
Commenters supporting EPA's proposed phase out of multipliers
AESI commented in support for eliminating PHEV and BEV multipliers and continuing fuel
cell multipliers. Additionally, AESI recommended EPA consider incentives for H2 combustion
to accelerate H2 infrastructure capacity which they suggest would further benefit fuel cell trucks.
ACEEE commented that multipliers had the potential to "more than nullify EPA's proposed
increase in stringency", which could reduce industry's motivation to produce BEVs. ACEEE
expressed concern that credits might potentially lead to backsliding on internal combustion
1399
-------
engine vehicles, with emphasis that that advanced technology multipliers could lead to
"stagnation of average truck emission levels in the early years of Phase 3".
Eaton supported sunsetting the BEV and PHEV multipliers as proposed, noting that the
multipliers are no longer the driving force in light of market demands and financial incentives of
the IRA.
MECA supported EPA's proposed phase-out of the BEV and PHEV multipliers, noting
available incentives, including the BIL and IRA, and state programs to support production in lieu
of multipliers and the risk of market distortions, reduced deployment of advanced technology,
and decreased benefits of the standards if multipliers continue to be available. MECA also
recommended EPA reduce the five-year lifetime of advanced technology multiplier credits and
suggests the agency should include a lifecycle analysis "to determine appropriate levels of
crediting for zero emissions vehicles".
ICCT expressed support for "the proposal to eliminate adv tech multipliers".
SELC supported the proposal to end BEV and PHEV credit multipliers in MY 2026, noting
that it "should be a priority" to incentivize those vehicles, but that multipliers can "erode
improvements" in ICE-based vehicles, suggesting a concern with potential dilution of the Phase
2 standards.
ZETA supported the proposed phase-out of multipliers for HDEVs (i.e., heavy-duty electric
vehicles). ZETA indicated that they are "not recommending phasing out credit multipliers" for
FCEV, but requested that EPA present clear guidelines for phasing them out.
Commenters requesting EPA phase out multipliers earlier than proposed
A number of commenters urged earlier phase out of the multipliers because the BIL and IRA
are now providing all the incentive for adoption needed. Certain of these commenters also noted
that the ACT program likewise provides sufficient incentive. (CATF, Eaton, MECA.)
NACAA and NESCAUM and OTC supported the proposal to phase out the BEV and PHEV
multipliers and recommended EPA also phase out the FCEV multiplier in MY 2026 as well.
EDF recommended removing credit multipliers for all hydrogen-fueled vehicles (including
FCEVs) or, at minimum, phasing out the FCEV multipliers with BEVs by MY 2026. EDF
referred to the upstream emissions associated with hydrogen production as justification for
removing the FCEV multipliers, which they suggest is "worse than diesel vehicles" in some
cases.
Specific to hydrogen, EDF pointed out that EPA's original reasons in phases 1 and 2 for not
accounting for upstream emissions - that upstream emissions are regulated (under stationary
source standards, or, for biofuels, under the RFS program), and that not-yet commercialized
technologies need regulatory encouragement - either do not apply for hydrogen since hydrogen
emissions are not regulated or have been overtaken by events such as the introduction of HD
BEVs. EDF thus sees no need for the credit multiplier for hydrogen-fueled vehicles of any type.
EDF further recommends that EPA apply a correction factor or utility factor to any vehicle
fueled with hydrogen, so a manufacturer's compliance accounts for the unregulated emissions
from hydrogen production, pointing to a similar approach in the current rules for PHEVs. EDF
suggests those factors could be adjusted over time if a manufacturer can demonstrate lower
1400
-------
emissions through testing. Lastly, EDF encouraged EPA to adopt leakage standards for
hydrogen-fueled vehicles and to work with other agencies to address pollution from hydrogen
production.
CARB recommended EPA adopt the third approach that was proposed in the HD2027 NPRM
for advanced technology credit multiplier. Specifically, they would like EPA to incrementally
reduce the magnitude of all of the advanced technology credit multipliers over the period of MYs
2024 through 2026. CARB also requested that EPA remove multipliers for any HD ZEVs
certified to CARB's ACT regulation, including those sold in California or Section 177 states,
suggesting that retaining the multiplier would be double-counting of benefits.
Similar to CARB, Tesla supported eliminating multipliers according to Approach 3 from
EPA's HD2027 NPRM. Tesla noted that the HD2027 Approach 1 (limit BEV multipliers to non-
ACT states) disincentivizes ACT adoption and the HD2027 Approach 2 (cap use of multipliers)
would give manufacturers little incentive to produce beyond the cap limit. Finally, Tesla
requested that EPA eliminate the FCEV and BEV multipliers in the same model year to ensure
the regulation is agnostic to technology.
NPCA supported the proposal to phase our advanced technology multipliers and requested
that EPA "expedite" it to occur in 2025.
CATF et al. also recommended EPA accelerate the phase out multipliers for all BEV, PHEV,
and FCEV by 2025 or restrict their availability. CATF et al suggested the market and IRA will
lead to BEVs being widely available by MY 2026 and keeping the multipliers could risk
reducing the benefits of the standards. They maintain that ICCT's analysis and EPA's own
analysis show that substantial percentages of HDVs are likely candidates for early BEV
adoption. Therefore, allowing these credits with the 4.5 multiplier creates a large bank of credits
which may be windfalls if generated in California or section 177 states. Thus, EPA's original
justification for the credit multipliers - to encourage nascent, promising technology not yet in
commercial use - has been superseded.
CATF et al. suggested phasing out by MY 2025 would prevent manufacturers from getting
credit multipliers for vehicles certified to ACT. Some example restrictions CATF et al. suggested
include: eliminating them for vehicles that would be used to meet the ACT standards in
California or other states that adopted ACT; impose a 2-year limit on using credits generated
with multipliers; limiting the multipliers to long-haul sleeper cabs or other vehicles categories
where those technologies are still "genuinely advanced"; or reducing the value of the multipliers
in 2025. CATF et al. further suggested that EPA should account for credit multipliers in setting
the standards noting the proposed change to the definition of U.S.-directed production volume.
Commenters requesting EPA retain Phase 2 multipliers or extend their availability
Odyne Systems requested EPA extend or keep the same timeframe for PHEV or BEV credit
multipliers, because very few are built.
EMA expressed support for the proposal to retain the FCEV multiplier through MY 2027.
DTNA requested EPA retain the multipliers as finalized in Phase 2, noting their continued
support for Phase 2 program and manufacturers' reliance on those multipliers in implementing
their compliance strategies for which the company "invested considerable time in developing".
1401
-------
UAW expressed concern over phasing-out the BEV and PHEV multipliers, noting that
multipliers are "an important tool" for compliance that manufacturers can use to introduce
advance technologies in vehicle segments and applications "where it is technically and
economically feasible, while continuing to meet customer demands". UAW requested that EPA
"guard against" the potential for vehicles and components to be imported from areas "without
robust environmental regulations".
Navistar opposed the proposal to phase out the BEV and PHEV multipliers noting
manufacturers' reliance on these multipliers in devising their multi-year compliance strategy for
the Phase 2 rule, and manufacturers' continued need for regulatory consistency and certainty.
PACCAR requested EPA reconsider phasing out the BEV and PHEV multipliers, indicating
that OEMs built credit multipliers into their product portfolios and compliance plans. PACCAR
also requested EPA extend the FCEV multiplier through at least MY 2030, suggesting fuel cell
technology is still "immature". PACCAR also requested EPA add a multiplier for H2ICE
through MY 2030 as well to "spur hydrogen refueling infrastructure development".
Strong PHEV requested the current multiplier for FCEV and a new multiplier for PHEVs with
"a long all-electric range" be extended to MY 2030.
TRALA requested EPA extend the BEV multiplier through 2030 for Classes 2-7 and through
2035 for Class 8, noting credit multipliers will help if infrastructure lags. TRALA also requested
the FCEV credit multiplier apply for H2ICE.
Other comments relating to multipliers
ATA cautioned that phasing out the advanced technology multiplier in MY 2027 will make it
more challenging for manufacturers to meet the standards and "likely limit fleet technology
choices" because the rule "requires a certain percentage of ZEVs to be sold". ATA pointed to
past fleet experiences under the Phase 2 program where the association stated that "fleets were
obligated" to purchase technology packages with their new vehicles so manufacturers could
comply with EPA's regulation.
China/WTO recommended treating BEVs, PHEVs, and FCEVs the same, ending the "credit
rating" (i.e., multipliers) at the same time.
Clean Fuels Development Coalition et al. commented that EPA must end current multiplier
program. Furthermore, they argue EPA had no authority to create multipliers in the first place
and that EPA does not have the authority to set standards "beyond where it thinks they should
be" and then "relax those standards of a manufacturer gives money to the cause of
electrification". They suggest multipliers are essentially a ZEV subsidy program and
manufacturers would charge more for gas/diesel vehicles because they have to buy emission
credits from EPA's "friends".
Fermata Energy and Strong PHEV recommended EPA add a multiplier option for vehicles
with onboard AC bidirectional chargers or multiple DC off-board chargers. Strong PHEV
recommended EPA conduct an analysis on bidirectional charging for the future.
Volvo expressed concern about meeting the proposed standards across all averaging sets and
suggested EPA set specific EV sales penetration thresholds for MY 2026 to use as criteria for
evaluating the need to discontinue multipliers on an individual averaging set-basis.
1402
-------
Response:
As described in section III of the Preamble to this rule, we are not taking final action on the
proposal to revise the Phase 2 rule to provide for an earlier phase out (one year early) of
multipliers for PHEVs and BEVs. As such, manufacturers may continue to generate credits that
include credit multipliers for PHEV, BEV, and FCEV technologies through MY 2027 as was
adopted in Phase 2. Retaining the existing Phase 2 ABT provisions on credit multipliers should
address potential concerns or uncertainties raised by manufacturers regarding their compliance
plans relying on the credits generated under the existing Phase 2 credit multiplier provisions.
Also described in section III of the Preamble to this rule, we disagree with those commenters
that assert manufacturers will necessarily comply with the Phase 3 standards by virtue of
complying with ACT. These comments assume a given volume of Phase 2 credits will be
generated and carried over into Phase 3, and thus presuppose manufacturers' compliance
strategies with both the federal performance-based Phase 2 and 3 standards and the California
ACT program. However, after balancing the concerns raised in comments and related
uncertainties we identified, we are finalizing a provision that will limit when manufacturers may
use credits generated from credit multipliers in MY 2027 through 2029 and eliminate the
availability of those multiplier credits for use in MY 2030 and later.
In response to PACCAR's comment on lead time, we note that we did consider timing for
production plans in developing both the standards and the credit provisions of the Phase 3 final
rule; however, the four-year lead time referred to in PACCAR's comment does not apply (see
section II.F.2 of the final rule preamble).
We acknowledge comments requesting that EPA also phase out the FCEV credit multiplier
before MY 2027. CARB indicated the FCEV credits would be double-counted due to the ACT
sales mandates. As discussed in section 10.2.1 of this response to comment document and
section III.A.l of the final rule preamble, our revised definition of U.S.-directed production
volume, effective in MY 2024, will ensure credits from all vehicles are not double-counted as a
result of ACT or other state programs.
In response to EDF's request that EPA provide restrictions on which type of H2-powered
vehicles qualify for incentives, we refer to sections 9.3 of this RTC document for more
discussion of our consideration of H2 technology. Furthermore, EDF's suggestion to adopt a
utility factor for hydrogen-fueled vehicles, analogous to that applied for PHEVs, is less impactful
for a standard based on tailpipe emissions. CO2 tailpipe emissions of GHGs are zero and near-
zero for FCEVs and H2ICE vehicles regardless of the hydrogen source, whereas the utility factor
for PHEVs reflects the drastically different pollutant emissions when the vehicle operates on
battery or on internal combustion engine. EDF's suggestion would only make sense if the vehicle
emission standards were based on some type of lifecycle approach. We explain in section 17.2
of this document the many reasons that we decline to implement CAA Title II in that manner.
EDF also requested a hydrogen leakage standard for vehicles powered by hydrogen. We did not
propose any such requirement and do not have sufficient data on hydrogen leakage to do so.
In response to Tesla's comment that FCEV are "unlikely to be commercially viable," we refer
to our discussions of fuel cell technology in Section II.D of the final rule preamble and Chapter
2.5 of the final RIA for this rule. In response to EDF and MECA suggesting that EPA base
standards on some type of lifecycle analysis rather than on tailpipe, we refer to section 17.2 of
this response to comment document where we discuss our reasons for not doing so.
1403
-------
To address the concern of reduced Phase 3 stringency raised in comments (ACEEE, CATF et
al., EDF, MECA, SELC), we are finalizing provisions to limit the potential use of this flexibility,
as mentioned earlier in this response, which will allow use of multiplier credits to address Phase
2 compliance and use in specified circumstances to smooth the transition in the Phase 3
program's initial model years only. We are also phasing out the multiplier portion of any
advanced technology credits that remain after MY 2029. In Section III of the Preamble to this
rule, we describe these provisions we are finalizing to minimize the impact on the projected
stringency of Phase 3.
We appreciate ATA's comment sharing the experience of their member fleets that
manufacturers have previously restricted the range of options available to fleets as part of their
compliance plans. However, we note that none of EPA's GHG programs require manufacturers
to sell a certain percentage of any technology, as claimed in ATA's comment. As reiterated here
and throughout the final rule preamble, EPA's Phase 3 standards are supported by multiple
potential compliance pathways and manufacturers have a range of other options for meeting the
standards.
Volvo's comment reflects a similar misapprehension. Volvo suggests tying multipliers to
ZEV adoption rates, such that "EPA could set a threshold ratio comparing actual model year
2026 EV sales percentages within an averaging set to the MY 2027 adoption rate used to set
stringency." But the standard is performance-based, and there are many ways to achieve the
standards other than the potential compliance pathway which EPA costed. So, deviation from
that EPA's potential pathway in practice is not an alarm bell, but rather an indication that an
OEM has chosen to comply in a different matter. That choice should not trigger some type of
automatic consequence, including an automatic adjustment to multiplier level, or retention of
multipliers.
Clean Fuels Development Coalition et al. maintains that advanced technology multipliers are
"a regulatory cross subsidy program for electric vehicles" and that "EPA has no authority to
create such a subsidy program." In the same vein, CFDC et al. states that EPA "gets to set
standards; it has no power to set standards beyond where it thinks they should be and then agree
to relax those standards if a manufacturer gives money to the cause of electrification." First, the
advanced technology multipliers at issue are part of the existing regulations that were established
in Phase 2 and we did not generally reopen those provisions in this rulemaking; rather, we
specifically only proposed to revise the sunset date one year earlier. Second, the commenter
significantly mischaracterizes EPA's previous action. As EPA stated in first adopting the
advanced technology multipliers and as repeated in the Phase 3 proposal in language quoted by
the commenter, the advanced technology multipliers are not reflected in the stringency of the
standard. They are a compliance flexibility. See 88 FR at 25972/2 ("instead of including ZEV
technologies in the technology packages for setting the Phase 2 standards, we provided advanced
technology credit multipliers to help incentivize the development of ZEV technologies."). Thus,
the commenter's rhetoric notwithstanding, EPA did not set standards "beyond what it thinks they
should be" and then selectively relax the standards. The advanced multiplier provision is a
compliance flexibility, not part of the basis that supports the feasibility of the Phase 2 standards.
As to commenter's argument that EPA did not have the authority to create such a flexibility in
the Phase 2 final rule, it was within EPA's authority as well as reasonable for EPA to develop a
mechanism which modestly encourages utilization of these advanced but nascent technologies
1404
-------
that had the potential to lead to large reductions in GHG emissions in determining compliance
with emission standards.
The commenter's assertion that "[t]his program results in higher prices for gasoline and diesel
vehicles because manufacturers must generate or purchase the credits that EPA has created to
meet standards" is difficult to understand. The premise appears to be that the Phase 2 standards
can only be met be OEMs producing vehicles which get the benefit of the credit multipliers, or
by buying credits from manufacturers who do. This is simply not the case. First, the Phase 2
standards were premised on a mix of improvements to ICE engine efficiency and vehicle
improvements, not on adoption of zero emission or plug-in hybrid technologies. Second, in
practice, although there has been some penetration of these technologies into the HD fleet, that
penetration is minimal, meaning that of the hundreds of thousands of successful certifications
under Phase 2, the overwhelming majority reflect the types of improvements on which EPA
predicated the Phase 2 standards. A choice to comply by buying credits is just that, a choice, and
nothing forced upon a manufacturer by the rule.
In this Phase 3 final rule, we are acting to limit the impact of the existing credit multiplier
incentives while balancing concerns of timing regarding near-term OEM production plans for
compliance. See Section III.A.2 of the final rule preamble for a description of our considerations.
Furthermore, we note that credits from both advanced technologies and other vehicles are
generated relative to established standards and not relative to credits generated from other
vehicles. Nor does our cost analysis, which shows that the standards' costs are reasonable,
consider credit purchase. Consequently, overcompliance using one set of vehicle technologies
does not negate another vehicle's ability to meet the standard. Finally, as with the Phase 2
standards, in this Phase 3 final rule, EPA did not rely upon potential credits generated through
the advanced technology credit multiplier flexibility when developing the stringency of the Phase
3 standards; rather, the Phase 3 standards are supported by potential compliance pathway(s) as
described in Section II of the final rule preamble and can be met using a range of technologies
without utilizing such credits resulting from the multipliers.
We are not finalizing new multipliers to apply for technologies other than PHEV, BEV, and
FCEV. As noted in Section III.A.2 of the final rule preamble, the proposal regarding Phase 2's
credit multipliers was limited to evaluating approaches to phase out their availability for use. We
did not propose or request comment on extending credit multipliers to apply for other
technologies and comments requesting new multipliers are out of scope for this final rule.
AESI recommended EPA provide an incentive for H2 combustion trucks. Others (MEMA,
PACCAR, TRALA) suggested that a multiplier for H2 ICE technologies would further
incentivize hydrogen-based vehicle technologies and encourage hydrogen infrastructure
investment and development. We are not finalizing an additional multiplier for credits generated
from H2 ICE technology, but we are finalizing our proposed approach to deem CO2 emissions to
be zero from H2 ICE vehicles powered by neat hydrogen, which reduces some of the testing
required to certify these vehicles.806
806 We also note that, in Section III.C.2 of the preamble to this final rule, we describe additional relief from CO2
testing that we are finalizing for engines, by exempting H2 ICE fueled with neat hydrogen from CO2 testing by
deeming their CO2 emissions as 3 grams CCh/ton-mile.
1405
-------
Fermata Energy and Strong PHEV suggested "vehicle to grid" (V2G) bidirectional chargers
can address air pollution, GHG emissions, and electric grid challenges, but provided no data to
show a reduction in tailpipe CO2 from the technology. As described in section 17.1 of this RTC
document, we are not taking a lifecycle approach to setting standards in this rule and without a
clear reduction in tailpipe emissions, we would have no basis for considering whether a
compliance flexibility predicated on use of this technology is warranted. At this time, while we
retain our approach of only considering tailpipe emissions from heavy-duty vehicles, we do not
expect to initiate any analyses relating to bidirectional charging, as requested by Strong PHEV.
10.3.2 Averaging Set
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Allergy & Asthma Network et al.
EPA Should Ensure Real-World Benefits
As in many of our organizations' previous comments to EPA on other proposals to reduce
emissions from the heavy-duty vehicles sector, we note that the potential for banking, averaging
and trading can allow for gaming of the system that reduces real-world emissions cleanup. We
urge EPA to ensure that engine families are not allowed to generate excess emissions above the
final limits by balancing benefits of zero-emission or hybrid vehicles against them. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1532-A1, p. 4]
Organization: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE)
EPA also raises the possibility of allowing advanced technology credits to be used across
averaging sets (FR 26013), even though the ZEV adoption targets in the proposal are tailored to
the opportunities and constraints for electrification for each specific vehicle type. As EPA and
NHTSA observed in the Preamble to the final Phase 2 rule, "combined with the very large
multipliers being adopted, there could be too large a risk of market distortions if we allowed the
use of these credits across averaging sets" (Phase 2 FR 73498). That risk remains. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1560-A1, p. 17]
Advanced technology credits should remain applicable within averaging sets only. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1560-A1, p. 17]
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
2. Other Potential HD C02 Emission Credit Flexibilities
Affected page: 26013
The NPRM requests comments on allowing ATCs to be transferred across averaging sets and
on setting restrictions on such credit usage. CARB regulations do not support the use of credit
transfer across averaging sets. CARB staff specifically required class 7 and 8 tractor deficits
under ACT to be settled using class 7 and 8 tractor ZEV credits to assure sufficient production of
HD ZEV semi tractors to reduce emissions and meet pressing needs around ports, railyards,
freight facilities, and other directly community impacting truck activities. U.S. EPA should
1406
-------
consider whether the credit structure finalized would allow manufacturers to effectively ignore
entire categories of vehicles. As discussed further in the EJ-related comments in Part I. Section
H. below, CARB staff encourages U.S. EPA to adopt sector specific ZEV sales requirements for
the heaviest tractor class to ensure progress in environmental justice communities. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1591-A1, p.54]
5. Weight Class Modifiers (WCM)
Affected page: 26013
In response to U.S. EPA's request for comment, CARB staff does not believe the inclusion of
WCM is necessary for the Phase 3 standards. The WCM values were designed based on the
structure of the ACT regulation which bases credit balances on vehicles and was designed to
allow manufacturers significant flexibility given the diversity of vehicle operations from class 2b
to 8. The WCMs are designed to give manufacturers flexibility to focus sales on specific
segments while maintaining emission benefits. Given that U.S. EPA's NPRM uses an emissions
basis for calculating credits rather than vehicles, and is structured more narrowly, the inclusion
of WCMs in U.S. EPA's NPRM would not provide any additional benefit. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1591-A1, p.58]
Organization: Clean Air Task Force et al.
EPA should also not adopt any of the proposed additional flexibilities in the use of advanced
technology credits. Id. at 26013 (inviting comments on use of credits across averaging sets).
Those flexibilities promise to unnecessarily exacerbate the above-described distortions. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985- 1640-A1, p. 78]
Organization: Daimler Truck North America LLC (DTNA)
Manufacturers should be allowed to transfer credits generated by ZEVs among all available
vehicle categories.
The flexibility to transfer ZEV credits among available vehicles categories would enable
manufacturers to determine the classes and vehicle categories that they believe are best suited to
ZEV adoption. Under this approach, manufacturers could focus their ZEV product and market
development efforts on certain vehicle categories, using credits to offset C02 emissions from
vehicle categories that are less suitable for ZEV adoption. EPA could effectuate such flexibility
by amending its regulations to provide that the averaging set limitations in 40 CFR 1037.740 do
not apply to ABT credits generated by ZEVs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, pp. 74-75]
This compliance flexibility should be allowed without a credit discount and should apply to
all credits generated by ZEVs (including BEV, H2-FCEV, and H2-ICE) throughout the life of
the GHG Phase 3 program. This flexibility should also apply to credits which are traded between
manufacturers to enable a vibrant credit market and to incentivize manufacturers large and small
to develop ZEVs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 75]
EPA Request for Comment, Request #66: We request comment on the potential need for
additional flexibilities to assist manufacturers in the implementation of Phase 3. Specifically, we
request comment on providing the flexibility for manufacturers to use advanced technology
credits across averaging sets, subject to a cap.
1407
-------
• DTNA Response: EPA should allow manufacturers to transfer credits generated by ZEVs
among all available vehicle classes, as discussed in Section III. B. 1 of these comments.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 171]
EPA Request for Comment, Request #67: During this proposed Phase 3 standards transition,
we are considering whether additional flexibilities in the Phase 3 program emissions credit ABT
program design may be warranted, similar to the Phase 1 provision which allowed credits
generated from advanced technologies to be transferred across averaging sets. We request
comment on including a similar flexibility for the Phase 3 program.
• DTNA Response: See DTNA Response to Request # 66, above. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1555-A1, p. 171]
Organization: Ford Motor Company
To achieve the 2032 goals EPA has proposed and Ford supports, the final regulation must
include two key elements. First, as EPA outlined and requested comment on, EPA must allow
manufacturers to trade credits generated by heavy-duty ZEVs across averaging sets, including
from class 2b and class 3 ZEVs to light-heavy-duty and medium-heavy-duty vocational vehicles.
If the EPA limits a manufacturer's ability to make such trades, credit trading caps should be in
the range of multiple megatons. This will be a necessary flexibility because decarbonizing
heavy-duty transportation will be stepwise - manufacturers will introduce ZEVs more quickly in
vehicle segments where ZEVs are able to more quickly meet customer needs, with remaining
segments switching to zero emission technologies as charging infrastructure and consumer
enthusiasm for ZEVs improves. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1565-A1, p. 2-3]
GHG Credit Flexibilities
EPA has requested comment on several possible mechanisms by which manufacturers might
generate GHG credits based on ZEVs and transfer those credits across averaging sets. First, EPA
suggested a provision similar to that used in the Phase 1 heavy-duty GHG standards, which
"would allow vehicle CO2 credits generated by PHEVs, BEVs, and FCEVs to be used across
vehicle averaging sets or possibly across engine averaging sets as specified in 40 CFR part
1036," as an interim measure to begin in 2027MY and to end after 2032MY (88 Fed. Reg. at
26,013). Ford strongly supports this proposed credit trading provision. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1565-A1, p. 6]
Ford and other heavy-duty vehicle manufacturers often produce a relatively smaller number
of engines and powertrains in the heavy-duty space (40 CFR Part 1036 and 1037 certification) as
compared to the light-duty space (40 CFR Part 86 certification). This will make transitioning to
heavy-duty ZEVs more of a stepwise process compared to the light-duty fleet, where multiple
vehicles, platforms, engines, and powertrains all contribute to the same averaging set, and
changing one platform or powertrain to a ZEV replacement can accomplish relatively smooth
year-over-year fleet ZEV percentage increase. In the heavy-duty space, a manufacturer may, for
example, devote available engineering resources to developing and launching a light heavy-duty
ZEV and not have resources to develop and launch a medium heavy-duty ZEV until two years
later. If a manufacturer generates positive CO2 credits and complies with vocational vehicle fleet
electrification targets (overall, cumulative across all averaging sets), then it is reasonable to
allow that manufacturer to transfer credits from averaging sets with early ZEV adoption to
1408
-------
averaging sets that will add ZEV options later during the program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1565-A1, p. 6]
Regarding heavy-duty engines certified under 40 CFR Part 1036, Ford also supports the
ability for manufacturers to generate CO2 credits from heavy-duty ZEVs and transfer those
credits to heavy-duty engine averaging sets. Current regulations do not include ZEVs in these
averaging sets, leaving relatively less flexibility to comply than for heavy-duty vocational
vehicle averaging sets but also providing no particular incentive to adopt ZEVs. Allowing
transfer of ZEV-generated CO2 credits would provide manufacturers increased flexibility in their
compliance plans and also provide environmental benefits by encouraging overcompliance with
vocational vehicle GHG standards and ZEV sales percentages. Overall, credit transfers into
heavy-duty engine averaging sets would help keep heavy-duty engine and heavy-duty vocational
vehicle GHG compliance more closely aligned and not at risk of diverging to the point that
robust compliance in one space is not at all reflected in the other. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1565-A1, p. 6-7]
EPA has also requested comment on appropriate restrictions on number of credits that could
be transferred from one averaging set to another. In the Phase 1 heavy-duty GHG program, the
advanced credits that could be brought into any service class in any model year were capped at
60,000 Mg. This credit cap is far too low for larger, higher-volume manufacturers like Ford to
provide useful flexibility. As an example, suppose a manufacturer sells 150,000 light heavy-duty
vehicles per year. If these vehicles were all certified at the existing Phase 2 2027MY light heavy-
duty multipurpose compression-ignition standard of 330 g CCh/ton-mile, the manufacturer would
generate a 4.68 Mt CO2 (4,680,000 Mg CO2) deficit against the proposed 2027MY light heavy-
duty multipurpose compression-ignition standard of 257 g CCh/ton-mi: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1565-A1, p. 7]
((257g CCh/ton - mile)-(330 g CCh/ton-mile)) x (2.85 tons payload) x (150,000 units) x
(150,000 mile UL) x 10"6= 4,681,125 Mg CO2
Large year-over-year stringency increases have the potential to create credit deficits in the
megaton CO2 range for manufacturers with sufficient volume, especially in the first year of the
program transitioning from the 2026MY standards to the proposed 2027MY standards when
manufacturers would have previously been planning to the phase 2 2027MY standards.
Accordingly, Ford proposes not less than a five megaton (5,000,000 Mg) CO2 credit transfer cap
into any averaging set in any model year. This cap would allow a useful amount of flexibility
given the rate of change of the standards and possible manufacturer fleet volumes for these
vehicle classes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1565-A1, p. 7]
Organization: Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association (MECA)
Furthermore, the Phase 2 regulation did not allow for the transfer of credits across averaging
sets, and we believe this provision should be extended into the Phase 3 final rule. This is
particularly important as the increasing number of electric trucks sold will afford EPA an
opportunity to assess durability, FUL and LCA for different vehicle classes and averaging sets.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1521-A1, p. 10]
For similar reasons, MECA does not support the use of weight class modifiers which we
believe can have the same effect of reducing or delaying the broader deployment of advanced
1409
-------
GHG reducing technologies across all commercial vehicle sectors. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1521-A1, p. 10]
Organization: National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA)
End the Phase 2 Credit Exchange Between Vocational Vehicles and Tractors
The averaging, banking and trading program under EPA's current Phase 2 heavy-duty GHG
program allows C02 emission credits to be exchanged between vocational vehicles and tractors
within a weight class. With the final Phase 3 rule, EPA should end the Phase 2 credit exchange
program to ensure that manufacturers produce heavy-duty ZEVs across the range of vehicle
configurations they produce. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1499-A1, p. 9]
Organization: Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) and the
Ozone Transport Commission (OTC)
Averaging Banking and Trading (ABT)
EPA requests comment on the consideration of the use of credits across averaging sets and
specifically requests comment on consideration of a program similar to ARB's ACT credit
program. EPA proposed to allow the transfer of C02 credits between class 4-6 vocational
vehicles and class 7 and 8 tractors. In the ACT regulation, tractor ZEV sales cannot be offset by
sales of class 4-6 vehicles. In the final rule, we encourage EPA to disallow the transfer of credits
across classes 4-6 to class 7 and 8 tractors. We encourage EPA to only allow ZEV tractor sales
credits to be used to offset tractor sales deficits. As stated earlier, tractor emissions make up the
lion's share of heavy-duty vehicle emissions and fuel consumption. Allowing the use of credits
across averaging sets could reduce the effectiveness of the regulation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1562-A1, p. 14]
Organization: Strong Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle (PHEV) Coalition
EPA in finalizing the regulation, should make sure that averaging, banking and trading
provisions are open to all propulsion technologies including PHEVs, BEVs and FCEVs
(technology neutral and performance based) and provide increased flexibility to trade the C02
reduction benefits of PHEVs, BEVs and FCEVs between different sizes and types of vehicles
until at least MY 2032. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1647-A2, p. 2]
7) Our coalition is supportive of continuing averaging, banking and trading provisions as long
as it is technology neutral, and performance based and does not favor engine-based technology.
Regarding EPA's question on flexibility in the averaging, banking, and trading system, we
support including the ability to trade the C02 reduction benefits of PHEVs, BEVs and FCEVs
between different sizes and types of vehicles until at least MY 2032. We believe this is a modest
way to help encourage the most advanced clean technologies in this regulation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1647-A2, p. 7]
Organization: Tesla, Inc. (Tesla)
No Trading Should Be Allowed Across Averaging Sets
1410
-------
The final rules should not allow crediting trading across averaging sets. 183 As the agency
suggests, allowing such trading will distort the marketplace, decrease the predictability and
integrity of the rule's benefits, and may unnecessarily result in focusing on electrification of only
certain heavy-duty segments. Given the difference in carbon emission impacts between the
averaging sets, credits generated from lower weight class ZEVs should not be allowed to offset
heavier weight class vehicle credits deficits. In short, EPA should maintain a credit trading
policy that ensures manufacturers seek GHG reductions and electrification in all heavy-duty
segments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1505-A1, p. 25]
183 88 Fed. Reg. at 26013.
Organization: Volvo Group
Flexibilities
Full credit fungibility across vehicle averaging sets
In NPRM Section III. A 3 "Other Potential HD C02 Emission Credit Flexibilities" the agency
requested "comment on the potential need for additional flexibilities to assist manufacturers in
the implementation of Phase 3." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1606-A1, p. 20]
First and foremost, Volvo Group no longer sees the need to restrict vehicle credits to use
within an averaging set. Since the Phase 1 program development began in 2009, and continuing
through the development of the Phase 2 program finalized in late 2016, the Volvo Group has
been the sole voice of opposition among the major vehicle OEMs to movement of vehicle credits
across averaging sets. Since Volvo Group did not have a significant North American offer
outside of the Heavy-Heavy Duty (HHD) vehicle averaging set during this time, we opposed this
flexibility due to the unlevel playing field and resultant competitive disadvantage it would create.
With the 2020 launch of the well-received Mack MD Class 6/7 medium duty trucks, Volvo
Group no longer sees a competitive disadvantage to movement of credits across vehicle weight
classes, nor does it see a competitive advantage provided to any one OEM by expanding credit
fungibility. An expanded allowance would, however, allow manufacturers to focus development
resources and budgets on the most cost-effective improvements for customers, further easing the
transition to ZEV technologies. Thus, Volvo Group requests the agency finalize an allowance for
full credit fungibility across vehicle sub-categories without restriction. Since credits in each
averaging set are calculated in Mg of C02 reduction, and already account for the payload and
useful life mileage within the averaging set in which they were earned, Volvo Group sees no
reason that these credits should be subjected to discounting, or any other method of reduction in
value of transferred credits. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1606-A1, p. 20-21]
Vehicle Advanced Technology (AT) credit fungibility to engine averaging sets
The agency also went on to further specifically "request comment on providing the flexibility
for manufacturers to use advanced technology credits across averaging sets, subject to a cap"
(emphasis is the agency's own). Volvo Group sees no reason why one-way movement of any
vehicle credit, regardless of the technology from which it is derived, should not be allowed to
offset engine deficits. Nor do we see the need for a cap on the number of credits that could be
moved from the vehicle averaging sets into the engine averaging sets. Since, as noted previously
in these comments, the benefits of the current Phase 2 regulation and the proposed Phase 3 rule
1411
-------
are derived solely from complete vehicle improvements that incorporate the actual fuel map of
the installed engine, the greenhouse gas reductions from the regulation are not decreased by
offsetting engine deficits with vehicle credits. Additionally, a cap does nothing to increase the
calculated benefit of the regulation but is rather an arbitrary and capricious method of driving
additional engine improvements above and beyond the engine efficiency reductions
manufacturers will need to claw back due to the discussed impacts of the EPA's model year 2027
NOx reductions finalized in the Clean Trucks Plan NOx regulation. Since, the expected engine
level of improvements from the model year 2024 to the model year 2027 compression ignition
engine standards range only from -0.5% to -0.9% (see table below for specific values and
averaging sets), the expected improvements are negligible compared to the actual benefit derived
from a Phase 3 regulation predicated on any level of zero-emission vehicle penetrations. Lastly,
in a scheme where only one-way movement of vehicle credits into engine averaging sets is
allowed, any amount of credits moved from the vehicle to engine averaging sets are effectively
retired, reducing the OEMs available credit balance to be carried forward. (Refer to Table 2 on
page 21 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1606-A1). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1606-A1, p. 21]
As such, Volvo Group urges the agency to finalize an allowance for unrestricted one-way
movement of any category or class of vehicle credits into engine averaging sets throughout the
Phase 3 regulatory period from model year 2027 through 2032 with no cap on the number of
credits that can be moved. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1606-A1, p. 21]
Providing a Weight Class Modifier on Credits to Incentivize Adoption in Heavier Weight
Classes
Volvo Group agrees that this approach would be valuable to incentivize development of EVs
in heavier weight categories. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1606-A1, p. 22]
EPA Summary and Response:
Summary:
EPA requested comment on providing a flexibility for manufacturers to use advanced
technology credits across averaging sets, with the potential for caps or other limitations, as an
interim allowance from model years 2027 through 2032 (see 88 FR at 26013). Commenters
expressing support for using credits across averaging sets generally noted that the flexibility
would help manufacturers implement advanced technologies in the vehicle segments with the
greatest demand or cost effectiveness, and some of those commenters suggested EPA expand the
flexibility beyond the examples provided in the requests for comment. Commenters opposed to
allowing credit transfers across averaging sets generally expressed concern over market
distortions and reduced effectiveness of the rule.
Among the commenters supporting credit transfers across averaging sets, DTNA requested
that all credits generated by ZEVs, including BEV, H2-FCEV, and H2-ICE, should be available
to all vehicle categories, indicating that it would allow manufacturers to "determine the classes
and vehicle categories that they believe are best suited to ZEV adoption" and offset CO2
emissions from other categories they determine are less suitable for ZEVs. DTNA further
suggested that these ZEV credits should not be discounted and the allowance should apply for all
credits generated by ZEVs "throughout the life of the GHG Phase 3 program".
1412
-------
Ford requested that EPA allow credit transfers across averaging sets, including "Class 2b and
3 ZEVs to light-heavy-duty and medium-heavy-duty vocational vehicles", indicating that a
stepwise approach will be needed for the heavy-duty sector and manufacturers would benefit
from introducing ZEVs to vehicle categories where ZEVs would "more quickly meet customer
needs". Specifically, they emphasized that a manufacturer may have more engineering resources
dedicated to light-duty ZEV development and medium-duty ZEVs may have a two year delay.
Ford also requested the ability to generate C02 credits from heavy-duty ZEVs that could be used
in heavy-duty engine averaging sets to maintain consistent compliance between engine and
vocational vehicles. Regarding a credit trading cap, Ford, suggested a cap should be "in the range
of multiple megatons" as opposed to the 60,000 Mg value indicated by EPA. Ford suggested that
manufacturers with large production volumes can have megaton credit deficits and suggests "not
less than a five megaton (5,000,000 Mg) C02 credit transfer cap into any averaging set in any
model year".
Strong PHEV Coalition suggested ABT should be open to PHEVs, BEVs, and FCEVs and
that those vehicles should have the flexibility to trade credits "between different sizes and types
of vehicles until at least MY 2032".
Volvo noted their previous opposition to transferring credits across averaging sets, citing a
competitive disadvantage during the Phase 1 and Phase 2 programs. Since then, Volvo has
released a Class 6/7 truck and no longer sees a competitive disadvantage to that potential credit
allowance. Volvo suggested the expanded credit fungibility would allow manufacturers to "focus
development resources and budgets on the most cost-effective improvements for customers,
further easing the transition to ZEV technologies". Volvo requested no restrictions (e.g.,
discounting) on the credit transfers, because the payload and useful life mileage in the credit
calculation account for differences between averaging sets. Like Ford, Volvo also requested one-
way transfer of vehicle credits to offset engine deficits, but unlike Ford, maintained that there
should not be a cap, stating "a cap does nothing to increase the calculated benefit of the
regulation but is rather an arbitrary and capricious method of driving additional engine
improvements above and beyond the engine efficiency reductions manufacturers will need to
claw back" due to the recent EPA heavy-duty NOx regulation. Volvo noted that the relatively
small change in engine standards from MY 2024 to 2027 would have a "negligible"
improvement compared to Phase 3 and that any manufacturer who opted to use this one-way
credit would then lose the ability to apply those credits to a vehicle.
Other commenters cautioned against allowing credit transfers across averaging sets. ACEEE
commented that "advanced technology credits should remain applicable within averaging sets
only". ACEEE expressed concern over the risk of market distortions if EPA were to allow
credits, especially those generated with multipliers, to be used across averaging sets.
Allergy & Asthma Network et al. noted the potential for "gaming" through use of ABT, and
specifically urged EPA not to allow engine families "to generate excess emissions above the
final limits by balancing benefits of zero-emission or hybrid vehicles against them".
CARB noted that the ACT program specifically requires tractor deficits to be settled using
tractor ZEV credits to "assure sufficient production of HD ZEV semi tractors" and CARB
suggested EPA should consider whether manufacturers could "effectively ignore entire
categories of vehicles" when evaluating possible credit approaches to finalize. CARB
1413
-------
encouraged EPA to adopted ZEV sales requirements specifically for the Heavy HDV tractors
indicating that it would "ensure progress" in EJ communities.
CATF cautioned that allowing use of credits across averaging sets would "exacerbate" the
concerns they expressed in section 10.3.1 of this response to comment document over credit
multipliers distorting the stringency of the Phase 3 program.
MECA supported extending the Phase 2 restriction on transferring credits across averaging
sets into Phase 3, noting that EPA could better assess the durability, FUL, and LCA for vehicles
within the averaging sets.
Tesla did not support allowing credit trading across averaging sets, indicating that the
allowance would "distort the marketplace, decrease the predictability and integrity of the rule's
benefits, and may unnecessarily result in focusing on electrification of only certain heavy-duty
segments".
Several commenters requested that EPA further limit the current averaging sets to reduce the
risk that ZEV vocational vehicles could reduce incentive for manufacturers to produce ZEV
tractors.
NACAA requested EPA revise the current ABT program to disallow credits exchanges
between vocational vehicles and tractors within the same weight class. NACAA suggested that
continuing the current approach would not "ensure that manufacturers produce heavy-duty ZEVs
across the range of vehicle configurations".
NESCAUM and OTC noted that CARB's ACT regulation disallows transferring credits
between vocational vehicles and tractors. NESCAUM and OTC commented that EPA should
also disallow transferring credits between Class 4-6 vehicles and Class 7 and 8 tractors and only
allow credits from ZEV tractor sales to offset tractor deficits. They noted that tractor emissions
"make up the lion's share of heavy-duty vehicle emissions" and transferring credits across
averaging sets "could reduce the effectiveness of the regulation".
Regarding EPA's request for comment on weight class multipliers, CARB and MECA
recommended EPA not apply weight class modifiers. CARB indicated that the weight class
multipliers they applied in their ACT rule were specific to that rule and should not apply to a
federal program. Volvo stated that weight class modifiers would "incentivize development of
EVs in heavier weight categories".
Response:
We are retaining our current GVWR-based averaging set definitions and the flexibility that
allows credits to be averaged, banked, or traded within an averaging set. After considering
comments and further evaluation of the example flexibilities included as requests for comment in
the proposal, the final provision, available as an interim, transitional flexibility during model
years 2027 through 2032, will allow manufacturers to use credits generated from heavy-duty
vehicles across averaging sets. In Section III. A 3 of the final rule preamble, we describe how the
allowance applies for heavy-duty vehicles under 40 CFR 1037 and heavy-duty vehicles under 40
CFR part 86, subpart S. While some commenters expressed general support for our request for
comment on allowing one-way transfer of CO2 credits from heavy-duty vehicle averaging sets to
heavy-duty engine averaging sets, we are not finalizing that option in this final rule. We expect
we would need to apply restrictions on the engine averaging sets where vehicle credits can be
1414
-------
applied to limit potential disproportionate adverse emission impact on certain engine categories
and also set FEL caps to avoid backsliding on the engine standards. At this time, we believe the
complexity of this flexibility would limit its use relative to the other flexibilities we are finalizing
in this rule.807
ACEEE commented that the risk of market distortions is greater considering the availability
of credits generated with multipliers. In response, as described in preamble Section III and our
response in RTC section 10.3.1, we note that we are separately taking steps to reduce the impact
of credits from multipliers by restricting their use toward Phase 3 compliance and removing any
remaining multipliers in model year 2030.
We disagree with Volvo's statement that a cap is a "rather an arbitrary and capricious
method" of achieving more emissions reductions from engines. Rather, caps are important in
cases where credits have the potential to lead to a disproportionate negative emissions impact on
one or more vehicle or engine categories. As noted previously, we are not finalizing the option
for manufacturers to use heavy-duty vehicle credits in heavy-duty engine averaging sets, in part
to avoid the potential for disproportionate negative emissions impact on one or more engine
categories. However, we are not including a cap on credits transferred between heavy-duty
vehicle averaging sets in the final interim flexibility. A cap would be justified in cases where
vehicles with zero or near-zero tailpipe CO2 emissions are able to offset a significant number of
vehicles in any given averaging set under this flexibility. Our assessment of the effect of those
vehicles does not indicate a such an offset.
We requested comment on the possibility of allowing credits generated by Class 2b and 3
PHEV, BEV, and FCEV pickup trucks and vans808 to transfer to the heavy-duty vehicle
averaging sets (see 88 FR at 26013). Ford commented in support of that potential allowance,
indicating there is a two-year delay in adapting light-duty vehicle technology for the heavy-duty
vehicle market. After considering comments, we are extending our model year 2027 through
2032 allowance for transferring credits across averaging sets to include credits from Class 2b and
3 PHEV, BEV, and FCEV pickup trucks and vans. Specifically, we are finalizing an interim
allowance for one-way credit transfers from averaging sets for heavy-duty vehicles certified to
40 CFR part 86, subpart S, to averaging sets for heavy-duty vehicles certified to 40 CFR part
1037. We are limiting this aspect of the flexibility to transferring credits generated during MYs
2027-2029 from to 40 CFR part 86, subpart S, to 40 CFR part 1037 in recognition that there is
greater availability of PHEV, BEV, and FCEV in pickup trucks and vans and less need to offer a
flexibility for vehicles in that market. We note that it would take multiple pickup trucks or vans
to offset any single heavy-duty vehicle, and any credits transferred under this flexibility would
no longer be available for the part 86 ABT program to aid in manufacturers meeting the
requirements for those vehicles.
We did not propose and are not revising the current ABT provisions to disallow credit
exchanges between vocational vehicles and tractors within a given averaging set, as requested by
NACAA and NESCAUM/OTC. NACAA correctly pointed out that EPA's current rules for
heavy-duty vehicle averaging sets allows credits to be exchanged between all vehicles within an
807 See also revised 40 CFR 86.1819-14, new 40 CFR 1036.150(bb), and new 40 CFR 1037.150(z) that specify how
manufacturers can exchange credits across averaging sets in 40 CFR parts 86, 1036, and 1037 during model years
2027 through 2032.
808 These vehicles are certified to 40 CFR part 86, subpart S.
1415
-------
averaging set. As defined in 40 CRR 1037.740, averaging sets mirror the vehicle weight classes,
which are largely based on vehicles' GVWR (see 40 CFR 1037.140 and the definition of "class"
in 40 CFR 1037.801). As such, the Medium HDV and Heavy HDV classes, and their
corresponding averaging sets, may contain both vocational vehicles and tractors if they have a
similar GVWR. As CARB noted in their comment, they designed the ACT regulation to limit
how credits can be used to offset tractor deficits. We understand the concerns from CARB,
NACAA, and NESCAUM/OTC that manufacturers may generate Phase 3 credits from certain
vehicles within a weight class in order to avoid producing ZEV for others. We note that the
possibility of offsetting some applications is inherent in the design of the ABT provisions, which
allows manufacturers to decide which vehicle applications to apply technologies for their
specific company's product line. The structure of the ABT program, including the current
GVWR-based averaging sets, have been in place since Phase 1 (see 76 FR 27239) and, as noted
in section 10.2 of this RTC document, we are not reopening issues relating to the structure of the
ABT program. We are repeating these points here to respond to this comment, not to indicate any
reconsideration of this established position.
We further note, in response to NACAA and NESCAUM/OTC, that subcategory-specific
emission standards continue to apply for heavy-duty vehicles and that emission credits generated
within a given averaging sets must balance to zero (or a zero balance is achieved in the following
three model years). Consequently, vehicle families across each averaging set are meeting their
emission targets, with the associated environmental and health benefits, on average and
individual vehicles are certified as well to the FEL for that vehicle family or subfamily. See
section 10.2 of this RTC document. We do not have data to suggest a clear advantage of separate
averaging sets for vocational vehicles and tractors, since manufacturers may produce more ZEV
tractors, but they may also opt to produce fewer ZEV vocational vehicles in the vocational
averaging set.
1416
-------
11 Battery Durability and Warranty
11.1 Battery Durability
Comments by Organizations
Organization: American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)
3. EPA's Approach Fails to Address Important Issues That Will Affect Consumers' Best
Interest.
EPA's proposal may impose additional costs of economic risk to small business owners who
will be asked to depend upon increasingly expensive, lesser-proven HDVs for their livelihood.
HD engine standards and the standards for MY 2021 and later light-HD engines apply over a
useful life of 15 years or 150,000 miles, whichever comes first. 150,000 miles is well below the
period of use for a comparable ICE powertrain. In the Proposed Rule, EPA asserts that it
"concurs with the emerging consensus that battery durability is an important issue. The ability of
a zero-emission vehicle to achieve the expected emission reductions during its lifetime depends
in part on the ability of the battery to maintain sufficient driving range, capacity, power, and
general operability for a period of use comparable to that expected of a comparable ICEVs.
Durable and reliable electrified vehicles are therefore critical to ensuring that projected emissions
reductions are achieved by this proposed program."93 EPA further states that it "proposed a
specific durability testing requirement in the Proposed Rule and received comment on that
proposal, including comment stating that the requirements could result in increases in the battery
capacity beyond what was needed to meet the job of the customer. Due to these concerns and
because we are still evaluating the range of durability metrics that could be used for quantifying
HD BEV performance, EPA is not proposing specific durability testing requirements in this
rule."94 EPA should consider inclusion of durability requirements in this proposal as 150,000
miles is well below the period of use for a comparable ICE powertrain and will impact
consumers as there is not enough data regarding these technologies due to their very small
market penetration. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1659-A2, pp. 25 - 26]
93 Proposed Rule at 26,014-15.
94 Id. at 26,015.
EV batteries are high-cycle batteries and are made to function for approximately 10 years for
a light-duty vehicle, and a shorter time for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1659-A2, p. 29]
EV batteries lose approximately 3 percent of their charging capacity and associated range per
year of operation. These percentages likely are higher for higher mileage utilization for typical
heavy-duty vehicles. EPA has not made any effort to account for battery degradation, and
associated reductions in charging efficiency, charging capacity, customer impacts and
accelerated battery replacement and costs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1659-A2, p. 29]
Many 'spent' EV batteries still have 70-80 percent of their capacity left, which is more than
enough to be repurposed into other uses such as energy storage and other lower-cycle
applications. 108 This will extend the time that batteries and raw materials remain in use and
1417
-------
therefore increase the demand for virgin critical minerals. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1659-A2,
P- 29]
108 Engel, H., Hertzke, P., & Siccardo, G. (2019, April). Second-life EV batteries: The newest value pool
in Energy Storage. McKinsey Center for Future Mobility.
https://www.mckinsey.eom/~/media/McKinsey/Industries/Automotive%20and%20Assembly/Our%20Insig
hts/Second%201ife%20EV%20batteries%20The%20newest%20value%20pool%20in%20energy%20storag
e/Second-life-EV-batteries-The-newest-value-pool-in-energy-storage.pdf
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
c. Battery durability monitor
Affected pages: 26016, 26127, and 26124 (1037.115(f))
In response to U.S. EPA's request for comment, CARB staff suggests that requirements for
entire system monitoring to be added instead of requirements for battery monitoring only. The
requirements could include monitoring of the energy storage system, the thermal management
system, the regenerative braking system, the charging system, the motor/generator, and fuel-cell
stack, if present. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1591-A1, p.37]
CARB staff suggests requiring manufacturers to provide a description of a method for
monitoring and calculating the battery state of health. CARB staff suggests that manufacturers of
BEVs should provide the rated energy capacity for their batteries and the SAE J1798 procedure
should be followed for testing the battery rated energy capacity. "Battery durability subfamily"
needs to be defined. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1591-A1, p.37]
California's Zero Emission Powertrain (ZEP) Test Procedure sets requirements for battery
monitoring. CARB staff suggests that NPRM could be aligned with the ZEP procedure. 114
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1591-A1, p.37]
114 California Standards and Test Procedures for New 2021 and Subsequent Model Heavy-
Duty Zero-Emission Powertrains, June 27, 2019.
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2019/zepcert/froattc.pdf
Organization: Clean Air Task Force et al.
V. EPA Should Adopt the Proposed Warranty and Durability Requirements.
A. EPA should adopt the proposed durability provisions but should also require state-of-
certified-range monitors.
We urge EPA to adopt the proposed durability and warranty requirements. 88 Fed. Reg. at
26013-16. As EPA explains, the calculation of emission credits for ZEVs is based on attributed
mileage over their useful life. 88 Fed. Reg. at 26013. In addition to helping ensure that ZEVs
will in fact achieve the projected emission reductions throughout their useful lives, the warranty
and durability requirements will enhance consumer confidence in ZEVs and promote their faster
adoption among purchasers, leading to greater air quality benefits. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1640-A1, p. 81]
EPA's authority to adopt the proposed durability requirements is grounded in section 206 of
the Clean Air Act, which (read in conjunction with section 203) provides that before introducing
1418
-------
a new motor vehicle into commerce, a manufacturer must obtain an EPA "certificate of
conformity" indicating that the vehicle complies with applicable emission standards promulgated
under section 202. 42 U.S.C. § 7525(a)(1); 42 U.S.C. § 7522(a)(1). Section 202(a)(1), in turn,
requires vehicles to achieve compliance with standards throughout their "useful life," "whether
such vehicles and engines are designed as complete systems or incorporate devices to prevent or
control such pollution." 42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(1). Section 206 also provides that EPA may
condition the certificate of conformity "upon such terms.. .as [it] may prescribe." 42 U.S.C. §
7525(a)(1). The statute thus confers broad authority on EPA to ensure that ZEVs (like any other
motor vehicle) in fact achieve the level of emission reductions attributed to them for purposes of
compliance calculations throughout their useful lives. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, pp.
81 - 82]
As part of the durability requirements, we urge EPA to require heavy-duty BEVs and PHEVs
to have a state-of-certified-range (SOCR)355 monitor that can be accessed by consumers. 88
Fed. Reg. at 26015. Compared to usable battery energy (the metric EPA has proposed), SOCR
monitors provide important information on range and battery performance that drivers and
consumers can easily understand. Requiring manufacturers to provide SOCR monitors, in
addition to the other battery durability measures EPA has proposed, would also enhance
consumer confidence in used heavy-duty ZEVs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 82]
355 SOCR is "the measured or on-board electric range at a specific point in its lifetime, expressed as a
percentage of the certified range." UN Global Technical Regulation No. 22 (In-vehicle Battery Durability
for Electrified Vehicles), ECE/TRANS/180/Add.22, at II.3.10., Apr. 14, 2022,
https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2023-01/ECE_TRANS_180a22e.pdf; see also 88 Fed. Reg. at 26015
(referring to Global Technical Regulation No. 22).
Finally, while EPA proposes that the new battery durability monitoring requirements take
effect "beginning with MY 2027," the proposed regulatory text (40 C.F.R. § 1037.115(f)) states
that they "apply starting in model year 2030." Compare 88 Fed. Reg. at 26014, with id. at 26124.
In the final rule, EPA should update the regulatory text to clarify that the requirements apply
starting in MY 2027. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 82]
Organization: Cummins Inc.
V. Battery Durability Requirements
12. An on-board state-of-certified-energy (SOCE) monitor accuracy requirement is needed.
Cummins supports having a customer facing SOCE monitor that includes an accuracy
requirement. We propose aligning this requirement with the proposed accuracy requirements in
EPA's Multi-Pollutant Emissions Standards for Model Years 2027 and Later Light-Duty and
Medium-Duty Vehicles proposal which states that in-use vehicles must display SOCE values that
are accurate within 5 percent of measured values as calculated in GTRNo. 22. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1598-A1, p. 10]
13. Cummins supports common sense battery durability requirements.
Cummins supports common sense battery durability requirements to ensure a level playing
field across all zero emissions vehicle manufacturers and to ensure vehicle owners receive robust
new technology which will spur broader adoption. Battery durability is important to the future of
1419
-------
battery electric vehicles (BEV). Many fleets are purchasing BEV for the first time and directly
comparing them to the existing ICE vehicles in their fleets. If fleets experience a sub-par product
that does not meet their expectations, they will hesitate to continue to invest in this product
which could result in ICE vehicles remaining in their fleets for longer periods of time. Heavy-
duty durability requirements must deviate from the proposed Light-Duty and Medium-Duty Rule
and protect for miles, years, and weight, with a focus on the throughput of the battery with
regards to the machine. Cummins commits to working with EPA and other stakeholders to
develop recommended durability requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1598-A1, p. 10]
14. A test procedure for determining Useable Battery Energy (UBE) is needed for BEV.
Having a standard test procedure for determining UBE in BEV is needed to ensure a level
playing field for battery durability. Just as there is a proposed test procedure for hybrids, a
standard test procedure should be developed for HD BEVs. Cummins commits to working with
EPA to develop a standard test procedure for determining UBE that is appropriate for heavy-duty
BEV. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1598-A1, p. 10]
Organization: Daimler Truck North America LLC (DTNA)
DTNA supports the proposed battery durability monitoring and ZEV warranty requirements
but requests revisions to proposed Section 1037.115(f) to clarify the Agency's intent. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 66]
DTNA agrees with EPA that customer adoption of new vehicle technologies, especially
ZEVs, relies on certainty that the products can do the jobs that customers need them to do over a
predictable period of time. DTNA is focused on providing our customers with durable products
that have predictable maintenance and repair costs. To this end, we spend considerable
development and validation resources to test vehicles for hundreds of thousands of miles before
production, working hand-in-hand with customers to ensure they have the best possible
experience with our products. Manufacturers are well-motivated by market forces to develop
robust, durable, and maintainable products, thus EPA regulations are not needed to ensure
quality. Simply put, manufacturers must develop economical, reliable, and durable products, or
customers will not buy them. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 66]
Nonetheless, DTNA requests that EPA revise the language proposed for 40 C.F.R.
1037.115(f) to specify the State-of-Certified-Energy (SOCE) monitoring requirements that will
apply rather than incorporating a general reference to the 'monitoring requirements' GTR
No. 22, which could be imprecise and open to interpretation. The regulatory language proposed
for Section 1037.115(f) states that 'Monitoring requirements related to State of Certified Range
(SOCR)', 'Accuracy requirements for SOCE in GTR No. 22,' and 'Minimum Performance
requirements for battery durability' from GTR No. 22 'do not apply,' but the Agency does not
specify exactly which clauses of GTR No. 22 are intended to apply. EPA also does not clearly
state that the requirements for 'In-Use Verification' in GTR No. 22 do not apply. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 67]
DTNA recommends that EPA clarify its intent by incorporating and modifying the language
from GTR No. 22 that the Agency intends to adopt. Specifically, the Company recommends that
Section 1037.115(f) read as follows:
1420
-------
(f) State-of-Certified-Energy (SOCE) monitors.
(1) The requirements of this section apply starting in model year 2030.
(2) The manufacturer shall install an SOCE monitor that operates during the life of the
vehicle. The SOCE monitor shall maintain an estimate of the state of certified energy (on-board
SOCE).
The manufacturer shall determine the algorithms by which on-board SOCE is determined for
the vehicles they produce. The manufacturer shall update the on-board SOCE with sufficient
frequency as to maintain the necessary degree of accuracy during all normal vehicle operation.
The on-board SOCE shall have a resolution of 1 part in 100 and be reported as the nearest whole
number from 0 to 100.
(3) The manufacturer shall make available the most recently determined values of the on-
board SOCR and on-board SOCE via the OBD port or otherwise make the SOCE available to the
operator.
(4) For battery electric vehicles, use good engineering judgment to develop a test procedure
for determining useable battery energy (UBE).
(5) For plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, determine UBE as described in 40
C.F.R. 1036.545 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, pp. 67-68] The warranty and battery
durability monitoring requirements in the Proposed Rule strike an adequate balance between
ensuring this baseline level of product performance and not adding undue burden and expense to
ZEVs. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2022-0985-1555- A 1, p. 67]
EPA should not set additional product requirements for ZEVs that could increase cost or limit
manufacturers' ability to provide customers with adequate choice in the market. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 68]
While DTNA supports EPA's proposed durability monitoring and warranty requirements, as
discussed above, the Company does not support additional ZEV requirements that could add
costs and disincentivize ZEV adoption. Related to this key point, DTNA offers the following
responses to EPA's requests for comment on potential additional requirements related to battery
health. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 68]
EPA should not set durability standards, including a minimum State-of-Certified-Energy
(SOCE) or State-of-Certified-Range (SOCR).
The ZEV market is still developing, and factors will emerge bearing on battery and fuel cell
durability that cannot be adequately considered during this rulemaking. For example, high-speed
charging (megawatt charging or more) will almost certainly become a market necessity, which
will enable further penetration of ZEVs but will likely have an effect on battery life that
manufacturers cannot predict at the time of certification. Similarly, the state of hydrogen
infrastructure and the quality and purity of the supplied hydrogen could affect fuel cells in ways
that are not well understood today. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 68]
Additionally, widespread adoption of Vehicle-to-Grid operations or for auxiliary power draws
in the form of so-called Electric Power Takeoff (ePTO) applications are not well understood and
could impact battery durability. Both of these technologies could draw as much or more power
1421
-------
from the vehicle as driving and must be accounted for in any standard regulating the lifetime
operation of the vehicle. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 68]
Manufacturers can develop ZEVs to meet any reasonable useful life or durability periods that
EPA requires, but it is important to recognize the impact that these requirements would have on
vehicle costs and adoption rates. In the Low-NOx Proposed Rule, where EPA last considered
promulgating ZEV durability requirements, the Agency proposed to require ZEVs to meet
durability timeframes of the longest-lived, highest mileage diesels in order to generate NOx
emission credits. As EPA acknowledged in the Low-NOx Proposed Rule, compliance with these
requirements would necessarily require manufacturers to make choices that add to vehicle costs
and/or diminish functionality:
• ' [Manufacturers could choose to design the battery or fuel cell in their product to have a
larger capacity at the start of the vehicle life and limit the extent to which the initial
capacity is available for use [...] Alternatively, a manufacturer could choose to include
battery or fuel cell maintenance or replacement as part of critical emission-scheduled
maintenance.'138 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, pp. 68-69]
138 See Low-NOx Proposed Rule, 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,559
In other words, a sufficiently long durability or range requirement would require
manufacturers to: (1) install a larger battery or fuel cell; (2) limit the capability of the vehicle by
restricting its available energy; and/or (3) replace the battery or fuel cell during its useful life.
Each of these actions would necessarily add significant cost or reduce the effectiveness of the
vehicle at a given cost point, ultimately reducing vehicle versatility and negatively impacting
ZEV adoption rates. To avoid this result, manufacturers should be free to develop the products
that customers need, and market forces should determine the adequate mix of durability, cost,
warranty, and other operational considerations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 69]
Lastly, if EPA were to adopt durability requirements premised upon use of a SOCE or SOCR
monitor, these requirements would increase vehicle costs and create regulatory burdens that
would put ZEVs at a competitive disadvantage relative to their ICE vehicle counterparts. Such
requirements would amount to an 'OBD monitor for range,' which existing conventional
vehicles are not required to have. OEMs receive certification based on the GHG emissions
performance of their conventional vehicles for the regulatory useful life of the vehicle but are not
required to provide a means for monitoring vehicle range over time. For ZEVs, degradation of
energy capacity or range is, to some degree, expected and in any case will not cause a ZEV to
emit any pollutant. DTNA supports providing SOCE information to the customer but, for the
reasons stated herein, would not support durability requirements based on SOCE or SOCR.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 69]
EPA should not set any requirements related to a Certified Range, including an initial
Certified Range value, or a monitor or other requirement for SOCR. DTNA understands that
EPA is considering whether or not it should require vehicles to have a SOCR, including an initial
certification for range, a health monitor in terms of certified range, or potentially a durability
requirement related to certified range. A range requirement would be incompatible with the
unique product and operational realities of commercial vehicles, would not be feasible due to
technical considerations, and would not be protective of the environment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1555-A1, p. 69]
1422
-------
Commercial vehicle ranges are extremely variable and are based to a great degree on the load
the vehicle is carrying; its operational characteristics, including terrain and drive profile, and
whether it is conducting auxiliary work operations that require a large accessory load; and the
specifics of the vehicle equipment. While this is also true for light-duty vehicles to some extent,
the variability in range for commercial vehicles is much greater for a given battery capacity,
making any certified range value effectively meaningless. Before proposing any requirements
regarding certified range, EPA should study this issue to understand the wide variability of
ranges in a properly-operating commercial ZEV. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 69]
In addition to the considerations above, DTNA believes commercial vehicles have such wide-
ranging equipment types that it would be highly impractical to certify a range (or variety of
ranges) for a vehicle family. Under existing regulations, there can be a wide range of vehicles
within a given family. These vehicles may have widely varying powertrain types and capacities,
aerodynamics, transmissions, drive axle ratios, and more, all of which can have dramatic impacts
on range. While ZEV vehicle types are limited today, future families including ZEVs are likely
to have similarly wide-ranging configurations, and it is quite possible that a vehicle family with
one zero-emission powertrain configuration could cover hundreds or thousands of different
vehicle specifications, each with widely varying ranges. Moreover, it would be practically
impossible for a vehicle manufacturer to determine and certify the range for each configuration.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 70]
DTNA supports EPA's proposal to allow BEV manufacturers to develop their own
procedures for determining Certified Energy at the time of certification and for SOCE on each
vehicle. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 70]
Manufacturers are best positioned to determine the appropriate method for calculating the
SOCE at the time of certification and for developing appropriate algorithms for onboard SOCE.
EPA has previously proposed specific test procedures, such as the proposed Multicycle Test
(MCT) in the Low-NOx Proposed Rule. Such proposals are needlessly prescriptive and do not
adequately consider the wide range of vehicle applications and impracticality of testing such
configurations, as detailed in DTNA's comments on the Low-NOx Proposed Rule. 139 [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 70]
139 See Comments of DTNA North America LLC, Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles:
Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards; Proposed Rule (May 13, 2022) at 121-123,
https://www.regulations.gOv/comment/EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168.
Ultimately, the purpose of a battery health test is to measure how much capacity is available
in the battery pack. EPA requests comment on whether a vehicle-level test is appropriate for
these purposes. It is unclear why components besides the battery should be part of the test. While
the drive motor, accessories, control strategies, etc. might change the rate at which power is
consumed from the battery, they have no effect on the total amount of energy stored in the
battery pack. With many vehicle configurations that could affect the outcome of the test, any
vehicle-level test will need to be repeated many times—one for each configuration that affects
the test—with no significant additional information to be gained about the capacity of the battery
pack. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2022-0985-1555- A 1, p. 70]
DTNA supports EPA's proposal to let manufacturers determine the most appropriate test
procedures, but if the Agency believes a prescribed test is necessary, it should consider a test that
1423
-------
measures battery energy directly using a standardized charge-discharge cycle to determine
battery capacity. Such a test reduces the number of configurations a manufacturer must test and
provides detailed information about the capacity of the battery in a useable, repeatable manner.
The industry already uses such a test for this purpose—the 'Static Capacity Test (Constant
Current Method)' set forth in Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) J1798, 'Recommended
Practice for Performance Rating of Electric Vehicle Battery Modules,' which is incorporated by
reference in CARB's standards and test procedures for HD zero-emission powertrains.140 [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 70]
140 See CARB, 'California Standards and Test Procedures for New 2021 and Subsequent Model Heavy-
Duty Zero Emission Powertrains' (June 27, 2019) at C-ll, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-
05/ADA California%20Standards%20And%20Test%20Procedures%20For%20New%202021%20And%
20Subsequent%20Model%20Heavy-Duty%20Zero-Emission%20Powertrains.pdf.
Any battery health test procedure, for BEVs or for FCEVs, must be developed in concert with
truck, battery, and fuel cell manufacturers to adequately capture the wide range of applications
and equipment, technology types, and degradation modes of these vehicles, as well as recognize
the practical constraints on executing these tests. This is especially important if EPA, in the
future, proposes to require a battery durability or in-use verification aspect of their regulation.
Such procedures must be developed with manufacturers and account for the challenges of testing
in commercial vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 71]
EPA Request for Comment, Request #68: EPA requests comment both on this rule's proposed
approach and on an alternative approach of EPA defining a test procedure to determine UBE,
such as the test procedure EPA proposed in the HD2027 NPRM, CARB zero-emission
powertrain certification, and the test procedures being considered by the UN ECE EVE IWG.
• DTNA Response: DTNA supports EPA's proposal to allow manufacturers to determine
UBE, but would not support EPA setting a specific test procedure to determine UBE. If a
regulatory test procedure for demonstrating UBE is deemed necessary, however, EPA
should adopt battery-only test for UBE, like that incorporated into CARB's zero-emission
powertrain certification standards and procedures, rather than any test performed at the
chassis or vehicle level. UBE certification at the vehicle or chassis level would be
impractical for the HD market, due to the wide variety of vehicles and applications in this
sector, and the irrelevance of chassis components to battery energy. DTNA discusses
these issues in detail in Section III. A. of these comments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1555-A1, p. 171]
EPA Request for Comment, Request #69: While we are not proposing to require that heavy-
duty BEVs and PHEVs implement a state-of-certified-range (SOCR) monitor, we are requesting
comment on whether we should require the SOCR monitor defined in GTR No. 22.
• DTNA Response: EPA should not finalize any requirements regarding SOCR, due in
part, to the wide variety of vehicles and applications in the HD market that would make
certification impractical, and because electric vehicle range does not affect the C02
emissions of the vehicles. DTNA discusses these issues in Section III. A. of these
comments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 171]
1424
-------
Organization: Fermata Energy
III. Recommendations regarding V2G in EPA rules and EPA's Proposed Battery Durability
Monitoring and Warranty Requirements for Heavy Duty Electric Vehicles
Any eventual battery durability requirements set by EPA should account for frequent
bidirectional charging (e.g. such as vehicle-to-grid) activities [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1662-
A2, p.6]
We recognize that the EPA is not setting a battery durability requirement at this time, and is
instead proposing to require battery state of health and durability monitoring. The EPA
specifically mentioned the need for larger batteries that may not be used as a reason for
proposing monitoring. However, the EPA made no mention of the need for vehicle-to-grid
technology in heavy duty BEVs and PHEVs in the proposed rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1662-A2, p.6]
Battery degradation is an inherently complex topic; battery chemistry, temperature, use cases,
the EV duty cycle, and other factors all impact battery degradation. Some V2X activities,
especially those utilizing bidirectional charging capabilities, will require additional battery
cycling that will impact long-term battery durability. While the exact level of cycling will
depend on the specific V2X use case and could vary based on customer behavior, it is reasonable
to expect that in the future most EVs could experience some incremental level of degradation
due to V2X activities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1662-A2, p.6]
Given the extensive public and private benefits that V2X can offer, as detailed above, it is
paramount that any battery durability requirements EPA establishes for EVs not inadvertently
foreclose V2X, and especially V2G opportunities. Setting overly-stringent durability
requirements that limit V2X activities - whether intentionally or not - conflicts with EPA's
larger mission of reducing emissions and accelerating EV adoption. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1662-A2, p.6]
Furthermore, we note there are ongoing efforts by the Informal Working Group on Electric
Vehicles and the Environment under the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UN
ECE) to develop minimum performance requirements for EV batteries that include V2X
considerations. This Working Group is chaired by the US Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and includes the European Commission, individual European and Asian countries, as well
as industry stakeholders from around the world. In order to account for VGI activities, the
Working Group is also considering a "virtual km" mechanism, in which the energy discharged
by the EV battery in bidirectional mode is converted to a km-equivalent via a predetermined
formula. 14 The total mileage used for confirming the compliance with the performance
requirements would consist of the sum of the km driven and the virtual km. While Fermata
Energy is not necessarily endorsing this specific approach or methodology, we believe that the
EPA should seriously consider an agreed upon method to account for V2G battery degradation
such as the UN Global Technical Regulation "virtual miles" before adopting a final regulation
with durability or warranty requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1662-A2, p.7]
14 For example, see the following presentation on V2X virtual mileage at the 50th EVE IWG meeting:
https://wiki.unece.org/download/attachments/128420289/Input%20on%20V2X%20virtual%20mileage.ppt
x?api=v2
1425
-------
In the absence of an agreed upon method to account for V2G battery degradation, OEMs may
choose to reach battery warranty agreements with V2X services providers to approve specific
equipment for use with their bidirectionally-enabled vehicles. In September 2022, Nissan
approved the Fermata Energy bidirectional charger as the first bidirectional charging system for
use with its all-electric LEAF vehicle in the US. 15 While these sorts of battery warranty
approvals are a very important development for the bidirectional charging industry, OEM
approval processes can be slow. It may take years for other OEMs to negotiate these sorts of
agreements with V2X charger manufacturers and service providers. An agreed-upon
methodology for accounting for V2G battery degradation would be the more expedient approach
to ensuring battery durability, instead of relying on OEM to EVSE agreements, which could take
years. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1662-A2, pp.7-8]
15 https://usa.nissannews.com/en-US/releases/release-
507828 ldl9ed36853371357c4ala8244-nissan-approves-first-bi-directional-charger-for-use-
with-nissan-leaf-in-the-us
Organization: International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT)
ICCT supports the proposal to establish durability monitoring and warranty requirements for
batteries. The battery is the most significant new cost component of a zero-emission vehicle. The
used vehicle market will rely to a significant extent on access to objective information on the
state of health of the battery to inform residual value calculations. Durability monitoring and
warranty requirements will provide greater certainty to fleet customers that their batteries are
reliable. These requirements will create a level playing field for the industry to meet minimum
reporting and warranty expectations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1553-A1, p. 5]
Organization: Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association (MECA)
Battery State of Health (SOH) Monitors as per UNECE GTRNo. 22b & Labeling
MECA supports the inclusion of SOH monitors and usable battery energy (UBE)
measurement requirements as per UN ECE GTR No. 22b that include vehicle miles traveled and
power take-off (PTO) equivalent miles traveled. This information will serve to generate
durability data to support future EPA programs, as well as industry and consumer needs. The
UN-ECE is expected to finalize GTR No.22b in the next year and once completed EPA should
assess and align with this global regulation. MECA believes that mandated battery labeling
requirements will facilitate in-use vehicle service and end-of-life vehicle recycling. Towards this
goal, EPA should align battery labeling requirements with those required under California's
ACC II light-duty regulation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1521-A1, p. 11]
Organization: Tesla, Inc. (Tesla)
The Proposed Battery State of Health Monitor/State of Certified Energy Provisions for
Monitoring Battery Durability Are Reasonable
Building consumer assurance is a key factor towards achieving significantly higher levels of
BEV penetration, especially in the heavy-duty markets. Tesla agrees with EPA that consumers
should have access to information regarding the state of battery health (SOH), especially those
considering the purchase of a used BEV or when filing a warranty claim. As further noted,
1426
-------
durability monitoring can ensure emission reduction benefits are met and provide integrity to
credit trading. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1505-A1, p. 25]
Tesla has favored a SOH monitor based upon battery capacity because it is directly
proportional to vehicle range, depends on the least test conditions, can easily be run with an
onboard diagnostic procedure, and can be verified with simple measurement equipment.
Nonetheless, Tesla recognizes and participated in proceedings developing the UN GTR 22 and
agrees with EPA's adoption of the GTR 22 and a SOH monitor communicating the battery's
state of certified energy (SOCE) based upon usable battery energy (UBE).186 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1505-A1, p. 25]
186 88 Fed. Reg. at 26015.
In the heavy-duty NOX NPRM Tesla provided detailed responses to many aspects of the
proposed test procedures. 187 Given the diversity of heavy-duty platforms, requiring a one size
fits all SOCE test procedure will lead to inaccurate and distorted results. Therefore, Tesla
supports the agency's proposal to allow BEV manufacturers to develop their own SOCE test
procedures. 188 The agency is correct that a customer-accessible SOH monitor needs to be
accurate, transparent, verifiable and, importantly, easy for a consumer to understand. As such,
customers will be best served by allowing manufacturers to develop test procedures that are
adapted to their unique vehicle design. Tesla supports the agency's decision to not implement a
durability requirement. 189 Imposing specific durability testing requirements on BEVs provides
no emissions reduction benefit. BEVs do not emit tailpipe (or evaporative) criteria pollutants and
changes in battery durability and retained range do not alter this fact. Unlike emission controls in
ICE vehicles, BEVs are also not vulnerable to defeat devices and tampering. 190 Requiring
durability standards can cause greater tailpipe emissions by harming the rate of BEV uptake
through imposition of substantial new costs and designs with reserved battery capacity. Tesla
respectfully submits that any speculative benefit from consumer assurance provisions such as
durability requirements must be balanced against increase up-front costs on BEVs, which are
likely to slow consumer uptake and thereby increase emissions. Moreover, as the DOE has
documented, BEV range continues to accelerate as the technology is deployed. 191 As BEV
range increases, the loss of incremental battery capacity over time (due to expected degradation)
will matter less to consumers. Similarly, the agency should allow manufacturers to address range
monitoring as each sees fit to do, and Tesla does not support imposition of a state of certified
range (SOCR) monitor. 192 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1505-A1, p. 26]
187 Tesla, Comments on EPA's Clean Air Act Waiver for California's Omnibus Low NOX Regulation,
Advanced Clean Trucks, Zero Emission Airport Shuttle, and Zero-Emission Power Train Certification
Regulations (Aug. 2, 2022) available at https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0331-
0060
188 88 Fed. Reg. at 260115.
189 Id.
190 See e.g. Transport Topics, Three Companies Charged With Emission Device Tampering (may 11,
2023) available at https://www.ttnews.com/articles/emissions-
devicetampering?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Issue:%202023-05-
12%20Transport%20Dive%20%5Bissue:50451%5D&utm_term=Transport%20Dive
1427
-------
191 U.S. DOE, FOTW #1290, May 15, 2023: In Model Year 2022, the Longest-Range EV Reached 520
Miles on a Single Charge (May 15, 2023) available at https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-
1290-may-15-2023-model-year-2022-longest-range-ev-reached-520-miles
192 88 Fed. Reg. at 26015.
Organization: Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
ii. Authority to adopt requirements for ZEV powertrain components
In the NPRM, EPA claims it has the authority to adopt durability, useful life, and warranty
requirements for the various components of ZEV powertrains, including batteries, fuel cells, and
electric motors. More specifically, EPA is proposing to set specific mileage and years-based
warranty requirements for BEV and FCEV batteries, as well as certain other associated electric
powertrain components (e.g., fuel-cell stack, electric motors, and inverters). The proposed
warranty periods would be five years or 50,000 miles for light heavy-duty ZEVs, and five years
or 100,000 miles for medium-duty and heavy-duty ZEVs. EPA also is proposing to adopt new
battery durability monitoring requirements for HD BEVs and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles
(PHEVs) beginning with the 2027 model year. EPA is further proposing to mandate that OEMs
provide a customer-facing battery state-of-health (SOH) monitor for all heavy-duty BEVs and
PHEVs. The SOH monitor would need to monitor and communicate the vehicle's state of
certified energy (SOCE), including the state of the usable battery energy (UBE) expressed as a
percentage of the original UBE when the BEV was new. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1,
p. 17]
Notwithstanding its claims, EPA does not have the delegated authority under the CAA to
adopt the proposed requirements for ZEV batteries and associated electric powertrain
components, which have no capability of producing emissions of any air pollutants. EPA's
authority to adopt warranty, durability and useful life requirements for motor vehicles is
delineated in CAA sections 202(d), and 207(a) and (b). Those provisions constrain EPA's
authority to ensuring vehicles' and engines' compliance for prescribed periods of time with
"standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor
vehicles or new motor vehicle engines." (CAA section 202(a)(1); 42, U.S.C. §7521 (a)(i).) [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, pp. 17 - 18]
For example, CAA section 202(d) states that EPA "shall prescribe regulations, under which
the useful life of vehicles and engines shall be determined for the purpose of subsection (a)(1) of
section 7541 [CAA section 202(a)(1)]." As noted, that statutory purpose is to authorize EPA to
establish standards to limit "the emission of any air pollutant from any class or classes of new
motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines." The CAA defines "air pollutant" to mean "any air
pollution agent or combination of such agents... sub stance or matter which is emitted into or
otherwise enters the ambient air." (CAA, section 302(g); 42 U.S.C. §7602(g).) The CAA further
defines "emission standard" to mean a requirement "which limits the quantity, rate or
concentration of emissions of air pollutants on a continuous basis." (42 U.S.C. §7602(k).) Thus,
EPA's authority to prescribe useful life requirements under CAA section 202(d) is directly tied
to the purpose of extending the time span of emission standards that limit the rate, quantity or
concentration of emissions of air pollutants from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle
engines. Since ZEV powertrains, including ZEV batteries, do not and cannot emit any air
pollutants in any quantity into the ambient air (and so, in effect, are outside of the practical scope
1428
-------
of emission standards), EPA does not have the authority to set emissions-related useful life
requirements for BEV and FCEV powertrains or their various non-emitting components. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 18]
Similarly with respect to the proposed warranty and durability requirements, EPA's authority
to adopt those types of requirements is set forth in CAA section 207. In particular, CAA section
207(a)(1) makes it clear that the scope of authorized warranties is to ensure that vehicles and
engines "are designed, built and equipped so as to conform at the time of sale with the applicable
regulations [i.e. emission standards] established under section 7521 [section 202(a)(1)]." (42
U.S.C. §7541(1).) Here again, ZEV powertrains and associated components do not and cannot
emit any air pollutants, and so are not among the types of combustion sources that can be subject
to emission standards. Consequently, they are not among the types of mobile sources that can be
covered by the emissions-related warranties authorized under the CAA. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-2668-A1, p. 18]
While it is certainly true that EPA has the authority to set lower emission standards as
advancements in technology allow, even down to zero, the scope of EPA's related authority to
establish emissions warranty and durability periods is fundamentally different. More specifically,
EPA does not retain the authority to establish "emissions-related" warranty and durability
requirements for mobile source powertrains that are inherently incapable of generating any
emissions of any air pollutants, including when those ZEV powertrains deteriorate, malfunction,
or completely breakdown. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 18]
It is axiomatic that ZEV powertrains do not have the capacity to emit air pollutants. That
holds true when those powertrains are new, when they are deteriorated, and even when they
cease working altogether. Thus, ascribing "emissions-related" warranty and durability
requirements to those ZEV powertrains and their components is, in effect, a non sequitur. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 18]
EPA's authority to prescribe emissions-related warranty and durability regulations is
premised on the concept that mobile sources subject to the regulations need to rely on emissions-
reducing components, such as exhaust aftertreatment systems, that can deteriorate over time in a
manner that can increase emissions in-use to levels above the applicable underlying emission
standards. EPA clearly has the authority to guard against those adverse results by adopting
emissions-related warranty and useful life provisions that promote both the manufacture of more
durable emissions-related components, and the prompt repair of malfunctioning emissions-
related components. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 19]
But none of the above pertains to ZEV powertrain components that are inherently incapable
of generating any air pollutants whatsoever. As a consequence, EPA's authority to adopt
emissions-related warranties and durability periods also does not apply. It is the same reason that
EPA is not authorized to adopt emissions-related warranty and durability regulations for steering
wheels, brake pedals, windshields, or even current-technology car and truck batteries. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 19]
In the end, EPA's proposed warranties and durability requirements for ZEV batteries and
other ZEV powertrain components amount to attempted forays into the regulatory realm of
consumer protection - an attempt to ensure that ZEV powertrains meet consumer expectations
1429
-------
and needs for range and reliability. EPA's jurisdiction does not extend that far. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 19]
In sum, the useful life, warranty and durability requirements EPA is authorized to adopt under
the CAA are all directly tied to ensuring compliance over time with the air pollutant emission
standards that EPA sets for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines. Since ZEV
powertrains and their associated components do not and cannot emit any air pollutants, and so
are not within the scope of any specific emission standards, they are, by definition, also not
within the scope of EPA's regulatory authority as it pertains to useful life, warranty and
durability requirements. Consequently, those types of proposals must not be included in any final
Phase 3 rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 19]
Battery Durability Monitor - Notwithstanding our comments above on EPA's lack of
delegated authority under the CAA to adopt the proposed battery durability monitor
requirements, we offer several provisional comments on those proposed provisions. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 54]
The NPRM includes proposed regulatory language for the battery durability requirements in
40 C.F.R. § 1037.115(f), stating that "[t]he requirements of this section apply starting in model
year 2030. See, 88 Fed. Reg. 26124 (emphasis added). We agree that the proposed effective date
of MY 2030 would be earliest reasonable timing within which to implement battery durability
monitors. Developing battery durability monitors will require significant and time-consuming
development work by manufacturers. It will take time and resources for manufacturers to design
the monitor systems, develop test procedures for measuring battery energy, and to ensure that the
procedures accurately and repeatably measure the battery energy. That task is made significantly
more challenging by the large number of battery configurations that manufacturers must develop
to meet the needs of the highly diverse commercial vehicle market. Additionally, manufactures
must redesign many unique vehicle dashboards to incorporate the required state-of-
energy displays; and changing dashboards requires notoriously long lead-times due to the
necessary tooling changes, and their complex interactions with multiple vehicle systems. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, pp. 54 - 55]
The preamble contains an apparent typographical where it states that "EPA is proposing new
battery durability monitoring for HD BEVs and PHEVs ... beginning with MY 2027." See, Id. at
26014 (emphasis added). That early implementation is not consistent with the proposed
regulatory language, and, more importantly, is not feasible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-
Al, p. 55]
The NPRM would require that manufacturers "use good engineering judgement to develop a
test procedure for determining useable battery energy (UBE)." See, Id. at 26124. There is no
doubt that manufacturers are in the best position to develop the most effective and efficient test
procedures for measuring UBE. Measuring UBE for the many different battery configurations
needed for the commercial vehicle market may necessitate bench-testing to avoid the costs and
complexity associated with vehicle-level testing. One effective method for conducing that bench-
testing is the SAE International standard J1798 200807 - Recommended Practice for
Performance Rating of Eclectic Vehicle Battery Models, which is incorporated by reference in
CARB's Heavy-Duty Zero-Emission Powertrain Certification Requirements. See, 13 CCR §
1956.8, D. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 55]
1430
-------
The NPRM also includes in the battery durability monitor requirements in 40 C.F.R. §
1037.115(f) several references to the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe
(UNECE) Global Technical Regulation (GTR) No. 22 on In-Vehicle Battery Durability for
Electrified Vehicles:
Battery durability monitor. Battery electric vehicles and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles must
meet monitoring requirements related to batteries serving as a Rechargeable Energy Storage
System from GTR No. 22 (incorporated by reference, see § 1037.810). The requirements of this
section apply starting in model year 2030. The following clarifications and adjustments to GTR
No. 22 apply for vehicles subject to this section:
(1) Install a customer-accessible display that monitors, estimates, and communicates the
vehicle's State of Certified Energy (SOCE) include information in the application for
certification as described in § 1037.205. Monitoring requirements related to State of Certified
Range (SOCR) do not apply.
(2) Accuracy requirements for SOCE in GTR No. 22 do not apply. Minimum Performance
Requirements for battery durability also do not apply. (See, 88 Fed. Reg. 26124 (emphasis
added).) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 55]
The proposed battery durability monitor requirements in 40 C.F.R. § 1037.115(f) that
reference GTR No. 22 are imprecise and unclear. GTR No. 22 is a comprehensive standard with
numerous detailed requirements. While the proposed regulatory language identifies several
sections of GTR No. 22 that do not apply, the language does not specify which clauses of GTR
No. 22 do apply. Additionally, the UNECE is currently developing revisions to GTR No. 22, and
will soon approve an amended version. A general reference to a GTR, which may soon be out-
of-date, is not appropriate or implementable. Instead, we recommend that § 1037.115(f) include
the following straightforward and implementable requirements:
• The manufacturer shall install a State of Certified Engine (SOCE) monitor that operates
during the life of the vehicle. The SOCE monitor shall maintain an estimate of the state
of certified energy (on-board SOCE).
• The manufacturer shall determine the algorithms by which on-board SOCE is determined
for the vehicles they produce. The manufacturer shall update the on-board SOCE with
sufficient frequency as to maintain the necessary degree of accuracy during all normal
vehicle operation.
• The on-board SOCE shall have a resolution of 1 part in 100 and be reported as the nearest
whole number from 0 to 100.
• The manufacturer shall make available the most recently determined values of the on-
board SOCR and on-board SOCE via the OBD port or otherwise make the SOCE
available to the operator.
• For BEVs, use good engineering judgment to develop a test procedure for determining
UBE.
• For PHEVs, determine UBE as described in 40 C.F.R. § 1036.545. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-2668-A1, pp. 55 - 56]
Organization: Zero Emission Transportation Association (ZETA)
iv. Range and durability
1431
-------
In the LDV segment, a recent study found that a majority of EVs retain at least 90 percent of
their original range capacity left even after driving more than 100,000 miles—a testament to
battery durability. 122 While HDVs operate under different duty cycles and applications, there is
good reason to believe advances in LDV battery technologies and durabilities will extend into
other vehicle classes. CATL—recently announced a new "condensed" battery with 500 Wh/kg.
CATL expects to start mass production of the model in 2023,123 and such an increase in battery
capacity will benefit HDEVs in an outsized way. Bloomberg recently reported that the average
range for a U.S. EV in the U.S. has quadrupled since 2011. In 2022, it stood at 291 miles and
today is a third higher than the global average. 124 Policies such as EPA's emissions standards
are critical to helping maintain the U.S.'s position as a global leader. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-2429-A1, p. 29. This comment can also be found in section 4 of this comment summary.]
122 "New Study: How Long Do Electric Car Batteries Last?" Recurrent Auto, (March 27, 2023)
https://www.recurrentauto.com/research/how-long-do-ev-batteries-last
123 "World's largest battery maker announces major breakthrough in energy density," TheDriven, (April
21, 2023) https://thedriven.io/2023/04/21/worlds-largest-battery-maker-announces-major-breakthrough-in-
battery-density
124 "US Electric Cars Set Record With Almost 300-Mile Average Range," Bloomberg, (March 9, 2023)
https://www.bloomberg.eom/news/articles/2023-03-09/average-range-for-us-electric-cars-reached-a-
record-291 -miles#xj 4y 7vzkg
EPA Summary and Response:
Summary:
Multiple commenters including the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, Allergy
& Asthma Network et al., ICCT, CARB, MECA, ... commented that EPA should finalize
durability requirements for ZEV, to ensure ZEV durability is comparable to the comparable HD
ICE powertrain.
CARB commented that EPA should finalize entire system monitoring requirements instead of
requirements just for the battery. CARB suggested that SAE J1798 should be used for
determining battery energy capacity and stated that EPA should include battery durability
subfamily definitions. CARB further maintained that EPA should adopt California's Zero
Emission Powertrain (ZEP) Test Procedure for the battery monitor.
Clean Air Task Force et al. commented that EPA should finalize the proposed durability
requirements and make them effective for MY2027 and later vehicles. They also commented that
EPA should require state-of-certified-range monitors.
Cummins commented that they support common sense battery durability requirements to
ensure a level playing field across all zero emissions vehicle manufacturers and to ensure that
vehicle owners receive robust new technology which will spur broader adoption. Cummins
commented that having a standard test procedure for determining usable battery energy (UBE) is
needed to ensure a level playing field.
DTNA supports the proposed battery durability monitoring requirements, but also stated that
EPA should not set durability standards. DTNA doesn't support a state-of-health (SOH) monitor
based on state-of-certified range (SOCR). DTNA supports allowing manufacturers to define the
test procedure for determining UBE. DTNA commented that EPA should allow manufacturers to
1432
-------
develop their own test procedure for determining UBE, and that if EPA must define a test
procedure, it should align with CARB's zero-emission powertrain certification standards and
procedures. DTNA commented that EPA should include all the durability monitoring
requirements in 40 CFR 1037, rather than reference the GTR No. 22. DTNA commented that
impacts from vehicle-to-grid and electric power takeoff applications are not well understood and
could impact battery durability. DTNA also commented that it is not clear why components other
than the battery should be included in the test.
EMA agreed with the proposal (including proposed regulatory text) stating that battery
durability requirements commence in MY 2030. In their view, MY 2030 would be the earliest
reasonable timing within which to implement battery durability monitors. In this regard, EMA
notes an inconsistency between the proposed regulatory text (giving MY 2030 as the commence
date) and the Preamble, which gave MY 2027 as the starting date.
EMA supports the NPRM requiring that manufacturers "use good engineering judgement to
develop a test procedure for determining useable battery energy (UBE)."
EMA comments that battery electric vehicles and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles must meet
monitoring requirements related to batteries serving as a Rechargeable Energy Storage System
from GTR No. 22. The requirements of this section apply starting in model year 2030. EMA
requests that the following clarifications and adjustments to GTR No. 22 be made for vehicles
subject to this section:
(1) Install a customer-accessible display that monitors, estimates, and communicates the
vehicle's State of Certified Energy (SOCE) include information in the application for
certification as described in 40 CFR 1037.205. Monitoring requirements related to State of
Certified Range (SOCR) do not apply.
(2) Accuracy requirements for SOCE in GTR No. 22 do not apply. Minimum Performance
Requirements for battery durability also do not apply.
EMA comments that the proposed battery durability monitor requirements in proposed 40
C.F.R. § 1037.115(f) that reference GTR No. 22 are imprecise and unclear. GTR No. 22 is a
comprehensive standard with numerous detailed requirements. While the proposed regulatory
language identifies several sections of GTR No. 22 that do not apply, the language does not
specify which clauses of GTRNo. 22 do apply. They recommend that § 1037.115(f) include the
following language, which they characterize as providing straightforward and implementable
requirements:
The manufacturer shall install a State of Certified Engine (SOCE) monitor that operates
during the life of the vehicle. The SOCE monitor shall maintain an estimate of the state of
certified energy (on-board SOCE).
The manufacturer shall determine the algorithms by which on-board SOCE is determined for
the vehicles they produce. The manufacturer shall update the on-board SOCE with sufficient
frequency as to maintain the necessary degree of accuracy during all normal vehicle operation.
The on-board SOCE shall have a resolution of 1 part in 100 and be reported as the nearest
whole number from 0 to 100.
1433
-------
The manufacturer shall make available the most recently determined values of the on-board
SOCR and on-board SOCE via the OBD port or otherwise make the SOCE available to the
operator.
For BEVs, use good engineering judgment to develop a test procedure for determining UBE.
For PHEVs, determine UBE as described in 40 C.F.R. § 1036.545.
EMA and Volvo commented that EPA doesn't have the legal authority to require a battery
durability monitor for ZEVs, the argument being that CAA section 202(d), 207 (a), and 207 (b)
do not apply to vehicles with no tailpipe emissions. They make the same argument with respect
to warranty and useful life requirements for ZEV powertrains and related components. EMA
agrees that EPA may issue emission standards, including standards of zero, for new motor
vehicles. However, EMA asserts that, thereafter " EPA does not retain the authority to establish
"emissions-related" warranty and durability requirements for mobile source powertrains that are
inherently incapable of generating any emissions of any air pollutants, including when those
ZEV powertrains deteriorate, malfunction, or completely breakdown." EMA states that this is
because "[i]t is axiomatic that ZEV powertrains do not have the capacity to emit air pollutants."
EMA likens warranty and durability requirements issued under such circumstances to issuing
warranty and durability standards for floor mats or steering wheels. We address these arguments
together in the response following these summaries.
MECA commented that they support inclusion of SOH monitors and usable battery energy
(UBE) measurement requirements that include vehicle miles traveled and power take-off (PTO)
equivalent miles traveled. MECA also commented that EPA should require battery labeling
requirements.
Fermata Energy commented that EPA should not set durability requirements that would
discourage the use of V2X. The durability monitoring requirements and minimum performance
requirements should consider V2X.
Tesla supported the proposed durability monitoring requirements, including the proposal to
not define the test procedure for determining UBE.
Response Concerning Legal Authority:
EPA does not accept the argument that it lacks legal authority to adopt durability, warranty,
and useful life requirements for ZEV powertrains and components. EPA's response is set out in
full in Preamble Section III.B. As explained there, we reject EMA's suggestion that EPA does
not have authority to set durability or warranty requirements because ZEV batteries are not
emission-related for several reasons. First, EMA argues that because ZEVs do not themselves
emit, they and their powertrain components are "not within the scope of any specific emission
standards," and therefore they cannot be subject to "emissions-related" durability and warranty
requirements. But EPA does have the authority to set standards for ZEVs as they are part of the
"class" of regulated vehicles. Congress authorized EPA to regulate classes of vehicles, and EPA
has concluded that emission of air pollutants from the class of heavy-duty vehicles as a whole
causes, or contributes to, air pollution emissions which endangers public health and welfare. See
Preamble Section I.C and RTC Section 10.2.1 .f. Thus, the class of new motor vehicles for which
EPA must establish emission standards are those whose emissions contribute to endangerment,
CAA section 202(a)(1), namely "Passenger cars, light-duty trucks, motorcycles, buses, and
1434
-------
medium and heavy-duty trucks."809 The class of heavy-duty vehicles includes heavy-duty
electric vehicles.
In addition, all vehicles, including ZEVs, are subject to an applicable Family Emission Limit
(FEL) throughout their useful life to demonstrate compliance with EPA's GHG emissions
standards.810 EMA is thus incorrect in suggesting that useful life, warranty, and durability
standards are unimplementable for ZEV powertrains and components. EPA accounts for
durability at certification by requiring, as part of the compliance demonstration for meeting GHG
emission standards, a demonstration that emission controls will not deteriorate during useful life,
a battery in a hybrid electric vehicle being the given example. 40 CFR 1037.241(c); see generally
RTC section 10.2. l.d . Durability of a BEV battery is covered by this same provision and
principle Vehicle manufacturers also warrant at the time of sale that each new vehicle is
designed to comply with all applicable emission standards and will be free from defects that may
cause noncompliance. CAA section 207. Thus, under 40 CFR 1037.120, manufacturers must
warrant to the ultimate purchaser, and to subsequent purchasers, that the vehicle is "designed,
built, and equipped" to conform at time of sale with all applicable standards, and is free of
defects that will cause it to fail to conform in use during the applicable warranty period. 40 CFR
section 1037.120(a)(1) and (2). Components covered by the warranty include all emission-
related components included in the manufacturer's application for a certificate of conformity,
which are keyed to the FEL assigned to those vehicles. These provisions comport entirely with
section 207 of the Act and are readily determinable at time of sale by reference to the certified
FEL limit. See generally Preamble Section III.B and RTC 10.2.l.d.3.
EMA argues secondly that a component only counts as emission-related if its failure would
allow the vehicle to continue operating, but with higher emissions. But nothing in the statute
imposes such a limitation. Moreover, while it is true that the failure of a battery would cause the
vehicle to stop operating, the same is true for some other vehicle components that have also
historically been subject to durability requirements. For instance, EPA has set durability
requirements for diesel engines (see 40 CFR 86.1823-08(c)), failure of which could cause the
vehicle to stop operating. Similarly, Congress explicitly provided that electronic control modules
(ECMs) (described in the statute as "electronic emissions control units") are "specified major
emissions control components]" for warranty purposes per section 207(i)(2); failure of ECMs
can also cause the vehicle to stop operating, and not necessarily increase the emissions of the
vehicle.
EMA is similarly incorrect in asserting that by applying durability and warranty requirements
to vehicular components which do not emit, EPA is engaging impermissibly in a type of
consumer protection. In fact, such provisions are routine. The Phase 2 rule, for example, includes
"emission-related warranty requirements" for a series of ICE vehicle components which
themselves do not emit but whose performance is necessary to assure that a vehicle complies
with the standards throughout its useful life, among them vehicle speed limiters, tire pressure
monitoring systems, idle-reduction systems, aerodynamic components, and hybrid system
809 74 FR 66496, 66537 (Dec. 15, 2009).
810 See Preamble section I.C and Response to Comments Section 10.2.1 for further description of EPA's authority to
set standards under section 202(a) using an averaging form, and to include ZEVs and PHEVs within a fleet average-
based standard. For a more detailed description of the ABT process for HDVs, see section III. A above and section
10.2. l.d of the Response to Comments. EPA replies to the commenter's assertions regarding authority to establish
standards for a vehicle's useful life as part of that same response to comments as well as in Preamble section III.B. .
1435
-------
components. 40 CFR section 1037.120(c). ZEV powertrains and components are exactly
comparable: they are, in the words of the regulation, all "emission-related components," id., and
in the words of the statute, "devices to prevent or control pollution." CAA section 202(a)(1).
EPA's authority to set and enforce durability requirements for emission-related components
like batteries is an integral part of its title II authority. Durability requirements ensure that
vehicle manufacturers and the vehicles they produce will continue to comply with emissions
standards set under 202(a) over the course of those vehicles' useful lives. EPA has separate
authority to set warranty requirements for batteries in ZEVs and PHEVs. CAA section 207(a)(1).
Providing a warranty for emission-related components like batteries precisely accomplishes the
Congressional purpose of assuring purchasers that vehicles will conform to applicable emission
standards at time of sale and in use. For standards to be meaningfully applicable across a
vehicle's useful life, EPA's assessment of compliance with such standards necessarily includes
an evaluation of the performance of the emissions control systems, which for BEVs, FCEVs, and
PHEVs includes the battery system both when the vehicle is new and across its useful life. This
is particularly true given the averaging form of standards that EPA uses for GHG emissions (and
which EMA continues to support), and with which most manufacturers choose for demonstrating
compliance. For EPA to determine the level at which to set fleet average standards, the Agency
needs to have confidence that the emissions reductions—and thus credits generated —by each
ZEV and PHEV introduced into the fleet are reflective of the real world. This is particularly
important because one of the elements of the credit generating formula is useful life of the
vehicle in miles travelled. See 40 CFR 1037.705(a). Although the standards exist independently
from durability, ensuring that ZEVs contain durable batteries is thus linked to the integrity of the
averaging process: assuring that vehicles will perform in fact for the useful life mileage reflected
in any credits they may generate. Put another way, durable batteries are a factor ensuring the
real-world performance of the averaging form of the standard: that the standard is met per
vehicle, and on average, per fleet throughout the vehicles' useful life. The battery warranty
provisions finalized in this rulemaking in turn allow for confidence that the batteries installed by
vehicle manufacturers are durable and thus support the standard.
See Section III.B of the preamble for a complete response.
Responses to Remaining Comments
We do not agree with CARB's comment that EPA should adopt an entire system monitoring
requirement as Part of the Phase 3 rule (and CARB appears to advocate that such a program
commence in the initial model year of the program as well). We didn't propose such a
requirement, and such a requirement would merit full public process including an opportunity for
comment. In addition, CARB didn't provide sufficient detail on what an "entire system
monitoring requirement" would be, so we lack the necessary detail to finalize an entire system
monitoring requirement at this time. Regarding the comment from CARB that SAE J1798 should
be required for determining usable battery energy (UBE), we don't agree. See Preamble Section
III.B for details on why we are finalizing as proposed that manufacturers will seek approval for
the procedure to determine UBE, and the criteria manufacturers would have to consider in
making that determination. In addition, we disagree that now is the right time to finalize a
subfamily definition, as we are still learning what parameters are important for dividing ZEV
families. For example, we have not determined whether a ZEV family be divided into
subfamilies if the ZEV family includes multiple battery families, or whether ZEV only be
1436
-------
divided into subfamilies if the ZEV family includes multiple battery chemistries. We believe that
these decisions are best made once there is more real-world data on these ZEV.
We disagree with the comment from Clean Air Task Force that the durability monitoring
requirement should start with MY 2027, as this would only provide manufacturers a few years to
develop and get approval for the test procedure to determine UBE. The final rule provides
necessary lead time, with this requirement commencing in MY 2030.
We disagree with the comment from Cummins that the Phase 3 rule should include a standard
test procedure for determining UBE. As discussed in Section III.B of the preamble, the final rule
instead provides for individual approvals of UBE test procedures, based on criteria set in the
regulations.
We agree with the comments that now is not the right time to finalize durability standards for
ZEV. As we discussed in Section III.B of the preamble, we are instead finalizing durability
monitoring requirements for ZEV. We also agree with DTNA's comment that all the durability
monitoring requirements should be included in 40 CFR 1037 and, consistent with DTNA's
comment that confusion might result from incorporating GTR No. 22 by reference without
further specification as to what parts apply, have not included a reference to GTR No. 22 for any
of the durability monitoring requirements. DTNA requested clarification or definitions as to
which components would be included in a test procedure, but this comment is moot since, as
noted, the final rule provides for individual applications for test procedures to determine UBE.
Determination of which components are included consequently will be determined case-by-case
as part of that application process.
Regarding the comments from DTNA, Fermata, and MECA that the durability requirements
should consider impacts on the use of V2X or the use of PTO, we are finalizing a durability
monitoring requirement, without setting minimum performance requirement of maintaining a
certain SOCE value for a defined period of time. Because of this, the finalized requirements do
not directly impact V2X or PTO considerations. If the use of V2X or PTO had significant
impacts on the durability of the battery, the monitor should detect those impacts. The finalized
requirements leave it to the user to decide how to respond. However, in a future action, EPA may
decide to set minimum performance requirements for SOCE and if so, EPA may consider how
the use of V2X and PTO will impact the durability of the battery.
Regarding EMA's comment on the implementation date of the durability monitoring
requirements, we have clarified that the requirements start with MY 2030, as consistently stated
throughout this rule and in the regulatory text.
Regarding the comments on the proposed revisions to 40 CFR 1037.115(f), we have
considered them along with the other comments on this section in the text of the final regulation.
As noted above, we agree that the rule text should contain all the requirements instead of
incorporating by reference the requirements in GTR No. 22. We agree with the comments that
the SOCR monitor and the Minimum Performance Requirements should not be required at this
time. As discussed further in the Section III.B of the preamble, we are however finalizing
accuracy requirements for the SOCE monitor.
Regarding MECA's comments on finalizing requirements for battery labeling, we disagree
that this is the right time to do so. We believe that requirements like this would be better
1437
-------
considered when there are more HD ZEV in the market to make an informed decision on what
labeling information would be needed, such that we don't add requirements that result in
unnecessary barriers to the development of the technology.
11.2 Warranty
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Allergy & Asthma Network et al.
We also continue to urge EPA to reflect the full useful life of heavy-duty vehicles in their
testing and warranty requirements. Warranty provisions must match the full useful life of the
vehicle, and we encourage EPA to consider this as one million miles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1532-A1, p. 4]
Organization: American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)
Clear guidance on repackaging, certification, standardization, and warranty liability of spent
EV batteries would be needed to overcome safety and regulatory challenges reuse poses at
scale. 109 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1659-A2, p. 29]
109 IEA Report 2022.
Organization: American Thoracic Society (ATS)
ATS encourages EPA to ensure required reductions are achieved in the real world. Reductions
in vehicle tailpipe emissions has largely been a success story, with the automobile industry
ushering in significant technology advances to reduce overall emissions. Unfortunately, we have
seen many cases of car and heavy-duty truck companies trying to 'beat' emissions standards
through deceit and evasion rather than 'meeting' standards through innovation. The ATS
encourages EPA to ensure that it has appropriate post purchase surveillance capacity to ensure
promised emissions reductions are achieved in real world use. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1517-
Al, p. 4]
ATS recommends that EPA requires heavy-duty manufacturers to warranty the functionality
of vehicle tailpipe GHG and criteria pollutant control technology through the expected useful
lifetime of the heavy-duty vehicle. Allowing industry to warranty emissions control systems for a
short time will likely encourage cheating and likely prevent achieving the anticipated emissions
reductions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1517-A1, p. 4]
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
2. Warranty Requirements
a. BEV and FCEV Component Warranty
Affected Page: 26016
The NPRM is proposing that manufacturers identify HD BEV and FCEV batteries and
associated electric powertrain components as components covered under the emission-related
1438
-------
warranty in the vehicle's application for certification. These components would be covered under
the existing regulations' emissions warranty periods of five years or 50,000 miles (whichever is
greater) for light HDVs or five years or 100,000 miles (whichever is greater) for medium HDVs
and heavy HDVs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1591-A1, p.56]
CARB staff recommends that U.S. EPA consider providing additional guidance for
manufacturers to determine which components would be covered under warranty, how failures
would be defined, and what types of failures would be covered under warranty. Without further
guidance, manufacturers may not properly identify all components that should be covered under
warranty. Perhaps certain components and systems (inverters, motors, thermal management
systems, etc.) can be required to be included as parts identified to be covered under warranty for
all vehicles. This would give potential purchasers confidence that common major components
would be covered under warranty. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1591-A1, p.56]
Additionally, providing specific parameters for when the failure of a battery or other
component used with HD BEVs or FCEVs should be covered under warranty would be valuable
for potential purchasers. For example, the battery warranty does not specify what amount of
deterioration would be considered a failure that would be covered under warranty. This could
lead to manufacturers having different levels of what they consider a failure causing confusion
and uncertainty amongst potential purchasers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1591-A1, p.56]
Not having certainty of the level of deterioration that would be covered could be problematic
for potential purchasers as battery repairs/replacements would be very costly. Also, if a battery
deteriorates too much, it could render a vehicle useless as it may no longer be able to perform the
tasks that it was designed for due to the limited amount of usable energy it could store. If the
warranty specifically stated how much the state of health of a battery could deteriorate over the
warranty period, and there were clearer guidelines that could better inform potential purchasers
about what types of failures would be covered under warranty, it could lead to increased
consumer confidence and support for HD ZEV adoption. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1591-A1,
p.57]
Organization: Clean Air Task Force et al.
V. EPA Should Adopt the Proposed Warranty and Durability Requirements.
B. EPA should adopt the proposed warranty requirements.
We support the proposed warranty provisions, which fall well within EPA's authority under
the Clean Air Act. Section 207 provides that manufacturers of motor vehicles must warrant that
the vehicle is "free from defects in materials and workmanship which cause such vehicle ... to
fail to conform with applicable regulations" for the warranty period specified by EPA through
regulation. 42 U.S.C. § 7541(a)(1). Using this authority, EPA has historically required
manufacturers to provide warranties for a broad array of "emission-related" vehicle components,
including tires, tire pressure monitoring systems, speed limiters, and aerodynamic performance
devices, 40 C.F.R. § 1037.120(c), all of which play a role in reducing vehicle emissions. BEV
and FCEV batteries, fuel-cell stacks, electric motors, and inverters are no different—they are
"emission-related" components because they enable the elimination of tailpipe emissions from
motor vehicles. We agree with EPA's rationale for applying warranty requirements to BEV and
FCEV batteries and associated emission-related electric powertrain components, 88 Fed. Reg. at
1439
-------
26016-17, and we urge EPA to finalize this aspect of the proposal. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1640-A1, p. 82]
Organization: Daimler Truck North America LLC (DTNA)
While DTNA recognizes the benefit of an emissions warranty for conventional vehicles, these
benefits are not the same for ZEVs. Emissions-related warranties for conventional vehicles help
ensure that customers are motivated to repair failures of emissions control equipment throughout
the vehicle's life. Since a manufacturer must account for potential warranty outlays and pass that
cost to the customer at the time of initial purchase, customers have 'already paid for' the
eventual repairs to their emissions control systems and do not face a substantial disbenefit (the
added cost of the repair) when considering whether or not to repair the system. If the customer
elects not to repair emissions control equipment that is under warranty, the vehicle continues to
operate while potentially emitting higher levels of controlled pollutants. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1555-A1, p. 66]
The same logic does not apply for ZEVs, as they do not have failure modes that can cause
increased emission levels of controlled pollutants. The only failures that EPA aims to warrant
against for a ZEV are failures that have direct operational impacts on the customer, which is
motivation enough to drive a repair. DTNA believes that ZEV warranty coverage and length
should be an area of competition between OEMs, where manufacturers seek to best optimize for
their customers' demands and thereby drive the highest ZEV penetration rates possible. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 66]
DTNA supports well-informed and carefully crafted regulations, which can serve as a check
to make sure that all manufacturers entering the commercial ZEV market provide a baseline level
of assurance for product durability, protecting against market distortion by manufacturers
offering low-cost, low-quality products that they will not stand behind. However, overly onerous
product requirements can serve to increase product cost, drive additional manufacturer burden,
and reduce the number of choices manufacturers are able to provide to customers, thereby
slowing ZEV adoption rates and undermining EPA's aims in this rulemaking. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 67]
EPA's proposed ZEV warranty requirement and the current useful life mileages, which are
based on the existing GHG Phase 2 values, represent an adequate compromise such that
manufacturers will not be required to offer costly warranties that customers may not want. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 69]
EPA should make a number of clarifications to its warranty proposal regarding covered
components and failures.
EPA proposes to require manufacturers to identify BEV and FCEV batteries and 'associated
electric powertrain components' in their certification applications as components covered under
the existing emission-related warranty. 141 To eliminate any confusion over this requirement,
EPA should specify the 'associated components' that must be covered by warranty. While it is
clear in the Proposed Rule that high-voltage battery and fuel cell stacks must be covered, the
ambiguous phrase 'associated electric powertrain components' used in the preamble and the
proposed use of the phrase 'other components' in 40 CFR 1037.120(c) could include any
combination of components, from motors and inverters to power distribution modules, cabling,
1440
-------
control surfaces, cooling systems, and more. To increase regulatory certainty, and to ensure that
manufacturers are on a level playing field with respect to warranty costs, EPA should revise 40
CFR 1037.120(c) to specify which ZEV components are covered by the emission-related
warranty. DTNA recommends that EPA clarify that only the high-voltage battery or fuel-cell
stack should be covered by the emissions warranty. Alternately, EPA could consider the list of
components defined by CARB's definition of 'Zero Emissions Powertrain.' [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 71]
141 Proposed Rule, 88 Fed. Reg. at 26,016.
EPA should also clarify its warranty requirement to specify that a covered failure is one that
results in a complete lack of motive capability. Mere degradation of the battery and/or associated
ZEV powertrain components, which could result in a reduction of range but not a complete lack
of motive capability, should not be considered a warrantable failure under the emission-related
warranty requirements. ZEV range degradation does not impact the vehicle's emissions of C02
or other criteria pollutants. It would be impossible for EPA to determine an adequate reduction in
range that could be described as a failure in all circumstances, and that could not rightly be
described as a properly operating vehicle in other contexts. For example, if an OEM were to sell
one configuration with an estimated range of 250 miles, which, over its life, experienced
degradation that reduced its nominal range to 125 miles, this could be described as a 'failure' in
some contexts. However, that same OEM would be able to sell a similar vehicle with a smaller
vehicle which started life with a nominal range of 125 miles. That vehicle would not be
considered 'failed' at the start of its life, and in fact, both vehicles would qualify for the same
amount of C02 credit under EPA's rules—since they both emit zero C02 over their useful lives.
Such comparisons illustrate why EPA should clarify that an emissions-related warranty only
covers component failures that result in a complete lack of motive capability. Manufacturers are
free to warrant the range of the vehicle over a period of time as the market demands and the
technology supports. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 71]
Lastly, DTNA disagrees with EPA's proposed revision to 40 C.F.R. 1037.120(c) to remove
the sentence stating that the emission-related warranty does not need to cover components whose
failure would not increase a vehicle's emissions of any regulated pollutant. This could be read to
extend the emissions-related warranty for ZEVs to include components that have no effect on
GHG emissions, including aerodynamics, tires, and other components. While it is true that such a
component, if failed, may slightly reduce the range of the ZEV, such failure would not increase
vehicle emissions, and a vehicle without such failures, but even shorter range, could be sold as
new and generate the same amount of C02 credit. Additionally, EPA adds 'to the extent such
emission-related components are included in your application for certification.' It is not clear
why a manufacturer would include these components in its application for certification; these
components are not required to be included specifically, and a manufacturer gains no emissions
credit by including them as emissions-reduction technology. A ZEV with no aerodynamic
fairings is still a ZEV and generates the same amount of C02 credit as a vehicle with significant
aerodynamic technology. By potentially requiring these components to be covered by emission-
control warranty, EPA disincentivizes their use, and treats some ZEVs as 'better' than others
using inconsistent logic. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 72]
To refine its warranty proposal, DTNA recommends that EPA (1) specifically enumerate the
ZEV components that must be covered by warranty and (2) clarify that only failures resulting in
1441
-------
a complete lack of operation of the vehicle must be covered by the emission control warranty.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 72]
Organization: Dana Incorporated
Vehicle Basic and ePowertrain Warranty
EPA is proposing that manufacturers identify ePowertrain components as components
covered under their vehicles' emissions-related warranty. Warranty requirements in the heavy-
vehicle class 6 through 8 segments are wide-ranging, complex, and highly dependent on vehicle
application. In addition to vehicle basic warranties, it is common for component providers to
offer additional coverage on engines, motors, invertors, e-axles, and drive axles. The variation
and complexity in the vehicle duty-cycle merits a tailored warranty plan. Given this dynamic,
EPA should consider ePowertrain warranties for BEVs for linehaul applications that extend to a
5-year duration and should be valid for minimum of 300,000 miles. For class 6, 7 and 8
vocational (or non-linehaul applications), the ePowertrain warranty term should be reduced to 3
years / 100,000 miles to better represent the warranties currently applied in the heavy-vehicle
segment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1610-A1, p. 3]
Organization: Fermata Energy
Final battery warranty requirements should include a thorough understanding of the impact on
V2G in heavy duty vehicles so as to not discourage V2G. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1662-A2,
p.6]
EPA is proposing a battery warranty of 5 years or 50,000 miles for Light HDV and 5 years or
100,000 miles for Medium HDV and Heavy HDV. However, we do not see any consideration of
frequent use of V2G in this proposal. V2G technology is emerging in heavy-duty vehicles, such
as school buses and other use cases such as fleets with only an eight-hour work day and sixteen
hours to be connected to a charger. The concern is that overly restrictive warranty or durability
requirements by EPA could place arbitrary restrictions on V2X activities. Fermata Energy
appreciates EPA's intent to ensure consumer protection and customer satisfaction with EV
ownership through robust standards and to meet the useful life requirements in the Clean Air
Act. However, overly stringent requirements that constrain battery cycling could also constrain
the novel set of value propositions that V2X offers and that would otherwise spur EV adoption
(e.g., home backup power, payment for grid services, etc.). Overly stringent battery durability
requirements could drive OEMs to limit the range, performance, and/or state of charge of EV
batteries, or take other measures to provide for sufficient degradation margin in later years. As
such, Fermata Energy believes that EPA should consider an approach to durability requirements
that balances competing factors and specifically consider the GHG benefits of V2G as a storage
technology which unlocks and enables a faster, more cost-effective transition to renewable
energy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1662-A2, pp.6-7]
Organization: Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association (MECA)
Durability and Warranty Requirements
MECA believes that durability and warranty requirements instill confidence in the reliability
of all technologies to fleet and truck owners. Therefore, based on their given weight class and
1442
-------
application, diverse heavy-duty powertrains should be required to meet similar durability and
warranty requirements. MECA recognizes that EPA's currently proposed warranty periods of
50,000 miles / 5 years for light-heavy-duty and 100,000 miles / 5 years for medium and heavy-
heavy duty zero emissions vehicles reflect the low market penetration and lack of experience
with this new technology. However, EPA should set a phase-in schedule to collect real-world
data from electric trucks with the goal to align the durability, warranty and full useful life of the
heavy-duty zero emission vehicles to more closely match the recently adopted durability and
warranty requirements outlined under the EPA Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards for
MY 2027 and beyond which are shown in Table 1 below. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1521-A1,
pp. 10 - 11.] [See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1521-A1, page 11 for Table 1.]
MECA believes that equivalent warranty periods and durability for zero emissions vehicles
are essential to ensure confidence in the technology for truck and fleet owners as well as ensure
longer term emissions reductions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1521-A1, p. 11]
Organization: MEMA
Warranty Provisions Must Not Harm Aftermarket or Preclude Choice in Repair
MEMA urges the EPA to clarify that warranty repairs can be completed at dealer or
authorized repair locations, at independent aftermarket repair locations, or at the fleet owner's
own shops. The repair and maintenance of in-service vehicles is critical to ensuring that they
operate as designed and continue to meet safety and emissions standards. A properly operating
vehicle is critical for consumers who rely on light-duty passenger vehicles for daily
transportation. This importance is increased when considering the regular repair, maintenance,
and service of heavy-duty commercial vehicles. For these commercial vehicles, vehicle
downtime costs the vehicle owner's business money, leads to shipment delays, and negatively
impacts supply chains. In many locations throughout the country, the nearest dealer or authorized
repair facility is, at best inconvenient or, at worst, hundreds of miles away. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1570-A1, pp. 13 - 14]
MEMA urges EPA to clarify and specify the specific vehicle parts intended to be covered by
the proposed warranty, namely the vehicle high-voltage battery and propulsion motors. Heavy-
duty vehicles include thousands of individual parts and components. Many of these parts are
regularly replaced because they experience wear over time. As currently written in the NPRM,
the boundaries of which parts are covered by the warranty, and which are not covered are
unclear. This uncertainty could lead to vehicle owner misunderstandings, unintended legal
exposure for OEMs and technology providers, and significantly increased new vehicle costs that
counter the goal of targeted market adoption. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1570-A1, p. 14]
Taken further, MEMA urges EPA to not require warranty coverage on parts that have a
shorter life and are a routinely replaced due to wear, or are adjacent to the warrantied parts
through physical, electrical, or software connections but not the targeted component; such as
sensors, filters, monitoring systems, cooling systems, HVAC, braking systems, control systems,
inverters, converters, charging systems, structural systems, other drivetrain components,
electrical motors not part of the forward propulsion system, and filters. We urge EPA to work
with industry stakeholders, including suppliers, to develop a list of wear and non-applicable parts
and components with these criteria in mind. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1570-A1, p. 14]
1443
-------
Organization: Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) and the
Ozone Transport Commission (OTC)
Battery warranty
EPA's proposal includes battery durability monitoring requirements applicable to heavy-duty
battery electric vehicles. The proposal, however, appears to lack similar provisions applicable to
heavy-duty FCEVs. We encourage EPA to establish warranty provisions for heavy-duty FCEVs.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1562-A1, p. 14]
Organization: ROUSH CleanTech
We are concerned with the proposed revision to 40CFR1037.120(c) ("The emission-related
warranty also covers other added emission-related components to the extent they are included in
your application for certification, and any other components whose failure would increase a
vehicle's C02 emissions.") We believe the "any other components" language is needlessly
broad, and would likely incorporate non-emissions components such as wheel bearings, parking
brakes, brake pads, etc. into the GHG warranty because they have failure modes that can cause
drag. We hope this was not the intent of the authors, but if so then we suggest that this concept
should receive significantly more review and discussion in industry. Moreover, we believe that
the proposed "any other component" clause will result in a warranty increase that is meant only
for ICE vehicles, since the same failing component on a BEV/FCEV does not increase C02
emissions under EPA's definition, even though it would unquestionably result in a reduction in
vehicle efficiency and harm the environment. We recommend that EPA remove the bolded
portion from the proposed rule, since that is more elegant than somehow incorporating
regulations that consider the C02 emissions associated with energy production. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1655-A1, p.4]
Organization: Strong Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle (PHEV) Coalition
Regarding battery warranties and battery durability, we are concerned that bi-directional
charging was not considered and request a more reasonable proposal in the final rule that
assumes frequent bi-directional charging and does not unintentionally discourage vehicle-to-grid
technology. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1647-A2, p. 2]
5) Regarding battery warranties, we are concerned that bi-directional charging was not
considered and request a more reasonable proposal in the final rule that assumes frequent
bidirectional charging. As described in our recommendation 2 above, vehicle-to-grid and vehicle
to building provide substantial benefits to society and to consumers. Therefore, EPA in its final
rulemaking should carefully avoid unintentionally discouraging the development of this market
with warranty requirements for PHEVs (and BEVs) that are too stringent. We understand that
there are many factors to consider including consumer protection, useful life requirements in the
Clean Air Act, but the benefits to consumers, utility ratepayers and the environmental benefits of
V2G and vehicle to building should also be considered. Regarding battery durability, we
appreciate that EPA proposes only monitoring requirements and request EPA, in developing any
durability requirements, to thoughtfully consider V2G and not discourage its development.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1647-A2, pp. 6 - 7]
1444
-------
Organization: Tesla, Inc. (Tesla)
Warranty Provisions Are Consistent with the Industry
Tesla supports the agency clarifying that the application of the existing warranty provisions
found at 40 C.F.R. 1037.120 includes BEV components. 193 Since deployment of the Semi,
Tesla has provided warranties to purchasers that are consistent with (and even exceed) the
proposed requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1505-A1, p. 26]
193 88 Fed. Reg. at 26015-16.
Organization: Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
Emission-Related Warranty Requirements - Notwithstanding our comments above on EPA's
lack of delegated authority under the CAA to adopt the proposed emission-related warranty
requirements, we offer several provisional comments on those proposed provisions. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 56]
The NPRM includes a proposed revisions to 40 C.F.R. § 1037.120(c) to add the following
bolded language to identify the components required to be covered under an emission-related
warranty:
Components covered. The emission-related warranty covers ... fuel cell stacks, and RESS
[rechargeable energy storage system] and other components used with hybrid systems, battery
electric vehicles, and fuel cell electric vehicles to the extent such emission-related components
are included in your application for certification. See, 88 Fed. Reg. 26125 (emphasis
added). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 56]
The NPRM does not provide any clear direction on what is included in the phrase "other
components," or even if includes anything beyond fuel cell stacks, RESS (i.e., battery systems),
and "emission-related components that are included in [the manufacturer's] application for
certification." EPA should clarify that the emission-related warranty provisions only apply to
RESS and fuel cell stacks, and possibly other components in the manufacturer's certification
application. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 56]
Traditional emission-related warranty requirements serve the useful purpose of motivating a
trucking company to keep the emissions control systems functioning properly throughout each
vehicle's useful life. Since a failure of a traditional emissions-related component may not
negatively affect the ability of a commercial vehicle to perform its intended function, the fleet
owner may not otherwise be motivated to remedy the failure. In the commercial vehicle
market, other warranties are negotiated between the buyer and seller, and each one represents the
result of a calculated shifting of financial risk between upfront expenditures and ongoing
maintenance costs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, pp. 56 - 57]
Warranting the RESS and fuel cell stacks for the terms proposed in the NPRM may be
appropriate while EPA and the industry gather data on how HDOH batteries and fuel calls age in
the field. Adding other components to those warranties will only serve to add unnecessary
upfront cost to the acquisition price of a ZEV, since manufacturers must add to the price of the
vehicle the expected costs through the life of the warranty. Those additional warranty
requirements also could interfere with the traditional negotiations between commercial vehicle
1445
-------
buyers and the selling manufacturers and/or dealer, forcing higher upfront costs on trucking
fleets that may be able to manage maintenance costs more efficiently. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-2668-A1, p. 57]
In addition to clarifying that the proposed emission-related warranty provisions only apply to
RESS and fuel cell stacks, EPA should clarify that the warranties only cover failures that result
in a lack of motive capability. Mere degradation of the RESS or fuel cell, which may result in
reduced range but not a complete lack of motive capability, should not be considered a
warrantable failure. It would be impossible to determine an adequate reduction in range that
could be a "failure" in all circumstances, especially considering the diversity of operations and
vehicle configurations in the commercial vehicle industry. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1,
p. 57]
Considering the broad variety of operations and vehicle configurations in the commercial
vehicle industry, warranty periods in terms of miles and years may not capture all the RESS
loads of an HDOH vehicle. Accordingly, we recommend that EPA add a third parameter for the
warranty terms that accounts for total energy throughput. EPA should allow manufacturers to
account for truck refrigeration units, sleeper-cab heating and air conditioning, power take-offs,
and other auxiliary loads on the RESS. One way to account for those loads is by determining the
"virtual distance" the vehicle travels, such as by using the following formula developed by the
UNECE working group that is developing the amendments to GTR No. 22: [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 57] [See the Formula on page 57 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-2668-A1.]
Using the above formula, the warranty miles would be equal to the actual vehicle odometer
miles plus the virtual distance. Using such a calculation would increase transparency to the
customer, further enable auxiliary load technologies, and avoid requiring warranties that are not
appropriate for how the vehicle operates. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 57]
Organization: Valero Energy Corporation
EPA goes on to explain that "typical battery warranties being offered by HD BEV
manufacturers range between 8 and 15 years today. A BEV battery replacement may be
practically necessary over the life of a vehicle if the battery deteriorates to a point where the
vehicle range no longer meets the vehicle's operational needs. We believe that proper vehicle
and battery maintenance and management can extend battery life."43 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1566-A2, p. 9]
43 DRIA at 185.
EPA cites no authority for the basis of this opinion, and fails to acknowledge that battery
degradation is not necessarily a matter of improper maintenance and management - weather,
vehicle use (duty cycles), charging behavior, battery chemistry, and even bi-directional charging
are known to influence battery life.44 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 9]
44 Further, for purposes of EPA's analysis, it should not matter whether or not the battery or fuel cell stack
replacement were to occur under warranty. Coverage under a warranty does not make the replacement free
- it is still a cost that must be accounted for.
1446
-------
Organization: Volvo Group
We do not believe that EPA has the authority to mandate useful life and warranty
requirements for zero-emission vehicles, since there is no situation in which the failure of any
system on a ZEV would cause that ZEV to produce increased emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1606-A1, p. 3]
Organization: Zero Emission Transportation Association (ZETA)
ZETA's member companies stand by the durability of their products and many of them have
their own warranties. While we support EPA's proposed warranty requirements, we note that
designating the electric battery and powertrain as "emissions control equipment" under the Clean
Air Act could subject these components to additional regulatory requirements and rules.
Specifically, we are concerned about the uncertainty in how EPA's anti-tampering rules may
apply to these components and request EPA clarification on how enforcement would be applied.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2429-A1, p. 16]
EPA Summary and Response:
Summary:
ATS recommends that EPA finalize warranty requirements through the useful life of the
vehicle to ensure emission reduction in the real world and discourage cheating.
CARB commented that EPA should provide additional guidance on which components and
what types of failures are covered under the warranty, and in addition how the failures would be
defined. CARB commented that this should be done so that manufacturers properly identify all
components and to give potential purchasers confidence that major components would be
covered under warranty.
DTNA supports the proposed ZEV warranty requirements and commented that EPA's
proposed ZEV warranty requirement represents an adequate compromise such that
manufacturers will not be required to offer costly warranties that customers may not want.
DTNA requests that EPA specify which ZEV components are covered by the emission-related
warrant, and that EPA should clarify its warranty requirement to specify that a covered failure is
one that results in a complete lack of motive capability. DTNA disagrees with EPA's proposed
revision to 40 CFR 1037.120(c) to remove the sentence stating that the emission-related warranty
does not need to cover components whose failure would not increase a vehicle's emissions of
any regulated pollutant and adds 'to the extent such emission-related components are included in
your application for certification.' This could be read to extend the emissions-related warranty
for ZEVs to include components that have no effect on a ZEV's GHG emissions (zero, by
definition), including aerodynamics, tires, and other components. DTNA recommends that EPA
(1) specifically enumerate the ZEV components that must be covered by warranty and (2) clarify
that only failures resulting in a complete lack of operation of the vehicle must be covered by the
ZEV emission control warranty. DTNA commented that EPA should leave ZEV warranty to the
market.
Dana commented that EPA should finalize longer warranty periods than proposed.
1447
-------
EMA commented that the NPRM includes a proposed revisions to 40 CFR 1037.120(c) to add
the following language to identify the components required to be covered under an emission-
related warranty: "Components covered. The emission-related warranty covers ... fuel cell
stacks, and RESS [rechargeable energy storage system] and other components used with hybrid
systems, battery electric vehicles, and fuel cell electric vehicles to the extent such emission-
related components are included in your application for certification." EMA comments that EPA
should clarify that the emission-related warranty provisions only apply to RESS and fuel cell
stacks, and possibly other components in the manufacturer's certification application. EMA
comments that including RESS and fuel cell stacks for the terms proposed in the NPRM may be
appropriate while EPA and the industry gather data on how HDOH batteries and fuel calls age in
the field, but adding other components to those warranties will only serve to add unnecessary
upfront cost to the acquisition price of a ZEV.
EMA comments that EPA should clarify that the warranties only cover failures that result in a
lack of motive capability and not a reduction in range as it would be impossible to determine an
adequate reduction in range that could be considered a failure.
EMA recommends that EPA add a third parameter for the warranty terms that accounts for
total energy throughput. EPA should allow manufacturers to account for truck refrigeration units,
sleeper-cab heating and air conditioning, power take-offs, and other auxiliary loads on the RESS.
This could be done by determining the "virtual distance" the vehicle travels, such as by using a
formula developed by the UNECE working group that is developing the amendments to GTR
No. 22: [See the Formula on page 57 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1.]
Using this formula, the warranty miles would be equal to the actual vehicle odometer miles plus
the virtual distance.
EMA and Volvo commented that EPA doesn't have the authority to require emissions
warranty for ZEV. Fermata Energy and Strong Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle (PHEV)
Coalition commented that EPA should finalize warranty periods that consider V2G and V2X.
MEMA commented that EPA specify which vehicle parts are covered by the warranty.
MEMA urges EPA to not require warranty coverage on parts that have a shorter life and are a
routinely replaced. MEMA commented that EPA should clarify that warranty repairs can be
completed by authorized repair locations, at independent aftermarket repair locations, or at the
fleet owner's own shops.
MECA commented that EPA should phase in Warranty requirements for ZEV with the goal to
align with the MY 2027 and later warranty requirements finalized in the EPA Heavy-Duty
Engine and Vehicle Standards rule.
NESCAUM and OTC commented that EPA should establish warranty provisions for FCEVs.
ROUSH CleanTech is concerned with the proposed revision to 40 CFR 1037.120(c) They
believe the "any other components" language is needlessly broad, and would likely incorporate
non-emissions components such as wheel bearings, parking brakes, brake pads, etc., into the
GHG warranty because they have failure modes that can cause drag. They recommend that EPA
remove the portion of the text that incorporates regulation that consider the C02 emissions
associated with energy production.
1448
-------
Valero Energy commented replacement of the battery and/or fuel must be accounted for even
if they are covered by warranty.
ZETA support proposed warranty requirement but is concerned about the uncertainty in how
EPA's anti-tampering rules may apply to these components and request EPA clarification on
how enforcement would be applied.
Response:
In response to the comments on the length of the warranty requirements, as discussed in
Section III.B of the preamble, we believe that aligning the warranty requirements for ZEV with
the existing warranty requirements in 40 CFR 1037 for conventional vehicles is an appropriate
suggestion which we are adopting.
Regarding the comments from CARB, DTNA, EMA, and MEMA on which components and
what failures are subject to the warranty requirements, see our response in Section III.B of the
preamble.
Regarding the comment from EMA on adding a total energy throughput term, we are not
finalizing this since we are not defining a specific percentage of new UBE that must be
maintained during the warranty period.
Regarding the comments from EMA and Volvo on EPA lacking the authority to set warranty
requirements for ZEV, see our response in Section 11.1 of the response to comments document
and in Section III.B of the preamble.
In response to Fermata Energy and Strong Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle (PHEV) Coalition
comment that EPA should finalize warranty periods that consider V2G and V2X, we are not
finalizing requirements that are defining a specific percentage of new UBE that must be
maintained during the warranty period. Due to this and since the final warranty periods are
consistent with warranties already being provided by ZEV manufacturers, there are not any
specific changes to the warranty requirements due to considerations of V2G or V2X.
In regard to MEMA's comment that EPA should clarify that warranty repairs can be
completed by authorized repair locations, at independent aftermarket repair locations, or at the
fleet owner's own shops, MEMA's concern is addressed in existing 40 CFR 1037.125(f).
In response to NESCAUM and OTC comments that EPA should establish warranty
provisions for FCEVs, the final requirements apply to all ZEV including FCEV. See Section
III.B of the preamble on what FCEV components are subject to the warranty requirements.
Roush's comment regarding the scope of the "any other components" clause in proposed
(and now final) section 1037.120(c) is fully addressed in the Section III.C of the preamble.
Regarding Valero Energy's comment in accounting for the replacement of the battery and/or
fuel, our analysis shows that the battery and fuel cell can be designed to last at 10 years and for
the vehicles where we determined a battery replacement may be needed, we have accounted for
the costs in the BCA. See RIA Chapter 2.4.1.1.4, RIA Chapter 3.4.6.5, and RTC Section 3.8.3.
In response to ZETA's comment on clarifying the implications of designating the electric
battery and powertrain as "emissions control equipment," and how anti-tampering requirements
would apply, more information is needed to provide a complete response. The anti-tampering
1449
-------
requirements are generally in place to prevent modifications to engines and vehicles that would
increase emissions. ZEV have zero tailpipe emissions, so unless the changes to the ZEV decrease
the operational life of the vehicle, the emissions of the vehicle wouldn't go up. With this said,
more information/specifics are needed to respond to this comment.
1450
-------
12 Program Costs
12.1 Vehicle costs
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Clean Fuels Development Coalition et al.
And, as will be discussed later in this comment, the proposal's listed costs grossly
underestimate the rule's true costs. The proper metric is aggregate cost because the major-
questions doctrine asks about the rule's significance to the "national economy." West Virginia v.
EPA, 142 S. Ct. at 2609 (2022). These aggregate costs include: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1585-A1, p. 4]
Direct compliance costs: Not only the increased vehicle costs, but also the costs to build out
factories, and the cross-subsidies from every diesel truck purchaser to every battery electric truck
purchaser in the country. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1585-A1, p. 5]
EPA Summary and Response:
Summary:
The Clean Fuels Development Coalition commented that we are underestimating costs of the
rule in that we are only accounting for direct compliance costs.
Response:
In our analysis, for compliance costs we accounted for both direct and indirect costs for
manufacturers (the regulated entities under the final rule's Phase 3 standards). Indirect
manufacturing costs accounts for costs associated with producing the unit of output that are not
direct manufacturing costs such as research and development (R&D), warranty, corporate
operations (such as salaries, pensions, health care costs, dealer support, and marketing) and
profits. This methodology is meant to address all compliance costs associated. See RIA Chapters
3.2.1 (direct costs for manufacturers) and 3.2.2 (indirect costs to manufacturers). As detailed in
Sections II and IV of the preamble and Chapters 2 and 3 of the RIA, in addition to compliance
costs for manufacturers, our cost analyses also appropriately assessed purchaser costs and social
costs of the final rule. See, for example, RIA Chapters 3.4 (purchaser costs) and 3.5 (social
costs). See also RTC Sections 2 and 3 for responses to comments on major questions doctrine
and additional responses on costs.
12.2 RPE
Comments by Organizations
Organization: American Free Enterprise Chamber of Commerce (AmFree) et al.
Second, EPA's estimates of indirect costs are further flawed. They are calculated by
multiplying the direct costs (already defective for the reasons stated) by so-called "retail price
equivalent" ("RPE") multipliers. Draft RIA at 279. The multipliers EPA uses that are
1451
-------
substantially out of date and inappropriate for complex electric vehicles. EPA's multipliers are
derived from a 2010 report relying on 2008 data that did not even involve electric vehicles. See
id. at 279 n.8 (citing Alex Rogozhin et al., Heavy Duty Truck Retail Price Equivalent and
Indirect Cost Multipliers, Draft Report, RTI Int'l, at 3-2, 5-1 (July 2010) ("Heavy Duty Truck
RPE")). The report's most aggressive technological scenario accounted for only "hybrid-electric
powertrains." Heavy Duty Truck RPE at 5-1. And EPA did not even apply the multipliers
associated with that scenario—it instead applied the multipliers from the "industry average"
scenario, id. at 3-9; see Draft RIA at 279, resulting in a significant underestimate of indirect
costs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1660-A1, p. 54]
Organization: Daimler Truck North America LLC (DTNA)
Based upon currently available data, it appears that EPA significantly under-projects the
incremental cost of ZEVs due to a stack-up of discrepancies in direct manufacturing costs and
indirect manufacturing costs. For example, EPA's derived Retail Price Equivalent Factors
derived from SEC filings60 may not accurately capture manufacturers' indirect Research and
Development (R&D) expenditures, which will be required for ongoing ZEV product
development. Never before have manufacturers invested in so many propulsion technologies
simultaneously, including new diesel technologies for CARB24 and EPA27 NOx standards,
BEVs, FCEVs, and hydrogen combustion technologies. In the HD TRUCS model, EPA projects
battery density and fuel cell efficiency to increase throughout the Phase 3 program, indicative of
additional R&D investments. EPA is also projecting increased customer adoption by MY 2032,
citing technology improvements. However, DTNA is observing slow uptake of these products
and increased uncertainty in macroeconomic conditions that may impact the trucking industry
and recovery of R&D costs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 33]
60 See id. at 279.
EPA Request for Comment, Request #20: We request comment on our approach, including
other data we should consider in our assessment of energy consumption.
• DTNA Response: EPA should consider all available data including that which can be
provided by manufacturers in confidential settings; however, given that the HD ZEV
market is currently in a nascent state, any data available today is necessarily limited. EPA
should thus re-evaluate its assumptions on this issue on a regular basis, using the best
available data. See Section II.C.2 of DTNA's comments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1555-A1, p. 161]
EPA Request for Comment, Request #74: We request data to inform RPE factors for the
heavy-duty industry.
• DTNA Response: See DTNA Response to Request # 20, above. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1555-A1, p. 172] [Refer to section 2 of this comment summary]
EPA Summary and Response:
Summary:
Both AmFree and DTNA maintain that EPA's estimate of manufacturers' indirect costs,
using Retail Price Equivalent (RPE) multipliers, are underestimated. AmFree maintains that the
1452
-------
source of EPA's estimate is a 2010 study which is out-of-date in that it does not consider any
indirect costs associated with fully electrified powertrains, and considers hybrid powertrains
only. Further, AmFree claims that EPA did not even use the multipliers associated with that
degree of electrification, and instead used an averaged multiplier. DTNA also maintains that
EPA's multipliers reflect out of date information, in that companies are now engaged in
"unprecedented" research and development (R&D) associated with different types of powertrains
not reflected in the companies' SEC filings which form the basis for EPA's RPE estimate.
Response:
AmFree and DTNA commented on the retail price equivalent (RPE) markup factor used to
estimate indirect costs. Both argued that the factor used by EPA was improperly low and based
on dated information given that it was derived in an era when battery electric heavy-duty
vehicles did not exist. AmFree further argued that EPA had failed to consider the most
aggressive technology scenario considered in the RPE source study -hybridization - and instead
considered only the "industry average" scenario. This latter argument suggests a
misunderstanding or mischaracterization of the RPE source study. The study was meant to
estimate indirect cost impacts of lower complexity versus higher complexity technologies, not
necessarily higher technology. In other words, a battery electric powertrain may be higher
technology, in that it is newer relative to internal combustion technologies to which it might be
compared, but it may not necessarily be more complex. In fact, battery electric powertrains tend
to have far fewer parts and could be considered less complex. But that approach, termed indirect
cost multipliers (ICMs) to differentiate them from the RPE, is not even relevant in this situation
because EPA is not using the ICM approach. Somewhat ironically, the RTI (2010) RPE source
study (cited fully in DRIA p. 309 reference 8) argued that, in the short-term, a higher complexity
technology, which AmFree argues electrification represents, would have ICM markups of 1.52,
which is higher than the 1.42 RPE markup used in the NPRM, and long-term ICM markups of
1.31, lower than the NPRM's 1.42 RPE markup.
The real point of the RPE source study was that some elements of the RPE should not be
considered as a rule's compliance costs for manufacturers . For example, part of the RPE is
meant to reflect costs associated with running and maintaining production facilities. If EPA
requires an emission reduction that results in widget 1 being replaced by widget 2 at a cost of
$100 per widget but there is no impact on the cost of running and maintaining the production
facility, why should those facility-related indirect costs change at all? Under the RPE approach,
any direct cost incurred by an entity is assumed to share in the burden of covering indirect costs,
and indirect costs simply scale in concert with direct costs. The intent behind the ICM markup
approach developed by EPA was to more appropriately weigh a single technology (e.g., cooled
exhaust gas recirculation), that might be added to an engine or vehicle, against another
technology (e.g., direct injection) when determining compliance pathways. If one technology
reasonably incurred lower indirect costs than another, it might represent a more attractive
compliance pathway. However, the analysis behind the proposal and final rule does not weigh
single technologies against one another and instead weighs entirely different powertrains against
one another. Whichever powertrain is considered, it would be expected to carry its full weight in
recovering costs which makes the RPE approach more appropriate. In the NPRM, we did not
adopt the ICM approach and did not adopt the ICM's use of near-term vs. long-term indirect
costs and have instead reasonably chosen to rely on RPE markups themselves. While it is true
1453
-------
that the source study dates from 2010, we note that commenter did not submit information upon
which to base any changes.
Regarding the accuracy of SEC filings capturing R&D expenditures, we assume that the
commenter is speaking of recent expenditures relative to the expenditures at the time of the RPE
report being completed. We maintain that it is appropriate to use an approach based on indirect
costs historically scaling with direct costs, and we apply that through the RPE approach. This
historical trend was discussed at length in the 2020 light-duty CAFE and GHG rulemaking (see
87 FR at 25770 to 25773 (May 2, 2022)). While it is perhaps true that a higher percentage of
R&D budgets are being directed toward BEV and FCEV development than toward ICE
development, or that the electrification share of R&D expenditures are increasing as the ICE
share decreases, we estimate that the R&D budgets of industry members are, on average, scaling
with direct costs and revenues in a manner consistent with historical trends. To assess this
estimate, we looked at recent financial statements for Cummins, PACCAR and Tesla, three of
the prominent regulated entities subject to this rule and for which financial data is readily
available (see table below). We looked at their income statements and found the ratios of R&D
to total revenues (our proxy for direct plus indirect costs), the ratios of R&D to the cost of
revenues, and the ratios of total revenues to cost of revenues to be very consistent for the past
three years. While R&D is in fact increasing year-over-year, as argued by commenters, the ratio
of R&D to revenues and cost of revenues is relatively constant. We acknowledge this is a
simplifiedlook and includes only three companies; however, it is not meant to replace our 2010
RPE study. The point we are making with these data is simply that financials within companies
tend to scale in relatively consistent ways. Absent better, more recent, or additional data from
commenters, we conclude that our approach remains reasonable and we continue with this
approach.
Income Statement data from Yahoo! Finance, accessed January 19, 2024
Income Statement
12 months
ending
Cummins
(stock symbol
CMI)
PACCAR
(stock symbol
PCAR)
Tesla
(stock symbol
TSLA)
Total Revenues
(thousands of dollars)
12/31/2022
28,074,000
28,819,800
81,462,000
12/31/2021
24,021,000
23,522,300
53,823,000
12/31/2020
19,811,000
18,728,500
31,536,000
Cost of Revenues
(thousands of dollars)
12/31/2022
21,355,000
23,593,200
60,609,000
12/31/2021
18,326,000
19,614,900
40,217,000
12/31/2020
14,917,000
15,264,800
24,906,000
R&D
(thousands of dollars)
12/31/2022
1,278,000
341,200
3,075,000
12/31/2021
1,090,000
324,100
2,593,000
12/31/2020
906,000
273,900
1,491,000
R&D to Total Revenues
12/31/2022
4.6%
1.2%
3.8%
12/31/2021
4.5%
1.4%
4.8%
1454
-------
12/31/2020
4.6%
1.5%
4.7%
R&D to Cost of Revenues
12/31/2022
6.0%
1.4%
5.1%
12/31/2021
5.9%
1.7%
6.4%
12/31/2020
6.1%
1.8%
6.0%
Total Revenues to Cost of
Revenues
12/31/2022
1.31
1.22
1.34
12/31/2021
1.31
1.20
1.34
12/31/2020
1.33
1.23
1.27
12.3 Learning curve
Comments by Organizations
Organization: American Free Enterprise Chamber of Commerce (AmFree) et al.
e. EPA's Estimate Of The Cost Of Compliance Is Defective
EPA's estimate of the cost to manufacturers of complying with the proposed standards also
has significant flaws. First, as to direct manufacturing costs, EPA applied a "learning curve" to
the cost of manufacturing new electric vehicles that predicts that costs will dramatically decrease
over time. Draft RIA at 277-78. And, in particular, it chose to apply a "steeper learning
algorithm" for zero-emission technologies. Id. at 277. That algorithm assumes that by 2033,
manufacturing costs will be about 75 percent of what they will be in 2027, and that by 2055,
costs will be about 54 percent of the 2027 amount. Id. at 278. But EPA appears to have pulled
the figures for this learning curve out of thin air—it nowhere identifies how they were calculated
or why they are reasonable. Id. at 277-78. Given that this learning curve has a direct and
significant effect on EPA's direct-costs calculation, as well as its indirect-costs estimate, any
final rule must explain how it was generated and why it is appropriate under the circumstances.
Organization: Daimler Truck North America LLC (DTNA)
Learning Curve Reductions in Unit Production Costs
The learning curve that EPA factors into its unit production cost estimates may not be
accurate for BEV or FCEV products. EPA states the learning curve represents a 'learning by
doing' approach for manufacturers, including simplified machining and assembly operations, use
of lower cost materials, and a reduction in the complexity and number of parts over time. 59
DTNA agrees that production efficiencies typically improve over time, leading to some direct
manufacturing cost savings, but BEVs and FCEVs already use fewer mechanical parts compared
to conventional vehicles, and it is possible they will not experience as sharp of a learning curve.
The HD ZEV market cannot take advantage of synergies with the passenger car market, due to
the more extreme use cases and longer lifetimes of components required for HDVs. Further, a
number of components will need to undergo additional refinement to achieve EPA's projected
1455
-------
efficiencies and will not be able to take advantage of economies of scale. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1555-A1, p. 33]
59 See DRIA a 277.
Finally, a larger fraction of ZEV production costs come from raw materials as compared to
conventional vehicle manufacturing, suggesting that production efficiencies over time are likely
to lead to fewer cost reductions compared to the conventional vehicle space. Further, HD ZEV
production costs will be impacted by raw material pricing, which is subject to significant market
volatility, as DTNA experienced in 2022 due to a surge in lithium prices, which increased battery
costs that were in turn passed on to consumers in the form of increased product prices. To
account for these considerations, EPA should adjust the ZEV learning curve assumptions in the
HD TRUCS tool as new data becomes available. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1555-A1, p. 33]
EPA Request for Comment, Request #20: We request comment on our approach, including
other data we should consider in our assessment of energy consumption.
• DTNA Response: EPA should consider all available data including that which can be
provided by manufacturers in confidential settings; however, given that the HD ZEV
market is currently in a nascent state, any data available today is necessarily limited. EPA
should thus re-evaluate its assumptions on this issue on a regular basis, using the best
available data. See Section II.C.2 of DTNA's comments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1555-A1, p. 161]
EPA Request for Comment, Request #73: We request comment on [EPA's] approach [to
estimate the extent to which learning effects will reduce incremental costs of ZEV technologies],
including methods for accounting for the projected future ICE costs.
• DTNA Response: [See DTNA Response to Request # 20, above. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1555-A1, p. 172] [Refer to section 2 of this comment summary]
Organization: Energy Innovation
D. Factors Affecting Learning Curves for HDV Electrification
We appreciate the EPA's attention to learning curves in the proposed rule, for they affect the
rate of deployment of newer technologies, which leads to learning-by-doing advances in
performance and production, and economies of scale, which lower the cost of production.
Learning curves affect how quickly BEVs can outcompete ICE vehicles on purchase price,
which is a primary factor in market adoption and consumer acceptance. From our research, we
have identified the following factors that warrant further consideration by the EPA as it develops
the final rule. Combined, these factors suggest faster learning curves compared to levels
modeled:
7. Novel battery chemistries
8. Faster-than-expected moderation of pandemic-induced supply chain disruption
9. Battery pack economies of scale
10. Tendency of battery outlooks to underestimate future learning curves [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1604-A1, pp. 12 - 13]
1456
-------
1. Novel battery chemistries
Novel battery chemistries nearing commercial availability will open new avenues for
innovation, and their effects will not be limited to technological change. Novel battery
chemistries will also have economic benefits by spreading EV battery demand across a greater
array of raw inputs. More diverse mineral input supplies will disperse demand instead of
concentrating it, reducing supply-side price pressure. New battery chemistries will also increase
competition between battery technologies, reducing producer profit margins and improving
consumer economics. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1604-A1, p. 13.] [See Figure 7, Demand for
Colbalt, on page 13 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1604-A1.]
Evidence of how new battery technologies can quickly disrupt markets has recently been
provided by cobalt-free lithium-ion-phosphate batteries, growing to 40 percent of global battery
market demand in the first half of 2023.22 BloombergNEF analysis finds that global demand for
cobalt would be 52 percent higher if lithium-ionphosphate batteries had not grown as they
have.23 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1604-A1, p. 13]
22 Heejin Kim, "Korea's Battery Makers Embrace LFP Cells as China Strides Ahead," Bloomberg, May
15, 2023, https://www.bloomberg.eom/news/articles/2023-05-15/korea-s-battery-makers-embrace-lfp-cells-
as-china-strides-ahead#xj4y7vzkg.
23 "Race to Net Zero: The Pressures of the Battery Boom in Five Charts" (BloombergNEF, July 21, 2022),
https://about.bnef.com/blog/raceto-net-zero-the-pressures-of-the-battery-boom-in-five-charts/.
Two new battery chemistries entering commercial use this year in EV battery packs are
sodium-ion batteries24 and lithium-sulfur batteries.25 BloombergNEF estimates sodium-ion
uptake, substituting for lithium-based chemistries, could lower lithium demand by 40 percent in
2035.26 Lastly, one of China's major battery makers announced it boosted the energy density of
lithium-ion-phosphate batteries by adding manganese, producing a battery able to travel 621
miles (1,000 km) on a single charge.27 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1604-A1, p. 14.] [See Figure
8, Impact of Sodium-Ion Battery Update on Lithium Demand, on page 14 of docket number
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1604-A1.]
24 Casey Crownhart, "How Sodium Could Change the Game for Batteries," MIT Technology Review
(blog), May 11, 2023, https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/05/ll/1072865/how-sodium-could-
change-the-game-for-batteries/.
25 Kate McAlpine, "1,000-Cycle Lithium-Sulfur Battery Could Quintuple Electric Vehicle Ranges,"
Michigan News, University of Michigan Vice President for Communications (blog), January 12, 2022,
https://news.umich.edu/1000-cycle-lithium-sulfur-battery-could-quintupleelectric-vehicle-ranges/.
26 Colin McKerracher, "EV Sales Are Soaring And Oil Use Is About to Peak: Hyperdrive," Bloomberg,
June 8, 2023, https://www.bloomberg.eom/news/articles/2023-06-08/ev-sales-are-soaring-and-oil-use-is-
about-to-peakhyperdrive?srnd=premium#xj4y7vzkg.
27 Annie Lee, "China's EV Battery Sector Is Preparing a New Breakthrough," Bloomberg, June 5, 2023,
https://www.bloomberg.eom/news/articles/2023-06-05/china-s-ev-battery-sector-is-preparing-another-
technologybreakthrough#xj 4y 7vzkg.
2. Faster-than-expected moderation of pandemic-induced supply chain disruption
Key mineral inputs to battery production have dropped in price over the last six months more
quickly than had been anticipated. Lithium prices have also fallen, dropping by half from a
November 2022 peak.28 The downward trend in cobalt has been even more severe, partly
1457
-------
because of the reduction in global cobalt demand due to lithium-ion phosphate batteries' growing
market share. In June, the cobalt price had dropped to $14 per pound, down 65 percent from its
2022 peak.29 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1604-A1, p. 14]
28 Annie Lee, "Lithium Prices in China Halve in Just Four Months," Bloomberg, March 21, 2023,
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-21/china-lithium-prices-halve-since-november-as-
supply-woes-ease#xj4y7vzkg.
29 Lee.
Trends in cobalt and lithium prices are part of a broader trend in moderation of supply-chain
pressures on EV batteries. Goldman Sachs Group Inc. is forecasting "softness for battery metals
including cobalt, lithium and nickel in the second half of 2023 amid an oversupply."30 [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985- 1604-A1, p. 14]
30 "Cobalt Price Has Fallen Nearly 30% This Year," Mining.Com (blog), June 12, 2023,
https://www.mining.com/cobalt-price-has-fallennearly-30-this-year/.
Another factor creating downward price pressure in the near term is record inventories. On
May 11, 2023, Bloomberg reported that "[b]attery inventory is at an all-time high."31 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1604-A1, p. 14.] [See Figure 9, Global Cobalt Metal Price, on page 15 of
docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1604-A1.]
31 Shall Ren, "Banks Are Roaring Back in Xi's New China," Bloomberg, May 23, 2023.
3. Battery pack economies of scale
As battery size increases, the added cost of the pack needed to contain battery cells falls,
reducing cost ($/kWh), keeping other factors constant. The larger the battery size, the more the
costs associated with the packaging and management system can be distributed among more
cells. These fixed costs remain largely the same whether the battery is small or large, so
increasing the size of the battery allows for a lower cost per cell. A larger battery pack generally
allows for more efficient design and packaging of the battery cells. For example, in a larger pack,
cells can be arranged more closely together, reducing the amount of wasted space and materials.
This again reduces the ratio of battery pack to cell. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1604-A1, p. 15]
A recent study by ICCT shows that larger batteries offer lower costs.32 Comparing the 2030
cost outlook for a car battery providing 300 miles vs. 150 miles of range, the larger battery costs
$68 per kWh vs. $79 per kWh, offering a 14 percent advantage. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1604-A1, p. 15]
32 Peter Slowik et al., "Assessment of Light-Duty Electric Vehicle Costs and Consumer Benefits in the
United States in the 2022-2035 Time Frame," International Council on Clean Transportation, October
2022, https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/ev-cost-benefits-2035-oct22.pdf. Table 5 at 10.
As the EPA notes in the proposed rule, design aspects of commercial vehicle battery packs
can create challenges. It is particularly important to recognize pack-level scale economies will be
an advantage for battery packs for commercial vehicles compared to personal passenger
vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1604-A1, p. 15]
4. Tendency of battery outlooks to underestimate future learning curves
Historic forecasts of battery prices have largely underestimated the impact of future learning
curve effects. Recent, open-source, peer-reviewed research by the Institute for New Economic
1458
-------
Thinking (INET) at Oxford University33 shows the persistent underestimation of future
innovation for batteries and develops an empirical forecasting approach that performs
better.34 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1604-A1, p. 15]
33 "Institute for New Economic Thinking, University of Oxford," n.d., https://www.inet.ox.ac.uk.
34 Rupert Way et al., "Empirically Grounded Technology Forecasts and the Energy Transition," Joule 6,
no. 9 (September 21, 2022): 2057-82, https://doi.org/10.1016/jjoule.2022.08.009 and
https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(22)00410-X.
Figure 10 is reproduced from the INET article to help illustrate this point. The figure denotes
historical prices for lithium-ion (Li-ion) consumer battery cell prices and Li-ion EV battery
packs with black and red data points, respectively, while red line segments trace historical
forecasts for the most optimistic scenarios by leading energy-economy modelers such as the
International Energy Agency. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1604-A1, pp. 15 - 16]
The figure's graphing of historical data alongside past forecasts of battery cell and EV battery
pack prices reveals the persistent gap between actual and forecasted innovation for
batteries. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1604-A1, p. 16]
Even the most optimistic projections for each past forecast lowball future learning curves,
since empirical price reductions trace a steeper trajectory, with cost dropping faster, compared to
the forecast's shallower slope. The result is even more compelling considering the comparison to
the most optimistic of each battery forecast sampled. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1604-A1,
p. 16]
These four factors impacting learning curves will very likely affect the BEV market over the
next decade, which should inform the EPA's analysis and its final proposed rule for
HDVs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1604-A1, p. 16.] [See Figure 10, Technology Forecasts and
Energy Transition, on page 16 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1604-A1, p. 16]
Organization: POET
The Trinity report also identified the following additional overly optimistic assumptions:
• 'Application of an aggressive 'learning curve' for HD ZEV powertrains (Table 3-2 of the
DRIA) which lowers the main element of HD ZEV cost by about 25% over the period
from 2027 to 2032 and by 46% by 2055 while assuming no virtually no reductions (2%
by 2032 and 8% by 2055) in the cost of conventional powertrains. These cost reductions
are claimed despite that fact that substantial learning related to the production of
batteries, fuel cells, and other ZEV componentry has already occurred in the light-duty
sector and further learning curve benefits are expected to be much smaller than those
forecast by U.S. EPA.'72 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1528-A1, pp. 17-18]
72 Id.
Organization: Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
The HD TRUCS tool also assumes aggregate cost reductions for each year of the Phase 3
regulation, model years 2027 through 2032. Those assumed cost reductions are premised on the
experience that suppliers and OEMs can gain year-over-year from manufacturing ZEV
1459
-------
components and vehicles, starting with the year that the technology is introduced into
production. Those experience-based reductions are reflected in a "learning curve," which is
documented in EPA's draft RIA. The learning curve yields a year-by-year reduction in costs,
starting with a higher percentage reduction for the 2027 to 2028 model year, and then lower
percent cost reductions for each subsequent year of learning. EPA has developed one learning
curve for BEVs and FCEVs, and another for ICEs. The ICE curve reflects lower percent changes
each year compared to the BEV/FCEV curve, since ICE technologies have been in production
for many years. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 21]
Learning Curve - The Draft RIA documents EPA's approach to accounting for anticipated
improvements in cost as a result of manufacturing experience. It is reflected in HD TRUCS
through the "learning curve" concept. Table 3-2 of the Draft RIA (reproduced below) contains
the values of the learning curve that EPA used in HD TRUCS. The Table shows the learning
curve values for 2027 through 2051, with unique values for BEV and FCEV powertrains versus
ICE-powered vehicles. The greater the difference between years, the greater the reduction that is
applied. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 26]
For its version of HD TRUCS, EPA begins to apply the learning curve impacts on costs
starting in 2027. Presumably, that correlates with EPA's expectation of the introduction of new
technologies, based on the values in the BEV/FCEV portion of the table. For the first step,
between 2027 and 2028, the EPA learning curve applies a 7.9% cost reduction factor. For the
second step, between 2028 and 2029, EPA uses a 6% reduction, followed by reductions of 4.8%,
4.0% and 3.4% out to 2032. ICE powertrains have a much gentler slope of learning-curve cost
reductions between 2027 and 2032, starting at 1% for the first two years, as can be seen in the
table below. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p. 26] [See Table 3-2 on page 27 of docket
number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1]
EMA agrees with EPA that cost reductions can and do come down over time. The major point
of difference, however, relates to when the learning curve should be deemed to start. EMA
believes that the learning curve, should start when the ZEV technology initially goes into
production, not when a given technology-forcing regulation might take effect. In that regard, the
steep portion of the learning curve, when the greatest reductions can occur, is happening now for
BEVs (not four years hence), since the actual start of production of BEV technologies began in
2022. It is incorrect and inappropriate, therefore, for EPA to assign 2027 as the start of the
learning curve and the start of significant cost reductions for OEMs when, in actuality, those
reductions are already included in today's projections of 2027 BEV costs. Accordingly, the
values in the NPRM table are only reasonable if the starting year of the learning curve discounts
is pulled back to 2022. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p.27]
In sum, it is more appropriate to start the learning curve cost discounts for BEV technologies
in 2022, and then to use EPA's table to calculate the reductions that will occur in 2028 through
2032 based on the later-year values in the table. Applying those adjustments, the first years of the
learning curve table become the Early Learning Year, as shown in the table below. It should be
noted that the Learning Scalars are identical between the NPRM learning table and the Early
Learning Years table below. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p.27] [See the Learning
Curve table on page 28 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1]
Specifically then, for the regulatory years of 2027-2032, EMA recommends that the following
Learning Scalars along with the associated percentage cost reductions should be used in the final
1460
-------
revised HD TRUCS tool: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1, p.28] [See the Proposed
Learning Curve table on page 28 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1.]
Learning Curve Start Year - As discussed above, EMA has changed the learning-curve start
year for BEVs from 2027 to 2022 in this run. The revised values for the learning curve inputs are
show in the table below. The ensuing table shows the revised projected ZEV adoption rates for
2027 and 2032 that result from using the revised learning curve inputs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-2668-A1, p. 35.] pSee the Proposed Learning Curve Table on page 35 of docket number
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-2668-A1.]
Organization: Valero Energy Corporation
9. EPA provides no basis or explanation for the learning curves applied to BEV, FCEV, and
ICE powertrains.
EPA assumes that the costs for EV batteries, fuel cell stacks, hydrogen fuel tanks, on-board
chargers, power electronics, final drive, and fuel cell stack tractors will be reduced each year of
the rulemaking period, according to a "learning curve" defined in Table 3-2 of the Draft RIA.
EPA provides no basis, reference, or explanation for the learning scalar factors. EPA also fails to
acknowledge the impact of variable commodity prices on the cost to produce these
components. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 18]
In Table 3-2, EPA also defines a learning curve to ICEVs, similarly with no basis, reference,
or explanation. However, in the HD TRUCS model, EPA fails to apply the learning-based cost
reductions that it defines in Table 3-2 to ICEVs, just one more intentional or unintentional
tipping of the scales towards ZEVs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1566-A2, p. 18]
EPA Summary and Response:
Summary:
Commenters agreed that some degree of savings reflecting learning was appropriate.
Commenters asserted different positions regarding the amount to allocate to learning and the
time when a learning curve should be assessed. DTNA agrees that learning will result in
improved production efficiencies and lower costs of production; however, DTNA asserted that
this learning might not have the same rates as ICE since BEVs have fewer moving parts. DTNA
also asserted that the use case of HDVs - more extreme operating conditions and longer lifetimes
- means that learning synergies with the passenger vehicle market will not occur. Both DTNA
and Valero questioned the appropriateness of the learning scalar factors EPA used at proposal in
light of the effect of critical commodity prices on component costs, which costs are independent
of learning. AmFree et al. and Valero commented that EPA does not identify how learning
factors were calculated or justify why they are reasonable. Valero commented that HD TRUCS
did not apply learning to ICE vehicles.
Energy Innovation suggests that faster learning curves may be appropriate for BEVs due to
novel battery chemistries that can disrupt markets and increase competition; faster-than-expected
moderation of pandemic-induced supply chain disruption; battery pack economies of scale; and
the tendency of battery outlooks to underestimate future learning curves.
1461
-------
EMA did not disagree with the rate of learning over time included in the NPRM; however,
they asserted learning should start in 2022 rather than 2027 (the date included in the NPRM )
because OEMs began producing HD BEVs in 2022. EMA explained that this would mean at the
start of the rule, the learning would be in the "flatter part" of the curve. POET separately asserted
that EPA's NPRM learning curve was overly optimistic/aggressive because of experience from
LDVs in the production of batteries and other ZEV components (thus similarly implying that
learning began earlier and should not commence in 2027).
Response:
Regarding comments related to battery costs, we respond to those in Section 3.4.1 of this
document. Regarding critical materials and prices, we respond to such comments in Section 17.2
of this document. EPA agrees that we should use the best available data for learning curves and
we have done so. Also, as discussed in Section II of the preamble, we are committing to monitor
the industry's compliance with the standards.
Cost reduction via learning-by-doing is a well established phenomenon having been studied
for over 50 years with some of the earliest works dating to World War II.811 Therefore, we know
that learning-by-doing occurs and will continue to occur in the HD industry given the level of
competition and the ingenuity of its employees and, we suspect, regardless of the number of
parts in a given system. Some commenters referred to our learning-by-doing as a means of
addressing economies of scale. This is not a correct representation since our learning-by-doing is
exactly that, learning-by-doing and is not meant to reflect cost changes associated with
economies of scale.
Regarding comments that learning in the light-duty sector may not translate to the heavy-duty
sector, we do not agree with assertions that such learning transfer would not occur. The learning
we are estimating is primarily at the cell level and not so much at the pack level. While packs
may differ, cells should be similar.
We note that several of the commenters concur with the general point that learning-by-doing
occurs and will continue to occur in the HD industry (and that EMA concurs with EPA's NPRM
learning curve, but disagrees at what point in the learning we will be at in 2027 and later). One
key point is estimating at what speed that learning will occur. Traditionally, cost-reductions on
the order of 80 percent to 90 percent are expected to occur with each doubling of cumulative
production. In other words, if a widget costs $100 to make in year one with production of 100
units, then the cost could be expected to reduce to $80 to $90 by the time 200 units have been
produced.812
Due to modeling constraints and the difficulty in applying learning effects as a function of
sales within a model that adjusts sales based on learning effects, we have traditionally applied
learning impacts using static learning factors applied to a given cost estimate as a means of
reflecting learning-by-doing effects on future costs.813 Further, we have traditionally applied
811 See "Cost Reduction through Learning in Manufacturing Industries and in the Manufacture of Mobile Sources,
Final Report and Peer Review Report," EPA-420-R-16-018.
812 ibid.
813 See the 2010 light-duty greenhouse gas rule (75 FR 25324, May 7, 2010); the 2012 light-duty greenhouse gas
rule (77 FR 62624, October 15, 2012); the 2011 heavy-duty greenhouse gas rule (76 FR 57106, September 15,
1462
-------
those static learning factors across regulatory scenarios even though, as in the NPRM, a higher
sales penetration of BEV and FCEV—i.e., advanced—technology in the action scenarios would
arguably result in more rapid learning relative to the no-action scenario where less penetration of
those technologies is projected. Because the learning effects are static, the next key point
becomes a matter of estimating where on the learning curve a technology is considered to be. In
other words, is a technology on the early steeper portion of the learning curve or on the later,
flatter portion of the learning curve. In the NPRM, we estimated that ICE technology was on the
flatter portion of the curve, given that most ICE technologies have been in production for many
years, and that advanced technologies like BEV and FCEV technologies were on the steeper
portion. We continue with that approach in the FRM analysis, although we have shifted the
learning effects for advanced technology in a manner consistent with some of the comments.
More specifically, we apply the same learning curve in the final rule for BEVs and FCEVs but
on a portion of the curve that is less steep (flatter) in MY 2027 and later than we used in the
NPRM.
We note that beyond suggesting that a learning curve commence coincident with HD BEV
production, commenters did not provide any different learning factors and did not assert that
learning impacts should be fully removed. Commenters also did not question that the learning
factors applied to electrification technologies appropriately includes more learning year-over-
year than the learning factors applied to ICE vehicle technologies. We reiterate that such an
approach is warranted given that ICE vehicle technologies have been implemented for over 100
years while the newer technologies (e.g., HD BEV technology) is relatively new and is
undergoing rapid development around the world. Lastly, we note that, while our learning factors
for BEV and FCEV technologies were more aggressive than those for ICE vehicle technologies,
in the proposal they resulted in only a 26 percent cost reduction by model year 2033, a full 7
years from MY 2027. In the final analysis, the cost reduction between MY 2027 and MY 2033 is
just 22 percent from learning. Such a set of learning factors does not seem overly aggressive
given the pace of change in the BEV and FCEV vehicle space.
EPA acknowledges the uncertainties with forecasting the rate of learning. It is possible that
manufacturers will learn more quickly than we anticipate, causing costs to be lower than we
projected; for example, as noted above, a higher sales penetration of BEV and FCEV technology
in the action scenarios would arguably result in more rapid learning relative to the no-action
scenario where less penetration of those technologies is projected, and in turn more rapid
learning than EPA accounted for. It is also possible that manufacturers will learn more slowly
than anticipated, for instance, in the event DTNA is correct that BEV learning is slower due to
BEVs having fewer parts. Considering all these uncertainties, the historical data on learning in
the HD and motor vehicle markets over time, as well as the significant forces driving increased
producing of HD BEV and FCEV and thus their learning in the future, EPA's technical judgment
is that the learning factors we have applied are reasonable.
Regarding the comments from Energy Innovation, while we acknowledge the points raised,
these do not pertain to the concept of learning-by-doing which our learning factors are meant to
capture. Novel battery chemistries that might have lower costs would represent a new
technology, not cost reductions via learning-by-doing to our estimated technologies. Similarly,
2011); the 2016 heavy-duty greenhouse gas rule (81 FR 73478, October 25, 2016); the 2014 light-duty Tier 3 rule
(79 FR 23414, April 28, 2014); the heavy-duty NOx rule (88 FR 4296, January 24, 2023).
1463
-------
supply chain issues returning to historical norms is not an effect meant to be captured via our
learning-by-doing cost reduction estimates.
For the FRM, we are applying ICEV learning both in HD TRUCS as well the cost
calculations in RIA 3 and preamble Section IV.
1464
-------
13 Emission Impacts
Comments by Organizations
Organization: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE)
We note that, in contrast to the energy efficiency ratios implied by Table 2 showing that the
H2-FCEV truck uses 57% more energy per mile than the BEV, EPA adopts an assumption that a
H2-FCEV uses only 25% more energy than a BEV (DRIA p.313). ACEEE looked at the sources
referenced in the DRIA, which include the GREET and MOVES models, and was unable to find
the basis for this claim. In fact, the MOVES document cited by the DRIA states the following:
In addition, heavy-duty fuel cell vehicles (FCEVs) have a lower efficiency ratio than their
BEV counterparts. However, an identical EER is implicitly applied to both BEVs and FCEVSs
in MOVES, since BEV and FCEV vehicles have been aggregated within the electricity fuel type
by the time the EERs are applied. To account for this, the energy consumption rates for FCEVs
in EmissionRate are scaled up by a ratio of 1.6, based on values in GREET 202164 as explained
in Appendix D.. .27 (emphasis added). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1560-A1, p. 13.] ]This
comment can also be found in section 7 of this comment summary.]
Appendix D states (p. 51):
The 1.6 multiplier for the FCEV emission rates was derived from the relative miles per gallon
diesel equivalent estimated in GREET 2021. While the GREET model anticipates that the
relative miles per gallon will vary with vehicle class, as show in Table D-5, we currently expect
most FCEVs will be used in long-haul applications. Thus, we selected the values for
Combination Long-Haul Vans to represent all heavy-duty FCEVs. Consistent with GREET and
with the MOVES adjustment report, the listed value for EVs was also decreased by 15 percent to
account for battery and charging losses that are not relevant for FCEVs. This results in a ratio of
1.61 which we rounded to 1.6. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1560-A1, p. 13.]
Hence the cited MOVES document does not appear to support the DRIA claim that an FCEV
uses only 25% more energy to operate than a BEV, but instead supports the values shown in
Table 2 above. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1560-A1, p. 13.]
EPA notes that most hydrogen is produced today via steam methane reforming (SMR) but
cites provisions in IIJA and IRA promoting green hydrogen production in support of its
"simplifying assumption", for purposes of the rule impacts analysis, that any hydrogen used to
fuel heavy-duty FCEVs will be produced through grid electrolysis (FR 26042, footnote 664).
Based on this assumption, EPA calculates declining carbon intensity of hydrogen fuel as a result
of anticipated grid decarbonization. However, it is not clear that the hydrogen for use as a
transportation fuel will generally be produced through grid electrolysis in the coming years or
will have carbon emissions similar to hydrogen from grid electrolysis. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0985-1560-A1, p. 14.]
EPA points to incentives for clean hydrogen production in IIJA and IRA, as well as "new
transportation and other demand drivers and potential future regulation" (DRIA p.321) to support
this assumption. However, potential dramatic increases in the coming years in the volume of
both clean hydrogen and hydrogen produced through electrolysis are insufficient to ensure that
1465
-------
hydrogen production through SMR will decline or that hydrogen used to fuel heavy-duty
vehicles will become cleaner in tandem with grid decarbonization. This is especially true given
the many uses to which a growing hydrogen supply could be put. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1560-A1, p. 14.]
It should be noted that EPA's analysis of the upstream impacts of BEVs, as well as those of
hydrogen-fueled vehicles, relies on assumptions regarding the decarbonization of the electricity
(FR 26044). However, those assumptions, unlike the hydrogen assumptions, are based on a
quantitative analysis of IIJA and IRA incentives, resulting in a much more convincing case for
low-carbon electricity generation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1560-A1, p. 14.]
EPA should not incentivize hydrogen-fueled vehicles without strong evidence that hydrogen
fuel for transportation will be clean in the foreseeable future. For H2-ICEVs in particular, for
which intrinsic efficiency advantages are modest, actual GHG benefits may be negative, and
potential future benefits are based largely on changes to the fuel rather than to the vehicle, the
zero-upstream incentive is inappropriate. It would offer manufacturers the same compliance
benefit for an H2-ICEV as for a BEV or FCEV but require only relatively small changes to the
engine, as described At FR 25960. The fact that H2-ICEVs produce NOx makes conferring ZEV
benefits on them all the more inappropriate. Low-carbon hydrogen-fueled vehicles are best
incentivized through performance-based standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1560-A1, pp. 14
-15.]
Organization: American Free Enterprise Chamber of Commerce (AmFree) et al.
B. EPA's Analysis Of Net Emissions Is Flawed
EPA estimates that the proposed rule will result in a net reduction of emissions from 2027 to
2055. See 88 Fed. Reg. at 26,045. That estimate is dubious. EPA's modeling omits critical
sources of emissions and rests on several significant, unwarranted assumptions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1660-A1, p. 54]
Downstream Emissions. EPA's projection of reduced net emissions from the proposed rule
rests primarily on a predicted reduction in "downstream" emissions— i.e., emissions generated
by operating motor vehicles. 88 Fed. Reg. at 26,039, 26,045. But in estimating the proposed
rule's effect on downstream emissions, the agency omits the particulate emissions caused by
brake and tire wear. Id. at 26,039; Draft RIA at 328 n.A, 342. That omission has no analytical
justification, departs from prior agency practice, and improperly skews the calculation in favor of
electric vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1660-A1, p. 54]
Particulate emissions from brake and tire wear fit comfortably within the downstream
category, which includes anything "emitted directly by a vehicle." Draft RIA at 310. The draft
regulatory impact analysis at times acknowledges this fact—for instance, EPA includes
"particulate emissions from brake wear and tire wear" within a list of examples of downstream
sources of pollution. Id. But the agency does not account for these emissions when modeling the
proposed standards' ultimate emissions impact. EPA instead simply states—with no further
explanation—that "primary exhaust PM2.5 [particulate matter] does not include brake wear and
tire wear"; EPA includes a footnote mentioning that, if it did factor those sources into the
analysis, the estimated reductions would be lower. Id. at 328 n.A; see also id. at 342. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1660-A1, pp. 54 - 55]
1466
-------
The agency's decision to ignore brake and tire wear is not only inconsistent with its own
definition of downstream emissions but also marks a change from settled agency practice. In
earlier GHG rules for heavy-duty vehicles, EPA considered brake and tire emissions when
analyzing the impact of the proposed standards. See Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and
Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles, 76 Fed. Reg.
57,106, 57,301 n.a (Sept. 15, 2011) ("FED GHG I") ("PM2.5 from tire wear and brake wear is
included."); Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-
Duty Engines and Vehicles—Phase 2, 81 Fed. Reg. 73,478, 73,578 n.b (Oct. 25, 2016) ("HD
GHG II") ("The impacts shown include all PM2.5 impacts from the rule including impacts from
increased tire wear and brake wear that results from the slight increase in VMT projected as a
result of this rule"). And in one of those rules, EPA even decided to adopt "[f]urther PM
[cjontrols" after concluding that the standards would increase particulate emissions by 464 tons
in 2040 and 534 tons in 2050. HD GHG II, 81 Fed. Reg. at 73,579. The agency has not
acknowledged its change in position here, let alone explained "why the new approach" of
ignoring emissions from brake and tire wear "better comports with ... the provisions that
Congress enacted." Am. Fed'n of Gov't Emps. v. FLRA, 25 F.4th 1, 12 (D.C. Cir. 2022). That is
reason enough to conclude that "the [agency] has not, in fact, engaged in reasoned decision-
making." Id. (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1660-
Al, p. 55]
Nor could EPA contend that this omission is insignificant. The draft regulatory impact
analysis describes brake and tire wear as "a significant source of particulate emissions" and
estimates that, if they were included, the expected reduction in particulate emissions would
decrease by half or more in every year the agency considered. Draft RIA at 328 & n. A (emphasis
added). For model year 2035, particulate-emissions reductions would fall from 6 percent to 3
percent. Id. By model year 2045, they would decline from 30 percent to 10 percent. Id. And by
2055, they would plummet from 39 percent to 13 percent. Id. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1660-
Al, p. 55]
This substantial decrease is not surprising. Emissions from tire wear, for example, rise as
vehicles (1) get heavier and (2) apply higher torques at lower speeds—two traits prominent in
electric vehicles, especially relative to internal-combustion-engine vehicles. See e.g., Raheb
Mirzanamadi & Mats Gustafsson, Users' Experience of Tyre Wear on Electric Vehicles,
Swedish Nat'l Road & Transp. Rsch. Inst., at 10 (June 2022) ("[E]lectric vehicles . . . have
higher acceleration and are heavier than equivalent internal combustion engine vehicles . . .
which can lead to higher non-exhaust emissions from tyre and road wear as well as higher
resuspension of road dust."); Ye Liu et al., Exhaust and Non-Exhaust Emissions from
Conventional and Electric Vehicles: A Comparison of Monetary Impact Values, J. Cleaner Prod.,
Vol. 331 (Jan. 2022) ("[I]t can be observed that compared [to] ICEVs, EVs emit more non-
exhaust PM2.5 and PM10 emissions. Such an increase in non-exhaust emissions is associated
with the equivalent EVs possessing heavier weight relative to [ICEVs]."); Gunda Obereigner at
al., Active Limitation of Tire Wear and Emissions for Electrified Vehicles, SAE Techn. Paper
(Apr. 6, 2021) ("[A]s electrified vehicles weigh more and typically exhibit higher torques at low
speeds, their non-exhaust emissions tend to be higher than for comparable conventional vehicles,
especially those generated by tires."). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1660-A1, pp. 55 - 56]
At various other points in the proposed rule, the agency asserts without explanation that the
per-mile rate of brake wear is "expected to be lower" for electric vehicles "due to regenerative
1467
-------
braking systems." 88 Fed. Reg. at 25,987; see also id. at 26,035; Draft RIA at 185, 194. EPA
cites nothing to support that expectation. But even if true, that has nothing to do with tire wear—
an independent source of particulate emissions and, by some accounts, "the most important one."
OECD, Non-Exhaust Particulate Emissions from Road Transport (Dec. 7, 2020); see also Kris
Vanherle et al., Transport Non-Exhaust PM-Emissions, European Envt'l Agency (Mar. 2021)
("[RJegardless of the potential of regenerative braking to reduce brake wear, on motorways, EVs
have higher PM emissions compared to ICEVs due to higher tyre wear associated with higher
weight."). Other studies note that regenerative braking is one of "the most commonly answered
reasons" for accelerated tire wear, further demonstrating that the existence of regenerative
braking does not justify EPA's omission. Mirzanamadi, Users' Experience of Tyre Wear, supra,
at 11, 51. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1660-A1, p. 56]
The proposed rule, requiring a widespread shift to electric vehicles, would therefore affect
particulate emissions much differently than prior rules that focused solely on adaptations for
internal-combustion-engine vehicles. Indeed, according to a recent study, particulate emissions
from tire wear are "around 1,850 times greater" than those that come from a tailpipe. Emission
Analytics, Graining Traction, Losing Tread Pollution from Tire Wear Now 1,850 Times Worse
than Exhaust Emissions (May 10, 2022). And the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and
Development reports that "[w]ear and tear from brakes, tyres and road surfaces will soon
overtake car exhaust fumes as the leading source of fine particles released into the air by road
traffic, . . . and heavy electric vehicles with long-distance batteries could compound the problem
even as they slash emissions from engine exhaust." Measures Needed to Curb Particulate Matter
Emitted by Wear of Car Parts and Road Surfaces, OECD (July 12, 2020). By excluding this
category of emissions from its analysis, EPA elides one of the key ways its proposal will cause
more harm than good. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1660-A1, pp. 56 - 57]
Upstream Emissions. In addition to overstating reductions in downstream emissions, the
proposed rule fails to account properly for increases in "upstream" emissions—those that "are
not emitted by the vehicle itself but can still be attributed to its operation." Draft RIA at 310. In
evaluating this category, EPA improperly cabins its analysis to only those emissions caused by
electric-generating units ("EGUs") and refineries—i.e., emissions generated to provide power to
operate vehicles. See 88 Fed. Reg. at 26,039-40; Draft RIA at 310. This marks another
unexplained shift in agency policy. And even when examining this limited set of upstream
sources, the agency makes unfounded assumptions and methodological choices that are (once
again) skewed in favor of the proposed rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1660-A1, p. 57]
First, the emissions associated with powering a vehicle—whether by electricity from an EGU
or fuel from a refinery—are far from the only ones reasonably "attributed" to its operation. Draft
RIA at 310. Depending on the vehicle, there are also emissions associated with producing,
recycling, and disposing of batteries; operating charging infrastructure; and extracting, refining,
transporting, and storing petroleum fuels. These emissions can be substantial and, when
considered together, may undermine EPA's assumption that swapping internal- combustion-
engine vehicles for electric ones will necessarily result in an environmental good. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1660-A1, p. 57]
The International Energy Agency's discussion of emissions from mining illustrates this point.
According to the IEA, "the production and processing of energy transition minerals are energy-
intensive" and involve "relatively high emission[s]." Role of Critical Minerals at 15, 130; see
1468
-------
also Charging Infrastructure Challenges for the U.S. Electric Vehicle Fleet, Am. Transp. Rsch.
Inst., https://tinyurl.com/3ktjd85v ("Mining and processing produce considerable C02
and pollution issues."). For this reason, producing an electric vehicle is a more carbon- intensive
process than producing a conventional one. Role of Critical Minerals at 194. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1660-A1, pp. 57 - 58]
EPA never explains why emissions from EGUs and refineries are the only ones relevant to the
analysis. Nor does it acknowledge that its current position departs from earlier GHG
rulemakings, where it did consider additional upstream sources. See HD GHG I, 76 Fed. Reg. at
57,301 ("To project these impacts, EPA estimated the impact of reduced petroleum volumes on
the extraction and transportation of crude oil as well as the production and distribution of
finished gasoline and diesel."); HD GHG II, 81 Fed. Reg. at 73,852 ("To project these impacts,
Model B estimated the impact of reduced petroleum volumes on the extraction and transportation
of crude oil as well as the production and distribution of finished gasoline and diesel."). EPA has
an obligation to explain why a more cabined view of upstream emissions is appropriate here. See
Am. Fed'n of Gov't Emps, 25 F.4th at 12. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1660-A1, p. 58]
Second, EPA's assessment of EGU emissions is flawed. EPA assumes that the amount of
emissions associated with increased demand for electricity will "decrease^ over time because of
projected changes in the future power generation mix, including cleaner combustion technologies
and increases in renewables." 88 Fed. Reg. at 25,935. That expectation is entirely speculative
and, in large part, based on the availability of three tax credits that Congress recently approved as
part of the IRA to incentivize manufacturing, production, and investment in low-carbon
initiatives. See id. at 25,935 n.63, 26,040 n.654, 26,044; Draft RIA at 321 n.vi, 325, 345, 347,
349. The agency does not explain the applicability of these tax credits or provide any data or
evidence showing, or even suggesting, that they will have such a material impact on the power-
generation mix. See Appalachian Power Co. v. EPA, 249 F.3d 1032, 1053 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (per
curiam) (explaining that "model assumptions must have a 'rational relationship' to the real
world"). Before modeling EGU emissions based on them, EPA must make an earnest effort to
assess the number of EGUs that will receive the credits and whether the savings will be enough
to incentivize such a major shift in their operations. If the agency is unable or unwilling to
provide that analysis, it must project EGU emissions based on the power-generation mix that is
now available. And if EPA concludes that the power-generation mix will change even without
the widespread availability of the IRA tax credits, it must explain the basis for that belief. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1660-A1, p. 58]
In addition, whether the power-generation mix stays the same or changes in the way EPA
speculates, it is necessary to assess whether EGUs will use the same sources to power their base
loads and the peak loads that will inevitably occur if the proposed rule is adopted. According to a
recent study, changes in the electricity sector have caused EGUs to increasingly rely on coal to
meet demand that exceeds their typical capacity. See Stephen P. Holland et al., Why Marginal
C02 Emissions Are Not Decreasing for US Electricity: Estimates and Implications for Climate
Policy, Nat'l Acad, of Scis., at 1 (2022) ("More recently, however, changes in the electricity
sector have pushed coal, which has the greatest C02 intensity, to more frequently be used as the
marginal fuel for generation, thereby increasing marginal emissions."). Providing electricity to
meet peak loads can therefore have a disproportionately high impact on emissions, which cannot
be adequately captured by looking at "average emissions" (i.e., carbon intensity) across the
electricity sector. Id. Instead, "estimates of marginal emissions ... are needed to accurately
1469
-------
evaluate the impacts of policies or behaviors that cause changes in the demand or supply of
electricity." Id. at 2. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1660-A1, p. 59]
The authors of the study demonstrated the importance of this point in the context of electric
vehicles. They analyzed the Biden Administration's goal to make half of new vehicle purchases
electric by 2030 and concluded that, when taking marginal emissions into account, "the increase
in electricity sector C02 emissions . . . would undo more than half of the reductions from
reducing the number of gasoline-fueled, light-duty vehicles." Holland et al., Why marginal C02
emissions are not decreasing, supra, at 2. By contrast, if they had instead looked only at average
emissions, "the emissions reductions would [have been] overestimated by somewhere between
27% and 114%." Id. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1660-A1, p. 59]
EPA does not explain whether or how it takes marginal emissions into account when
estimating EGU emissions. Neither the notice of proposed rulemaking nor the draft regulatory
impact analysis discusses this concept, and stakeholders were denied an opportunity to study the
agency's complicated modeling given the exceedingly short window for public comment. Given
the importance of this issue, EPA should clearly explain whether it considered marginal
emissions as the study discussed above advises, and if not, the basis for its alternative
approach.8 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1660-A1, p. 59]
8 EPA's underestimation of EGU emissions also affects its evaluation of fuel-cell vehicles. Although the
vast majority of hydrogen used for fuel-cell vehicles is made through "steam methane reforming," "largely
as part of petroleum refining and ammonia production," the agency makes the "simplifying assumption"
that "all hydrogen used for FCEVs is produced via grid electrolysis of water and can therefore be entirely
represented as additional demand to EGUs." 88 Fed. Reg. at 26,042 & n.664; Draft RIA at 321-22. Even
assuming that "simplifying assumption" is warranted, EPA must accurately predict EGU emissions to
measure the effect of shifting from internal-combustion-engine to fuel-cell vehicles. For the reasons
described above, it has not done so.
Finally, EPA may be substantially overestimating the decrease in refinery emissions. The
agency "assumed refinery activity decreases with decreased demand for liquid fuel from heavy-
duty vehicles." 88 Fed. Reg. at 26,040. But at the same time, EPA "recognize[d] that there is
significant uncertainty in the impact reduced fuel demand has on refinery emissions." Draft RIA
at 327. "If refineries do not decrease production in response to lower domestic demand" and
"increase exports instead," then the agency "would project no emission reductions from
refineries" rather than the ones they include in their analysis. Id. (emphasis added); see also id. at
345, 350. EPA must explain the basis for its assumption that refineries will decrease production
before it factors these sizeable reductions into the calculation. See Int'l Harvester Co., 478 F.2d
at 645 (explaining that EPA must "support its methodology as reliable" with more than
"speculation"). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1660-A1, p. 60]
Organization: American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)
1. EPA Cannot Adequately Substantiate the Need for Regulatory Action
The structure of the Clean Air Act and its regulatory provisions for standard setting also are
premised on EPA identifying sources of emissions that cause or contribute to non-attainment
with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards ("NAAQS"). However, EPA makes no attempt
to outline a baseline scenario whereby all stationary and mobile sources in the country achieve
current EPA standards. Such a baseline is necessary because it is the only means by which the
1470
-------
agency and the public can compare the marginal costs and benefits of further tightening emission
standards and deploying different technologies and alternatives. EPA's failure to conduct either a
baseline or marginal analysis (while also failing to account for billions of dollars in costs) is
inconsistent with the structure of the Clean Air Act, and good regulatory practice, and makes it
impossible to conduct an alternatives analysis, as required under Executive Order 12866
(Regulatory Planning and Review) and OMB Circular A-4; as such, the proposed rule, if
finalized, is arbitrary and capricious. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1659-A2, p. 24]
In addition to the above, EPA did not fully consider that the higher purchase price of new
ZEVs will keep older, more polluting trucks on the road longer whereas new and heavier ZEVs
will increase particulate matter ("PM") emissions through increased brake, tire, and road
wear. Data from EPA's 2020 National Emissions Inventory97 shows that direct PM2.5 emissions
from roadways can be due to roadway dust vs. on-road mobile vehicle engine emissions.
Roadway dust emissions which include particles from tire wear are correlated with vehicle
weight, so increases in fleet average vehicle weight would be expected to increase roadway dust
PM2.5 emissions.98 In addition, a study by the American Transportation Research Institute
found that the weight of a BEV Class 8 Sleeper Cab tractor is nearly double that of a comparable
ICEV, weighing 32,016 pounds (lbs) versus 18,216 lbs.99 Therefore, converting ICEs to ZEVs
under the proposed regulation would significantly increase the average vehicle weight on U.S.
roadways, which in turn would increase the entrained road dust emissions. There also exist
overall truck weight restrictions, which could require a greater number of ZEVs to move the
same tonnage of cargo, thus increasing vehicle miles traveled and potentially PM emissions.
EPA also ignores the GHG emissions associated with manufacturing more, less dense, remotely
located intermittent generation sources and battery back-up, plus the need for more natural gas
peaking capacity and massive transmission, substation, and transformer investment to integrate
these technologies into the power grid. Those emissions are significant and may offset or
eliminate the benefits that EPA calculates. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1659-A2, pp. 26 - 27]
97 EPA, "2020 National Emissions Inventory (NEI) Data," available at https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-
inventories/2020-national-emissions-inventory-nei-data.
98 EPA, Emissions Factor Documentation for AP-42 (Dec. 31, 2003) available at
https://www3 .epa.gov/ttn/chief/old/ap42/chl3/s021/final/c 13s0201 .pdf.
99 AMERICAN TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE, "Understanding the C02 Impacts of
Zero-Emission Trucks" (May 2022) available at https://truckingresearch.org/wp-
content/uploads/2022/05/ATRI-Understanding-C02-Impacts-of-Zero-Emission-Trucks-May-2022.pdf.
Organization: American Petroleum Institute (API)
1. Decrease in non-GHG refinery emissions
We question the agency's projections of refinery emissions decreases due to reduced fuel
demand (Draft RIA, Table 4/18). The analysis assumes that there will be less domestic fuel
demand due to a marked uptick in the use of HD ZEVs. However, as we have noted throughout
these comments, there is significant concern that the market may not reach the levels of HD ZEV
penetration suggested by the proposal. If fleets continue to use ICEVs in significant numbers,
which could reasonably be expected based on various factors (e.g., the life of HD vehicles, costs
of purchasing new vehicles, etc.), even with an increased use in biofuels, there will continue to
1471
-------
be a demand for conventional fuels. There could also be increased demand for refined products
in other countries that the U.S. could supply. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1617-A1, pp. 13 - 14]
Furthermore, EPA's analysis assumes that lower domestic fuel demand, due to increased
usage of HD ZEVs, will result in reduced refinery throughput. However, this assumption may
not hold true as the U.S. has emerged as a major player in the global market for refined products,
actively exporting significant quantities. While the EPA assumes that a gallon of reduced
domestic demand would reduce net crude and product imports by 0.864 (Draft RIA Section 6.5),
their assumption fails to consider the possibility that refinery throughput could remain steady
while the U.S. simultaneously increases its exportation of refined products. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1617-A1, p. 14]
EPA justifies its assumption that imports will fall 86.4 percent by comparing the AEO 2022
Reference case with the AEO 2022 Low Economic Growth case. This comparison is not suitable
for drawing these conclusions because in the Low Economic Growth case, U.S. refined product
exports are lower compared to the Reference Case, suggesting a decline in global demand for
refined products. Regardless of the assumption's merits, the EPA doesn't explicitly state, in its
regulatory impact analysis, that the reduced global demand for refined products is, in part, an
assumption based on the forecasts EPA uses for its analysis and not attributable to its
regulation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1617-A1, p. 14]
Organization: Clean Air Task Force
A. EPA underestimated the net benefits of the proposed rule by undercounting refinery
emissions.
EPA attempts to account for the climate benefits and the criteria pollutant health benefits of
the proposed rule in its quantitative cost-benefit analysis. See 88 Fed. Reg. 26074-26078.
For both of these analyses, EPA includes emissions from onroad heavy-duty vehicles (i.e.,
tailpipe emissions) and upstream emissions from electric generating units (EGUs) that produce
the fuel (e.g., electricity, hydrogen) that powers ZEVs. However, EPA does not include in this
analysis upstream emissions from refineries that produce the fuel (i.e., gasoline or diesel) that
powers combustion vehicles. In order to calculate the full net benefits of the proposed rule, and
to provide parallel treatment of fuel production for ZEVs and combustion vehicles, EPA should
account for refinery emissions in its cost-benefit analysis. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1,
pp. 79 - 80]
EPA defines upstream emissions sources as "those that occur before tailpipe emissions from
vehicles, such as from electricity generation for charging BEVs, the production of hydrogen used
to fuel FCEVs, and emissions generated during petroleum-based fuel production and
distribution." 88 Fed. Reg. at 26039-26040. However, while EPA quantified emissions changes
associated with upstream EGUs, it did not quantify emissions changes associated with producing
or extracting crude or transporting crude or refined fuels. See 88 Fed. Reg. at 26044. Instead,
EPA provided a limited analysis of refinery emissions in only "one analysis year (2055) and only
certain non-GHG pollutants (NOx, PM2.5, VOC, and S02)." DRIA at 344. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 80]
This disparate treatment of upstream emissions sources underestimates the benefits of the
proposed rule. Indeed, EPA acknowledges that its methodology "likely underestimates the net
1472
-------
emissions reductions that may result from the proposal." 88 Fed. Reg. at 26044. In the limited
analysis that EPA did conduct for 2055, refinery criteria emissions decreases are of a similar
order of magnitude to EGU emissions increases, the latter of which are included in the net
benefit calculations. In the case of S02, including reductions in refinery emissions resulting from
the standards in net emissions calculations would shift the impact of the proposed standards from
a net increase in emissions to a net decrease in emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1,
p. 80]
EPA recognizes that were it to "estimate impacts on refinery GHG emissions, [EPA would]
expect that the decrease in liquid fuel consumption associated with this rule would lead to a
reduction in those emissions." 88 Fed. Reg. at 25935 n.62. Refinery emissions can increase the
lifecycle GHG emissions of petroleum-based fuels over downstream tailpipe emissions
significantly, depending on the source and type of oil. For example, accounting for refinery
(midstream) emissions from oil produced from South Belridge in California's San Joaquin
Valley would increase total emissions by 20 percent compared to just accounting for combustion
(downstream) emissions.350 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 80]
350 Carnegie Endowment for Int'l Peace, Profiling Emissions in the Supply Chain, Oil-
Climate Index, http://oci.carnegieendowment.Org/#supply-chain (last visited June 9, 2023).
In finalizing the standards, EPA should ensure that it has a complete accounting of these
upstream refinery emissions to properly measure the net benefits of the options under
consideration. Failing to do so would undercount the benefits associated with more stringent
standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1640-A1, p. 80]
Organization: Clean Fuels Development Coalition et al.
And, as will be discussed later in this comment, the proposal's listed costs grossly
underestimate the rule's true costs. The proper metric is aggregate cost because the major-
questions doctrine asks about the rule's significance to the "national economy." West Virginia v.
EPA, 142 S. Ct. at 2609 (2022). These aggregate costs include: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-
1585-A1, p. 4]
Air quality effects: This includes the air quality and health impacts from significant increases
in tire wear from heavy-duty vehicles, as well as the increases in C02 emissions that will result
from manufacturing more electric generation infrastructure, transmission, distribution, charging
equipment, the manufacturing of batteries, etc. 5 Most egregious is the omission of the cost of
increased brake and tire wear, which the proposal describes as "a significant source of particulate
emissions" and estimates that, if they were included, the expected reduction in particulate
emissions would decrease by half or more in every year the agency considered. DRIA at 328.
These added emissions are so high that they offset most of the benefits from eliminating tailpipe
emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1585-A1, pp. 5 - 6]
5 As will be discussed later in the comment, EPA's current assessment of emissions impacts, listed in Table
ES-5, are "downstream" only, meaning the "emissions processes ... that come directly from a vehicle, such
as tailpipe exhaust, crankcase exhaust, evaporative emissions, and refueling emissions." 88 Fed. Reg.
25,935. This unreasonably ignores all the "upstream" emissions the rule would produce and does so only
by footnote. This appears to be intentionally misleading.
1473
-------
D. The proposed rule misstates emissions benefits because it neglects upstream electric
generating unit emissions, among others.
In addition to underestimating costs, the proposal also overstates benefits. The most egregious
of these comes from the way EPA accounts for upstream emissions for electric generating units.
To realize substantial reductions in GHG emissions—and thus benefits from said emissions—the
rule relies on the decrease in emissions from petroleum-fueled heavy-duty vehicles replaced by
electric heavy-duty vehicles. But these vehicles are themselves still responsible for emissions
from the electricity that powers them. Current electricity GHG emissions factors are
approximately 442,000 U.S. Tons of C02 / Terawatt-Hour. How much carbon dioxide is
produced per kilowatt-hour of U.S. electricity generation, Energy Information Administration,
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=74&t=ll. The proposal estimates that this will fall to
136,686 U.S. Tons of C02 / Terawatt-Hour in 2035 and 30,130 U.S. Tons of C02 / Terawatt-
Hour in 2050. DRIA at 325. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1585-A1, p. 34]
This is unrealistic. Emissions reduction on the U.S. electric grid have thus far come primarily
from natural gas replacing coal. To continue to lower C02 emissions in this manner would
require an almost complete conversion to low carbon sources. But barriers to wind, solar, and
nuclear adoption will not enable these changes. Furthermore, researchers estimate that the 350
million EVs required to decarbonize the fleet in 2050 could use as much as half of US national
electricity demand. Thea Riofrancos et al., Achieving Zero Emissions with More Mobility and
Less Mining, U.C. Davis Climate + Community Project (Jan. 2023),
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/eenews/f/eenews/?id=00000185-e562-de44-
a7bfed7751a00000. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1585-A1, p. 34]
These costs also ignore that realizing these reductions requires the installation of new solar
and wind generation, which itself has a cost. Without additional wind and solar generation,
upstream emissions from electricity generating units will not decrease as much as EPA expects,
diminishing those benefits. In addition to the direct costs of this generation, the proposal also
ignores the greenhouse gas emission associated with manufacturing more, less dense, remotely
located intermittent generation sources, and the battery back-up; transmission, substation, and
transformer investment to integrate these technologies into the power grid; and natural gas
peaking capacity necessary to sustain their intermittency. These emissions are significant and
must be accounted for in the calculation of any benefits of the proposed rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1585-A1, pp. 34 - 35]
Organization: Cummins Inc.
We also appreciate EPA's assumption that emissions generated from creating hydrogen are
the same as grid emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1598-A1, p. 9]
Organization: Delek US Holdings, Inc.
EPA compounds this flaw by making unsupported assumptions regarding total emissions
impacts of its proposal. While it claims that the overall analysis for combined downstream and
upstream emissions "likely underestimates the net emissions reductions that may result" from the
Proposed Rule, EPA failed to offer a data-based substantiation. The Proposed Rule did not
quantify emissions changes associated with producing or extracting crude or manufacturing
1474
-------
refined fuels. 18 It failed to assess emissions from battery manufacturing or electricity
production. EPA should provide a more comprehensive analysis to comply with its directive
under the Clean Air Act and better assess the resulting impact of the Proposed Rule. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0985-1561-A1, p. 5]
18 Proposed Rule at 26,044. Although EPA stated it "expects the increased adoption of HD ZEVs to
increase emissions from EGUs and decrease emissions from refineries," EPA quantified only the criteria
pollutant emission reductions it anticipated from Refineries for the year 2055. Proposed Rule at 25,936,
26,042-44 (Table V-9).
The Proposed Rule predicts net emissions reductions but does not adequately evaluate local
ambient air quality impacts from increased power generation spurred by the mass adoption of
electric vehicles. Although EPA modeled changes to power generation anticipated by the
Proposed Rule as part of its upstream analysis, EPA does not consider the potential degradation
of air quality in areas in the direct vicinity of existing or new power plants, especially as the need
for baseload generation at times when the sun is not shining and the wind is not blowing rises
exponentially with rapid electrification.38 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1561-A1, p. 8]
38 Proposed Rule at 25,983.
Organization: Environmental Defense Fund (EPF)
VI. EPA should ensure rigorous accenting and protective safeguards are in place related to the
production and use of hydrogen
a) EPA should ensure its assessment of hydrogen is rigorous, comprehensive, and fully
accounts for potential adverse climate and health impacts associated with hydrogen production
and use
i. The method of hydrogen production impacts whether hydrogen fueled vehicles decrease the
vehicle's associated emissions when compared to diesel vehicles or increases them.
In the proposal, EPA assumes all of the hydrogen used to fuel FCEVs will be produced
through grid electrolysis. Currently, 95% of hydrogen is produced from natural gas in a process
called steam methane reformation (SMR).206 SMR emits C02 as a byproduct of the hydrogen
production resulting in a carbon intensity of between 8 and 12 kg of C02/kg H2. Hydrogen
produced using electricity from the current U.S. average grid has a carbon intensity of 21 kg of
C02/kg H2.207 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, 78]
206 DRIA page 80
207 Thomas Koch Blank and Patrick Molly. Hydrogen Decarbonization Impact for Industry: Near-term
challenges and long-term potential. 2020. RMI, https://rmi.org/wp-
content/uploads/2020/01/hy drogen_insight_brief.pdf (Attachment BB)
EDF assessed the emissions associated with vehicles using different sources of hydrogen,
calculating the difference in C02 emissions of BEVs, FCEVs, and H2ICE vehicles, and
conventional diesel ICE vehicles with the carbon intensities of the fuels along with the
powertrain efficiencies taken into consideration. We used the vehicle efficiencies from ICCT's
report on decarbonizing tractors. The efficiencies used in that study are similar to those assumed
by EPA in HD TRUCS with the exception that ICCT also includes H2 ICE vehicles allowing for
an equal comparison.208 We included the combustion emissions from diesel, the production
1475
-------
emissions from electricity and SMR hydrogen, and the electricity production emissions for grid
electrolysis hydrogen. We included hydrogen produced using the current grid, EPA's modeled
incremental 2035 grid, and linearly extrapolated to calculate the grid emissions in 2027.209 210
The results of this analysis are plotted below in Figure 12, which importantly does not include
any additional upstream emissions (i.e. methane emissions from natural gas production). [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0985- 1644-A1, 79] [See Figure 12 on p. 80 of Docket Number EP A-HQ-OAR-
2022-0985-1644-A1]
208 Hussein Basma et al. Total Cost of Ownership of Alternative Powertrain Technologies for Class 8
Long-Haul Trucks in the United States. 2023. ICCT, https://theicct.org/publication/tco-alt-powertrain-long-
haul-trucks-us-apr23/
209 Frequently Asked Questions: How much carbon dioxide is produced per kilowatt-hour of U.S.
electricity generation? 2022. U.S. Energy Information Administration,
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=74&t= 11
210 Section 4.3.3.2 EGU Emissions Modeling Methodology from Draft RIA
Regardless of the grid, the emissions from the electricity needed to power BEVs is lower than
the combustion emissions from a diesel vehicle. Using the current grid, BEVs represent a
decrease of roughly a third and by 2035, they reduce emissions by almost 80%. This analysis
shows that the emission reductions from FCEVs and H2ICE vehicles are highly dependent on the
production method of the hydrogen and increase emissions relative to diesel vehicles when the
hydrogen is produced by SMR, the current grid, and even the projected 2027 grid. Additionally,
assuming EPA's 2035 grid mix, the emission benefits of BEVs are roughly twice those of
FCEVs and four times those of H2ICE vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, 80]
Moreover, FCEVs and ICE vehicles are much less efficient than BEVs. Additionally, 40% of
the energy from the electricity used to make hydrogen using electrolysis is lost in the process.
When the inefficiencies of both processes are combined, it takes 2.6 times as much electricity
to power a FCEV as a BEV. When considerations like compression and transportation of the
hydrogen are included, three to four times more energy is needed for hydrogen road
transportation.21 lWhen considerations like compression and transportation of the hydrogen are
included, three to four times more energy is needed for hydrogen road transportation compared
to battery electric vehicles.212 213 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985-1644-A1, 80-81]
211 Eriko Shrestha and Tianyi Sun. Rule #1 of deploying hydrogen: Electrify first. 2023. EDF Blog Energy
Exchange, https://blogs.edf.org/energyexchange/2023/01/30/rule-l-of-deploying-hydrogen-electrify-first/
EDF Blog Energy Exchange, https://blogs.edf.org/energyexchange/2023/01/30/rule-l-of-deploying-
hydrogen-electrify-first/ (Attachment GG)
212 Eriko Shrestha and Tianyi Sun. Rule #1 of deploying hydrogen: Electrify first. 2023. EDF Blog Energy
Exchange, https://blogs.edf.org/energyexchange/2023/01/30/rule-l-of-deploying-hydrogen-electrify-first/
213 Hydrogen vehicles fueled with low-GHG hydrogen would provide substantial climate benefits relative
to diesel vehicles. They would also require substantially more low carbon electricity than a BEV.
Unless hydrogen fueled vehicles use low-GHG hydrogen, they do not substantially reduce
climate emissions. While switching to BEVs reduces emissions relative to diesel vehicles using
today's grid, the same cannot be said |