Greenhouse Gas Emissions Performance for the 2020 Model Year Light-Duty Vehicle Fleet

PDF Version

In relation to the Passenger Automobile and Light Truck Greenhouse Gas Emission Regulations under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999

Notice

The information contained in this report is compiled from data reported to Environment and Climate Change Canada pursuant to the Passenger Automobile and Light Truck Greenhouse Gas Emission Regulations under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999. Information presented in this report is subject to ongoing verification.

Cat. No.: En11-15E-PDF
ISSN: 2560-9017

Unless otherwise specified, you may not reproduce materials in this publication, in whole or in part, for the purposes of commercial redistribution without prior written permission from Environment and Climate Change Canada's copyright administrator. To obtain permission to reproduce Government of Canada materials for commercial purposes, apply for Crown Copyright Clearance by contacting:

Environment and Climate Change Canada
Public Inquiries Centre
12th Floor, Fontaine Building
200 Sacré-Coeur Boulevard
Gatineau QC K1A 0H3
Telephone: 819-938-3860
Toll Free: 1-800-668-6767 (in Canada only)
Email: ec.enviroinfo.ec@canada.ca

Cover photo: © GettyImages.ca

© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, represented by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, 2022

Aussi disponible en français

List of acronyms

AC – Air conditioner

ATV – Advanced technology vehicle

CAFE – Corporate average fuel economy

CEPA – Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999

CO – Carbon monoxide

CO2 – Carbon dioxide

CO2e – Carbon dioxide equivalent

CREE – Carbon related exhaust emissions

CWF – Carbon weight fraction

EPA – Environmental Protection Agency

FCEV – Fuel cell electric vehicle

FTP – Federal test procedure

GHG – Greenhouse gas

g/mi – grams per mile

HC – Hydrocarbons

HFET – Highway fuel economy test

LT – Light truck

NO– Oxides of nitrogen

N2O – Nitrous oxide

PA – Passenger automobile

PM – Particulate matter

TOF – Temporary optional fleet

VKT – Vehicle kilometres travelled

Table of contents

List of tables

List of figures

Executive summary

The Passenger Automobile and Light Truck Greenhouse Gas Emission Regulations (hereinafter referred to as the “regulations”) establish greenhouse gas (GHG) emission standards for new 2011 and later model year light-duty on-road vehicles offered for sale in Canada. These regulations require importers and manufacturers of new vehicles to meet fleet average emission standards for greenhouse gases. The Regulations also establish annual compliance reporting requirements. This report summarizes the fleet average greenhouse gas emission performance of the fleets of light-duty vehicles. It also provides a compliance summary for each of the obligated companies including their individual fleet average carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e)Footnote 1 emissions value (referred to as the “compliance value”) and the status of their emission credits.

The CO2e emission standards are company-unique as they are a function of the footprint and the quantity of vehicles offered for sale in a given model year. These footprint-based target values are aligned with those of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and are progressively more stringent over the 2012 through 2026 model yearsFootnote 2 . Since the Canadian greenhouse gas standards were introduced prior to the U.S. EPA program, the 2011 model year target values in Canada were instead based on the U.S. Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) levels. Since the introduction of the regulations, the fleet average standards for passenger automobiles and for light trucks have become more stringent by 36.4% and 25.9% respectively.

A company’s performance relative to its standard is determined through its sales weighted fleet average emissions performance for the given model year for its new passenger automobile and light truck offerings, expressed in grams per mile of CO2e based on standardized emissions tests simulating city and highway driving cycles. The emissions measured during these test procedures include CO2 and other carbon related combustion products, namely carbon monoxide (CO) and hydrocarbons (HC). This ensures that all carbon containing exhaust emissions are also recognized. These regulations also set limits for the release of other greenhouse gases such as methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O). A number of mechanisms are incorporated into the regulations which provide companies with a series of options to achieve the applicable greenhouse gas standards while incentivizing the deployment of new greenhouse gas reducing technologies. These mechanisms include allowances for vehicle improvements and complementary innovative technologies that contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in ways that are not directly measured during standard tailpipe emissions testing. Flexibility mechanisms include recognition of the emission benefits of dual-fuel capability, electrification and other technologies that contribute to improved greenhouse gas performance. The regulations also include an emission credit system that allows companies to generate emission credits if their fleet average performance is superior to the standard. Emission credits can be accumulated for future use to offset emission deficits (a deficit is incurred if a company’s fleet performance is above their applicable standard). This allows companies to maintain regulatory compliance as their product mix and demands change year to year and through product cycles which may result in fleet average performance above the standard. Companies that generate emission credits may transfer those credits to other companies. Emission credits generated for performance superior to the standard have a lifespan which is determined based on the model year in which they were generated, whereas deficits generated for performance worse than the standard must be offset within 3 years from the model year in which the deficit was incurred. Compliance to the regulations and the corresponding tracking of credits is monitored, in part, through the annual reports and companies are required to maintain all relevant records relating to their vehicle greenhouse gas emissions performance.

The regulations have been instrumental in influencing companies to make progressive improvements to the efficiency and GHG reductions of their new light duty vehicle fleets available in Canada since the 2011 model year. These regulations have pushed companies to meet these engineering challenges through the introduction of a wide variety of new and innovative technologies. To meet the regulatory standards, companies have not only continued to improve upon conventional internal combustion engine technologies but have incorporated an array of innovative approaches such as active aerodynamics, advanced materials for light-weighting, solar reflective paint, high efficiency lighting and more. Companies have also been driven to increase the availability of advanced technology vehicles with lower to zero GHG emissions, which consist of battery electric vehicles (BEV), plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV), and fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEV), collectively as zero emission vehicles (ZEVs), and natural gas vehicles (NGVs) to meet the regulatory targets. In fact, since the introduction of the regulation the production volume of ZEVs reached 4.0% for the 2020 model year. Specifically, battery electric vehicles has increased from 198 to 38 455 representing 1.4% of the total fleet in 2020, and the production volume of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles has increased from zero to 20 381 representing 2.6% of the total fleet in 2020. The sum of these developments within the Canadian vehicle fleets have resulted in measureable improvements to GHG emissions performance, and ZEVs are expected to continue to gain market share as standards continue to increase in stringency.

Results from regulatory reports indicate that companies continue to be in compliance through the 2020 model year. The average compliance value for the fleet of new passenger automobiles has decreased from 255 g/mi to 178 g/mi since the introduction of the regulation, representing a 30.2% reduction. The compliance value for light trucks decreased by 20.3%, from 349 g/mi to 278 g/mi since the introduction of the regulation. All companies remained in compliance with the regulations by either meeting their applicable standard, through the use of their own accumulated emission credits or by purchasing credits from other companies. To date, companies have generated a total of approximately 93.1 million credits, of which, approximately 27.4 million remain available for future use. A total of 27.9 million credits have been used to offset emission deficits by individual companies over the 2011 to 2020 model years, of which 3.6 million credits were used to offset deficits accrued in the 2020 model year. The remaining 37.8 million credits have expired.

1. Purpose of the report

The purpose of this report is to provide company specific results of the fleet average greenhouse gas emission performance of the Canadian fleets of passenger automobiles (PA) and of light trucks (LT)Footnote 3 . Building on the previous GHG emissions performance report for the 2019 model year, this report focuses on the GHG emissions performance of the last 4 model years. The results presented herein are based on data submitted by companies in their annual regulatory compliance reports, pursuant to the Passenger Automobile and Light Truck Greenhouse Gas Emission Regulations, which have undergone a thorough review by Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC). The report assists with identifying trends in the Canadian automotive industry including the adoption and emergence of technologies that have the potential to reduce GHG emissions. It also serves to describe emission credit trading under the regulations.

2. Overview of the regulations

In October 2010, the Government of Canada published the Passenger Automobile and Light Truck Greenhouse Gas Emission RegulationsFootnote 4  (regulations) under CEPA. This was the first Government of Canada’s first regulation targeting GHG’s, and was a major milestone for ECCC towards addressing GHG emissions from the Canadian transportation sector. The regulations and the subsequent amendments introduced progressively more stringent GHG emission targets for new light-duty vehicles of model years 2011 to 2026 in alignment with the U.S. national standards, thereby establishing a common North American approach.

The department monitors compliance with the fleet average requirements through annual reports submitted pursuant to the regulations. These reports are used to establish each company’s fleet average GHG performance and the applicable standard for both its passenger automobile and light truck fleetsFootnote 5 . As part of the regulatory compliance mechanism, companies may accrue emission credits or deficits, depending on their fleet performance relative to the standard. These reports also enable the department to track emission credit balances and transfers. There are in excess of 10 000 data elements collected each reporting cycle. ECCC has a process to review and validate company data and the results may be subject to change should new information become available.

Companies that submitted a report pursuant to the regulations during 2017 to 2020 model years are listed in Table 1.

Table 1: model year report submission status

Manufacturer

Common Name

2017

2018

2019

2020

Aston Martin Lagonda Ltd.

Aston Martin

LVMa

LVMa

LVMa

LVMa

BMW Canada Inc.

BMW

*

*

*

*

BYD Canada Company Limited

BYD

--

--

--

*

FCA Canada Inc.

FCA

*

*

*

*

Ferrari North America Inc.

Ferrari

LVMa

LVMa

LVMa

LVMa

Ford Motor Company of Canada Ltd.

Ford

*

*

*

*

General Motors of Canada Company

GM

*

*

*

*

Honda Canada Inc.

Honda

*

*

*

*

Hyundai Auto Canada Corp.

Hyundai

*

*

*

*

Jaguar Land Rover Canada ULC

JLR

*

*

*

*

Kia Canada Inc.

Kia

*

*

*

*

Lotus Cars Ltd.

Lotus

LVMa

LVMa

LVMa

LVMa

Maserati North America Inc.

Maserati

LVMa

LVMa

*

*

Mazda Canada Inc.

Mazda

*

*

*

*

McLaren Automotive Limited

McLaren

LVMa

LVMa

LVMa

LVMa

Mercedes-Benz Canada Inc.

Mercedes

*

*

*

*

Mitsubishi Motor Sales of Canada, Inc.

Mitsubishi

*

*

*

*

Nissan Canada Inc.

Nissan

*

*

*

*

Pagani Automobili SPA, Italy

Pagani

LVMa

LVMa

LVMa

LVMa

Porsche Cars Canada, Ltd.

Porsche

*

*

*

*

Subaru Canada Inc.

Subaru

*

*

*

*

Tesla Motors, Inc.

Tesla

*

*

*

*

Toyota Canada, Inc.

Toyota

*

*

*

*

Volkswagen Group Canada, Inc.

Volkswagen

*

*

*

*

Volvo Cars of Canada Corp.

Volvo

*

*

*

*

*Indicates that a report has been submitted

a Beginning with the 2012 model year, low volume manufacturers (LVM) may elect to exempt themselves from CO2e standards. This exemption does not have a noticeable impact on fleet-wide performance given the small volume of vehicles.

2.1. CO2e emission standards

The applicable standards for a given model year are based on prescribed carbon dioxide (CO2e) emission “target values” that are a function of the “footprint” (Figure 1) and quantity of the vehicles in each company’s fleet of passenger automobiles and light trucks offered for saleFootnote 6  to the first retail purchaserFootnote 7. These standards are performance-based in that they establish a maximum amount of CO2e on a gram per mile basis. This progressively more stringent approach allows companies to choose from an ever changing array of the most cost-effective technologies to achieve compliance and reduce emissions, rather than requiring a particular technology.


Figure 1. vehicle footprint

Figure 1 long description

Figure 1 is a graphic showing the front and side profiles of a vehicle. The graphic is used to depict the “Track Width” as the lateral distance between the centrelines of the front and rear base tires, and the “Wheelbase” as the longitudinal distance between the front and rear wheel centrelines.


Footprint =  front track width + rear track width 2  x wheelbase

The regulations prescribe progressively more stringent target values for a given footprint size over the 2011 through 2026 model yearsFootnote 8 . Figures 2 and 3 illustrate the target values for passenger automobiles and light trucks, respectively.


Figure 2. 2011 to 2026 targets for passenger automobiles

Figure 2. 2011 to 2026 targets for passenger automobiles
Figure 2 long description

Figure 2 is a graph depicting the growing stringency of emission target values that apply to passenger automobiles over a range of footprints for the 2011, 2016, and 2025 model years.

The 2011 model year prescribes a target value of 285 g/mile for footprints up to approximately 45 ft2. The target gradually increases for vehicles with a footprint greater than approximately 46 ft2, and levels off at 370 g/mile for footprints greater than approximately 56ft2.

The 2016 model year prescribes a target value of 206 g/mile for footprints up to 41 ft2. The target increases linearly for vehicles with a footprint between 41 ft2, and 56ft2 and levels off at 277 g/mile for footprints greater than 56ft2.

The 2025 model year prescribes a target value of 151 g/mile for footprints up to 41 ft2. The target increases linearly for vehicles with a footprint between 41 ft2, and 56ft2 and levels off at 207 g/mile for footprints greater than 56ft2.


Figure 3. 2011 to 2026 targets for light trucks 2011

Figure 3. 2011 to 2026 targets for light trucks 2011
Figure 3 long description

Figure 3 is a graph depicting the growing stringency of emission target values that apply to light trucks over a range of footprints for the 2011, 2016, and 2025 model years.

The 2011 model year prescribes a target value of 330g/mile for footprints up to approximately 46 ft2. The target gradually increases from for vehicles with a footprint greater than approximately 46 ft2, and levels off at 421 g/mile for footprints greater than approximately 66ft2.

The 2016 model year prescribes a target value of 247g/mile for footprints up to 41 ft2. The target increases linearly for vehicles with a footprint between 41 ft2, and 66ft2 and off at 348 g/mile for footprints greater than 66ft2.

The 2025 model year prescribes a target value of 193g/mile for footprints up to 41 ft2. The target increases linearly for vehicles with a footprint between 41 ft2, and 74ft2 and levels off at 309 g/mile for footprints greater than 74ft2.

As depicted in Figures 2 and 3, the targets for the 2011 model year are unique in that they follow a smooth curve. This is because the 2011 target values were introduced 1 year prior to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) program, and were instead based on the U.S. Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) levels. Accordingly, the regulations considered the consumption of fuel as the basis to establish reasonable approximations of GHG performance for the 2011 model yearFootnote 9 . The CO2e standard was derived using a conversion factor of 8 887 grams of CO/gallon of gasolineFootnote 10  for the 2011 model year only.

For the 2012 and later model years, the CO2e emissions target values are aligned with the U.S. EPA target values.

The overall passenger automobile and light truck fleet average standard that a company must meet is ultimately determined by calculating the sales weighted average of all of the target values using the following formula:

Fleet Average Standard =  (A × B) C

where

A is the CO2e emission target value for each group of passenger automobiles or light trucks having the same emission target;

B is the number of passenger automobiles or light trucks in the group in question; and

C is the total number of passenger automobiles or light trucks in the fleet.

The final company-unique fleet average CO2e standards for the 2017 to 2020 model years are presented in Table 2. These represent the regulatory values that a company’s fleets of passenger automobiles and light trucks must meet.

Table 2. fleet average CO2e standard (g/mi)

Manufacturer

2017 PA

2018 PA

2019 PA

2020 PA

2017 LT

2018 LT

2019 LT

2020 LT

BMW

216

208

196

188

283

274

270

262

BYD

--

--

--

194

--

--

--

--

FCA

234

228

218

206

312

295

301

290

Ford

220

209

202

193

308

310

303

296

GM

218

204

192

181

320

310

298

293

Honda

214

204

193

184

274

261

258

245

Hyundai

216

206

196

184

278

266

258

269

JLR

244

242

219

203

286

286

278

267

Kia

216

204

195

183

277

267

263

253

Maserati

--

--

231

218

--

--

278

269

Mazda

212

202

189

183

267

256

249

238

Mercedes

225

213

205

195

287

274

263

263

Mitsubishi

203

195

183

176

253

242

234

226

Nissan

216

205

191

190

282

273

261

245

Porsche

215

224

194

198

285

284

277

266

Subaru

210

199

189

180

257

245

241

235

Tesla

254

226

211

202

--

292

284

275

Toyota

212

201

192

183

286

273

265

261

Volkswagen

211

201

190

183

273

269

264

246

Volvo

242

245

222

212

288

291

274

263

Fleet Average

216

205

194

185

298

288

282

272

A company’s average footprint (Table 3) is one of the factors in establishing their CO2e standards. Companies are responsible for meeting their own unique fleet average CO2e standard based on the size of vehicles they produce. However, the regulations provide additional compliance flexibilities for intermediate sized companies to make use of an alternative schedule of annual emission standards for the 2017 to 2020 model years (discussed in section 2.3.7.).

Table 3. average footprint for the 2017 to 2020 model years (sq. ft.)

Manufacturer

2017 PA

2018 PA

2019 PA

2020 PA

2017 LT

2018 LT

2019 LT

2020 LT

BMW

45.6

46.3

45.9

46.3

50.4

50.8

51.9

52

BYD

--

--

--

47.9

--

--

--

--

FCA

49.3

50.9

51.2

50.9

57.8

56.1

59.0

58.3

Ford

46.7

46.6

47.4

47.7

58.3

61.3

60.7

60.2

GM

45.8

45.2

44.3

43.5

60.9

60.2

59.7

60.1

Honda

45.1

45.4

45.2

45.2

48.6

48.2

49.2

48.3

Hyundai

45.8

45.9

45.9

45.5

49.2

49.2

49.2

53.5

JLR

48.9

48.7

48.8

47.8

50.8

50.7

51.7

51.0

Kia

45.7

45.3

45.7

45.3

49.2

49.3

50.3

50.0

Maserati

--

--

54.3

53.8

--

--

53.4

53.4

Mazda

44.8

44.8

44.2

45

47.0

47.3

47.3

46.8

Mercedes

47.4

47.2

48.0

48.1

51.3

50.9

50.3

52.1

Mitsubishi

41.8

42.3

41.7

42.7

44.0

44.2

44.1

44.2

Nissan

45.4

45.5

44.6

45.8

50.4

50.8

49.9

48.2

Porsche

42.3

44.4

42.8

46.6

50.5

50.3

51.6

51.0

Subaru

44.5

44.4

44.4

44.4

44.8

44.9

45.7

46.1

Tesla

54.2

50.4

49.6

49.8

--

54.8

54.8

54.8

Toyota

44.8

44.7

44.9

45.1

51.7

51.1

50.9

51.7

Volkswagen

44.5

44.7

44.6

45.1

48.4

50.0

50.4

48.5

Volvo

48.7

49.2

49.7

49.9

51.2

52.1

50.9

50.4

Fleet Average

45.5

45.5

45.3

45.6

54.9

54.8

55.1

54.5

2.2. Carbon related exhaust emissions

The fleet average carbon-related exhaust emission (CREE) value is the sales-weighted average performance of a company in a given model year for its passenger automobile and light truck fleets, expressed in grams of CO2e per mile. The CREE value is a single number that represents the average carbon exhaust emissions from a company’s total fleets of passenger automobiles and light trucks. The emission values to calculate a CREE value are measured using 2 emissions test procedures; the Federal Test Procedure (FTP) and the Highway Fuel Economy Test (HFET). The FTP and HFET tests are more commonly referred to as the city and highway tests. These 2 tests ensure that the CREE is measured in a manner that is consistent across the automobile industry. During these tests, manufacturers measure the carbon-related combustion products including carbon dioxide (CO2), carbon monoxide (CO), and hydrocarbons (HC). This ensures that all carbon-containing exhaust emissions that ultimately contribute to the formation of CO2 are recognized.

The CREE for each vehicle model type is calculated based on actual emission constituents (such as CO2, HC, and CO) from that model over the city and highway tests. The 2 test results are then combined based on a 55% city and 45% highway driving distribution. A company’s final CREE value is based on the sales weighted average of the combined test results for each model, and the number of vehicles manufactured or imported into Canada for the purpose of sale.

The calculated fleet average CREE values achieved by companies over the 2017 to 2020 model years are presented in Table 4.

Table 4. fleet average carbon related exhaust emissions (g/mi)

Manufacturer

2017 PA

2018 PA

2019 PA

2020 PA

2017 LT

2018 LT

2019 LT

2020 LT

BMW

249

259

250

249

309

300

292

295

BYD

--

--

--

0

--

--

--

--

FCA

310

314

311

324

373

360

368

357

Ford

260

241

249

204

349

347

341

325

GM

209

191

179

152

362

349

349

339

Honda

205

202

207

207

267

255

264

257

Hyundai

246

241

222

211

340

337

342

325

JLR

299

277

330

291

338

316

304

315

Kia

233

223

203

176

322

322

315

310

Maserati

--

--

376

370

--

--

421

410

Mazda

217

215

223

226

266

259

266

260

Mercedes

275

264

275

269

329

316

320

308

Mitsubishi

213

151

162

155

271

264

261

261

Nissan

236

204

202

214

293

294

288

265

Porsche

294

291

322

147

319

318

317

320

Subaru

251

254

243

250

248

242

241

235

TeslaFootnote 11

0

0

0

0

--

0

0

0

Toyota

216

205

200

176

315

315

290

289

Volkswagen

237

255

221

193

321

296

292

300

Volvo

265

257

262

241

267

267

272

267

Fleet Average

232

221

211

195

334

323

320

309

2.3. Compliance flexibilities

The regulations provide various compliance flexibilities that reduce the compliance burden on low and intermediate volume companies, to encourage the introduction of advanced technologies which reduce GHG emissions, and to account for innovative technologies whose impacts are not easily measured during standard emissions tests. The regulations also recognize the GHG reduction potential of vehicles capable of operating on fuels produced from renewable sources (such as ethanol). The aforementioned compliance flexibilities are discussed in the following sub-sections.

2.3.1. Allowances for reduction in refrigerant leakage (E)

Refrigerants currently used by air conditioner (AC) systems have a global warming potentialFootnote 12  (GWP) that is much higher than CO2. Consequently, the release of these refrigerants into the environment has a more significant impact on the formation of greenhouse gases than an equal amount of CO2. The regulations include provisions which recognize the reduced GHG emissions from improved AC systems designed to minimize refrigerant leakage into the environment. Based on the performance of the AC system components, manufacturers can calculate a total annual refrigerant leakage rate for an AC system which, in combination with the type of refrigerant, determines the CO2e leakage reduction in grams per mile (g/mi) for each of their air conditioning systems. The maximum allowance value that can be generated for an improved air conditioning system in a passenger automobile is 12.6 g/mi for systems using traditional HFC-134a refrigerant, and 13.8 g/mi for systems using refrigerant with a lower GWP. These maximum allowance values for air conditioning systems equipped in light trucks is 15.6 g/mi and 17.2 g/mi, respectively.

The total fleet average allowance for reduction in AC refrigerant leakage is calculated using the following formula:

E (A × B) C

where

A is the CO2e leakage reduction for each of the air conditioning systems in the fleet that incorporates those technologies;

B is the total number of vehicles in the fleet equipped with the air conditioning system; and

C is the total number of vehicles in the fleet.

Table 5 shows the leakage allowances in g/mi for the 2017 to 2020 model years.

Table 5. allowance for reduction in AC refrigerant leakage (g/mi)

Manufacturer

2017 PA

2018 PA

2019 PA

2020 PA

2017 LT

2018 LT

2019 LT

2020 LT

BMW

13.7

13.6

13.5

13.6

16.9

16.9

17.2

17.2

BYD

--

--

--

0.0

--

--

--

--

FCA

13.6

13.8

13.7

13.8

14.8

15.8

15.6

15.7

Ford

11.7

12.8

12.8

13.6

14.4

15.5

16.3

17.1

GM

8.5

12.3

12.3

12.9

15.1

16.7

16.4

16.7

Honda

9.7

11.6

12.7

12.8

13.5

15.6

16.5

16.5

Hyundai

2.8

5.4

10.6

9.0

1.6

2.2

1.7

4.3

JLR

13.8

13.8

13.7

13.8

17.2

17.2

17.2

17.2

Kia

5.4

8.2

12.7

13.3

8.6

7.9

15.4

16.3

Maserati

--

--

5.9

13.8

--

--

7.7

17.2

Mazda

0.0

2.7

1.5

1.9

0.0

4.3

5.0

5.0

Mercedes

5.8

5.9

6.2

6.2

7.2

7.6

7.4

8.4

Mitsubishi

2.7

9.8

7.8

13.5

6.1

13.1

13.5

16.7

Nissan

4.2

6.2

8.6

--

6.8

6.9

7.4

--

Porsche

13.7

13.5

12.6

--

12.1

14.4

6.5

--

Subaru

1.9

1.4

1.4

7.9

5.8

4.5

9.1

14.9

Tesla

0.0

5.7

12.7

13.7

--

5.2

11.2

15.4

Toyota

3.3

5.2

8.1

10.8

6.5

7.5

11.1

12.8

Volkswagen

4.7

12.3

13.2

10.5

7.1

15.6

15.7

13.0

Volvo

5.3

5.1

4.9

13.2

6.5

6.9

7.4

16.6

Fleet Average

6.0

8.4

10.3

9.7

12.0

13.3

14.2

14.3

2.3.2. Allowances for improvements in air conditioning efficiency (F)

Improvements to the efficiency of vehicle air conditioning systems can result in significant reductions in CO2e emissions that are not directly measurable during standard emissions test procedures. Implementing specific technologies (for example, more efficient compressors, motors, fans etc.) can reduce the amount of engine power required to operate the air conditioning system which, in turn, reduces the quantity of fuel that is consumed and converted into CO2. The regulations contain provisions which recognize the reduced GHG emissions from AC systems with improved efficiency. Manufacturers can claim these allowances by either submitting proof of U.S. EPA approval for the efficiency-improving technology, or by selecting, during reporting, the applicable technologies from a pre-approved menu (Appendix A-2) that have an assigned value. These allowance values are aligned with those established by the U.S. EPA and may be applied cumulatively to an AC system. For the 2017 and later model years, the maximum allowance value for improvements in air conditioning efficiency is 5.0 g/mi for passenger automobiles and 7.2 g/mi for light trucks.

Once the air conditioning efficiency allowances are determined for each AC system, the overall allowance applicable to a company’s fleet of vehicles is determined with the following formula:

F (A × B) C

where

A is the air conditioning efficiency allowance for each of the air conditioning systems in the fleet that incorporate those technologies

B is the total number of vehicles in the fleet equipped with the air conditioning system; and

C is the total number of vehicles in the fleet.

Table 6 shows the fleet average allowance values in g/mi for the 2017 to 2020 model years.

Table 6. allowance for improvements in AC system efficiency (g/mi)

Manufacturer

2017 PA

2018 PA

2019 PA

2020 PA

2017 LT

2018 LT

2019 LT

2020 LT

BMW

4.8

4.9

4.9

4.9

5.5

6.3

7.0

7.0

BYD

--

--

--

0.0

--

--

--

--

FCA

4.8

4.7

4.7

4.8

5.6

5.9

5.8

6.2

Ford

3.4

4.0

4.3

4.6

6.1

6.8

6.7

6.6

GM

3.9

4.3

4.0

3.9

6.6

6.9

6.7

6.7

Honda

3.3

3.6

3.7

3.6

5.5

5.8

6.3

5.2

Hyundai

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.1

5.4

5.2

5.4

4.0

JLR

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

7.2

7.2

7.2

7.2

Kia

3.1

3.2

3.6

3.3

5.2

5.2

5.4

4.2

Maserati

--

--

4.9

5.0

--

--

7.2

7.2

Mazda

0.0

0.0

0.0

1.4

0.0

0.0

0.0

1.1

Mercedes

4.9

5.0

5.0

5.0

7.1

7.1

5.8

7.1

Mitsubishi

0.4

2.2

1.9

4.6

2.9

3.0

3.0

6.0

Nissan

3.2

3.9

4.0

--

3.4

4.0

4.2

--

Porsche

5.0

5.0

5.0

--

7.2

7.2

7.2

--

Subaru

3.0

3.1

3.0

3.6

4.5

4.6

5.8

6.6

Tesla

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

--

7.2

7.2

7.2

Toyota

4.4

4.2

4.6

4.7

6.9

6.0

6.4

6.3

Volkswagen

4.1

4.8

4.9

3.8

5.9

7.1

7.1

5.5

Volvo

4.2

4.0

4.8

4.7

5.4

6.2

6.2

6.3

Fleet Average

3.5

3.7

3.9

3.4

5.7

6.1

6.0

5.8

2.3.3. Allowances for the use of innovative technologies (G)

The regulations recognize that a variety of innovative technologies that have the potential to reduce CO2e emissions cannot be measured during standard emissions test procedures. Innovative technologies can range from advanced thermal controls that reduce operator reliance on engine driven heating/cooling systems, to solar panels which can charge the battery of an electrified vehicle. Starting with the 2014 model year, companies were given the option to select applicable technologies from a menu of pre-set allowance values. This menu includes allowances for the following systems:

Companies can report any combination of innovative technologies from this menu; however, the total allowance value for a fleet of passenger automobiles or light trucks is capped at 10 g/mi.

The total fleet average allowance for the use of innovative technologies is calculated using the following formula:

G (A × B) C

where

A is the allowance for each of those innovative technologies incorporated into the fleet;

B is the total number of vehicles in the fleet equipped with the innovative technology; and

C is the total number of vehicles in the fleet.

Table 7 summarizes the total innovative technology allowances reported by companies for model years 2017 to 2020.

Table 7. allowance for the use of innovative technologies (g/mi)

Manufacturer

2017 PA

2018 PA

2019 PA

2020 PA

2017 LT

2018 LT

2019 LT

2020 LT

BMW

3.2

3.6

4.4

7.3

6.7

8.1

10.8

13.3

BYD

--

--

--

0.0

--

--

--

--

FCA

3.7

4.3

4.8

5.2

8.1

10.4

11.6

10.6

Ford

5.3

5.5

6.3

7.1

11.4

13.4

14.9

16.2

GM

5.4

7.1

6.0

6.0

7.8

8.9

10.0

12.1

Honda

3.9

4.1

4.1

4.4

8.3

8.5

9.4

12.7

Hyundai

1.5

2.4

2.1

4.0

5.6

5.7

5.3

8.5

JLR

4.2

6.9

5.5

6.8

7.4

12.4

12.2

12.9

Kia

1.9

2.0

2.9

4.7

3.4

4.5

4.7

7.5

Maserati

--

--

6.0

7.0

--

--

13.1

13.8

Mazda

0.0

1.4

1.9

2.4

0.0

4.6

5.1

6.6

Mercedes

1.0

3.9

1.5

1.4

2.1

3.3

2.5

2.9

Mitsubishi

0.0

2.4

1.7

3.2

0.0

1.4

1.4

4.9

Nissan

2.0

2.2

2.0

--

5.1

6.0

5.9

--

Porsche

2.7

3.2

2.0

--

3.5

3.1

9.8

--

Subaru

0.8

2.0

2.1

2.3

0.7

4.9

6.2

8.5

Tesla

0.0

4.8

4.6

4.6

--

8.3

8.3

8.3

Toyota

3.7

4.1

4.4

5.0

7.1

6.8

8.4

8.6

Volkswagen

3.8

4.7

5.1

5.6

6.6

10.6

11.6

11.9

Volvo

3.6

6.7

4.7

5.0

5.7

11.4

8.4

8.5

Fleet Average

3.0

3.2

3.6

4.1

7.6

9.2

10.2

10.7

2.3.4. Allowance for certain full-size pick-up trucks

The 2017 model year introduced additional allowances which companies may elect to claim in respect of their full-sized pick-up trucks. These new flexibilities recognize both the hybridization and emission reduction of vehicles that can serve some utility function in the Canadian marketplace.

2.3.4.1. Allowance for the use of hybrid technologies on full-size pick-up trucks

Companies may elect to calculate an allowance associated with the presence of hybrid technology on full-size pick-up trucks if that technology is present on the prescribed percentage of that company’s fleet of full-size pick-up trucks for that model year. The penetration rate depends on the model year in question and whether the vehicles employ “mild” or “strong” hybrid electric technology. “Mild hybrid electric technology” means a technology that has start/stop capability and regenerative braking capability, where the recaptured braking energy is between 15% and 65% of the total braking energy. “Strong hybrid electric technology” means a technology that has start/stop capability and regenerative braking capability, where the recaptured braking energy is more than 65% of the total braking energy.

2.3.4.2. Allowance for full-size pick-up trucks that achieve a significant emission reduction below the applicable target

Companies may claim an allowance for the models of full-size pick-up trucks that have a CREE that is between 80% and 85% of its CO2e emission target value and comprise a prescribed percentage of the fleet. The regulations also allow companies to claim an allowance for full-size pick-up trucks that have a CREE that is less than or equal to 80% of its CO2e target value and comprise at least 10% of that company’s full-size pick-up truck fleet for model years 2017 to 2025.

A company can only use one of the allowances for full-size pick-up trucks for a given vehicle. The total fleet average allowance for certain full-size pick-up trucks is calculated using the following formula:

H = Σ ( A H × B H ) + Σ ( A R × B R ) C

where

AH is the allowance for the use of hybrid electric technologies;

BH is the number of full-size pick-up trucks in the fleet that are equipped with hybrid electric technologies;

AR is the allowance for full-size pick-up trucks that achieve a certain carbon-related exhaust emission value;

BR is the number of full-size pick-up trucks in the fleet that achieve a certain carbon-related exhaust emission value; and

C is the total number of vehicles in the fleet.

As of the 2020 model year no companies made use of the allowance for certain full-size pick-up trucks.

2.3.5. Advanced technology vehicles

The regulations offer a number of additional provisions to encourage the deployment of “advanced technology vehicles” (ATVs) which consist of battery electric vehicles (BEV), plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV), fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEV) and natural gas vehicles. BEVs are completely powered by electrical energy stored in a battery, and hence produce no tailpipe emissions. PHEVs incorporate an electrical powertrain which enables them to be charged with electricity to operate solely on electrical power, but also contain an internal combustion engine to extend the operating range of the vehicle. FCEVs are propelled solely by an electric motor where the energy for the motor is supplied by an electrochemical cell that produces electricity without combustion. When calculating a CREE, the regulations allow companies to report 0 g/mi for electric vehicles (for example, BEVs), fuel cell vehicles, and the electric portion of plug-in hybrids (when PHEVs operate as electric vehicles). Additionally, companies may multiply the number of ATVs in their fleet by a specified factor to increase the impact that they have on a company’s overall fleet average. The applicable multiplying factors and the associated model years can be found in Table 8.

Table 8. multiplying factors for advanced technology vehicles

Model year

BEV and FCEV multiplier

PHEV multiplier

Natural gas

2011 to 2016

1.2

1.2

1.2

2017

2.5

2.1

1.6

2018

2.5

2.1

1.6

2019

2.5

2.1

1.6

2020

2.25

1.95

1.45

2021

2.0

1.8

1.3

2022 to 2025

1.5

1.3

1.0


The production volumes of BEVs and PHEVs sold by model year are presented in Tables 9 and 10.

Table 9. production volumes of BEVs by model year

Manufacturer

2017
PA

2018
PA

2019
PA

2020
PA

2017
LT

2018
LT

2019
LT

2020
LT

BMW

96

70

69

158

--

--

--

--

BYD

--

--

--

25

--

--

--

--

FCA

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

Ford

522

682

--

--

--

--

--

--

GM

2 133

1 474

5 445

5 236

--

--

--

--

Honda

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

Hyundai

655

394

4 584

5 573

--

--

--

--

JLR

--

--

365

--

--

--

365

139

Kia

477

964

1 186

3 677

--

--

--

--

Mazda

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

Mercedes

106

442

141

--

--

--

--

--

Mitsubishi

85

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

Nissan

884

4 440

4 340

1 848

--

--

--

--

Porsche

--

--

--

1 039

--

--

--

--

Subaru

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

Tesla

3 483

8 511

12 502

18 483

--

450

862

328

Toyota

--

50

196

22

--

--

--

--

Volkswagen

705

808

1 024

1 929

--

--

918

23

Volvo

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

Total

9 146

17 835

29 487

37 990

0

450

2145

490

Table 10. production volumes of PHEVs by model year

Manufacturer

2017 PA

2018 PA

2019 PA

2020 PA

2017 LT

2018 LT

2019 LT

2020 LT

BMW

528

481

656

277

184

566

--

46

BYD

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

FCA

--

--

--

--

739

1 578

600

1 026

Ford

1 991

2 106

1 513

1 906

--

--

--

208

GM

5 728

5 400

2 675

--

--

--

--

--

Honda

--

850

910

747

--

--

--

--

Hyundai

128

1 024

1 622

1 396

--

--

--

--

JLR

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

207

Kia

110

45

1 150

1 361

--

--

--

--

Mazda

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

Mercedes

31

330

--

9

45

--

147

59

Mitsubishi

--

5 380

2 088

2 456

--

--

--

--

Nissan

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

Porsche

--

344

90

73

417

348

325

320

Subaru

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

413

Tesla

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

Toyota

1 164

3 606

1 600

8 659

--

--

--

--

Volkswagen

483

609

--

--

--

--

--

444

Volvo

--

41

3

86

615

497

541

688

Total

10 163

20 216

12 317

16 970

2 000

2 989

1 613

3 411

2.3.6. Provisions for small volume companies for 2012 and later model years

The regulations include provisions enabling smaller companies that may have limited product offerings to opt out of complying with the CO2e standards (non application of the standards respecting CO2 equivalent emissionsFootnote 13 ) for 2012 and subsequent model years. This exemption is available to companies that:

  1. have manufactured or imported less than 750 passenger automobiles and light trucks for either the 2008 or 2009 model years

  2. have manufactured or imported for sale a running average of less than 750 vehicles for the 3 model years prior to the model year being exempted

  3. submit a small volume declaration to ECCC.

A small volume company must submit an annual report to obtain credits. These companies are still required to comply with the standards for nitrous oxide and methane (refer to section 2.5 for further details).

Table 11 summarizes the production volumes reported by small volume companies. This flexibility was claimed by 6 small volume companies for the 2012 and later model years.

Table 11. production volumes for small volume manufacturers by model year

Manufacturer

2017

2018

2019

2020

Aston Martin

82

44

148

741

Ferrari

275

247

364

370

Maserati

1 369

1 000

--

--

McLaren

112

220

195

157

Lotus

13

12

0

15

Pagani

0

0

0


Total

1 851

1 523

707

1283

2.3.7. Flexibilities for intermediate sized companies

The regulations included an option for intermediate sized companiesFootnote 14  to meet an alternative less stringent standard between the 2012 to 2016 model years inclusive. This provision was intended to provide intermediate sized companies that have a less varied product line additional time to transition to the more stringent standards.

Starting with the 2017 model year, eligible intermediate volume companies are allowed to follow an alternative schedule of annual emission standards for model years 2017 to 2020, as shown in Table 12. As of model year 2021, these companies will have to comply with the prescribed emission standards for the applicable model year. Any company that elects to use the alternative schedule will not be permitted to sell any emission credits obtained against these standards to any other regulated company.

Table 12. alternative schedule of fleet average CO2e emission standards
for eligible intermediate volume companies

Model Year

Applicable Fleet Average CO2e Emission Standard

2017

2016

2018

2016

2019

2018

2020

2019

Over the 2017 to 2020 model years, JLR, Porsche, and Volvo made use of the alternative schedule of fleet average emission standards.

2.4. Standards for nitrous oxide and methane

The regulations also limit the release of other GHG’s, such as emissions of methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O). Starting with the 2012 model year, the regulations set standards for N2O and CH4 at 0.01 g/mi and 0.03 g/mi respectively. These standards are intended to cap vehicle N2O and CH4 emissions at levels that are attainable by existing technologies and ensure that levels do not increase with future vehicles. Companies have 3 methods by which they can conform to the standards for N2O and CH4.

The first method allows companies to certify that the N2O and CH4 emissions for all its vehicles of a given model year are below the cap-based standards. This method does not impact the calculation of a company’s CREE.

The second method allows companies to quantify the emissions of N2O and CH4 as an equivalent amount of CO2 and include this in the determination of their overall CREE. Companies using this method must incorporate N2O and CH4 test data into the CREE calculation, while factoring in the higher global warming potential of these 2 gases. This method is not as commonly used as it counts N2O and CH4 emissions even for the portion of a company’s fleet that does not exceed the standard.

The third method allows companies to certify vehicles to alternative N2O and CH4 emissions standards. This method generally offers the greatest flexibility to companies as they are left to establish alternative standards that apply only to those vehicles that would not meet the cap-based value as opposed to impacting the entire fleet. Additionally, companies using this method can comply with standards of N2O and CH4 separately by setting alternative standards for either emission as needed. The g/mi difference between the alternative standard and the cap-based standard that would otherwise apply is used to determine a deficit which must be offset with conventional CO2e emissions credits. The total deficits incurred by the companies that used this method are summarized in Tables 13 and 14.

Table 13. N2O emissions deficits by company for the 2017 to 2020 model years (Mg CO2e)

Manufacturer

2017 PA

2018 PA

2019 PA

2020 PA

2017 LT

2018 LT

2019 LT

2020 LT

BMW

-1 215

-2 284

--

--

-3 276

-3 920

--

--

FCA

--

--

--

-49

-10 957

-23 275

-6 269

-10 333

Ford

-2 124

-715

-847

-10

-47 486

-17 047

-10 562

-713

GM

-645

-1 166

-236

--

-3 114

-6 146

-4 501

-35 225

Hyundai

--

-331

-999

-917

--

--

--

--

JLR

-1 379

-1 999

-62

--

-2 830

-9 638

-3 935

-1 322

Kia

--

-2 211

-1 447

-1 104

--

--

--

--

Mazda

-807

-1 449

-360

-179

-5 436

-4 324

-12 750

-3 439

Nissan

-930

-414

--

--

--

--

--

--

Toyota

-2 219

-1 306

-1 466

-1 267

-3 599

-2 289

-3 490

-8 913

Volkswagen

--

--

--

--

--

--

-300

-120

Fleet Total

-9 319

-11 875

-5 417

-3 526

-76 698

-66 639

-41 807

-60 065

Table 14. CH4emissions deficits by company for the 2017 to 2020 model years (Mg CO2e)

Manufacturer

2017 PA

2018 PA

2019 PA

2020 PA

2017 LT

2018 LT

2019 LT

2020 LT

BMW

-153

-288

--

--

-412

-493

--

--

FCA

-7

-3

-3

-37

-1 296

-3 215

-3 001

-186

Ford

-532

-152

-155

-240

-8 296

-18 801

-13 041

-10 361

GM

-81

-357

-137

-64

-1 791

-1 969

-762

-310

Mazda

-136

-340

-474

-122

-475

-121

-401

0

Volkswagen

-85

-74

-15

-51

--

--

--

--

Fleet Total

-994

-1 214

-784

-514

-12 270

-24 599

-17 205

-10 857

2.5. CO2e emissions value

The fleet average CO2e emissions value,referred to as the “compliance value” is the final average CO2e performance of a company’s fleets of passenger automobiles and of light trucks, reported as CREE, after being adjusted for all available compliance flexibilities, using the following equation:

Compliance value = D-E-F-G-H

where

D is the fleet average carbon-related exhaust emission value for each fleet (section 2.2);

E is the allowance for reduction of air conditioning refrigerant leakage (section 2.3.1);

F is the allowance for improving air conditioning system efficiency (section 2.3.2); and

G is the allowance for the use of innovative technologies that have a measurable CO2e emission reduction (section 2.3.3);

H is the allowance for certain full-size pick-up trucks (section 2.3.4).

A company’s compliance value for its fleet of passenger automobiles and light trucks is what is ultimately compared to its CO2e standard for both aforementioned categories to determine compliance and to establish a company’s emission credit balance. Tables 15 and 16 show both the companies’ compliance and standard values for the passenger automobiles and light truck fleets across the 2017 to 2020 model years.

Table 15. PA compliance and standard values over the 2017 to 2020 model years (g/mi)

Manufacturer

2017
Compliance

2018
Compliance

2019
Compliance

2020
Compliance

2017 Std.

2018 Std.

2019 Std.

2020 Std.

BMW

227

237

227

223

216

208

196

188

BYD

--

--

--

0

--

--

--

194

FCA

288

291

288

300

234

228

218

206

Ford

240

219

226

179

220

209

202

193

GM

191

167

157

129

218

204

192

181

Honda

188

183

187

186

214

204

193

184

Hyundai

238

230

206

195

216

206

196

184

JLR

276

251

306

265

244

242

219

203

Kia

223

210

184

155

216

204

195

183

Maserati

--

--

359

344

--

--

231

218

Mazda

217

211

220

220

212

202

189

183

Mercedes

263

249

262

256

225

213

205

195

Mitsubishi

210

137

151

134

203

195

183

176

Nissan

227

192

187

214

216

205

191

190

Porsche

273

269

302

147

215

224

194

198

Subaru

245

248

237

236

210

199

189

180

TeslaFootnote 15

-5

-16

-22

-23

254

226

211

202

Toyota

205

192

183

156

212

201

192

183

Volkswagen

224

233

198

173

211

201

190

183

Volvo

252

241

248

218

242

245

222

212

Fleet Average

220

205

193

178

216

205

194

185

Table 16. LT compliance and standard values over the 2017 to 2020 model years (g/mi)

Manufacturer

2017
Compliance

2018
Compliance

2019
Compliance

2020
Compliance

2017 Std.

2018 Std.

2019 Std.

2020 Std.

BMW

280

269

257

258

283

274

270

262

BYD

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

FCA

345

328

335

325

312

295

301

290

Ford

317

311

303

285

308

310

303

296

GM

333

317

316

304

320

310

298

293

Honda

240

225

232

223

274

261

258

245

Hyundai

327

324

330

308

278

266

258

269

JLR

306

279

267

278

286

286

278

267

Kia

305

304

290

282

277

267

263

253

Maserati

--

--

393

372

--

--

278

269

Mazda

266

250

256

247

267

256

249

238

Mercedes

313

298

304

290

287

274

263

263

Mitsubishi

262

247

243

233

253

242

234

226

Nissan

278

277

271

265

282

273

261

245

Porsche

296

293

294

320

285

284

277

266

Subaru

237

228

220

205

257

245

241

235

Tesla

--

-21

-27

-31

--

292

284

275

Toyota

295

295

264

261

286

273

265

261

Volkswagen

301

263

258

270

273

269

264

246

Volvo

249

243

250

236

288

291

274

263

Fleet Average

309

294

290

278

298

288

282

272

Figures 4 and 5 provide a graphical representation of the role that compliance flexibilities play in arriving at a company’s overall compliance status for their 2020 model year passenger automobile and light truck fleets. The orange line on the top of the bar indicates a company’s fleet average CREE. The wide red line represents the fleet average standard and the wide dark blue line represents the fleet average compliance value (accounting for compliance flexibilities). The bars show the extent to which companies incorporate the previously described compliance flexibilities into their products to achieve their fleet average compliance value. Figures showing this information for prior model years are located in the appendix.

Figure 4. 2020 passenger automobile compliance status with offsets

Figure 4. 2020 Passenger automobile compliance status with offsets
Figure 4 long description

Figure 4 provides a graphical representation of the role that compliance flexibilities play in arriving at a company’s overall compliance status for their 2020 model year passenger automobile fleet.

Manufacturer

Fleet average carbon related exhaust emissions value

Fleet average compliance value

Air conditioning

Innovative technologies

Fleet average standard

BMW

249

223

18.5

7.3

188

FCA

324

300

0

5.2

206

Ford

204

179

18.6

7.1

193

GM

152

129

18.2

6.0

181

Honda

207

186

16.8

4.4

184

Hyundai

211

195

16.4

4.0

184

JLR

291

265

12.1

6.8

203

Kia

176

155

18.8

4.7

183

Maserati

370

344

16.6

7.0

218

Mazda

226

220

18.8

2.4

183

Mercedes

269

256

3.3

1.4

195

Mitsubishi

155

134

11.2

3.2

176

Nissan

214

214

18.1

0.0

190

Porsche

147

147

0

0.0

198

Subaru

250

236

0

4.6

180

Toyota

176

156

11.5

5.0

183

VW

193

173

18.7

5.6

183

Volvo

241

218

15.5

5.0

212

Notes

  1. The final compliance value may be lower than the CREE through the application of compliance flexibilities

  2. Tesla has a fleet average standard of 202 g/mi and fleet average compliance value of -23 g/mi. Tesla’s compliance value falls outside of the range of this graph.

  3. BYD has a fleet average standard of 194 g/mi and fleet average compliance value of 0 g/mi. BYD’s compliance value falls outside of the range of this graph.

Figure 5. 2020 light truck compliance status with offsets

Figure 5. 2020 Light truck compliance status with offsets
Figure 5 long description

Figure 5 provides a graphical representation of the role that compliance flexibilities play in arriving at a company’s overall compliance status for their 2020 model year light truck fleet.

Manufacturer

Fleet average carbon related exhaust emissions value

Fleet average compliance value

Air conditioning

Innovative technologies

Fleet average standard

BMW

295

258

24.2

13.3

262

FCA

357

325

0

10.6

290

Ford

325

285

21.9

16.2

296

GM

339

304

23.7

12.1

293

Honda

257

223

23.4

12.7

245

Hyundai

325

308

21.7

8.5

269

JLR

315

278

8.3

12.9

267

Kia

310

282

24.4

7.5

253

Maserati

410

372

20.5

13.8

269

Mazda

260

247

24.4

6.6

238

Mercedes

308

290

6.1

2.9

263

Mitsubishi

261

233

15.5

4.9

226

Nissan

265

265

22.7

--

245

Porsche

320

320

0

--

266

Subaru

235

205

0

8.5

235

Toyota

289

261

21.5

8.6

261

VW

300

270

22.6

11.9

246

Volvo

267

236

19.1

8.5

263

Notes

  1. The final compliance value may be lower than the CREE through the application of compliance flexibilities

  2. Tesla has a fleet average standard of 275 g/mi and fleet average compliance value of -31 g/mi. Tesla’s compliance value falls outside of the range of this graph.

2.6. Technological advancements and penetration rates

As fleet average emission standards have become more stringent, automobile manufacturers have developed a variety of technologies to reduce their CO2e emissions. Some of these technologies seek to reduce or eliminate the use of conventional fuels by introducing electrical powertrain components (BEVs, PHEVs etc.). There also exists a wide range of technologies used by companies to improve the efficiency of transmissions and conventional engines and reduce emissions. Some examples include turbocharged engines, cylinder deactivation, and continuously variable transmissions.

This section, while not an exhaustive list, describes some of the commonly used technology types, along with their corresponding penetration rates in the Canadian new vehicle fleet in given model years.

Turbocharging

Turbochargers improve the power and efficiency of an internal combustion engine by extracting some of the waste heat energy otherwise lost through the exhaust pipe. These exhaust gases are used to drive a turbine that is connected to a compressor which provides greater amounts of air into the combustion chamber (forced induction). This results in greater power than a naturally aspirated engine of similar displacement, and greater efficiency than a naturally aspirated engine of the same power and torque. This permits the use of smaller displacement, lighter engines that can produce the same power as larger, heavier engines without turbocharging. For this reason, it is becoming increasingly common to see turbochargers incorporated into vehicles with smaller engines in order to decrease the overall vehicle weight and improve fuel efficiency by as much as 8%.

Variable valve timing & lift

Engine intake and exhaust valves are responsible for letting air into the cylinders and exhaust gases out. This is an important function since optimal engine performance requires precise “breathing” of the engine. In most conventional engines, the timing and lift of the valves is fixed, and not optimized across all engine speeds. Variable valve timing (VVT) and variable valve lift (VVL) systems adjust the timing, duration and amount that the intake and exhaust valves open based on the engine speed. This optimization of the engines ‘breathing’ improves engine efficiency resulting in reduced fuel consumption and emissions. Variable valve timing and lift technologies can result in efficiency improvements of 3-4%.

Higher geared transmissions (>6 speeds)

Fuel efficiency, and by extension, CO2e emissions coming from a vehicle are dependent on the efficient operation of all of the elements that make up a vehicle. An engine that is operating at speeds outside its most efficient range will result in increased fuel consumption and CO2e emissions. Transmissions with more gear ratios (or speeds), allows the engine to operate at a more efficient speed more frequently. It is becoming increasingly common for vehicles to be equipped with transmissions that have more than 6 gears to keep the engine running at its most efficient operating point and thereby reduce CO2e emissions.

Continuously variable transmissions

Continuously variable transmissions (CVT) are transmissions that, unlike conventional transmission configurations, do not have a fixed number of gears. Because CVT’s do not have a discreet number of shift points, they can operate variably across an infinite number of driving situations to provide the optimal speed ratio between the engine and the wheels. This ensures that the engine is able to operate as efficiently as possible and consume only as much fuel as is required, thereby lowering CO2e emissions. Typically CVT’s can improve fuel efficiency by as much as 4%.

Cylinder deactivation system

Cylinder deactivation systems (CDS) shut off cylinders of a 6 or 8 cylinder engine when only partial power is required (for example, travelling at constant speed, decelerating etc.). The CDS works by deactivating the intake and exhaust valves for a particular set of cylinders in the engine. A CDS can reduce CO2e emissions by improving the overall fuel consumption of the vehicle by 4 to 10%Footnote 16 .

Gasoline direct injection

A proper air-fuel mixture is critical to the performance of any conventional internal combustion engine and has direct impacts on the resulting emissions. Over the past several decades, the most common mechanism for preparing the air-fuel mixture has been “port fuel injection”. In port fuel injection systems, the air and fuel are mixed in the intake manifold and are subsequently drawn into the combustion chamber. By contrast, gasoline direct injection (GDI) systems spray fuel directly into the combustion chamber resulting in a slightly cooler air-fuel mixture allowing for higher compression ratios and improved fuel consumption. GDI systems are also better at precisely timing and metering the fuel delivered to the cylinder, which results in more efficient combustion.

Diesel

Diesel engines provide greater low-end torque and fuel efficiency than a comparably sized gasoline engine. Diesel fuel contains more energy per unit volume than an equivalent amount of gasoline. As a result diesel vehicles can travel, on average, 20 – 35% further per litre of fuel then a gasoline based equivalentFootnote 17  which translates into measurable reductions in CO2e emissions.

The fleet-wide penetration rates of the above described technologies have been provided in Table 17, while data pertaining to company specific usage can be found in Appendices A-3 to A-10.

Table 17. penetration rates of drivetrain technologies in the Canadian fleet

Technology

2017

2018

2019

2020

Turbocharging

27.7%

33.8%

33.2%

32.7%

VVT

96.5%

94.7%

95.4%

94.2%

VVL

16.5%

17.9%

18.2%

18.0%

Higher Geared Transmission

26.9%

39.4%

54.9%

57.4%

CVT

19.9%

20.9%

21.0%

28.4%

Cylinder Deactivation

14.2%

12.5%

16.3%

13.7%

GDI

38.0%

45.6%

42.0%

48.0%

Diesel

0.6%

1.2%

0.5%

0.7%

3. Emission credits

The regulations include a system of emission credits to help meet overall environmental objectives in a manner that provides the regulated industry with compliance flexibility. A company must calculate emission credits and deficits in units of megagrams (Mg) of CO2e for each of its passenger automobile and light truck fleets of a given model year. Credits are weighted based on VKT to account for the greater number of kilometres travelled by light trucks over their lifetime than by passenger automobiles. Using the mathematical formula below, a company will generate credits in a given model year if the result of the calculation is positive or better than the GHG emission standard. If the result of the calculation is negative or below the applicable standard, the company will incur a deficit. A company that incurs an emissions deficit must offset it with an equivalent number of emission credits from past model years or within the subsequent 3 model years.

The total credit balance is determined according to the following formulaFootnote 18 :

C r e d i t s = ( A - B ) × C × D 1 000 000

Where

A is the fleet average standard for passenger automobiles or light trucks;

B is the fleet average compliance value for passenger automobiles or light trucks;

C is the total number of passenger automobiles or light trucks in the fleet; and

D is the is the total assumed mileage of the vehicles in question, namely,

  1. 195 264 miles for a fleet of passenger automobiles, or

  2. 225 865 miles for a fleet of light trucks.

The credits represent the emission reductions that manufacturers have achieved in excess of those required by the regulations. The ability to accumulate credits allows manufacturers to plan and implement an orderly phase-in of emissions control technology through product cycle planning to meet future, more stringent emission standards.

The regulations initially established that credits could be banked to offset a future deficit for up to 5 model years after the year in which the credits were obtained (the credits had a 5-year lifespan). The regulations were amended to extend the lifespan of credits earned during the 2010 to 2016 model years to 2021. Emission credits that can be used to offset a deficit incurred in the 2022 and later model years can only be generated beginning with the 2017 model year and have a 5-year lifespan.

3.1. Credit transfers

Table 18 summarizes transactions by company and the model year in which the credits were generated. There have been more than 15 million credits transferred between companies for either immediate use to offset a deficit or in anticipation of a possible future deficit, including those purchased from the Receiver General. It should be noted that the model year is not necessarily indicative of when a credit transfer occurred. For example, it is possible to transfer credits for the 2012 model year during the 2017 calendar year. As well, the total quantity transferred in or out from a company for a given model year may be the result of multiple transactions.

Table 18. credit transactions (transferred out) by model year (Mg CO2e)

Manufacturer

Early Action

2011 to 2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Total

FCA

0

11 974

--

--

--

--

11 974

Honda

2 138 563

3 069 910

--

--

--

--

5 208 473

Mitsubishi

63 349

--

--

--

--

--

63 349

Nissan

822 292

402 728

--

--

--

--

1 225 020

Suzuki

123 345

30 431

--

--

--

--

153 776

Tesla

2 292

352 079

176 147

433 130

615 273

1 748 770

3 327 691

Toyota

2 623 142

2 680 598

--

--

--

--

5 303 740

Receiver General

--

6 906

--

--

--


6 906

Table 18. credit transactions (transferred in) by model year (Mg CO2e)

Manufacturer

Early Action

2011 to 2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Total

Aston Martin

--

2 626

--

--

--

--

2 626

BMW

--

1 000 000

--

--

--

--

1 000 000

FCA

4 775 129

3 333 018

176 147

433 130

465 273

1 648 770

10 831 467

Ferrari

8 473

--

--

--

--

--

8 473

Ford

342 272

257 728

--

--

--

--

600 000

JLR

143 369

--

--

--

--

--

143 369

Lotus

--

139

--

--

--

--

139

Mercedes

--

1 745 000

--

--

--

--

1 745 000

Maserati

3 740

11 974

--

--

--

--

15 714

Porsche

--

4 141

--

--

150 000

100 000

254 141

Subaru

--

300 000

--

--

--

--

300 000

Volkswagen

500 000

--

--

--

--

--

500 000

3.2. Total credits generated and final status

Table 19 shows the credits earned (or deficits incurred) by all companies over the 2020 model year. This table also shows the total number of credits remaining in each company’s bank, taking into account the credits that have expired, been transferred, or used to offset a deficit.

Since the regulations came into force, companies have generated approximately 93.1 million emission credits (including early action credits and TOF credits), of which approximately 27.4 million credits remain for future use. A total of 27.9 million credits have been used to offset deficits and 37.8 million credits have expired.

Table 19. net credits by model year and current credit balance (Mg CO2e)

Manufacturers

Generated Credit/Deficit in 2020

Current BalanceFootnote 19

BMW

-111 239

651 582

BYD

2121

2121

FCA

-1 138 386

4 353 184

Ford

464 898

1 415 360

GM

-37 430

3 322 554

Honda

337 831

5 504 364

Hyundai

-336 026

1 594 791

JLR

-42 691

--

Kia

77 346

307 449

Maserati

-6 332

--

Mazda

-183 370

2 869 902

Mercedes

-321 720

262 208

Mitsubishi

30 695

784 583

Nissan

-464 865

633 100

Porsche

-8 708

84 423

Subaru

121 948

990 440

Tesla

1 880 526

1 968 642

Toyota

559 334

2 205 754

Volkswagen

-129 343

648 206

Volvo

61 183

282 957

Total

755 772

27 449 553

4. Overall industry performance

The overall fleet average compliance information for passenger automobiles and light trucks is summarized in Tables 20 and 21. Additionally, Figures 6 and 7 illustrate the year over year performance for both passenger automobile and for light truck fleets. These trend lines depict the average standard applicable to the overall fleet (dotted line) and the compliance value (solid line) for each fleet.

Because each manufacturer’s fleet is unique, the data presented in the tables and graphs are based on the sales weighted values for all companies, and are intended to depict the average results.

Table 20. passenger automobile compliance summary for the 2011 to 2020 model years (g/mi)

Model Year

CREE

Innovative Technologies

AC Refrigerant Leakage Reduction

AC Efficiency Improvements

Compliance value

Standard

Compliance margin

2011

258

0.2

2.0

1.3

255

291

36

2012

247

0.5

2.9

2.0

242

263

21

2013

244

0.4

3.0

2.4

238

256

18

2014

241

1.5

3.5

2.6

233

248

15

2015

238

1.8

4.0

2.9

230

238

8

2016

238

2.0

4.7

3.4

228

227

-1

2017

232

3.0

6.0

3.5

220

216

-4

2018

221

3.3

8.4

3.7

205

205

0

2019

211

3.1

10.3

3.9

193

194

1

2020

195

4.1

9.7

3.4

178

185

7


Figure 6. average GHG emissions performance - passenger automobiles

Figure 6. Average GHG emissions performance - passenger automobiles
Figure 6 long description

Figure 6 is a graph presenting the trends in average GHG compliance value and average GHG standards for the passenger automobile fleets over the 2011-2020 model years.

Year

Standard (g/mile)

Compliance value (g/mile)

2011

291

255

2012

263

242

2013

256

238

2014

248

233

2015

238

230

2016

227

228

2017

216

220

2018

205

205

2019

194

193

2020

185

178

Table 21. light truck compliance summary for the 2011 to 2020 model years (g/mi)

Model Year

CREE

Innovative Technologies

AC Refrigerant
Leakage Reduction

AC Efficiency
Improvements

Compliance value

Standard

Compliance margin

2011

356

0.7

5.5

1.3

349

367

18

2012

357

1.2

5.8

1.5

349

350

1

2013

347

1.3

6.2

2.2

337

341

4

2014

337

4.3

6.8

3.1

322

332

10

2015

326

5.2

7.6

3.6

309

313

4

2016

337

5.9

8.5

3.7

319

301

-18

2017

334

7.5

12.0

5.7

309

298

-11

2018

323

8.5

13.3

6.1

295

288

-7

2019

320

9.7

14.2

6.0

290

282

-8

2020

309

10.7

14.3

5.8

278

272

-6


Figure 7. average GHG emissions performance - light trucks

Figure 7. Average GHG emissions performance - light trucks
Figure 7 long description

Figure 7 is a graph presenting the trends in average GHG compliance value and average GHG standards for the light truck fleets over the 2011-2020 model years.

Year

Standard (g/mile)

Compliance value (g/mile)

2011

367

349

2012

350

349

2013

341

337

2014

332

322

2015

313

309

2016

301

319

2017

298

309

2018

288

295

2019

282

290

2020

272

278

As depicted in Figures 6 and 7, the 2020 model year saw the overall compliance value for passenger automobiles decrease to 178 g/mi, and the overall compliance value for light trucks decrease to 278 g/mi. This has resulted in an overall net improvement of 30.2% and 20.3% relative to the 2011 model year for passenger automobiles and light trucks respectively.

All companies remained in compliance with the regulations through the use of their own accumulated emission credits or by purchasing credits from other companies. Results to date indicate that all companies continue to meet their vehicle GHG regulatory obligations for the 2020 model year.

Appendix

Table A-1. production volumes by company

Manufacturer

2017
PA

2017
LT

2017
All

2018
PA

2018
LT

2018
All

2019
PA

2019
LT

2019
All

2020
PA

2020
LT

2020
All

Aston Martin

82

0

82

44

0

44

148

0

148

741

0

741

BMW

25 882

17 059

42 941

34 831

17 207

52 038

23 245

18 585

41 830

18 188

13 506

31 694

BYD

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

25

0

25

FCA

20 591

242 874

263 465

15 144

170 242

185 386

11 522

221 797

233 319

2 936

137 799

140 735

Ferrari

275

0

275

247

0

247

364

0

364

370

0

370

Ford

72 230

205 393

277 623

41 855

233 897

275 752

27 203

200 523

227 726

15 349

172 413

187 762

GM

96 569

173 949

270 518

81 077

188 187

269 264

60 593

186 381

246 974

24 622

128 565

153 187

Honda

112 783

81 780

194 563

110 320

81 930

192 250

102 062

102 252

204 314

80 531

73 611

154 142

Hyundai

161 646

11 171

172 817

117 473

6 050

123 523

111 853

3 900

115 753

122 929

8 298

131 227

JLR

2 345

11 870

14 215

1 654

11 646

13 300

567

11 678

12 245

423

14 985

15 408

Kia

42 768

25 637

68 405

55 202

22 719

77 921

42 547

28 680

71 227

47 977

33 467

81 444

Lotus

13

0

13

12

0

12

0

0

0

15

0

15

Maserati

--

--

0

--

--

0

172

291

463

77

191

268

Mazda

35 910

23 202

59 112

55 953

26 762

82 715

39 613

30 779

70 392

18 368

21 827

40 195

McLaren

112

0

112

220

0

220

195

0

195

157

0

157

Mercedes

22 371

22 371

44 742

25 562

29 596

55 158

17 214

19 918

37 132

13 543

26 523

40 066

Mitsubishi

13 686

11 301

24 987

9 004

15 434

24 438

5 158

13 252

18 410

4 151

14 435

18 586

Nissan

87 293

62 006

149 299

82 124

57 229

139 353

88 662

52 623

141 285

56 966

43 810

100 776

Pagani

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Porsche

2 357

6 829

9 186

3 589

7 837

11 426

2 130

5 723

7 853

2 944

4 856

7 800

Subaru

17 744

33 502

51 246

16 574

42 019

58 593

16 350

49 803

66 153

12 845

38 408

51 253

Tesla

3 483

--

3 483

8 511

450

8 961

13 101

263

13 364

18 483

328

18 811

Toyota

107 989

121 998

229 987

112 328

121 236

233 564

90 548

113 360

203 908

99 295

118 030

217 325

Volkswagen

72 212

26 667

98 879

61 658

68 060

129 718

78 118

50 314

128 432

22 059

32 233

54 292

Volvo

1 331

5 008

6 339

1 256

6 691

7 947

1 762

10 116

11 878

953

9 061

10 014

Fleet Total

899 672

1 082 617

1 982 289

834 638

1 107 192

1 941 830

733 127

1 120 238

1 853 365

563 947

892 346

1 456 293


Figure A-1. 2017 passenger automobile compliance status with offsets

Figure A-1. 2017 Passenger automobile compliance status with offsets
Figure A-1 long description

Figure A-1 provides a graphical representation of the role that compliance flexibilities play in arriving at a company’s overall compliance status for their 2017 model year passenger automobile fleet

Manufacturer

Fleet average carbon related exhaust emissions value

Fleet average compliance value

Air conditioning

Innovative technologies

Fleet average standard

BMW

249

227

18.5

3.2

216

FCA

310

288

18.4

3.7

234

Ford

260

240

15.1

5.3

220

GM

209

191

12.4

5.4

218

Honda

205

188

13.0

3.9

214

Hyundai

246

238

6.1

1.5

216

JLR

299

276

18.8

4.2

244

Kia

233

223

8.5

1.9

216

Mazda

217

217

0.0

0.0

212

Mercedes

275

263

10.7

1.0

225

Mitsubishi

213

210

3.1

0.0

203

Nissan

236

227

7.4

2.0

216

Porsche

294

273

18.7

2.7

215

Subaru

251

245

4.9

0.8

210

Toyota

216

205

7.7

3.7

212

VW

237

224

8.8

3.8

211

Volvo

265

252

9.5

3.6

242

Notes:

  1. The final compliance value may be lower than the CREE through the application of compliance flexibilities.

  2. Tesla has a fleet average standard of 254 g/mi and fleet average compliance value of -5 g/mi. Tesla’s compliance value falls outside of the range of this graph.


Figure A-2. 2018 passenger automobile compliance status with offsets

Figure A-2. 2018 Passenger automobile compliance status with offsets
Figure A-2 long description

Figure A-2 provides a graphical representation of the role that compliance flexibilities play in arriving at a company’s overall compliance status for their 2018 model year passenger automobile fleet.

Manufacturer

Fleet average carbon related exhaust emissions value

Fleet average compliance value

Air conditioning

Innovative technologies

Fleet average standard

BMW

259

237

18.5

3.6

208

FCA

314

291

18.5

4.3

228

Ford

241

219

16.8

5.5

209

GM

191

168

16.6

7.1

204

Honda

202

183

15.2

4.1

204

Hyundai

241

230

8.8

2.4

206

JLR

277

251

18.8

6.9

242

Kia

223

210

11.4

2.0

204

Mazda

215

211

2.7

1.4

202

Mercedes

264

249

10.9

3.9

213

Mitsubishi

151

137

12.0

2.4

195

Nissan

204

192

10.1

2.2

205

Porsche

291

269

18.5

3.2

224

Subaru

254

248

4.5

2.0

199

Toyota

205

192

9.4

4.1

201

VW

255

233

17.1

4.7

201

Volvo

257

241

9.1

6.7

245

Notes:

  1. The final compliance value may be lower than the CREE through the application of compliance flexibilities.

  2. Tesla has a fleet average standard of 226 g/mi and fleet average compliance value of -16 g/mi. Tesla’s compliance value falls outside of the range of this graph.

Figure A-3. 2019 passenger automobile compliance status with offsets

Figure A-3. 2019 Passenger automobile compliance status with offsets
Figure A-3 long description

Figure A-3 provides a graphical representation of the role that compliance flexibilities play in arriving at a company’s overall compliance status for their 2019 model year passenger automobile fleet.

Manufacturer

Fleet average carbon related exhaust emissions value

Fleet average compliance value

Air conditioning

Innovative technologies

Fleet average standard

BMW

250

227

18.4

4.4

196

FCA

311

288

18.4

4.8

218

Ford

249

226

17.1

6.3

202

GM

179

157

16.3

6.0

192

Honda

207

187

16.4

4.1

193

Hyundai

222

206

14.1

2.1

196

JLR

330

306

18.7

5.5

219

Kia

203

184

16.3

2.9

195

Maserati

376

359

10.8

6.0

231

Mazda

223

220

1.5

1.9

189

Mercedes

275

262

11.2

1.5

205

Mitsubishi

162

151

9.7

1.7

183

Nissan

202

187

12.6

2.0

191

Porsche

322

302

17.6

2.0

194

Subaru

243

237

4.4

2.1

189

Toyota

200

183

12.7

4.4

192

VW

221

198

18.1

5.1

190

Volvo

262

248

9.7

4.7

222

Notes:

  1. The final compliance value may be lower than the CREE through the application of compliance flexibilities.

  2. Tesla has a fleet average standard of 211 g/mi and fleet average compliance value of -22 g/mi. Tesla’s compliance value falls outside of the range of this graph.

Figure A-4. 2017 light truck compliance status with offsets

Figure A-4. 2017 Light truck compliance status with offsets
Figure A-4 long description

Figure A-4 provides a graphical representation of the role that compliance flexibilities play in arriving at a company’s overall compliance status for their 2017 model year light truck fleet.

Manufacturer

Fleet average carbon related exhaust emissions value

Fleet average compliance value

Air conditioning

Innovative technologies

Fleet average standard

BMW

309

280

22.4

6.7

283

FCA

373

345

20.4

8.1

312

Ford

349

317

20.5

11.4

308

GM

362

333

21.7

7.8

320

Honda

267

240

19.0

8.3

274

Hyundai

340

327

7.0

5.6

278

JLR

338

306

24.4

7.4

286

Kia

322

305

13.8

3.4

277

Mazda

266

266

0.0

0.0

267

Mercedes

329

313

14.3

2.1

287

Mitsubishi

271

262

9.0

0.0

253

Nissan

293

278

10.2

5.1

282

Porsche

319

296

19.3

3.5

285

Subaru

248

237

10.3

0.7

257

Toyota

315

295

13.4

7.1

286

VW

321

301

13.0

6.6

273

Volvo

267

249

11.9

5.7

288

Notes:

  1. The final compliance value may be lower than the CREE through the application of compliance flexibilities.

Figure A-5. 2018 light truck compliance status with offsets

Figure A-5. 2018 Light truck compliance status with offsets
Figure A-5 long description

Figure A-5 provides a graphical representation of the role that compliance flexibilities play in arriving at a company’s overall compliance status for their 2018 model year light truck fleet.

Manufacturer

Fleet average carbon related exhaust emissions value

Fleet average compliance value

Air conditioning

Innovative technologies

Fleet average standard

BMW

300

269

23.2

8.1

274

FCA

360

328

21.7

10.4

295

Ford

347

311

22.3

13.4

310

GM

349

317

23.6

8.9

310

Honda

255

225

21.4

8.5

261

Hyundai

337

324

7.4

5.7

266

JLR

316

279

24.4

12.4

286

Kia

322

304

13.1

4.5

267

Mazda

259

250

4.3

4.6

256

Mercedes

316

298

14.7

3.3

274

Mitsubishi

264

247

16.1

1.4

242

Nissan

294

277

10.9

6.0

273

Porsche

318

293

21.6

3.1

284

Subaru

242

228

9.1

4.9

245

Toyota

315

295

13.5

6.8

273

VW

296

263

22.7

10.6

269

Volvo

267

243

13.1

11.4

291

Notes:

  1. The final compliance value may be lower than the CREE through the application of compliance flexibilities.

  2. Tesla has a fleet average standard of 292 g/mi and fleet average compliance value of -21 g/mi. Tesla’s compliance value falls outside of the range of this graph.

Figure A-6. 2019 light truck compliance status with offsets

Figure A-6. 2019 Light truck compliance status with offsets
Figure A-6 long description

Figure A-6 provides a graphical representation of the role that compliance flexibilities play in arriving at a company’s overall compliance status for their 2019 model year light truck fleet

Manufacturer

Fleet average carbon related exhaust emissions value

Fleet average compliance value

Air conditioning

Innovative technologies

Fleet average standard

BMW

292

257

24.2

10.8

270

FCA

368

335

21.4

11.6

301

Ford

341

303

23.0

14.9

303

GM

349

316

23.1

10.0

298

Honda

264

232

22.8

9.4

258

Hyundai

342

330

7.1

5.3

258

JLR

304

267

24.4

12.2

278

Kia

315

290

20.8

4.7

263

Maserati

421

393

14.9

13.1

278

Mazda

266

256

5.0

5.1

249

Mercedes

320

304

13.2

2.5

263

Mitsubishi

261

243

16.5

1.4

234

Nissan

288

271

11.6

5.9

261

Porsche

317

294

13.7

9.8

277

Subaru

241

220

14.9

6.2

241

Toyota

290

264

17.5

8.4

265

VW

292

258

22.8

11.6

264

Volvo

272

250

13.6

8.4

274

Notes:

  1. The final compliance value may be lower than the CREE through the application of compliance flexibilities.

  2. Tesla has a fleet average standard of 284 g/mi and fleet average compliance value of -27 g/mi. Tesla’s compliance value falls outside of the range of this graph.

Table A-2. preapproved menu of efficiency improving technologies for AC systems

Technology

Allowance value (g/mi)

Reduced reheat, with externally-controlled, variable-displacement compressor (for example, a compressor that controls displacement based on temperature set point and/or cooling demand of the air conditioning system control settings inside the passenger compartment).

1.7

Reduced reheat, with externally-controlled, fixed-displacement or pneumatic variable displacement compressor (for example, a compressor that controls displacement based on conditions within, or internal to, the air conditioning system, such as head pressure, suction pressure, or evaporator outlet temperature).

1.1

Default to recirculated air with closed-loop control of the air supply (sensor feedback to control interior air quality) whenever the ambient temperature is 75 °F or higher: Air conditioning systems that operated with closed-loop control of the air supply at different temperatures may receive credits by submitting an engineering analysis to the Administrator for approval.

1.7

Default to recirculated air with open-loop control air supply (no sensor feedback) whenever the ambient temperature is 75 °F or higher. Air conditioning systems that operate with open-loop control of the air supply at different temperatures may receive credits by submitting an engineering analysis to the Administrator for approval.

1.1

Blower motor controls which limit wasted electrical energy (for example, pulse width modulated power controller).

0.9

Internal heat exchanger (for example, a device that transfers heat from the high-pressure, liquid-phase refrigerant entering the evaporator to the low-pressure, gas-phase refrigerant exiting the evaporator).

1.1

Improved condensers and/or evaporators with system analysis on the component(s) indicating a coefficient of performance improvement for the system of greater than 10% when compared to previous industry standard designs).

1.1

Oil separator. The manufacturer must submit an engineering analysis demonstrating the increased improvement of the system relative to the baseline design, where the baseline component for comparison is the version which a manufacturer most recently had in production on the same vehicle design or in a similar or related vehicle model. The characteristics of the baseline component shall be compared to the new component to demonstrate the improvement.

0.6

Table A-3. production volume of vehicles with turbocharging

Manufacturer

2017

2018

2019

2020

BMW

42 508

51 729

41 633

31 481

BYD

--

--

--

0

FCA

6 412

13 340

10 693

14 687

Ford

164 219

164 992

161 201

132 368

GM

62 935

102 272

82 820

56 807

Honda

72 053

92 935

92 538

76 355

Hyundai

18 680

15 002

17 376

16 152

JLR

6 904

7 665

6 080

12 771

Kia

6 772

6 740

2 301

2 675

Maserati

--

--

452

268

Mazda

3 351

5 943

12 735

5 416

Mercedes

44 636

54 716

36 991

40 066

Mitsubishi

0

3 051

3 848

4 173

Nissan

8 776

4 013

8 486

3 365

Porsche

8 086

102 06

7 401

6 354

Subaru

6 969

7 540

8 696

12 249

Toyota

7 756

4 969

6 884

7 444

Volkswagen

88 174

108 768

111 198

50 140

Volvo

2 299

2 088

3 192

3 549

Total

550 530

655 969

614 525

476 320

Table A-4. production volume of vehicles with variable valve timing

Manufacturer

2017

2018

2019

2020

BMW

40 874

49 292

41 633

31 481

BYD

--

--

--

0

FCA

256 770

174 949

222 283

135 261

Ford

236 387

216 872

191 796

159 409

GM

265 518

262 223

238 873

142 300

Honda

194 563

189 280

204 314

154 142

Hyundai

172 162

123 129

111 169

125 654

JLR

11 321

10 833

9 817

14 287

Kia

67 928

76 957

70 041

77 767

Maserati

--

--

463

268

Mazda

59 112

82 715

70 208

40 195

Mercedes

44 636

54 716

36 991

40 066

Mitsubishi

21 579

24 438

18 410

18 586

Nissan

148 415

134 913

136 945

98 928

Porsche

9 186

11 426

7 853

6 761

Subaru

51 246

58 593

66 153

51 253

Toyota

229 987

233 514

203 712

217 303

Volkswagen

98 759

128 910

126 490

49 087

Volvo

6 339

7 947

11 878

10 014

Total

1 914 782

1 840 707

1 769 029

1 372 762

Table A-5. production volume of vehicles with variable valve lift

Manufacturer

2017

2018

2019

2020

BMW

40 250

49 292

41 633

31 481

FCA

3 390

20 691

12 547

8 156

GM

5 318

3 940

62

4 933

Honda

194 563

132 525

131 803

95 409

JLR

11 321

10 833

9 817

14 287

Mercedes

0

0

9 587

18 149

Mitsubishi

6 600

6 425

4 862

5 545

Nissan

12 249

8 325

4 394

1 903

Porsche

9 186

11 426

7 853

6 761

Toyota

6 012

13 514

9 804

39 288

Volkswagen

39 030

91 365

105 248

36 835

Total

327 919

348 336

337 610

262 747

Table A-6. production volume of vehicles with higher geared transmissions

Manufacturer

2017

2018

2019

2020

BMW

36 967

48 365

36 184

30 975

FCA

140 612

124 854

184 880

116 342

Ford

32 228

142 121

153 389

165 213

GM

57 092

79 811

124 530

101 414

Honda

38 550

45 711

77 951

60 188

Hyundai

8 284

8 757

25 507

33 571

JLR

14 192

13 294

11 873

15 269

Kia

1 162

2 440

20 537

21 058

Maserati

--

--

452

268

Mercedes

44 346

54 716

36 991

40 066

Mitsubishi

0

3 051

3 848

4 173

Nissan

43 356

30 409

47 354

30 762

Porsche

9 030

10 935

7 607

6 317

Subaru

10 924

33 738

56 211

45 076

Toyota

63 640

68 806

115 112

106 374

Volkswagen

28 174

90 782

104 054

49 028

Volvo

6 339

7 947

11 878

10 014

Total

534 896

765 737

1 018 358

836 108

Table A-7. production volume of vehicles with continuously variable transmissions

Manufacturer

2017

2018

2019

2020

FCA

178

0

600

1 026

Ford

3 173

2 860

5 390

11 772

GM

12 217

10 944

22 050

12 178

Honda

131 295

141 280

137 294

109 601

Hyundai

0

0

0

46 969

Kia

0

0

12 300

31 660

Mitsubishi

19 002

15 846

14 497

14 333

Nissan

114 907

112 790

114 857

95 193

Subaru

43 218

49 919

59 598

45 489

Toyota

71 042

73 312

23 416

45 664

Total

395 032

406 951

390 002

413 885

Table A-8. production volume of vehicles with cylinder deactivation

Manufacturer

2017

2018

2019

2020

FCA

98 158

48 374

96 115

52 737

Ford

0

0

0

16 696

GM

137 599

137 688

131 428

83 485

Honda

44 490

33 245

42 749

23 086

Mazda

0

23 102

28 751

20 472

Mercedes

0

0

2 142

1 817

Volkswagen

1 682

1 044

569

778

Total

281 929

243 453

301 754

199 071

Table A-9. production volume of vehicles with gasoline direct injection

Manufacturer

2017

2018

2019

2020

BMW

40 874

49 292

41 633

31 481

FCA

886

3257

7 744

11 126

Ford

0

102 948

22 051

77 783

GM

244 125

240 931

211 556

129 927

Honda

120 523

125 220

142 381

103 952

Hyundai

113 544

73 000

74 035

58 513

JLR

11 321

10 833

9 817

14 287

Kia

59 381

65 121

56 952

44 780

Maserati

--

--

452

268

Mazda

56 102

82 715

70 208

40 195

Mercedes

44 636

54 687

36 966

40 059

Nissan

41 163

41 087

40 129

32 920

Subaru

14 903

29 505

52 667

49 459

Toyota

676

434

317

2 655

Volkswagen

0

0

0

52 340

Volvo

6 339

7 947

11 878

10 014

Total

754 473

886 977

778 786

699 759

Table A-10. production volume of diesel vehicles

Manufacturer

2017

2018

2019

2020

BMW

1 643

2 437

0

0

FCA

4 174

9 880

2 661

3 489

Ford

0

3 030

1 913

265

GM

2 867

5 567

2 656

5 651

JLR

2 894

2 467

2 063

982

Mazda

0

0

184

0

Total

11 578

23 381

9 477

10 387

Footnotes

Page details

Date modified: