Greenhouse Gas Emissions Performance for the 2021 Model Year Light-Duty Vehicle Fleet

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

ZEV – Zero emission vehicle

Table of contents

List of tables

Liste des 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 and are based on 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 have increased in stringency from 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 37.8% and 28.1% 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 required companies to meet progressively more stringent GHG standards which has pushed new approaches and engineering changes to meet the requirements through the introduction of a wide variety of new and innovative technologies. To meet the regulatory standards, companies have continued to refine and improve upon conventional internal combustion engine technologies as well as incorporate an array of other innovative approaches such as active aerodynamics, advanced materials for light-weighting, solar reflective paint, high efficiency lighting and more. As a result of the regulations companies have been driven to look at alternative propulsion technologies and  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 referred to as zero emission vehicles (ZEVs), and natural gas vehicles (NGVs). In fact, since the introduction of the regulation the volume of ZEVs reached 5.2% for the 2021 model year. More specifically, battery electric vehicles have increased from 198 to 55 314 representing 3.7% of the total fleet in 2021, and the volume of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles has increased from zero to 22 259 representing 1.5% of the total fleet in 2021. The sum of these developments within the Canadian vehicle fleets have resulted in measurable improvements to GHG emissions performance, and an increasing number of ZEVs are expected to continue to gain market share as standards continue to increase in stringency.

Figure ES-1. Increase in ZEV production from the 2011 to 2021 model years

Graphic
Figure ES-1 long description

Figure ES-1. shows the year over year increase in ZEV production for both PA and LT fleets

Results from annual regulatory compliance reports indicate that companies continue to be in compliance through the 2021 model year. The average compliance value for the fleet of new passenger automobiles has decreased from 255 g/mi to 166 g/mi since the introduction of the regulation, representing a 34.9% reduction.

Figure ES-2. average GHG emissions performance - passenger automobiles

Graphic
Figure ES-2 long description

Figure ES-2 is a graph presenting the trends in average GHG compliance value and average GHG standards for the passenger automobile fleets over the 2011-2021 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

176

2021

181

166

The compliance value for light trucks decreased by 24.6%, from 349 g/mi to 263 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.

Figure ES-3. average GHG emissions performance - light trucks

Graphic
Figure ES-3 long description

Figure ES-3 is a graph presenting the trends in average GHG compliance value and average GHG standards for the light truck fleets over the 2011-2021 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

277

2021

264

263

Under the regulations, companies have generated a total of approximately 100.1 million credits, of which, approximately 21.0 million are available for future use. A total of 30.8 million credits have been used to offset emission deficits by individual companies over the 2011 to 2021 model years, of which 3.5 million credits were used to offset deficits accrued in the 2021 model year. The remaining 48.4 million credits have expired.

1. Purpose of the report

The purpose of this report is to provide company specific results for the fleet average greenhouse gas emission (GHG) 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 2020 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 assesses compliance with the fleet average requirements through annual reports.  These reports establish each company’s fleet average GHG performance and the applicable standard for both its passenger automobile and light truck fleetsFootnote 5 . The regulations include compliance provisions, including the ability for companies to accrue emission credits or deficits, depending on their fleet performance relative to the standard.  The department uses these reports to monitor, track, and assess whether the regulatory requirements have been met and the number of emission credit balances and transfers.  There are in excess of 10 000 data elements collected each reporting cycle.  ECCC reviews and validates 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 2018 to 2021 model years are listed in Table 1.

Table 1: model year report submission status

Manufacturer

Common Name

2018

2019

2020

2021

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

Graphic
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 2026 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 2026 model year prescribes a target value of 114.3 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 160.9 g/mile for footprints greater than 56ft2.

Figure 3. 2011 to 2026 targets for light trucks

Graphic
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 2026 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 247 g/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 2026 model year prescribes a target value of 141.8 g/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 254.4 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 2018 to 2021 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

2018 PA

2019 PA

2020 PA

2021 PA

2018 LT

2019 LT

2020 LT

2021 LT

BMW

208

196

188

183

274

270

262

256

BYD

--

--

194

--

--

--

--

--

FCA

228

218

206

205

295

301

290

282

Ford

209

202

193

194

310

303

296

291

GM

204

192

181

177

310

298

293

293

Honda

204

193

184

180

261

258

245

237

Hyundai

206

196

184

179

266

258

269

252

JLR

242

219

203

183

286

278

267

256

Kia

204

195

183

177

267

263

253

234

Maserati

--

231

218

212 

--

278

269

262

Mazda

202

189

183

178

256

249

238

231

Mercedes

213

205

195

192

274

263

263

255

Mitsubishi

195

183

176

171

242

234

226

219

Nissan

205

191

190

179

273

261

245

234

Porsche

224

194

198

178

284

277

266

251

Subaru

199

189

180

174

245

241

235

225

Tesla

226

211

202

198

292

284

275

253

Toyota

201

192

183

179

273

265

261

249

Volkswagen

201

190

183

178

269

264

246

247

Volvo

245

222

212

191

291

274

263

249

Fleet Average

205

194

185

181

288

282

272

264

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 2018 to 2021 model years (discussed in section 2.3.7.).

Table 3. average footprint for the 2018 to 2021 model years (sq. ft.)

Manufacturer

2018 PA

2019 PA

2020 PA

2021 PA

2018 LT

2019 LT

2020 LT

2021 LT

BMW

46.3

45.9

46.3

46.2

50.8

51.9

52

52

BYD

--

--

47.9

--

--

--

--

--

FCA

50.9

51.2

50.9

52

56.1

59.0

58.3

57.8

Ford

46.6

47.4

47.7

49.2

61.3

60.7

60.2

61.0

GM

45.2

44.3

43.5

43.3

60.2

59.7

60.1

61.8

Honda

45.4

45.2

45.2

45.7

48.2

49.2

48.3

47.8

Hyundai

45.9

45.9

45.5

45.3

49.2

49.2

53.5

51.2

JLR

48.7

48.8

47.8

46.4

50.7

51.7

51.0

52.0

Kia

45.3

45.7

45.3

44.9

49.3

50.3

50.0

47.0

Maserati

--

54.3

53.8

53.7 

--

53.4

53.4

53.4

Mazda

44.8

44.2

45

44.9

47.3

47.3

46.8

46.5

Mercedes

47.2

48.0

48.1

48.7

50.9

50.3

52.1

51.8

Mitsubishi

42.3

41.7

42.7

42.4

44.2

44.1

44.2

43.9

Nissan

45.5

44.6

45.8

45.4

50.8

49.9

48.2

47.1

Porsche

44.4

42.8

46.6

45.1

50.3

51.6

51.0

50.8

Subaru

44.4

44.4

44.4

44.2

44.9

45.7

46.1

45.2

Tesla

50.4

49.6

49.8

50.1

54.8

54.8

54.8

51.3

Toyota

44.7

44.9

45.1

45.4

51.1

50.9

51.7

50.6

Volkswagen

44.7

44.6

45.1

45.2

50.0

50.4

48.5

50.1

Volvo

49.2

49.7

49.9

48.3

52.1

50.9

50.4

50.5

Fleet Average

45.5

45.3

45.6

45.8

54.8

55.1

54.5

54.4

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 2018 to 2021 model years are presented in Table 4.

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

Manufacturer

2018 PA

2019 PA

2020 PA

2021 PA

2018 LT

2019 LT

2020 LT

2021 LT

BMW

259

250

249

233

300

292

295

274

BYD

--

--

0

--

--

--

--

--

FCA

314

311

324

326

360

368

357

347

Ford

241

249

204

107

347

341

325

316

GM

191

179

152

206

349

349

339

351

Honda

202

207

207

213

255

264

257

252

Hyundai

241

222

211

187

337

342

325

293

JLR

277

330

291

309

316

304

315

320

Kia

223

203

176

181

322

315

310

265

Maserati

--

376

370

379

--

421

410

390

Mazda

215

223

226

229

259

266

260

261

Mercedes

264

275

269

278

316

320

308

316

Mitsubishi

151

162

155

183

264

261

261

261

Nissan

204

202

214

219

294

288

265

246

Porsche

291

322

147

217

318

317

320

329

Subaru

254

243

250

268

242

241

235

229

TeslaFootnote 11

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Toyota

205

200

176

187

315

290

289

248

Volkswagen

255

221

193

223

296

292

300

288

Volvo

257

262

241

87

267

272

267

249

Fleet Average

221

211

195

188

323

320

309

298

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 2018 to 2021 model years.

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

Manufacturer

2018 PA

2019 PA

2020 PA

2021 PA

2018 LT

2019 LT

2020 LT

2021 LT

BMW

13.6

13.5

13.6

13.6

16.9

17.2

17.2

17.2

BYD

--

--

0.0

--

--

--

--

--

FCA

13.8

13.7

13.8

13.8

15.8

15.6

15.7

17.2

Ford

12.8

12.8

13.6

13.8

15.5

16.3

17.1

17.2

GM

12.3

12.3

12.9

13.6

16.7

16.4

16.7

17.2

Honda

11.6

12.7

12.8

13.5

15.6

16.5

16.5

17.2

Hyundai

5.4

10.6

9.0

13.7

2.2

1.7

4.3

16.9

JLR

13.8

13.7

13.8

13.7

17.2

17.2

17.2

17.2

Kia

8.2

12.7

13.3

13.5

7.9

15.4

16.3

16.9

Maserati

--

5.9

13.8

13.8

--

7.7

17.2

17.2

Mazda

2.7

1.5

1.9

12.0

4.3

5.0

5.0

15.1

Mercedes

5.9

6.2

6.2

13.8

7.6

7.4

8.4

17.2

Mitsubishi

9.8

7.8

13.5

13.1

13.1

13.5

16.7

15.9

Nissan

6.2

8.6

10.1

13.3

6.9

7.4

7.2

16.7

Porsche

13.5

12.6

--

--

14.4

6.5

--

--

Subaru

1.4

1.4

7.9

12.1

4.5

9.1

14.9

15.1

Tesla

5.7

12.7

13.7

13.6

5.2

11.2

15.4

17.0

Toyota

5.2

8.1

10.8

12.7

7.5

11.1

12.8

15.9

Volkswagen

12.3

13.2

10.5

13.5

15.6

15.7

13.0

16.7

Volvo

5.1

4.9

13.2

13.8

6.9

7.4

16.6

17.1

Fleet Average

8.4

10.3

10.7

13.2

13.3

14.2

14.7

16.6

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 2018 to 2021 model years.

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

Manufacturer

2018 PA

2019 PA

2020 PA

2021 PA

2018 LT

2019 LT

2020 LT

2021 LT

BMW

4.9

4.9

4.9

4.9

6.3

7.0

7.0

7.1

BYD

--

--

0.0

--

--

--

--

--

FCA

4.7

4.7

4.8

5.0

5.9

5.8

6.2

6.9

Ford

4.0

4.3

4.6

4.7

6.8

6.7

6.6

7.1

GM

4.3

4.0

3.9

3.7

6.9

6.7

6.7

7.0

Honda

3.6

3.7

3.6

3.6

5.8

6.3

5.2

5.3

Hyundai

3.4

3.5

3.1

3.2

5.2

5.4

4.0

4.4

JLR

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

7.2

7.2

7.2

7.2

Kia

3.2

3.6

3.3

3.3

5.2

5.4

4.2

3.6

Maserati

--

4.9

5.0

5.0

--

7.2

7.2

7.2

Mazda

0.0

0.0

1.4

1.4

0.0

0.0

1.1

1.2

Mercedes

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

7.1

5.8

7.1

7.2

Mitsubishi

2.2

1.9

4.6

4.4

3.0

3.0

6.0

6.0

Nissan

3.9

4.0

--

4.1

4.0

4.2

--

5.4

Porsche

5.0

5.0

--

--

7.2

7.2

--

--

Subaru

3.1

3.0

3.6

3.4

4.6

5.8

6.6

6.5

Tesla

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

7.2

7.2

7.2

7.2

Toyota

4.2

4.6

4.7

4.8

6.0

6.4

6.3

6.6

Volkswagen

4.8

4.9

3.8

4.8

7.1

7.1

5.5

7.0

Volvo

4.0

4.8

4.7

4.0

6.2

6.2

6.3

6.3

Fleet Average

3.7

3.8

3.8

3.9

6.1

6.0

6.0

6.2

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 2018 to 2021.

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

Manufacturer

2018 PA

2019 PA

2020 PA

2021 PA

2018 LT

2019 LT

2020 LT

2021 LT

BMW

3.6

4.4

7.3

7.5

8.1

10.8

13.3

13.4

BYD

--

--

0.0

--

--

--

--

--

FCA

4.3

4.8

5.2

11.5

10.4

11.6

10.6

10.8

Ford

5.5

6.3

7.1

5.5

13.4

14.9

16.1

17.1

GM

7.1

6.0

6.0

6.1

8.9

10.0

12.1

12.2

Honda

4.1

4.1

4.4

5.0

8.5

9.4

12.7

12.8

Hyundai

2.4

2.1

4.0

4.4

5.7

5.3

8.5

12.8

JLR

6.9

5.5

6.8

5.9

12.4

12.2

12.9

13.2

Kia

2.0

2.9

4.7

4.5

4.5

4.7

7.5

9.2

Maserati

--

6.0

7.0

6.7

--

13.1

13.8

13.8

Mazda

1.4

1.9

2.4

2.6

4.6

5.1

6.6

6.8

Mercedes

3.9

1.5

1.4

2.2

3.3

2.5

2.9

3.7

Mitsubishi

2.4

1.7

3.2

2.9

1.4

1.4

4.9

5.1

Nissan

2.2

2.2

3.0

3.1

6.0

5.9

6.2

6.5

Porsche

3.2

2.0

--

--

3.1

9.8

--

--

Subaru

2.0

2.1

2.3

1.9

4.9

6.2

8.5

8.0

Tesla

4.8

4.6

4.6

4.7

8.3

8.3

8.3

6.8

Toyota

4.2

4.6

5.1

5.5

6.8

8.4

8.8

11.2

Volkswagen

4.7

5.1

5.6

8.1

10.6

11.6

11.9

13.0

Volvo

6.7

4.7

5.0

4.3

11.4

8.4

8.5

8.8

Fleet Average

3.7

3.7

4.4

4.8

9.2

10.2

11.0

11.6

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 2021 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

2018
PA

2019
PA

2020
PA

2021
PA

2018
LT

2019
LT

2020
LT

2021
LT

BMW

70

69

158

391

--

--

--

--

BYD

--

--

25

--

--

--

--

--

FCA

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

Ford

682

--

--

5 267

--

--

--

--

GM

1 474

5 445

5 236

1 561

--

--

--

--

Honda

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

Hyundai

394

4 584

5 573

8 130

--

--

--

--

JLR

--

365

--

--

--

365

139

39

Kia

964

1 186

3 677

2 130

--

--

--

--

Mazda

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

Mercedes

442

141

--

--

--

--

--

--

Mitsubishi

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

Nissan

4 440

4 340

1 848

439

--

--

--

--

Porsche

--

--

1 039

507

--

--

--

--

Subaru

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

Tesla

8 511

12 502

18 483

32 414

450

862

328

1 450

Toyota

50

196

22

--

--

--

--

--

Volkswagen

808

1 024

1 929

329

--

918

23

1 783

Volvo

--

--

--

877

--

--

--

--

Total

17 835

29 487

37 990

52 045

450

2145

490

3 272

Table 10. production volumes of PHEVs by model year

Manufacturer

2018 PA

2019 PA

2020 PA

2021 PA

2018 LT

2019 LT

2020 LT

2021 LT

BMW

481

656

277

592

566

--

46

1 098

BYD

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

FCA

--

--

--

--

1 578

600

1 026

5 138 

Ford

2 106

1 513

1 906

2 010

--

--

208

141

GM

5 400

2 675

--

--

--

--

--

--

Honda

850

910

747

172

--

--

--

--

Hyundai

1 024

1 622

1 396

900

--

--

--

--

JLR

--

--

--

--

--

--

207

140

Kia

45

1 150

1 361

488

--

--

--

--

Mazda

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

Mercedes

330

--

9

--

--

147

59

--

Mitsubishi

5 380

2 088

2 456

300

--

--

--

--

Nissan

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

Porsche

344

90

73

68

348

325

320

186

Subaru

--

--

--

--

--

--

413

259

Tesla

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

Toyota

3 606

1 600

8 659

4 254

--

--

--

4 939

Volkswagen

609

--

--

10

--

--

444

70

Volvo

41

3

86

99

497

541

688

1 395

Total

20 216

12 317

16 970

8 893

2 989

1 613

3 411

13 366

Figure 3 provides a graphical representation of the overall growth in ZEV production for 2011 to 2021 model years.

Figure 4. Increase in ZEV production from the 2011 to 2021 model years

Graphic
Figure 4 long description

Figure 4. shows the year over year increase in ZEV production for both PA and LT fleets

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

2018

2019

2020

2021

Aston Martin

44

148

741

826

Ferrari

247

364

370

313

Lotus

12

0

15

18

Maserati

1 000

--

--

474

McLaren

220

195

157

84

Total

1 523

707

1 283

1 715

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 meet the N2O and CH4 requirements.

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 pollutants. 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 12 and 13.

Table 12. N2O emissions deficits by company for the 2018 to 2021 model years (Mg CO2e)

Manufacturer

2018 PA

2019 PA

2020 PA

2021 PA

2018 LT

2019 LT

2020 LT

2021 LT

BMW

-2 284

--

--

-99

-3 920

--

--

--

FCA

--

--

-49

--

-23 275

-6 269

-10 333

-9 788

Ford

-715

-847

-10

-15

-17 047

-10 562

-713

-5 998

GM

-1 166

-236

--

--

-6 146

-4 501

-35 225

-105 252

Hyundai

-331

-999

-917

-541

--

--

--

--

JLR

-1 999

-62

--

--

-9 638

-3 935

-1 322

-797

Kia

-2 211

-1 447

-1 104

-754

--

--

--

--

Mazda

-1 449

-360

-179

-2 001

-4 324

-12 750

-3 439

-9 740

Nissan

-414

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

Toyota

-1 306

-1 466

-1 267

- 295

-2 289

-3 490

-8 913

-10 602

Volkswagen

--

--

--

-28

--

-300

-120

-149

Fleet Total

-11 875

-5 417

-3 526

-4 733

-66 639

-41 807

-60 065

-142 326

Table 13. CH4emissions deficits by company for the 2018 to 2021 model years (Mg CO2e)

Manufacturer

2018 PA

2019 PA

2020 PA

2021 PA

2018 LT

2019 LT

2020 LT

2021 LT

BMW

-288

--

--

--

-493

--

--

--

FCA

-3

-3

-37

--

-3 215

-3 001

-186

-149

Ford

-152

-155

-240

-299

-18 801

-13 041

-10 361

-1 879

GM

-357

-137

-64

-52

-1 969

-762

-310

-9

Mazda

-340

-474

-122

-194

-121

-401

0

-20

Volkswagen

-74

-15

-51

-27

--

--

--

--

Fleet Total

-1 214

-784

-514

-572

-24 599

-17 205

-10 857

-2 057

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 14 and 15 show both the companies’ compliance and standard values for the passenger automobiles and light truck fleets across the 2018 to 2021 model years. Figures 5 and 6 shows the trends in manufacturer performance over the 2018 to 2021 model years.

Table 14. PA compliance and standard values over the 2018 to 2021 model years (g/mi)

Manufacturer

2018
Compliance

2019
Compliance

2020
Compliance

2021
Compliance

2018 Std.

2019 Std.

2020 Std.

2021 Std.

BMW

237

227

223

207

208

196

188

183

BYD

--

--

0

--

--

--

194

--

FCA

291

288

300

296

228

218

206

205

Ford

219

226

179

83

209

202

193

194

GM

167

157

129

183

204

192

181

177

Honda

183

187

186

191

204

193

184

180

Hyundai

230

206

195

166

206

196

184

179

JLR

251

306

265

284

242

219

203

183

Kia

210

184

155

160

204

195

183

177

Maserati

--

359

344

354

--

231

218

212

Mazda

211

220

220

213

202

189

183

178

Mercedes

249

262

256

257

213

205

195

192

Mitsubishi

137

151

134

163

195

183

176

171

Nissan

192

187

197

199

205

191

190

179

Porsche

269

302

147

217

224

194

198

178

Subaru

248

237

236

251

199

189

180

174

TeslaFootnote 14

-16

-22

-23

-23

226

211

202

198

Toyota

192

183

156

164

201

192

183

179

Volkswagen

233

198

173

197

201

190

183

178

Volvo

241

248

218

65

245

222

212

191

Fleet Average

205

193

176

166

205

194

185

181

Figure 5. Change to PA performance over the 2018 to 2021 model years

Graphic
Figure 5 long description

Figure 5. provides a graphical representation of how each company’s passenger automobile performance has changed over the 2018 to 2021 model years.

Table 15. LT compliance and standard values over the 2018 to 2021 model years (g/mi)

Manufacturer

2018
Compliance

2019
Compliance

2020
Compliance

2021
Compliance

2018 Std.

2019 Std.

2020 Std.

2021 Std.

BMW

269

257

258

236

274

270

262

256

BYD

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

FCA

328

335

325

312

295

301

290

282

Ford

311

301

284

275

310

303

296

291

GM

317

316

304

315

310

298

293

293

Honda

225

232

223

217

261

258

245

237

Hyundai

324

330

308

259

266

258

269

252

JLR

279

267

278

282

286

278

267

256

Kia

304

290

282

235

267

263

253

234

Maserati

--

393

372

352

--

278

269

262

Mazda

250

256

247

238

256

249

238

231

Mercedes

298

304

290

288

274

263

263

255

Mitsubishi

247

243

233

234

242

234

226

219

Nissan

277

271

247

217

273

261

245

234

Porsche

293

294

320

329

284

277

266

251

Subaru

228

220

205

199

245

241

235

225

Tesla

-21

-27

-31

-31

292

284

275

253

Toyota

295

264

261

214

273

265

261

249

Volkswagen

263

258

270

251

269

264

246

247

Volvo

243

250

236

217

291

274

263

249

Fleet Average

294

290

277

263

288

282

272

264

Figure 6. Change to LT performance over the 2018 to 2021 model years

Graphic
Figure 6 long description

Figure 6. provides a graphical representation of how each company’s light truck performance has changed over the 2018 to 2021 model years.

Figures 7 and 8 provide a graphical representation of the role that compliance flexibilities play in arriving at a company’s overall compliance status for their 2021 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 7. 2021 passenger automobile compliance status with offsets

Graphic
Figure 7 long description

Figure 7. provides a graphical representation of the role that compliance flexibilities play in arriving at a company’s overall compliance status for their 2021 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 233 207 18,5 7,5 183
FCA 326 296 18,8 11,5 205
Ford 107 83 18,5 5,5 194
GM 206 183 17,3 6,1 177
Honda 213 191 17,1 5,0 180
Hyundai 187 166 16,9 4,4 179
JLR 309 284 18,7 5,9 183
Kia 181 160 16,8 4,5 177
Maserati 379 354 18,8 6,7 212
Mazda 229 213 13,4 2,6 178
Mercedes 278 257 18,8 2,2 192
Mitsubishi 183 163 17,5 2,9 171
Nissan 219 199 17,4 3,1 179
Porsche 217 217 0,0 0,0 178
Subaru 268 251 15,5 1,9 174
Toyota 187 164 17,5 5,5 179
VW 223 197 18,3 8,1 178
Volvo 87 65 17,8 4,3 191

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 253 g/mi and fleet average compliance value of -31 g/mi. Tesla’s compliance value falls outside of the range of this graph

Figure 8. 2021 light truck compliance status with offsets

Graphic
Figure 8 long description

Figure 8. provides a graphical representation of the role that compliance flexibilities play in arriving at a company’s overall compliance status for their 2021 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 274 236 24,3 13,4 256
FCA 347 312 24,1 10,8 282
Ford 316 275 24,3 17,1 291
GM 351 315 24,2 12,2 293
Honda 252 217 22,5 12,8 237
Hyundai 293 259 21,3 12,8 252
JLR 320 282 24,4 13,2 256
Kia 265 235 20,5 9,2 234
Maserati 390 352 24,4 13,8 262
Mazda 261 238 16,3 6,8 231
Mercedes 316 288 24,4 3,7 255
Mitsubishi 261 234 21,9 5,1 219
Nissan 246 217 22,1 6,5 234
Porsche 329 329 0,0 0,0 251
Subaru 229 199 21,6 8,0 225
Toyota 248 214 22,5 11,2 249
VW 288 251 23,7 13,0 247
Volvo 249 217 23,4 8,8 249

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 15 .

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 16  which translates into measurable reductions in CO2e emissions.

The fleet-wide penetration rates of the above described technologies have been provided in Table 16, while data pertaining to company specific usage can be found in Appendices A-3 to A-10.

Table 16. penetration rates of drivetrain technologies in the Canadian fleet

Technology

2018

2019

2020

2021

Turbocharging

33.8%

33.2%

32.7%

33.6%

VVT

94.7%

95.4%

94.2%

92.8%

VVL

17.9%

18.2%

18.0%

14.9%

Higher Geared Transmission

39.4%

54.9%

57.4%

64.4%

CVT

20.9%

21.0%

28.4%

22.7%

Cylinder Deactivation

12.5%

16.3%

13.7%

16.2%

GDI

45.6%

42.0%

48.0%

50.5%

Diesel

1.2%

0.5%

0.7%

1.6%

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 17 :

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

Manufacturer

Early Action

2011 to 2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

Total

FCA

0

30 103

--

--

--

--

--

30 103

Honda

2 138 563

3 069 910

--

--

--

--

--

5 208 473

Mazda

--

113 000

--

--

--

--

--

113 000

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

435 776

1 041 029

1 450 234

1 748 770

1 169 820

6 200 000

Toyota

2 623 142

2 780 598

--

--

--

--

--

2 623 142

Receiver General

--

6 906

--

--

--

--

--

6 906

Table 17. credit transactions (transferred in) by model year (Mg CO2e)

Manufacturer

Early Action

2011 to 2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

Total

Aston Martin

--

2 626

--

--

--

--

--

2 626

BMW

--

1 000 000

--

--

--

--

--

1 000 000

FCA

4 775 129

3 333 018

435 776

1 041 029

1 300 234

1 648 770

969 820

13 503 776

Ferrari

8 473

--

--

--

--

--

--

8 473

Ford

342 272

257 728

--

--

--

--

--

600 000

GM

--

--

--

--

--

--

200 000

200 000

JLR

143 369

--

--

--

--

--

--

143 369

Lotus

--

139

--

--

--

--

--

139

Maserati

3 740

30 103

--

--

--

--

--

33 843

Mercedes

--

1 745 000

--

--

--

--

--

1 745 000

Porsche

--

117 141

--

--

150 000

100 000

--

367 141

Subaru

--

300 000

--

--

--

--

--

300 000

Volkswagen

500 000

--

--

--

--

--

--

500 000

4.2. Total credits generated and final status

Table 18 shows the credits earned (or deficits incurred) by all companies over the 2021 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 100.1 million emission credits (including early action credits), of which approximately 21 million credits remain for future use. A total of 30.8 million credits have been used to offset deficits and 48.4 million credits have expired.

Table 18. net credits by model year and current credit balance (Mg CO2e)

Manufacturers

Generated Credit/Deficit in 2021

Current BalanceFootnote 18

BMW

3 816

164 995

BYD

0

2 121

FCA

-1 211 101

5 395 629

Ford

1 078 217

1 618 599

GM

-965 745

2 154 402

Honda

211 064

3 734 898

Hyundai

191 686

222 776

JLR

-53 048

--

Kia

111 665

419 114

Maserati

-10 658

--

Mazda

-263 619

31 218

Mercedes

-295 380

Mitsubishi

-20 975

280 305

Nissan

-88 545

476 306

Porsche

-135 509

61 914

Subaru

223 278

1 122 876

Tesla

2 987 365

2 083 698

Toyota

1 454 063

2 596 602

Volkswagen

-149 343

211 869

Volvo

140 096

393 457

Total

3 207 327

20 970 779

5. Overall industry performance

The overall fleet average compliance information for passenger automobiles and light trucks is summarized in Tables 19 and 20. 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 19. passenger automobile compliance summary for the 2011 to 2021 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

3.7

8.4

3.7

205

205

0

2019

211

3.7

10.3

3.8

193

194

1

2020

195

4.4

10.7

3.8

176

185

9

2021

188

4.8

13.2

3.9

166

181

15

Figure 9. average GHG emissions performance - passenger automobiles

Graphic
Figure 9 long description

Figure 9 is a graph presenting the trends in average GHG compliance value and average GHG standards for the passenger automobile fleets over the 2011-2021 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

176

2021

181

166

Table 20. light truck compliance summary for the 2011 to 2021 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

294

288

-6

2019

320

9.7

14.2

6.0

290

282

-8

2020

309

10.7

14.7

6.0

277

272

-6

2021

298

11.6

16.6

6.2

263

264

1

Figure 10. average GHG emissions performance - light trucks

Graphic
Figure 10 long description

Figure 10 is a graph presenting the trends in average GHG compliance value and average GHG standards for the light truck fleets over the 2011-2021 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

277

2021

264

263

As depicted in Figures 9 and 10, the 2021 model year saw the overall compliance value for passenger automobiles decrease to 166 g/mi, and the overall compliance value for light trucks decrease to 263 g/mi. This has resulted in an overall net improvement of 34.9% and 24.6% 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 2021 model year. 

Appendix

Table A-1. production volumes by company

Manufacturer

2018
PA

2018
LT

2018
All

2019
PA

2019
LT

2019
All

2020
PA

2020
LT

2020
All

2021
PA

2021
LT

2021
All

Aston Martin

44

0

44

148

0

148

741

0

741

826

0

826

BMW

34 831

17 207

52 038

23 245

18 585

41 830

18 188

13 506

31 694

14 450

15 221

29 671 

BYD

--

--

--

--

--

--

25

0

25

--

--

--

FCA

15 144

170 242

185 386

11 522

221 797

233 319

2 936

137 799

140 735

5 834

161 482

167 316

Ferrari

247

0

247

364

0

364

370

0

370

313

0

313

Ford

41 855

233 897

275 752

27 203

200 523

227 726

15 349

172 413

187 762

13 091

174 247

187 338

GM

81 077

188 187

269 264

60 593

186 381

246 974

24 622

128 565

153 187

18 572

172 203

190 775

Honda

110 320

81 930

192 250

102 062

102 252

204 314

80 531

73 611

154 142

39 703

64 463

104 166

Hyundai

117 473

6 050

123 523

111 853

3 900

115 753

122 929

8 298

131 227

84 131

19 949

104 080

JLR

1 654

11 646

13 300

567

11 678

12 245

423

14 985

15 408

268 

7 873

8 141

Kia

55 202

22 719

77 921

42 547

28 680

71 227

47 977

33 467

81 444

34 294

40 668

74 962

Lotus

12

0

12

0

0

0

15

0

15

18 

0

18

Maserati

--

--

0

172

291

463

77

191

268

212

262

474

Mazda

55 953

26 762

82 715

39 613

30 779

70 392

18 368

21 827

40 195

25 103

51 399

76 502

McLaren

220

0

220

195

0

195

157

0

157

84

0

84

Mercedes

25 562

29 596

55 158

17 214

19 918

37 132

13 543

26 523

40 066

8 446

25 324

33 770

Mitsubishi

9 004

15 434

24 438

5 158

13 252

18 410

4 151

14 435

18 586

1 181

6 879

8 060

Nissan

82 124

57 229

139 353

88 662

52 623

141 285

56 966

43 810

100 776

55 002

32 241

87 243

Porsche

3 589

7 837

11 426

2 130

5 723

7 853

2 944

4 856

7 800

2 380

6 663

9 043

Subaru

16 574

42 019

58 593

16 350

49 803

66 153

12 845

38 408

51 253

5 794

53 396

59 190

Tesla

8 511

450

8 961

13 101

263

13 364

18 483

328

18 811

32 414

1 450

33 864

Toyota

112 328

121 236

233 564

90 548

113 360

203 908

99 295

118 030

217 325

77 815

152 741

230 556

Volkswagen

61 658

68 060

129 718

78 118

50 314

128 432

22 059

32 233

54 292

26 775

53 433

80 208

Volvo

1 256

6 691

7 947

1 762

10 116

11 878

953

9 061

10 014

1 807

8 638

10 445

Fleet Total

834 638

1 107 192

1 941 830

733 127

1 120 238

1 853 365

563 947

892 346

1 456 293

448 633

1 048 894

1 497 527


Figure A-1. 2018 passenger automobile compliance status with offsets

Graphic
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 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 191 167 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-2. 2019 passenger automobile compliance status with offsets

Graphic
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 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 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 214 197 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 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-3. 2020 passenger automobile compliance status with offsets

Graphic
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 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 214 197 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 A-4. 2018 light truck compliance status with offsets

Graphic
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 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-5. 2019 light truck compliance status with offsets

Graphic
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 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.

Figure A-6. 2020 light truck compliance status with offsets

Graphic
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 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 16.1 296
GM 339 304 23.5 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 265 247 22.7 0 245
Porsche 320 320 0 0 266
Subaru 235 205 0 8.5 235
Toyota 289 261 18.5 8.8 261
VW 300 270 22.9 11.9 246
Volvo 267 236 20.7 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.

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

2018

2019

2020

2021

BMW

51 729

41 633

31 481

29 190

BYD

--

--

0

--

FCA

13 340

10 693

14 687

23 257

Ford

164 992

161 201

132 368

138 751

GM

102 272

82 820

56 807

65 865

Honda

92 935

92 538

76 355

64 217

Hyundai

15 002

17 376

16 152

14 721

JLR

7 665

6 080

12 771

3 248

Kia

6 740

2 301

2 675

12 627

Maserati

--

452

268

482

Mazda

5 943

12 735

5 416

17 909

Mercedes

54 716

36 991

40 066

33 770

Mitsubishi

3 051

3 848

4 173

--

Nissan

4 013

8 486

3 365

3 457

Porsche

102 06

7 401

6 354

8 145

Subaru

7 540

8 696

12 249

9 046

Toyota

4 969

6 884

7 444

8 336

Volkswagen

108 768

111 198

50 140

66 229

Volvo

2 088

3 192

3 549

3 591

Total

655 969

614 525

476 320

502 841

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

Manufacturer

2018

2019

2020

2021

BMW

49 292

41 633

31 481

29 190

BYD

--

--

0

--

FCA

174 949

222 283

135 261

161 489

Ford

216 872

191 796

159 409

157 435

GM

262 223

238 873

142 300

169 906

Honda

189 280

204 314

154 142

104 166

Hyundai

123 129

111 169

125 654

95 950

JLR

10 833

9 817

14 287

7 510

Kia

76 957

70 041

77 767

72 832

Maserati

--

463

268

482

Mazda

82 715

70 208

40 195

76 502

Mercedes

54 716

36 991

40 066

33 770

Mitsubishi

24 438

18 410

18 586

8 060

Nissan

134 913

136 945

98 928

86 804

Porsche

11 426

7 853

6 761

8 536

Subaru

58 593

66 153

51 253

59 190

Toyota

233 514

203 712

217 303

230 556

Volkswagen

128 910

126 490

49 087

78 027

Volvo

7 947

11 878

10 014

9 568

Total

1 840 707

1 769 029

1 372 762

1 389 973

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

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

Manufacturer

2018

2019

2020

2021

BMW

49 292

41 633

31 481

29 190

FCA

20 691

12 547

8 156

10 474

GM

3 940

62

4 933

13 138

Honda

132 525

131 803

95 409

57 245

JLR

10 833

9 817

14 287

7 510

Mercedes

0

9 587

18 149

18 800

Mitsubishi

6 425

4 862

5 545

0

Nissan

8 325

4 394

1 903

1 428

Porsche

11 426

7 853

6 761

8 536

Toyota

13 514

9 804

39 288

29 153

Volkswagen

91 365

105 248

36 835

47 582

Total

348 336

337 610

262 747

223 056

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

Manufacturer

2018

2019

2020

2021

BMW

48 365

36 184

30 975

28 489

FCA

124 854

184 880

116 342

164 272

Ford

142 121

153 389

165 213

171 375

GM

79 811

124 530

101 414

148 952

Honda

45 711

77 951

60 188

39 191

Hyundai

8 757

25 507

33 571

28 398

JLR

13 294

11 873

15 269

8 102

Kia

2 440

20 537

21 058

38 286

Maserati

--

452

268

482

Mercedes

54 716

36 991

40 066

33 770

Mitsubishi

3 051

3 848

4 173

54 751

Nissan

30 409

47 354

30 762

8 280

Porsche

10 935

7 607

6 317

53 639

Subaru

33 738

56 211

45 076

102 408

Toyota

68 806

115 112

106 374

73 805

Volkswagen

90 782

104 054

49 028

9 568

Volvo

7 947

11 878

10 014

28 489

Total

765 737

1 018 358

836 108

963 768

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

Manufacturer

2018

2019

2020

2021

FCA

0

600

1 026

968

Ford

2 860

5 390

11 772

9 262

GM

10 944

22 050

12 178

10 472

Honda

141 280

137 294

109 601

74 779

Hyundai

0

0

46 969

28 991

Kia

0

12 300

31 660

42 490

Mitsubishi

15 846

14 497

14 333

7 735

Nissan

112 790

114 857

95 193

83 400

Subaru

49 919

59 598

45 489

28 484

Toyota

73 312

23 416

45 664

28 484

Total

406 951

390 002

413 885

340 479

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

Manufacturer

2018

2019

2020

2021

FCA

48 374

96 115

52 737

51 655

Ford

0

0

16 696

42 801

GM

137 688

131 428

83 485

103 566

Honda

33 245

42 749

23 086

14 727

Mazda

23 102

28 751

20 472

24 226

Mercedes

0

2 142

1 817

2 793

Volkswagen

0

0

0

623

Total

1 044

569

778

2 220

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

Manufacturer

2018

2019

2020

2021

BMW

49 292

41 633

31 481

29 190

FCA

3 257

7 744

11 126

15 782

Ford

102 948

22 051

77 783

71 989

GM

240 931

211 556

129 927

161 893

Honda

125 220

142 381

103 952

79 172

Hyundai

73 000

74 035

58 513

56 674

JLR

10 833

9 817

14 287

7 510

Kia

65 121

56 952

44 780

20 887

Maserati

--

452

268

482

Mazda

82 715

70 208

40 195

76 502

Mercedes

54 687

36 966

40 059

33 770

Nissan

41 087

40 129

32 920

55 765

Subaru

0

0

0

254

Toyota

29 505

52 667

49 459

58 414

Volkswagen

434

317

2 655

497

Volvo

0

0

52 340

78 096

Total

7 947

11 878

10 014

9 568

Table A-10. production volume of diesel vehicles

Manufacturer

2018

2019

2020

2021

BMW

2 437

0

0

0

FCA

9 880

2 661

3 489

3 305

Ford

3 030

1 913

265

501

GM

5 567

2 656

5 651

19 308

JLR

2 467

2 063

982

592

Mazda

0

0

184

0

Total

23 381

9 477

10 387

23 706

Page details

Date modified: