Greenhouse gas emissions performance for 2011 to 2016 light-duty vehicles

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

Transportation Division

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 verifications.

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
7th Floor Fontaine Building
200 Sacré-Coeur Boul
Gatineau QC  K1A 0H3
Telephone: 819-997-2800
Toll Free: 1-800-668-6767 (in Canada only)
Email: ec.enviroinfo.ec@canada.ca

Photos: © Environment and Climate Change Canada

© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, represented by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, 2018

Aussi disponible en français

List of acronyms

AC

Air conditioner

ATV

Advanced technology vehicle

CAFE

Corporate average fuel economy

CEPA 1999

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

FTP

Federal test procedure

GHG

Greenhouse gas

g/mi

grams per mile

HC

Hydrocarbons

HFET

Highway fuel economy test

LT

Light truck

NOx

Oxides of nitrogen

N2O

Nitrous oxide

PA

Passenger automobile

PM

Particulate matter

SOx

Oxides of sulfur

TOF

Temporary optional fleet

VKT

Vehicle kilometres travelled

List of tables

Table 1: model year report submission status
Table 2: fleet average CO2e standard (g/mi)
Table 3: average footprint for the 2011 to 2016 model years (sq. ft.)
Table 4: fleet average carbon related exhaust emissions (g/mi)
Table 5: allowance for reduction in AC refrigerant leakage (g/mi)
Table 6: allowance for improvements in AC system efficiency (g/mi)
Table 7: allowance for the use of innovative technologies (g/mi)
Table 8: FFV production volumes for the 2011 to 2016 model years
Table 9: FFV impact for the 2011 to 2016 model years (g/mi)
Table 10: production volumes of ATVs by model year
Table 11: production volumes for small volume companies by model year
Table 12: production volumes of temporary optional fleets
Table 13: penetration rates of drivetrain technologies in the Canadian fleet
Table 14: N2O emissions deficits by company for the 2012 to 2016 model years (Mg CO2e)
Table 15: CH4 emissions deficits by company for the 2012 to 2016 model years (Mg CO2e)
Table 16: compliance values over the 2011 to 2016 model years (g/mi)
Table 17: net early action credits (Mg CO2e)
Table 18: credit transactions by model year (Mg CO2e)
Table 19: net credits by model year and current credit balance (Mg CO2e)
Table 20: passenger automobile compliance summary for the 2011 to 2016 model years (g/mi)
Table 21: light truck compliance summary for the 2011 to 2016 model years (g/mi)
Table A-1: production volumes by company
Table A-2: preapproved menu of efficiency improving technologies for AC systems
Table A-3: volume of vehicles with turbocharging and engine downsizing
Table A-4: volume of vehicles sold with VVT
Table A-5: volume of vehicles sold with VVL
Table A-6: volume of vehicles sold with higher geared transmissions
Table A-7: volume of vehicles sold with CVT
Table A-8: volume of vehicles sold with cylinder deactivation
Table A-9: volume of diesel vehicles sold
Table A-10: volume of vehicles sold with GDI
Table A-11: CO2e Standard over the 2008 to 2010 model years (g/mi)
Table A-12: compliance values over the 2008 to 2010 model years (g/mi)

List of figures

Figure 1: vehicle footprint
Figure 2: 2011 to 2025 targets for passenger automobiles
Figure 3: 2011 to 2025 targets for light trucks
Figure 4: 2016 passenger automobile compliance status with offsets
Figure 5: 2016 light truck compliance status with offsets
Figure 6: 2016 compliance status of passenger automobile fleet with company size
Figure 7: 2016 compliance status of light truck fleet with company size
Figure 8: average GHG emissions performance: passenger automobiles
Figure 9: average GHG emissions performance: light trucks
Figure A-1: 2012 passenger automobile compliance status with offsets
Figure A-2: 2013 passenger automobile compliance status with offsets
Figure A-3: 2014 passenger automobile compliance status with offsets
Figure A-4: 2015 passenger automobile compliance status with offsets
Figure A-5: 2012 light truck compliance status with offsets
Figure A-6: 2013 light truck compliance status with offsets
Figure A-7: 2014 light truck compliance status with offsets
Figure A-8: 2015 light truck compliance status with offsets
Figure A-9: 2012 compliance status of passenger automobile fleet with company size
Figure A-10: 2013 compliance status of passenger automobile fleet with company size
Figure A-11: 2014 compliance status of passenger automobile fleet with company size
Figure A-12: 2015 compliance status of passenger automobile fleet with company size
Figure A-13: 2012 compliance status of light truck fleet with company size
Figure A-14: 2013 compliance status of light truck fleet with company size
Figure A-15: 2014 compliance status of light truck fleet with company size
Figure A-16: 2015 compliance status of light truck fleet with company size

Executive summary

The Passenger Automobile and Light Truck Greenhouse Gas Engine Emission Regulations (hereinafter referred to as the “regulations”) establish greenhouse gas 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 and establish annual compliance reporting requirements. This report summarizes the fleet average greenhouse gas emission performance of the fleets of light-duty vehicles of the 2011 to 2016 model years. This report also provides a compliance summary for each of the subject 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 insofar 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 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and are progressively more stringent over the 2012 through 2025 model years. 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. The resulting fleet average standards for passenger automobiles and for light trucks have become more stringent by 22.0% and 18.3% respectively over the 2011 to 2016 model years.

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 worse than their applicable standard).  This allows companies to maintain regulatory compliance as their product mix and demands change year to year and through product cycles.  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 three years. 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.

Results from regulatory reports indicate that companies continue to be in compliance through to the 2016 model year. The average compliance value for the fleet of new passenger automobiles decreased from 255 g/mi to 228 g/mi over the 2011 to 2016 model year period, representing a 10.6% reduction. The compliance value for light trucks decreased by 8.0%, from 349 g/mi to 321 g/mi over the same period. The 2016 model year marked the first time the fleet average compliance value exceeded the fleet average emission standard for both passenger automobiles and light trucks. All companies nevertheless remained in compliance with the regulations 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 78.4 million credits, of which, approximately 32.3 million remain available for future use. A total of 9.5 million credits have been used to offset emission deficits by individual companies over the 2011 to 2016 model years. Some 4.5 million credits were used to offset deficits accrued in the 2016 model year, and 5.0 million credits over the course of the 2011 to 2015 model years. The remaining 36.5 million credits have expired.

1. Purpose of the report

The purpose of this report is to provide in-depth, company specific results of the fleet average greenhouse gas emission performance of the Canadian fleets of passenger automobiles (PA) and of light trucks (LT) for the 2011 to 2016 model yearsFootnote 2 .

This report builds on the previous GHG emissions performance report for the 2011 to 2015 model years. The results presented herein are based on data contained in the annual regulatory compliance reports submitted by companies pursuant to the Passenger Automobile and Light Truck Greenhouse Emission Regulations. The report will also help to identify trends in the Canadian automotive industry including the adoption and emergence of technologies that have the potential to reduce GHG emissions. It will also serve 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 Emission RegulationsFootnote 3  (regulations) under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA 1999). This was the 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 2025, 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 fleets. 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. This data is subject to ongoing validation and review and may be subject to change should new information become available.

Companies that submitted a report pursuant to the regulations during 2011 to 2016 model years are listed in table 1.

Table 1: model year report submission status
Manufacturer Common name 2011a 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Aston Martin Lagonda Ltd. Aston Martin * LVMb LVMb LVMb LVMb LVMb
BMW Canada Inc. BMW * * * * * *
FCA Canada Inc. FCA * * * * * *
Ferrari North America Inc. Ferrari * LVMb LVMb LVMb LVMb LVMb
Ford Motor Company of Canada Ltd. Ford * * * * * *
General Motors of Canada Company GM * * * * * *
Honda Canada Inc. Honda * * * * * *
Hyundai Auto Canada Corp. Hyundai * * * * * *
Jaguar Canada JLR * * * * * *
Land Rover Canada JLR * * * * * *
Kia Canada Inc. Kia * * * * * *
Lotus Cars Ltd. Lotus * LVMb LVMb LVMb LVMb LVMb
Maserati North America Inc. Maserati * LVMb LVMb LVMb LVMb LVMb
Mazda Canada Inc. Mazda * * * * * *
Mercedes-Benz Canada Inc. Mercedes * * * * * *
Mitsubishi Motor Sales of Canada, Inc. Mitsubishi * * * * * *
Nissan Canada Inc. Nissan * * * * * *
Porsche Cars Canada, Ltd.d Porsche * * * * * *
Subaru Canada Inc. Subaru * * * * * *
Suzuki Canada Inc. Suzuki * * * NAc NAc NAc
Tesla Motors, Inc. Tesla * * * * * *
Toyota Canada, Inc. Toyota * * * * * *
Volkswagen Group Canada, Inc.d Volkswagen * * * * * *
Volvo Cars of Canada Corp. Volvo * * * * * *

*  Indicates that a report has been submitted.
a  All companies were required to submit a report for the 2011 model year.
b  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.
c  No longer importing or producing vehicles for the Canadian market.
d  ECCC launched an investigation into the alleged use of defeat devices on certain vehicles. Results presented throughout the report include all vehicles imported into Canada, including those allegedly equipped with defeat devices, and are subject to review.

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 4  to the first retail purchaserFootnote 5 . These standards are performance-based (they establish a maximum amount of CO2e on a gram per mile basis) which allows companies to choose the most cost-effective technologies to achieve compliance.


Figure 1: vehicle footprint

Figure 1. Vehicle footprint (See long description below)
Long description for figure 1

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 2025 model years. Figures figure2 and figure3 illustrate the target values for passenger automobiles and light trucks, respectively.


Figure 2: 2011 to 2025 targets for passenger automobiles

Figure 2 (see long description below).
Long description for figure 2

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 285g/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 56 ft2.

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 56 ft2 and levels off at 277 g/mile for footprints greater than 56 ft2.

The 2025 model year prescribes a target value of 131 g/mile for footprints up to 41 ft2. The target increases linearly for vehicles with a footprint between 41 ft2, and 56 ft2 and levels off at 179 g/mile for footprints greater than 56 ft2.


Figure 3: 2011 to 2025 targets for light trucks

Figure 3 (see long description below).
Long description for figure 3

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 329 g/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 370 g/mile for footprints greater than approximately 66 ft2.

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 66 ft2 and off at 348 g/mile for footprints greater than 66 ft2.

The 2025 model year prescribes a target value of 159 g/mile for footprints up to 41 ft2. The target increases linearly for vehicles with a footprint between 41 ft2, and 74 ft2 and levels off at 277 g/mile for footprints greater than 74 ft2.


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 one 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 6 . The CO2e standard was derived using a conversion factor of 8887 grams of CO2/gallon of gasolineFootnote 7  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:

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 2011 to 2016 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.

Since the regulations came into force, the fleet average standards for passenger automobiles and light trucks have decreased from 291 g/mi to 227 g/mi (22.0%) and 367 g/mi to 300 g/mi (18.3%), respectively. The tightening of the target curves typically result in more stringent CO2e standards. However; the regulations provide flexibility such as the “temporary optional fleet” standards which took effect in the 2012 model year and allowed intermediate sized companies to have a portion of their fleet comply with a standard that was 25% less stringent. This provision (discussed in greater detail in section 2.3.7.) was used by Porsche, Volvo, Mercedes, and JLR and is the reason for the notable increase in their standards from the 2011 to the 2012 model year.

Table 2: fleet average CO2e standard (g/mi)
Manufacturer 2011
PA
2011
LT
2012
PA
2012
LT
2013
PA
2013
LT
2014
PA
2014
LT
2015
PA
2015
LT
2016
PA
2016
LT
Aston Martin 298 - - - - - - - - - - -
BMW 293 348 264 336 260 321 254 314 239 299 230 286
FCA 310 369 273 355 266 347 259 336 248 315 242 303
Ferrari 294 - - - - - - - - - - -
Ford 292 377 261 369 262 354 250 346 240 331 232 325
GM 296 400 269 375 259 363 250 355 241 339 230 322
Honda 288 345 257 325 251 313 243 304 231 287 224 275
Hyundai 291 337 263 317 257 306 249 299 240 284 227 280
JLR 314 340 359 402 352 389 334 396 319 371 309 316
Kia 288 340 264 323 254 303 249 301 238 299 227 286
Lotus 286 - - - - - - - - - - -
Maserati 322 - - - - - - - - - - -
Mazda 287 338 255 314 250 306 249 296 238 283 223 270
Mercedesa 293 347 281 339 261 339 251 319 250 298 232 292
Mitsubishi 286 333 255 306 248 296 236 287 225 273 218 260
Nissan 288 355 259 335 256 322 244 316 234 297 227 278
Porsche 304 352 323 422 313 410 299 398 282 375 275 361
Subaru 287 334 257 307 249 297 240 288 231 275 221 261
Suzuki 286 333 249 306 241 296 - - - - - -
Tesla 285 - 304 - 296 - 288 - 276 - 268 -
Toyota 288 358 258 338 251 325 245 322 234 300 223 289
Volkswagen 287 341 260 323 253 312 247 301 233 287 222 270
Volvo 289 341 336 405 327 394 321 383 307 361 293 360
Fleet average 291 367 262 349 256 340 248 331 237 311 227 300

a Mercedes split its production volumes into conventional and temporary optional fleets (section 2.3.7.). For the purposes of this report, a single overall fleet average standard value has been calculated.


A company’s average footprint is one of the factors in establishing their CO2e standards. Although there has been some year over year variation in footprints amongst manufacturers, the overall fleet average footprint has remained relatively consistent over the 2011 to 2016 model years (table 3).

Table 3: average footprint for the 2011 to 2016 model years (sq. ft.)
Manufacturer 2011
PA
2011
LT
2012
PA
2012
LT
2013
PA
2013
LT
2014
PA
2014
LT
2015
PA
2015
LT
2016
PA
2016
LT
Aston Martin 46.7 - 45.8 - 45.1 - 47.1 - 45.9 - 46.5 -
BMW 45.2 50.8 44.8 51.3 45.6 50.0 46.4 50.7 45.6 50.6 45.9 50.7
FCA 48.4 55.1 45.7 56.2 46.4 56.7 47.1 56.6 47.1 54.8 48.3 55.3
Ferrari 47.1 - - - - - - - - - - -
Ford 44.2 58.1 44.3 61.7 46.1 60.2 45.5 60.6 45.7 60.6 46.4 62.9
GM 46.9 63.4 46.4 61.8 45.6 61.3 45.5 62.6 45.9 61.5 45.8 60.3
Honda 44.3 48.4 43.7 48.5 43.9 48.1 44.1 48.1 43.9 47.6 44.6 48.0
Hyundai 45.4 46.6 45.0 46.8 45.3 46.4 45.3 46.9 46.0 46.8 45.4 49.2
JLR 49.9 48.1 50.2 47.8 50.5 47.6 49.1 51.2 49.1 49.9 49.7 50.9
Kia 44.2 47.5 45.3 48.0 44.6 45.7 45.4 47.5 45.5 50.5 45.4 50.7
Lotus 40.2 - - - - - - - - - - -
Maserati 50.9 - - - - - - - - - - -
Mazda 43.1 46.7 43.2 46.0 43.7 46.4 45.3 46.1 45.4 46.6 44.4 46.8
Mercedes 44.1 49.8 45.5 50.9 42.2 50.2 42.6 50.6 45.6 49.1 45.4 52.2
Mitsubishi 43.4 44.1 43.3 44.0 43.4 44.0 41.4 44.0 41.6 43.9 43.4 44.2
Nissan 44.0 51.4 44.1 51.2 45.0 50.4 44.3 51.1 44.0 50.1 45.1 48.7
Porsche 43.9 51.8 42.9 51.8 42.2 51.8 42.6 51.8 40.9 50.8 42.3 51.3
Subaru 43.4 44.5 43.7 44.2 43.5 44.1 43.5 44.1 44.0 44.6 44.0 44.6
Suzuki 41.7 44.0 41.5 44.0 41.3 44.0 - - - - - -
Tesla 37.1 - 37.1 - 53.6 - 53.6 - 53.6 - 54.1 -
Toyota 43.8 52.1 43.7 52.1 43.9 51.3 44.4 53.0 44.5 51.1 44.5 51.8
Volkswagen 43.9 47.6 44.4 48.2 44.4 47.9 45.0 47.5 44.4 47.5 45.5 46.8
Volvo 45.1 48.4 46.3 48.4 46.3 48.6 47.0 48.7 47.1 48.0 47.0 51.3
Fleet average 44.7 54.7 44.6 55.1 44.9 55.5 45.0 55.6 45.0 54.3 45.3 54.9


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 two 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 two 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 two 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.

As with the CO2e standard, the CREE values for the 2011 model year are based on the CAFE program and therefore consider the consumption of fuel to establish reasonable approximations of equivalent GHG performance. Using this methodology, the emissions measured during the city and highway tests are used to calculate the fuel economy performance instead of directly calculating a CREE value. Once the fleet average fuel economy has been determined, it must be converted to an equivalent amount of CO2Footnote 8.

The calculated fleet average CREE values achieved by companies over the 2011 to 2016 model years are presented in table 4. The fleet average CREE from the 2011 to 2016 model years for passenger automobiles and light trucks has decreased from 258 g/mi to 237 g/mi (8.1%) and 356 g/mi to 337 g/mi (5.3%) respectively.

Table 4: fleet average carbon related exhaust emissions (g/mi)
Manufacturer 2011
PA
2011
LT
2012
PA
2012
LT
2013
PA
2013
LT
2014
PA
2014
LT
2015
PA
2015
LT
2016
PA
2016
LT
Aston Martin 468 - - - - - - - - - - -
BMW 307 338 277 359 264 329 259 312 258 306 263 311
FCA 307 375 283 370 274 367 281 355 276 346 297 358
Ferrari 557 - - - - - - - - - - -
Ford 255 364 243 373 244 357 248 357 247 348 257 376
GM 271 394 259 382 257 373 251 341 253 342 251 363
Honda 242 324 220 309 223 307 219 294 211 269 206 274
Hyundai 244 307 234 316 236 313 253 316 250 317 248 338
JLR 382 474 379 415 362 393 347 355 344 337 334 350
Kia 253 315 267 309 249 300 261 319 265 323 245 338
Lotus 321 - - - - - - - - - - -
Maserati 466 - - - - - - - - - - -
Mazda 250 331 232 295 236 268 210 267 207 276 210 259
Mercedes 302 365 315 375 266 348 264 325 257 307 260 327
Mitsubishi 250 275 244 281 244 272 219 270 224 265 231 272
Nissan 252 349 253 378 235 342 221 318 227 298 231 273
Porsche 335 369 324 368 311 365 305 361 313 347 331 336
Subaru 303 296 269 303 257 273 242 254 249 254 249 252
Suzuki 262 322 263 319 260 330 - - - - - -
Tesla 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 -
Toyota 237 335 220 343 227 331 216 342 218 329 217 329
Volkswagen 244 326 263 320 256 316 250 304 238 305 240 304
Volvo 303 355 299 340 300 345 306 349 281 332 289 299
Fleet average 258 356 247 357 244 348 241 336 238 326 237 337


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 conditioning (AC) systems have a global warming potentialFootnote 9  (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 = sum(A x 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 2011 to 2016 model years. A total of fifteen companies have claimed allowances for reduction in AC refrigerant leakage.

Table 5: allowance for reduction in AC refrigerant leakage (g/mi)
Manufacturer 2011
PA
2011
LT
2012
PA
2012
LT
2013
PA
2013
LT
2014
PA
2014
LT
2015
PA
2015
LT
2016
PA
2016
LT
Aston Martin 3 - - - - - - - - - - -
BMW 4 7 4.1 6.9 4.4 7.2 4.6 7.0 4.6 7.1 4.7 7.0
FCA 6 8 6.0 8.0 6.0 8.0 8.4 10.4 11.6 13.1 13.3 14
Ford 3 7 4.0 7.0 5.0 8.0 5.7 7.7 6.3 7.8 6.2 7.8
GM 4 9 6.0 7.0 6.0 8.0 6.1 7.1 6.2 6.9 6.2 7.0
Honda 2 3 1.9 3.7 1.9 3.8 1.8 3.9 1.8 4.2 8.3 6.4
Hyundai - - 2.2 5.4 2.1 4.6 2.1 3.4 2.4 3.6 2.5 1.6
JLR 3 5 3.0 6.0 3.0 5.0 6.3 16.3 9.6 16.9 13.8 17.2
Kia - - 2.2 3.9 2.6 5.0 2.2 4.1 2.3 3.7 2.3 2.1
Mercedes 3 4 4.0 7.0 4.0 7.0 4.7 6.9 5.5 7.2 5.7 4.0
Mitsubishi - - - - - - - - - - 2.0 7.0
Nissan - - - - - - - - 4.0 6.5 4.5 7.1
Porsche 4 7 0.8 6.2 0.8 6.6 0.6 6.7 0.4 6.7 0.8 6.7
Toyota 2 3 3.0 4.0 2.7 4.2 3.1 4.7 3.6 4.9 3.3 6.6
Volkswagen 2 4 2.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.8 7.4 4.9 7.3 4.8 7.4
Fleet average 1 5 2.9 5.7 3.0 6.2 3.5 6.8 4.0 7.6 4.8 8.4

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 but are capped at 5.7 g/mi.

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 = sum(A x 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 2011 to 2016 model years. Sixteen companies have claimed allowances for improvements in air conditioning system efficiency during this period.

Table 6: allowance for improvements in AC system efficiency (g/mi)
Manufacturer 2011
PA
2011
LT
2012
PA
2012
LT
2013
PA
2013
LT
2014
PA
2014
LT
2015
PA
2015
LT
2016
PA
2016
LT
Aston Martin 5 - - - - - - - - - - -
BMW 4 4 3.4 4.3 3.5 4.3 4.0 4.3 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.3
FCA 2 2 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.9 4.1 4.5 4.5 5.2 4.2
Ford - - - - 2.0 1.0 1.7 2.6 2.4 3.4 2.7 3.5
GM 1 1 3.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 3.1 3.9 3.2 4.1 3.5 4.2
Honda 2 2 1.2 2.0 1.2 2.1 1.3 2.0 1.4 1.9 3.3 2.9
Hyundai - - 2.0 1.7 2.6 3.4 3.5 3.7 3.5 3.7 3.7 4.2
JLR 2 4 2.0 3.0 2.0 4.0 5.2 5.4 5.2 5.6 5.7 5.7
Kia - - 2.1 2.5 2.6 3.4 3.2 2.7 3.3 3.4 3.3 3.4
Mercedes 5 5 5.0 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.2 5.3
Nissan - - - - - - - - 2.8 2.9 3.1 3.0
Porsche 4 6 4.0 5.7 3.9 5.7 3.8 5.7 3.7 5.7 3.9 5.7
Subaru - - - - - - - - - - 2.9 3.0
Tesla 3 - 6.0 - 6.0 - 5.7 - 5.7 - 5.7 -
Toyota 3 3 3.4 2.5 3.6 3.6 3.4 3.6 3.4 4.0 3.8 4.4
Volkswagen 4 5 4.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 3.9 4.7 3.8 4.2 4.4 5.2
Fleet average 1 1 1.9 1.5 2.4 2.2 2.6 3.1 2.9 3.6 3.4 3.8

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: waste heat recovery, high efficiency exterior lights, solar panels, active aerodynamic improvements, engine idle start-stop, active transmission warm-up, active engine warm-up, and thermal control technologies. 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 = sum(A x 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 2011 to 2016. In total, fourteen companies have made use of the allowance for innovative technologies during this period.

Table 7: allowance for the use of innovative technologies (g/mi)
Manufacturer 2011
PA
2011
LT
2012
PA
2012
LT
2013
PA
2013
LT
2014
PA
2014
LT
2015
PA
2015
LT
2016
PA
2016
LT
BMW - - - - - - 3.1 6.0 3.4 6.2 3.7 6.5
FCA 1 2 1.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 3.5 7.6 3.6 7.7 3.2 8.2
Ford - - - - - - 2.0 3.2 3.9 7.4 1.7 3.9
GM 1 1 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 0.5 1.6 1.7 2.5 2.4 3.8
Honda - - - - - - 0.5 2.1 1.3 2.2 1.7 2.5
Hyundai - - - - - - 0.8 1.7 1.1 2 0.8 4.8
JLR - - - - - - 2.4 5.4 2.4 5.8 3.2 7.4
Kia - - - - - - 0.6 0.8 1.1 1.6 1.0 3.6
Mercedes - - - - - - 4.2 1.6 3.4 4.2 3.3 4.6
Nissan - - - - - - - - 1.3 3.0 1.7 3.3
Porsche - - - - - - - - - 0.6 2.5 4.4
Subaru - - - - - - - - - - 1.1 3.3
Toyota - - - - - - 1.8 3.6 2.2 3.1 1.1 3.3
Volkswagen - - 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 - - - - - -
Fleet average 0.2 0.6 0.3 0.8 0.2 0.9 1.2 3.7 1.4 4.1 1.4 4.5

2.3.4. Dual fuel vehicles

Alcohol dual fuel vehiclesFootnote 10  [for example, flexible fuel vehicles (FFVs)] are vehicles with a traditional internal combustion engine that can operate on conventional fuels, but are also capable of operating on fuel blends of up to 85% ethanol (E85). The regulations contain provisions to allow a company to improve their fleet average GHG emissions for the 2011 to 2015 model years through the sale of such vehicles. Beginning with the 2016 model year the regulations require a manufacturer to establish whether ethanol is actually used to benefit from this allowance.

The following formula is used to calculate the emissions benefit resulting from FFVs for the 2011 to 2015 model years.

CREE = (CREEgas + (CREEalt x 0.15))/2

Where
CREEgas is the combined model type carbon related exhaust emissions value for operation on gasoline or diesel;
CREEalt is the combined model type carbon related exhaust emissions value for operation on alternative fuels;

The regulations limit the improvements to the fleet average CREE value that a company can achieve through the use of FFVs in a manner that is consistent with the CAFE program. Under the CAFE program, fuel economy improvements are limited to a pre-set amount based on the model year in question. The following formula is used to quantify the CAFE fuel economy limits in terms of CO2e emissions.

Maximum Decrease = (8887/((8887/FltAvg) - MPGmax)) - FltAvg

Where
FltAvg is the fleet average CREE value assuming all FFVs in the fleet are operated exclusively on gasoline (or diesel) fuel;
MPGMAX is the maximum increase in miles per gallon for a specific model yearFootnote 11

The treatment of FFVs for the 2011 to 2015 model years assumes equal weighting for both conventional and alternative fuel usage, and did not require evidence that the alternative fuel was used during real-world operation.  Starting with the 2016 model year, companies may only make use of this provision where they can demonstrate that their vehicles are using the alternative fuel in the marketplace (such as E85). The following formula is used to determine the CREE for FFVs beginning with the 2016 model year, where the weighting factor “F” is 0 unless the company can provide evidence that an alternate value is more appropriate.

CREE = [(1 - F) x CREEgas] + (CREEalt x F)

The total quantity of FFVs reported by manufacturers during the 2011 to 2016 model years is summarized in table 8. During this period, six manufacturers reported FFVs, the majority of which have come from Ford, GM, and FCA. Approximately three times as many FFVs were produced for the light truck fleet than for the passenger automobile fleet.

Table 8: FFV production volumes for the 2011 to 2016 model years
Model year Category Ford GM FCA Mazda Mercedes JLR Volkswagen Total
2011 LT 67 655 80 484 - 1 598 - - - -
PA 11 490 37 307 - 253 - - - -
2012 LT 55 227 55 485 77 672 - 222 - - 188 606
PA 23 975 49 937 14 537 - 3 263 - 118 91 830
2013 LT 74 899 65 632 74 921 - 560 - 296 216 308
PA 33 769 21 667 12 354 - 6 507 20 4 390 78 707
2014 LT 75 242 80 265 94 437 - 651 3 277 4 927 258 799
PA 29 040 10 160 6 292 - 5 039 40 4 967 55 538
2015 LT 55 514 20 022 80 645 - 4 055 1 250 4 796 166 282
PA 19 776 5 721 15 372 - 2 729 35 4 996 48 629
2016a LT 81 192 10 428 - - - - - 91 620
PA 17 165 4 105 - - 5 575 - - 26 845

a Due to the transition of FFV provisions which require evidence of E85 usage beginning with the 2016 model year, certain companies may not have identified all FFV models in their fleets. The FFV production volumes for the 2016 model year may therefore be under-reported.


Table 9 shows the benefit of FFVs for these companies’ fleet performance for the 2011 through 2016 model years. FCA, GM, and Ford, were the primary manufacturers of FFVs, and the impacts from the sale of these vehicles reduced their CREE values by approximately 4-5% over the 2011 to 2015 model years. The asterisks in Table 9 indicate that a company has reduced their CREE by the maximum annual allowable amount attributable to FFV sales. No companies reported the use of alternative fuels (such as E85) for the 2016 model year and hence were not eligible to reduce their CREE as a result of FFV sales.

Table 9: FFV impact for the 2011 to 2016 model years (g/mi)
Model year Category Ford GM FCA Mazda Mercedes JLR Volkswagen
2011 LT 19 22 - 16 - - -
PA 9 10 - 1 - - -
2012 LT 22* 23* 22* - 3 - -
PA 9* 10* 12* - 12 - 1
2013 LT 20* 22* 22* - 7 - -
PA 9* 10* 11* - 9 3 7
2014 LT 20* 18* 20* - 8 20 14*
PA 9* 9* 12* - 10 6 10*
2015 LT 15* 15* 15* - 10 14* 12*
PA 7* 6 10* - 7 4 7*
2016 LT - - - - - - -
PA - - - - - - -

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 (PHEVs), and fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEV). BEVs are completely powered by grid electricity stored in a battery, and hence produce no tailpipe emissions. PHEVs incorporate an electrical powertrain which enables them to be charged by grid electricity to operate solely on electrical power, but also contain a conventional 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) subject to the limitations described below. Additionally, companies may multiply the number of ATVs in their fleet by a factor of 1.2 to increase the impact that they have on a company’s overall fleet average.

While the production of the electricity required to charge BEVs and PHEVs and the production of hydrogen for FCEVs result in upstream emissions, the approach of allowing companies to report 0 g/mi is intended to promote the adoption of advanced technology vehicles over the short term. The regulations provide two options for the quantity of vehicles that can be reported as 0 g/mi. For vehicles of the 2011 to 2016 model years, a company may report 0 g/mi for: (a) the first 30 000 ATVs if it sold fewer than 3 750 ATVs in the 2012 model year; or (b) the first 45 000 ATVs if it sold 3 750 or more in model year 2012. The regulations also recognize early action for ATVs sold during the 2008 to 2010 model years. If a company claimed early action credits (discussed in section 3.1), the production volumes that were reported in the 2008 to 2010 model years will also be counted towards this ATV cap. Any ATVs sold in excess of these caps are required to adjust the 0 g/mi CREE such that it incorporates the CO2 contribution from upstream emissions.

The production volumes of ATVs sold by model year are presented in Table 10. ATV sales in Canada have been predominantly confined to the passenger automobile sector, though a number of ATVs have entered the market in the light truck sector in recent years. No company sold 3 750 ATVs in the 2012 model year, and no company reached the 30 000 ATV ceiling during the 2011 to 2016 model years. Thus all companies reporting were able to claim a 0 g/mi CREE for their ATVs.

Table 10: production volumes of ATVs by model year
Manufacturer 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total
BMW - - - - 670 605 1 275
Ford - 102 338 696 297 771 2 204
GM - 1 337 858 1 340 1 546 765 5 846
Honda - - - 12 - - 12
Kia - - - - 110 1 069 1 179
Mercedes - - 91 613 149 198 1 051
Mitsubishi - 380 49 137 - 120 686
Nissan 140 534 236 406 1 703 1 620 4 639
Porsche - - - 53 162 311 526
Tesla 16 303 418 971 1 913 2 963 6 584
Toyota - 53 225 64 53 - 395
Volkswagen - - - - - 293 293
Volvo - - - - - 278 278
Total 156 2 709 2 215 4 292 6 603 8 993 24 968

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 12 ) for 2012 and subsequent model years. This exemption is available to companies that: (a) have manufactured or imported less than 750 passenger automobiles and light trucks for either the 2008 or 2009 model years; (b) have manufactured or imported for sale a running average of less than 750 vehicles for the three model years prior to the model year being exempted; and (c) 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 four small volume companies for the 2012 and later model years.

Table 11: production volumes for small volume companies by model year
Manufacturer 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Ferrari 193 207 198 201 209
Maserati 152 154 561 443 344
Lotus 19 16 14 8 0
Aston Martin 100 35 124 117 91
Total 464 412 897 769 644

2.3.7. Temporary optional fleets

The regulations include an option for intermediate sized companies (those with a 2009 model year total production volume of 60 000 or fewer vehicles) to meet an alternative standard for a specified time period. 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. Companies using this option could place a portion of their fleet into a temporary optional fleet (TOF) in which the standard is 25% less stringent than what would otherwise be required. The total number of vehicles that a company could put into a temporary optional fleet was subject to limitations based on the quantity of vehicles offered for sale. A company that sold between 750 and 7 500 new vehicles of the 2009 model year could create a TOF with a combined total of up to 30 000 vehicles of the 2012 to 2015 model years, and up to 7 500 vehicles of the 2016 model year. A company that sold between 7 500 and 60 000 new vehicles of the 2009 model year could only include a combined total of up to 15 000 vehicles of the 2012 to 2015 model years. Companies that elect to create TOFs cannot use the resulting credits to offset a deficit incurred for a non-TOF portion of their fleet, nor could they bank credits earned by a non-TOF portion of their fleets.

As of the 2016 model year, Volvo, Porsche, JLR, and Mercedes have created TOFs. Given their smaller production volumes, Volvo and Porsche were able to place all of their vehicles of the 2012 to 2016 model years into temporary optional fleets which are valid up to the 2016 model year (their 2009 sales were between 750 and 7500). Mercedes and JLR also created TOFs; however, as larger companies, they were limited to 15 000 vehicles over the 2012 to 2015 model years which required them to split their fleets of vehicles into both conventional fleets and TOFs.

Table 12: production volumes of temporary optional fleets
Manufacturer 2012
PA
2012
LT
2013
PA
2013
LT
2014
PA
2014
LT
2015
PA
2015
LT
2016
PA
2016
LT
JLR 716 3 904 1 090 5 140 1 179 6 183 1 507 6 188 1 282 4 655
Mercedes 3 461 730 1 877 3 063 1 698 977 2 025 1 085 - -
Porsche 1 242 1 102 1 556 2 023 2 018 2 599 1 549 3 340 1 585 5 081
Volvo 3 782 3 708 1 970 2 809 607 1 662 3 272 3 139 891 4 885
Total 9 201 9 444 6 493 13 035 5 502 11 421 8 353 13 752 3 758 14 621


2.4. Technological advancements and penetration

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 exist, however, 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 in the Canadian new vehicle fleet in given model years. As summarized in table 13, during the 2012 to 2016 period, an increasing proportion of new vehicles were equipped with one or more of the aforementioned powertrain technologies.

Turbocharging with engine downsizing

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 gasses 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 (<2.0 L displacement), in order to decrease the overall vehicle weight and improve fuel efficiency by as much as 8%.

Variable valve timing & lift (VVT & VVL)

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 ideal for all engine speeds. VVT and 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 6 or more gears to keep the engine running at its most efficient operating point and thereby reduce CO2e emissions.

Continuously variable transmissions (CVT)

CVT’s are transmissions that, unlike conventional transmission configurations, do not have a fixed number of gears, but instead incorporate a system of pulleys with variable diameters that are typically driven by a belt or chain. 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 (CDS)

Cylinder deactivation systems 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 13.

Gasoline direct injection (GDI)

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, 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 to 35% further per litre of fuel then a gasoline based equivalentFootnote 14 which translates into measurable reductions in CO2e emissions.

The fleet-wide penetration rates of the above described technologies have been provided in table 13, while data pertaining to company specific usage can be found in appendices A-3 to A-10.

Table 13: penetration rates of drivetrain technologies in the Canadian fleet
Technology 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Turbocharging with Engine Downsizing 3.2% 12.6% 13.7% 9.7% 15.8%
VVT 88.9% 96.3% 96.3% 94.2% 94.2%
VVL 16.7% 13.6% 20.2% 16.2% 19.3%
Higher Geared Transmission 5.1% 6.6% 14.1% 17.5% 22.0%
CVT 7.1% 6.8% 12.7% 13.5% 13.3%
Cylinder Deactivation 6.8% 6.8% 11.1% 10.0% 10.0%
GDI 17.6% 19.1% 26.7% 30.7% 37.4%
Diesel 1.9% 1.8% 2.7% 3.0% 1.8%


2.5. 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 currently have three 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 available to companies enables them 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 two 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. Mazda, Nissan, and Subaru have thus far been the only companies to use this option to comply with standards for N2O and CH4.

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 in Mg which must be offset with conventional CO2e emissions credits. Over the 2012 to 2016 period, a growing number of manufacturers have been utilizing this method. The total deficits incurred by the companies that used this method are summarized in tables table14 and table15.

Table 14: N2O emissions deficits by company for the 2012 to 2016 model years (Mg CO2e)
Manufacturer 2012
PA
2012
LT
2013
PA
2013
LT
2014
PA
2014
LT
2015
PA
2015
LT
2016
PA
2016
LT
BMW - 2 573 - 1 391 3 613 2 332 2 088 8 066 2 062 5 853
Ford 244 30 198 531 46 745 261 2 741 272 2 755 255 4 760
GM - - - - 1 282 - 878 - - 1 615
Honda - - 18 748 - 18 102 - 1 414 3 715 - -
Mazda - - - - - - - - - 480
Nissan - - - - - - 5 143 19 634 5 595 23 617
Toyota - - - - - - 1 381 2 302 1 729 2 647
Volkswagen 28 680 3 314 30 139 2 096 23 434 3 866 20 673 3 251 219 928
Fleet total 28 924 36 085 49 418 50 232 46 692 8 939 31 849 39 723 9 860 39 900
Table 15: CH4 emissions deficits by company for the 2012 to 2016 model years (Mg CO2e)
Manufacturer 2012
PA
2012
LT
2013
PA
2013
LT
2014
PA
2014
LT
2015
PA
2015
LT
2016
PA
2016
LT
BMW - 647 - 350 454 293 263 1 015 260 737
FCA 743 3 173 173 124 20 3 342 - 1 312 3 2 384
Ford 1 403 4 457 1 791 5 803 1 328 5 484 1 083 10 649 1 017 20 409
GM 1 189 9 397 1 461 11 089 773 3 842 109 641 137 708
Nissan - - - - - - 431 1 647 436 1 981
Volkswagen 12 274 299 12 837 126 9 686 - 42 273 39 128
Fleet total 15 609 17 973 16 262 17 492 12 261 12 961 1 928 15 537 1 892 26 345


2.6. 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

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).


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. Table 16 shows the companies’ compliance values across the 2011 to 2016 model years.

Table 16: compliance values over the 2011 to 2016 model years (g/mi)
Manufacturer 2011
PA
2011
LT
2012
PA
2012
LT
2013
PA
2013
LT
2014
PA
2014
LT
2015
PA
2015
LT
2016
PA
2016
LT
Aston Martin 460 - - - - - - - - - - -
BMW 299 327 270 350 256 318 248 296 246 292 251 295
FCA 298 363 273 358 264 353 265 333 256 321 275 332
Ferrari 557 - - - - - - - - - - -
Ford 252 357 239 367 237 349 238 344 237 333 247 361
GM 265 383 249 372 247 362 241 328 242 328 239 348
Honda 238 319 217 303 221 301 216 286 207 261 193 262
Hyundai 244 307 230 309 231 305 247 307 243 308 241 327
JLR 377 465 374 406 357 384 333 328 327 309 311 320
Kia 253 315 263 303 244 292 255 311 258 314 238 329
Lotus 321 - - - - - - - - - - -
Maserati 466 - - - - - - - - - - -
Mazda 250 331 232 295 236 268 210 267 207 276 210 259
Mercedes 294 356 306 363 257 336 250 311 243 290 246 313
Mitsubishi 250 275 244 281 244 272 219 270 224 265 229 265
Nissan 252 349 253 378 235 342 221 318 219 287 222 262
Porsche 327 356 319 356 306 353 301 349 309 334 324 319
Subaru 303 296 269 303 257 273 242 254 249 254 246 249
Suzuki 262 322 263 319 260 330 - - - - - -
Teslaa -3 - -6 - -6 - -6 - -6 - -6 -
Toyota 232 329 214 337 221 323 208 330 209 317 209 315
Volkswagen 238 317 260 312 252 307 244 293 231 294 231 292
Volvo 303 355 299 340 300 345 306 349 281 332 289 299
Fleet average 255 349 242 349 238 339 234 323 230 311 228 321

a Tesla only produces electric vehicles, and is able to use the 0 g/mi incentive for its entire fleet. The compliance value is negative once its AC allowances have been factored in.


Figures figure4 and figure5 provide a graphical representation of the role that compliance flexibilities play in arriving at a company’s overall compliance status for their 2016 model year passenger automobile and light truck fleets. Note that under the regulations, a company’s CREE value is calculated to include the benefits from FFVs. Figures 4 and 5 instead refer to “tailpipe emissions”Footnote 15  as opposed to CREE so that FFV benefits can be portrayed separately. The dark green line on the top of the bar indicates a company’s fleet average tailpipe emissions. The wide orange line represents the fleet average standard and the wide dark blue line represents the fleet average compliance value (accounting for compliance flexibilities). The green shaded 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: 2016 passenger automobile compliance status with offsets

Figure 4 (see long description below)

Notes:

  1. The asterisked companies are those that used the temporary optional fleet provisions
  2. The final compliance value may be lower than the tailpipe emissions through the application of compliance flexibilities
Long description for figure 4
Manufacturer Fleet average
tailpipe emissions
Fleet average
compliance
value
Air conditioning Innovative
technologies
Fleet average
standard
BMW 263.0 250.2 9.1 3.7 230.0
FCA 297.0 275.3 18.5 3.2 242.0
Ford 257.0 246.4 8.9 1.7 232.0
GM 251.0 238.9 9.7 2.4 230.0
Honda 206.0 192.7 11.6 1.7 224.0
Hyundai 248.0 241.0 6.2 0.8 227.0
JLR* 334.0 311.3 19.5 3.2 309.0
Kia 245.0 238.4 5.6 1.0 227.0
Mazda 210.0 210.0 0.0 0.0 223.0
Mercedes 260.0 245.8 10.9 3.3 232.0
Mitsubishi 231.0 229.0 2.0 0.0 218.0
Nissan 231.0 221.7 7.6 1.7 227.0
Porsche* 331.0 323.8 4.7 2.5 275.0
Subaru 249.0 245.8 2.9 0.3 221.0
Toyota 217.0 208.8 7.1 1.1 223.0
VW 240.0 230.8 9.2 0.0 222.0
Volvo* 289.0 289.0 0.0 0.0 293.0


Figure 5: 2016 light truck compliance status with offsets

Figure 5 (see long description below).

Notes:

  1. The asterisked companies are those that used the temporary optional fleet provisions
  2. The final compliance value may be lower than the tailpipe emissions through the application of compliance flexibilities
Long description for figure 5
Manufacturer Fleet average
tailpipe emissions
Fleet average
compliance value
Air conditioning Innovative
technologies
Fleet average
standard
BMW 311.0 293.2 11.3 6.5 286.0
FCA 358.0 331.6 18.2 8.2 303.0
Ford 376.0 360.8 11.3 3.9 325.0
GM 363.0 348.0 11.2 3.8 322.0
Honda 274.0 262.2 9.3 2.5 275.0
Hyundai 338.0 327.4 5.8 4.8 280.0
JLR* 350.0 319.7 22.9 7.4 316.0
Kia 338.0 328.9 5.5 3.6 286.0
Mazda 259.0 259.0 0.0 0.0 270.0
Mercedes 327.0 313.1 9.3 4.6 292.0
Mitsubishi 272.0 265.0 7.0 0.0 260.0
Nissan 273.0 259.6 10.1 3.3 278.0
Porsche* 336.0 319.2 12.4 4.4 361.0
Subaru 252.0 248.9 3.0 0.1 261.0
Toyota 329.0 314.7 11.0 3.3 289.0
VW 304.0 291.4 12.6 0.0 270.0
Volvo* 299.0 299.0 0.0 0.0 360.0


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 worse than 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 three model years.

The total credit balance is determined according to the following formula:

Credits = ((A - B) x C x 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 ability to earn, bank, trade and sell credits, including early action credits, is an important aspect of the regulations and is intended to give manufacturers flexibility to meet the 2012 to 2016 model year standards, as well as assist with the transition to the progressively more stringent standards during the 2017 to 2025 model years. 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 five model years after the year in which the credits were obtained (the credits had a five-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 five-year lifespan.

As previously noted, a company’s ability to earn credits is based on its compliance value relative to its standard and its overall production volume. For this reason, the compliance margin (the difference between the compliance value and the standard) of a company with a large production volume will generate a greater number of credits (or deficits) than that of a company with a low production volume, all else being equal. Figures figure6 and figure7 illustrate the extent to which a company will earn credits (or incur a deficit) for its fleets of passenger automobiles and light trucks in the 2016 model year. The vertical axis denotes the compliance value and the horizontal axis shows the applicable standard. The center of each circle situates the company’s compliance value and standard, and the diameter is indicative of the company’s production volume. Companies that are positioned below the diagonal line have emission levels that are better than their applicable standard and will generate credits. The standard values for companies that reported TOFs fall well outside the range of figures 6 and 7, and have not been included. Figure 6 illustrates that while the majority of companies are subject to a CO2e standard that ranges between 220 g/mi to 230 g/mi for their fleet of passenger automobiles, there is a comparatively wide range of compliance values achieved by these companies. Figure 7 shows that there is variation in both compliance values and applicable CO2e standards for companies’ fleets of light trucks. Comparable charts for model years 2011 to 2015 can be found in figures A-9 to A-16 of the appendix.


Figure 6: 2016 compliance status of passenger automobile fleet with company size

Figure 6 (see long description below).

Notes: Companies that used the temporary optional fleet provisions are not shown in this graph.

Long description for figure 6
Manufacturer Compliance value Standard Production volume
Hyundai 241 227 123 676
Honda 193 224 114 360
Toyota 209 223 102 858
GM 239 230 82 065
Nissan 222 227 71 221
VW 231 222 67 074
Kia 238 227 58 583
Ford 247 232 54 569
Mazda 210 223 46 389
FCA 275 242 35 676
BMW 251 230 31 789
Subaru 246 221 14 603
Mitsubishi 229 218 6 100


Figure 7: 2016 compliance status of light truck fleet with company size

Figure 7 (see long description below).

Notes: Companies that used the temporary optional fleet provisions are not shown in this graph.

Long description for figure 7
Manufacturer Compliance value Standard Production volume
FCA 332 303 240 114
Ford 361 325 190 662
GM 348 322 118 958
Toyota 315 289 104 187
Honda 262 275 87 060
Nissan 262 278 51 416
Subaru 249 261 32 079
VW 292 270 21 133
Kia 329 286 15 878
Mazda 259 270 15 317
BMW 295 286 14 316
Mitsubishi 265 260 12 097
Hyundai 327 280 4 493


3.1. Early action credits (2008-10)

The regulations enabled companies to earn “early action” credits for their 2008 to 2010 model year vehicles to recognize early adoption of fuel efficient technologies. This provision required that companies provide a full report on their 2008 to 2010 model years and that the net credit balance be positive. Any deficits accrued during those model years had to be offset by credits acquired in those same model years before calculating any credits that may be carried forward into the 2011 model year.

To generate early action credits, companies could elect to calculate their fleet average standards using methods that corresponded to either U.S. CAFE standards, or alternatively to California’s GHG emission program (Alternative Fleet Combination). California’s program differed slightly from the federal program in how cars and trucks are classified, and also the applicable emission levels.

The use of early action credits generated was subject to certain limitations. For example, credits claimed in respect of the 2008 model year were only available up to the 2011 model year after which they were no longer valid. Additionally, a company that generated credits using thresholds that correspond to California’s GHG emission regulations could not trade credits of the 2009 model year.

Table 17 presents a summary of the total early action credits generated by those companies that elected to use this provision. In total, almost 52 million early action credits were generated. The compliance data (compliance value and standard) used to calculate the resulting early action credits can be found in tables tableA-11 and tableA-12 of the appendix.

Table 17: net early action credits (Mg CO2e)
Manufacturer 2008 2009 2010 Total
BMW 154 486 165 080 117 070 436 636
FCA 1 431 356 1 497 429 1 866 599 4 795 384
Ford 1 200 368 2 036 603 2 051 415 5 288 386
GM 3 742 784 3 391 228 2 242 967 9 376 979
Honda 2 674 010 2 088 289 2 130 090 6 892 389
Hyundai 1 166 558 1 725 828 1 684 866 4 577 252
Kia 327 172 346 330 718 429 1 391 931
Lotus 189 142 -94 237
Mazda 1 008 810 588 510 1 630 325 3 227 645
Mercedes 141 136 85 808 38 987 265 931
Mitsubishi 193 030 300 460 249 375 742 865
Nissan 1 013 522 1 275 037 742 272 3 030 831
Suzuki 113 336 104 593 123 345 341 274
Tesla 0 0 2 292 2 292
Toyota 2 478 694 3 609 296 3 921 376 10 009 366
Volkswagen 263 128 570 434 461 130 1 294 692
Volvo 29 016 27 030 38 880 94 926
Total 15 937 595 17 812 097 18 019 324 51 800 232


3.2. Credits purchased from the Receiver General

Under the U.S. CAFE program, companies can meet the mandatory fuel economy standards by paying a monetary penalty. To provide companies with comparable compliance flexibility for the 2011 model year exclusively, companies were able to purchase credits from the Receiver General of Canada at a rate of $20/Mg CO2e to offset an emissions deficit. The option to purchase credits from the Receiver General was used by Porsche, Lotus, and Aston Martin. The quantities of credits purchased can be found in table 18.

3.3. Credit transfers

Table 18 summarizes transactions by company and the model year in which the credits were generated. There have been more than 5.6 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 indicative of when a credit transfer occurred (it is possible to transfer credits for the 2012 model year during the 2016 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 by model year (Mg CO2e)
  Company Early action 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total
Transferred out Honda 2 138 563 658 254 1 208 565 503 091 - - - 4 508 473
Nissan 480 020 95 000 - 50 000 - - - 625 020
Suzuki 123 345 30 431 - - - - - 153 776
Tesla 2 292 897 7 264 24 649 55 496 105 226 158 088 353 912
Toyota 3 740 - - - - - - 3 740
Receiver General - 6 906 - - - - - 6 906
Transferred in Aston Martin - 2 626 - - - - - 2 626
BMW - - 496 909 503 091 - - - 1 000 000
FCA 2 655 727 689 582 218 920 24 649 55 496 105 226 158 088 3 907 688
Ferrari 8 473 - - - - - - 8 473
JLR 80 020 - - - - - - 80 020
Lotus - 139 - - - - - 139
Mercedes - 95 000 500 000 50 000 - - - 645 000
Maserati 3 740 - - - - - - 3 740
Porsche - 4 141 - - - - - 4 141


3.4. Total credits generated and final status

Table 19 shows the credits earned (or deficits incurred) by all companies over the 2011 to 2016 model years. Credit values have been provided for Mercedes, JLR, Porsche and Volvo, however the use and lifespan of these credits are subject to restrictions since they were generated under less stringent temporary optional fleet (TOF) standards (see section 2.3.7.). 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 78.4 million emission credits (including early action credits and TOF credits), of which approximately 32.3 million credits remain valid for future use through the 2021 model year. A total of 9.5 million credits have been used to offset deficits and 36.5 million credits have expired.

Table 19: net credits by model year and current credit balance (Mg CO2e)
Manufacturers 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total Current balancea
Aston Martin -2 626 - - - - - -2 626 0
BMW 4 748 -50 195 29 159 76 292 -19 542 -157 579 -117 117 1 082 449
FCA 236 411 -118 954 -178 514 96 459 -374 769 -1 785 437 -2 124 804 3 828 313
Ferrari -8 473 - - - - - -8 473 0
Ford 1 387 005 448 046 705 226 309 403 -32 381 -1 721 565 1 238 013 945 453
GM 1 154 591 502 386 228 964 924 918 345 331 -843 657 2 258 713 2 899 980
Honda 733 309 1 208 565 687 153 736 428 928 500 950 638 5 244 593 2 799 628
Hyundai 873 419 665 198 937 254 27 708 -114 794 -386 195 2 002 590 3 637 702
JLRa -80 020 -5 624 4 741 95 310 84 779 -10 433 88 753 0
Kia 423 722 42 124 157 572 -88 387 -266 800 -284 258 -16 027 758 977
Lotus -376 - - - - - -376 0
Maserati -3 740 - - - - - -3 740 0
Mazda 442 628 302 618 235 306 500 316 319 793 155 330 1 955 991 3 456 398
Mercedesa -19 613 -153 246 24 805 29 934 63 486 -127 010 -181 644 500 104
Mitsubishi 241 953 68 907 52 152 92 072 22 872 -26 763 451 193 678 422
Nissan 370 954 -198 166 36 154 244 132 405 330 255 759 1 114 163 1 696 121
Porschea -4 141 17 325 28 218 28 352 22 794 32 868 125 416 0
Subaru 109 435 -18 625 44 651 202 146 107 662 16 955 462 224 462 224
Suzuki 30 431 -11 621 -6 481 - - - 12 329 0
Tesla 900 7 264 24 649 55 686 105 226 158 354 352 079 459
Toyota 1 506 331 922 973 641 786 718 341 95 134 -323 954 3 560 611 7 369 438
Volkswagen 582 643 60 523 52 088 66 649 4 334 -218 714 501 418 914 946
Volvob -9 466 81 762 41 474 14 541 37 172 68 000 233 483 41 835

a The current balance accounts for any expired credits, remaining early action credits, transactions, and offsets.
b Used temporary optional fleet provisions. Credits are subject to restrictions as described in section 2.3.7.


4. Estimated GHG reductions

The overall fleet average compliance information for passenger automobiles and light trucks is summarized in tables table20 and table21. Additionally, figures figure8 and figure9 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 aggregated values for all companies, and are intended to depict the average results.

Table 20: passenger automobile compliance summary for the 2011 to 2016 model years (g/mi)
Model year Tailpipe emissions Flex fuel vehicles Innovative technologies Air conditioning CH4 & N2O Compliance value Standard Compliance margin
2011 260 2.8 0.2 3.3 -- 255 291 36
2012 250 3.3 0.3 4.8 0.2 242 262 20
2013 247 3.4 0.2 5.4 0.2 238 256 18
2014 244 3.7 1.2 6.0 0.2 234 248 14
2015 240 2.6 1.4 6.9 0.2 230 237 7
2016 237 0 1.4 8.2 0.1 228 227 -1


Figure 8: average GHG emissions performance - passenger automobiles

Figure 8 (see long description below).
Long description for figure 8

Figure 8 is a graph presenting the trends in average GHG compliance value and average GHG standards for the passenger automobile fleets over the 2011 to 2016 model years.

The average standard decreases from 291 g/mile in 2011 to 262 in 2012, 256 in 2013, 248 in 2014, 237 in 2015 and 227 in 2016.

The average compliance value decreases from 255 g/mile in 2011 to 242 in 2012, 238 in 2013, 234 in 2014, 230 in 2015, and 228 in 2016.

Table 21: light truck compliance summary for the 2011 to 2016 model years (g/mi)
Model year Tailpipe emissions Flex fuel vehicles Innovative technologies Air conditioning CH4 & N2O Compliance value Standard Compliance margin
2011 364 8.0 0.6 6.9 - 349 367 18
2012 370 13.2 0.8 7.2 0.3 349 349 0
2013 361 13.2 0.9 8.4 0.4 339 340 1
2014 348 12.7 3.7 9.8 0.1 323 331 8
2015 335 9.2 4.1 11.2 0.3 311 311 0
2016 337 0 4.5 12.2 0.3 321 300 -21


Figure 9: average GHG emissions performance - light trucks

Figure 9 (see long description below).
Long description for figure 9

Figure 9 is a graph presenting the trends in average GHG compliance value and average GHG standards for the light truck fleets over the 2011-2016 model years.

The average standard decreases from 367 g/mile in 2011 to 349 in 2012, 340 in 2013, 331 in 2014, 311 in 2015, and 300 in 2016

The average compliance value is 349 g/mile in 2011 and 2012, and decreases to 339 in 2013, 323 in 2014, and 311 in 2015. The average compliance value increases to 321 in 2016.


As depicted in figures 8 and 9, during the 2011 to 2015 model years as the stringency of the regulations has increased, the overall passenger automobile fleet continued to outperform the applicable standard. From 2011 to 2015 the average compliance values from passenger automobiles decreased from 255 to 230 g/mi, a reduction of 9.8%. During the 2011 to 2015 period, compliance values for the light truck fleet have also continued to trend downwards (figure 8) from 349 to 311 g/mi, a reduction of 10.9%.

The 2016 model year marked the first year in which the compliance values for both passenger automobile and light truck fleets exceeded the applicable standard. The changes to the flex-fuel vehicle (FFV) provisions for the 2016 model year were a significant factor in the shift towards a negative compliance margin for the 2016 model year. The 2016 model year saw the overall compliance value for passenger automobiles decrease only slightly to 228 g/mi, and the overall compliance value for light trucks increased to 321 g/mi. This resulted in an overall net improvement of 10.6% and 8.0% relative to the 2011 model year for passenger automobiles and light trucks respectively.

Results to date indicate that all companies have met their regulatory obligations through to the 2016 model year. Despite the fact that the majority of companies incurred a deficit in the 2016 model year, a sufficient number of credits generated from earlier model years were available to ensure that industry was able to fulfil their regulatory obligations.


Appendix

Table A-1: production volumes by company
Manufacturer 2011
PA
2011
LT
2011
All
2012
PA
2012
LT
2012
All
2013
PA
2013
LT
2013
All
Aston Martin 83 - 83 100 - 100 35 - 35
BMW 35 012 9 649 44 661 24 326 7 823 32 149 27 682 12 421 40 103
FCA 19 798 140 217 160 015 60 247 169 774 230 021 65 853 150 484 216 337
Ferrari 165 - 165 193 - 193 207 - 207
Ford 87 258 156 171 243 429 95 288 110 699 205 987 101 453 195 429 296 882
GM 121 574 109 040 230 614 116 845 83 620 200 465 84 413 96 783 181 196
Honda 41 213 56 354 97 567 124 852 47 123 171 975 94 346 49 470 143 816
Hyundai 80 088 20 428 100 516 97 012 19 837 116 849 186 335 9 616 195 951
JLR 354 2 680 3 034 716 3 904 4 620 1 090 5 140 6 230
Kia 47 574 17 460 65 034 59 105 5 886 64 991 73 310 4 490 77 800
Lotus 55 - 55 19 - 19 16 - 16
Maserati 133 - 133 152 - 152 154 - 154
Mazda 59 781 6 783 66 564 54 806 13 161 67 967 50 978 11 179 62 157
Mercedes 14 223 8 282 22 505 17 519 13 152 30 671 20 763 13 462 34 225
Mitsubishi 7 364 14 518 21 882 9 394 8 630 18 024 8 715 8 365 17 080
Nissan 48 030 24 592 72 622 66 253 28 396 94 649 47 146 34 793 81 939
Porsche 730 955 1 685 1 242 1 102 2 344 1 556 2 023 3 579
Subaru 13 949 17 828 31 777 14 458 16 883 31 341 10 813 11 353 22 166
Suzuki 5 244 2 357 7 601 2 863 1 292 4 155 805 455 1 260
Tesla 16 - 16 120 - 120 418 - 418
Toyota 88 886 81 584 170 470 103 878 66 056 169 934 102 219 91 026 193 245
Volkswagen 53 950 12 259 66 209 63 303 14 742 78 045 74 480 15 540 90 020
Volvo 1 427 1 760 3 187 3 782 3 708 7 490 1 970 2 809 4 779
Fleet Total 726 907 682 917 1 409 824 916 473 615 788 1 532 261 954 757 714 838 1 669 595
Table A-1 (continued): production volumes by company
Manufacturer 2014
PA
2014
LT
2014
All
2015
PA
2015
LT
2015
All
2016
PA
2016
LT
2016
All
Aston Martin 124 - 124 117 - 117 91 - 91
BMW 26 185 11 178 37 363 29 027 12 711 41 738 31 789 14 316 46 105
FCA 50 620 230 088 280 708 53 772 222 388 276 160 35 676 240 114 275 790
Ferrari 198 - 198 201 - 201 209 - 209
Ford 94 639 185 694 280 333 67 630 150 536 218 166 55 121 191 204 246 325
GM 107 540 119 868 227 408 104 360 143 127 247 487 82 065 118 958 201 023
Honda 89 628 66 780 156 408 111 045 67 740 178 785 114 360 87 060 201 420
Hyundai 96 281 9 402 105 683 97 784 10 744 108 528 123 676 4 493 128 169
JLR 1 179 6 183 7 362 1 507 6 188 7 695 1 282 11 564 12 846
Kia 66 909 4 256 71 165 63 479 4 392 67 871 58 583 15 878 74 461
Lotus 14 - 14 8 - 8 - - -
Maserati 561 - 561 443 - 443 344 - 344
Mazda 50 546 17 617 68 163 48 554 16 373 64 927 46 386 15 317 61 703
Mercedes 22 793 13 310 36 103 22 997 20 083 43 080 24 178 12 980 37 158
Mitsubishi 13 561 12 255 25 816 14 600 11 080 25 680 6 100 12 097 18 197
Nissan 59 385 49 964 109 349 94 731 59 371 154 102 71 221 51 416 122 637
Porsche 2 071 2 599 4 670 1 549 3 340 4 889 1 585 5 081 6 666
Subaru 11 187 26 892 38 079 17 593 35 735 53 328 14 603 32 079 46 682
Suzuki - - - - - - - - -
Tesla 971 - 971 1 913 - 1 913 2 963 - 2 963
Toyota 117 713 75 979 193 692 110 456 115 816 226 272 102 858 104 187 207 045
Volkswagen 54 003 21 178 75 181 86 456 23 083 109 539 67 074 21 133 88 207
Volvo 607 1 662 2 269 3 272 3 139 6 411 891 4 885 5 776
Fleet Total 866 715 854 905 1 721 620 931 494 905 846 1 837 340 840 711 942 762 1 783 473


Figure A-1: 2012 passenger automobile compliance status with offsets

Figure A-1 (see long description below).

Notes:

  1. The asterisked companies are those that used the temporary optional fleet provisions
  2. The final compliance value may be lower than the tailpipe emissions through the application of compliance flexibilities
Long description for figure A-1
Manufacturer Fleet average tailpipe emissions Fleet average compliance value Flex fuel vehicles Air conditioning Innovative technologies Fleet average standard
BMW 277.0 269.5 0.0 7.5 0.0 260.0
FCA 295.0 273.0 12.0 9.0 1.0 266.0
Ford 252.0 239.0 9.0 4.0 0.0 262.0
GM 269.0 249.0 10.0 9.0 1.0 259.0
Honda 220.0 216.9 0.0 3.1 0.0 251.0
Hyundai 234.0 229.8 0.0 4.2 0.0 257.0
JLR* 379.0 374.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 352.0
Kia 267.0 262.7 0.0 4.3 0.0 254.0
Mazda 232.0 232.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 250.0
Mercedes* 326.0 305.0 12.0 9.0 0.0 261.0
Mitsubishi 244.0 244.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 248.0
Nissan 253.0 253.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 256.0
Porsche* 324.0 319.2 0.0 4.8 0.0 313.0
Suzuki 269.0 269.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 249.0
Subaru 263.0 263.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 241.0
Toyota 220.0 213.6 0.0 6.4 0.0 251.0
VW 264.0 255.0 1.0 6.0 2.0 253.0
Volvo* 299.0 299.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 327.0


Figure A-2: 2013 passenger automobile compliance status with offsets

Figure A-2 (see long description below).

Notes:

  1. The asterisked companies are those that used the temporary optional fleet provisions
  2. The final compliance value may be lower than the tailpipe emissions through the application of compliance flexibilities
Long description for figure A-2
Manufacturer Fleet average tailpipe emissions Fleet average compliance value Flex fuel vehicles Air conditioning Innovative technologies Fleet average standard
BMW 264.0 256.1 0.0 7.9 0.0 260.0
FCA 285.0 264.0 11.0 9.0 1.0 266.0
Ford 253.0 237.0 9.0 7.0 0.0 262.0
GM 267.0 247.0 10.0 9.0 1.0 259.0
Honda 223.0 219.9 0.0 3.1 0.0 251.0
Hyundai 236.0 231.3 0.0 4.7 0.0 257.0
JLR* 365.0 357.0 3.0 5.0 0.0 352.0
Kia 249.0 243.8 0.0 5.2 0.0 254.0
Mazda 236.0 236.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 250.0
Mercedes* 275.0 257.0 9.0 9.0 0.0 261.0
Mitsubishi 244.0 244.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 248.0
Nissan 235.0 235.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 256.0
Porsche* 311.0 306.3 0.0 4.7 0.0 313.0
Suzuki 257.0 257.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 249.0
Subaru 260.0 260.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 241.0
Toyota 227.0 220.7 0.0 6.3 0.0 251.0
VW 263.0 248.0 7.0 7.0 1.0 253.0
Volvo* 300.0 300.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 327.0


Figure A-3: 2014 passenger automobile compliance status with offsets

Figure A-3 (see long description below).

Notes:

  1. The asterisked companies are those that used the temporary optional fleet provisions
  2. The final compliance value may be lower than the tailpipe emissions through the application of compliance flexibilities
Long description for figure A-3
Manufacturer Fleet average tailpipe emissions Fleet average compliance value Flex fuel vehicles Air conditioning Innovative technologies Fleet average standard
BMW 259.0 247.3 0.0 8.6 3.1 254
FCA 293.0 265.2 12.0 12.3 3.5 259
Ford 257.0 238.4 9.0 7.4 2.2 250
GM 260.0 241.0 9.0 9.2 0.8 250
Honda 219.0 215.4 0.0 3.1 0.5 243
Hyundai 253.0 246.6 0.0 5.6 0.8 249
JLR* 353.0 333.1 6.0 11.5 2.4 334
Kia 261.0 255.0 0.0 5.4 0.6 249
Mazda 210.0 210.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 249
Mercedes* 273.8 249.7 9.8 10.1 4.2 250
Mitsubishi 219.0 219.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 236
Nissan 221.0 221.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 244
Porsche* 305.0 300.6 0.0 4.4 0.0 299
Subaru 242.0 242.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 240
Toyota 216.0 207.7 0.0 6.5 1.8 245
VW 260.0 241.3 10.0 8.7 0.0 247
Volvo* 306.0 306.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 321


Figure A-4: 2015 passenger automobile compliance status with offsets

Figure A-4 (see long description below).

Notes:

  1. The asterisked companies are those that used the temporary optional fleet provisions
  2. The final compliance value may be lower than the tailpipe emissions through the application of compliance flexibilities
Long description for figure A-4
Manufacturer Fleet average tailpipe emissions Fleet average compliance value Flex fuel vehicles Air conditioning Innovative technologies Fleet average standard
BMW 262.4 250.2 0.0 8.8 3.4 239.0
FCA 305.0 275.3 10.0 16.1 3.6 248.0
Ford 263.7 246.4 7.0 8.7 1.6 240.0
GM 256.0 238.9 6.0 9.4 1.7 241.0
Honda 197.2 192.7 0.0 3.2 1.3 231.0
Hyundai 248.0 241.0 0.0 5.9 1.1 240.0
JLR* 332.5 311.3 4.0 14.8 2.4 319.0
Kia 245.1 238.4 0.0 5.6 1.1 238.0
Mazda 210.0 210.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 238.0
Mercedes 267.1 245.8 7.0 10.9 3.4 249.0
Mitsubishi 229.0 229.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 225.0
Nissan 229.8 221.7 0.0 6.8 1.3 234.0
Porsche* 327.9 323.8 0.0 4.1 0.0 282.0
Subaru 245.8 245.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 231.0
Toyota 218.0 208.8 0.0 7.0 2.2 234.0
VW 246.5 230.8 7.0 8.7 0.0 233.0
Volvo* 289.0 289.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 307.0


Figure A-5: 2012 light truck compliance status with offsets

Figure A-5 (see long description below).

Notes:

  1. The asterisked companies are those that used the temporary optional fleet provisions
  2. The final compliance value may be lower than the tailpipe emissions through the application of compliance flexibilities
Long description for figure A-5
Manufacturer Fleet average tailpipe emissions Fleet average compliance value Flex fuel vehicles Air conditioning Innovative technologies Fleet average standard
BMW 359.0 347.8 0.0 11.2 0.0 336.0
FCA 392.0 358.0 22.0 10.0 2.0 355.0
Ford 395.0 366.0 22.0 7.0 0.0 369.0
GM 405.0 372.0 23.0 8.0 2.0 375.0
Honda 309.0 303.3 0.0 5.7 0.0 325.0
Hyundai 316.0 308.9 0.0 7.1 0.0 317.0
JLR* 415.0 406.0 0.0 9.0 0.0 402.0
Kia 309.0 302.6 0.0 6.4 0.0 323.0
Mazda 295.0 295.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 314.0
Mercedes* 377.0 362.1 3.0 11.9 0.0 339.0
Mitsubishi 281.0 281.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 306.0
Nissan 378.0 378.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 335.0
Porsche* 368.0 356.1 0.0 11.9 0.0 422.0
Subaru 303.0 303.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 307.0
Suzuki 319.0 319.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 306.0
Toyota 343.0 336.5 0.0 6.5 0.0 338.0
VW 320.0 310.0 0.0 9.0 1.0 323.0
Volvo* 340.0 340.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 405.0


Figure A-6: 2013 light truck compliance status with offsets

Figure A-6 (see long description below).

Notes:

  1. The asterisked companies are those that used the temporary optional fleet provisions
  2. The final compliance value may be lower than the tailpipe emissions through the application of compliance flexibilities
Long description for figure A-6
Manufacturer Fleet average tailpipe emissions Fleet average compliance value Flex fuel vehicles Air conditioning Innovative technologies Fleet average standard
BMW 329.0 317.5 0.0 11.5 0.0 321.0
FCA 389.0 353.0 22.0 11.0 3.0 347.0
Ford 377.0 348.0 20.0 9.0 0.0 354.0
GM 395.0 361.0 22.0 10.0 2.0 363.0
Honda 307.0 301.1 0.0 5.9 0.0 313.0
Hyundai 313.0 305.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 306.0
JLR* 393.0 384.0 0.0 9.0 0.0 389.0
Kia 300.0 291.6 0.0 8.4 0.0 303.0
Mazda 268.0 268.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 306.0
Mercedes* 355.0 336.0 7.0 12.0 0.0 339.0
Mitsubishi 272.0 272.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 296.0
Nissan 342.0 342.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 322.0
Porsche* 365.0 352.7 0.0 12.3 0.0 410.0
Subaru 273.0 273.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 297.0
Suzuki 330.0 330.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 296.0
Toyota 331.0 323.2 0.0 7.8 0.0 325.0
VW 316.0 305.0 0.0 10.0 1.0 312.0
Volvo* 345.0 345.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 394.0


Figure A-7: 2014 light truck compliance status with offsets

Figure A-7 (see long description below).

Notes:

  1. The asterisked companies are those that used the temporary optional fleet provisions
  2. The final compliance value may be lower than the tailpipe emissions through the application of compliance flexibilities
Long description for figure A-7
Manufacturer Fleet average tailpipe emissions Fleet average compliance value Flex fuel vehicles Air conditioning Innovative technologies Fleet average standard
BMW 312.0 294.7 0.0 11.3 6.0 314.0
FCA 375.0 332.9 20.0 14.5 7.6 336.0
Ford 377.0 343.5 20.0 10.3 3.2 346.0
GM 359.0 327.6 18.0 11.0 2.4 355.0
Honda 294.0 286.0 0.0 5.9 2.1 304.0
Hyundai 316.0 307.2 0.0 7.1 1.7 299.0
JLR* 375.0 327.9 20.0 21.7 5.4 396.0
Kia 319.0 311.4 0.0 6.8 0.8 301.0
Mazda 267.0 267.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 296.0
Mercedes* 332.0 310.1 8.0 12.3 1.6 319.0
Mitsubishi 270.0 270.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 287.0
Nissan 318.0 318.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 316.0
Porsche* 361.0 348.6 0.0 12.4 0.0 398.0
Subaru 254.0 254.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 288.0
Toyota 342.0 330.1 0.0 8.3 3.6 322.0
VW 318.0 291.9 14.0 12.1 0.0 301.0
Volvo* 349.0 349.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 383.0


Figure A-8: 2015 light truck compliance status with offsets

Figure A-8 (see long description below).

Notes:

  1. The asterisked companies are those that used the temporary optional fleet provisions
  2. The final compliance value may be lower than the tailpipe emissions through the application of compliance flexibilities
Long description for figure A-8
Manufacturer Fleet average tailpipe emissions Fleet average compliance value Flex fuel vehicles Air conditioning Innovative technologies Fleet average standard
BMW 306.0 288.4 0.0 11.4 6.2 299.0
FCA 361.0 320.7 15.0 17.6 7.7 315.0
Ford 363.0 332.8 15.0 11.2 4.0 331.0
GM 357.0 327.7 15.0 11.0 3.3 339.0
Honda 269.0 260.7 0.0 6.1 2.2 287.0
Hyundai 317.0 307.7 0.0 7.3 2.0 284.0
JLR* 351.0 308.7 14.0 22.5 5.8 371.0
Kia 323.0 314.3 0.0 7.1 1.6 299.0
Mazda 276.0 276.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 283.0
Mercedes* 317.0 290.1 10.0 12.7 4.2 297.0
Mitsubishi 265.0 265.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 273.0
Nissan 298.0 285.6 0.0 9.4 3.0 297.0
Porsche* 347.0 334.0 0.0 12.4 0.6 375.0
Subaru 254.0 254.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 275.0
Toyota 329.0 317.0 0.0 8.9 3.1 300.0
VW 317.0 293.5 12.0 11.5 0.0 287.0
Volvo* 332.0 332.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 361.0


Figure A-9: 2012 compliance status of passenger automobile fleet with company size

Figure A-9 (see long description below).

Notes: companies that used the temporary optional fleet provisions are not shown in this graph

Long description for figure A-9
Manufacturer Compliance value Standard Production volume
Honda 217 257 124 852
GM 249 269 116 845
Toyota 214 258 103 878
Hyundai 230 263 97 012
Ford 239 261 95 288
Nissan 253 259 66 253
VW 260 260 63 303
FCA 273 273 60 247
Kia 263 264 59 105
Mazda 232 255 54 806
BMW 270 264 24 326
Subaru 269 257 14 458
Mitsubishi 244 255 9 394
Suzuki 263 249 2 863


Figure A-10: 2013 compliance status of passenger automobile fleet with company size

Figure A-10 (see long description below).

Notes: companies that used the temporary optional fleet provisions are not shown in this graph

Long description for figure A-10
Manufacturer Compliance value Standard Production volume
Hyundai 231 257 186 335
Toyota 221 251 102 219
Ford 237 262 101 453
Honda 221 251 94 346
GM 247 259 84 413
VW 252 253 74 480
Kia 244 254 73 310
FCA 264 266 65 853
Mazda 236 250 50 978
Nissan 235 256 47 146
BMW 256 260 27 682
Subaru 257 249 10 813
Mitsubishi 244 248 8 715
Suzuki 260 241 805


Figure A-11: 2014 compliance status of passenger automobile fleet with company size

Figure A-11 (see long description below).

Notes: companies that used the temporary optional fleet provisions are not shown in this graph

Long description for figure A-11
Manufacturer Compliance value Standard Production volume
Toyota 208 245 117 713
GM 241 250 107 540
Hyundai 247 249 96 281
Ford 238 250 94 639
Honda 216 243 89 628
Kia 255 249 66 909
Nissan 221 244 59 385
VW 244 247 54 003
FCA 265 259 50 620
Mazda 210 249 50 546
BMW 248 254 26 185
Mitsubishi 219 236 13 561
Subaru 242 240 11 187


Figure A-12: 2015 compliance status of passenger automobile fleet with company size

Figure A-12 (see long description below).

Notes: companies that used the temporary optional fleet provisions are not shown in this graph

Long description for figure A-12
Manufacturer Compliance value Standard Production volume
Honda 207 231 111 045
Toyota 209 234 110 456
GM 242 241 104 360
Hyundai 243 240 97 784
Nissan 219 234 94 731
VW 231 233 86 456
Ford 237 240 67 630
Kia 258 238 63 479
FCA 256 248 53 772
Mazda 207 238 48 554
BMW 246 239 29 027
Subaru 249 231 17 593
Mitsubishi 224 225 14 600


Figure A-13: 2012 compliance status of light truck fleet with company size

Figure A-13 (see long description below).

Notes: companies that used the temporary optional fleet provisions are not shown in this graph

Long description for figure A-13
Manufacturer Compliance value Standard Production volume
FCA 358 355 169 774
Ford 367 369 110 699
GM 372 375 83 620
Toyota 337 338 66 056
Honda 303 325 47 123
Nissan 378 335 28 396
Hyundai 309 317 19 837
Subaru 303 307 16 883
VW 312 323 14 742
Mazda 295 314 13 161
Mitsubishi 281 306 8 630
BMW 350 336 7 823
Kia 303 323 5 886
Suzuki 319 306 1 292


Figure A-14: 2013 compliance status of light truck fleet with company size

Figure A-14 (see long description below).

Notes: companies that used the temporary optional fleet provisions are not shown in this graph

Long description for figure A-14
Manufacturer Compliance value Standard Production volume
Ford 349 354 195 429
FCA 353 347 150 484
GM 362 363 96 783
Toyota 323 325 91 026
Honda 301 313 49 470
Nissan 342 322 34 793
VW 307 312 15 540
BMW 318 321 12 421
Subaru 273 297 11 353
Mazda 268 306 11 179
Hyundai 305 306 9 616
Mitsubishi 272 296 8 365
Kia 292 303 4 490
Suzuki 330 296 455


Figure A-15: 2014 compliance status of light truck fleet with company size

Figure A-15 (see long description below).

Notes: companies that used the temporary optional fleet provisions are not shown in this graph

Long description for figure A-15
Manufacturer Compliance value Standard Production volume
FCA 333 336 230 088
Ford 344 346 185 694
GM 328 355 119 868
Toyota 330 322 75 979
Honda 286 304 66 780
Nissan 318 316 49 964
Subaru 254 288 26 892
VW 293 301 21 178
Mazda 267 296 17 617
Mitsubishi 270 287 12 255
BMW 296 314 11 178
Hyundai 307 299 9 402
Kia 311 301 4 256


Figure A-16: 2015 compliance status of light truck fleet with company size

Figure A-16 (see long description below).

Notes: companies that used the temporary optional fleet provisions are not shown in this graph

Long description for figure A-16
Manufacturer Compliance value Standard Production volume
FCA 321 315 222 388
Ford 333 331 150 536
GM 328 339 143 127
Toyota 317 300 115 816
Honda 261 287 67 740
Nissan 287 297 59 371
Subaru 254 275 35 735
VW 294 287 23 083
Mazda 276 283 16 373
BMW 292 299 12 711
Mitsubishi 265 273 11 080
Hyundai 308 284 10 744
Kia 314 299 4 392
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: volume of vehicles with turbocharging and engine downsizing
Technology 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
BMW 13 836 21 986 23 772 25 828 29 406
FCA 373 6 069 4 991 2 938 853
Ford 1 023 69 638 72 505 55 845 43 338
GM 28 010 30 549 56 752 47 464 50 509
Honda 0 0 0 0 18 150
Hyundai 2 624 23 283 14 487 10 130 18 148
JLR 1 492 2 743 1 718 2 857 4 461
Kia 636 3 203 3 009 1 724 8 422
Mercedes 991 7 080 8 338 17 803 18 329
Mitsubishi 621 347 773 850 0
Subaru 0 0 3 027 5 361 4 195
Toyota 0 0 0 5 793 5 617
Volkswagen 0 45 748 46 997 0 79 468
Volvo 0 0 0 1 051 100
Total 49 606 210 646 236 369 177 644 280 996
Table A-4: volume of vehicles sold with VVT
Technology 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
BMW 32 059 40 103 34 699 37 387 42 953
FCA 218 969 210 464 269 016 260 401 258 715
Ford 197 973 290 656 276 852 178 400 185 730
GM 195 270 175 849 224 242 245 384 193 764
Honda 171 975 143 816 156 408 178 785 201 420
Hyundai 116 849 195 951 105 683 108 528 128 167
JLR 4 620 6 230 7 362 7 695 10 398
Kia 64 991 77 800 71 165 67 761 73 392
Mazda 66 368 62 157 68 163 64 927 61 706
Mercedes 23 896 34 085 35 490 42 931 36 968
Mitsubishi 14 064 15 155 20 633 23 173 13 109
Nissan 0 81 703 108 943 152 399 121 017
Porsche 2 344 3 579 4 617 4 889 6 666
Subaru 22 246 22 166 38 079 53 328 46 682
Suzuki 4 155 1 260 - - -
Toyota 169 881 193 020 193 628 226 272 207 045
Volkswagen 48 838 48 363 40 617 72 443 86 451
Volvo 7 490 4 779 2 269 6 411 5 776
Total 1 361 988 1 607 136 1 657 866 1 731 114 1 679 959
Table A-5: volume of vehicles sold with VVL
Technology 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
BMW 27 178 37 902 34 409 36 846 42 192
FCA 12 904 13 614 35 488 35 022 32 956
GM 0 0 5 478 12 265 7 294
Honda 171 975 143 816 156 408 178 785 201 420
JLR 3 128 3 487 1 179 1 507 10 398
Mitsubishi 3 580 1 876 7 325 3 876 8 819
Nissan 0 4 545 84 844 8 378 5 284
Porsche 2 344 3 579 4 617 4 889 6 666
Subaru 9 095 0 0 0 0
Toyota 0 0 2 354 865 3 877
Volkswagen 23 914 17 317 15 573 14 711 24 551
Volvo 1 618 1 305 786 103 0
Total 255 736 227 441 348 461 297 247 343 457
Table A-6: volume of vehicles sold with higher geared transmissions
Technology 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
BMW 18 900 29 944 32 031 32 846 38 414
FCA 5 117 16 528 111 746 134 568 143 185
GM 0 0 713 9 085 25 666
Honda 41 1 832 7 059 18 144 42 156
Hyundai 1 450 2 419 740 3 165 9 627
JLR 0 1 382 6 776 7 477 12 814
Kia 0 0 0 79 374
Mercedes 29 976 30 426 34 960 41 293 34 967
Nissan 6 971 4 227 7 268 28 302 30 340
Porsche 2 057 3 345 4 298 4 708 6 205
Subaru 0 0 0 3 479 2 434
Toyota 189 1 499 16 368 16 596 25 860
Volkswagen 13 379 19 158 20 978 20 849 18 034
Volvo 0 0 0 1 142 3 037
Total 78 080 110 760 242 937 321 733 393 113
Table A-7: volume of vehicles sold with CVT
Technology 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
FCA 11 846 5 287 862 417 519
Ford 563 3 274 2 946 2 145 1 801
GM 175 347 2 550 4 681 3 158
Honda 525 10 860 49 929 112 020 120 129
Mitsubishi 0 0 3 203 3 178 0
Nissan 63 537 68 863 89 546 88 952 76 305
Subaru 9 648 13 157 31 054 0 0
Suzuki 2 290 280 - - -
Toyota 19 547 11 991 39 025 36 854 34 849
Volkswagen 33 29 0 0 0
Total 108 164 114 088 219 115 248 247 236 761
Table A-8: volume of vehicles sold with cylinder deactivation
Technology 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
FCA 53 390 44 091 71 658 50 332 56 549
GM 35 298 44 136 84 095 97 824 77 537
Honda 16 080 24 894 34 570 35 595 42 630
Mercedes 72 0 38 27 0
Volkswagen 7 567 573 536 1 260
Total 104 847 113 688 190 934 184 314 177 967
Table A-9: volume of diesel vehicles sold
Technology 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
BMW 1 911 1 033 2 418 3 893 3 060
FCA 0 0 9 395 14 521 15 077
GM 0 0 1 836 1 258 1 200
Mercedes 6 768 5 770 11 309 12 569 7 191
Porsche 0 520 701 522 527
Volkswagen 20 093 21 963 20 364 22 695 1 756
Total 28 772 29 286 46 023 55 458 31 259
Table A-10: volume of vehicles sold with GDI
Technology 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
BMW 22 773 33 608 33 982 37 085 42 953
FCA 0 0 1 3 408 13 294
Ford 43 681 0 0 0 0
GM 80 019 66 342 152 896 191 703 166 895
Honda 0 13 740 21 106 79 935 157 680
Hyundai 42 780 88 576 85 049 84 446 100 695
JLR 716 6 230 7 362 7 695 10 398
Kia 20 488 40 454 60 213 60 983 67 140
Mazda 27 840 32 840 60 755 59 411 60 819
Mercedes 23 903 28 315 24 181 30 362 29 777
Nissan 4 138 5 130 4 296 222 7 440
Porsche 2 268 3 059 3 916 0 0
Subaru 0 0 3 027 5 361 4 195
Toyota 1 394 697 3 033 2 568 1 829
Volvo 0 0 0 1 142 3 037
Total 270 000 318 991 459 817 564 321 666 152
Table A-11: CO2e standard over the 2008 to 2010 model years (g/mi)
Manufacturer 2008
PA
2008
LT
2009
PA
2009
LT
2010
PA
2010
LT
BMW 323 439 323 439 301 420
FCA 323 439 323 439 301 420
Ford 323 439 323 439 301 420
GM 323 439 323 439 301 420
Honda 323 395 323 385 323 378
Hyundai 323 439 323 439 301 420
Kia 323 395 323 385 323 378
Lotus 323 - 323 - 323 -
Mazda 323 395 323 385 323 378
Mercedes 323 439 323 439 301 420
Mitsubishi 323 439 323 439 301 420
Nissan 323 439 323 439 301 420
Suzuki 323 439 323 439 301 420
Tesla 323 - 323 - 323 -
Toyota 323 395 323 385 323 378
Volkswagen 323 439 323 439 301 420
Volvo 323 439 323 439 301 420
Table A-12: compliance values over the 2008 to 2010 model years (g/mi)
Manufacturer 2008
PA
2008
LT
2009
PA
2009
LT
2010
PA
2010
LT
BMW 310 375 302 376 288 361
FCA 303 402 300 380 306 374
Ford 325 395 276 375 268 382
GM 277 376 254 380 270 360
Honda 243 346 239 348 237 325
Hyundai 256 359 249 354 245 303
Kia 274 362 270 351 251 341
Lotus 302 - 298 - 336 -
Mazda 266 336 272 314 255 302
Mercedes 298 396 309 400 322 386
Mitsubishi 297 350 284 334 275 321
Nissan 265 343 254 339 258 349
Suzuki 269 380 269 350 258 341
Tesla - - - - -3 -
Toyota 225 360 228 328 229 337
Volkswagen 291 439 273 349 266 347
Volvo 309 408 310 406 308 383

Page details

Date modified: