Greenhouse gas emissions performance for the 2017 model year light-duty vehicle fleet

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

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 (CEPA). Information presented in this report is subject to ongoing verification.

Cat. No.: En11-15E-PDF

ISSN: 2560-9017

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

Environment and Climate Change Canada
Public Inquiries Centre
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

Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999

CO

Carbon monoxide

CO2

Carbon dioxide

CO2e

Carbon dioxide equivalent

CREE

Carbon related exhaust emissions

CWF

Carbon weight fraction

EPA

Environmental Protection Agency

FCEV

Fuel cell electric vehicle

FTP

Federal test procedure

GHG

Greenhouse gas

g/mi

grams per mile

HC

Hydrocarbons

HFET

Highway fuel economy test

LT

Light truck

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

On this page

List of tables

Table 1: model year report submission status
Table 2: fleet average CO2e standard (g/mi)
Table 3: average footprint for the 2014 to 2017 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 2014 to 2017 model years
Table 9: FFV impact for the 2014 to 2017 model years (g/mi)
Table 10: multiplying factors for advanced technology vehicles
Table 11: production volumes of ATVs by model year
Table 12: production volumes for small volume companies by model year
Table 13: production volumes of temporary optional fleets
Table 14: alternative schedule of fleet average CO2e emission standards for eligible intermediate volume companies
Table 15: N2O emissions deficits by company for the 2014 to 2017 model years (Mg CO2e)
Table 16: CH4 emissions deficits by company for the 2014 to 2017 model years (Mg CO2e)
Table 17: PA Compliance and Standard values over the 2014 to 2017 model years (g/mi)
Table 18: LT Compliance and Standard values over the 2014 to 2017 model years (g/mi)
Table 19: penetration rates of drivetrain technologies in the Canadian fleet
Table 20: credit transactions by model year (Mg CO2e)
Table 21: net credits by model year and current credit balance (Mg CO2e)
Table 22: passenger automobile compliance summary for the 2011 to 2017 model years (g/mi)
Table 23: light truck compliance summary for the 2011 to 2017 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: 2017 passenger automobile compliance status with offsets
Figure 5: 2017 light truck compliance status with offsets
Figure 6: average GHG emissions performance: passenger automobiles
Figure 7: average GHG emissions performance: light trucks
Figure A-1: 2014 passenger automobile compliance status with offsets
Figure A-2: 2015 passenger automobile compliance status with offsets
Figure A-3: 2016 passenger automobile compliance status with offsets
Figure A-4: 2014 light truck compliance status with offsets
Figure A-5: 2015 light truck compliance status with offsets
Figure A-6: 2016 light truck compliance status with offsets

Executive summary

The Passenger Automobile and Light Truck Greenhouse Gas Emission Regulations (hereinafter referred to as the “regulations”) establish greenhouse gas (GHG) emission standards for new 2011 and later model year light-duty on-road vehicles offered for sale in Canada. These regulations require importers and manufacturers of new vehicles to meet fleet average emission standards for greenhouse gases and establish annual compliance reporting requirements. This report summarizes the fleet average greenhouse gas emission performance of the fleets of light-duty vehicles. 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 yearsFootnote 2 . Since the Canadian greenhouse gas standards were introduced prior to the U.S. EPA program, the 2011 model year target values in Canada were instead based on the U.S. Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) levels. As of the 2017 model year, the fleet average standards for passenger automobiles and for light trucks have become more stringent by 25.8% and 18.8% respectively.

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

The regulations have been instrumental in influencing companies to make progressive improvements to the efficiency of their new light duty vehicles available in Canada beginning with the 2011 model year. These regulations have pushed companies to meet these engineering challenges through the introduction of a wide variety of new and innovative technologies. To meet the regulatory standards, companies have not only continued to improve upon conventional internal combustion engine technologies but have incorporated an array of innovative approaches such as active aerodynamics, advanced materials for light-weighting, solar reflective paint, high efficiency lighting and more. Companies have also been driven to increase the availability of advanced technology vehicles with lower GHG emissions, such as battery electric and plug-in hybrids. In fact, since the introduction of the regulation the number of battery electric vehicles has increased from 156 to 9 144 units and the number of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles has increased from zero to 11 979 units. The sum of these developments within the Canadian vehicle fleets have resulted in measureable improvements to GHG emissions performance.

Results from regulatory reports indicate that companies continue to be in compliance through to the 2017 model year. The average compliance value for the fleet of new passenger automobiles decreased from 255 g/mi to 221 g/mi since the introduction of the regulation, representing a 13.3% reduction. The compliance value for light trucks decreased by 10.6%, from 349 g/mi to 312 g/mi since the introduction of the regulation. 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. Although the fleet average compliance values for both passenger automobiles and light trucks resumed a downward trend in the 2017 model year, it has stayed above the fleet average emission standard. All companies 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 80.1 million credits, of which, approximately 27.5 million remain available for future use. A total of 15.1 million credits have been used to offset emission deficits by individual companies over the 2011 to 2017 model years. Some 5.6 million credits were used to offset deficits accrued in the 2017 model year, and 9.4 million credits over the course of the 2011 to 2016 model years. The remaining 37.5 million credits have expired.

1. Purpose of the report

The purpose of this report is to provide company specific results of the fleet average greenhouse gas emission performance of the Canadian fleets of passenger automobiles (PA) and of light trucks (LT)Footnote 3 . Building on the previous GHG emissions performance report for the 2011 to 2016 model years, this report focuses on the GHG emissions performance of the last four model years. The results presented herein are based on data submitted by companies in their annual regulatory compliance reports, pursuant to the Passenger Automobile and Light Truck Greenhouse Gas Emission Regulations, which have undergone a thorough review by Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC). The report also helps to identify trends in the Canadian automotive industry including the adoption and emergence of technologies that have the potential to reduce GHG emissions. It also serves to describe emission credit trading under the regulations.

2. Overview of the regulations

In October 2010, the Government of Canada published the Passenger Automobile and Light Truck Greenhouse Gas Emission RegulationsFootnote 4 (regulations) under CEPA. This was the 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. ECCC has a process to review and validate company data and the results may be subject to change should new information become available.

Companies that submitted a report pursuant to the regulations during 2014 to 2017 model years are listed in table 1.

Table 1: model year report submission status
Manufacturer Common name 2014 2015 2016 2017

* Indicates that a report has been submitted.

Table 1 Notes
Table 1 Note a

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

Return to table 1 note a referrer

Table 1 Note b

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.

Return to table 1 note b referrer

Aston Martin Lagonda Ltd. Aston Martin LVMtable 1 note a LVMtable 1 note a LVMtable 1 note a LVMtable 1 note a
BMW Canada Inc. BMW * * * *
FCA Canada Inc. FCA * * * *
Ferrari North America Inc. Ferrari LVMtable 1 note a LVMtable 1 note a LVMtable 1 note a LVMtable 1 note a
Ford Motor Company of Canada Ltd. Ford * * * *
General Motors of Canada Company GM * * * *
Honda Canada Inc. Honda * * * *
Hyundai Auto Canada Corp. Hyundai * * * *
Jaguar Land Rover Canada ULC JLR * * * *
Kia Canada Inc. Kia * * * *
Lotus Cars Ltd. Lotus LVMtable 1 note a LVMtable 1 note a LVMtable 1 note a LVMtable 1 note a
Maserati North America Inc. Maserati LVMtable 1 note a LVMtable 1 note a LVMtable 1 note a LVMtable 1 note a
Mazda Canada Inc. Mazda * * * *
McLaren Automotive Limited McLaren LVMtable 1 note a LVMtable 1 note a LVMtable 1 note a LVMtable 1 note a
Mercedes-Benz Canada Inc. Mercedes * * * *
Mitsubishi Motor Sales of Canada, Inc. Mitsubishi * * * *
Nissan Canada Inc. Nissan * * * *
Pagani Automobili SPA, Italy Pagani LVMtable 1 note a LVMtable 1 note a LVMtable 1 note a LVMtable 1 note a
Porsche Cars Canada, LTD.table 1 note b Porsche * * * *
Subaru Canada Inc. Subaru * * * *
Tesla Motors, Inc. Tesla * * * *
Toyota Canada, Inc. Toyota * * * *
Volkswagen Group Canada, Inc.table 1 note b Volkswagen * * * *
Volvo Cars of Canada Corp. Volvo * * * *

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 5  to the first retail purchaserFootnote 6 . These standards are performance-based in that they establish a maximum amount of CO2e on a gram per mile basis. This approach allows companies to choose the most cost-effective technologies to achieve compliance and reduce emissions, rather than requiring a particular technology.

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, respectivelyFootnote 2 .

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 285 g/mile for footprints up to approximately 45 ft2. The target gradually increases for vehicles with a footprint greater than approximately 46 ft2, and levels off at 370 g/mile for footprints greater than approximately 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 levels 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 7 . The CO2e standard was derived using a conversion factor of 8887 grams of CO2/gallon of gasolineFootnote 8  for the 2011 model year only.

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

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

Fleet average standard equals sum(A x B)/C

Where

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

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

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


The final company-unique fleet average CO2e standards for the 2014 to 2017 model years are presented in table 2. These represent the regulatory values that a company’s fleets of passenger automobiles and light trucks must meet.

Table 2: fleet average CO2e standard (g/mi)
Manufacturer 2014
PA
2015
PA
2016
PA
2017
PA
2014
LT
2015
LT
2016
LT
2017
LT
Table 2 notes
Table 2 Note a

Mercedes split its production volumes into conventional and temporary optional fleets (section 2.3.7.) for the 2012 to 2016 model years. For the purposes of this report, a single overall fleet average standard value has been calculated for those years.

Return to table 2 note a referrer

BMW 254 239 230 216 314 299 286 283
FCA 259 248 242 234 336 315 303 312
Ford 250 240 232 220 346 331 325 308
GM 250 241 230 218 355 339 322 320
Honda 243 231 224 214 304 287 275 274
Hyundai 249 240 227 216 299 284 280 278
JLR 334 319 309 244 396 371 316 286
Kia 249 238 227 216 301 299 286 277
Mazda 249 238 223 212 296 283 270 267
Mercedestable 2 note a 251 250 232 238 319 298 292 289
Mitsubishi 236 225 218 203 287 273 260 253
Nissan 244 234 227 216 316 297 278 282
Porsche 299 282 275 215 398 375 361 285
Subaru 240 231 221 210 288 275 261 257
Tesla 288 276 268 254 - - - -
Toyota 245 234 223 211 322 300 289 286
Volkswagen 247 233 222 211 301 287 270 273
Volvo 321 307 293 242 383 361 360 288
Fleet average 248 238 227 216 332 313 301 298

A company’s average footprint (table 3) is one of the factors in establishing their CO2e standards. Companies are responsible for meeting their own unique fleet average CO2e standard based on the size of vehicles they produce. However; the regulations provide flexibility such as the “temporary optional fleet” standards which were available until the 2016 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 their elevated standard in those years.

Table 3: average footprint for the 2014 to 2017 model years (sq. ft.)
Manufacturer 2014
PA
2015
PA
2016
PA
2017
PA
2014
LT
2015
LT
2016
LT
2017
LT
BMW 46.4 45.6 45.9 45.6 50.7 50.6 50.7 50.4
FCA 47.1 47.1 48.3 49.3 56.6 54.8 55.3 57.8
Ford 45.5 45.7 46.4 46.7 60.6 60.6 62.9 58.3
GM 45.5 45.9 45.8 45.8 62.6 61.5 60.3 60.9
Honda 44.1 43.9 44.6 45.1 48.1 47.6 48.0 48.6
Hyundai 45.3 46.0 45.4 45.8 46.9 46.8 49.2 49.2
JLR 49.1 49.1 49.7 48.9 51.2 49.9 50.9 50.8
Kia 45.4 45.5 45.4 45.7 47.5 50.5 50.7 49.2
Mazda 45.3 45.4 44.4 44.8 46.1 46.6 46.8 47.0
Mercedes 42.6 45.6 45.4 47.4 50.6 49.1 52.2 51.3
Mitsubishi 41.4 41.6 43.4 41.8 44.0 43.9 44.2 44.0
Nissan 44.3 44.0 45.1 45.4 51.1 50.1 48.7 50.4
Porsche 42.6 40.9 42.4 42.3 51.8 50.8 51.4 50.5
Subaru 43.5 44.0 44.0 44.5 44.1 44.6 44.6 44.8
Tesla 53.6 53.6 54.1 54.2 - - - -
Toyota 44.4 44.5 44.5 44.7 53.0 51.1 51.8 51.7
Volkswagen 45.0 44.4 45.5 44.5 47.5 47.5 46.8 48.4
Volvo 47.0 47.1 47.0 48.7 48.7 48.0 51.3 51.2
Fleet average 45.0 45.0 45.3 45.5 55.6 54.3 54.9 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.

The calculated fleet average CREE values achieved by companies over the 2014 to 2017 model years are presented in table 4.

Table 4: fleet average carbon related exhaust emissions (g/mi)
Manufacturer 2014
PA
2015
PA
2016
PA
2017
PA
2014
LT
2015
LT
2016
LT
2017
LT
Table 4 notes
Table 4 note a

Tesla only produces battery electric vehicles and uses the 0 g/mi incentive for their CREE as described in section 2.3.5.

Return to table 4 note a referrer

BMW 259 258 263 249 312 306 311 309
FCA 281 276 297 310 355 346 358 373
Ford 248 247 257 260 357 348 376 349
GM 251 253 251 209 341 342 363 362
Honda 219 211 206 205 294 269 274 267
Hyundai 253 250 248 246 316 317 338 340
JLR 347 344 334 299 355 337 350 338
Kia 261 265 245 233 319 323 338 322
Mazda 210 207 210 217 267 276 259 266
Mercedes 264 257 260 275 325 307 327 329
Mitsubishi 219 224 231 213 270 265 272 271
Nissan 221 227 231 236 318 298 273 293
Porsche 305 313 331 294 361 347 336 319
Subaru 243 249 249 251 262 254 252 248
Teslatable 4 note a 0 0 0 0 - - - -
Toyota 216 218 217 214 342 329 329 315
Volkswagen 250 238 240 237 304 305 304 321
Volvo 306 281 289 265 349 332 299 267
Fleet average 241 238 237 232 337 326 337 334

2.3. Compliance flexibilities

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

2.3.1. Allowances for reduction in refrigerant leakage (E)

Refrigerants currently used by air conditioner (AC) systems have a global warming potentialFootnote 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 2014 to 2017 model years.

Table 5: allowance for reduction in AC refrigerant leakage (g/mi)
Manufacturer 2014
PA
2015
PA
2016
PA
2017
PA
2014
LT
2015
LT
2016
LT
2017
LT
BMW 4.6 4.6 4.7 13.7 7.0 7.1 7.0 16.9
FCA 8.4 11.6 13.3 13.6 10.4 13.1 14.0 14.8
Ford 5.7 6.3 6.2 11.8 7.7 7.8 7.8 14.4
GM 6.1 6.2 6.2 8.5 7.1 6.9 7.0 15.1
Honda 1.8 1.8 8.3 9.7 3.9 4.2 6.4 13.5
Hyundai 2.1 2.4 2.5 2.8 3.4 3.6 1.6 1.6
JLR 6.3 9.6 13.8 13.8 16.3 16.9 17.2 17.2
Kia 2.2 2.3 2.3 5.4 4.1 3.7 2.1 8.6
Mazda - - - - - - - -
Mercedes 4.7 5.5 5.7 5.8 6.9 7.2 4.0 7.2
Mitsubishi - - 2.0 2.7 - - 7.0 6.1
Nissan - 4.0 4.5 - - 6.5 7.1 -
Porsche 0.6 0.4 0.8 13.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 12.1
Subaru - - - 1.9 - - - 5.8
Tesla - - - - - - - -
Toyota 3.1 3.4 3.3 3.3 4.7 4.9 6.6 6.5
Volkswagen 4.8 4.9 4.8 4.7 7.4 7.3 7.4 7.1
Volvo - - - 5.3 - - - 6.5
Fleet average 3.5 4.0 4.8 5.6 6.8 7.6 8.4 11.6
2.3.2. Allowances for improvements in air conditioning efficiency (F)

Improvements to the efficiency of vehicle air conditioning systems can result in significant reductions in CO2e emissions that are not directly measurable during standard emissions test procedures. Implementing specific technologies (for example, more efficient compressors, motors, fans etc.) can reduce the amount of engine power required to operate the air conditioning system which, in turn, reduces the quantity of fuel that is consumed and converted into CO2. The regulations contain provisions which recognize the reduced GHG emissions from AC systems with improved efficiency. Manufacturers can claim these allowances by either submitting proof of U.S. EPA approval for the efficiency-improving technology, or by selecting, during reporting, the applicable technologies from a pre-approved menu (appendix A-2) that have an assigned value. These allowance values are aligned with those established by the U.S. EPA and may be applied cumulatively to an AC system. For the 2012 through 2016 model years, the maximum allowance value a company could claim for improvements in air conditioning efficiency was capped at 5.7 g/mi. For the 2017 and later model years, the maximum allowance value for improvements in air conditioning efficiency is 5.0 g/mi for passenger automobiles and 7.2 g/mi for light trucks.

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

F = 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 2014 to 2017 model years.

Table 6: allowance for improvements in AC system efficiency (g/mi)
Manufacturer 2014
PA
2015
PA
2016
PA
2017
PA
2014
LT
2015
LT
2016
LT
2017
LT
BMW 4.0 4.2 4.4 4.8 4.3 4.3 4.3 5.5
FCA 3.9 4.5 5.2 4.8 4.1 4.5 4.2 5.6
Ford 1.7 2.4 2.7 3.4 2.6 3.4 3.5 6.1
GM 3.1 3.2 3.5 3.8 3.9 4.1 4.2 6.4
Honda 1.3 1.4 3.3 3.3 2.0 1.9 2.9 5.0
Hyundai 3.5 3.5 3.6 3.3 3.7 3.7 4.2 5.4
JLR 5.2 5.2 5.7 5.0 5.4 5.6 5.7 7.2
Kia 3.2 3.3 3.3 3.1 2.7 3.4 3.4 5.2
Mazda - - - - - - - -
Mercedes 5.4 5.4 5.2 4.9 5.4 5.5 5.3 7.1
Mitsubishi - - - 0.4 - - - 2.9
Nissan - 2.8 3.1 - - 2.9 3.0 -
Porsche 3.8 3.7 3.9 5.0 5.7 5.7 5.7 7.2
Subaru -   2.9 3.1 - - 3.0 4.7
Tesla 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.0 - - - -
Toyota 3.4 3.4 3.8 4.3 3.6 3.9 4.3 6.9
Volkswagen 3.9 3.8 4.4 4.2 4.7 4.2 5.2 5.9
Volvo - - - 4.2 - - - 5.4
Fleet average 2.6 2.9 3.4 3.2 3.1 3.6 3.8 5.5
2.3.3. Allowances for the use of innovative technologies (G)

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

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

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

G = 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 2014 to 2017.

Table 7: allowance for the use of innovative technologies (g/mi)
Manufacturer 2014
PA
2015
PA
2016
PA
2017
PA
2014
LT
2015
LT
2016
LT
2017
LT
BMW 3.1 3.4 3.7 3.2 6.0 6.2 6.5 6.7
FCA 3.5 3.6 3.2 3.2 7.6 7.7 8.2 7.6
Ford 2.6 2.0 2.1 3.6 3.7 4.6 4.6 7.2
GM 2.8 3.5 4.4 5.3 5.0 5.8 6.2 7.7
Honda 0.5 1.3 1.7 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.5 5.6
Hyundai 0.8 1.4 0.9 1.1 1.7 2.0 4.8 5.1
JLR 2.4 2.4 3.2 4.2 5.4 5.8 7.4 7.4
Kia 0.6 1.1 1.0 1.6 0.8 1.6 3.6 2.9
Mazda - - - - - - - -
Mercedes 4.2 3.4 3.3 1.0 1.6 4.2 4.6 2.1
Mitsubishi - - - - - - - -
Nissan - 1.3 1.7 - - 3.0 3.3 -
Porsche - - 2.5 2.7 - 0.6 4.4 3.5
Subaru - - 0.3 0.5 - - 0.1 0.3
Tesla - - - - - - - -
Toyota 1.8 2.3 1.1 3.5 3.6 3.2 3.3 7.1
Volkswagen - - - - - - - -
Volvo - - - 3.6 - - - 5.7
Fleet average 1.5 1.7 1.7 2.0 4.2 4.6 4.9 5.9
2.3.4. Allowance for certain full-size pick-up trucks

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

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

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

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

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

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

H = (allowance for hybrid times the number of full-size hybrid pick-up trucks and sum allowance for full-size pick-up trucks times the number of full-size pick-up trucks) divided by total number of vehicles in the fleet

Where
AH is the allowance for the use of hybrid electric technologies;
BH is the number of full-size pick-up trucks in the fleet that are equipped with hybrid electric technologies;
AR is the allowance for full-size pick-up trucks that achieve a certain carbon-related exhaust emission value;
BR is the number of full-size pick-up trucks in the fleet that achieve a certain carbon-related exhaust emission value; and
C is the total number of vehicles in the fleet.

No companies made use of the allowance for certain full-size pick-up trucks for the 2017 model year.


2.3.5. 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 2014 to 2017 model years is summarized in table 8.

Table 8: FFV production volumes for the 2014 to 2017 model years
Manufacturer 2014
PA
2015
PA
2016table 8 note a
PA
2017table 8 note a
PA
2014
LT
2015
LT
2016table 8 note a
LT
2017table 8 note a
LT
Table 8 notes
Table 8 note 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 and 2017 model years may therefore be under-reported.

Return to table 8 note a referrer

BMW - - - - - - - -
FCA 6 292 15 372 10 666 - 94 437 80 645 78 649 -
Ford 29 040 19 776 17 165 15 104 75 242 55 514 81 192 70 167
GM 10 160 5 721 4 105 4 309 80 265 20 022 10 428 12 639
Honda - - - - - - - -
Hyundai - - - - - - - -
JLR 40 35 - - 3 277 1 250 - -
Kia - - - - - - - -
Mazda - - - - - - - -
Mercedes 5 039 2 729 5 575 2 509 651 4 055 - 2 749
Mitsubishi - - - - - - - -
Nissan - - - - - - - -
Porsche - - - - - - - -
Subaru - - - - - - - -
Tesla - - - - - - - -
Toyota - - - - - - - -
Volkswagen 4 967 4 996 - 161 4 927 4 796 - 4 986
Volvo - - - - - - - -
Total 55 538 48 629 37 511 22 083 258 799 166 282 170 269 90 541

Table 9 shows the benefit of FFVs for these companies’ fleet performance for the 2014 through 2017 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 or 2017 model years and hence were not eligible to reduce their CREE as a result of FFV sales.

Table 9: FFV impact for the 2014 to 2017 model years (g/mi)
Manufacturer 2014
PA
2015
PA
2016table 9 note a
PA
2017table 9 note a
PA
2014
LT
2015
LT
2016table 9 note a
LT
2017table 9 note a
LT

* Indicate that a company has reduced their CREE by the maximum annual allowable amount attributable to FFV sales.

Table 9 notes
Table 9 note 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 and 2017 model years may therefore be under-reported.

Return to table 9 note a referrer

BMW - - - - - - - -
FCA 12* 10* - - 20* 15* - -
Ford 9* 7* - - 20* 15* - -
GM 9* 6 - - 18* 15* - -
Honda - - - - - - - -
Hyundai - - - - - - - -
JLR 6 4 - - 20 14* - -
Kia - - - - - - - -
Mazda - - - - - - - -
Mercedes 10 7 - - 8 10 - -
Mitsubishi - - - - - - - -
Nissan - - - - - - - -
Porsche - - - - - - - -
Subaru - - - - - - - -
Tesla - - - - - - - -
Toyota - - - - - - - -
Volkswagen 10* 7* - - 14* 12* - -
Volvo - - - - - - - -
2.3.6. 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 an internal combustion engine to extend the operating range of the vehicle. FCEVs are propelled solely by an electric motor where the energy for the motor is supplied by an electrochemical cell that produces electricity without combustion. When calculating a CREE, the regulations allow companies to report 0 g/mi for electric vehicles (for example, BEVs), fuel cell vehicles, and the electric portion of plug-in hybrids (when PHEVs operate as electric vehicles) subject to the limitations described in the following paragraph. Additionally, companies may multiply the number of ATVs in their fleet by a specified factor to increase the impact that they have on a company’s overall fleet average. The applicable multiplying factors and the associated model years can be found in table 10.

Table 10: multiplying factors for advanced technology vehicles
Model year BEV and FCEV multiplier PHEV multiplier Natural gas
2011 to 2016 1.2 1.2 1.2
2017 2.5 2.1 1.6
2018 2.5 2.1 1.6
2019 2.5 2.1 1.6
2020 2.25 1.95 1.45
2021 2.0 1.8 1.3
2022 to 2025 1.5 1.3 1.0

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:

  1. the first 30 000 cumulative ATVs if it sold fewer than 3 750 ATVs in the 2012 model year, or

  2. the first 45 000 cumulative 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 regulations do not limit the number of ATVs that can be reported as 0 g/mi between model years 2017 to 2021 inclusive. The production volumes of ATVs sold by model year are presented in table 11.

Table 11: production volumes of ATVs by model year
Manufacturer 2014 2015 2016 2017
BMW - 670 605 808
FCA - - - 739
Ford 696 297 771 2 513
GM 1 340 1 546 765 7 861
Honda 12 - - -
Hyundai - - - 783
JLR - - - -
Kia - 110 1 069 587
Mazda - - - -
Mercedes 613 149 198 182
Mitsubishi 137 - 120 85
Nissan 406 1 703 1 620 884
Porsche 53 162 311 417
Subaru - - - -
Tesla 971 1 913 2 963 3 483
Toyota 64 53 - 1 164
Volkswagen - - 293 1 188
Volvo - - 278 615
Total 4 292 6 603 8 993 21 309
2.3.7. 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:

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

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

  3. submit a small volume declaration to ECCC

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

Table 12 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 12: production volumes for small volume companies by model year
Manufacturer 2014 2015 2016 2017
Aston Martin 127 117 91 82
Ferrari 198 201 135 275
Maserati 561 443 344 1369
McLaren 16 79 121 112
Lotus 14 8 0 13
Pagani 0 0 1 0
Total 913 848 692 1851
2.3.8. Flexibilities for intermediate sized companies

The regulations included an option for intermediate sized companies to meet an alternative standard between the 2012 to 2016 model years inclusive. The regulation defines an intermediate sized company as one with a 2009 model year total production volume of 60 000 or fewer vehicles. 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 cumulative 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 cumulative total of up to 15 000 vehicles of the 2012 to 2015 model years but could not include any vehicles of the 2016 model year. 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.

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 because 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 13: production volumes of temporary optional fleets
Manufacturer 2014
PA
2015
PA
2016
PA
2014
LT
2015
LT
2016
LT
JLR 1 179 1 507 1 282 6 183 6 188 4 655
Mercedes 1 698 2 025 - 977 1 085 -
Porsche 2 018 1 549 1 585 2 599 3 340 5 081
Volvo 607 3 272 891 1 662 3 139 4 885
Total 5 502 8 353 3 758 11 421 13 752 14 621

Starting with the 2017 model year, any intermediate volume companies that were eligible to use temporary optional fleets are allowed to follow an alternative schedule of annual target values for model years 2017 to 2020, as shown in table 14. As of model year 2021, these companies will have to comply with the prescribed target value for that model year. Any company that elects to use the alternative schedule will not be permitted to sell any emission credits obtained against these standards to any other regulated company.

Table 14: alternative schedule of fleet average CO2e emission standards for eligible intermediate volume companies
Model year Applicable Fleet Average CO2e Emission Standard
2017 2016
2018 2016
2019 2018
2020 2019

2.4. Standards for nitrous oxide and methane

The regulations also limit the release of other GHG’s, such as emissions of methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O). Starting with the 2012 model year, the regulations set standards for N2O and CH4 at 0.01 g/mi and 0.03 g/mi respectively. These standards are intended to cap vehicle N2O and CH4 emissions at levels that are attainable by existing technologies and ensure that levels do not increase with future vehicles. Companies have 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 allows companies to quantify the emissions of N2O and CH4 as an equivalent amount of CO2 and include this in the determination of their overall CREE. Companies using this method must incorporate N2O and CH4 test data into the CREE calculation, while factoring in the higher global warming potential of these 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.

The third method allows companies to certify vehicles to alternative N2O and CH4 emissions standards. This method generally offers the greatest flexibility to companies as they are left to establish alternative standards that apply only to those vehicles that would not meet the cap-based value as opposed to impacting the entire fleet. Additionally, companies using this method can comply with standards of N2O and CH4 separately by setting alternative standards for either emission as needed. The g/mi difference between the alternative standard and the cap-based standard that would otherwise apply is used to determine a deficit which must be offset with conventional CO2e emissions credits. The total deficits incurred by the companies that used this method are summarized in tables table15 and table16.

Table 15: N2O emissions deficits by company for the 2014 to 2017 model years (Mg CO2e)
Manufacturer 2014
PA
2015
PA
2016
PA
2017
PA
2014
LT
2015
LT
2016
LT
2017
LT
BMW 3 613 2 088 2 062 992 2 332 8 066 5 853 3 276
FCA - - - - - - - 10 957
Ford 261 272 255 2 123 2 741 2 755 4 760 47 481
GM 1 282 878 - 645 - - 1 615 3 114
JLR - - - 1 379 - - - 2 830
Honda 18 102 1 414 - - - 3 715 - -
Mazda - - - 807 - - 480 5 436
Nissan - 5 143 5 595 930 - 19 634 23 617 -
Toyota - 1 381 1 729 2 219 - 2 302 2 647 3 599
Volkswagen 23 434 20 673 219 - 3 866 3 251 928 -
Fleet total 46 692 31 849 9 860 9 095 8 939 39 723 39 900 76 693
Table 16: CH4 emissions deficits by company for the 2014 to 2017 model years (Mg CO2e)
Manufacturer 2014
PA
2015
PA
2016
PA
2017
PA
2014
LT
2015
LT
2016
LT
2017
LT
BMW 454 263 260 125 293 1 015 737 412
FCA 20 - 3 7 3 342 1 312 2 384 1 296
Ford 1 328 1 083 1 017 532 5 484 10 649 20 409 8 286
GM 773 109 137 81 3 842 641 708 1 791
Mazda - - - 136 - - - 475
Nissan - 431 436 - - 1 647 1 981 -
Volkswagen 9 686 42 39 - - 273 128 -
Fleet total 12 261 1 928 1 892 881 12 961 15 537 26 345 12 260

2.5. CO2e emissions value

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

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

Where
D is the fleet average carbon-related exhaust emission value for each fleet (section 2.2);
E is the allowance for reduction of air conditioning refrigerant leakage (section 2.3.1);
F is the allowance for improving air conditioning system efficiency (section 2.3.2);
G is the allowance for the use of innovative technologies that have a measurable CO2e emission reduction (section 2.3.3); and
H is the allowance for certain full-size pick-up trucks (section 2.3.4).


A company’s compliance value for its fleet of passenger automobiles and light trucks is what is ultimately compared to its CO2e standard for both aforementioned categories to determine compliance and to establish a company’s emission credit balance. Tables table17 and table18 show both the companies’ compliance and standard values for the passenger automobiles and light truck fleets across the 2014 to 2017 model years.

Table 17: PA compliance and standard values over the 2014 to 2017 model years (g/mi)
Table 17 notes
Table 17 note 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.

Return to table 17 note a referrer

Manufacturer 2014
compliance
2015
compliance
2016
compliance
2017
compliance
2014
standard
2015
standard
2016
standard
2017
standard
BMW 247 246 250 227 254 239 230 216
FCA 265 256 275 288 259 248 242 234
Ford 238 236 246 241 250 240 232 220
GM 239 240 237 191 250 241 230 218
Honda 215 207 193 190 243 231 224 214
Hyundai 247 243 241 239 249 240 227 216
JLR 333 327 311 276 334 319 309 244
Kia 255 258 238 223 249 238 227 216
Mazda 210 207 210 217 249 238 223 212
Mercedes 250 243 246 263 251 250 232 238
Mitsubishi 219 224 229 210 236 225 218 203
Nissan 221 219 222 236 244 234 227 216
Porsche 301 309 324 273 299 282 275 215
Subaru 243 249 246 246 240 231 221 210
Teslatable 17 note a -6 -6 -6 -5 288 276 268 254
Toyota 208 209 209 203 245 234 223 211
Volkswagen 241 229 231 228 247 233 222 211
Volvo 306 281 289 252 321 307 293 242
Fleet average 234 230 228 221 248 238 227 216
Table 18: LT compliance and standard values over the 2014 to 2017 model years (g/mi)
Manufacturer 2014
compliance
2015
compliance
2016
compliance
2017
compliance
2014
standard
2015
standard
2016
standard
2017
standard
Table 18 notes
Table 18 note 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.

Return to table 18 note a referrer

BMW 295 288 293 280 314 299 286 283
FCA 333 321 332 345 336 315 303 312
Ford 343 332 360 321 346 331 325 308
GM 325 325 346 333 355 339 322 320
Honda 286 261 262 243 304 287 275 274
Hyundai 307 308 327 328 299 284 280 278
JLR 328 309 320 306 396 371 316 286
Kia 311 314 329 305 301 299 286 277
Mazda 267 276 259 266 296 283 270 267
Mercedes 311 290 313 313 319 298 292 289
Mitsubishi 270 265 265 262 287 273 260 253
Nissan 318 286 260 293 316 297 278 282
Porsche 349 334 319 296 398 375 361 285
Subaru 262 254 249 237 288 275 261 257
Teslatable 18 note a - - - - - - - -
Toyota 330 317 315 295 322 300 289 286
Volkswagen 292 294 291 308 301 287 270 273
Volvo 349 332 299 249 383 361 360 288
Fleet average 323 310 320 312 332 313 301 298

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 2017 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 13  as opposed to CREE so that FFV benefits can be portrayed separately. The orange line on the top of the bar indicates a company’s fleet average tailpipe emissions. The wide red line represents the fleet average standard and the wide dark blue line represents the fleet average compliance value (accounting for compliance flexibilities). The bars show the extent to which companies incorporate the previously described compliance flexibilities into their products to achieve their fleet average compliance value. Figures showing this information for prior model years are located in the appendix.

Figure 4: 2017 passenger automobile compliance status with offsets

Figure 4 (see long description below)

Notes:
1. The final compliance value may be lower than the tailpipe emissions through the application of compliance flexibilities.

Long description for figure 4
2017 passenger automobile compliance status with offsets
Manufacturer Fleet average
tailpipe emissions
Fleet average
compliance
value
Air conditioning Innovative
technologies
Fleet average
standard
BMW 248.7 227 18.5 3.2 216
FCA 309.6 288 18.4 3.2 234
Ford 259.8 241 15.2 3.6 220
GM 208.6 191 12.3 5.3 218
Honda 205.0 190 13.0 2.0 214
Hyundai 246.2 239 6.1 1.1 216
JLR 299.0 276 18.8 4.2 244
Kia 233.1 223 8.5 1.6 216
Mazda 217.0 217 0.0 0.0 212
Mercedes 274.7 263 10.7 1.0 238
Mitsubishi 213.1 210 3.1 0.0 203
Nissan 236.0 236 0.0 0.0 216
Porsche 294.4 273 18.7 2.7 215
Subaru 251.5 246 5.0 0.5 210
Toyota 214.1 203 7.6 3.5 211
VW 236.9 228 8.9 0.0 211
Volvo 265.1 252 9.5 3.6 242


Figure 5: 2017 light truck compliance status with offsets

Figure 5 (see long description below).

Notes:
1. The final compliance value may be lower than the tailpipe emissions through the application of compliance flexibilities

Long description for figure 5
2017 light truck compliance status with offsets
Manufacturer Fleet average
tailpipe emissions
Fleet average
compliance
value
Air conditioning Innovative
technologies
Fleet average
standard
BMW 309.1 280 22.4 6.7 283
FCA 373.0 345 20.4 7.6 312
Ford 348.7 321 20.5 7.2 308
GM 362.2 333 21.5 7.7 320
Honda 267.1 243 18.5 5.6 274
Hyundai 340.1 328 7.0 5.1 278
JLR 337.8 306 24.4 7.4 285
Kia 321.7 305 13.8 2.9 277
Mazda 266.0 266 0.0 0.0 267
Mercedes 329.4 313 14.3 2.1 289
Mitsubishi 271.0 262 9.0 0.0 253
Nissan 293.0 293 0.0 0.0 282
Porsche 318.8 296 19.3 3.5 285
Subaru 247.8 237 10.5 0.3 257
Toyota 315.5 295 13.4 7.1 286
VW 321.0 308 13.0 0.0 273
Volvo 266.6 249 11.9 5.7 288

2.6. Technological advancements and penetration rates

As fleet average emission standards have become more stringent, automobile manufacturers have developed a variety of technologies to reduce their CO2e emissions. Some of these technologies seek to reduce or eliminate the use of conventional fuels by introducing electrical powertrain components (BEVs, PHEVs etc.). There also 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 rates in the Canadian new vehicle fleet in given model years.

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 gases are used to drive a turbine that is connected to a compressor which provides greater amounts of air into the combustion chamber (forced induction). This results in greater power than a naturally aspirated engine of similar displacement, and greater efficiency than a naturally aspirated engine of the same power and torque. This permits the use of smaller displacement, lighter engines that can produce the same power as larger, heavier engines without turbocharging. For this reason, it is becoming increasingly common to see turbochargers incorporated into vehicles with smaller engines (< 2.0 L displacement), in order to decrease the overall vehicle weight and improve fuel efficiency by as much as 8%.

Variable valve timing and lift

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

Continuously variable transmissions (CVT) 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

Cylinder deactivation systems (CDS) shut off cylinders of a 6 or 8 cylinder engine when only partial power is required (for example, travelling at constant speed, decelerating etc.). The CDS works by deactivating the intake and exhaust valves for a particular set of cylinders in the engine. A CDS can reduce CO2e emissions by improving the overall fuel consumption of the vehicle by 4 to 10%Footnote 14 .

Gasoline direct injection

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

Diesel

Diesel engines provide greater low-end torque and fuel efficiency than a comparably sized gasoline engine. Diesel fuel contains more energy per unit volume than an equivalent amount of gasoline. As a result diesel vehicles can travel, on average, 20 to 35% further per litre of fuel then a gasoline based equivalentFootnote 15  which translates into measurable reductions in CO2e emissions.

The fleet-wide penetration rates of the above described technologies have been provided in table 19, while data pertaining to company specific usage can be found in appendices A-3 to A-10.

Table 19: penetration rates of drivetrain technologies in the Canadian fleet
Technology 2014 2015 2016 2017
Turbocharging with engine downsizing 13.8% 9.7% 15.8% 21.4%
VVT 96.5% 94.5% 94.5% 96.9%
VVL 20.3% 16.2% 19.3% 16.6%
Higher geared transmission 14.1% 17.6% 22.1% 27.0%
CVT 14.9% 19.4% 20.3% 19.9%
Cylinder deactivation 11.1% 10.1% 10.0% 14.3%
GDI 26.8% 30.8% 37.5% 38.2%
Diesel 2.7% 3.0% 1.8% 0.6%

3. Emission credits

The regulations include a system of emission credits to help meet overall environmental objectives in a manner that provides the regulated industry with compliance flexibility. A company must calculate emission credits and deficits in units of megagrams (Mg) of CO2e for each of its passenger automobile and light truck fleets of a given model year. Credits are weighted based on VKT to account for the greater number of kilometres travelled by light trucks over their lifetime than by passenger automobiles. Using the mathematical formula below, a company will generate credits in a given model year if the result of the calculation is positive or better than the GHG emission standard. If the result of the calculation is negative or 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 total assumed mileage of the vehicles in question, namely:

  1. 195 264 miles for a fleet of passenger automobiles, or
  2. 225 865 miles for a fleet of light trucks


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

The regulations initially established that credits could be banked to offset a future deficit for up to 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.

3.1. Credit transfers

Table 20 summarizes transactions by company and the model year in which the credits were generated. There have been more than 8.6 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 necessarily indicative of when a credit transfer occurred. For example, it is possible to transfer credits for the 2012 model year during the 2017 calendar year. As well, the total quantity transferred in or out from a company for a given model year may be the result of multiple transactions.

Table 20: credit transactions (transferred out) by model year (Mg CO2e)
Company Early action 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Total
Honda 2 138 563 658 254 1 208 565 687 153 515 938 - - - 5 208 473
Nissan 822 292 300 113 52 615 50 000 - - - - 1 225 020
Suzuki 123 345 30 431 - - - - - - 153 776
Tesla 2 292 900 7 264 24 649 55 686 105 226 158 354 176 147 530 518
Toyota 1 503 740 - - - - - - - 1 503 740
Receiver General - 6 906 - - - - - - 6 906
Table 20: credit transactions (transferred in) by model year (Mg CO2e)
Company Early action 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Total
Aston Martin - 2 626 - - - - - - 2 626
BMW - - 496 909 503 091 - - - - 1 000 000
FCA 3 655 727 689 585 218 920 24 649 55 686 105 226 158 354   176 147 5 084 294
Ferrari - 8 473 - - - - - -  
Ford 342 272 205 113 52 615 - - - - - 8 473
JLR - 80 020 - - - - - - 600 000
Lotus - 139 - - - - - - 80 020
Mercedes - 95 000 500 000 234 062 515 938 - - - 139
Maserati   3 740 - - - - - - 1 345 000
Porsche - 4 141 - - - - - - 3 740
Volkswagen 500 000 - - - - - - - 4 141

3.2. Total credits generated and final status

Table 21 shows the credits earned (or deficits incurred) by all companies over the 2017 model year. This table also shows the total number of credits remaining in each company’s bank, taking into account the credits that have expired, been transferred, or used to offset a deficit.

Since the regulations came into force, companies have generated approximately 80.1 million emission credits (including early action credits and TOF credits), of which approximately 27.5 million credits remain for future use. A total of 15.1 million credits have been used to offset deficits and 37.5 million credits have expired.

Table 21: net credits by model year and current credit balance (Mg CO2e)
Manufacturers Generated credit/deficit in 2017 Current balancetable 21 note a
Table 21 notes
Table 21 note a

The current balance accounts for any expired credits, remaining early action credits, transactions, and offsets.

Return to table 21 note a referrer

BMW -49 969 1 032 480
FCA -2 041 257 2 963 662
Ford -974 426 808 044
GM -6 948 3 219 456
Honda 1 102 995 3 202 623
Hyundai -845 556 2 797 874
JLR -73 019 -73 019
Kia -221 493 537 484
Mazda -36 673 3 419 725
Mercedes -229 764 970 340
Mitsubishi -41 412 637 010
Nissan -495 889 600 232
Porsche -43 785 -43 785
Subaru 26 826 477 190
Tesla 176 147 0
Toyota -82 693 5 782 234
Volkswagen -453 422 957 652
Volvo 41 089 82 924
Total -4 249 249 27 488 930

4. Overall industry performance

The overall fleet average compliance information for passenger automobiles and light trucks is summarized in tables table22 and table23. Additionally, figures figure6 and figure7 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 22: passenger automobile compliance summary for the 2011 to 2017 model years (g/mi)
Model year Tailpipe emissions Flex fuel vehicles Innovative technologies Air conditioning CH4 & N2O Compliance value Standard Compliance margin
2011 261 2.8 0.2 3.3 - 255 291 36
2012 251 3.3 0.4 4.8 0.2 242 263 21
2013 247 3.4 0.3 5.4 0.2 238 256 18
2014 245 3.7 1.5 6.0 0.2 234 248 14
2015 241 2.6 1.7 6.9 0.2 230 238 8
2016 237 0 1.7 8.2 0.1 228 227 -1
2017 232 0 2.0 8.8 0.0 221 216 -5

Figure 6: average GHG emissions performance for passenger automobiles

Figure 6 (see long description below).
Long description for figure 6

Figure 6 is a graph presenting the trends in average GHG compliance value and average GHG standards for the passenger automobile fleets over the 2011 to 2017 model years.

Average GHG standard and compliance value
Year Standard (g/mile) Compliance value (g/mile)
2011 291 255
2012 263 242
2013 256 238
2014 248 234
2015 238 230
2016 227 228
2017 216 221
Table 23: light truck compliance summary for the 2011 to 2017 model years (g/mi)
Model year Tailpipe emissions Flex fuel vehicles Innovative technologies Air conditioning CH4 & N2O Compliance value Standard Compliance margin
2011 365 8.0 0.6 6.9 - 349 367 18
2012 371 13.2 1.0 7.3 0.3 349 350 1
2013 361 13.2 1.2 8.4 0.4 338 341 3
2014 350 12.7 4.2 9.8 0.1 323 332 9
2015 335 9.2 4.6 11.2 0.3 310 313 3
2016 337 0 4.9 12.2 0.3 320 301 -19
2017 335 0 5.9 16.9 0.3 312 298 -14

Figure 7: average GHG emissions performance for light trucks

Figure 7 (see long description below).
Long description for figure 7

Figure 7 is a graph presenting the trends in average GHG compliance value and average GHG standards for the light truck fleets over the 2011 to 2017 model years.

Average GHG compliance value and standard
Year Standard (g/mile) Compliance value (g/mile)
2011 367 349
2012 350 349
2013 341 338
2014 332 323
2015 313 310
2016 301 320
2017 298 312

As depicted in figures figure6 and figure7, during the 2011 to 2015 model years, as the stringency of the regulations increased, the overall passenger automobile fleet continued to outperform the applicable standard. 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 2017 model year saw the overall compliance value for passenger automobiles decrease to 221 g/mi, and the overall compliance value for light trucks decrease to 312 g/mi. This has resulted in an overall net improvement of 13.3% and 10.6% relative to the 2011 model year for passenger automobiles and light trucks respectively.

Although the fleet average compliance values for both passenger automobiles and light trucks resumed a downward trend in the 2017 model year, it has stayed above the fleet average emission standard. All companies remained in compliance with the regulations through the use of their own accumulated emission credits or by purchasing credits from other companies. Results to date indicate that all companies continue to meet their vehicle GHG regulatory obligations for the 2017 model year.

Appendix

Table A-1: production volumes by company
Manufacturer 2014
PA
2014
LT
2014
all
2015
PA
2015
LT
2015
all
2016
PA
2016
LT
2016
all
2017
PA
2017
LT
2017
all
Aston Martin 127 0 127 117 0 117 91 0 91 82 0 82
BMW 26 185 11 178 37 363 29 027 12 711 41 738 31 789 14 316 46 105 25 882 17 059 42 941
FCA 50 620 230 088 280 708 53 772 222 388 276 160 35 676 240 114 275 790 20 591 242 874 263 465
Ferrari 198 0 198 201 0 201 135 0 135 275 0 275
Ford 94 639 185 694 280 333 67 630 150 536 218 166 54 569 190 662 245 231 72 230 205 393 277 623
GM 107 540 119 868 227 408 104 360 143 127 247 487 82 065 118 958 201 023 96 569 173 949 270 518
Honda 89 628 66 780 156 408 111 045 67 740 178 785 114 360 87 060 201 420 112 783 81 780 194 563
Hyundai 96 281 9 402 105 683 97 784 10 744 108 528 123 676 4 493 128 169 161 646 11 171 172 817
JLR 1 179 6 183 7 362 1 507 6 188 7 695 1 282 11 564 12 846 2 345 11 870 14 215
Kia 66 909 4 256 71 165 63 479 4 392 67 871 58 583 15 878 74 461 42 768 25 637 68 405
Lotus 14 0 14 8 0 8 0 0 0 13 0 13
Maserati 561 0 561 443 0 443 344 0 344 1 369 0 1 369
Mazda 50 546 17 617 68 163 48 554 16 373 64 927 46 389 15 317 61 706 35 910 23 202 59 112
McLaren 16 0 16 79 0 79 121 0 121 112 0 112
Mercedes 22 793 13 310 36 103 22 997 20 083 43 080 24 178 12 980 37 158 22 371 22 371 44 742
Mitsubishi 13 561 12 255 25 816 14 600 11 080 25 680 6 100 12 097 18 197 13 686 11 301 24 987
Nissan 59 385 49 964 109 349 94 731 59 371 154 102 71 221 51 416 122 637 87 293 62 006 149 299
Pagani 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0
Porsche 2 018 2 599 4 617 1 549 3 340 4 889 1 585 5 081 6 666 2 357 6 829 9 186
Subaru 11 187 26 893 38 080 17 593 35 735 53 328 14 603 32 079 46 682 17 744 33 502 51 246
Tesla 971 0 971 1 913 0 1 913 2 963 0 2 963 3 483 0 3 483
Toyota 117 649 75 979 193 628 110 456 115 816 226 272 102 858 104 187 207 045 104 146 125 841 229 987
Volkswagen 54 003 21 178 75 181 86 456 23 083 109 539 67 074 21 133 88 207 72 212 26 667 98 879
Volvo 607 1 662 2 269 3 272 3 139 6 411 891 4 885 5 776 1 331 5 008 6 339
Fleet total 866 617 854 906 1 721 523 931 573 905 846 1 837 419 840 554 942 220 1 782 774 897 198 1 086 460 1 983 658

Figure A-1: 2014 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
2014 passenger automobile compliance status with offsets
Manufacturer Fleet average
tailpipe emissions
Fleet average
compliance value
Flex fuel vehicles Air conditioning Innovative
technologies
Fleet average
standard

The asterisked companies are those that used the temporary optional fleet provisions.

BMW 258.7 247.0 0.0 8.6 3.1 254
FCA 292.8 265.0 12.0 12.3 3.5 259
Ford 257.0 238.0 9.0 7.4 2.6 250
GM 260.0 239.0 9.0 9.2 2.8 250
Honda 218.6 215.0 0.0 3.1 0.5 243
Hyundai 253.4 247.0 0.0 5.6 0.8 249
JLR* 352.9 333.0 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* 274.1 250.0 9.8 10.1 4.2 251
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* 305.4 301.0 0.0 4.4 0.0 299
Subaru 243.0 243.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 240
Toyota 216.3 208.0 0.0 6.5 1.8 245
VW 259.7 241.0 10.0 8.7 0.0 247
Volvo* 306.0 306.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 321


Figure A-2: 2015 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
2014 passenger automobile compliance status with offsets
Manufacturer Fleet average
tailpipe emissions
Fleet average
compliance value
Flex fuel vehicles Air conditioning Innovative
technologies
Fleet average
standard

The asterisked companies are those that used the temporary optional fleet provisions.

BMW 258.2 246.0 0.0 8.8 3.4 239.0
FCA 285.7 256.0 10.0 16.1 3.6 248.0
Ford 253.7 236.0 7.0 8.7 2.0 240.0
GM 258.9 240.0 6.0 9.4 3.5 241.0
Honda 211.5 207.0 0.0 3.2 1.3 231.0
Hyundai 250.3 243.0 0.0 5.9 1.4 240.0
JLR* 348.2 327.3 4.0 14.8 2.4 319.0
Kia 264.7 258.0 0.0 5.6 1.1 238.0
Mazda 207.0 207.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 238.0
Mercedes 264.3 243.0 7.0 10.9 3.4 250.0
Mitsubishi 224.0 224.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 225.0
Nissan 227.1 219.0 0.0 6.8 1.3 234.0
Porsche* 313.1 309.0 0.0 4.1 0.0 282.0
Subaru 249.0 249.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 231.0
Toyota 218.1 209.0 0.0 6.8 2.3 234.0
VW 244.7 229.0 7.0 8.7 0.0 233.0
Volvo* 281.0 281.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 307.0


Figure A-3: 2016 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
2016 passenger automobile compliance status with offsets
Manufacturer Fleet average
tailpipe emissions
Fleet average
compliance value
Air conditioning Innovative
technologies
Fleet average
standard

The asterisked companies are those that used the temporary optional fleet provisions.

BMW 262.8 250.0 9.1 3.7 230.0
FCA 296.7 275.0 18.5 3.2 242.0
Ford 257.0 246.0 8.9 2.1 232.0
GM 251.1 237.0 9.7 4.4 230.0
Honda 206.3 193.0 11.6 1.7 224.0
Hyundai 248.0 241.0 6.1 0.9 227.0
JLR* 333.7 311.0 19.5 3.2 309.0
Kia 244.6 238.0 5.6 1.0 227.0
Mazda 210.0 210.0 0.0 0.0 223.0
Mercedes 260.2 246.0 10.9 3.3 232.0
Mitsubishi 231.0 229.0 2.0 0.0 218.0
Nissan 231.3 222.0 7.6 1.7 227.0
Porsche* 331.2 324.0 4.7 2.5 275.0
Subaru 249.2 246.0 2.9 0.3 221.0
Toyota 217.2 209.0 7.1 1.1 223.0
VW 240.2 231.0 9.2 0.0 222.0
Volvo* 289.0 289.0 0.0 0.0 293.0


Figure A-4: 2014 light truck 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
2014 light truck compliance status with offsets
Manufacturer Fleet average
tailpipe emissions
Fleet average
compliance value
Flex fuel
vehicles
Air conditioning Innovative
technologies
Fleet average
standard

The asterisked companies are those that used the temporary optional fleet provisions.

BMW 312.3 295.0 0.0 11.3 6.0 314.0
FCA 375.1 333.0 20.0 14.5 7.6 336.0
Ford 377.0 343.0 20.0 10.3 3.7 346.0
GM 359.0 325.0 18.0 11.0 5.0 355.0
Honda 294.0 286.0 0.0 5.9 2.1 304.0
Hyundai 315.8 307.0 0.0 7.1 1.7 299.0
JLR* 375.1 328.0 20.0 21.7 5.4 396.0
Kia 318.6 311.0 0.0 6.8 0.8 301.0
Mazda 267.0 267.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 296.0
Mercedes* 332.9 311.0 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* 361.4 349.0 0.0 12.4 0.0 398.0
Subaru 262.0 262.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 288.0
Toyota 341.9 330.0 0.0 8.3 3.6 322.0
VW 318.1 292.0 14.0 12.1 0.0 301.0
Volvo* 349.0 349.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 383.0


Figure A-5: 2015 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
2015 light truck compliance status with offsets
Manufacturer Fleet average
tailpipe emissions
Fleet average
compliance value
Flex fuel
vehicles
Air conditioning Innovative
technologies
Fleet average
standard

The asterisked companies are those that used the temporary optional fleet provisions.

BMW 305.6 288.0 0.0 11.4 6.2 299
FCA 361.3 321.0 15.0 17.6 7.7 315
Ford 362.8 332.0 15.0 11.2 4.6 331
GM 356.8 325.0 15.0 11.0 5.8 339
Honda 269.3 261.0 0.0 6.1 2.2 287
Hyundai 317.3 308.0 0.0 7.3 2.0 284
JLR* 351.3 309.0 14.0 22.5 5.8 371
Kia 322.7 314.0 0.0 7.1 1.6 299
Mazda 276.0 276.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 283
Mercedes* 316.9 290.0 10.0 12.7 4.2 298
Mitsubishi 265.0 265.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 273
Nissan 298.4 286.0 0.0 9.4 3.0 297
Porsche* 347.0 334.0 0.0 12.4 0.6 375
Subaru 254.0 254.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 275
Toyota 329.0 317.0 0.0 8.8 3.2 300
VW 317.5 294.0 12.0 11.5 0.0 287
Volvo* 332.0 332.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 361


Figure A-6: 2016 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
2016 light truck compliance status with offsets
Manufacturer Fleet average
tailpipe emissions
Fleet average
compliance value
Air conditioning Innovative
technologies
Fleet average
standard

The asterisked companies are those that used the temporary optional fleet provisions.

BMW 310.8 293 11.3 6.5 286
FCA 358.4 332 18.2 8.2 303
Ford 375.9 360 11.3 4.6 325
GM 363.0 346 11.2 5.8 322
Honda 273.8 262 9.3 2.5 275
Hyundai 337.6 327 5.8 4.8 280
JLR* 350.3 320 22.9 7.4 316
Kia 338.1 329 5.5 3.6 286
Mazda 259.0 259 0.0 0.0 270
Mercedes 326.9 313 9.3 4.6 292
Mitsubishi 272.0 265 7.0 0.0 260
Nissan 273.4 260 10.1 3.3 278
Porsche* 335.8 319 12.4 4.4 361
Subaru 252.1 249 3.0 0.1 261
Toyota 329.2 315 10.9 3.3 289
VW 303.6 291 12.6 0.0 270
Volvo* 299.0 299 0.0 0.0 360

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 2014 2015 2016 2017
BMW 23 772 25 828 29 406 28 505
FCA 4 991 2 938 853 2 138
Ford 72 505 55 845 43 338 95 298
GM 56 752 47 464 50 509 66 120
Honda 0 0 18 150 71 910
Hyundai 14 487 10 130 18 148 18 617
JLR 1 718 2 857 4 461 0
Kia 3 009 1 724 8 422 6 772
Mercedes 8 338 17 803 18 329 24 886
Mitsubishi 773 850 0 0
Nissan 0 0 0 4 558
Porsche 0 0 0 2 347
Subaru 3 027 5 361 4 195 5 702
Toyota 0 5 793 5 617 7 756
Volkswagen 46 997 0 79 468 85 022
Volvo 0 1 051 100 2 299
Total 236 369 177 644 280 996 421 930
Table A-4: volume of vehicles sold with VVT
Technology 2014 2015 2016 2017
BMW 34 699 37 387 42 953 40 874
FCA 269 016 260 401 258 715 256 770
Ford 276 852 178 400 185 730 236 387
GM 224 242 245 384 193 764 265 518
Honda 156 408 178 785 201 420 194 563
Hyundai 105 683 108 528 128 167 172 162
JLR 7 362 7 695 10 398 11 321
Kia 71 165 67 761 73 392 67 928
Mazda 68 163 64 927 61 706 59 112
Mercedes 35 490 42 931 36 968 44 636
Mitsubishi 20 633 23 173 13 109 21 579
Nissan 108 943 152 399 121 017 148 415
Porsche 4 617 4 889 6 666 9 186
Subaru 38 079 53 328 46 682 51 246
Toyota 193 628 226 272 207 045 229 987
Volkswagen 40 617 72 443 86 451 98 174
Volvo 2 269 6 411 5 776 6 339
Total 1 361 988 1 607 136 1 657 866 1 914 197
Table A-5: volume of vehicles sold with VVL
Technology 2014 2015 2016 2017
BMW 34 409 36 846 42 192 40 250
FCA 35 488 35 022 32 956 3 390
GM 5 478 12 265 7 294 5 318
Honda 156 408 178 785 201 420 194 563
JLR 1 179 1 507 10 398 11 321
Mitsubishi 7 325 3 876 8 819 6 600
Nissan 84 844 8 378 5 284 12 249
Porsche 4 617 4 889 6 666 9 186
Toyota 2 354 865 3 877 6 012
Volkswagen 15 573 14 711 24 551 38 445
Volvo 786 103 0 0
Total 348 461 297 247 343 457 327 334
Table A-6: volume of vehicles sold with higher geared transmissions
Technology 2014 2015 2016 2017
BMW 32 031 32 846 38 414 36 967
FCA 111 746 134 568 143 185 140 612
Ford 0 0 0 32 228
GM 713 9 085 25 666 57 092
Honda 7 059 18 144 42 156 38 550
Hyundai 740 3 165 9 627 8 284
JLR 6 776 7 477 12 814 14 192
Kia 0 79 374 1 162
Mercedes 34 960 41 293 34 967 44 346
Nissan 7 268 28 302 30 340 43 356
Porsche 4 298 4 708 6 205 9 030
Subaru 0 3 479 2 434 10 924
Toyota 16 368 16 596 25 860 63 640
Volkswagen 20 978 20 849 18 034 27 589
Volvo 0 1 142 3 037 6 339
Total 242 937 321 733 393 113 534 311
Table A-7: volume of vehicles sold with CVT
Technology 2014 2015 2016 2017
FCA 862 417 519 178
Ford 2 946 2 145 1 801 3 173
GM 2 550 4 681 3 158 10 084
Honda 56 932 122 724 142 680 131 295
Mitsubishi 15 943 17 954 11 937 19 002
Nissan 89 546 108 959 100 047 114 907
Subaru 31 055 44 624 39 886 43 218
Toyota 56 349 54 815 60 131 71 042
Volkswagen 59 24 15 0
Total 219 115 248 247 236 761 260 093
Table A-8: volume of vehicles sold with cylinder deactivation
Technology 2014 2015 2016 2017
FCA 71 658 50 332 56 549 98 158
GM 84 095 97 824 77 537 137 599
Honda 34 570 35 595 42 630 44 490
Mercedes 38 27 0 0
Volkswagen 573 536 1 260 1 682
Total 190 934 184 314 177 967 281 929
Table A-9: volume of diesel vehicles sold
Technology 2014 2015 2016 2017
BMW 2 418 3 893 3 060 1 643
FCA 9 395 14 521 15 077 4 174
GM 1 836 1 258 1 200 2 867
JLR 0 0 0 2 894
Mercedes 11 309 12 569 7 191 0
Porsche 701 522 527 0
Volkswagen 20 364 22 695 1 756 0
Total 46 023 55 458 31 259 11 578
Table A-10: volume of vehicles sold with GDI
Technology 2014 2015 2016 2017
BMW 33 982 37 085 42 953 40 874
FCA 1 3 408 13 294 886
GM 152 896 191 703 166 895 244 125
Honda 21 106 79 935 157 680 120 523
Hyundai 85 049 84 446 100 695 113 544
JLR 7 362 7 695 10 398 11 321
Kia 60 213 60 983 67 140 59 381
Mazda 60 755 59 411 60 819 56 102
Mercedes 24 181 30 362 29 777 44 636
Nissan 4 296 222 7 440 41 163
Porsche 3 916 0 0 0
Subaru 3 027 5 361 4 195 14 903
Toyota 3 033 2 568 1 829 676
Volvo 0 1 142 3 037 6 339
Total 459 817 564 321 666 152 754 473
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
Report a problem or mistake on this page
Please select all that apply:

Thank you for your help!

You will not receive a reply. For enquiries, contact us.

Date modified: