Greenhouse gas emissions performance for the 2018 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

Cover photo: © GettyImages.ca
Inside photos: © Environment and Climate Change Canada

© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, represented by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, 2020

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 2015 to 2018 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 2015 to 2018 model years
Table 9: FFV impact for the 2015 to 2018 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 2015 to 2018 model years (Mg CO2e)
Table 16: CH4 emissions deficits by company for the 2015 to 2018 model years (Mg CO2e)
Table 17: PA Compliance and Standard values over the 2015 to 2018 model years (g/mi)
Table 18: LT Compliance and Standard values over the 2015 to 2018 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 2018 model years (g/mi)
Table 23: light truck compliance summary for the 2011 to 2018 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: 2018 passenger automobile compliance status with offsets
Figure 5: 2018 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: 2015 passenger automobile compliance status with offsets
Figure A-2: 2016 passenger automobile compliance status with offsets
Figure A-3: 2017 passenger automobile compliance status with offsets
Figure A-4: 2015 light truck compliance status with offsets
Figure A-5: 2016 light truck compliance status with offsets
Figure A-6: 2017 light truck compliance status with offsets

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

TOF

Temporary optional fleet

VKT

Vehicle kilometres travelled

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. It 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 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 2018 model year, the fleet average standards for passenger automobiles and for light trucks have become more stringent by 29.6% and 21.5% 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 17 793 units and the number of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles has increased from zero to 22 875 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 2018 model year. The average compliance value for the fleet of new passenger automobiles decreased from 255 g/mi to 206 g/mi since the introduction of the regulation, representing a 19.2% reduction. The compliance value for light trucks decreased by 15.5%, from 349 g/mi to 295 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 continued a downward trend in the 2018 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 83.1 million credits, of which, approximately 26 million remain available for future use. A total of 20 million credits have been used to offset emission deficits by individual companies over the 2011 to 2018 model years, of which 4.1 million credits were used to offset deficits accrued in the 2018 model year. The remaining 37.1 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 2017 model year, 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 2015 to 2018 model years are listed in table 1.

Table 1: model year report submission status
Manufacturer Common name 2015 2016 2017 2018
Aston Martin Lagonda Ltd. Aston Martin LVMa LVMa LVMa LVMa
BMW Canada Inc. BMW * * * *
FCA Canada Inc. FCA * * * *
Ferrari North America Inc. Ferrari LVMa LVMa LVMa LVMa
Ford Motor Company of Canada Ltd. Ford * * * *
General Motors of Canada Company GM * * * *
Honda Canada Inc. Honda * * * *
Hyundai Auto Canada Corp. Hyundai * * * *
Jaguar Land Rover Canada ULC JLR * * * *
Kia Canada Inc. Kia * * * *
Lotus Cars Ltd. Lotus LVMa LVMa LVMa LVMa
Maserati North America Inc. Maserati LVMa LVMa LVMa LVMa
Mazda Canada Inc. Mazda * * * *
McLaren Automotive Limited McLaren LVMa LVMa LVMa LVMa
Mercedes-Benz Canada Inc. Mercedes * * * *
Mitsubishi Motor Sales of Canada, Inc. Mitsubishi * * * *
Nissan Canada Inc. Nissan * * * *
Pagani Automobili SPA, Italy Pagani LVMa LVMa LVMa LVMa
Porsche Cars Canada, LTD. Porsche * * * *
Subaru Canada Inc. Subaru * * * *
Tesla Motors, Inc. Tesla * * * *
Toyota Canada, Inc. Toyota * * * *
Volkswagen Group Canada, Inc. Volkswagen * * * *
Volvo Cars of Canada Corp. Volvo * * * *

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

2.1. CO2e emission standards

The applicable standards for a given model year are based on prescribed carbon dioxide (CO2e) emission “target values” that are a function of the “footprint” (figure 1) and quantity of the vehicles in each company’s fleet of passenger automobiles and light trucks offered for saleFootnote 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 7 .

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 8 . The CO2e standard was derived using a conversion factor of 8887 grams of CO2/gallon of gasolineFootnote 9  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 2015 to 2018 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 2015
PA
2016
PA
2017
PA
2018
PA
2015
LT
2016
LT
2017
LT
2018
LT
BMW 239 230 216 208 299 286 283 274
FCA 248 242 234 228 315 303 312 295
Ford 240 232 220 209 331 325 308 310
GM 241 230 218 204 339 322 320 310
Honda 231 224 214 204 287 275 274 261
Hyundai 240 227 216 206 284 280 278 266
JLR 319 309 244 242 371 316 286 286
Kia 238 227 216 204 299 286 277 267
Mazda 238 223 212 202 283 270 267 256
Mercedesa 250 232 238 213 298 292 289 274
Mitsubishi 225 218 203 195 273 260 253 242
Nissan 234 227 216 205 297 278 282 273
Porsche 282 275 215 224 375 361 285 284
Subaru 231 221 210 199 275 261 257 245
Tesla 276 268 254 226 - - - 292
Toyota 234 223 211 201 300 289 286 273
Volkswagen 233 222 211 201 287 270 273 269
Volvo 307 293 242 245 361 360 288 291
Fleet average 238 227 216 205 313 301 298 288

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.

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 2015 to 2018 model years (sq. ft.)
Manufacturer 2015
PA
2016
PA
2017
PA
2018
PA
2015
LT
2016
LT
2017
LT
2018
LT
BMW 45.6 45.9 45.6 46.3 50.6 50.7 50.4 50.8
FCA 47.1 48.3 49.3 50.9 54.8 55.3 57.8 56.1
Ford 45.7 46.4 46.7 46.6 60.6 62.9 58.3 61.3
GM 45.9 45.8 45.8 45.2 61.5 60.3 60.9 60.2
Honda 43.9 44.6 45.1 45.4 47.6 48.0 48.6 48.2
Hyundai 46.0 45.4 45.8 45.9 46.8 49.2 49.2 49.2
JLR 49.1 49.7 48.9 48.7 49.9 50.9 50.8 50.7
Kia 45.5 45.4 45.7 45.3 50.5 50.7 49.2 49.3
Mazda 45.4 44.4 44.8 44.8 46.6 46.8 47.0 47.3
Mercedes 45.6 45.4 47.4 47.2 49.1 52.2 51.3 50.9
Mitsubishi 41.6 43.4 41.8 42.3 43.9 44.2 44.0 44.2
Nissan 44.0 45.1 45.4 45.5 50.1 48.7 50.4 50.8
Porsche 40.9 42.4 42.3 44.4 50.8 51.4 50.5 50.3
Subaru 44.0 44.0 44.5 44.4 44.6 44.6 44.8 44.9
Tesla 53.6 54.1 54.2 50.4 - - - 54.8
Toyota 44.5 44.5 44.7 44.6 51.1 51.8 51.7 51.0
Volkswagen 44.4 45.5 44.5 44.7 47.5 46.8 48.4 50.0
Volvo 47.1 47.0 48.7 49.2 48.0 51.3 51.2 52.1
Fleet average 45.0 45.3 45.5 45.5 54.3 54.9 54.9 54.8

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 2015 to 2018 model years are presented in table 4.

Table 4: fleet average carbon related exhaust emissions (g/mi)
Manufacturer 2015
PA
2016
PA
2017
PA
2018
PA
2015
LT
2016
LT
2017
LT
2018
LT
BMW 258 263 249 258 306 311 309 300
FCA 276 297 310 314 346 358 373 359
Ford 247 257 260 241 348 376 349 347
GM 253 251 209 191 342 363 362 349
Honda 211 206 205 203 269 274 267 255
Hyundai 250 248 246 241 317 338 340 337
JLR 344 334 299 277 337 350 338 316
Kia 265 245 233 223 323 338 322 322
Mazda 207 210 217 215 276 259 266 259
Mercedes 257 260 275 264 307 327 329 316
Mitsubishi 224 231 213 151 265 272 271 264
Nissan 227 231 236 204 298 273 293 294
Porsche 313 331 294 291 347 336 319 318
Subaru 249 249 251 254 254 252 248 242
Teslaa 0 0 0 0 - - - 0
Toyota 218 217 214 203 329 329 315 315
Volkswagen 238 240 237 255 305 304 321 296
Volvo 281 289 265 257 332 299 267 267
Fleet average 238 237 232 220 326 337 334 322

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

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 10  (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 2015 to 2018 model years.

Table 5: allowance for reduction in AC refrigerant leakage (g/mi)
Manufacturer 2015
PA
2016
PA
2017
PA
2018
PA
2015
LT
2016
LT
2017
LT
2018
LT
BMW 4.6 4.7 13.7 13.6 7.1 7.0 16.9 16.9
FCA 11.6 13.3 13.6 13.8 13.1 14.0 14.8 15.8
Ford 6.3 6.2 11.8 12.8 7.8 7.8 14.4 15.5
GM 6.2 6.2 8.5 12.3 6.9 7.0 15.1 16.7
Honda 1.8 8.3 9.7 11.6 4.2 6.4 13.5 15.6
Hyundai 2.4 2.5 2.8 5.4 3.6 1.6 1.6 2.2
JLR 9.6 13.8 13.8 13.8 16.9 17.2 17.2 17.2
Kia 2.3 2.3 5.4 8.2
3.7 2.1 8.6 7.9
Mazda - - - 2.7 - - - 4.3
Mercedes 5.5 5.7 5.8 5.9
7.2 4.0 7.2 7.6
Mitsubishi - 2.0 2.7 9.8
- 7.0 6.1 13.1
Nissan 4.0 4.5 - 4.5
6.5 7.1 - 6.9
Porsche 0.4 0.8 13.7 13.5 6.7 6.7 12.1 14.4
Subaru - - 1.9 1.4 - - 5.8 4.5
Tesla - - - 5.7
- - - 5.2
Toyota 3.4 3.3 3.3 5.2 4.9 6.6 6.5 7.5
Volkswagen 4.9 4.8 4.7 12.3
7.3 7.4 7.1 15.6
Volvo - - 5.3 5.1
- - 6.5 6.9
Fleet average 4.0 4.8 5.6 8.2 7.6 8.4 11.6 13.2
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 2015 to 2018 model years.

Table 6: allowance for improvements in AC system efficiency (g/mi)
Manufacturer 2015
PA
2016
PA
2017
PA
2018
PA
2015
LT
2016
LT
2017
LT
2018
LT
BMW 4.2 4.4 4.8 4.9 4.3 4.3 5.5 6.3
FCA 4.5 5.2 4.8 4.7 4.5 4.2 5.6 5.9
Ford 2.4 2.7 3.4 4.0 3.4 3.5 6.1 6.8
GM 3.2 3.5 3.8 4.2 4.1 4.2 6.4 6.6
Honda 1.4 3.3 3.3 3.6 1.9 2.9 5.0 5.5
Hyundai 3.5 3.6 3.3 3.4 3.7 4.2 5.4 5.2
JLR 5.2 5.7 5.0 5.0 5.6 5.7 7.2 7.2
Kia 3.3 3.3 3.1 3.2 3.4 3.4 5.2 5.2
Mazda - - - - - - - -
Mercedes 5.4 5.2 4.9 5.0 5.5 5.3 7.1 7.1
Mitsubishi - - 0.4 2.2 - - 2.9 3.0
Nissan 2.8 3.1 - 4.0 2.9 3.0 - 4.4
Porsche 3.7 3.9 5.0 5.0 5.7 5.7 7.2 7.2
Subaru - 2.9 3.1 3.2 - 3.0 4.7 4.8
Tesla 5.7 5.7 5.0 5.0 - - - 7.2
Toyota 3.4 3.8 4.3 4.2 3.9 4.3 6.9 6.0
Volkswagen 3.8 4.4 4.2 4.8 4.2 5.2 5.9 7.1
Volvo - - 4.2 4.0 - - 5.4 6.2
Fleet average 2.9 3.4 3.2 3.7 3.6 3.8 5.5 6.0
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 2015 to 2018.

Table 7: allowance for the use of innovative technologies (g/mi)
Manufacturer 2015
PA
2016
PA
2017
PA
2018
PA
2015
LT
2016
LT
2017
LT
2018
LT
BMW 3.4 3.7 3.2 3.6 6.2 6.5 6.7 8.1
FCA 3.6 3.2 3.2 4.3 7.7 8.2 7.6 10.4
Ford 2.0 2.1 3.6 5.1 4.6 4.6 7.2 12.9
GM 3.5 4.4 5.3 7.0 5.8 6.2 7.7 8.8
Honda 1.3 1.7 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.5 5.6 5.8
Hyundai 1.4 0.9 1.1 1.9 2.0 4.8 5.1 5.2
JLR 2.4 3.2 4.2 6.9 5.8 7.4 7.4 12.4
Kia 1.1 1.0 1.6 1.7 1.6 3.6 2.9 4.0
Mazda - - - 1.4 - - - 4.6
Mercedes 3.4 3.3 1.0 3.9 4.2 4.6 2.1 3.3
Mitsubishi - - - 2.4 - - - 1.4
Nissan 1.3 1.7 - 2.0 3.0 3.3 - 5.2
Porsche - 2.5 2.7 3.2 0.6 4.4 3.5 3.1
Subaru - 0.3 0.5 1.6 - 0.1 0.3 4.4
Tesla - - - 4.8 - - - 8.3
Toyota 2.3 1.1 3.5 3.9 3.2 3.3 7.1 6.8
Volkswagen - - - - - - - -
Volvo - - 3.6 6.7 - - 5.7 11.4
Fleet average 1.7 1.7 2.0 2.9 4.6 4.9 5.9 8.1
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.

As of the 2018 model year no companies made use of the allowance for certain full-size pick-up trucks.

2.3.5. Dual fuel vehicles

Alcohol dual fuel vehiclesFootnote 11  [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 12 .

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 2015 to 2018 model years is summarized in table 8.

Table 8: FFV production volumes for the 2015 to 2018 model years
Manufacturer 2015
PA
2016a
PA
2017a
PA
2018a
PA
2015
LT
2016a
LT
2017a
LT
2018a
LT
BMW - - - - - - - -
FCA 15 372 10 666 - - 80 645 78 649 - -
Ford 19 776 17 165 15 104 3 495 55 514 81 192 70 167 64 804
GM 5 721 4 105 4 309 2 791 20 022 10 428 12 639 12 708
Honda - - - - - - - -
Hyundai - - - - - - - -
JLR 35 - - - 1 250 - - -
Kia - - - - - - - -
Mazda - - - - - - - -
Mercedes 2 729 5 575 2 509 4 566 4 055 - 2 749 5 288
Mitsubishi - - - - - - - -
Nissan - - - - - - - -
Porsche - - - - - - - -
Subaru - - - - - - - -
Tesla - - - - - - - -
Toyota - - - - - - - -
Volkswagen 4 996 - 161 - 4 796 - 4 986 -
Volvo - - - - - - - -
Total 48 629 37 511 22 083 10 852 166 282 170 269 90 541 82 800

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 to 2018 model years may therefore be under-reported.

Table 9 shows the benefit of FFVs for these companies’ fleet performance for the 2015 through 2018 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 to 2018 model years and hence were not eligible to reduce their CREE as a result of FFV sales.

Table 9: FFV impact for the 2015 to 2018 model years (g/mi)
Manufacturer 2015
PA
2016a
PA
2017a
PA
2018a
PA
2015
LT
2016a
LT
2017a
LT
2018a
LT
BMW - - - - - - - -
FCA 10* - - - 15* - - -
Ford 7* - - - 15* - - -
GM 6 - - - 15* - - -
Honda - - - - - - - -
Hyundai - - - - - - - -
JLR 4 - - - 14* - - -
Kia - - - - - - - -
Mazda - - - - - - - -
Mercedes 7 - - - 10 - - -
Mitsubishi - - - - - - - -
Nissan - - - - - - - -
Porsche - - - - - - - -
Subaru - - - - - - - -
Tesla - - - - - - - -
Toyota - - - - - - - -
Volkswagen 7* - - - 12* - - -
Volvo - - - - - - - -

* Indicate that a company has reduced their CREE by the maximum annual allowable amount attributable to FFV sales.
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 to 2018 model years may therefore be under-reported.

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 electrical energy stored in a battery, and hence produce no tailpipe emissions. PHEVs incorporate an electrical powertrain which enables them to be charged with electricity to operate solely on electrical power, but also contain an internal combustion engine to extend the operating range of the vehicle. FCEVs are propelled solely by an electric motor where the energy for the motor is supplied by an electrochemical cell that produces electricity without combustion. When calculating a CREE, the regulations allow companies to report 0 g/mi for electric vehicles (for example, BEVs), fuel cell vehicles, and the electric portion of plug-in hybrids (when PHEVs operate as electric vehicles) 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 2015 2016 2017 2018
BMW 670 605 808 1 117
FCA - - 739 1 578
Ford 297 771 2 513 2 788
GM 1 546 765 7 861 6 874
Honda - - - 850
Hyundai - - 783 1 418
JLR - - - -
Kia 110 1 069 587 1 009
Mazda - - - -
Mercedes 149 198 182 -
Mitsubishi - 120 85 5 380
Nissan 1 703 1 620 884 4 440
Porsche 162 311 417 692
Subaru - - - -
Tesla 1 913 2 963 3 483 8 961
Toyota 53 - 1 164 3 656
Volkswagen - 293 1 188 1 417
Volvo - 278 615 538
Total 6 603 8 993 21 309 40 718
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 13 ) for 2012 and subsequent model years. This exemption is available to companies that:

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

  2. have manufactured or imported for sale a running average of less than 750 vehicles for the 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 2015 2016 2017 2018
Aston Martin 117 91 82 44
Ferrari 201 135 275 247
Maserati 443 344 1 369 1 000
McLaren 79 121 112 220
Lotus 8 0 13 12
Pagani 0 1 0 0
Total 848 692 1 851 1 523
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 2015 to 2018 model years (Mg CO2e)
Manufacturer 2015
PA
2016
PA
2017
PA
2018
PA
2015
LT
2016
LT
2017
LT
2018
LT
BMW 2 088 2 062 992 2 284 8 066 5 853 3 276 3 920
FCA - - - - - - 10 957 23 275
Ford 272 255 2 123 715 2 755 4 760 47 481 17 047
GM 878 - 645 1 166 - 1 615 3 114 6 146
JLR - - 1 379 884 - - 2 830 4 329
Honda 1 414 - - - 3 715 - - -
Hyundai - - - 331 - - - -
Kia - - - 2 211 - - - -
Mazda - - 807 1 449 - 480 5 436 4 324
Nissan 5 143 5 595 930 414 19 634 23 617 - -
Toyota 1 381 1 729 2 219 1 306 2 302 2 647 3 599 2 289
Volkswagen 20 673 219 - - 3 251 928 - -
Fleet total 31 849 9 860 9 095 10 760 39 723 39 900 76 693 61 330
Table 16: CH4 emissions deficits by company for the 2015 to 2018 model years (Mg CO2e)
Manufacturer 2015
PA
2016
PA
2017
PA
2018
PA
2015
LT
2016
LT
2017
LT
2018
LT
BMW 263 260 125 493 1 015 737 412 288
FCA - 3 7 3 1 312 2 384 1 296 3 215
Ford 1 083 1 017 532 152 10 649 20 409 8 286 18 801
GM 109 137 81 357 641 708 1 791 1 969
Mazda - - 136 340 - - 475 121
Nissan 431 436 - - 1 647 1 981 - -
Volkswagen 42 39 - 74 273 128 - -
Fleet total 1 928 1 892 881 1 214 15 537 26 345 12 260 24 599

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 2015 to 2018 model years.

Table 17: PA compliance and standard values over the 2015 to 2018 model years (g/mi)
Manufacturer 2015
compliance
2016
compliance
2017
compliance
2018
compliance
2015
standard
2016
standard
2017
standard
2018
standard
BMW 246 250 227 236 239 230 216 208
FCA 256 275 288 291 248 242 234 228
Ford 236 246 241 219 240 232 220 209
GM 240 237 191 168 241 230 218 204
Honda 207 193 190 186 231 224 214 204
Hyundai 243 241 239 230 240 227 216 206
JLR 327 311 276 254 319 309 244 242
Kia 258 238 223 210 238 227 216 204
Mazda 207 210 217 211 238 223 212 202
Mercedes 243 246 263 249 250 232 238 213
Mitsubishi 224 229 210 137 225 218 203 195
Nissan 219 222 236 194 234 227 216 205
Porsche 309 324 273 269 282 275 215 224
Subaru 249 246 246 248 231 221 210 199
Teslaa -6 -6 -5 -15.5 276 268 254 226
Toyota 209 209 203 190 234 223 211 201
Volkswagen 229 231 228 238 233 222 211 201
Volvo 281 289 252 241 307 293 242 245
Fleet average 230 228 221 206 238 227 216 205

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.

Table 18: LT compliance and standard values over the 2015 to 2018 model years (g/mi)
Manufacturer 2015
compliance
2016
compliance
2017
compliance
2018
compliance
2015
standard
2016
standard
2017
standard
2018
standard
BMW 288 293 280 269 299 286 283 274
FCA 321 332 345 327
315 303 312 295
Ford 332 360 321 312
331 325 308 310
GM 325 346 333 317
339 322 320 310
Honda 261 262 243 228
287 275 274 261
Hyundai 308 327 328 324
284 280 278 266
JLR 309 320 306 281 371 316 286 286
Kia 314 329 305 305
299 286 277 267
Mazda 276 259 266 240 283 270 267 256
Mercedes 290 313 313 298 298 292 289 274
Mitsubishi 265 265 262 247
273 260 253 242
Nissan 286 260 293 278
297 278 282 273
Porsche 334 319 296 293 375 361 285 284
Subaru 254 249 237 228 275 261 257 245
Teslaa - - - -29.7 - - - 292
Toyota 317 315 295 295
300 289 286 273
Volkswagen 294 291 308 273 287 270 273 269
Volvo 332 299 249 243 361 360 288 291
Fleet average 310 320 312 295 313 301 298 288

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

Figures figure4 and figure5 provide a graphical representation of the role that compliance flexibilities play in arriving at a company’s overall compliance status for their 2018 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 14  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: 2018 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. Tesla has a fleet average standard of 226 g/mi and fleet average compliance value of -15.5 g/mi. Tesla's compliance value falls outside of the range of this graph.

Long description for figure 4
2018 Passenger automobile compliance status with offsets
Manufacturer Fleet average tailpipe emissions Fleet average compliance value Air conditioning Innovative technologies Fleet average standard
BMW 258.1 236 18.5 3.6 208
FCA 313.8 291 18.5 4.3 228
Ford 240.9 219 16.8 5.1 209
GM 191.5 168 16.5 7.0 204
Honda 203.3 186 15.2 2.1 204
Hyundai 240.7 230 8.8 1.9 206
JLR* 279.7 254 18.8 6.9 242
Kia 223.1 210 11.4 1.7 204
Mazda 215.1 211 2.7 1.4 202
Mercedes 263.8 249 10.9 3.9 213
Mitsubishi 151.4 137 12.0 2.4 195
Nissan 204.5 194 8.5 2.0 205
Porsche* 290.7 269 18.5 3.2 224
Subaru 254.2 248 4.6 1.6 199
Toyota 203.3 190 9.4 3.9 201
VW 255.1 238 17.1 0.0 201
Volvo* 256.8 241 9.1 6.7 245


Figure 5: 2018 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. Tesla has a fleet average standard of 292 g/mi and fleet average compliance value of -20.7 g/mi. Tesla’s compliance value falls outside of the range of this graph.

Long description for figure 5
2018 Light truck compliance status with offsets
Manufacturer Fleet average tailpipe emissions Fleet average compliance value Air conditioning Innovative technologies Fleet average standard
BMW 301.3 270 23.2 8.1 274
FCA 360.1 328 21.7 10.4 295
Ford 347.2 312 22.3 12.9 310
GM 349.1 317 23.3 8.8 310
Honda 254.9 228 21.1 5.8 261
Hyundai 336.6 324 7.4 5.2 266
JLR 317.8 281 24.4 12.4 286
Kia 322.1 305 13.1 4.0 267
Mazda 259.9 251 4.3 4.6 256
Mercedes 316.0 298 14.7 3.3 274
Mitsubishi 264.5 247 16.1 1.4 242
Nissan 294.5 278 11.3 5.2 273
Porsche 317.7 293 21.6 3.1 284
Subaru 241.7 228 9.3 4.4 245
Toyota 315.3 295 13.5 6.8 273
VW 295.7 273 22.7 0.0 269
Volvo 267.5 243 13.1 11.4 291

2.6. Technological advancements and penetration rates

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

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

Turbocharging 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 15 .

Gasoline direct injection

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

Diesel

Diesel engines provide greater low-end torque and fuel efficiency than a comparably sized gasoline engine. Diesel fuel contains more energy per unit volume than an equivalent amount of gasoline. As a result diesel vehicles can travel, on average, 20 to 35% further per litre of fuel then a gasoline based equivalentFootnote 16  which translates into measurable reductions in CO2e emissions.

The fleet-wide penetration rates of the above described technologies have been provided in table 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 2015 2016 2017 2018
Turbocharging with engine downsizing 9.7% 15.8% 21.4% 24.7%
VVT 94.5% 94.5% 96.9% 94.8%
VVL 16.2% 19.3% 16.6% 17.9%
Higher geared transmission 17.6% 22.1% 27.0% 39.4%
CVT 19.4% 20.3% 19.9% 13.6%
Cylinder deactivation 10.1% 10.0% 14.3% 12.5%
GDI 30.8% 37.5% 38.2% 45.6%
Diesel 3.0% 1.8% 0.6% 1.2%

3. Emission credits

The regulations include a system of emission credits to help meet overall environmental objectives in a manner that provides the regulated industry with compliance flexibility. A company must calculate emission credits and deficits in units of megagrams (Mg) of CO2e for each of its passenger automobile and light truck fleets of a given model year. Credits are weighted based on VKT to account for the greater number of kilometres travelled by light trucks over their lifetime than by passenger automobiles. Using the mathematical formula below, a company will generate credits in a given model year if the result of the calculation is positive or better than the GHG emission standard. If the result of the calculation is negative or below the applicable standard, the company will incur a deficit. A company that incurs an emissions deficit must offset it with an equivalent number of emission credits from past model years or within the subsequent 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 11 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 2018 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 55 686 105 226 158 354 176 147 433 130
530 518
Toyota 2 623 142 880 598 - - - - - - - 3 503 740
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 2018 Total
Aston Martin - 2 626 - - - - - - - 2 626
BMW - - 496 909 503 091 - - - - - 1 000 000
FCA 4 775 129 1 570 183 218 920 24 649 55 686 105 226 158 354   176 147 433 130 7 517 424
Ferrari - 8 473 - - - - - - - 8 473
Ford 342 272 205 113 52 615 - - - - - - 600 000
JLR - 80 020 - - - - - - - 80 020
Lotus - 139 - - - - - - - 139
Mercedes - 95 000 500 000 234 062 515 938 - - - - 1 345 000
Maserati - 3 740 - - - - - - - 3 740
Porsche - 4 141 - - - - - - - 4 141
Volkswagen 500 000 - - - - - - - - 500 000

3.2. Total credits generated and final status

Table 21 shows the credits earned (or deficits incurred) by all companies over the 2018 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 83.1 million emission credits (including early action credits and TOF credits), of which approximately 26 million credits remain for future use. A total of 20 million credits have been used to offset deficits and 37.1 million credits have expired.

Table 21: net credits by model year and current credit balance (Mg CO2e)
Manufacturers Generated credit/deficit in 2018 Current balancea
BMW -176 142 856 338
FCA -1 478 441 4 059 082
Ford -214 352 1 032 359
GM 274 925 3 494 381
Honda 1 003 927 4 205 651
Hyundai -637 533 2 160 341
JLR 9 670 -63 349
Kia -260 288 277 196
Mazda -67 809 3 351 916
Mercedes -341 119 562 329
Mitsubishi 86 989 723 999
Nissan 125 831 726 063
Porsche -48 208 -91 993
Subaru 561 477 751
Tesla 433 130 0
Toyota -364 129 3 418 105
Volkswagen -510 436 521 029
Volvo 74 228 157 152
Total -2 090 095 25 868 350

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

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 2018 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
2018 220 0 2.9 11.9 0.1 206 205 -1

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 2011-2018 model years.

Average GHG emissions performance - passenger automobiles
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
2018 205 206
Table 23: light truck compliance summary for the 2011 to 2018 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
2018 322 0 8.1 19.2 0.3 295 288 -7

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 2011-2018 model years.

Average GHG emissions performance - light trucks
Year Standard (g/mile) Compliance value (g/mile)
2011 367 349
2012 350 349
2013 341 338
2014 332 322
2015 313 310
2016 301 320
2017 298 312
2018 288 295

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 2018 model year saw the overall compliance value for passenger automobiles decrease to 206 g/mi, and the overall compliance value for light trucks decrease to 295 g/mi. This has resulted in an overall net improvement of 19.2% and 15.5% 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 2018 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 2018 model year.

Appendix

Table A-1: production volumes by company
Manufacturer 2015
PA
2015
LT
2015
all
2016
PA
2016
LT
2016
all
2017
PA
2017
LT
2017
all
2018
PA
2018
LT
2018
all
Aston Martin 117 0 117 91 0 91 82 0 82 44 0 44
BMW 29 027 12 711 41 738 31 789 14 316 46 105 25 882 17 059 42 941 34 831
17 207 52 038
FCA 53 772 222 388 276 160 35 676 240 114 275 790 20 591 242 874 263 465 15 444 170 242 184 386
Ferrari 201 0 201 135 0 135 275 0 275 247 0 247
Ford 67 630 150 536 218 166 54 569 190 662 245 231 72 230 205 393 277 623 41 855 233 897 275 752
GM 104 360 143 127 247 487 82 065 118 958 201 023 96 569 173 949 270 518 81 077 188 187 269 264
Honda 111 045 67 740 178 785 114 360 87 060 201 420 112 783 81 780 194 563 110 320 81 930 192 250
Hyundai 97 784 10 744 108 528 123 676 4 493 128 169 161 646 11 171 172 817 117 473 6 050 123 523
JLR 1 507 6 188 7 695 1 282 11 564 12 846 2 345 11 870 14 215 1 654 11 646 13 300
Kia 63 479 4 392 67 871 58 583 15 878 74 461 42 768 25 637 68 405 55 202 22 719 77 821
Lotus 8 0 8 0 0 0 13 0 13 12 0 12
Maserati 443 0 443 344 0 344 1 369 0 1 369 434 566 1 000
Mazda 48 554 16 373 64 927 46 389 15 317 61 706 35 910 23 202 59 112 55 953 26 762 82 715
McLaren 79 0 79 121 0 121 112 0 112 220 0 220
Mercedes 22 997 20 083 43 080 24 178 12 980 37 158 22 371 22 371 44 742 25 562 29 596 55 158
Mitsubishi 14 600 11 080 25 680 6 100 12 097 18 197 13 686 11 301 24 987 9 004
15 434 24 438
Nissan 94 731 59 371 154 102 71 221 51 416 122 637 87 293 62 006 149 299 82 124 57 229 139 353
Pagani 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
0
Porsche 1 549 3 340 4 889 1 585 5 081 6 666 2 357 6 829 9 186 3 589 7 837 11 426
Subaru 17 593 35 735 53 328 14 603 32 079 46 682 17 744 33 502 51 246 16 574 42 019 58 593
Tesla 1 913 0 1 913 2 963 0 2 963 3 483 0 3 483 8 511 450
8 961
Toyota 110 456 115 816 226 272 102 858 104 187 207 045 104 146 125 841 229 987 110 334 123 230 233 564
Volkswagen 86 456 23 083 109 539 67 074 21 133 88 207 72 212 26 667 98 879 61 658 68 060 129 718
Volvo 3 272 3 139 6 411 891 4 885 5 776 1 331 5 008 6 339 1 256 6 691
7 947
Fleet total 931 573 905 846 1 837 419 840 554 942 220 1 782 774 897 198 1 086 460 1 983 658 833 078 1 109 752 1 942 830

Figure A-1: 2015 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
2015 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
BMW 258.2 246.0 0.0 8.8 3.4 239.0
FCA 286.1 256.0 10.0 16.1 4.0 248.0
Ford 253.7 236.0 7.0 8.0 2.7 240.0
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* 348.2 327.0 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 247.7 229.0 10.0 8.7 0.0 233.0
Volvo* 281.0 281.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 307.0

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


Figure A-2: 2016 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
2016 passenger automobile compliance status with offsets
Innovative technologies Fleet average standard
3.7 230.0
3.7 242.0
3.2 232.0
4.4 230.0
1.7 224.0
0.9 227.0
3.2 309.0
1.0 227.0
0.0 223.0
3.3 232.0
0.0 218.0
1.7 227.0
2.5 275.0
0.3 221.0
1.1 223.0
0.0 222.0
0.0 293.0

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


Figure A-3: 2017 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
2017 passenger automobile compliance status with offsets
Innovative technologies Fleet average standard
3.2 216
3.7 234
4.9 220
5.3 218
2.0 214
1.1 216
4.2 244
1.6 216
0.0 212
1.0 238
0.0 203
0.0 216
2.7 215
0.5 210
3.5 211
2.8 211
3.6 242

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


Figure A-4: 2015 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
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
BMW 305.6 288.0 0.0 11.4 6.2 299
FCA 361.8 321.0 15.0 17.6 8.2 315
Ford 365.5 332.0 15.0 11.2 7.3 331
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

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


Figure A-5: 2016 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
2016 light truck compliance status with offsets
Manufacturer Fleet average tailpipe emissions Fleet average compliance value Air conditioning Innovative technologies Fleet average standard
BMW 310.8 293 11.3 6.5 286
FCA 358.8 332 18.2 8.6 303
Ford 379.8 360 11.3 8.5 325
GM 363.4 346 11.2 6.2 322
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 0.0 260
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

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


Figure A-6: 2017 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
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 373.5 345 20.4 8.1 312
Ford 352.1 321 20.5 10.6 308
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 7.4 286
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 326.7 308 13.0 5.7 273
Volvo 266.6 249 11.9 5.7 288

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


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 2015 2016 2017 2018
BMW 25 828 29 406 28 505 32 916
FCA 2 938 853 2 138 3 303
Ford 55 845 43 338 95 298 68 576
GM 47 464 50 509 66 120 104 894
Honda 0 18 150 71 910 92 910
Hyundai 10 130 18 148 18 617 14 718
JLR 2 857 4 461 0 6 569
Kia 1 724 8 422 6 772 4 840
Mercedes 17 803 18 329 24 886 33 087
Mitsubishi 850 0 0 3 051
Nissan 0 0 4 558 942
Porsche 0 0 2 347 3 698
Subaru 5 361 4 195 5 702 6 129
Toyota 5 793 5 617 7 756 4 654
Volkswagen 0 79 468 85 022 97 659
Volvo 1 051 100 2 299 2 088
Total 177 644 280 996 421 930 480 034
Table A-4: volume of vehicles sold with VVT
Technology 2015 2016 2017 2018
BMW 37 387 42 953 40 874 49 292
FCA 260 401 258 715 256 770 174 949
Ford 178 400 185 730 236 387 216 872
GM 245 384 193 764 265 518 262 223
Honda 178 785 201 420 194 563 189 280
Hyundai 108 528 128 167 172 162 123 129
JLR 7 695 10 398 11 321 10 833
Kia 67 761 73 392 67 928 76 957
Mazda 64 927 61 706 59 112 82 715
Mercedes 42 931 36 968 44 636 54 716
Mitsubishi 23 173 13 109 21 579 24 438
Nissan 152 399 121 017 148 415 134 913
Porsche 4 889 6 666 9 186 11 426
Subaru 53 328 46 682 51 246 58 593
Toyota 226 272 207 045 229 987 233 514
Volkswagen 72 443 86 451 98 174 128 910
Volvo 6 411 5 776 6 339 7 947
Total 1 607 136 1 657 866 1 914 197 1 840 707
Table A-5: volume of vehicles sold with VVL
Technology 2015 2016 2017 2018
BMW 36 846 42 192 40 250 49 292
FCA 35 022 32 956 3 390 20 691
GM 12 265 7 294 5 318 3 940
Honda 178 785 201 420 194 563 132 525
JLR 1 507 10 398 11 321 10 833
Mitsubishi 3 876 8 819 6 600 6 425
Nissan 8 378 5 284 12 249 8 325
Porsche 4 889 6 666 9 186 11 426
Toyota 865 3 877 6 012 13 514
Volkswagen 14 711 24 551 38 445 91 365
Volvo 103 0 0 0
Total 297 247 343 457 327 334 348 336
Table A-6: volume of vehicles sold with higher geared transmissions
Technology 2015 2016 2017 2018
BMW 32 846 38 414 36 967 48 365
FCA 134 568 143 185 140 612 124 854
Ford 0 0 32 228 142 121
GM 9 085 25 666 57 092 79 811
Honda 18 144 42 156 38 550 45 711
Hyundai 3 165 9 627 8 284 8 7 57
JLR 7 477 12 814 14 192 13 294
Kia 79 374 1 162 2 440
Mercedes 41 293 34 967 44 346 54 716
Nissan 28 302 30 340 43 356 3 051
Porsche 4 708 6 205 9 030 30 409
Subaru 3 479 2 434 10 924 10 935
Toyota 16 596 25 860 63 640 33 738
Volkswagen 20 849 18 034 27 589 68 806
Volvo 1 142 3 037 6 339 90 782
Total 321 733 393 113 534 311 765 737
Table A-7: volume of vehicles sold with CVT
Technology 2015 2016 2017 2018
FCA 417 519 178 0
Ford 2 145 1 801 3 173 2 860
GM 4 681 3 158 10 084 9 470
Honda 122 724 142 680 131 295 121 099
Mitsubishi 17 954 11 937 19 002 2 208
Nissan 108 959 100 047 114 907 93 882
Subaru 44 624 39 886 43 218 0
Toyota 54 815 60 131 71 042 34 958
Volkswagen 24 15 0 0
Total 248 247 236 761 260 093 264 477
Table A-8: volume of vehicles sold with cylinder deactivation
Technology 2015 2016 2017 2018
FCA 50 332 56 549 98 158 48 374
GM 97 824 77 537 137 599 137 688
Honda 35 595 42 630 44 490 33 245
Mercedes 27 0 0 23 102
Volkswagen 536 1 260 1 682 0 1 044
Total 184 314 177 967 281 929 243 543
Table A-9: volume of diesel vehicles sold
Technology 2015 2016 2017 2018
BMW 3 893 3 060 1 643 2 437
FCA 14 521 15 077 4 174 9 880
Ford 0 0 0 3 030
GM 1 258 1 200 2 867 5 567
JLR 0 0 2 894 2 467
Mercedes 12 569 7 191 0 0
Porsche 522 527 0 0
Volkswagen 22 695 1 756 0 0
Total 55 458 31 259 11 578 23 381
Table A-10: volume of vehicles sold with GDI
Technology 2015 2016 2017 2018
BMW 37 085 42 953 40 874 49 292
FCA 3 408 13 294 886 3 257
Ford 0 0 0 102 948
GM 191 703 166 895 244 125 240 931
Honda 79 935 157 680 120 523 125 220
Hyundai 84 446 100 695 113 544 73 000
JLR 7 695 10 398 11 321 10 833
Kia 60 983 67 140 59 381 65 121
Mazda 59 411 60 819 56 102 82 715
Mercedes 30 362 29 777 44 636 54 687
Nissan 222 7 440 41 163 41 087
Porsche 0 0 0 0
Subaru 5 361 4 195 14 903 29 505
Toyota 2 568 1 829 676 434
Volvo 1 142 3 037 6 339 7 947
Total 564 321 666 152 754 473 886 977
Table A-11: CO2e standard over the 2008 to 2010 model years (g/mi)
Manufacturer 2008
PA
2008
LT
2009
PA
2009
LT
2010
PA
2010
LT
BMW 323 439 323 439 301 420
FCA 323 439 323 439 301 420
Ford 323 439 323 439 301 420
GM 323 439 323 439 301 420
Honda 323 395 323 385 323 378
Hyundai 323 439 323 439 301 420
Kia 323 395 323 385 323 378
Lotus 323 - 323 - 323 -
Mazda 323 395 323 385 323 378
Mercedes 323 439 323 439 301 420
Mitsubishi 323 439 323 439 301 420
Nissan 323 439 323 439 301 420
Suzuki 323 439 323 439 301 420
Tesla 323 - 323 - 323 -
Toyota 323 395 323 385 323 378
Volkswagen 323 439 323 439 301 420
Volvo 323 439 323 439 301 420
Table A-12: compliance values over the 2008 to 2010 model years (g/mi)
Manufacturer 2008
PA
2008
LT
2009
PA
2009
LT
2010
PA
2010
LT
BMW 310 375 302 376 288 361
FCA 303 402 300 380 306 374
Ford 325 395 276 375 268 382
GM 277 376 254 380 270 360
Honda 243 346 239 348 237 325
Hyundai 256 359 249 354 245 303
Kia 274 362 270 351 251 341
Lotus 302 - 298 - 336 -
Mazda 266 336 272 314 255 302
Mercedes 298 396 309 400 322 386
Mitsubishi 297 350 284 334 275 321
Nissan 265 343 254 339 258 349
Suzuki 269 380 269 350 258 341
Tesla - - - - -3 -
Toyota 225 360 228 328 229 337
Volkswagen 291 439 273 349 266 347
Volvo 309 408 310 406 308 383

Page details

Date modified: