Greenhouse gas emissions performance for the 2019 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
EC21103

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: enviroinfo@ec.gc.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, 2021

Aussi disponible en français

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 2016 to 2019 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: multiplying factors for advanced technology vehicles
Table 9: production volumes of BEVs by model year
Table 10: production volumes of PHEVs by model year
Table 11: production volumes for small volume manufacturers by model year
Table 12: production volumes of temporary optional fleets
Table 13: alternative schedule of fleet average CO2e emission standards for eligible intermediate volume companies
Table 14: N2O emissions deficits by company for the 2016 to 2019 model years (Mg CO2e)
Table 15: CH4 emissions deficits by company for the 2016 to 2019 model years (Mg CO2e)
Table 16: PA Compliance and Standard values over the 2016 to 2019 model years (g/mi)
Table 17: LT Compliance and Standard values over the 2016 to 2019 model years (g/mi)
Table 18: penetration rates of drivetrain technologies in the Canadian fleet
Table 19: credit transactions (transferred out/in) by model year (Mg CO2e)
Table 20: net credits by model year and current credit balance (Mg CO2e)
Table 21: passenger automobile compliance summary for the 2011 to 2019 model years (g/mi)
Table 22: light truck compliance summary for the 2011 to 2019 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: production volume of vehicles with turbocharging
Table A-4: production volume of vehicles sold with variable valve timing
Table A-5: production volume of vehicles sold with variable valve lift
Table A-6: production volume of vehicles sold with higher geared transmissions
Table A-7: production volume of vehicles sold with continuously variable transmissions
Table A-8: production volume of vehicles with cylinder deactivation
Table A-9: production volume of vehicles with gasoline direct injection
Table A-10: production volume of diesel vehicles

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: 2019 passenger automobile compliance status with offsets
Figure 5: 2019 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: 2016 passenger automobile compliance status with offsets
Figure A-2: 2017 passenger automobile compliance status with offsets
Figure A-3: 2018 passenger automobile compliance status with offsets
Figure A-4: 2016 light truck compliance status with offsets
Figure A-5: 2017 light truck compliance status with offsets
Figure A-6: 2018 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. Since the introduction of the Regulations, the fleet average standards for passenger automobiles and for light trucks have become more stringent by 33.3% and 23.2% respectively.

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

The Regulations have been instrumental in influencing companies to make progressive improvements to the efficiency 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, which consist of battery electric vehicles (BEV), plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV), fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEV) and natural gas vehicles. In fact, since the introduction of the Regulation the production volume of battery electric vehicles has increased from 198 to 31 425 units and the production volume of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles has increased from 0 to 13 930 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 2019 model year. The average compliance value for the fleet of new passenger automobiles decreased from 255 g/mi to 194 g/mi since the introduction of the regulation, representing a 23.9% reduction. The compliance value for light trucks decreased by 16.9%, from 349 g/mi to 290 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 2019 model year, they have stayed at or above the fleet average emission standard. All companies remained in compliance with the Regulations by either meeting their applicable standard, through the use of their own accumulated emission credits or by purchasing credits from other companies. To date, companies have generated a total of approximately 86.6 million credits, of which, approximately 24.5 million remain available for future use. A total of 24.3 million credits have been used to offset emission deficits by individual companies over the 2011 to 2019 model years, of which 4.7 million credits were used to offset deficits accrued in the 2019 model year. The remaining 37.8 million credits have expired.

1. Purpose of the report

The purpose of this report is to provide company specific results of the fleet average greenhouse gas emission performance of the Canadian fleets of passenger automobiles (PA) and of light trucks (LT)Footnote 3 . Building on the previous GHG emissions performance report for the 2018 model year, this report focuses on the GHG emissions performance of the last 4 model years. The results presented herein are based on data submitted by companies in their annual regulatory compliance reports, pursuant to the Passenger Automobile and Light Truck Greenhouse Gas Emission Regulations, which have undergone a thorough review by Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC). The report 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 2016 to 2019 model years are listed in table 1.

Table 1: model year report submission status
Manufacturer Common name 2016 2017 2018 2019
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 *
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 yearsFootnote 7 . Figures figure2 and figure3 illustrate the target values for passenger automobiles and light trucks, respectively.

Figure 2: 2011 to 2025 targets for passenger automobiles

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

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

The 2011 model year prescribes a target value of 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 151 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 207 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 330 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 421 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 193 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 309 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 1 year prior to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) program, and were instead based on the U.S. Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) levels. Accordingly, the Regulations considered the consumption of fuel as the basis to establish reasonable approximations of GHG performance for the 2011 model yearFootnote 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 2016 to 2019 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 2016
PA
2017
PA
2018
PA
2019
PA
2016
LT
2017
LT
2018
LT
2019
LT
BMW 230 216 208 196 286 283 274 270
FCA 242 234 228 218 303 312 295 301
Ford 232 220 209 202 325 308 310 303
GM 230 218 204 192 322 320 310 298
Honda 224 214 204 193 275 274 261 258
Hyundai 227 216 206 196 280 278 266 258
JLR 309 244 242 219 316 286 286 278
Kia 227 216 204 195 286 277 267 263
Maserati - - - 231 - - - 278
Mazda 223 212 202 189 270 267 256 249
Mercedesa 232 225 213 205 292 287 274 263
Mitsubishi 218 203 195 183 260 253 242 234
Nissan 227 216 205 191 278 282 273 261
Porsche 275 215 224 194 361 285 284 277
Subaru 221 210 199 189 261 257 245 241
Tesla 268 254 226 211 - - 292 284
Toyota 224 212 201 192 289 286 273 265
Volkswagen 222 211 201 190 270 273 269 264
Volvo 293 242 245 222 360 288 291 274
Fleet average 227 216 205 194 301 298 288 282

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 2016 to 2019 model years (sq. ft.)
Manufacturer 2016
PA
2017
PA
2018
PA
2019
PA
2016
LT
2017
LT
2018
LT
2019
LT
BMW 45.9 45.6 46.3 45.9 50.7 50.4 50.8 51.9
FCA 48.3 49.3 50.9 51.2 55.3 57.8 56.1 59.0
Ford 46.4 46.7 46.6 47.4 62.9 58.3 61.3 60.7
GM 45.8 45.8 45.2 44.3 60.3 60.9 60.2 59.7
Honda 44.6 45.1 45.4 45.2 48.0 48.6 48.2 49.2
Hyundai 45.4 45.8 45.9 45.9 49.2 49.2 49.2 49.2
JLR 49.7 48.9 48.7 48.8 50.9 50.8 50.7 51.7
Kia 45.4 45.7 45.3 45.7 50.7 49.2 49.3 50.3
Maserati - - - 54.3 - - - 53.4
Mazda 44.4 44.8 44.8 44.2 46.8 47.0 47.3 47.3
Mercedes 45.4 47.4 47.2 48.0 52.2 51.3 50.9 50.3
Mitsubishi 43.4 41.8 42.3 41.7 44.2 44.0 44.2 44.1
Nissan 45.1 45.4 45.5 44.6 48.7 50.4 50.8 49.9
Porsche 42.4 42.3 44.4 42.8 51.4 50.5 50.3 51.6
Subaru 44.0 44.5 44.4 44.4 44.6 44.8 44.9 45.7
Tesla 54.1 54.2 50.4 49.6 - - 54.8 54.8
Toyota 44.6 44.8 44.7 44.9 51.8 51.7 51.1 50.9
Volkswagen 45.5 44.5 44.7 44.6 46.8 48.4 50.0 50.4
Volvo 47.0 48.7 49.2 49.7 51.3 51.2 52.1 50.9
Fleet average 45.3 45.5 45.5 45.3 54.9 54.9 54.8 55.1

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 2 test results are then combined based on a 55% city and 45% highway driving distribution. A company’s final CREE value is based on the sales weighted average of the combined test results for each model, and the number of vehicles manufactured or imported into Canada for the purpose of sale.

The calculated fleet average CREE values achieved by companies over the 2016 to 2019 model years are presented in table 4.

Table 4: fleet average carbon related exhaust emissions (g/mi)
Manufacturer 2016
PA
2017
PA
2018
PA
2019
PA
2016
LT
2017
LT
2018
LT
2019
LT
BMW 263 249 258 246 311 309 300 292
FCA 297 310 314 311 358 373 360 368
Ford 257 260 241 249 376 349 347 341
GM 251 209 191 179 363 362 349 349
Honda 206 205 202 207 274 267 255 264
Hyundai 206 246 241 222 338 340 337 342
JLR 334 299 277 330 350 338 316 304
Kia 245 233 223 203 338 322 322 315
Maserati - - - 376 - - - 421
Mazda 210 217 215 223 259 266 259 266
Mercedes 260 275 264 275 327 329 316 320
Mitsubishi 231 213 151 162 272 271 264 261
Nissan 231 236 204 202 273 293 294 288
Porsche 331 294 291 322 336 319 318 317
Subaru 249 251 254 243 252 248 242 241
Teslaa 0 0 0 0 - - 0 0
Toyota 220 216 205 2000 330 315 315 290
Volkswagen 241 237 255 221 304 321 296 292
Volvo 289 265 257 262 299 267 267 272
Fleet average 238 232 220 211 337 334 323 320

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 2016 to 2019 model years.

Table 5: allowance for reduction in AC refrigerant leakage (g/mi)
Manufacturer 2016
PA
2017
PA
2018
PA
2019
PA
2016
LT
2017
LT
2018
LT
2019
LT
BMW 4.7 13.7 13.6 13.5 7.0 16.9 16.9 17.2
FCA 13.3 13.6 13.8 13.7 14.0 14.8 15.8 15.6
Ford 5.5 11.7 12.8 12.8 7.8 14.4 15.5 16.3
GM 6.2 8.5 12.3 12.3 7.0 15.1 16.7 16.4
Honda 8.3 9.7 11.6 12.7 6.4 13.5 15.6 16.5
Hyundai 2.5 2.8 5.4 10.6 1.6 1.6 2.2 1.7
JLR 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.7 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2
Kia 2.3 5.4 8.2 12.7 2.1 8.6 7.9 15.4
Maserati - - - 5.9 - - - 7.7
Mazda 0.0 0.0 2.7 1.5 0.0 0.0 4.3 5.0
Mercedes 5.7 5.8 5.9 6.2 4.0 7.2 7.6 7.4
Mitsubishi 2.0 2.7 9.8 7.8 7.0 6.1 13.1 13.5
Nissan 4.5 4.2 6.2 8.6 7.1 6.8 6.9 7.4
Porsche 0.8 13.7 13.5 12.6 6.7 12.1 14.4 6.5
Subaru 0.0 1.9 1.4 1.4 0.0 5.8 4.5 9.1
Tesla 0.0 0.0 5.7 12.7 - - 5.2 11.2
Toyota 3.3 3.3 5.2 8.1 6.6 6.5 7.5 11.1
Volkswagen 4.8 4.7 12.3 13.2 7.4 7.1 15.6 15.7
Volvo 0.0 5.3 5.1 4.9 0.0 6.5 6.9 7.4
Fleet average 4.7 6.0 8.4 10.3 8.5 12.0 13.3 14.2
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 2016 to 2019 model years.

Table 6: allowance for improvements in AC system efficiency (g/mi)
Manufacturer 2016
PA
2017
PA
2018
PA
2019
PA
2016
LT
2017
LT
2018
LT
2019
LT
BMW 4.4 4.8 4.9 4.9 4.3 5.5 6.3 7.0
FCA 5.2 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.2 5.6 5.9 5.8
Ford 2.7 3.4 4.0 4.3 3.5 6.1 6.8 6.7
GM 3.5 3.8 4.2 3.9 4.2 6.4 6.6 6.5
Honda 3.3 3.3 3.6 3.7 2.9 5.5 5.8 6.3
Hyundai 3.6 3.3 3.4 3.5 4.2 5.4 5.2 5.4
JLR 5.7 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.7 7.2 7.2 7.2
Kia 3.3 3.1 3.2 3.6 3.4 5.2 5.2 5.4
Maserati - - - 4.9 - - - 7.2
Mazda 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Mercedes 5.2 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.3 7.1 7.1 5.8
Mitsubishi 0.0 0.4 2.2 1.9 0.0 2.9 3.0 3.0
Nissan 3.1 3.5 3.9 4.0 3.0 4.2 4.0 4.2
Porsche 3.9 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.7 7.2 7.2 7.2
Subaru 2.9 3.1 3.2 3.2 3.0 4.7 4.8 5.8
Tesla 5.7 5.0 5.0 5.0 - - 7.2 7.2
Toyota 3.9 4.4 4.2 4.6 4.3 6.9 6.0 6.4
Volkswagen 4.4 4.1 4.8 4.9 5.2 5.9 7.1 7.1
Volvo 0.0 4.2 4.0 4.8 0.0 5.4 6.2 6.2
Fleet average 3.4 3.5 3.7 3.9 3.7 5.8 6.0 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 2016 to 2019.

Table 7: allowance for the use of innovative technologies (g/mi)
Manufacturer 2016
PA
2017
PA
2018
PA
2019
PA
2016
LT
2017
LT
2018
LT
2019
LT
BMW 3.7 3.2 3.6 4.4 6.5 6.7 8.1 10.8
FCA 3.7 3.7 4.3 4.8 8.6 8.1 10.4 11.6
Ford 3.2 5.3 5.5 6.3 8.5 11.4 13.4 14.9
GM 4.4 5.3 7.0 5.9 6.2 7.7 8.8 9.9
Honda 1.7 3.9 4.1 4.1 2.5 8.3 8.5 9.4
Hyundai 1.1 1.5 2.4 2.1 5.3 5.6 5.7 5.3
JLR 3.2 4.2 6.9 5.5 7.4 7.4 12.4 12.2
Kia 1.2 1.9 2.0 2.8 4.1 3.4 4.5 4.7
Maserati - - - 6.0 - - - 13.1
Mazda 0.0 0.0 1.4 1.9 0.0 0.0 4.6 5.1
Mercedes 3.3 1.0 3.9 1.5 4.6 2.1 3.3 2.5
Mitsubishi 0.0 0.0 2.4 1.7 0.0 0.0 1.4 1.4
Nissan 1.7 2.2 2.2 2.0 3.3 5.7 6.0 5.9
Porsche 2.5 2.7 3.2 2.0 4.4 3.5 3.1 9.8
Subaru 0.3 0.9 2.0 2.1 0.1 0.7 4.9 6.2
Tesla 0.0 0.0 4.8 4.6 0.0 0.0 8.3 8.3
Toyota 1.2 3.7 4.1 4.4 3.2 7.1 6.8 8.4
Volkswagen 2.1 2.8 0.0 0.0 1.7 5.7 0.0 0.0
Volvo 0.0 3.6 6.7 4.7 0.0 5.7 11.4 8.4
Fleet average 2.0 3.0 3.3 3.1 5.9 7.5 8.5 9.6
2.3.4. Allowance for certain full-size pick-up trucks

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

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

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

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

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

A company can only use one of the allowances for full-size pick-up trucks for a given vehicle.

The total fleet average allowance for certain full-size pick-up trucks is calculated using the following formula:

H = (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 2019 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)

No companies reported the use of alternative fuels (such as E85) for the 2016 to 2019 model years and hence were not eligible to reduce their CREE as a result of FFV sales.

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 (PHEV), fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEV) and natural as vehicles. BEVs are completely powered by electrical energy stored in a battery, and hence produce no tailpipe emissions. PHEVs incorporate an electrical powertrain which enables them to be charged with electricity to operate solely on electrical power, but also contain an internal combustion engine to extend the operating range of the vehicle. FCEVs are propelled solely by an electric motor where the energy for the motor is supplied by an electrochemical cell that produces electricity without combustion. When calculating a CREE, the Regulations allow companies to report 0 g/mi for electric vehicles (for example, BEVs), fuel cell vehicles, and the electric portion of plug-in hybrids (when PHEVs operate as electric vehicles) 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 8.

Table 8: multiplying factors for advanced technology vehicles
Model year BEV and FCEV multiplier PHEV multiplier Natural gas
2011 to 2016 1.2 1.2 1.2
2017 2.5 2.1 1.6
2018 2.5 2.1 1.6
2019 2.5 2.1 1.6
2020 2.25 1.95 1.45
2021 2.0 1.8 1.3
2022 to 2025 1.5 1.3 1.0

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 2 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 BEVs and PHEVs sold by model year are presented in tables table9 and table10.

Table 9: production volumes of BEVs by model year
Manufacturer 2016 2017 2018 2019
BMW 18 96 70 69
FCA - - - -
Ford 136 522 682 -
GM 45 2 133 1 474 5 445
Honda - - - -
Hyundai - 653 394 4 573
JLR - - - 365
Kia 1 063 477 964 1 186
Mazda - - - -
Mercedes 190 106 442 141
Mitsubishi 120 85 - -
Nissan 1 620 884 4 440 4 340
Porsche - - - -
Subaru - - - -
Tesla 2 963 3 483 8 961 13 364
Toyota - - - -
Volkswagen 293 705 808 1 942
Volvo - - - -
Total 6 454 9 144 18 235 31 425
Table 10: production volumes of PHEVs by model year
Manufacturer 2016 2017 2018 2019
BMW 587 712 1 047 656
FCA - 739 1 578 600
Ford 635 1 991 2 106 1 513
GM 720 5 728 5 400 2 675
Honda - - 850 910
Hyundai 55 128 1 024 1 622
JLR - - - -
Kia - 110 45 1 150
Mazda - - - -
Mercedes 8 76 330 147
Mitsubishi - - 5 380 2 088
Nissan - - - -
Porsche 311 417 692 415
Subaru - - - -
Tesla - - - -
Toyota - 1 164 3 606 1 600
Volkswagen - 483 609 -
Volvo 278 615 538 554
Total 2 594 12 163 23 205 13 930
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 3 model years prior to the model year being exempted

  3. submit a small volume declaration to ECCC

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

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

Table 11: production volumes for small volume manufacturers by model year
Manufacturer 2016 2017 2018 2019
Aston Martin 91 82 44 148
Ferrari 135 275 247 364
Maserati 344 1369 1000 -
McLaren 121 112 220 195
Lotus 0 13 12 0
Pagani 1 0 0 0
Total 692 1851 1523 707
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 12: 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 13. 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 13: 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 3 methods by which they can conform to the standards for N2O and CH4.

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

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

The third method allows companies to certify vehicles to alternative N2O and CH4 emissions standards. This method generally offers the greatest flexibility to companies as they are left to establish alternative standards that apply only to those vehicles that would not meet the cap-based value as opposed to impacting the entire fleet. Additionally, companies using this method can comply with standards of N2O and CH4 separately by setting alternative standards for either emission as needed. The g/mi difference between the alternative standard and the cap-based standard that would otherwise apply is used to determine a deficit which must be offset with conventional CO2e emissions credits. The total deficits incurred by the companies that used this method are summarized in tables table14 and table15.

Table 14: N2O emissions deficits by company for the 2016 to 2019 model years (Mg CO2e)
Manufacturer 2016
PA
2017
PA
2018
PA
2019
PA
2016
LT
2017
LT
2018
LT
2019
LT
BMW -2 062 -1 215 -2 284 - -5 853 -3 276 -3 920 -
FCA - - - - - -10 957 -23 275 -6 269
Ford -248 -2 124 -715 -847 -4 733 -47 486 -17 047 -10 562
GM - -645 -1 166 -236 -1 615 -3 114 -6 146 -4 501
Hyundai - - -331 -999 - - - -
JLR - -1 379 -1 999 -62 - -2 830 -9 638 -3 935
Kia - - -2 211 -1 447 - - - -
Mazda - -807 -1 449 -360 -480 -5 436 -4 324 -12 750
Nissan -5 595 -930 -414 - -23 617 - - -
Toyota -1 729 -2 219 -1 306 -1 466 -2 647 -3 599 -2 289 -3 490
Volkswagen -215 - - - -852 - - -300
Fleet total -9 849 -9 319 -11 875 -5 417 -39 797 -76 698 -66 639 -41 807
Table 15: CH4 emissions deficits by company for the 2016 to 2019 model years (Mg CO2e)
Manufacturer 2016
PA
2017
PA
2018
PA
2019
PA
2016
LT
2017
LT
2018
LT
2019
LT
BMW -260 -153 -288 - -737 -412 -493 -
FCA -3 -7 -3 -3 -2 384 -1 296 -3 215 -3 001
Ford -964 -532 -152 -155 -20 322 -8 296 -18 801 -13 041
GM -137 -81 -357 -137 -708 -1 791 -1 969 -762
Mazda - -136 -340 -474 - -475 -121 -401
Nissan -436 - - - -1 981 - - -
Volkswagen -40 -85 -74 -15 -115 - - -
Fleet total -1 840 -994 -1 214 -784 -26 247 -12 270 -24 599 -17 205

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 table16 and table17 show both the companies’ compliance and standard values for the passenger automobiles and light truck fleets across the 2016 to 2019 model years.

Table 16: PA compliance and standard values over the 2016 to 2019 model years (g/mi)
Manufacturer 2016
compliance
2017
compliance
2018
compliance
2019
compliance
2016
standard
2017
standard
2018
standard
2019
standard
BMW 250 227 236 223 230 216 208 196
FCA 275 288 291 288 242 234 228 218
Ford 246 240 219 226 232 220 209 202
GM 237 191 168 157 230 218 204 192
Honda 193 188 183 187 224 214 204 193
Hyundai 241 238 230 206 227 216 206 196
JLR 311 276 251 306 309 244 242 219
Kia 238 223 210 184 227 216 204 195
Maserati - - - 359 - - - 231
Mazda 210 217 211 220 223 212 202 189
Mercedes 246 263 249 262 232 225 213 205
Mitsubishi 229 210 137 151 218 203 195 183
Nissan 222 226 192 187 227 216 205 191
Porsche 324 273 269 302 275 215 224 194
Subaru 246 245 247 236 221 210 199 189
Teslaa -6 -5 -16 -22 268 254 226 211
Toyota 212 205 192 183 224 212 201 192
Volkswagen 230 225 238 203 222 211 201 190
Volvo 289 252 241 248 293 242 245 222
Fleet average 228 220 205 194 227 216 205 194

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 17: LT compliance and standard values over the 2016 to 2019 model years (g/mi)
Manufacturer 2016
compliance
2017
compliance
2018
compliance
2019
compliance
2016
standard
2017
standard
2018
standard
2019
standard
BMW 293 280 269 257 286 283 274 270
FCA 331 345 327 335 303 312 295 301
Ford 356 317 311 303 325 308 310 303
GM 346 333 317 316 322 320 310 298
Honda 262 240 225 232 275 274 261 258
Hyundai 327 327 324 330 280 278 266 258
JLR 320 306 279 267 316 286 286 278
Kia 328 305 304 290 286 277 267 263
Maserati - - - 393 - - - 278
Mazda 259 266 250 256 270 267 256 249
Mercedes 313 313 298 304 292 287 274 263
Mitsubishi 265 262 247 243 260 253 242 234
Nissan 260 276 277 271 278 282 273 261
Porsche 319 296 293 294 361 285 284 277
Subaru 249 237 228 220 261 257 245 241
Teslaa - - -21 -27 - - 292 284
Toyota 316 295 295 264 289 286 273 265
Volkswagen 290 302 273 269 270 273 269 264
Volvo 299 249 243 250 360 288 291 274
Fleet average 319 309 295 290 301 298 288 282

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 2019 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: 2019 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.
  2. Tesla has a fleet average standard of 211 g/mi and fleet average compliance value of -22 g/mi. Tesla's compliance value falls outside of the range of this graph.
Long description for figure 4
2019 Passenger automobile compliance status with offsets
Manufacturer Fleet average tailpipe emissions Fleet average compliance value Air conditioning Innovative technologies Fleet average standard
BMW 246.0 223 18.4 4.4 196
FCA 311.0 288 18.4 4.8 218
Ford 249.0 226 17.1 6.3 202
GM 179.0 157 16.2 5.9 192
Honda 207.0 187 16.4 4.1 193
Hyundai 222.0 206 14.1 2.1 196
JLR 330.0 306 18.7 5.5 219
Kia 203.0 184 16.3 2.8 195
Maserati 376.0 359 10.8 6.0 231
Mazda 223.0 220 1.5 1.9 189
Mercedes 275.0 262 11.2 1.5 205
Mitsubishi 162.0 151 9.7 1.7 183
Nissan 202.0 187 12.6 2.0 191
Porsche 322.0 302 17.6 2.0 194
Subaru 243.0 236 4.6 2.1 189
Toyota 200.0 183 12.7 4.4 192
VW 221.0 203 18.1 0.0 190
Volvo 262.0 248 9.7 4.7 222


Figure 5: 2019 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.
  2. Tesla has a fleet average standard of 284 g/mi and fleet average compliance value of -27 g/mi. Tesla’s compliance value falls outside of the range of this graph.
Long description for figure 5
2019 Light truck compliance status with offsets
Manufacturer Fleet average tailpipe emissions Fleet average compliance value Air conditioning Innovative technologies Fleet average standard
BMW 292.0 257 24.2 10.8 270
FCA 368.0 335 21.4 11.6 301
Ford 341.0 303 23.0 14.9 303
GM 349.0 316 22.9 9.9 298
Honda 264.0 232 22.8 9.4 258
Hyundai 342.0 330 7.1 5.3 258
JLR 304.0 267 24.4 12.2 278
Kia 315.0 290 20.8 4.7 263
Maserati 421.0 393 14.9 13.1 278
Mazda 266.0 256 5.0 5.1 249
Mercedes 320.0 304 13.2 2.5 263
Mitsubishi 261.0 243 16.5 1.4 234
Nissan 288.0 271 11.6 5.9 261
Porsche 317.0 294 13.7 9.8 277
Subaru 241.0 220 14.9 6.2 241
Toyota 290.0 264 17.5 8.4 265
VW 292.0 269 22.8 0.0 264
Volvo 272.0 250 13.6 8.4 274

2.6. Technological advancements and penetration rates

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

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

Turbocharging

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

Variable valve timing 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 more than 6 gears to keep the engine running at its most efficient operating point and thereby reduce CO2e emissions.

Continuously variable transmissions

Continuously variable transmissions (CVT) are transmissions that, unlike conventional transmission configurations, do not have a fixed number of gears, 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 18, while data pertaining to company specific usage can be found in appendices A-3 to A-10.

Table 18: penetration rates of drivetrain technologies in the Canadian fleet
Technology 2016 2017 2018 2019
Turbocharging 23.1% 27.7% 34.3% 33.7%
VVT 94.5% 96.9% 95.6% 97.1%
VVL 19.3% 16.6% 18.1% 18.5%
Higher geared transmission 22.1% 27.0% 39.8% 55.9%
CVT 20.3% 19.9% 21.1% 21.1%
Cylinder deactivation 10.0% 14.3% 12.6% 16.6%
GDI 37.5% 38.2% 46.1% 42.7%
Diesel 1.8% 0.6% 1.2% 0.5%

3. Emission credits

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

The total credit balance is determined according to the following 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 5 model years after the year in which the credits were obtained (the credits had a 5-year lifespan). The Regulations were amended to extend the lifespan of credits earned during the 2010 to 2016 model years to 2021. Emission credits that can be used to offset a deficit incurred in the 2022 and later model years can only be generated beginning with the 2017 model year and have a 5-year lifespan.

3.1. Credit transfers

Table 19 summarizes transactions by company and the model year in which the credits were generated. There have been more than 13 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 19: credit transactions (transferred out) by model year (Mg CO2e)
Manufacturer Early action 2011 to 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total
Honda 2 138 563 3 069 910 - - - 5 208 473
Mitsubishi 63 349 - - - - 63 349
Nissan 822 292 402 728 - - - 1 225 020
Suzuki 123 345 30 431 - - - 153 776
Tesla 2 292 352 079 176 147 433 130 615 273 1 578 921
Toyota 2 623 142 2 680 598 - - - 5 303 740
Receiver General - 6 906 - - - 6 906
Table 19: credit transactions (transferred in) by model year (Mg CO2e)
Manufacturer Early action 2011 to 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total
Aston Martin - 2 626 - - - 2 626
BMW - 1 000 000 - - - 1 000 000
FCA 4 775 129 3 333 018 176 147 433 130 465 273 9 182 697
Ferrari 8 473 - - - - 8 473
Ford 342 272 257 728 - - - 600 000
JLR 143 369 - - - - 143 369
Lotus - 139 - - - 139
Mercedes - 1 645 000 - - - 1 645 000
Maserati - 3 740 - - - 3 740
Porsche - 4 141 - - 150 000 154 141
Subaru - 300 000 - - - 300 000
Volkswagen 500 000 - - - - 500 000

3.2. Total credits generated and final status

Table 20 shows the credits earned (or deficits incurred) by all companies over the 2019 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 86.6 million emission credits (including early action credits and TOF credits), of which approximately 24.5 million credits remain for future use. A total of 24.3 million credits have been used to offset deficits and 37.8 million credits have expired.

Table 20: net credits by model year and current credit balance (Mg CO2e)
Manufacturers Generated credit/deficit in 2019 Current balancea
BMW -68 888 787 199
FCA -1 869 581 3 854 774
Ford -154 492 950 462
GM -356 510 3 137 871
Honda 734 632 5 161 374
Hyundai -278 110 1 930 817
JLR 14 352 7 928
Kia -80 891 222 615
Maserati -11 865 -11 865
Mazda -298 644 3 053 272
Mercedes -378 401 483 928
Mitsubishi 5 394 666 044
Nissan -50 589 1 112 140
Porsche -66 413 -8 406
Subaru 86 341 874 546
Tesla 615 273 0
Toyota 178 983 3 733 422
Volkswagen -256 181 345 482
Volvo 46 028 203 180
Total -2 189 562 24 504 783

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 table21 and table22. 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 sales weighted values for all companies, and are intended to depict the average results.

Table 21: passenger automobile compliance summary for the 2011 to 2019 model years (g/mi)
Model
year
Tailpipe emissions Flex fuel vehicles Innovative technologies AC refrigerant leakage reduction AC efficiency improvements Compliance value Standard Compliance margin
2011 262 2.8 0.2 2.0 1.3 255 291 36
2012 251 3.3 0.5 2.9 2.0 242 263 21
2013 247 3.3 0.4 3.0 2.4 238 256 18
2014 244 3.7 1.5 3.5 2.6 233 248 15
2015 241 2.6 1.8 4.0 2.9 230 238 8
2016 238 0.0 2.0 4.7 3.4 228 227 -1
2017 232 0.0 3.0 6.0 3.5 220 216 -4
2018 220 0.0 3.3 8.4 3.7 205 205 0
2019 211 0.0 3.1 10.3 3.9 194 194 0

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 248 233
2015 238 230
2016 227 228
2017 216 220
2018 205 205
2019 194 194
Table 22: light truck compliance summary for the 2011 to 2019 model years (g/mi)
Model
year
Tailpipe emissions Flex fuel vehicles Innovative technologies AC refrigerant leakage reduction AC efficiency improvements Compliance value Standard Compliance margin
2011 365 8.0 0.7 5.5 1.3 349 367 18
2012 371 13.3 1.2 5.8 1.5 349 350 1
2013 360 13.1 1.3 6.2 2.2 337 341 4
2014 349 12.9 4.3 6.8 3.1 322 332 10
2015 335 9.2 5.2 7.6 3.6 309 313 4
2016 337 0.0 5.9 8.5 3.7 319 301 -18
2017 334 0.0 7.5 12.0 5.8 309 298 -11
2018 323 0.0 8.5 13.3 6.0 295 288 -7
2019 320 0.0 9.6 14.2 6.0 290 282 -8

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 341 337
2014 332 322
2015 313 309
2016 301 319
2017 298 309
2018 288 295
2019 282 290

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 2019 model year saw the overall compliance value for passenger automobiles decrease to 194 g/mi, and the overall compliance value for light trucks decrease to 290 g/mi. This has resulted in an overall net improvement of 23.9% and 16.9% 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 2019 model year, they have stayed at or 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 2019 model year.

Appendix

Table A-1: production volumes by company
Manufacturer 2016
PA
2016
LT
2016
all
2017
PA
2017
LT
2017
all
2018
PA
2018
LT
2018
all
2019
PA
2019
LT
2019
all
Aston Martin 91 0 91 82 0 82 44 0 44 148 0 148
BMW 31 789 14 316 46 105 25 882 17 059 42 941 34 831 17 207 52 038 23 245 18 585 41 830
FCA 35 676 240 114 275 790 20 591 242 874 263 465 15 444 170 242 184 386 11 522 221 797 233 319
Ferrari 135 0 135 275 0 275 247 0 247 364 0 364
Ford 54 569 190 662 245 231 72 230 205 393 277 623 41 855 233 897 275 752 27 203 200 523 227 726
GM 82 065 118 958 201 023 96 569 173 949 270 518 81 077 188 187 269 264 60 593 186 381 246 974
Honda 114 360 87 060 201 420 112 783 81 780 194 563 110 320 81 930 192 250 102 062 102 252 204 314
Hyundai 123 676 4 493 128 169 161 646 11 171 172 817 117 473 6 050 123 523 111 853 3 900 115 753
JLR 1 282 6 909 8 191 2 345 11 870 14 215 1 654 11 646 13 300 567 11 678 12 245
Kia 58 583 15 878 74 461 42 768 25 637 68 405 55 202 22 719 77 921 42 547 28 680 71 227
Lotus 0 0 0 13 0 13 12 0 12 0 0 0
Maserati - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 172 291 463
Mazda 46 389 15 317 61 706 35 910 23 202 59 112 55 953 26 762 82 715 39 613 30 779 70 392
McLaren 121 0 121 112 0 112 220 0 220 195 0 195
Mercedes 24 178 12 980 37 158 22 371 22 371 44 742 25 562 29 596 55 158 17 214 19 918 37 132
Mitsubishi 6 100 12 097 18 197 13 686 11 301 24 987 9 004 15 434 24 438 5 158 13 252 18 410
Nissan 71 221 51 416 122 637 87 293 62 006 149 299 82 124 57 229 139 353 88 662 52 623 141 285
Pagani 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Porsche 1 585 5 081 6 666 2 357 6 829 9 186 3 589 7 837 11 426 2 130 5 723 7 853
Subaru 14 603 32 079 46 682 17 744 33 502 51 246 16 574 42 019 58 593 16 350 49 803 66 153
Tesla 2 963 - 2 963 3 483 0 3 483 8 511 450 8 961 13 101 263 13 364
Toyota 105 798 101 247 207 045 107 989 121 998 229 987 112 328 121 236 233 564 90 548 113 360 203 908
Volkswagen 67 071 21 019 88 090 72 212 26 667 98 879 61 658 68 060 129 718 78 118 50 314 128 432
Volvo 891 4 885 5 776 1 331 5 008 6 339 1 256 6 691 7 947 1 762 10 116 11 878
Fleet total 843 147 934 511 1 777 658 899 672 1 082 617 1 982 289 834 638 1 107 192 1 941 830 733 127 1 120 238 1 853 365

Figure A-1: 2016 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.
  3. Tesla has a fleet average standard of 268 g/mi and fleet average compliance value of -6 g/mi. Tesla’s compliance value falls outside of the range of this graph.
Long description for figure A-1
2016 passenger automobile compliance status with offsets
Manufacturer Fleet average tailpipe emissions Fleet average compliance value Air conditioning Innovative technologies Fleet average standard
BMW 263 250 9.1 3.7 230
FCA 297 275 18.5 3.7 242
Ford 257 246 8.2 3.2 232
GM 251 237 9.7 4.4 230
Honda 206 193 11.6 1.7 224
Hyundai 248 241 6.1 1.1 227
JLR* 334 311 19.5 3.2 309
Kia 245 238 5.6 1.2 227
Mazda 210 210 0.0 0.0 223
Mercedes 260 246 10.9 3.3 232
Mitsubishi 231 229 2.0 0.0 218
Nissan 231 222 7.6 1.7 227
Porsche* 331 324 4.7 2.5 275
Subaru 249 246 2.9 0.3 221
Toyota 220 212 7.2 1.2 224
VW 241 230 9.2 2.1 222
Volvo* 289 289 0.0 0.0 293


Figure A-2: 2017 passenger automobile compliance status with offsets

Figure A-2 (see long description below).

Notes:

  1. The final compliance value may be lower than the tailpipe emissions through the application of compliance flexibilities.
  2. Tesla has a fleet average standard of 254 g/mi and fleet average compliance value of -5. g/mi. Tesla’s compliance value falls outside of the range of this graph.
Long description for figure A-2
2017 Passenger automobile compliance status with offsets
Manufacturer Fleet average tailpipe emissions Fleet average compliance value Air conditioning Innovative technologies Fleet average standard
BMW 249 227 18.5 3.2 216
FCA 310 288 18.4 3.7 234
Ford 260 240 15.1 5.3 220
GM 209 191 12.3 5.3 218
Honda 205 188 13.0 3.9 214
Hyundai 246 238 6.1 1.5 216
JLR 299 276 18.8 4.2 244
Kia 233 223 8.5 1.9 216
Mazda 217 217 0.0 0.0 212
Mercedes 275 263 10.7 1.0 225
Mitsubishi 213 210 3.1 0.0 203
Nissan 236 226 7.7 2.2 216
Porsche 294 273 18.7 2.7 215
Subaru 251 245 5.0 0.9 210
Toyota 216 205 7.7 3.7 212
VW 237 225 8.8 2.8 211
Volvo 265 252 9.5 3.6 242


Figure A-3: 2018 passenger automobile compliance status with offsets

Figure A-3 (see long description below).

Notes:

  1. The final compliance value may be lower than the tailpipe emissions through the application of compliance flexibilities.
  2. Tesla has a fleet average standard of 226 g/mi and fleet average compliance value of -16 g/mi. Tesla’s compliance value falls outside of the range of this graph.
Long description for figure A-3
2018 Passenger automobile compliance status with offsets
Manufacturer Fleet average tailpipe emissions Fleet average compliance value Air conditioning Innovative technologies Fleet average standard
BMW 258 236 18.5 3.6 208
FCA 314 291 18.5 4.3 228
Ford 241 219 16.8 5.5 209
GM 191 168 16.5 7.0 204
Honda 202 183 15.2 4.1 204
Hyundai 241 230 8.8 2.4 206
JLR 277 251 18.8 6.9 242
Kia 223 210 11.4 2.0 204
Mazda 215 211 2.7 1.4 202
Mercedes 264 249 10.9 3.9 213
Mitsubishi 151 137 12.0 2.4 195
Nissan 204 192 10.1 2.2 205
Porsche 291 269 18.5 3.2 224
Subaru 254 247 4.6 2.0 199
Toyota 205 192 9.4 4.1 201
VW 255 238 17.1 0.0 201
Volvo 257 241 9.1 6.7 245


Figure A-4: 2016 light truck compliance status with offsets

Figure A-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 A-4
2016 light truck compliance status with offsets
Manufacturer Fleet average tailpipe emissions Fleet average compliance value Air conditioning Innovative technologies Fleet average standard
BMW 311 293 11.3 6.5 286
FCA 358 331 18.2 8.6 303
Ford 376 356 11.3 8.5 325
GM 363 346 11.2 6.2 322
Honda 274 262 9.3 2.5 275
Hyundai 338 327 5.8 5.3 280
JLR 350 320 22.9 7.4 316
Kia 338 328 5.5 4.1 286
Mazda 259 259 0.0 0.0 270
Mercedes 327 313 9.3 4.6 292
Mitsubishi 272 265 7.0 0.0 260
Nissan 273 260 10.1 3.3 278
Porsche 336 319 12.4 4.4 361
Subaru 252 249 3.0 0.1 261
Toyota 330 316 10.9 3.2 289
VW 304 290 12.6 1.7 270
Volvo 299 299 0.0 0.0 360


Figure A-5: 2017 light truck compliance status with offsets

Figure A-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 A-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 309 280 22.4 6.7 283
FCA 373 345 20.4 8.1 312
Ford 349 317 20.5 11.4 308
GM 362 333 21.5 7.7 320
Honda 267 240 19.0 8.3 274
Hyundai 340 327 7.0 5.6 278
JLR 338 306 24.4 7.4 286
Kia 322 305 13.8 3.4 277
Mazda 266 266 0.0 0.0 267
Mercedes 329 313 14.3 2.1 287
Mitsubishi 271 262 9.0 0.0 253
Nissan 293 276 11.0 5.7 282
Porsche 319 296 19.3 3.5 285
Subaru 248 237 10.5 0.7 257
Toyota 315 295 13.4 7.1 286
VW 321 302 13.0 5.7 273
Volvo 267 249 11.9 5.7 288


Figure A-6: 2018 light truck compliance status with offsets

Figure A-6 (see long description below).

Notes:

  1. The final compliance value may be lower than the tailpipe emissions through the application of compliance flexibilities.
  2. Tesla has a fleet average standard of 292 g/mi and fleet average compliance value of -21 g/mi. Tesla’s compliance value falls outside of the range of this graph.
Long description for figure A-6
2018 light truck compliance status with offsets
Manufacturer Fleet average tailpipe emissions Fleet average compliance value Air conditioning Innovative technologies Fleet average standard
BMW 300 269 23.2 8.1 274
FCA 360 327 21.7 10.4 295
Ford 347 311 22.3 13.4 310
GM 349 317 23.3 8.8 310
Honda 255 225 21.4 8.5 261
Hyundai 337 324 7.4 5.7 266
JLR 316 279 24.4 12.4 286
Kia 322 304 13.1 4.5 267
Mazda 259 250 4.3 4.6 256
Mercedes 316 298 14.7 3.3 274
Mitsubishi 264 247 16.1 1.4 242
Nissan 294 277 10.9 6.0 273
Porsche 318 293 21.6 3.1 284
Subaru 242 228 9.3 4.9 245
Toyota 315 295 13.5 6.8 273
VW 296 273 22.7 0.0 269
Volvo 267 243 13.1 11.4 291

Table A-2: preapproved menu of efficiency improving technologies for AC systems
Technology Allowance
value
(g/mi)
Reduced reheat, with externally-controlled, variable-displacement compressor (for example, a compressor that controls displacement based on temperature set point and/or cooling demand of the air conditioning system control settings inside the passenger compartment). 1.7
Reduced reheat, with externally-controlled, fixed-displacement or pneumatic variable displacement compressor (for example, a compressor that controls displacement based on conditions within, or internal to, the air conditioning system, such as head pressure, suction pressure, or evaporator outlet temperature). 1.1
Default to recirculated air with closed-loop control of the air supply (sensor feedback to control interior air quality) whenever the ambient temperature is 75 °F or higher: Air conditioning systems that operated with closed-loop control of the air supply at different temperatures may receive credits by submitting an engineering analysis to the Administrator for approval. 1.7
Default to recirculated air with open-loop control air supply (no sensor feedback) whenever the ambient temperature is 75 °F or higher. Air conditioning systems that operate with open-loop control of the air supply at different temperatures may receive credits by submitting an engineering analysis to the Administrator for approval. 1.1
Blower motor controls which limit wasted electrical energy (for example, pulse width modulated power controller). 0.9
Internal heat exchanger (for example, a device that transfers heat from the high-pressure, liquid-phase refrigerant entering the evaporator to the low-pressure, gas-phase refrigerant exiting the evaporator). 1.1
Improved condensers and/or evaporators with system analysis on the component(s) indicating a coefficient of performance improvement for the system of greater than 10% when compared to previous industry standard designs). 1.1
Oil separator. The manufacturer must submit an engineering analysis demonstrating the increased improvement of the system relative to the baseline design, where the baseline component for comparison is the version which a manufacturer most recently had in production on the same vehicle design or in a similar or related vehicle model. The characteristics of the baseline component shall be compared to the new component to demonstrate the improvement. 0.6
Table A-3: production volume of vehicles with turbocharging
Manufacturer 2016 2017 2018 2019
BMW 46 009 42 508 51 729 41 633
FCA 15 930 6 412 13 340 10 693
Ford 115 015 164 219 164 992 161 201
GM 52 054 62 935 102 272 82 820
Honda 18 150 72 053 92 935 92 538
Hyundai 18 148 18 680 15 002 17 376
JLR 6 909 6 904 7 665 6 080
Kia 8 422 6 772 6 740 2 301
Maserati - - - 452
Mazda 1 784 3 351 5 943 12 735
Mercedes 36 563 44 636 54 716 36 991
Mitsubishi 0 0 3 051 3 848
Nissan 7 185 8 776 4 013 8 486
Porsche 3 026 8 086 10 206 7 401
Subaru 5 115 6 969 7 540 8 696
Toyota 5 617 7 756 4 969 6 884
Volkswagen 82 204 88 174 108 768 111 198
Volvo 2 839 2 299 2 088 3 192
Total 424 970 550 530 655 969 614 525
Table A-4: production volume of vehicles with variable valve timing
Manufacturer 2016 2017 2018 2019
BMW 42 953 40 874 49 292 41 633
FCA 258 715 256 770 174 949 222 283
Ford 185 730 236 387 216 872 191 796
GM 193 764 265 518 262 223 238 873
Honda 201 420 194 563 189 280 204 314
Hyundai 128 167 172 162 123 129 111 169
JLR 10 398 11 321 10 833 9 817
Kia 73 392 67 928 76 957 70 041
Maserati - - - 463
Mazda 61 706 59 112 82 715 70 208
Mercedes 36 968 44 636 54 716 36 991
Mitsubishi 13 109 21 579 24 438 18 410
Nissan 121 017 148 415 134 913 136 945
Porsche 6 666 9 186 11 426 7 853
Subaru 46 682 51 246 58 593 66 153
Toyota 207 045 229 987 233 514 203 712
Volkswagen 86 454 98 759 128 910 126 490
Volvo 5 776 6 339 7 947 11 878
Total 1 679 962 1 914 782 1 840 707 1 769 029
Table A-5: production volume of vehicles with variable valve lift
Manufacturer 2016 2017 2018 2019
BMW 42 192 40 250 49 292 41 633
FCA 32 956 3 390 20 691 12 547
GM 7 294 5 318 3 940 62
Honda 201 420 194 563 132 525 131 803
JLR 10 398 11 321 10 833 9 817
Mercedes 0 0 0 9 587
Mitsubishi 8 819 6 600 6 425 4 862
Nissan 5 284 12 249 8 325 4 394
Porsche 6 666 9 186 11 426 7 853
Toyota 3 877 6 012 13 514 9 804
Volkswagen 24 552 39 030 91 365 105 248
Total 343 458 327 919 348 336 337 610
Table A-6: production volume of vehicles with higher geared transmissions
Manufacturer 2016 2017 2018 2019
BMW 38 414 36 967 48 365 36 184
FCA 143 185 140 612 124 854 184 880
Ford 0 32 228 142 121 153 389
GM 25 666 57 092 79 811 124 530
Honda 42 156 38 550 45 711 77 951
Hyundai 9 627 8 284 8 757 25 507
JLR 12 814 14 192 13 294 11 883
Kia 374 1 162 2 440 20 537
Maserati - - - 452
Mercedes 34 967 44 346 54 716 36 991
Mitsubishi 0 0 3 051 3 848
Nissan 30 340 43 356 30 409 47 354
Porsche 6 205 9 030 10 935 7 607
Subaru 2 434 10 924 33 738 56 211
Toyota 25 860 63 640 68 806 115 112
Volkswagen 17 917 28 174 90 782 104 054
Volvo 3 037 6 339 7 947 11 878
Total 392 996 534 896 765 737 1 018 358
Table A-7: production volume of vehicles with continuously variable transmissions
Manufacturer 2016 2017 2018 2019
FCA 519 178 0 600
Ford 1 801 3 173 2 860 5 390
GM 3 203 12 217 10 944 22 050
Honda 142 680 131 295 141 280 137 294
Kia 0 0 0 12 300
Mitsubishi 11 937 19 002 15 846 14 497
Nissan 100 047 114 907 112 790 114 857
Subaru 39 886 43 218 49 919 59 598
Toyota 60 131 71 042 73 312 23 416
Volkswagen 15 0 0 0
Total 360 219 395 032 406 951 390 002
Table A-8: production volume of vehicles with cylinder deactivation
Manufacturer 2016 2017 2018 2019
FCA 56 549 98 158 48 374 96 115
GM 77 537 137 599 137 688 131 428
Honda 42 630 44 490 33 245 42 749
Mazda 0 0 23 102 28 751
Mercedes 0 0 0 2 142
Volkswagen 1 263 1 682 1 044 569
Total 177 979 281 929 243 453 301 754
Table A-9: production volume of vehicles with gasoline direct injection
Manufacturer 2016 2017 2018 2019
BMW 42 953 40 874 49 292 41 633
FCA 13 294 886 3 257 7 744
Ford 0 0 102 948 22 051
GM 166 895 244 125 240 931 211 556
Honda 157 680 120 523 125 220 142 381
Hyundai 100 695 113 544 73 000 74 035
JLR 10 398 11 321 10 833 9 817
Kia 67 140 59 381 65 121 56 952
Maserati - - - 452
Mazda 60 819 56 102 82 715 70 208
Mercedes 29 777 44 636 54 687 36 966
Nissan 7 440 41 163 41 087 40 129
Subaru 4 195 14 903 29 505 52 667
Toyota 1 829 676 434 317
Volvo 3 037 6 339 7 947 11 878
Total 666 152 754 473 886 977 778 786
Table A-10: production volume of diesel vehicles
Manufacturer 2016 2017 2018 2019
BMW 3 060 1 643 2 437 0
FCA 15 077 4 174 9 880 2 661
Ford 0 0 3 030 1 913
GM 1 200 2 867 5 567 2 656
JLR 2 448 2 894 2 467 2 063
Mazda 0 0 0 184
Mercedes 7 191 0 0 0
Porsche 527 0 0 0
Volkswagen 1 636 0 0 0
Total 31 139 11 578 23 381 9 477
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: