Greenhouse Gas Emissions Performance for the 2023 Model Year Light-Duty Vehicle Fleet

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

Notice

The information contained in this report is compiled from data reported to Environment and Climate Change Canada pursuant to the Passenger Automobile and Light Truck Greenhouse Gas Emission Regulations under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999. Information presented in this report is subject to ongoing verification.

Cat. No.: En11-15E-PDF
ISSN: 2560-9017

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

Environment and Climate Change Canada
Public Information Centre
Place Vincent Massey building
351 St-Joseph boulevard
Gatineau QC K1A 0H3
Toll Free: 1-800-668-6767
Email: enviroinfo@ec.gc.ca

© His Majesty the King in Right of Canada, represented by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, 2024

Aussi disponible en français

List of acronyms

AC – Air conditioner

ATV – Advanced technology vehicle

CAFE – Corporate average fuel economy

CEPA – Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999

CO – Carbon monoxide

CO2 – Carbon dioxide

CO2e – Carbon dioxide equivalent

CREE – Carbon related exhaust emissions

CWF – Carbon weight fraction

EPA – Environmental Protection Agency

FCEV – Fuel cell electric vehicle

FTP – Federal test procedure

GHG – Greenhouse gas

g/mi – grams per mile

HC – Hydrocarbons

HFET – Highway fuel economy test

LT – Light truck

NO– Oxides of nitrogen

N2O – Nitrous oxide

PA – Passenger automobile

PM – Particulate matter

TOF – Temporary optional fleet

VKT – Vehicle kilometres travelled

ZEV – Zero emission vehicle

Table of contents

List of tables

List of figures

Executive summary

The Passenger Automobile and Light Truck Greenhouse Gas Emission Regulations (hereinafter referred to as the “regulations”) establish greenhouse gas (GHG) emission standards for new 2011 and later model year light-duty on-road vehicles offered for sale in Canada. These regulations require importers and manufacturers of new vehicles to meet fleet average emission standards for greenhouse gases. The Regulations also establish annual compliance reporting requirements. This report summarizes the fleet average greenhouse gas emission performance of the fleets of light-duty vehicles. It also provides a compliance summary for each of the obligated companies including their individual fleet average carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e)Footnote 1 emissions value (referred to as the “compliance value”) and the status of their emission credits.

The CO2e emission standards are company-unique and are based on the footprint and the quantity of vehicles offered for sale in a given model year.  These footprint-based target values are aligned with those of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and have increased in stringency from the 2012 through 2026 model yearsFootnote 2 .Since the Canadian greenhouse gas standards were introduced prior to the U.S. EPA program, the 2011 model year target values in Canada were instead based on the U.S. Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) levels.  Since the introduction of the regulations, the fleet average standards for passenger automobiles and for light trucks have become more stringent by 43.0% and 36.2% 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 and GHG reductions of their new light duty vehicle fleets available in Canada since the 2011 model year. These regulations have required companies to meet progressively more stringent GHG standards which has pushed new approaches and engineering changes to meet the requirements through the introduction of a wide variety of new and innovative technologies. To meet the regulatory standards, companies have continued to refine and improve upon conventional internal combustion engine technologies as well as incorporate an array of other innovative approaches such as active aerodynamics, advanced materials for light-weighting, solar reflective paint, high efficiency lighting and more. As a result of the regulations companies have been driven to look at alternative propulsion technologies (such as hybrid electric vehicles) and  increase the availability of advanced technology vehicles with lower to zero GHG emissions, which consist of battery electric vehicles (BEV), plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV), and fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEV), collectively referred to as zero emission vehicles (ZEVs), and natural gas vehicles (NGVs). In fact, since the introduction of the regulation the volume of ZEVs reached 13.4% for the 2023 model year. More specifically, battery electric vehicles have increased from 198 to 170 167 representing 10.8% of the total fleet in 2023, and the volume of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles has increased from zero to 40 652 representing 2.6% of the total fleet in 2023. The sum of these developments within the Canadian vehicle fleets have resulted in measurable improvements to GHG emissions performance, and an increasing number of ZEVs are expected to continue to gain market share as standards continue to increase in stringency.

Figure ES-1. Increase in ZEV production from the 2011 to 2023 model years

Graphic
Figure ES-1 long description

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

Results from annual regulatory compliance reports indicate that companies continue to be in compliance through the 2023 model year. The average compliance value for the fleet of new passenger automobiles has decreased from 255 g/mi to 128 g/mi since the introduction of the regulation, representing a 49.8% reduction.

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

Graphic
Figure ES-2 long description

Figure ES-2 is a graph presenting the trends in average GHG compliance value and average GHG standards for the passenger automobile fleets over the 2011-2023 model years.

Year

Standard (g/mile)

Compliance value (g/mile)

2011

291

255

2012

263

242

2013

256

238

2014

248

233

2015

238

230

2016

227

228

2017

216

220

2018

205

205

2019

194

193

2020

185

176

2021

181

166

2022

179

150

2023

166

128

The compliance value for light trucks decreased by 30.7%, from 349 g/mi to 242 g/mi since the introduction of the regulation. All companies remained in compliance with the regulations by either meeting their applicable standard, through the use of their own accumulated emission credits or by purchasing credits from other companies.

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

Graphic
Figure ES-3 long description

Figure ES-3 is a graph presenting the trends in average GHG compliance value and average GHG standards for the light truck fleets over the 2011-2023 model years.

Year

Standard (g/mile)

Compliance value (g/mile)

2011

367

349

2012

350

349

2013

341

337

2014

332

322

2015

313

309

2016

301

319

2017

298

309

2018

288

295

2019

282

290

2020

272

277

2021

264

263

2022

264

265

2023

234

242

Under the regulations, companies have generated a total of approximately 115.9 million credits, of which, approximately 27.3 million are available for future use. A total of 39 million credits have been used to offset emission deficits by individual companies over the 2011 to 2023 model years, of which 4.9 million credits were used to offset deficits accrued in the 2023 model year. The remaining 51.3 million credits have expired.

1. Purpose of the report

The purpose of this report is to provide company specific results for the fleet average greenhouse gas emission (GHG) performance of the Canadian fleets of passenger automobiles (PA) and of light trucks (LT)Footnote 3 . Building on the previous GHG emissions performance report for the 2022 model year, this report focuses on the GHG emissions performance of the last 4 model years. The results presented herein are based on data submitted by companies in their annual regulatory compliance reports, pursuant to the Passenger Automobile and Light Truck Greenhouse Gas Emission Regulations, which have undergone a thorough review by Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC). The report assists with identifying trends in the Canadian automotive industry including the adoption and emergence of technologies that have the potential to reduce GHG emissions. It also serves to describe emission credit trading under the regulations.  

2. Overview of the regulations

In October 2010, the Government of Canada published the Passenger Automobile and Light Truck Greenhouse Gas Emission RegulationsFootnote 4  (regulations) under CEPA. This was the first Government of Canada’s first regulation targeting GHG’s and was a major milestone for ECCC towards addressing GHG emissions from the Canadian transportation sector. The regulations and the subsequent amendments introduced progressively more stringent GHG emission targets for new light-duty vehicles of model years 2011 to 2026 in alignment with the U.S. national standards, thereby establishing a common North American approach.

The department assesses compliance with the fleet average requirements through annual reports.  These reports establish each company’s fleet average GHG performance and the applicable standard for both its passenger automobile and light truck fleetsFootnote 5 . The regulations include compliance provisions, including the ability for companies to accrue emission credits or deficits, depending on their fleet performance relative to the standard.  The department uses these reports to monitor, track, and assess whether the regulatory requirements have been met and the number of emission credit balances and transfers.  There are in excess of 10 000 data elements collected each reporting cycle.  ECCC reviews and validates company data and the results may be subject to change should new information become available.

Companies that submitted a report pursuant to the regulations during 2020 to 2023 model years are listed in Table 1.

Table 1. Model year report submission status

Manufacturer

Common Name

2020

2021

2022

2023

Aston Martin Lagonda Ltd.

Aston Martin

LVMa

LVMa

LVMa

LVMa

BMW Canada Inc.

BMW

*

*

*

*

BYD Canada Company Limited

BYD

*

--

--

--

FCA Canada Inc.

FCA

*

*

*

*

Ferrari North America Inc.

Ferrari

LVMa

LVMa

LVMa

LVMa

Ford Motor Company of Canada Ltd.

Ford

*

*

*

*

General Motors of Canada Company

GM

*

*

*

*

Honda Canada Inc.

Honda

*

*

*

*

Hyundai Auto Canada Corp.

Hyundai

*

*

*

*

Jaguar Land Rover Canada ULC

JLR

*

*

*

*

Kia Canada Inc.

Kia

*

*

*

*

Lotus Cars Ltd.

Lotus

LVMa

LVMa

LVMa

LVMa

Maserati North America Inc.

Maserati

*

*

LVMa

LVMa

Mazda Canada Inc.

Mazda

*

*

*

*

McLaren Automotive Limited

McLaren

LVMa

LVMa

LVMa

LVMa

Mercedes-Benz Canada Inc.

Mercedes

*

*

*

*

Mitsubishi Motor Sales of Canada, Inc.

Mitsubishi

*

*

*

*

Morgan Olson Canada Corp.

Morgan Olson

--

--

--

LVMa

Nissan Canada Inc.

Nissan

*

*

*

*

Pagani Automobili SPA, Italy

Pagani

LVMa

LVMa

LVMa

LVMa

Porsche Cars Canada, Ltd.

Porsche

*

*

*

*

Rivian Automotive Canada Inc.

Rivian

--

--

--

*

Subaru Canada Inc.

Subaru

*

*

*

*

Tesla Motors, Inc.

Tesla

*

*

*

*

Toyota Canada, Inc.

Toyota

*

*

*

*

VinFast Auto Canada Inc.

VinFast

--

--

--

*

Volkswagen Group Canada, Inc.

Volkswagen

*

*

*

*

Volvo Cars of Canada Corp.

Volvo

*

*

*

*

*Indicates that a report has been submitted

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

2.1. CO2e emission standards

The applicable standards for a given model year are based on prescribed carbon dioxide (CO2e) emission “target values” that are a function of the “footprint” (Figure 1) and quantity of the vehicles in each company’s fleet of passenger automobiles and light trucks offered for saleFootnote 6  to the first retail purchaserFootnote 7. These standards are performance-based in that they establish a maximum amount of CO2e on a gram per mile basis. This progressively more stringent approach allows companies to choose from an ever changing array of the most cost-effective technologies to achieve compliance and reduce emissions, rather than requiring a particular technology.

Figure 1. Vehicle footprint

Figure 1 long description

Figure 1 is a graphic showing the front and side profiles of a vehicle. The graphic is used to depict the “Track Width” as the lateral distance between the centrelines of the front and rear base tires, and the “Wheelbase” as the longitudinal distance between the front and rear wheel centrelines.


Footprint =  front track width + rear track width 2  x wheelbase

The regulations prescribe progressively more stringent target values for a given footprint size over the 2011 through 2026 model yearsFootnote 8 . Figures 2 and 3 illustrate the target values for passenger automobiles and light trucks, respectively.

Figure 2. 2011 to 2026 targets for passenger automobiles

Graphic
Figure 2 long description

Figure 2 is a graph depicting the growing stringency of emission target values that apply to passenger automobiles over a range of footprints for the 2011, 2016, and 2026 model years.

The 2011 model year prescribes a target value of 285 g/mile for footprints up to approximately 45 ft2. The target gradually increases for vehicles with a footprint greater than approximately 46 ft2, and levels off at 370 g/mile for footprints greater than approximately 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 2026 model year prescribes a target value of 114.3 g/mile for footprints up to 41 ft2. The target increases linearly for vehicles with a footprint between 41 ft2, and 56 ft2 and levels off at 160.9 g/mile for footprints greater than 56 ft2.

Figure 3. 2011 to 2026 targets for light trucks

Graphic
Figure 3 long description

Figure 3 is a graph depicting the growing stringency of emission target values that apply to light trucks over a range of footprints for the 2011, 2016, and 2026 model years.

The 2011 model year prescribes a target value of 330g/mile for footprints up to approximately 46 ft2. The target gradually increases from for vehicles with a footprint greater than approximately 46 ft2, and levels off at 421 g/mile for footprints greater than approximately 66ft2.

The 2016 model year prescribes a target value of 247 g/mile for footprints up to 41 ft2. The target increases linearly for vehicles with a footprint between 41 ft2, and 66 ft2 and off at 348 g/mile for footprints greater than 66 ft2.

The 2026 model year prescribes a target value of 141.8 g/mile for footprints up to 41 ft2. The target increases linearly for vehicles with a footprint between 41 ft2, and 74 ft2 and levels off at 254.4 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 9 . The CO2e standard was derived using a conversion factor of 8 887 grams of CO/gallon of gasolineFootnote 10  for the 2011 model year only.

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

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

Fleet Average Standard =  (A × B) C

where

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

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

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

The final company-unique fleet average CO2e standards for the 2020 to 2023 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

2020 PA

2021 PA

2022 PA

2023 PA

2020 LT

2021 LT

2022 LT

2023 LT

BMW

188

183

182

167

262

256

251

217

BYD

194

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

FCA

206

205

203

187

290

282

291

255

Ford

193

194

190

178

296

291

281

268

GM 181 177 175 161 293 293 286 254
Honda 184 180 177 164 245 237 240 215
Hyundai 184 179 177 163 269 252 240 216
JLR 203 183 181 163 267 256 257 230
Kia 183 177 176 161 253 234 239 211
Maserati 218 212 -- -- 269 262 -- --
Mazda 183 178 173 161 238 231 228 204
Mercedes 195 192 190 178 263 255 251 226
Mitsubishi 176 171 167 150 226 219 222 199
Nissan 190 179 176 162 245 234 247 210
Porsche 198 178 173 162 266 251 248 221
Rivian -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 260
Subaru 180 174 173 158 235 225 227 202
Tesla 202 198 195 180 275 253 249 223
Toyota 183 179 176 163 261 249 246 221
VinFast -- -- -- 187 -- -- -- --
Volkswagen 183 178 176 162 246 247 240 214
Volvo 212 191 185 168 263 249 246 219
Fleet Average 185 181 179 166 272 264 264 234

A company’s average footprint (Table 3) is one of the factors in establishing their CO2e standards. Companies are responsible for meeting their own unique fleet average CO2e standard based on the size of vehicles they produce. However, the regulations provide additional compliance flexibilities for intermediate sized companies to make use of an alternative schedule of annual emission standards for the 2020 to 2023 model years (discussed in section 2.3.7.).

Table 3. Average footprint for the 2020 to 2023 model years (sq. ft.)

Manufacturer

2020 PA

2021 PA

2022 PA

2023 PA

2020 LT

2021 LT

2022 LT

2023 LT

BMW 46.3 46.2 46.9 47.1 52.0 52.0 51.8 50
BYD 47.9 -- -- -- -- -- -- --
FCA 50.9 52 52.3 52.5 58.3 57.8 61.2 59.7
Ford 47.7 49.2 49.8 50.4 60.2 61.0 60.1 63
GM 43.5 43.3 43.9 45.5 60.1 61.8 61.3 59.3
Honda 45.2 45.7 45.8 46.1 48.3 47.8 49.5 49.5
Hyundai 45.5 45.3 45.7 46 53.5 51.2 49.4 49.7
JLR 47.8 46.4 46.8 45.8 51.0 52.0 53.2 53.2
Kia 45.3 44.9 45.3 45.4 50.0 47.0 49.2 48.6
Maserati 53.8 53.7 -- -- 53.4 53.4 -- --
Mazda 45 44.9 44.4 44.9 46.8 46.5 46.7 46.7
Mercedes 48.1 48.7 49.4 50.4 52.1 51.8 51.9 52.2
Mitsubishi 42.7 42.4 41.8 40.4 44.1 43.9 45.3 45.6
Nissan 45.8 45.4 45.4 45.5 48.2 47.1 50.9 48.4
Porsche 46.6 45.1 44.5 45.5 51.0 50.8 51.1 50.9
Rivian -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 60.7
Subaru 44.4 44.2 44.7 44.4 46.1 45.2 46.4 46.3
Tesla 49.8 50.1 50.3 50.5 54.8 51.3 51.5 51.6
Toyota 45.1 45.4 45.4 45.8 51.7 50.6 50.9 50.9
VinFast -- -- -- 52.7 -- -- -- --
Volkswagen 45.1 45.2 45.3 45.6 48.5 50.1 49.4 49.3
Volvo 49.9 48.3 47.6 47.3 50.4 50.5 50.7 50.6
Fleet Average 45.6 45.8 46.3 46.8 54.5 54.4 55.4 54.4

2.2. Carbon related exhaust emissions

The fleet average carbon-related exhaust emission (CREE) value is the sales-weighted average performance of a company in a given model year for its passenger automobile and light truck fleets, expressed in grams of CO2e per mile. The CREE value is a single number that represents the average carbon exhaust emissions from a company’s total fleets of passenger automobiles and light trucks. The emission values to calculate a CREE value are measured using 2 emissions test procedures; the Federal Test Procedure (FTP) and the Highway Fuel Economy Test (HFET). The FTP and HFET tests are more commonly referred to as the city and highway tests. These 2 tests ensure that the CREE is measured in a manner that is consistent across the automobile industry. During these tests, manufacturers measure the carbon-related combustion products including carbon dioxide (CO2), carbon monoxide (CO), and hydrocarbons (HC). This ensures that all carbon-containing exhaust emissions that ultimately contribute to the formation of CO2 are recognized.

The CREE for each vehicle model type is calculated based on actual emission constituents (such as CO2, HC, and CO) from that model over the city and highway tests. The 2 test results are then combined based on a 55% city and 45% highway driving distribution. A company’s final CREE value is based on the sales weighted average of the combined test results for each model, and the number of vehicles manufactured or imported into Canada for the purpose of sale.

The calculated fleet average CREE values achieved by companies over the 2020 to 2023 model years are presented in Table 4.

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

Manufacturer

2020 PA

2021 PA

2022 PA

2023 PA

2020 LT

2021 LT

2022 LT

2023 LT

BMW 249 233 223 178 295 274 266 228
BYD 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- --
FCA 324 326 336 356 357 347 360 341
Ford 204 107 107 40 324 316 311 295
GM 152 206 160 100 339 351 347 333
Honda 207 213 201 209 257 252 269 259
Hyundai 211 187 178 159 325 293 242 253
JLR 291 309 342 360 315 320 332 340
Kia 176 181 174 164 310 265 271 255
Maserati 370 379 -- -- 410 390 -- --
Mazda 226 229 197 194 260 261 262 255
Mercedes 269 278 260 170 308 316 314 280
Mitsubishi 155 183 157 200 261 261 251 189
Nissan 214 219 208 197 265 246 284 240
Porsche 147 217 263 251 320 329 335 333
Rivian -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 0
Subaru 250 268 256 284 235 229 246 213

TeslaFootnote 11

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Toyota 176 187 187 166 289 248 250 221
VinFast -- -- -- 0 -- -- -- --
Volkswagen 193 223 236 229 300 288 270 220
Volvo 241 87 43 21 267 249 245 240
Fleet Average 195 188 173 149 309 298 300 274

2.3. Compliance flexibilities

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

2.3.1. Allowances for reduction in refrigerant leakage (E)

Refrigerants currently used by air conditioner (AC) systems have a global warming potentialFootnote 12  (GWP) that is much higher than CO2. Consequently, the release of these refrigerants into the environment has a more significant impact on the formation of greenhouse gases than an equal amount of CO2. The regulations include provisions which recognize the reduced GHG emissions from improved AC systems designed to minimize refrigerant leakage into the environment. Based on the performance of the AC system components, manufacturers can calculate a total annual refrigerant leakage rate for an AC system which, in combination with the type of refrigerant, determines the CO2e leakage reduction in grams per mile (g/mi) for each of their air conditioning systems. The maximum allowance value that can be generated for an improved air conditioning system in a passenger automobile is 12.6 g/mi for systems using traditional HFC-134a refrigerant, and 13.8 g/mi for systems using refrigerant with a lower GWP. These maximum allowance values for air conditioning systems equipped in light trucks is 15.6 g/mi and 17.2 g/mi, respectively.

The total fleet average allowance for reduction in AC refrigerant leakage is calculated using the following formula:

E (A × B) C

where

A is the CO2e leakage reduction for each of the air conditioning systems in the fleet that incorporates those technologies;

B is the total number of vehicles in the fleet equipped with the air conditioning system; and

C is the total number of vehicles in the fleet.

Table 5 shows the leakage allowances in g/mi for the 2020 to 2023 model years.

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

Manufacturer

2020 PA

2021 PA

2022 PA

2023 PA

2020 LT

2021 LT

2022 LT

2023 LT

BMW 13.6 13.6 13.7 13.7 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2
BYD 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- --
FCA 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 15.7 17.2 17.2 17.2
Ford 13.6 13.8 13.8 13.8 17.1 17.2 17.2 17.2
GM 12.9 13.6 13.6 13.8 16.7 17.2 17.2 17.2
Honda 12.8 13.5 12.3 12.1 16.5 17.2 16.7 15.7
Hyundai 9.0 13.7 13.6 13.6 4.3 16.9 17.1 17.1
JLR 13.8 13.7 12.3 13.7 17.2 17.2 16.7 17.0
Kia 13.3 13.5 13.5 13.6 16.3 16.9 16.6 16.9
Maserati 13.8 13.8 -- -- 17.2 17.2 -- --
Mazda 1.9 12.0 13.5 13.4 5.0 15.1 16.8 17.0
Mercedes 6.2 13.8 13.8 14.3 8.4 17.2 17.2 16.8
Mitsubishi 13.5 13.1 13.4 13.3 16.7 15.9 16.4 16.3
Nissan 10.1 13.3 13.3 12.1 7.2 16.7 16.7 16.6
Porsche -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Rivian -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Subaru 7.9 12.1 12.0 12.0 14.9 15.1 15.1 15.1
Tesla 13.7 13.6 13.5 13.6 15.4 17.0 16.6 16.4
Toyota 10.8 12.7 12.0 12.9 12.8 15.9 15.7 3.8
VinFast -- -- -- 13.8 -- -- -- --
Volkswagen 10.5 13.5 13.3 13.2 13.0 16.7 16.6 16.6
Volvo 13.2 13.8 13.8 13.8 16.6 17.1 17.2 17.2
Fleet Average 10.7 13.2 13.0 13.1 14.7 16.6 16.7 14.9

2.3.2. Allowances for improvements in air conditioning efficiency (F)

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

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

F (A × B) C

where

A is the air conditioning efficiency allowance for each of the air conditioning systems in the fleet that incorporate those technologies

B is the total number of vehicles in the fleet equipped with the air conditioning system; and

C is the total number of vehicles in the fleet.

Table 6 shows the fleet average allowance values in g/mi for the 2020 to 2023 model years.

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

Manufacturer

2020 PA

2021 PA

2022 PA

2023 PA

2020 LT

2021 LT

2022 LT

2023 LT

BMW 4.9 4.9 5.0 5.0 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.2
BYD 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- --
FCA 4.8 5.0 4.8 5.0 6.2 6.9 7.0 7.0
Ford 4.4 4.7 4.9 4.7 6.4 7.1 7.1 7.1
GM 3.9 3.7 3.5 4.4 6.7 7.0 6.8 7.0
Honda 3.6 3.6 4.5 4.2 5.2 5.3 6.5 7.2
Hyundai 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.6 4.0 4.4 4.9 5.0
JLR 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2
Kia 3.3 3.3 3.2 3.4 4.2 3.6 4.0 4.4
Maserati 5.0 5.0 -- -- 7.2 7.2 -- --
Mazda 1.4 1.4 3.6 4.4 1.1 1.2 4.7 5.2
Mercedes 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.2 7.1 7.2 6.9 7.0
Mitsubishi 4.6 4.4 4.5 4.3 5.3 5.3 6.3 5.9
Nissan 4.1 4.1 4.3 4.2 4.8 5.4 5.2 6.3
Porsche -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Rivian -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Subaru 3.6 3.4 4.1 4.2 6.6 6.5 6.6 6.1
Tesla 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2
Toyota 4.6 4.8 4.7 4.6 6.3 6.6 6.7 6.3
VinFast -- -- -- 5.0 -- -- -- --
Volkswagen 3.8 4.8 4.6 4.2 5.5 7.0 6.7 6.8
Volvo 4.7 4.0 3.7 3.5 6.3 6.3 6.5 6.2
Fleet Average 3.8 3.9 4.2 4.2 6.0 6.2 6.5 6.5

2.3.3. Allowances for the use of innovative technologies (G)

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

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

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

G (A × B) C

where

A is the allowance for each of those innovative technologies incorporated into the fleet;

B is the total number of vehicles in the fleet equipped with the innovative technology; and

C is the total number of vehicles in the fleet.

Table 7 summarizes the total innovative technology allowances reported by companies for model years 2020 to 2023.

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

Manufacturer

2020 PA

2021 PA

2022 PA

2023 PA

2020 LT

2021 LT

2022 LT

2023 LT

BMW 7.3 7.5 6.2 6.0 13.3 13.4 12.4 12.3
BYD 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- --
FCA 5.2 11.5 4.7 2.6 10.6 10.8 11.1 9.0
Ford 7.1 5.5 5.8 4.2 16.1 17.1 14.7 11.5
GM 6.0 6.1 6.0 3.8 12.1 12.2 13.3 13.2
Honda 4.4 5.0 7.9 6.3 12.7 12.8 16.8 12.9
Hyundai 4.0 4.5 5.2 3.5 8.5 12.8 14.1 11.2
JLR 6.8 5.9 6.1 5.0 12.9 13.2 15.6 15.6
Kia 4.7 4.5 4.7 3.8 7.5 9.2 9.9 10.4
Maserati 7.0 6.7 -- -- 13.8 13.8 -- --
Mazda 2.4 2.6 3.8 3.5 6.6 6.8 9.5 7.0
Mercedes 1.4 2.2 2.5 3.2 2.9 3.7 4.3 5.3
Mitsubishi 3.0 2.8 2.8 0.9 4.7 4.8 5.7 3.9
Nissan 3.0 3.1 5.0 2.0 6.2 6.5 6.5 8.9
Porsche -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Rivian -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Subaru 2.3 1.9 2.5 1.4 8.5 8.0 8.7 5.1
Tesla 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 8.3 6.8 6.9 6.9
Toyota 5.1 5.5 5.5 4.5 8.8 11.2 11.5 10.2
VinFast -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Volkswagen 5.6 8.1 8.7 7.1 11.9 13.0 13.8 11.1
Volvo 5.0 4.3 4.5 4.3 8.5 8.8 11.2 11.9
Fleet Average 4.4 4.8 5.6 4.1 11.0 11.6 12.2 10.5

2.3.4. Allowance for certain full-size pick-up trucks

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

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

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

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

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

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

H = Σ ( A H × B H ) + Σ ( A R × B R ) C

where

AH is the allowance for the use of hybrid electric technologies;

BH is the number of full-size pick-up trucks in the fleet that are equipped with hybrid electric technologies;

AR is the allowance for full-size pick-up trucks that achieve a certain carbon-related exhaust emission value;

BR is the number of full-size pick-up trucks in the fleet that achieve a certain carbon-related exhaust emission value; and

C is the total number of vehicles in the fleet.

As of the 2023 model year no companies made use of the allowance for certain full-size pick-up trucks.

2.3.5. Advanced technology vehicles

The regulations offer a number of additional provisions to encourage the deployment of “advanced technology vehicles” (ATVs) which consist of battery electric vehicles (BEV), plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV), fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEV) and natural gas vehicles. BEVs are completely powered by electrical energy stored in a battery, and hence produce no tailpipe emissions. PHEVs incorporate an electrical powertrain which enables them to be charged with electricity to operate solely on electrical power, but also contain an internal combustion engine to extend the operating range of the vehicle. FCEVs are propelled solely by an electric motor where the energy for the motor is supplied by an electrochemical cell that produces electricity without combustion. When calculating a CREE, the regulations allow companies to report 0 g/mi for electric vehicles (for example, BEVs), fuel cell vehicles, and the electric portion of plug-in hybrids (when PHEVs operate as electric vehicles). Additionally, companies may multiply the number of ATVs in their fleet by a specified factor to increase the impact that they have on a company’s overall fleet average. The applicable multiplying factors and the associated model years can be found in Table 8.

Table 8. Multiplying factors for advanced technology vehicles

Model year

BEV and FCEV multiplier

PHEV multiplier

Natural gas

2011 to 2016

1.2

1.2

1.2

2017

2.5

2.1

1.6

2018

2.5

2.1

1.6

2019

2.5

2.1

1.6

2020

2.25

1.95

1.45

2021

2.0

1.8

1.3

2022 to 2024

1.5

1.3

1.0

The production volumes of BEVs and PHEVs sold by model year are presented in Tables 9 and 10.

Table 9. Production volumes of BEVs by model year

Manufacturer

2020
PA

2021
PA

2022
PA

2023
PA

2020
LT

2021
LT

2022
LT

2023
LT

BMW 158 391 1 013 2 743 0 0 406 1 792
BYD 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FCA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ford 0 5 267 6 013 10 219 0 0 2 122 9 507
GM 5 236 1 561 5 549 17 966 0 0 0 0
Honda -- -- 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hyundai 5 573 8 130 9 481 15 881 0 0 0 0
JLR 0 0 0 0 139 39 52 46
Kia 3 677 2 130 2 878 6 187 0 0 0 0
Mazda 0 0 1 068 809 0 0 0 0
Mercedes 0 0 400 3 437 0 0 0 1 069
Mitsubishi 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Nissan 1 848 439 916 4 650 0 0 0 0
Porsche 1 039 507 614 640 0 0 0 0
Rivian -- -- -- 0 -- -- -- 883
Subaru 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 950
Tesla 18 483 32 414 47 711 63 824 328 1 450 2 811 3 359
Toyota 22 0 22 1 738 0 0 0 4 804
VinFast -- -- -- 801 -- -- -- --
Volkswagen 1 929 329 409 1 190 23 1 783 2 838 11 200
Volvo -- 877 1954 4 472 0 0 0 0
Total 37 990 52 045 78 028 134 557 490 3 272 8 229 35 610

Table 10. Production volumes of PHEVs by model year

Manufacturer

2020 PA

2021 PA

2022 PA

2023 PA

2020 LT

2021 LT

2022 LT

2023 LT

BMW 277 592 1 026 1 215 46 1 098 1 788 1 251
BYD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FCA 0 0 0 0 1 026 5 138 6 786 7 170
Ford 1 906 2 010 3 946 4 668 208 141 140 228
GM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Honda 747 172 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hyundai 1 396 900 381 0 0 0 3 651 2 233
JLR 0 0 0 0 207 140 0 37
Kia 1 361 488 749 351 0 0 674 1 914
Mazda 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mercedes 9 0 0 49 59 0 0 0
Mitsubishi 2 456 300 2 105 0 0 0 0 8 624
Nissan 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Porsche 73 68 53 180 320 186 291 452
Subaru 0 0 0 0 413 259 83 174
Tesla 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Toyota 8 659 4 254 4 175 2 100 0 4 939 1 904 8 103
VinFast -- -- -- 0 -- -- -- --
Volkswagen 0 10 20 7 444 70 121 320
Volvo 86 99 95 92 688 1 395 1 611 1 484
Total 16 970 8 893 12 550 8 662 3 411 13 366 17 049 31 990

Figure 4 provides a graphical representation of the overall growth in ZEV production for 2011 to 2023 model years.

Figure 4. Increase in ZEV production from the 2011 to 2023 model years

Graphic
Figure 4 long description

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

2.3.6. Provisions for small volume companies for 2012 and later model years

The regulations include provisions enabling smaller companies that may have limited product offerings to opt out of complying with the CO2e standards (non application of the standards respecting CO2 equivalent emissionsFootnote 13 ) for 2012 and subsequent model years. This exemption is available to companies that:

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

  2. have manufactured or imported for sale a running average of less than 750 vehicles for the 3 model years prior to the model year being exempted

  3. submit a small volume declaration to ECCC.

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

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

Table 11. Production volumes for small volume manufacturers by model year

Manufacturer

2020

2021

2022

2023

Aston Martin 74 132 83 219
Ferrari 370 313 493 345
Lotus 15 18 0 0
Maserati 268 474 677 1 238
McLaren 157 84 79 111
Morgan Olson -- -- -- 902
Total 884 1 021 1 332 2 815

2.4. Standards for nitrous oxide and methane

The regulations also limit the release of other GHG’s, such as emissions of methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O). Starting with the 2012 model year, the regulations set standards for N2O and CH4 at 0.01 g/mi and 0.03 g/mi respectively. These standards are intended to cap vehicle N2O and CH4 emissions at levels that are attainable by existing technologies and ensure that levels do not increase with future vehicles. Companies have 3 methods by which they can meet the N2O and CH4 requirements.

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

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

The third method allows companies to certify vehicles to alternative N2O and CH4 emissions standards. This method generally offers the greatest flexibility to companies as they are left to establish alternative standards that apply only to those vehicles that would not meet the cap-based value as opposed to impacting the entire fleet. Additionally, companies using this method can comply with standards of N2O and CH4 separately by setting alternative standards for either emission as needed. The g/mi difference between the alternative standard and the cap-based standard that would otherwise apply is used to determine a deficit which must be offset with conventional CO2e emissions credits. The total deficits incurred by the companies that used this method are summarized in Tables 12 and 13.

Table 12. N2O emissions deficits by company for the 2020 to 2023 model years (Mg CO2e)

Manufacturer

2020 PA

2021 PA

2022 PA

2023 PA

2020 LT

2021 LT

2022 LT

2023 LT

BMW -- -99 -256 -271 -- -- -83 -108
FCA -49 -- -- -- -10 333 -9 788 -11 612 -1 158
Ford -10 -15 -11 -- -713 -5 998 -6 932 -7 149
GM -- -- -- -- -35 225 -105 252 -52 624 -36 969
Hyundai -917 -541 -1 042 -1 153 -- -- -- --
JLR -- -- -- -- -1 322 -797 -- --
Kia -1 104 -754 -1 410 -1 099 -- -- -- --
Mazda -179 -2 001 -547 -690 -3 439 -9 740 -5 330 -7 797
Subaru -- -- -- -352 -- -- -- --
Toyota -1 267 -1 295 -149 -117 -8913 -10 602 -5 065 -4 691
Volkswagen -- -28 -137 -142 -120 -149 -242 -138
Fleet Total -3 526 -4 733 -3 552 -3 824 -60 065 -142 326 -81 888 -58 010

Table 13. CH4 emissions deficits by company for the 2020 to 2023 model years (Mg CO2e)

Manufacturer

2020 PA

2021 PA

2022 PA

2023 PA

2020 LT

2021 LT

2022 LT

2023 LT

FCA -37 -- -55 -- -186 -149 -259 -74
Ford -240 -299 -275 -81 -10 361 -1 879 -1 829 -1 462
GM -64 -52 -- -- -310 -9 -36 -5
Mazda -122 -194 -96 -28 0 -20 -- --
Volkswagen -51 -27 -36 -- -- -- -- --
Fleet Total -514 -572 -462 -109 -10 857 -2 057 -2 124 -1 541

2.5. CO2e emissions value

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

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

where

D is the fleet average carbon-related exhaust emission value for each fleet (section 2.2);

E is the allowance for reduction of air conditioning refrigerant leakage (section 2.3.1);

F is the allowance for improving air conditioning system efficiency (section 2.3.2); and

G is the allowance for the use of innovative technologies that have a measurable CO2e emission reduction (section 2.3.3);

H is the allowance for certain full-size pick-up trucks (section 2.3.4).

A company’s compliance value for its fleet of passenger automobiles and light trucks is what is ultimately compared to its CO2e standard for both aforementioned categories to determine compliance and to establish a company’s emission credit balance. Tables 14 and 15 show both the companies’ compliance and standard values for the passenger automobiles and light truck fleets across the 2020 to 2023 model years. Figures 5 and 6 shows the trends in manufacturer performance over the 2020 to 2023 model years.

Table 14. PA compliance and standard values over the 2020 to 2023 model years (g/mi)

Manufacturer

2020
Compliance

2021
Compliance

2022
Compliance

2023
Compliance

2020 Std.

2021 Std.

2022 Std.

2023 Std.

BMW 223 207 198 153 188 183 182 167
BYD 0 -- -- -- 194 -- -- --
FCA 300 296 313 335 206 205 203 187
Ford 179 83 83 17 193 194 190 178
GM 129 183 137 78 181 177 175 161
Honda 186 191 176 186 184 180 177 164
Hyundai 195 166 156 138 184 179 177 163
JLR 265 284 319 336 203 183 181 163
Kia 155 160 153 143 183 177 176 161
Maserati 344 354 -- -- 218 212 -- --
Mazda 220 213 176 173 183 178 173 161
Mercedes 256 257 239 147 195 192 190 178
Mitsubishi 134 163 136 182 176 171 167 150
Nissan 197 199 185 179 190 179 176 162
Porsche 147 217 263 251 198 178 173 162
Rivian -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Subaru 236 251 237 266 180 174 173 158

TeslaFootnote 14

-23 -23 -23 -23 202 198 195 180
Toyota 156 164 165 144 183 179 176 163
VinFast -- -- -- -19 -- -- -- 187
Volkswagen 173 197 209 205 183 178 176 162
Volvo 218 65 21 -1 212 191 185 168
Fleet Average 176 166 150 128 185 181 179 166

Figure 5. Change to PA performance over the 2020 to 2023 model years

Graphic
Figure 5 long description

Figure 5 provides a graphical representation of how each company’s passenger automobile performance has changed over the 2020 to 2023 model years.

Table 15. LT compliance and standard values over the 2020 to 2023 model years (g/mi)

Manufacturer

2020
Compliance

2021
Compliance

2022
Compliance

2023
Compliance

2020 Std.

2021 Std.

2022 Std.

2023 Std.

BMW 258 236 229 191 262 256 251 217
FCA 325 312 325 308 290 282 291 255
Ford 284 275 272 259 296 291 281 268
GM 304 315 310 296 293 293 286 254
Honda 223 217 229 223 245 237 240 215
Hyundai 308 259 206 220 269 252 240 216
JLR 278 282 293 300 267 256 257 230
Kia 282 235 241 223 253 234 239 211
Maserati 372 352 -- -- 269 262 -- --
Mazda 247 238 231 226 238 231 228 204
Mercedes 290 288 286 251 263 255 251 226
Mitsubishi 234 235 223 163 226 219 222 199
Nissan 247 217 256 208 245 234 247 210
Porsche 320 329 335 333 266 251 248 221
Rivian -- -- -- 0 -- -- -- 260
Subaru 205 199 216 187 235 225 227 202
Tesla -31 -31 -31 -31 275 253 249 223
Toyota 261 214 216 201 261 249 246 221
VinFast -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Volkswagen 270 251 233 186 246 247 240 214
Volvo 236 217 210 205 263 249 246 219
Fleet Average 277 263 265 242 272 264 264 234

Figure 6. Change to LT performance over the 2020 to 2023 model years

Graphic
Figure 6 long description

Figure 6 provides a graphical representation of how each company’s light truck performance has changed over the 2020 to 2023 model years.

Figures 7 and 8 provide a graphical representation of the role that compliance flexibilities play in arriving at a company’s overall compliance status for their 2023 model year passenger automobile and light truck fleets.  The orange line on the top of the bar indicates a company’s fleet average CREE. The wide red line represents the fleet average standard and the wide dark blue line represents the fleet average compliance value (accounting for compliance flexibilities). The bars show the extent to which companies incorporate the previously described compliance flexibilities into their products to achieve their fleet average compliance value. Figures showing this information for prior model years are located in the appendix.

Figure 7. 2023 passenger automobile compliance status with offsets

Graphic
Figure 7 long description

Figure 7 provides a graphical representation of the role that compliance flexibilities play in arriving at a company’s overall compliance status for their 2023 model year passenger automobile fleet.

Manufacturer Fleet average carbon related exhaust emissions value Fleet average compliance value Air conditioning Innovative technologies Fleet average standard
BMW 178 153 18.7 6.0 167
FCA 356 335 18.8 2.6 187
Ford 40 17 18.5 4.2 178
GM 100 78 18.2 3.8 161
Honda 209 186 16.3 6.3 164
Hyundai 159 138 17.2 3.5 163
JLR 360 336 18.7 5.0 163
Kia 164 143 17 3.8 161
Mazda 194 173 17.8 3.5 161
Mercedes 170 147 19.5 3.2 178
Mitsubishi 200 182 17.6 0.9 150
Nissan 197 179 16.3 2.0 162
Porsche 251 251 0.0 0.0 162
Subaru 284 266 16.2 1.4 158
Toyota 166 144 17.5 4.5 163
VW 229 205 17.4 7.1 162
Volvo 21 -1 17.3 4.3 168

Notes

  1. The final compliance value may be lower than the CREE through the application of compliance flexibilities

  2. Tesla, Rivian and VinFast produce electric vehicles, whose compliance values fall outside of the range of this graph. 

Figure 8. 2023 light truck compliance status with offsets

Graphic
Figure 8 long description

Figure 8 provides a graphical representation of the role that compliance flexibilities play in arriving at a company’s overall compliance status for their 2023 model year light truck fleet.

Manufacturer Fleet average carbon related exhaust emissions value Fleet average compliance value Air conditioning Innovative technologies Fleet average standard
BMW 228 191 24.4 12.3 217
FCA 341 308 24.2 9.0 255
Ford 295 259 24.3 11.5 268
GM 333 296 24.2 13.2 254
Honda 259 223 22.9 12.9 215
Hyundai 253 220 22.1 11.2 216
JLR 340 300 24.2 15.6 230
Kia 255 223 21.3 10.4 211
Mazda 255 226 22.2 7.0 204
Mercedes 280 251 23.8 5.3 226
Mitsubishi 189 163 22.2 3.9 199
Nissan 240 208 22.9 8.9 210
Porsche 333 333 0.0 0.0 221
Subaru 213 187 21.2 5.1 202
Toyota 221 201 10.1 10.2 221
VW 220 186 23.4 11.1 214
Volvo 240 205 23.4 11.9 219

Notes

  1. The final compliance value may be lower than the CREE through the application of compliance flexibilities

  2. Tesla, Rivian and VinFast produce electric vehicles, whose compliance values fall outside of the range of this graph. 

2.6. Technological advancements and penetration rates

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

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

Turbocharging

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

Variable valve timing & lift

Engine intake and exhaust valves are responsible for letting air into the cylinders and exhaust gases out. This is an important function since optimal engine performance requires precise “breathing” of the engine. In most conventional engines, the timing and lift of the valves is fixed, and not optimized across all engine speeds. Variable valve timing (VVT) and variable valve lift (VVL) systems adjust the timing, duration and amount that the intake and exhaust valves open based on the engine speed. This optimization of the engines ‘breathing’ improves engine efficiency resulting in reduced fuel consumption and emissions. Variable valve timing and lift technologies can result in efficiency improvements of 3-4%.

Higher geared transmissions (>6 speeds)

Fuel efficiency, and by extension, CO2e emissions coming from a vehicle are dependent on the efficient operation of all of the elements that make up a vehicle. An engine that is operating at speeds outside its most efficient range will result in increased fuel consumption and CO2e emissions. Transmissions with more gear ratios (or speeds), allows the engine to operate at a more efficient speed more frequently. It is becoming increasingly common for vehicles to be equipped with transmissions that have more than 6 gears to keep the engine running at its most efficient operating point and thereby reduce CO2e emissions.

Continuously variable transmissions

Continuously variable transmissions (CVT) are transmissions that, unlike conventional transmission configurations, do not have a fixed number of gears. Because CVT’s do not have a discreet number of shift points, they can operate variably across an infinite number of driving situations to provide the optimal speed ratio between the engine and the wheels. This ensures that the engine is able to operate as efficiently as possible and consume only as much fuel as is required, thereby lowering CO2e emissions. Typically CVT’s can improve fuel efficiency by as much as 4%.

Cylinder deactivation system

Cylinder deactivation systems (CDS) shut off cylinders of a 6 or 8 cylinder engine when only partial power is required (for example, travelling at constant speed, decelerating etc.). The CDS works by deactivating the intake and exhaust valves for a particular set of cylinders in the engine. A CDS can reduce CO2e emissions by improving the overall fuel consumption of the vehicle by 4 to 10%Footnote 15 .

Gasoline direct injection

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

Diesel

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

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

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

Technology

2020

2021

2022

2023

Turbocharging 32.7 33.6 37.1 40.7
VVT 94.2 92.8 90.7 86.6
VVL 18 14.9 16.6 15.2
Higher GearedTransmission 57.4 64.4 68.7 64.4
CVT 28.4 22.7 22.5 25.3
CylinderDeactivation 13.7 16.2 17.7 15
GDI 48 50.5 49.1 47
Diesel 0.7 1.6 1.4 1.0

3. Emission credits

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

The total credit balance is determined according to the following formulaFootnote 17 :

C r e d i t s = ( A - B ) × C × D 1 000 000

Where

A is the fleet average standard for passenger automobiles or light trucks;

B is the fleet average compliance value for passenger automobiles or light trucks;

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

D is the is the total assumed mileage of the vehicles in question, namely,

  1. 195 264 miles for a fleet of passenger automobiles, or

  2. 225 865 miles for a fleet of light trucks

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

The regulations initially established that credits could be banked to offset a future deficit for up to 5 model years after the year in which the credits were obtained (the credits had a 5-year lifespan). The regulations were amended to extend the lifespan of credits earned during the 2010 to 2016 model years to 2021. Emission credits that can be used to offset a deficit incurred in the 2022 and later model years can only be generated beginning with the 2017 model year and have a 5-year lifespan.

3.1. Credit transfers

Table 17 summarizes transactions by company and the model year in which the credits were generated. There have been more than 15 million credits transferred between companies for either immediate use to offset a deficit or in anticipation of a possible future deficit, including those purchased from the Receiver General. It should be noted that the model year is not necessarily indicative of when a credit transfer occurred. For example, it is possible to transfer credits for the 2012 model year during the 2017 calendar year. As well, the total quantity transferred in or out from a company for a given model year may be the result of multiple transactions.

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

Manufacturer

Early Action

2011 to 2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

Total

FCA 0 30 103 0 0 0 0 30 103
Honda 2 138 563 3 069 910 0 0 0 0 5 208 473
Mazda 0 113 000 0 0 0 0 113 000
Mitsubishi 63 349 0 0 0 0 0 63 349
Nissan 822 292 402 728 0 0 0 0 1 225 020
Subaru 0 86 500 0 0 0 0 86 500
Suzuki 123 345 30 431 0 0 0 0 153 776
Tesla 2 292 3 367 080 1 880 526 2 987 365 1 315 527 1 928 061 11 480 851
Toyota 2 623 142 2 780 598 0 0 0 0 5 403 740
Volkswagen 0 77 000 0 0 0 0 77 000
Receiver General -- 6 906 -- -- -- -- 6 906

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

Manufacturer

Early Action

2011 to 2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

Total

Aston Martin 0 2 626 0 0 0 0 2 626
BMW 0 1 000 000 0 0 0 0 1 000 000
FCA 4 775 129 6 110 057 1 648 770 969 820 0 0 13 503 776
Ferrari 8 473 0 0 0 0 0 8 473
Ford 342 272 257 728 0 0 0 0 600 000
GM 0 87 962 131 756 417 545 1 015 527 1 928 061 3 580 851
JLR 143 369 86 500 0 0 0 0 229 869
Lotus 0 139 0 0 0 0 139
Maserati 3 740 30 103 0 0 0 0 33 843
Mazda 0 0 0 500 000 0 0 500 000
Mercedes 0 1 745 000 0 1 100 000 300 000 0 3 145 000
Porsche 0 344 141 100 000 0 0 0 444 141
Subaru 0 300 000 0 0 0 0 300 000
Volkswagen 500 000 0 0 0 0 0 500 000

4.2. Total credits generated and final status

Table 18 shows the credits earned (or deficits incurred) by all companies over the 2023 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 115.9 million emission credits (including early action credits), of which approximately 27.3 million credits remain for future use. A total of 39 million credits have been used to offset deficits and 51.4 million credits have expired.

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

Manufacturers

Generated Credit/Deficit in 2023

Current BalanceFootnote 18

BMW 168 274 382 819
BYD 0 2121
FCA -1 786 576 2 191 955
Ford 891 185 3 361 416
GM -1 037 697 3 752 569
Honda -281 930 2 684 278
Hyundai 422 690 1 421 004
JLR -174 307 0
Kia 9 304 541 471
Mazda -226 581 273 747
Mercedes -15 310 1 086 194
Mitsubishi 229 188 389 171
Nissan -155 488 205 084
Porsche -240 887 0
Rivian 85 826 85 826
Subaru -32 611 1 077 608
Tesla 4 088 908 4 202 665
Toyota 874 884 4 346 375
VinFast 48 303 48 303
Volkswagen 185 455 295 132
Volvo 275 253 803 973
Total 3 327 883 27 302 683

5. Overall industry performance

The overall fleet average compliance information for passenger automobiles and light trucks is summarized in Tables 19 and 20. Additionally, Figures 6 and 7 illustrate the year over year performance for both passenger automobile and for light truck fleets. These trend lines depict the average standard applicable to the overall fleet (dotted line) and the compliance value (solid line) for each fleet.

Because each manufacturer’s fleet is unique, the data presented in the tables and graphs are based on the sales weighted values for all companies and are intended to depict the average results.

Table 19. Passenger automobile compliance summary for the 2011 to 2023 model years (g/mi)

Model Year

CREE

Innovative Technologies

AC Refrigerant Leakage Reduction

AC Efficiency Improvements

Compliance value

Standard

Compliance margin

2011

258

0.2

2.0

1.3

255

291

36

2012

247

0.5

2.9

2.0

242

263

21

2013

244

0.4

3.0

2.4

238

256

18

2014

241

1.5

3.5

2.6

233

248

15

2015

238

1.8

4.0

2.9

230

238

8

2016

238

2.0

4.7

3.4

228

227

-1

2017

232

3.0

6.0

3.5

220

216

-4

2018

221

3.7

8.4

3.7

205

205

0

2019

211

3.7

10.3

3.8

193

194

1

2020

195

4.4

10.7

3.8

176

185

9

2021

188

4.8

13.2

3.9

166

181

15

2022

173

5.6

13.0

4.2

150

179

29

2023

149

4.1

13.1

4.2

128

166

38

Figure 9. Average GHG emissions performance - passenger automobiles

Graphic
Figure 9 long description

Figure 9 is a graph presenting the trends in average GHG compliance value and average GHG standards for the passenger automobile fleets over the 2011-2023 model years.

Year

Standard (g/mile)

Compliance value (g/mile)

2011

291

255

2012

263

242

2013

256

238

2014

248

233

2015

238

230

2016

227

228

2017

216

220

2018

205

205

2019

194

193

2020

185

176

2021

181

166

2022

179

150

2023

166

128

Table 20. Light truck compliance summary for the 2011 to 2023 model years (g/mi)

Model Year

CREE

Innovative Technologies

AC Refrigerant
Leakage Reduction

AC Efficiency
Improvements

Compliance value

Standard

Compliance margin

2011

356

0.7

5.5

1.3

349

367

18

2012

357

1.2

5.8

1.5

349

350

1

2013

347

1.3

6.2

2.2

337

341

4

2014

337

4.3

6.8

3.1

322

332

10

2015

326

5.2

7.6

3.6

309

313

4

2016

337

5.9

8.5

3.7

319

301

-18

2017

334

7.5

12.0

5.7

309

298

-11

2018

323

8.5

13.3

6.1

294

288

-6

2019

320

9.7

14.2

6.0

290

282

-8

2020

309

10.7

14.7

6.0

277

272

-6

2021

298

11.6

16.6

6.2

263

264

1

2022

300

12.2

16.7

6.5

265

264

-1

2023

274

10.5

14.9

6.5

242

234

-8

Figure 10. Average GHG emissions performance - light trucks

Graphic
Figure 10 long description

Figure 10 is a graph presenting the trends in average GHG compliance value and average GHG standards for the light truck fleets over the 2011-2023 model years.

Year

Standard (g/mile)

Compliance value (g/mile)

2011

367

349

2012

350

349

2013

341

337

2014

332

322

2015

313

309

2016

301

319

2017

298

309

2018

288

295

2019

282

290

2020

272

277

2021

264

263

2022

264

265

2023

234

242

As depicted in Figures 9 and 10, the 2023 model year saw the overall compliance value for passenger automobiles decrease to 128 g/mi, and the overall compliance value for light trucks decrease to 242 g/mi. This has resulted in an overall net improvement of 49.8% and 30.7% relative to the 2011 model year for passenger automobiles and light trucks respectively.

All companies remained in compliance with the regulations through the use of their own accumulated emission credits or by purchasing credits from other companies.  Results to date indicate that all companies continue to meet their vehicle GHG regulatory obligations for the 2023 model year. 

Appendix

Table A-1. Production volumes by company

Manufacturer

2020
PA

2020
LT

2020
All

2021
PA

2021
LT

2021
All

2022
PA

2022
LT

2022
All

2023
PA

2023
LT

2023
All

Aston Martin 74 0 74 38 94 132 45 38 83 95 124 219
BMW 18 188 13 506 31 694 14 450 15 221 29 671 12 983 18 202 31 185 13 240 20 052 33 292
BYD 25 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FCA 2 936 137 799 140 735 5 834 161 482 167 316 7 350 161 888 169 238 9 066 125 645 134 711
Ferrari 370 0 370 313 0 313 493 0 493 345 0 345
Ford 15 349 172 413 187 762 13 091 174 247 187 338 15 597 194 354 209 951 16 939 186 341 203 280
GM 24 622 128 565 153 187 18 572 172 203 190 775 23 379 164 729 188 108 33 157 178 316 211 473
Honda 80 531 73 611 154 142 39 703 64 463 104 166 60 849 58 365 119 214 37 664 63 275 100 939
Hyundai 122 929 8 298 131 227 84 131 19 949 104 080 80 506 51 671 132 177 84 984 50 157 135 141
JLR 423 14 985 15 408 268 7 873 8 141 92 5 111 5 203 241 10 445 10 686
Kia 47 977 33 467 81 444 34 294 40 668 74 962 25897 33 646 59 543 40 783 53 798 94 581
Lotus 15 0 15 18 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 0
Maserati 120 362 482 212 262 474 183 484 667 153 1 085 1 238
Mazda 18 368 21 827 40 195 25 103 51 399 76 502 12 026 25 552 37 578 9 238 39 814 49 052
McLaren 157 0 157 84 0 84 79 0 79 111 0 111
Mercedes 13 543 26 523 40 066 8 446 25 324 33 770 8 354 23 756 32 110 11 891 17 655 29 546
Mitsubishi 4 151 14 435 18 586 1 181 6 879 8 060 4 640 24 298 28 938 3 295 28 007 31 302
Morgan Olson 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 902 0 902
Nissan 56 966 43 810 100 776 55 002 32 241 87 243 33 663 27 340 61 003 52 483 57 152 109 635
Porsche 2 944 4 856 7 800 2 380 6 663 9 043 3 320 4 453 7 773 3 196 6 989 10 185
Rivian 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 883 0 883
Subaru 12 845 38 408 51 253 5 794 53 396 59 190 7 453 31 274 38 727 7 598 33 181 40 779
Tesla 18 483 328 18 811 32 414 1 450 33 864 47 711 2 811 50 522 63 824 3 359 67 183
Toyota 99 295 118 030 217 325 77 815 152 741 230 556 71 183 129 656 200 839 45 683 156 813 202 496
VinFast 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 801 0 801
Volkswagen 22 059 32 233 54 292 26 775 53 433 80 208 27 245 46 739 73 984 28 064 62 500 90 564
Volvo 953 9 061 10 014 1 807 8 638 10 445 2 628 8 204 10 832 5 168 8 404 13 572
Fleet Total 563 323 892 517 1 455 840 447 725 1 048 626 1 496 351 444 676 1 012 571 1 458 247 469 804 1 103 112 1 572 916

Figure A-1. 2020 passenger automobile compliance status with offsets

Graphic
Figure A-1 long description

Figure A-1 provides a graphical representation of the role that compliance flexibilities play in arriving at a company’s overall compliance status for their 2020 model year passenger automobile fleet.

Manufacturer Fleet average carbon related exhaust emissions value Fleet average compliance value Air conditioning Innovative technologies Fleet average standard
BMW 249 223 18.5 7.3 188
FCA 324 300 0 5.2 206
Ford 204 179 18.6 7.1 193
GM 152 129 18.2 6.0 181
Honda 207 186 16.8 4.4 184
Hyundai 211 195 16.4 4.0 184
JLR 291 265 12.1 6.8 203
Kia 176 155 18.8 4.7 183
Maserati 370 344 16.6 7.0 218
Mazda 226 220 18.8 2.4 183
Mercedes 269 256 3.3 1.4 195
Mitsubishi 155 134 11.2 3.2 176
Nissan 214 197 18.1 0.0 190
Porsche 147 147 0 0.0 198
Subaru 250 236 0 4.6 180
Toyota 176 156 11.5 5.0 183
VW 193 173 18.7 5.6 183
Volvo 241 218 15.5 5.0 212

Notes:

  1. The final compliance value may be lower than the CREE through the application of compliance flexibilities.

  2. Tesla, Rivian and VinFast produce electric vehicles, whose compliance values fall outside of the range of this graph.

Figure A-2. 2021 passenger automobile compliance status with offsets

Graphic
Figure A-2 long description

Figure A-2 provides a graphical representation of the role that compliance flexibilities play in arriving at a company’s overall compliance status for their 2021 model year passenger automobile fleet.

Manufacturer Fleet average carbon related exhaust emissions value Fleet average compliance value Air conditioning Innovative technologies Fleet average standard
BMW 233 207 18.5 7.5 183
FCA 326 296 18.8 11.5 205
Ford 107 83 18.5 5.5 194
GM 206 183 17.3 6.1 177
Honda 213 191 17.1 5.0 180
Hyundai 187 166 16.9 4.4 179
JLR 309 284 18.7 5.9 183
Kia 181 160 16.8 4.5 177
Maserati 379 354 18.8 6.7 212
Mazda 229 213 13.4 2.6 178
Mercedes 278 257 18.8 2.2 192
Mitsubishi 183 163 17.5 2.9 171
Nissan 219 199 17.4 3.1 179
Porsche 217 217 0.0 0.0 178
Subaru 268 251 15.5 1.9 174
Toyota 187 164 17.5 5.5 179
VW 223 197 18.3 8.1 178
Volvo 87 65 17.8 4.3 191

Notes:

  1. The final compliance value may be lower than the CREE through the application of compliance flexibilities.

  2. 2. Tesla, Rivian and VinFast produce electric vehicles, whose compliance values fall outside of the range of this graph.

Figure A-3. 2022 passenger automobile compliance status with offsets

Graphic
Figure A-3 long description

Figure A-3 provides a graphical representation of the role that compliance flexibilities play in arriving at a company’s overall compliance status for their 2022 model year passenger automobile fleet.

Manufacturer Fleet average carbon related exhaust emissions value Fleet average compliance value Air conditioning Innovative technologies Fleet average standard
BMW 223 198 18.7 6.2 182
FCA 336 313 18.6 4.7 203
Ford 107 83 18.7 5.8 190
GM 160 137 17.1 6 175
Honda 201 176 16.8 7.9 177
Hyundai 178 156 16.9 5.2 177
JLR 342 319 17.3 6.1 181
Kia 174 153 16.7 4.7 176
Mazda 197 176 17.1 3.8 173
Mercedes 260 239 18.8 2.5 190
Mitsubishi 157 136 17.9 2.8 167
Nissan 208 185 17.6 5 176
Porsche 263 263 0.0 -- 173
Subaru 256 237 16.1 2.5 173
Toyota 187 165 16.7 5.5 176
VW 236 209 17.9 8.7 176
Volvo 43 21 17.5 4.5 185

Notes:

  1. The final compliance value may be lower than the CREE through the application of compliance flexibilities.

  2. Tesla, Rivian and VinFast produce electric vehicles, whose compliance values fall outside of the range of this graph.

Figure A-4. 2020 light truck compliance status with offsets

Graphic
Figure A-4 long description

Figure A-4 provides a graphical representation of the role that compliance flexibilities play in arriving at a company’s overall compliance status for their 2020 model year light truck fleet.

Manufacturer Fleet average carbon related exhaust emissions value Fleet average compliance value Air conditioning Innovative technologies Fleet average standard
BMW 295 258 24.2 13.3 262
FCA 357 325 0 10.6 290
Ford 325 285 21.9 16.1 296
GM 339 304 23.5 12.1 293
Honda 257 223 23.4 12.7 245
Hyundai 325 308 21.7 8.5 269
JLR 315 278 8.3 12.9 267
Kia 310 282 24.4 7.5 253
Maserati 410 372 20.5 13.8 269
Mazda 260 247 24.4 6.6 238
Mercedes 308 290 6.1 2.9 263
Mitsubishi 261 233 15.5 4.9 226
Nissan 265 247 22.7 0 245
Porsche 320 320 0 0 266
Subaru 235 205 0 8.5 235
Toyota 289 261 18.5 8.8 261
VW 300 270 22.9 11.9 246
Volvo 267 236 20.7 8.5 263

Notes:

  1. The final compliance value may be lower than the CREE through the application of compliance flexibilities.

  2. Tesla, Rivian and VinFast produce electric vehicles, whose compliance values fall outside of the range of this graph.

Figure A-5. 2021 light truck compliance status with offsets

Figure A-5 long description

Figure A-5 provides a graphical representation of the role that compliance flexibilities play in arriving at a company’s overall compliance status for their 2021 model year light truck fleet.

Manufacturer Fleet average carbon related exhaust emissions value Fleet average compliance value Air conditioning Innovative technologies Fleet average standard
BMW 274 236 24.3 13.4 256
FCA 347 312 24.1 10.8 282
Ford 316 275 24.3 17.1 291
GM 351 315 24.2 12.2 293
Honda 252 217 22.5 12.8 237
Hyundai 293 259 21.3 12.8 252
JLR 320 282 24.4 13.2 256
Kia 265 235 20.5 9.2 234
Maserati 390 352 24.4 13.8 262
Mazda 261 238 16.3 6.8 231
Mercedes 316 288 24.4 3.7 255
Mitsubishi 261 234 21.9 5.1 219
Nissan 246 217 22.1 6.5 234
Porsche 329 329 0.0 0.0 251
Subaru 229 199 21.6 8.0 225
Toyota 248 214 22.5 11.2 249
VW 288 251 23.7 13.0 247
Volvo 249 217 23.4 8.8 249

Notes:

  1. The final compliance value may be lower than the CREE through the application of compliance flexibilities.

  2. Tesla, Rivian and VinFast produce electric vehicles, whose compliance values fall outside of the range of this graph.

Figure A-6. 2022 light truck compliance status with offsets

Figure A-6 long description

Figure A-6 provides a graphical representation of the role that compliance flexibilities play in arriving at a company’s overall compliance status for their 2022 model year light truck fleet.

Manufacturer Fleet average carbon related exhaust emissions value Fleet average compliance value Air conditioning Innovative technologies Fleet average standard
BMW 266 229 24.4 12.4 274
FCA 360 325 24.2 11.1 295
Ford 311 272 24.3 14.7 310
GM 347 310 24.0 13.3 310
Honda 269 229 23.2 16.8 261
Hyundai 242 206 22.0 14.1 266
JLR 332 293 23.9 15.6 286
Kia 271 241 20.6 9.9 267
Mazda 262 231 21.5 9.5 256
Mercedes 314 286 24.1 4.3 274
Mitsubishi 251 223 22.7 5.7 242
Nissan 284 256 21.9 6.5 273
Porsche 335 335 0.0 -- 284
Subaru 246 216 21.7 8.7 245
Toyota 250 216 22.4 11.5 273
VW 270 233 23.3 13.8 269
Volvo 245 210 23.7 11.2 291

Notes:

  1. The final compliance value may be lower than the CREE through the application of compliance flexibilities.

  2. Tesla, Rivian and VinFast produce electric vehicles, whose compliance values fall outside of the range of this graph.

Table A-2. Preapproved menu of efficiency improving technologies for AC systems

Technology

Passenger automobiles (g/mi)

Light trucks (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).

1.5

2.2

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

1.4

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.

1.5

2.2

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.

1.0

1.4

Blower motor controls which limit wasted electrical energy (for example, pulse width modulated power controller).

0.8

1.1

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).

1.0

1.4

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).

1.0

1.4

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.

0.5

0.7

Advanced technology air conditioning compressor with improved efficiency relative to fixed-displacement compressors achieved through the addition of a variable crankcase suction valve.

1.1

1.1

Table A-3. production volume of vehicles with turbocharging

Manufacturer

2020

2021

2022

2023

BMW 31 481 29 190 29 766 28 757
FCA 14 687 23 257 13 364 42 094
Ford 132 368 138 751 157 860 149 263
GM 56 807 65 865 85 352 99 932
Honda 76 355 64 217 52 608 57 211
Hyundai 16 152 14 721 34 665 37 689
JLR 12 771 3 248 1 533 5 576
Kia 2 675 12 627 11 437 16 165
Maserati 268 482 -- --
Mazda 5 416 17 909 8 860 12 769
Mercedes 40 066 33 770 31 710 25 040
Mitsubishi 4 173 0 6 134 5 425
Nissan 3 365 3 457 9 216 35 835
Porsche 6 354 8 145 6 373 8 894
Subaru 12 249 9 046 13 463 11 452
Toyota 7 444 8 336 13 575 31 207
Volkswagen 50 140 66 229 62 025 67 329
Volvo 3 549 3 591 3 540 4 007
Total 476 320 502 841 541 481 638 645

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

Manufacturer

2020

2021

2022

2023

BMW 31 481 29 190 29 766 28 757
FCA 135 261 161 489 160 477 130 049
Ford 159 409 157 435 180 099 164 765
GM 142 300 169 906 165 978 177 814
Honda 154 142 104 166 119 214 100 939
Hyundai 125 654 95 950 122 696 119 260
JLR 14 287 7 510 5 151 10 640
Kia 77 767 72 832 56 665 88 394
Maserati 268 482 -- --
Mazda 40 195 76 502 36 510 48 243
Mercedes 40 066 33 770 31 710 25 040
Mitsubishi 18 586 8 060 28 938 31 302
Nissan 98 928 86 804 60 087 104 985
Porsche 6 761 8 536 7 159 9 545
Subaru 51 253 59 190 38 727 37 829
Toyota 217 303 230 556 200 817 195 954
Volkswagen 49 087 78 027 70 596 78 167
Volvo 10 014 9 568 8 878 9 100
Total 1 372 762 1 389 973 1 323 468 1 360 783

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

Manufacturer

2020

2021

2022

2023

BMW 31 481 29 190 29 766 28 571
FCA 8 156 10 474 12 376 4 182
GM 4 933 13 138 24 488 38 877
Honda 95 409 57 245 76 500 84 919
JLR 14 287 7 510 5 151 10 640
Mercedes 18 149 18 800 18 197 14 570
Mitsubishi 5 545 0 0 0
Nissan 1 903 1 428 1 302 1 716
Porsche 6 761 8 536 5 186 6 654
Toyota 39 288 29 153 25 151 570
Volkswagen 36 835 47 582 43 944 48 779
Total 262 747 223 056 242 061 239 478

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

Manufacturer

2020

2021

2022

2023

BMW 30 975 28 489 29 248 27 992
FCA 116 342 164 272 164 822 131 799
Ford 165 213 171 375 187 707 174 418
GM 101 414 148 952 153 916 176 538
Honda 60 188 39 191 61 383 37 642
Hyundai 33 571 28 398 54 278 52 779
JLR 15 269 8 102 5 151 10 640
Kia 21 058 38 286 30 941 57 805
Maserati 268 482 -- --
Mercedes 40 066 33 770 31 710 25 040
Mitsubishi 4 173 0 18 294 13 821
Nissan 30 762 54 751 39 168 82 178
Porsche 6 317 8 280 6 640 9 244
Subaru 45 076 53 639 36 579 34 262
Toyota 106 374 102 408 105 006 91 984
Volkswagen 49 028 73 805 69 076 75 942
Volvo 10 014 9 568 8 878 9 100
Total 836 108 963 768 1 002 797 1 011 184

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

Manufacturer

2020

2021

2022

2023

FCA 1 026 968 2 412 1789
Ford 11 772 9 262 12 219 10 604
GM 12 178 10 472 16 099 7081
Honda 109 601 74 779 83 143 71 743
Hyundai 46 969 28 991 49 661 48 951
Kia 31 660 42 490 25 806 39 090
Mitsubishi 14 333 7 735 26 648 22 517
Nissan 95 193 83 400 44 136 88 410
Subaru 45 489 53 898 36 662 34 436
Toyota 45 664 28 484 31 102 72 591
Total 413 885 340 479 327 888 397 212

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

Manufacturer

2020

2021

2022

2023

FCA 52 737 51 655 82 676 48 602
Ford 16 696 42 801 42 311 12 033
GM 83 485 103 566 92 496 120 732
Honda 23 086 14 727 26 107 20 759
Mazda 20 472 24 226 10 709 29 090
Mercedes 1 817 2 793 1 459 1 633
Porsche 0 623 546 738
Volkswagen 778 2 220 1 746 2 370
Total 199 071 242 611 258 050 235 957

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

Manufacturer

2020

2021

2022

2023

BMW 31 481 29 190 29 766 22 189
FCA 11 126 15 782 5 069 18 257
Ford 77 783 71 989 95 823 64 592
GM 129 927 161 893 160 805 177 814
Honda 103 952 79 172 78 708 76 322
Hyundai 58 513 56 674 72 712 55 371
JLR 14 287 7 510 5 151 10 640
Kia 44 780 20 887 18 527 15 495
Maserati 268 482 -- --
Mazda 40 195 76 502 36 510 48 243
Mercedes 40 059 33 770 31 707 24 978
Mitsubishi 0 0 12 160 8 396
Nissan 32 920 55 765 45 334 82 926
Porsche 0 254 7 159 9 545
Subaru 49 459 58 414 38 138 36 318
Toyota 2 655 497 355 570
Volkswagen 52 340 78 096 70 410 77 358
Volvo 10 014 9 568 8 878 9 100
Total 699 759 756 445 717 212 738 114

Table A-10. production volume of diesel vehicles

Manufacturer

2020

2021

2022

2023

FCA 3 489 3 305 3 921 391
Ford 265 501 0 0
GM 5 651 19 308 16 581 15 693
JLR 982 592 0 0
Total 10 387 23 706 20 502 16 084

Page details

2025-02-20