Greenhouse Gas Emissions Performance for the 2024 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

EC25076

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

Place Vincent Massey Building

351 Saint-Joseph Boulevard

Gatineau QC J8Y 3Z5

Toll Free: 1-800-668-6767 (in Canada only)

Cover photo: © GettyImages.ca

© His Majesty the King in Right of Canada, represented by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and Nature, 2026

Aussi disponible en français

List of acronyms

AC – Air conditioner

ATV – Advanced technology vehicle

CAFE – Corporate average fuel economy

CEPA – Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999

CO – Carbon monoxide

CO2 – Carbon dioxide

CO2e – Carbon dioxide equivalent

CREE – Carbon related exhaust emissions

CWF – Carbon weight fraction

EPA – Environmental Protection Agency

FCEV – Fuel cell electric vehicle

FTP – Federal test procedure

GHG – Greenhouse gas

g/mi – grams per mile

HC – Hydrocarbons

HFET – Highway fuel economy test

LT – Light truck

NOx – Oxides of nitrogen

N2O – Nitrous oxide

PA – Passenger automobile

PM – Particulate matter

TOF – Temporary optional fleet

VMT – Vehicle miles travelled

ZEV – Zero emission vehicle

List of tables

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 45.7% and 40.9% 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 14.8% for the 2024 model year. More specifically, battery electric vehicles have increased from 198 to 184,402 representing 10.7% of the total fleet in 2024, and the volume of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles has increased from 0 to 69,598 representing 4.0% of the total fleet in 2024. 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 2024 model years

Increase in ZEV production from the 2011 to 2024 model
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 2024 model year. The average compliance value for the fleet of new passenger automobiles has decreased from 255 g/mi to 118 g/mi since the introduction of the regulation, representing a 53.7% reduction.

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

Average GHG emissions performance - passenger
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 2011-2024 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

127

2024

158

118

The compliance value for light trucks decreased by 37.3%, from 349 g/mi to 219 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

Average GHG emissions performance - light trucks
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 2011-2024 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

294

2019

282

290

2020

272

277

2021

264

263

2022

264

264

2023

234

241

2024

217

219

Under the regulations, companies have generated a total of approximately 124.9 million credits, of which, approximately 31.9 million are available for future use. A total of 42.4 million credits have been used to offset emission deficits by individual companies over the 2011 to 2024 model years, of which 3.4 million credits were used to offset deficits accrued in the 2024 model year. The remaining 50.6 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 2023 model year, this report focuses on the GHG emissions performance of the last 4 model years (2021-2024). 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 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 emission credit balances, track transfers between companies, and assess whether the regulatory requirements have been met. 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 2021 to 2024 model years are listed in Table 1.

Table 1. Model year report submission status

Manufacturer

Common Name

2021

2022

2023

2024

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

Lucid Motors Canada ULC

Lucid

--

*

*

*

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

-- Indicates that a report was not 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

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

2011 to 2026 targets for passenger automobiles
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

2011 to 2026 targets for light truck
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 CO2 /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 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

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

The final company-unique fleet average CO2e standards for the 2021 to 2024 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

2021 PA

2022 PA

2023 PA

2024 PA

2021 LT

2022 LT

2023 LT

2024 LT

BMW

183

182

167

159

256

251

217

210

FCA

205

203

187

152

282

291

255

227

Ford

194

190

178

165

291

281

268

243

GM

177

175

161

159

293

286

253

243

Honda

180

177

164

156

237

240

215

202

Hyundai

179

177

163

162

252

240

216

201

JLR

183

181

163

161

256

257

230

219

Kia

177

176

161

159

234

239

211

202

Lucid

--

202

189

180

--

--

--

--

Maserati

212

--

--

--

262

--

--

--

Mazda

178

173

161

155

231

228

204

200

Mercedes

192

190

178

171

255

251

226

217

Mitsubishi

171

167

150

140

219

222

199

189

Nissan

179

176

162

153

234

247

210

204

Porsche

178

173

162

145

251

248

221

210

Rivian

--

--

--

--

--

--

260

242

Subaru

174

173

158

150

225

227

202

189

Tesla

198

195

180

171

253

249

223

251

Toyota

179

176

163

155

249

246

221

210

VinFast

--

--

187

180

--

--

--

--

Volkswagen

178

176

162

152

247

240

214

200

Volvo

191

185

168

160

249

246

219

208

Fleet Average

181

179

166

158

264

264

234

217

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 2021 to 2024 model years (discussed in section 2.3.7.).

Table 3. Average footprint for the 2021 to 2024 model years (sq. ft.)

Manufacturer

2021 PA

2022 PA

2023 PA

2024 PA

2021 LT

2022 LT

2023 LT

2024 LT

BMW

46.2

46.9

47.1

46.8

52

51.8

50

51

FCA

52.0

52.3

52.5

43.3

57.8

61.2

59.7

55.7

Ford

49.2

49.8

50.4

48.7

61

60.1

63

59.8

GM

43.3

43.9

45.4

47.0

61.8

61.3

59.3

59.9

Honda

45.7

45.8

46.1

46.1

47.8

49.5

49.5

49

Hyundai

45.3

45.7

46.0

47.9

51.2

49.4

49.7

48.6

JLR

46.4

46.8

45.8

47.7

52

53.2

53.2

53.5

Kia

44.9

45.3

45.4

46.9

47

49.2

48.6

49

Lucid

--

52.1

53.2

53.2

--

--

--

--

Maserati

53.7

--

--

--

53.4

--

--

--

Mazda

44.9

44.4

44.9

45.4

46.5

46.7

46.7

48.6

Mercedes

48.7

49.4

50.4

50.6

51.8

51.9

52.2

52.9

Mitsubishi

42.4

41.8

40.4

38.7

43.9

45.3

45.6

45.6

Nissan

45.4

45.4

45.5

45.1

47.1

50.9

48.4

49.5

Porsche

45.1

44.5

45.5

42.8

50.8

51.1

50.9

51.2

Rivian

--

--

--

--

--

--

60.7

59.5

Subaru

44.2

44.7

44.4

44.5

45.2

46.4

46.3

45.5

Tesla

50.1

50.3

50.5

50.6

51.3

51.5

51.6

61.9

Toyota

45.4

45.4

45.8

45.8

50.6

50.9

50.9

51.2

VinFast

--

--

52.7

53.6

--

--

--

--

Volkswagen

45.2

45.3

45.6

45.0

50.1

49.4

49.3

48.5

Volvo

48.3

47.6

47.3

47.3

50.5

50.7

50.6

50.7

Fleet Average

45.8

46.3

46.8

46.7

54.4

55.4

54.5

53.1

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 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 in Canada or imported into Canada for the purpose of sale.

The calculated fleet average CREE values achieved by companies over the 2021 to 2024 model years are presented in Table 4.

Table 4: fleet average carbon related exhaust emissions (g/mi)

Manufacturer

2021 PA

2022 PA

2023 PA

2024 PA

2021 LT

2022 LT

2023 LT

2024 LT

BMW

233

223

178

170

274

266

228

228

FCA

326

336

356

40

347

360

341

318

Ford

107

107

40

99

316

311

300

291

GM

206

160

101

204

351

344

331

285

Honda

213

201

209

208

252

269

259

229

Hyundai

187

178

159

95

293

242

253

239

JLR

309

342

360

333

320

332

340

319

Kia

181

174

164

96

265

271

255

245

LucidFootnote 11

--

0

0

0

--

--

--

--

Maserati

379

--

--

--

390

--

--

--

Mazda

229

197

194

221

261

262

255

242

Mercedes

278

260

170

150

316

314

280

278

Mitsubishi

183

157

200

178

261

251

189

187

Nissan

219

208

197

175

246

284

240

248

Porsche

217

263

251

312

329

335

333

293

RivianFootnote 11

--

--

--

--

--

--

0

0

Subaru

268

256

284

262

229

246

213

224

TeslaFootnote 11

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Toyota

187

187

166

148

248

250

221

213

VinFastFootnote 11

--

--

0

0

--

--

--

--

Volkswagen

223

236

229

184

288

270

220

241

Volvo

87

43

21

17

249

245

240

218

Fleet Average

188

173

149

141

298

300

274

254

2.3. Compliance flexibilities

The regulations provide various compliance flexibilities that encourage the introduction of advanced technologies which reduce GHG emissions, account for innovative technologies whose impacts are not easily measured during standard emissions tests, and reduce the compliance burden on low and intermediate volume companies. 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 2021 to 2024 model years.

Table 5: allowance for reduction in AC refrigerant leakage (g/mi)

Manufacturer

2021 PA

2022 PA

2023 PA

2024 PA

2021 LT

2022 LT

2023 LT

2024 LT

BMW

13.6

13.7

13.7

13.7

17.2

17.2

17.2

17.2

FCA

13.8

13.8

13.8

13.8

17.2

17.2

17.2

17.2

Ford

13.8

13.8

13.8

13.8

17.2

17.2

17.2

17.2

GM

13.6

13.6

13.8

13.8

17.2

17.2

17.2

17.2

Honda

13.5

12.3

12.1

12.1

17.2

16.7

15.7

15.7

Hyundai

13.7

13.6

13.6

13.7

16.9

17.1

17.1

17.1

JLR

13.7

12.3

13.7

13.7

17.2

16.7

17

17

Kia

13.5

13.5

13.6

13.7

16.9

16.6

16.9

17

Lucid

--

13.8

13.8

13.8

--

--

--

--

Maserati

13.8

--

--

--

17.2

--

--

--

Mazda

12

13.5

13.4

13.7

15.1

16.8

17

16.8

Mercedes

13.8

13.8

14.3

13.8

17.2

17.2

16.8

17.2

Mitsubishi

13.1

13.4

13.3

13.6

15.9

16.4

16.3

16.3

Nissan

13.3

13.3

12.1

13.6

16.7

16.7

16.6

16.7

Porsche

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

Rivian

--

--

--

--

--

--

17.2

17.2

Subaru

12.1

12

12

12

15.1

15.3

15.2

15.1

Tesla

13.6

13.5

13.6

13.6

17

16.6

16.4

16.9

Toyota

12

12

12.9

13

15.4

15.7

16.2

16.3

VinFast

--

--

13.8

11.7

--

--

--

--

Volkswagen

13.5

13.3

13.2

13.3

16.7

16.6

16.6

16.4

Volvo

13.8

13.8

13.8

13.7

17.1

17.2

17.2

16.4

Fleet Average

13.1

13.0

13.1

13.2

16.6

16.7

16.7

16.6

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

Improvements to the efficiency of vehicle air conditioning systems can result in significant reductions in CO2e emissions that are not directly measurable during standard emissions test procedures. Implementing specific technologies (for example, more efficient compressors, motors, fans etc.) can reduce the amount of engine power required to operate the air conditioning system which, in turn, reduces the quantity of fuel that is consumed and converted into CO2. The regulations contain provisions which recognize the reduced GHG emissions from AC systems with improved efficiency. Manufacturers can claim these allowances by either submitting proof of U.S. EPA approval for the efficiency-improving technology, or by selecting, during reporting, the applicable technologies from a pre-approved menu (Appendix A-2) that have an assigned value. These allowance values are aligned with those established by the U.S. EPA and may be applied cumulatively to an AC system. For the 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 2021 to 2024 model years.

Table 6: allowance for improvements in AC system efficiency (g/mi)

Manufacturer

2021 PA

2022 PA

2023 PA

2024 PA

2021 LT

2022 LT

2023 LT

2024 LT

BMW

4.9

5

5

4.9

7.1

7.2

7.2

7.2

FCA

5.0

4.8

5.0

3.7

6.9

7

7

7

Ford

4.7

4.9

4.7

4.8

7.1

7.1

7.1

7.1

GM

3.7

3.5

4.4

4.5

7

6.8

7

7

Honda

3.6

4.5

4.2

4.2

5.3

6.5

7.2

7.2

Hyundai

3.2

3.3

3.6

3.6

4.4

4.9

5

5.2

JLR

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

7.2

7.2

7.2

6.3

Kia

3.3

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.6

4

4.4

4.2

Lucid

--

5.0

5.0

5.0

--

--

--

--

Maserati

5.0

--

--

--

7.2

--

--

--

Mazda

1.4

3.6

4.4

4.5

1.2

4.7

5.2

6.2

Mercedes

5.0

5.0

5.2

5.0

7.2

6.9

7

7.2

Mitsubishi

4.4

4.5

4.3

4.3

5.3

6.3

5.9

5.9

Nissan

4.1

4.3

4.2

3.9

5.4

5.2

6.3

6.6

Porsche

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

Rivian

--

--

--

--

--

--

6.2

6.2

Subaru

3.4

4.1

4.2

4.7

6.5

6.6

6.1

6.8

Tesla

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

7.2

7.2

7.2

7.2

Toyota

4.8

4.7

4.6

4.5

6.6

6.7

6.3

6.1

VinFast

--

--

5.0

4.2

--

--

--

--

Volkswagen

4.8

4.6

4.2

4.4

7

6.7

6.8

6.3

Volvo

4.0

3.7

3.5

3.5

6.3

6.5

6.2

6.5

Fleet Average

3.9

4.2

4.2

4.2

6.2

6.5

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 2021 to 2024.

Table 7: allowance for the use of innovative technologies (g/mi)

Manufacturer

2021 PA

2022 PA

2023 PA

2024 PA

2021 LT

2022 LT

2023 LT

2024 LT

BMW

7.5

6.2

6

5.9

13.4

12.4

12.3

12.6

FCA

11.5

4.7

2.6

4.9

10.8

11.1

9

10.9

Ford

5.5

5.8

4.2

6

17.1

14.7

11.5

12.5

GM

6.1

6

3.8

6.6

12.2

13.3

13.2

13.1

Honda

5

7.9

6.3

7.9

12.8

16.8

12.9

14.1

Hyundai

4.5

5.2

3.6

4.4

12.8

14.1

11.8

10.8

JLR

5.9

6.1

5

5.2

13.2

15.6

15.6

13.7

Kia

4.5

4.7

3.8

4.6

9.2

9.9

10.4

10.2

Lucid

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

Maserati

6.7

--

--

--

13.8

--

--

--

Mazda

2.6

3.8

3.5

4.1

6.8

9.5

7

8.6

Mercedes

2.2

2.5

3.2

4.6

3.7

4.3

5.3

7.4

Mitsubishi

2.8

2.8

0.9

0.7

4.8

5.7

3.9

4

Nissan

3.1

5

2

3.3

6.5

6.5

8.9

10.6

Porsche

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

Rivian

--

--

--

--

--

--

3.6

3.6

Subaru

1.9

2.5

1.4

3.6

8

8.7

5.1

7

Tesla

4.7

4.7

4.7

4.8

6.8

6.9

6.9

7.8

Toyota

6

6.1

5

5.6

11.7

12

10.6

12.2

VinFast

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

Volkswagen

8.1

8.7

7.1

7.3

13

13.8

11.1

13.9

Volvo

4.3

4.5

4.3

4.3

8.8

11.2

11.9

12.8

Fleet Average

4.9

5.7

4.2

5.3

11.7

12.3

10.6

11.4

2.3.4. Allowance for certain full-size pick-up trucks (H)

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.

In the 2024 model year Ford and Toyota made use of the allowance for the use of hybrid technologies on full-size pick-up trucks, generating 1.1 g/mile and 0.4 g/mile respectively.

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

2021 PA

2022 PA

2023 PA

2024 PA

2021 LT

2022 LT

2023 LT

2024 LT

BMW

391

1 013

2 743

3 613

--

406

1 792

1 683

FCA

--

--

--

4 145

--

--

--

--

Ford

5 267

6 013

10 219

7 298

--

2 122

9 507

7 518

GM

1 561

5 549

17 647

4 217

--

--

319

19 359

Honda

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

1 444

Hyundai

8 130

9 481

15 874

27 498

--

--

--

--

JLR

--

--

--

--

39

52

46

110

Kia

2 130

2 878

6 187

12 191

--

--

--

2 223

Lucid

--

99

94

140

--

--

--

--

Mazda

--

1 068

809

29

--

--

--

--

Mercedes

--

400

3 437

2 516

--

--

1 069

100

Mitsubishi

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

Nissan

439

916

4 650

5 409

--

--

--

--

Porsche

507

614

640

430

--

--

--

494

Rivian

--

--

--

--

--

--

883

967

Subaru

--

--

--

--

--

--

2 950

2 701

Tesla

32 414

47 711

63 824

45 074

1 450

2 811

3 359

4 108

Toyota

--

--

1 725

4 063

--

--

4 804

2 487

VinFast

--

--

801

1 764

--

--

--

--

Volkswagen

329

409

1 190

7 424

1 783

2 838

11 200

10 312

Volvo

877

1 954

4 472

5 085

--

--

--

--

Total

52 045

78 105

134 312

130 896

3 272

8 229

35 929

53 506

Table 10: production volumes of PHEVs by model year

Manufacturer

2021 PA

2022 PA

2023 PA

2024 PA

2021 LT

2022 LT

2023 LT

2024 LT

BMW

592

1 026

1 215

397

1 098

1 788

1 251

1 588

FCA

--

--

--

3 352

5 138

6 721

7 169

7 387

Ford

2 010

3 858

4 668

7 212

141

140

228

--

GM

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

Honda

172

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

Hyundai

900

381

--

--

--

3 651

2 233

3 616

JLR

--

--

--

--

140

--

37

127

Kia

488

749

351

1 231

-

674

1 914

874

Lucid

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

Mazda

--

--

--

285

--

--

--

4 642

Mercedes

--

--

49

--

--

--

8 624

733

Mitsubishi

300

2 105

--

--

--

--

--

13 823

Nissan

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

Porsche

68

53

180

--

186

291

452

626

Rivian

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

Subaru

--

--

--

--

259

83

174

--

Tesla

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

Toyota

4 254

4 175

2 100

5 961

4 939

1 904

8 103

14 412

VinFast

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

Volkswagen

10

20

7

67

70

121

320

268

Volvo

99

95

92

432

1 395

1 611

1 484

2 556

Total

8 893

12 462

8 662

18 937

13 366

16 984

31 989

50 652

Figure 4 provides a graphical representation of the overall growth in ZEV production for 2011 to 2024 model years.

Figure 4: Increase in ZEV production from the 2011 to 2024 model years

Increase in ZEV production from the 2011 to 2024 model
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:

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

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

c. submit a small volume declaration to ECCC

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

Table 11 summarizes the production volumes reported by small volume companies. This flexibility was claimed by 6 small volume companies for the 2021 to 2024 model years.

Table 11: production volumes for small volume manufacturers by model year

Manufacturer

2021

2022

2023

2024

Aston Martin

132

83

219

47

Ferrari

313

493

345

348

Lotus

18

0

0

0

Maserati

474

677

1,238

448

McLaren

84

79

111

108

Morgan Olson

--

40

1 681

0

Total

1,021

1,372

2,815

951

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 2021 to 2024 model years (Mg CO2e)

Manufacturer

2021 PA

2022 PA

2023 PA

2024 PA

2021 LT

2022 LT

2023 LT

2024 LT

BMW

-99

-256

-271

-434

--

-83

-108

-103

FCA

--

--

--

-2 927

-9 788

-11 612

-1 158

-115

Ford

-15

-11

--

--

-5 998

-6 932

-7 149

--

GM

--

--

--

--

-105 252

-52 624

-36 969

-80 357

Hyundai

-541

-1042

-1153

-192

--

--

--

--

JLR

--

--

--

--

-797

--

--

--

Kia

-754

-1 410

-1 099

--

--

--

--

--

Mazda

-2 001

-547

-690

-1 363

-9 740

-5 330

-7 797

-14 134

Subaru

--

--

-352

-988

--

--

--

--

Toyota

-1 295

-149

-117

-185

-10 602

-5 065

-4 691

-2 706

Volkswagen

-28

-68

--

--

-149

-226

--

--

Fleet Total

-4 733

-3 483

-3 682

-6 089

142 326-

-81 872

-57 872

-97 415

Table 13: CH4 emissions deficits by company for the 2021 to 2024 model years (Mg CO2e)

Manufacturer

2021 PA

2022 PA

2023 PA

2024 PA

2021 LT

2022 LT

2023 LT

2024 LT

FCA

--

-55

--

--

-149

-259

-74

-24

Ford

-299

-275

-81

--

-1 879

-1 829

-1 462

-319

GM

-52

--

--

--

-9

-36

-5

-4

Mazda

-194

-96

-28

-21

-20

--

--

-169

Volkswagen

-27

-36

--

-6

--

--

--

--

Fleet Total

-572

-462

-109

-27

-2 057

-2 124

-1 541

-516

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 2021 to 2024 model years. Figures 5 and 6 shows the trends in manufacturer performance over the 2021 to 2024 model years.

Table 14: PA compliance and standard values over the 2021 to 2024 model years (g/mi)

Manufacturer

2021 Compliance

2022 Compliance

2023 Compliance

2024 Compliance

2021 Std.

2022 Std.

2023 Std.

2024 Std.

BMW

207

198

153

146

183

182

167

159

FCA

296

313

335

18

205

203

187

152

Ford

83

83

17

74

194

190

178

165

GM

183

137

79

179

177

175

161

159

Honda

191

176

186

184

180

177

164

156

Hyundai

166

156

138

73

179

177

163

162

JLR

284

319

336

309

183

181

163

161

Kia

160

153

143

74

177

176

161

159

LucidFootnote 14

--

-19

-19

-19

--

202

189

180

Maserati

354

--

--

--

212

--

--

--

Mazda

213

176

173

199

178

173

161

155

Mercedes

257

239

147

127

192

190

178

171

Mitsubishi

163

136

182

159

171

167

150

140

Nissan

199

185

179

154

179

176

162

153

Porsche

217

263

251

312

178

173

162

145

RivianFootnote 14

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

Subaru

251

237

266

242

174

173

158

150

TeslaFootnote 14

-23

-23

-23

-23

198

195

180

171

Toyota

164

164

144

125

179

176

163

155

VinFastFootnote 14

--

--

-19

-16

--

--

187

180

Volkswagen

197

209

205

159

178

176

162

152

Volvo

65

21

-1

-5

191

185

168

160

Fleet Average

166

150

127

118

181

179

166

158

Figure 5: Change to PA performance over the 2021 to 2024 model years

Change to PA performance over the 2021 to 2024 model
Figure 5 long description

Figure 5 provides a graphical representation of how each company’s passenger automobile performance has changed over the 2021 to 2024 model years.

Table 15: LT compliance and standard values over the 2021 to 2024 model years (g/mi)

Manufacturer

2021 Compliance

2022 Compliance

2023 Compliance

2024 Compliance

2021 Std.

2022 Std.

2023 Std.

2024 Std.

BMW

236

229

191

191

256

251

217

210

FCA

312

325

308

283

282

291

255

227

Ford

275

272

264

254

291

281

268

243

GM

315

307

294

248

293

286

253

243

Honda

217

229

223

192

237

240

215

202

Hyundai

259

206

219

206

252

240

216

201

JLR

282

293

300

282

256

257

230

219

Kia

235

241

223

214

234

239

211

202

LucidFootnote 14

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

Maserati

352

--

--

--

262

--

--

--

Mazda

238

231

226

210

231

228

204

200

Mercedes

288

286

251

246

255

251

226

217

Mitsubishi

235

223

163

161

219

222

199

189

Nissan

217

256

208

214

234

247

210

204

Porsche

329

335

333

293

251

248

221

210

RivianFootnote 14

--

--

-27

-27

--

--

260

242

Subaru

199

215

187

195

225

227

202

189

TeslaFootnote 14

-31

-31

-31

-32

253

249

223

251

Toyota

214

216

188

178

249

246

221

210

VinFastFootnote 14

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

Volkswagen

251

233

186

204

247

240

214

200

Volvo

217

210

205

182

249

246

219

208

Fleet Average

263

264

241

219

264

264

234

217

Figure 6: Change to LT performance over the 2021 to 2024 model years

Change to LT performance over the 2021 to 2024 model
Figure 6 long description

Figure 6 provides a graphical representation of how each company’s light truck performance has changed over the 2021 to 2024 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 2024 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: 2024 passenger automobile compliance status with offsets

2024 passenger automobile compliance status with offsets
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 2024 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 170 146 18.6 5.9 159
FCA 40 18 17.5 4.9 152
Ford 99 74 18.6 6.0 165
GM 204 179 18.3 6.6 159
Honda 208 184 16.3 7.9 156
Hyundai 95 73 17.3 4.4 162
JLR 333 309 18.7 5.2 161
Kia 96 74 17.3 4.6 159
Mazda 221 199 18.2 4.1 155
Mercedes 150 127 18.8 4.6 171
Mitsubishi 178 159 17.9 0.7 140
Nissan 175 154 17.5 3.3 153
Porsche 312 312 -- -- 145
Subaru 262 242 16.7 3.6 150
Toyota 148 125 17.5 5.6 155
VW 184 159 17.7 7.3 152
Volvo 17 -5 17.2 4.3 160

Notes:

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

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

Figure 8: 2024 light truck compliance status with offsets

2024 light truck compliance status with offsets
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 2024 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 12.6 210
FCA 318 283 24.2 10.9 227
Ford 291 254 24.3 12.5 243
GM 285 248 24.2 13.1 243
Honda 229 192 22.9 14.1 202
Hyundai 239 206 22.3 10.8 201
JLR 323 286 23.3 13.7 219
Kia 245 214 21.2 10.2 202
Mazda 242 210 23.0 8.6 200
Mercedes 278 246 24.4 7.4 217
Mitsubishi 187 161 22.2 4.0 189
Nissan 248 214 23.2 10.6 204
Porsche 312 312 -- -- 210
Subaru 224 195 21.9 7.0 189
Toyota 213 178 22.4 12.2 210
VW 241 204 22.7 13.9 200
Volvo 218 182 22.9 12.8 208

Notes:

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

  2. Tesla, Rivian, Lucid 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 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 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 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

2021

2022

2023

2024

Turbocharging

33.6

37.1

40.6

44.5

VVT

92.8

90.7

86.5

87.3

VVL

14.9

16.6

15.2

16.1

Higher Geared Transmission

64.4

68.7

63.9

61.6

CVT

22.7

22.5

25.7

28.3

Cylinder Deactivation

16.2

17.7

15

12.6

GDI

50.5

49.1

46.9

50.3

Diesel

1.6

1.4

1.0

1.8

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 vehicle miles traveled (VMT) to account for the greater number of miles 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

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

(a) 195,264 miles for a fleet of passenger automobiles, or

(b) 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 32 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 2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

Total

FCA

0

30 103

0

0

0

0

30 103

Honda

2 138 563

4 269 910

0

0

0

0

6 408 473

Hyundai

0

0

189 003

25 997

0

0

215 000

Lucid

0

0

0

6 381

5 721

2 898

15 000

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

5 247 606

2 987 365

3 315 527

3 928 061

2 000 000

17 480 851

Toyota

2 623 142

3 276 435

777 825

0

0

0

6 677 402

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 2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

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

7 758 827

969 820

6 381

5 721

2 898

13 518 776

Ferrari

8 473

0

0

0

0

0

8 473

Ford

342 272

257 728

0

2 000 000

2 000 000

0

4 600 000

GM

0

1 419 718

417 545

1 015 527

1 928 061

2 000 000

6 780 851

JLR

143 369

130 162

0

0

0

0

273 531

Lotus

0

139

0

0

0

0

139

Maserati

3 740

30 103

0

0

0

0

33 843

Mazda

0

452 175

1 277 825

0

0

0

1 730 000

Mercedes

0

1 745 000

1 100 000

300 000

0

0

3 145 000

Porsche

0

444 141

189 003

25 997

0

0

659 141

Subaru

0

300 000

0

0

0

0

300 000

Volkswagen

500 000

0

0

0

0

0

500 000

3.2. Total credits generated and final status

Table 18 shows the credits earned (or deficits incurred) by all companies over the 2024 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 124.9 million emission credits (including early action credits), of which approximately 31.9 million credits remain for future use. A total of 42.4 million credits have been used to offset deficits and 50.6 million credits have expired.

Table 18: net credits by model year and current credit balance (Mg CO2e)

Manufacturers

Generated Credit/Deficit in 2024

Current BalanceFootnote 18

BMW

139 767

486 626

FCA

-813 210

1 393 745

Ford

44 649

7 406 065

GM

-523 022

6 552 509

Honda

-105 608

974 887

Hyundai

1 268 982

2 483 689

JLR

-138 705

0

Kia

494 082

1 035 553

Lucid

8 152

5 254

Mazda

-241 936

1 261 811

Mercedes

-28 917

1 057 277

Mitsubishi

282 897

648 337

Nissan

-105 034

100 050

Porsche

-293 632

0

Rivian

88 099

173 925

Subaru

-259 970

780 787

Tesla

2 960 203

1 121 050

Toyota

1 799 811

5 089 690

VinFast

101 215

149 518

Volkswagen

-158 038

137 459

Volvo

342 431

1 006 200

Total

4 820 216

31 864 432

4. Overall industry performance

The overall fleet average compliance information for passenger automobiles and light trucks is summarized in Tables 19 and 20. Additionally, Figures 9 and 10 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 2024 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

4.9

13.1

3.9

166

181

15

2022

173

5.7

13.0

4.2

150

179

29

2023

149

4.2

13.1

4.2

127

166

39

2024

141

5.3

13.2

4.2

118

158

40

Figure 9: average GHG emissions performance - passenger automobiles

average GHG emissions performance - passenger
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 2011-2024 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

127

2024

158

118

Table 20: light truck compliance summary for the 2011 to 2024 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

-5

2021

298

11.7

16.6

6.2

263

264

1

2022

300

12.3

16.7

6.5

264

264

0

2023

274

10.6

16.7

6.5

241

234

-7

2024

254

11.4

16.6

6.5

219

217

-2

Figure 10: average GHG emissions performance - light trucks

average GHG emissions performance
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 2011-2024 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

294

2019

282

290

2020

272

277

2021

264

263

2022

264

264

2023

234

241

2024

217

219

As depicted in Figures 9 and 10, the 2024 model year saw the overall compliance value for passenger automobiles decrease to 118 g/mi, and the overall compliance value for light trucks decrease to 219 g/mi. This has resulted in an overall net improvement of 53.7% and 38.3% 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 2024 model year.

5. Zero-Emission Vehicle Requirements

On December 20, 2023 Environment and Climate Change Canada published the Regulations Amending the Regulations Respecting Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Passenger Automobiles and Light Trucks (Amendments). The Amendments establish annual ZEV regulatory targets and a compliance unit system that will require manufacturers and importers to meet an annual percentage target of new light-duty ZEVs offered for sale in Canada. The Amendments apply to all companies that manufacture new passenger cars, SUVs, and pickup trucks in Canada, or import those vehicles into Canada for the purpose of selling them to the first retail purchaser. On September 5, 2025, the Prime Minister announced that the Government would remove the 2026 ZEV target from the regulations and launch a 60-day review of the overall regulations.  This report does not reflect the announced removal of the 2026 target nor any potential changes which may result from the review. 

Figure 11 depicts the ZEV targets published in December 2023, which require 100% of new passenger car and light truck sales in Canada to be ZEVs by 2035, with interim targets of 20% by 2026, and 60% by 2030.

Figure 11: Annual ZEV targets

Annual ZEV targets
Figure 11 long description

Figure 11 depicts the ZEV targets which require 100% of new passenger car and light truck sales in Canada to be ZEVs by 2035, with interim targets of 20% by 2026, and 60% by 2030.

The Amendments establish a methodology for determining whether the fleet offered for sale in Canada meets the ZEV target for a given model year. If a company exceeds its ZEV target, it earns compliance units for excess ZEVs offered for sale. These compliance units can be used to offset a deficit for a limited number of years in the future. If a company misses its ZEV target, it incurs a compliance deficit, which must be satisfied by obtaining compliance units within a limited time frame. Compliance deficits can be satisfied with banked compliance units, by over-complying in future model years, by purchasing ZEV compliance units from other companies, or by creating some compliance units through financial contributions towards the construction of charging infrastructure.

5.1. Early Compliance Units

The Amendments allow a company to earn early compliance units for offering ZEVs for sale in model years 2024 and 2025 within a specific threshold. Manufacturers that meet the requirements to qualify for early compliance units can generate compliance units that equal up to 12 percent of their fleets of vehicles in model year 2024, and 7 percent of their fleets in model year 2025. Early compliance units may not be traded and cannot be used after model year 2027.

This flexibility provision provides an incentive for companies to offer ZEVs for sale in the short term and may serve an additional source of compliance units for some companies. Table 21 shows the early compliance units generated by companies for the 2024 model year.

Table 21: Early compliance units

Manufacturers

Compliance Units

BMW

3 258

FCA

1 679

Ford

3 321

GM

3 171

Honda

0

Hyundai

15 008

JLR

0

Kia

9 472

Lucid

17

Mazda

0

Mercedes

1 543

Mitsubishi

6 222

Nissan

0

Porsche

75

Rivian

116

Subaru

0

Tesla

5 902

Toyota

6 378

VinFast

212

Volkswagen

6 436

Volvo

1 921

Total

64 731

Appendix

Table A-1: production volumes by company

Manufacturer

2021 PA

2021 LT

2021 All

2022 PA

2022 LT

2022 All

2023 PA

2023 LT

2023 All

2024 PA

2024 LT

2024 All

Aston Martin

38

94

132

45

38

83

95

124

219

17

30

47

BMW

14 450

15 221

29 671

12 983

18 202

31 185

13 240

20 052

33 292

14 461

21 310

35 771

FCA

5 834

161 482

167 316

7 350

161 888

169 238

9 066

125 645

134 711

7 623

84 189

91 812

Ferrari

313

0

313

493

0

493

345

0

345

 

 

348

Ford

13 091

174 247

187 338

15 597

194 354

209 951

16 939

186 341

203 280

21 105

187 581

208 686

GM

18 572

172 203

190 775

23 379

164 729

188 108

32 838

178 635

211 473

38 474

216 593

255 067

Honda

39 703

64 463

104 166

60 849

58 365

119 214

37 664

63 275

100 939

47 745

67 269

115 014

Hyundai

84 131

19 949

104 080

80 506

51 671

132 177

84 984

50 157

135 141

61 927

63 142

125 069

JLR

268

7 873

8 141

92

5 111

5 203

241

10 445

10 686

332

8 980

9 312

Kia

34 294

40 668

74 962

25 897

33 646

59 543

40 783

53 798

94 581

30 472

51 032

81 504

Lotus

18

0

18

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Lucid

0

0

0

99

0

99

94

0

94

140

0

140

Maserati

212

262

474

183

484

667

153

1 085

1 238

107

341

448

Mazda

25 103

51 399

76 502

12 026

25 552

37 578

9 238

39 814

49 052

10 880

61 387

72 267

McLaren

84

0

84

79

0

79

111

0

111

108

0

108

Mercedes

8 446

25 324

33 770

8 354

23 756

32 110

11 891

17 655

29 546

7 181

15 572

22 753

Mitsubishi

1 181

6 879

8 060

4 640

24 298

28 938

3 295

28 007

31 302

7 262

44 587

51 849

Morgan Olson

0

0

0

0

40

40

0

1 681

1 681

0

0

0

Nissan

55 002

32 241

87 243

33 663

27 340

61 003

52 483

57 152

109 635

50 808

40 546

91 354

Porsche

2 380

6 663

9 043

3 320

4 453

7 773

3 196

6 989

10 185

4 327

7 470

11 797

Rivian

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

883

883

0

967

967

Subaru

5 794

53 396

59 190

7 453

31 274

38 727

7 598

33 181

40 779

8 243

79 494

87 737

Tesla

32 414

1 450

33 864

47 711

2 811

50 522

63 824

3 359

67 183

45 074

4 108

49 182

Toyota

77 815

152 741

230 556

71 183

129 656

200 839

45 683

156 813

202 496

60 742

191 334

252 076

VinFast

0

0

0

0

0

0

801

0

801

1 764

0

1 764

Volkswagen

26 775

53 433

80 208

27 245

46 739

73 984

28 064

62 500

90 564

42 749

99 009

141 758

Volvo

1 807

8 638

10 445

2 628

8 204

10 832

5 168

8 404

13 572

5 958

10 049

16 007

Fleet Total

447 725

1 048 626

1 496 351

445 775

1 012 611

1 458 386

467 794

1 105 995

1 573 789

467 847

1 254 990

1 722 837

Figure A-1: 2021 passenger automobile compliance status with offsets

2021 passenger automobile compliance status with offsets
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 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. Tesla, Rivian and VinFast produce electric vehicles, whose compliance values fall outside of the range of this graph.

Figure A-2: 2022 passenger automobile compliance status with offsets

2022 passenger automobile compliance status with offsets
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 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-3: 2023 passenger automobile compliance status with offsets

2023 passenger automobile compliance status with offsets
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 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 A-4: 2021 light truck compliance status with offsets

2021 light truck compliance status with offsets
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 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-5: 2022 light truck compliance status with offsets

2022 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 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.

Figure A-6: 2023 light truck compliance status with offsets

2023 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 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.

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

2021

2022

2023

2024

BMW

29 190

29 766

28 757

30 475

FCA

23 257

13 364

42 094

28 240

Ford

138 751

157 860

149 263

163 865

GM

65 865

85 352

99 932

156 378

Honda

64 217

52 608

57 211

52 711

Hyundai

14 721

34 665

37 689

36 718

JLR

3 248

1 533

5 576

4 531

Kia

12 627

11 437

16 165

10 390

Maserati

482

--

--

 

Mazda

17 909

8 860

12 769

23 342

Mercedes

33 770

31 710

25 040

14 767

Mitsubishi

0

6 134

5 425

8 010

Nissan

3 457

9 216

35 835

25 457

Porsche

8 145

6 373

8 894

9 574

Subaru

9 046

13 463

11 452

12 715

Toyota

8 336

13 575

31 207

56 937

Volkswagen

66 229

62 025

67 329

123 727

Volvo

3 591

3 540

4 007

9 179

Total

502 841

541 481

638 645

767 816

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

Manufacturer

2021

2022

2023

2024

BMW

29 190

29 766

28 757

30 475

FCA

161 489

160 477

130 049

85 812

Ford

157 435

180 099

164 765

192 822

GM

169 906

165 978

177 814

201 249

Honda

104 166

119 214

100 939

113 570

Hyundai

95 950

122 696

119 260

97 571

JLR

7 510

5 151

10 640

9 202

Kia

72 832

56 665

88 394

67 090

Maserati

482

--

--

--

Mazda

76 502

36 510

48 243

72 238

Mercedes

33 770

31 710

25 040

20 137

Mitsubishi

8 060

28 938

31 302

51 849

Nissan

86 804

60 087

104 985

85 945

Porsche

8 536

7 159

9 545

10 872

Subaru

59 190

38 727

37 829

85 036

Toyota

230 556

200 817

195 954

245 489

Volkswagen

78 027

70 596

78 167

124 022

Volvo

9 568

8 878

9 100

10 922

Total

1 389 973

1 323 468

1 360 783

1 504 301

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

Manufacturer

2021

2022

2023

2024

BMW

29 190

29 766

28 571

30 393

FCA

10 474

12 376

4 182

3 583

GM

13 138

24 488

38 877

44 258

Honda

57 245

76 500

84 919

82 995

JLR

7 510

5 151

10 640

9 202

Mercedes

18 800

18 197

14 570

10 843

Mitsubishi

0

0

0

1 126

Nissan

1 428

1 302

1 716

7 346

Porsche

8 536

5 186

6 654

269

Toyota

29 153

25 151

570

87 755

Volkswagen

47 582

43 944

48 779

30 393

Total

223 056

242 061

239 478

277 770

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

Manufacturer

2021

2022

2023

2024

BMW

28 489

29 248

27 992

29 777

FCA

164 272

164 822

131 799

82 153

Ford

171 375

187 707

174 418

177 974

GM

148 952

153 916

176 538

191 352

Honda

39 191

61 383

37 642

37 173

Hyundai

28 398

54 278

52 779

40 626

JLR

8 102

5 151

10 640

9 202

Kia

38 286

30 941

57 805

52 981

Maserati

482

--

--

--

Mercedes

33 770

31 710

25 040

10 627

Mitsubishi

0

18 294

13 821

20 137

Nissan

54 751

39 168

82 178

21 925

Porsche

8 280

6 640

9 244

47 339

Subaru

53 639

36 579

34 262

10 375

Toyota

102 408

105 006

91 984

82 041

Volkswagen

73 805

69 076

75 942

120 715

Volvo

9 568

8 878

9 100

116 004

Total

963 768

1 002 797

1 011 184

1 061 323

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

Manufacturer

2021

2022

2023

2024

FCA

968

2 412

1 789

8 975

Ford

9 262

12 219

10 604

15 122

GM

10 472

16 099

7 081

6 765

Honda

74 779

83 143

71 743

88 050

Hyundai

28 991

49 661

48 951

39 487

Kia

42 490

25 806

39 090

29 246

Mitsubishi

7 735

26 648

22 517

38 026

Nissan

83 400

44 136

88 410

67 407

Subaru

53 898

36 662

34 436

82 041

Toyota

28 484

31 102

72 591

113 052

Total

340 479

327 888

397 212

488 171

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

Manufacturer

2021

2022

2023

2024

FCA

51 655

82 676

48 602

19 171

Ford

42 801

42 311

12 033

32 363

GM

103 566

92 496

120 732

114 288

Honda

14 727

26 107

20 759

15 957

Mazda

24 226

10 709

29 090

31 809

Mercedes

2 793

1 459

1 633

718

Porsche

623

546

738

906

Volkswagen

2 220

1 746

2 370

1 392

Total

242 611

258 050

235 957

216 604

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

Manufacturer

2021

2022

2023

2024

BMW

29 190

29 766

22 189

20 013

FCA

15 782

5 069

18 257

22 322

Ford

71 989

95 823

64 592

97 466

GM

161 893

160 805

177 814

201 249

Honda

79 172

78 708

76 322

81 185

Hyundai

56 674

72 712

55 371

30 589

JLR

7 510

5 151

10 640

9 202

Kia

20 887

18 527

15 495

13 364

Maserati

482

--

--

--

Mazda

76 502

36 510

48 243

72 238

Mercedes

33 770

31 707

24 978

20 099

Mitsubishi

0

12 160

8 396

13 915

Nissan

55 765

45 334

82 926

55 446

Porsche

254

7 159

9 545

10 872

Subaru

58 414

38 138

36 318

84 207

Toyota

497

355

570

269

Volkswagen

78 096

70 410

77 358

123 774

Volvo

9 568

8 878

9 100

10 922

Total

756 445

717 212

738 114

867 132

Table A-10: production volume of diesel vehicles

Manufacturer

2021

2022

2023

2024

FCA

3 305

3 921

391

0

Ford

501

0

0

0

GM

19 308

16 581

15 693

30 242

JLR

592

0

0

0

Total

23 706

20 502

16 084

30 242

Page details

2026-03-31