Transcript

WashPIRG Foundation 1

Elizabeth RidlingtonTony DutzikJessyn Schor

March 2005

WashPIRG Foundation

Cars and

Global WarmingPolicy Options to Reduce

Washington’s Global Warming Pollutionfrom Cars and Light Trucks

2 Cars and Global Warming

The authors wish to acknowledge Patrick Mazza of Climate Solutions and ClarkWilliams-Derry of Northwest Environment Watch for providing editorial review.

Sincere thanks to the Energy Foundation for providing financial support for thisproject.

The authors alone bear responsibility for any factual errors. The recommendationsare those of the Washington Public Interest Research Group Foundation. The viewsexpressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect theviews of those who provided editorial or technical review.

© 2005 WashPIRG Foundation

The Washington Public Interest Research Group (WashPIRG) Foundation is a non-profit, nonpartisan 501(c)(3) organization dedicated to protecting the environment,the rights of consumers, and good government in Washington.

For additional copies of this report, send $10 (including shipping) to:

WashPIRG Foundation3240 Eastlake Ave E, Suite 100Seattle, WA 98102

For more information about WashPIRG and the WashPIRG Foundation, please con-tact our office at 206-568-2850 or visit the WashPIRG Web site at www.washpirg.org.

Cover photo: Sandy Ridlington

Design: Kathleen Krushas, To the Point Publications

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

WashPIRG Foundation 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary 4

Introduction 6

Global Warming and Washington 7

Causes of Global Warming 7

Potential Impacts of Global Warming 7

Global Warming Pollution in Washington 8

Washington’s Climate Change Reduction Efforts 9

The Transportation Challenge 10

Vehicle Carbon Dioxide Pollution in Washington: Past and Future 14

Tools to Reduce Global Warming Pollutionfrom Cars and Light Trucks 16

LEV II Program 16

Vehicle Global Warming Pollution Standards 20

The Need for Additional Actions 21

Policy Findings 23

Assumptions and Methodology 24

Notes 29

4 Cars and Global Warming

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Washington could significantlylimit its contribution to global warming over the next

two decades by adopting the Clean Carsprogram to reduce carbon dioxide emis-sions from cars and light trucks.

Global warming poses a serious threatto Washington’s future. Scientists projectthat average temperatures in Washing-ton could increase by 2° to 9° F over thenext century if no action is taken to re-duce emissions of global warming pol-lution—potentially leading to coastalflooding, significantly decreased snow-pack, increased air pollution and heat-related deaths, and a host of otherimpacts on Washington’s environment,public health and economy (p. 7).

Controlling global warming pollutionfrom the transportation sector—and par-ticularly cars and light trucks—will bean essential part of Washington’s strat-egy for reducing global warming emis-sions.

The transportation sector is respon-sible for 52 percent of Washington’s re-leases of carbon dioxide—the leadingglobal warming gas. Cars and lighttrucks—such as pickups, minivans andSUVs—are the most important sourcesof global warming pollution in the trans-portation sector, responsible for nearlyhalf of all transportation sector emissionsand about one-fifth of Washington’s to-tal emissions of global warming pollu-tion (p. 9).

Carbon dioxide pollution from carsand light trucks in Washington is likelyto increase by approximately 55 percentover 1990 levels by 2020 unless actionis taken to reduce emissions.• Carbon dioxide emissions from the

Washington light-duty vehicle fleet areprojected to experience a 13 percent

increase over 2000 levels by 2010, fol-lowed by a further 17 percent increasebetween 2010 and 2020 (p. 13-14).

• The stagnation in federal corporateaverage fuel economy (CAFE) stan-dards for cars and light trucks, therecent shift toward greater use of lessfuel-efficient light trucks, includingSUVs, and increasing vehicle travelhave put Washington on a course to-ward dramatically increased emissionsof carbon dioxide from transportationover the next two decades.

Adopting the Clean Cars program—with its Low-Emission Vehicle (LEV II)program and the vehicle global warm-ing pollution standards—would be animportant step to reducing greenhousegas pollution from cars and trucks.• The LEV II program will pave the way

for the widespread introduction ofclean, advanced technology vehicles(such as hybrid-electric vehicles) thatcould result in dramatic, long-term re-ductions in carbon emissions. In theprocess, it will lead to light-duty car-bon dioxide emission reductions ofabout 1.3 percent below projected lev-els by 2020 (p. 19).

• Vehicle global warming pollutionstandards (also known as the “Pavley”standards for their original legislativesponsor in California) could producesignificant reductions in vehicle car-bon dioxide emissions as cars areequipped with direct-injection engines,advanced transmissions, improved airconditioning systems, and other ad-vanced technologies. These improve-ments could reduce emissions fromnew cars by 30 percent by 2016. IfWashington were to implement theprogram beginning in 2008 (when

WashPIRG Foundation 5

model year 2009 vehicles go on sale),it could reduce carbon dioxide pollu-tion from the car and light truck fleetby about 12 percent below projectedlevels by 2020. Savings will continueto increase in later years as older ve-hicles are replaced with ones that com-ply with the new emissions standard(p. 20-21).

• Increased equipment costs will be off-set by reduced operating costs so thatthe purchaser of a new car is projectedto save $3 per month in 2016 whenthe standards are fully phased in. Buy-ers of light trucks will save even more(p. 21).

• Even with implementation of bothcomponents of the Clean Cars pro-gram, carbon dioxide emissions from

cars and light trucks in 2020 wouldbe significantly higher than pollutionin 2000 because of a large projectedincrease in vehicle travel. Thus, Wash-ington will need to adopt additionalpolicies to reduce emissions from thetransportation sector if it wishes tostabilize and reduce global warmingpollution (p. 21).Washington should move quickly to

adopt policies that will stabilize, and ul-timately reduce, emissions of carbon di-oxide from cars and light trucks.• Washington should adopt the Clean

Car standards as a first step to reduc-ing emissions of carbon dioxide.

• The state should also commit to imple-menting these standards in 2005 sothat they will take effect as soon aspossible, which is in model year 2009.

Figure ES-1. Estimated Washington Carbon Dioxide Emissions fromCars and Light Trucks, 2000-2020, Under Policy Scenarios

18.0

20.0

22.0

24.0

26.0

28.0

30.0

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Year

Car

bo

n D

ioxi

de

Em

issi

on

s (M

illio

n

Met

ric

To

ns

Car

bo

n D

ioxi

de

Eq

uiv

alen

t)

Base Case Projection

LEV II Program

LEV II and Global WarmingPollution Standards

6 Cars and Global Warming

INTRODUCTION

Global warming and its conse-quences will changeWashington’s environment and

economy. Warmer temperatures maylead to earlier snowmelts and decreasedsnowpack, increased summer drought,shifts in forest cover, higher sea levels,and myriad other effects.

Addressing emissions of global warm-ing gases from the transportation sectoris Washington’s biggest challenge tomeeting its emission reduction goals, notonly because transportation is the larg-est source of the state’s global warmingpollution but also because emissionsfrom the transportation sector may be-come a larger share of total pollution incoming years.

The technology exists to reduce emis-sions from transportation, and particu-larly cars and light trucks, the largestsource of transportation emissions. Thetools to make less-polluting cars andtrucks already exist, and can be imple-mented at little cost—or even a net eco-nomic benefit—to most consumers.Meanwhile, a host of newer technolo-gies—ranging from hybrid-electric carsto fuel-cell vehicles that operate on hy-drogen—could play an important role inreducing the state’s pollution in the longterm.

A transportation policy Washingtoncould adopt is the Clean Cars program,which has two components: the LEV II

program and vehicle emission standardsfor global warming gases.

The LEV II program, which originatedin California but has been adopted byother states including New York, NewJersey and Massachusetts, would requirethat a percentage of vehicles sold inWashington in coming years be ad-vanced-technology vehicles such as hy-brids, which have lower global warmingemissions.

Vehicle global warming pollution stan-dards, which also originated in Califor-nia, would require automakers to reduceemissions of global warming pollutantsby incorporating direct-injection engines,continuously variable transmissions,improved air conditioners, and otheradvanced technologies into new vehicles.These standards will lead to even greaterprogress toward realizing the promise ofnew technologies to reduce the impactof our transportation system on the cli-mate.

This report documents the benefitWashington may receive from adoptingthe Clean Cars program. But it also docu-ments the challenge the state faces in rein-ing in emissions from the transportationsector. Even with adoption of the pro-gram, Washington will still need to takeadditional steps to curtail global warm-ing pollution from transportation andprotect the climate.

WashPIRG Foundation 7

Human activities over the lastcentury—particularly theburning of fossil fuels—have

changed the composition of the atmo-sphere in ways that threaten dramaticalteration of the global climate in theyears to come. Those changes will haveserious repercussions for Washington.

Causes of GlobalWarming

Global warming is caused by a blan-ket of pollution that traps solar radia-tion near the earth’s surface. Thispollution comes largely from cars, powerplants, factories and homes when weburn fossil fuels such as coal, oil andgas—as well as from other human andnatural processes.

Since 1750, the atmospheric concen-tration of carbon dioxide has increasedby 31 percent. The current rate of in-crease in carbon dioxide concentrationsis unprecedented in the last 20,000 years,and the total concentration of carbondioxide is at its highest point in 420,000years.1 Concentrations of other globalwarming gases—such as methane andnitrous oxide—have increased as well.

As a result, average global tempera-tures increased during the 20th centuryby about 1° F. And, if current trends inglobal warming pollution continue, tem-peratures could rise by an additional 2.5°F to 10.4° F over the period 1990 to2100.2

Potential Impacts ofGlobal Warming

The impact of this increase in globaltemperatures will vary from place toplace. Because the earth’s climate systemis extraordinarily complex, warming

GLOBAL WARMING AND WASHINGTON

may be more or less extreme at variouspoints on the globe and at different timesduring the year. Some regions will expe-rience drier weather, others will receivemore precipitation. Storm cycles will alsolikely be affected in unpredictable yetsignificant ways.

There is little doubt, however, that thefirst signs of global warming are begin-ning to appear, both in Washington andaround the world. There is also littledoubt that global warming could leadto dramatic disruptions in our economy,environment and way of life.

Over the last century, for example, theaverage temperature in Ellensburg hasincreased by 1° F.3 Meanwhile, precipi-tation has increased by 20 percent inparts of the state, especially in westernWashington.

Should current emission trends con-tinue, mid-range projections show tem-peratures in Washington could increaseby 5° F in winter and summer and by 4°F in spring and fall by 2100, with a pos-sible range of 2° F to 9° F. The numberof extremely hot summer days wouldincrease. Precipitation levels also couldchange. Scientific models suggest precipi-tation may increase by 10 percent, par-ticularly in winter.

In any event, the impacts of such a shiftin average temperature and precipitationwould be severe. One of the most seri-ous consequences for Washington wouldbe a smaller mountain snowpack thatwould also melt earlier in the year. Thiswould result in higher streamflows in thespring and significantly lower river lev-els in the late summer and fall, when thewater is needed most for hydroelectricpower generation, irrigation, river trans-portation, and salmon migration. By2050, annual snowpack could be re-duced by 50 percent.4

8 Cars and Global Warming

Among other potential impacts:• Longer and more severe smog seasons

as higher summer temperatures facili-tate the formation of ground-levelozone, resulting in additional threatsto respiratory health such as aggra-vated cases of asthma.

• Increased risk of heat-related illnessesand deaths—perhaps a tripling ofheat-related deaths.

• Increased coastal flooding due tohigher sea levels, with sea levels pro-jected to rise as much as 19 inchesalong the Washington coast by 2100.This could cause the loss of half ofPuget Sound’s remaining tidal flats,which are important for shellfish andwildfowl populations.

• Reduced areas for skiing, hurting theski industry.

• Increased evaporation from streamsand lakes, resulting in lower water lev-els and reduced water quality.Groundwater supplies could be af-fected also.

• Loss of all habitat for pink and chumsalmon, and much of the habitat ofbrown and brook trout. Some studiesproject that warmer ocean tempera-tures could force ocean-dwellingsalmon from the Pacific north into theBering Sea, requiring them to migrate

farther and reducing their reproduc-tive success.5

• Declines of as much as 25 percent inthe amount of forested area, drier for-ests more prone to wildfires, and re-duced timber harvests.

The likelihood and severity of thesepotential impacts is difficult to predict.But this much is certain: climate changessuch as those predicted by the latest sci-entific research would have a dramatic,disruptive effect on Washington’s envi-ronment, economy and public health—unless immediate action is taken to limitour emissions of global warming pollut-ants such as carbon dioxide.

Global WarmingPollution in Washington

Based on an inventory compiled for theDepartment of Community, Trade, andEconomic Development, emissions ofglobal warming pollution in Washingtonincreased by nearly 10 percent between1990 and 2000, to approximately 99million metric tons of carbon dioxideequivalent (MMTCO2E, see note onunits below).6 Of those emissions, about80 percent were in the form of carbondioxide released as a result of the com-bustion of fossil fuels.

Global warming may cause more habitat loss of already endangered salmon.

WashPIRG Foundation 9

The transportation sector is respon-sible for approximately 45 percent ofWashington’s contribution to globalwarming and 52 percent of its releasesof carbon dioxide.10 (See Figure 1.) Carsand light trucks—such as pickups,minivans and SUVs—are the most sig-nificant sources of global warming pol-lution within the transportation sector,responsible for 47 percent of all trans-portation-sector emissions and aboutone-fifth of Washington’s total emissionsof global warming pollution.11

Washington’s ClimateChange ReductionEfforts

Recognizing the serious consequencesof global warming, Washington has be-gun to consider how to reduce its globalwarming emissions.

In 2003, the governors of Washington,Oregon and California created the WestCoast Governors’ Global Warming Ini-tiative, in which the states pledged to re-duce global warming pollution.13 Thegovernors have approved 36 recommen-dations for action, including:• Setting goals for improving state ve-

hicle fleet global warming emissions.

• Creating a network of truck stops thatwill allow truckers to shut off theirengines during rest breaks but con-tinue to receive heat and power in theirvehicles.

• Adopting energy efficiency standardsfor 8 to 14 types of appliances.

• Improving building energy codes toreduce energy use by at least 15 per-cent cumulatively by 2015.

However, the governors have not yetestablished concrete regional or state-wide emission reductions targets thatwould help spur action on the approved

A Note on UnitsBecause various gases contribute to global

warming and the potency of the warming effectsof those gases varies, inventories of globalwarming pollution typically use units that com-municate emissions in terms of their globalwarming potential.

In this report, we use units of “carbon dioxideequivalent.” Other documents communicate pol-lution in terms of “carbon equivalent”—theamount of carbon (in the form of carbon diox-ide) that would need to be released to create asimilar global warming effect. To translate thecarbon dioxide equivalent to carbon equivalent,one can simply multiply by 0.2727.

Industry 25%

Transportation 45%

Electric Power 15%

Buildings 9%

Other Energy-Related 3%Agriculture 5%

Figure 1. Washington Sources of Global WarmingPollution in 2000 from In-State Activity12

recommendations or other policies, andthat would provide a benchmark formeasuring progress.

The Puget Sound Clean Air Agency,which manages air quality programs forKing, Kitsap, Pierce and Snohomishcounties, has undertaken its own globalwarming emission reduction plan. It con-vened a group of stakeholders—repre-sentatives from business, government,and the nonprofit sector—to developpolicies to help the Puget Sound area re-duce its global warming pollution.

10 Cars and Global Warming

In December 2004, the group releasedrecommendations for cutting emissionsfrom all uses of energy, including trans-portation, buildings and facilities, elec-tricity generation, and land use. Amongits key recommendations were adoptingboth the LEV II program and the vehicleglobal warming pollution standards in-cluded in the Clean Cars program, re-ducing the growth in vehicle milestraveled, promoting renewable energy,increasing energy efficiency in buildings,reducing waste and increasing recycling,and protecting natural spaces. The groupalso urged the creation and adoption ofspecific pollution reduction targets aspart of a comprehensive plan for reduc-ing emissions.

Separately, the city of Seattle has es-tablished a goal of reducing its globalwarming pollution by 7 to 40 percentbelow 1990 levels by 2010.14 Further,Washington’s former Attorney General(and now governor) Christine Gregoirejoined 10 other states in a lawsuit againstthe U.S. EPA for failing to regulate glo-bal warming pollution.15

The TransportationChallenge

In spite of Washington’s recent stepsto reduce emissions of global warmingpollution, more must be done. The chal-lenge of reducing global warming pollu-

Other Global Warming PollutantsWhile this report focuses on transportation-related emissions of carbon diox-

ide—the leading gas responsible for global warming and the global warminggas released in the largest quantities by cars and trucks—cars and trucks pro-duce other global warming pollution that must be considered in any emissionreduction strategy.

• Methane – Methane gas is likely the second-most important contributor toglobal warming. Cars and light trucks produce methane in their exhaust, but it isthought that they are only minor emitters of methane and that their pollution willbe reduced in the future through improved emission control systems.7

• Nitrous Oxide – Nitrous oxide is also produced in automobile exhaust, withmobile sources estimated to contribute about 13 percent of U.S. nitrous oxideemissions in 2002.8 As with methane emissions, improved pollution control mea-sures may reduce nitrous oxide emissions in the future.

• Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) – HFCs are extremely potent global warminggases, yet tend to be released in only very small quantities. HFCs are typicallyused as coolants in vehicle air conditioning systems and can escape from thosesystems into the environment.

• Black carbon – Black carbon, otherwise known as “soot,” is a product of theburning of fossil fuels, including diesel fuel used in heavy-duty trucks and asmall percentage of light-duty vehicles. Some recent research has suggestedthat, because black carbon absorbs sunlight in the atmosphere and on snowand icepack, it may be a major contributor to global warming, perhaps second inimportance only to carbon dioxide. Research is continuing on the degree towhich black carbon pollution contributes to global warming.9

WashPIRG Foundation 11

tion from cars and trucks is formidable,and three trends in the transportationsector make this goal more challengingwith each passing year: increasing vehiclemiles traveled, stagnating fuel economy,and an increasing number of SUVs andlight trucks.

Increasing Vehicle MilesTraveled

Washington residents are travelingmore miles in their cars and light trucksthan ever before. Between 1983 and2003, the number of vehicle-miles trav-eled (VMT) annually on Washingtonhighways increased from 32 billion milesto 55 billion miles—an increase of 70percent.16 (See Figure 2.)

Stagnating Fuel Economy

The imposition of federal CorporateAverage Fuel Economy (CAFE) stan-dards beginning in 1975 led to dramaticimprovements in the fuel efficiency of

Transportation and Global Warming: A PrimerA gallon of gasoline contains a set amount of carbon, nearly all of which is released to the

atmosphere when it is burned. Some of the carbon is released in the form of hydrocarbons; mostof it is released in the form of carbon dioxide. For each gallon of gasoline burned in a vehicle, about19.6 pounds of carbon dioxide is released to the atmosphere. In addition, the consumption ofgasoline creates significant additional “upstream” emissions of carbon dioxide resulting from theextraction, transportation, refining and distribution of the fuel. Other fuels have greater or smalleramounts of carbon in a gallon (or its equivalent amount of energy).

Unlike other vehicular air pollutants that result from the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels orfrom fuel impurities—and which can be reduced by using better engine technologies—carbondioxide is an unavoidable byproduct when fossil fuels are burned. As a result, there are three mainways to limit carbon dioxide pollution from motor vehicles:

1. Drive more efficient vehicles.

2. Reduce the number of miles traveled.

3. Switch to fuels with lower lifecycle carbon emissions.

Vehicles also emit smaller amounts of other global warming gases, such as methane and nitrousoxide, as well as hydrofluorocarbons from the use of the air conditioning system. Control of someof these emissions is possible through means other than reducing fuel use or substituting low-carbon fuels.

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

19

83

19

85

19

87

19

89

19

91

19

93

19

95

19

97

19

99

20

01

20

03

Year

Veh

icle

Mil

es T

rave

led

(M

illi

on

s)

Figure 2. Washington VMT Increased Morethan 70 Percent between 1983 and 200317

American cars and light duty trucks. TheCAFE standards required a gradual in-crease in fuel economy during the 1970sand 1980s, topping out at an average fueleconomy for new cars of 27.5 miles pergallon (mpg) by 1990 and 20.7 mpg forlight trucks by 1996.18 (The NationalHighway Traffic Safety Administrationrecently increased the light truck stan-

12 Cars and Global Warming

dard to 22.2 mpg, to be achieved bymodel year 2007.)

In the decade-and-a-half following en-actment of the CAFE standards, the “realworld” fuel economy of passenger carsnearly doubled—from 13.4 mpg in 1975to 24.0 mpg in 1988. Similarly, lighttrucks experienced an increase in real-world fuel economy from 11.8 mpg in1975 to 18.3 mpg in 1987.19

However, the momentum toward morefuel efficient cars has not only stalledsince the late 1980s, but it has actuallyreversed. Indeed, in many cases, Ameri-

cans get fewer miles per gallon from theirnew vehicles today than they did duringthe Reagan administration.

Until recently, the federal governmenthad refused to increase CAFE standardsfor more than a decade, and changes indriving patterns—including higherspeeds and increased urban driving—have led to a real-world decrease in fueleconomy. An EPA analysis of fueleconomy trends found that the averagereal-world fuel economy of light-dutyvehicles sold in 2003 was lower than theaverage fuel economy of vehicles sold in1981. Indeed, the average real-world fueleconomy of new cars and light trucksactually declined by 7 percent between1988 and 2003.20 (See Figure 3.)

Amid growing public pressure to im-prove vehicle fuel economy, the U.S. De-partment of Transportation plans toincrease CAFE standards for light trucksby a modest 1.5 mpg between 2005 and2007. While this proposal fails to takeadvantage of many technologies thatcould cost-effectively improve fueleconomy, even a modest increase inCAFE standards has some effect in re-ducing the rate of growth of transporta-tion carbon dioxide pollution.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1975

1977

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

Year

Fu

el

Ec

on

om

y (

Mil

es

pe

r G

all

on

)

Car - CAFE Standard

Car - Real World Mileage

Combined Real WorldMileageTruck - CAFE Standard

Truck - Real World Mileage

Figure 3. Average Fuel Economy for New Light-Duty Vehicle Fleet on the Decline21

The low fuel economy of SUVs has contributedto a declining fleet-average fuel economylevel.

Photo: Sandy Ridlington

WashPIRG Foundation 13

Model Year 1975

71%

9%

13%

5%2%

Growing Numbers of SUVsand Light Trucks

While the fuel economy of the averagecar and light truck has stagnated overthe past two decades, the average fueleconomy of the entire new-car fleet hasdeclined—thanks to the dramatic shiftin purchasing habits toward sport util-ity vehicles (SUVs), vans and light trucks.

In 1975, when the first federal CAFEstandards were enacted, SUVs made up2 percent of the light-duty vehicle mar-ket, vans 5 percent, and pickup trucks13 percent. By model year 2004, how-ever, SUVs accounted for 26 percent oflight-duty vehicle sales, vans 7 percent,and pick-up trucks 15 percent. The light-duty market share of passenger cars andstation wagons dropped over the sameperiod from 81 percent to 52 percent.22

(See Figure 4a-4c.)This shift in purchasing habits has

caused the average fuel economy of theentire new light-duty vehicle fleet to dipas low as 20.4 mpg in 2001—lower thanat any time since 1980 and down bynearly 8 percent from the historical peakin 1987 and 1988.23

The trend toward SUVs and light trucksis expected to continue, with light trucksmaking up an increasing percentage of theentire light-duty fleet as time goes on. TheEnvironmental Protection Agency projectsthat by 2020, 64 percent of all light-dutyvehicles on the road will be light trucks.24

The combination of these three fac-tors—more miles traveled, increasinglyin trucks and SUVs, with stagnant fueleconomy across the entire vehicle fleet—poses a great challenge to Washingtonpolicy-makers as they attempt to reduceglobal warming pollution from the trans-portation sector.

Figure 4 (a-c). Light-Duty VehiclePurchasing Shifts from Cars to Trucks,

Vans and SUVs

Model Year 1987

67%5%

15%

6%

7%

SUVs

Vans

Pickups

Wagons

Cars

CarsWagons

Pickups

Vans

SUVs

Model Year 2004

48%

4%15%

7%

26%

Cars

WagonsPickups

Vans

SUVs

14 Cars and Global Warming

Vehicle Carbon DioxidePollution in Washington:Past and Future

Based on Washington-specific fuel con-sumption data compiled by the U.S. En-ergy Information Administration (EIA),cars and light-duty trucks released ap-proximately 18.1 million metric tons car-bon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2E) ofcarbon dioxide into the atmosphere in1990. By 2000, those emissions had in-creased by about 17 percent, to 21.2

MMTCO2E—meaning that cars andtrucks were responsible for approxi-mately one-fifth of Washington’s contri-bution to global warming in 2000.25

(Cars and light trucks are responsible fornearly half of transportation sector car-bon dioxide emissions, which is respon-sible for just over half of all carbondioxide emissions. Carbon dioxide ac-counts for roughly 90 percent ofWashington’s global warming emis-sions.)

Any attempt to project Washington’sfuture global warming pollution dependsgreatly on the assumptions used. The“Assumptions and Methodology” sec-tion at the conclusion of this report de-scribes these assumptions in detail.Simply put, the following projections(which are based largely on data and pro-jections by state and federal governmentagencies and which we will term the“base case”) assume continued growthin vehicle travel, slight improvement invehicle fuel economy, and a continuationof the trend toward increased purchasesof sport utility vehicles and other lighttrucks.

Based on these assumptions, carbondioxide emissions from the Washingtonlight-duty vehicle fleet are projected to

Figure 5. Actual and Projected Carbon Dioxide Emissions fromLight-Duty Vehicles in Washington, 1990-2020

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1990 2000 2010 2020

Year

Ca

rbo

n D

iox

ide

Em

iss

ion

s

(MM

TC

O2E

)

Increasing numbers of SUVs and pickuptrucks have added to Washington’s globalwarming pollution.

Photo: Sandy Ridlington

WashPIRG Foundation 15

experience a 13 percent increase over2000 levels by 2010, followed by a fur-ther 17 percent increase between 2010and 2020. In other words, by 2020, car-bon dioxide emissions from cars andlight trucks will exceed 1990 levels by55 percent in the absence of action toreduce emissions. (See Figure 5.)(Though Washington has not yet estab-lished emission reduction targets, 1990is a common benchmark year in otherstates’ programs and thus we use it hereas a reference point.)

An increase of such magnitude wouldseverely challenge Washington’s ability

to stabilize and reduce its global warm-ing emissions.

However, this path toward increasingcarbon dioxide pollution from cars andlight trucks is not inevitable. Public poli-cies that require or encourage the pur-chase of more fuel-efficient or advancedtechnology cars can make a significantdent in Washington’s future emissions ofglobal warming pollution while poten-tially saving money for drivers. One ofthe most powerful policy options isCalifornia’s Clean Cars program.

16 Cars and Global Warming

Washington has many potentialtools available to reduceemissions of global warming

pollution from the transportation sector.Among the most powerful of those toolsis the Clean Cars program, with its LEVII program and global warming pollu-tion standards for cars and trucks.

The Clean Air Act gives most statestwo options for control of motor vehicleemissions: states may choose to complywith federal emission standards or adoptthe more protective standards imple-mented by the state of California, theonly state empowered by the Clean AirAct to devise its own emission regula-tions.

Washington could follow the lead ofseven other states—Vermont, New York,New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut,Rhode Island and California—that haveadopted or are in the process of adopt-ing the LEV II program. Though the pro-gram targets smog-forming chemicalsand other pollutants, the program likelywill lower emissions of global warminggases also.

Washington and other states also havethe opportunity to adopt standards lim-iting global warming pollution from carsand light trucks. The standards will bringabout significant reductions in carbondioxide emissions from cars and lighttrucks over the next decade.

Adopting the Clean Cars program,with both its LEV II program and ve-hicle global warming pollution stan-dards, is an important step inWashington’s efforts to reduce the state’sglobal warming emissions.

LEV II Program

The LEV II program seeks to reduceemissions of smog-forming and other

hazardous pollutants. It achieves itsgoals by establishing fleet-wide limits ontailpipe emissions and by requiring thesale of advanced-technology vehiclessuch as hybrids that have even loweremissions. Eventually, the program callsfor the sale of zero-emission vehicles(ZEVs). It is likely, however, that someof the technological changes encouragedby the LEV II program will reduce emis-sions of global warming pollutants aswell.

By adopting the program, Washingtoncan lay the groundwork to have increas-ing percentages of advanced-technologyvehicles on the road over the next de-cade and more. The program currentlyhas three main components:

Pure Zero-Emission Vehicles

“Pure” zero-emission vehicles (pureZEVs) are those—like battery-electricand fuel-cell vehicles—that release notoxic or smog-forming pollutants fromtheir tailpipes or on-board fuel systems.They also have the potential to releasefar fewer global warming gases thantoday’s vehicles.

The most recent revision to the LEV IIprogram shifted the emphasis of the pro-gram from near-term deployment of bat-tery-electric vehicles to the long-termdevelopment of hydrogen fuel-cell ve-hicles. As a result, automakers would nothave to sell fuel-cell or other pure zero-emission vehicles in Washington until atleast model year 2012. Even then, thenumber of pure ZEVs required for salein Washington would be small, repre-senting less than 1 percent of new carand light truck sales until model year2016.26

In addition, the California Air Re-sources Board (CARB), which adminis-ters the program, is scheduled to review

TOOLS TO REDUCE GLOBAL WARMING POLLUTION FROM

CARS AND LIGHT TRUCKS

WashPIRG Foundation 17

the status of fuel-cell technology priorto enforcing any pure ZEV requirementsfor the 2009 model year and beyond.27

The current incarnation of the LEV IIprogram, therefore, requires the sale ofvery few pure zero-emission vehiclesover the next decade. But it does pro-vide an incentive for automakers to con-tinue research and development work ontechnologies such as hydrogen fuel-cellvehicles that could provide zero-emissiontransportation in the future. (Note thatfuel-cell vehicles have zero emissionsprovided that the electricity that is usedto create the hydrogen is generated fromrenewable sources.)

Partial Zero-Emission Vehicles(PZEVs)

The majority of vehicles thatautomakers produce to comply with theLEV II program will be vehicles that re-ceive “partial ZEV credit”—otherwiseknown as “PZEVs.” PZEVs are like con-ventional gasoline vehicles in every waybut one: they are engineered to producedramatically lower emissions of smog-forming and other hazardous pollutants.Indeed, PZEVs are 90 percent cleanerthan the average new vehicle sold to-day.28

While PZEVs will play an importantrole in helping Washington to achieveits air quality goals, the technologiesused in PZEVs do not necessarily makea substantial contribution to reducingglobal warming pollution from cars.Thus, we do not assume any globalwarming benefits from the PZEV por-tion of the program.

Advanced Technology PZEVs(AT-PZEVs)

The greatest near-term global warm-ing impact of the LEV II program willlikely come from provisions to encour-age the sale of PZEVs that also run on a

cleaner alternative fuel, such as com-pressed natural gas, or that use advancedtechnologies, such as hybrid-electricdrive. These are known as “advancedtechnology PZEVs” or “AT-PZEVs.” Toencourage automakers to release addi-tional new hybrid vehicles as early aspossible, automakers are allowed tocomply with up to 40 percent of theirsales obligations in the early years of theprogram through the sale of AT-PZEVs.

Hybrid-electric vehicles are the mostlikely technology to be used to complywith AT-PZEV standards. Hybrids haveproven to be very popular with consum-ers, especially in an era of higher andrapidly fluctuating gasoline prices. Salesof hybrid vehicles have increased steadilysince their introduction to the domesticmarket in December 1999. About85,000 hybrids were sold in the U.S. in2004, an increase of 63 percent from theprevious year.29

Thus far, there are four models of ve-hicles that have been certified to AT-PZEV emission standards: the hybridToyota Prius, Honda Civic, and FordEscape, and the natural gas-poweredHonda Civic GX.30 (Several other hy-brid vehicles, such as the Honda Accord,are on the market but their emissions oftoxic air pollutants are too high to meetAT-PZEV standards. These vehiclesnonetheless achieve measurable reduc-tions in global warming emissions.) Un-fortunately, although a healthy marketfor hybrids appears to exist, automakershave not yet supplied hybrids in largeenough quantities to meet consumer de-mand. By the end of 2005, the demandcrunch could ease as automakers planto introduce at least six additional hy-brid models—including hybrid versionsof the Nissan Altima and Toyota High-lander—that could qualify for AT-PZEVcredit.31

18 Cars and Global Warming

Sales of hybrid-electric vehicles, which havelower global warming emissions, will increaseunder the LEV II program.

Should automakers choose to maxi-mize their use of AT-PZEVs to complywith the LEV II portion of the Clean Carsprogram—and do so using vehicles simi-lar to the Toyota Prius—hybrids couldmake up about 3.5 percent of car andlight truck sales in 2008, increasing to 7percent by 2012. (See Figure 6.) Thistranslates to sales of about 12,000 hy-brids in Washington in 2008, increasingto approximately 23,000 annually by2016. Because the LEV II program of-fers a great deal of flexibility, however,automakers could choose to comply bymanufacturing greater numbers of less-advanced hybrids or smaller numbers ofpure ZEVs, among other options, whichwould reduce the global warming ben-efits of the program.

Also unclear is the degree of globalwarming gas reductions that can be ex-pected from vehicles complying with AT-PZEV standards. Hybrid-electric vehiclesand alternative-fuel vehicles vary greatlyin their emissions of global warmingpollution. Some, like the Toyota Prius,have relatively low global warming emis-sions. Others, such as hybrid pickuptrucks to be sold by General Motors andDaimlerChrysler, continue to have sig-nificant global warming pollution despitetheir improved emissions compared toconventional models. The LEV II pro-gram does provide additional credit tohybrid-electric vehicles that attain agreater share of their power from an elec-tric motor (generally allowing them toachieve lower carbon dioxide emissions),but these credits are not directly tied toglobal warming pollution. For the pur-poses of this analysis, we assume thathybrids manufactured to comply withAT-PZEV standards will release about 30percent fewer global warming gases permile than conventional vehicles.32

LEV II Program Impacts:Long Term

On the front end, no assessment ofshort-term global warming pollution re-ductions can precisely capture the poten-

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Year

Per

cen

tag

e o

f L

igh

t-D

uty

Sal

es

PZEVAT-PZEVZEV

Figure 6. LEV II Percentage of Light-Duty Vehicle Sales, 2008through 2020

Photo: Sandy Ridlington

WashPIRG Foundation 19

tial long-term and indirect benefits of theLEV II program in reducing carbon di-oxide emissions. At its heart, the pro-gram is a technology accelerationprogram—one that attempts to jump-start advanced technology vehicle devel-opment and the adoption of thesetechnologies in the mainstream auto mar-ket. That being said, however, adoptionof the program will likely bring aboutsignificant long-term pollution reduc-tions as technological changes broughtabout by the program spread to othervehicles in the Washington car and truckfleet.

An example of the potential power ofthe program to hasten technologicalchange is the development of hybrid ve-hicles. California’s adoption of the origi-nal LEV program sparked public andprivate-sector research efforts into thedevelopment of advanced batteries andelectric-drive technologies. While thegeneration of full-function electric ve-hicles that resulted from that research—such as Honda’s EV-Plus and GeneralMotors’s EV1—were not sold in largequantities, the research effort drove ad-vances in electric vehicle technology thatfacilitated the birth of the popular hy-brid-electric systems that now powerhundreds of thousands of vehicles world-wide and have laid the groundwork forrecent advances in fuel-cell vehicle tech-nology.33

Similarly, the current form of the LEVII program is designed to encourage con-tinued investment in hybrid-electric andhydrogen fuel-cell vehicle developmentand may lead to the development of newtypes of vehicles (such as “plug-in hy-brids” that combine the benefits of bat-tery-electric and hybrid-electric vehicles)with significant benefits for the climate.Once developed and offered to consum-ers, it is possible that these vehicles couldcome to represent a far greater share ofthe new car market than is estimated here.

LEV II Program Impacts: ShortTerm

The short-term impact of the LEV IIprogram on carbon dioxide emissions inWashington will largely be determinedby how automakers choose to complywith the program’s flexible provisions.There are almost infinite options avail-able to automakers for compliance—however, it is likely that one or severaltechnologies will dominate the mix ofvehicles certified under the program.

We assume that automakers will takemaximum advantage of the ability tomeet LEV II program requirements withPZEVs and AT-PZEVs. We also assumethat vehicles sold to meet AT-PZEV re-quirements are hybrid-electric vehicleswith similar technological characteristicsto the Toyota Prius. We assume that anyvehicles sold to meet pure ZEV require-ments are hydrogen fuel-cell vehicleswhose fuel is generated from natural gas.And we use conservative assumptionsabout the carbon dioxide emission re-ductions that could result from hybridor fuel-cell vehicles.

Using these assumptions, implementa-tion of the program in Washington be-ginning in the 2009 model year wouldreduce light-duty vehicle carbon dioxideemissions by about 1.3 percent versusbase case projections by 2020—for a to-tal reduction in emissions of about 0.37MMTCO2E. (See Figure 7.)

Washington’s adoption of the LEV IIprogram could result in reduced globalwarming and toxic pollution from ve-hicles as more hybrids are sold. Equallyimportant, adopting the LEV II programis necessary if Washington wants toadopt the other portion of the Clean Carsprogram—vehicle global warming pol-lution standards—which will provideeven greater emission reductions.

20 Cars and Global Warming

Vehicle Global WarmingPollution Standards

In July 2002, California adopted thefirst law to control carbon dioxide emis-sions from automobiles. Beginning inmodel year 2009, automakers will haveto adhere to fleet average emission lim-its for carbon dioxide similar to currentlimits on smog-forming and other pol-lutants. Emissions of global warmingpollution will fall and consumers willlikely save money.34

The California legislation requiresCARB to propose limits that “achievethe maximum feasible and cost effectivereduction of greenhouse gas emissionsfrom motor vehicles.” Limits on vehicletravel, new gasoline or vehicle taxes, orlimitations on ownership of SUVs orother light trucks cannot be imposed toattain the new standards.35

In September 2004, CARB adoptedrules for implementation of the globalwarming pollution standards. As re-quired by the initial legislation, CARBhas submitted the regulations to the Cali-fornia Legislature for review during2005. Those proposed rules provided thebasis of our analysis here.

In developing the global warming pol-lution standards, the CARB staff re-viewed several analyses of the types oftechnologies that could be used toachieve “maximum feasible and cost ef-fective” reductions in global warmingpollution from vehicles. CARB’s pro-posal estimates that near-term technolo-gies could reduce average globalwarming pollution from cars by 25 per-cent and from light trucks by 18 percent.Over the medium term (2013 to 2016),cost-effective reductions of 34 percent forcars and 25 percent for light-trucks arefeasible.36 On average, CARB expectsemissions from new cars, light trucks,and SUVs to be 30 percent lower by2016.37

The technological changes needed toachieve these reductions (such as five-and six-speed automatic transmissionsand improved electrical systems) willlikely result in modest increases in ve-hicle costs that would be more than re-couped over time by consumers in theform of reduced fuel expenses. CARBprojects that cars attaining the 34 per-cent reduction in global warming pollu-tion required by 2016 would cost anaverage of $1,064 more for consumers,

Figure 7. Projected Reductions in Carbon Dioxide Emissions Underthe LEV II Program (Light-Duty Vehicles)

18.0

20.0

22.0

24.0

26.0

28.0

30.0

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

2016

2018

2020

Year

Car

bo

n D

ioxi

de

Em

issi

on

s (M

MT

CO

2E)

Base Case ProjectionLEV II Program

WashPIRG Foundation 21

while light trucks achieving the required25 percent reduction would cost about$1,029 more.38

However, the agency also estimatesthat the rules will significantly reduce op-erating costs for new vehicles. Thoughconsumers will face higher monthly loanpayments when purchasing vehicles thatcomply with the standards, those in-creased costs will be more than offset bylower operating expenses. For example,a consumer who buys a new car in 2016will pay $20 more per month on the carloan but will save $23 per month in op-erating expenses, for a total savings of$3 per month. After the loan is paid off,the consumer will save the full $23 permonth. Drivers who purchase a lighttruck or who pay for the vehicle in cashwill experience greater savings.39 CARBalso projects that the net impact of thestandards to the state’s economy will bepositive, suggesting that Washingtoncould save money while at the same timereducing the state’s overall emissions ofglobal warming gases.40

Assuming that the September 2004 ver-sion of the global warming pollutionstandards is adopted as proposed, wereWashington to implement those stan-

dards beginning with the 2009 modelyear the resulting reductions in globalwarming pollution would be significant.Compared to the base case projection,the emission standards would reducelight-duty carbon dioxide emissions by12 percent by 2020—for a total reduc-tion of 3.4 MMTCO2E. (See Figure 8.)Carbon dioxide emissions will continueto fall after 2020 as older vehicles thatwere manufactured before 2009 are re-placed with newer vehicles.

The Need for AdditionalActions

Implementing the Clean Cars programcan contribute significantly toWashington’s efforts to reduce globalwarming pollution from the transporta-tion sector. With both components of theprogram in effect, emissions from light-duty cars and trucks would be 16 per-cent greater in 2020 than they were in2000, compared to 32 percent greater ifno action is taken.

Thus, though it can yield significantprogress and would be a major step for-ward, adopting the Clean Cars programwould not be enough to reduceWashington’s global warming emissions.

Figure 8. Reductions in Carbon Dioxide Emissions Under VehicleGlobal Warming Pollution Standards (Light-Duty Vehicles)

18.0

20.0

22.0

24.0

26.0

28.0

30.0

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

2016

2018

2020

Year

Ca

rbo

n D

iox

ide

Em

iss

ion

s

(MM

TC

O2E

)

Base Case Projection

LEV II and Global WarmingPollution Standards

22 Cars and Global Warming

A number of other policy options ex-ist for Washington to reduce its emis-sions, including:

• Incentives for individuals and fleets topurchase vehicles with lower carbonemissions. One possible approach isto offer “feebates,” which would givea rebate to car buyers who purchasevehicles that emit less global warm-ing pollution. The rebate could befunded by a fee on purchasers of lessefficient vehicles and thus could berevenue neutral for the state.

• “Pay-as-you-drive” insurance, whichcan be offered by private insurers andallows drivers to purchase vehicle in-

surance by the mile. Such a programmakes drivers more aware of the fullcosts of each mile driven and can re-duce excessive driving.

• Improved transit service, which canreduce the amount citizens need todrive.

• Smart growth, which places shops,offices, and homes within walking dis-tance, or makes them accessible bytransit.

The federal government also could as-sist Washington’s efforts to reduce glo-bal warming pollution by increasing thefederal corporate average fuel economy(CAFE) standard.41

WashPIRG Foundation 23

To stabilize and reduce its globalwarming pollution to protect theclimate, Washington will need to

make significant emissions reductionsfrom light-duty vehicles.

To achieve this goal:

• The state should adopt the Clean Carsprogram so that it will take effect in

POLICY FINDINGS

2008 (which is when 2009 model yearvehicles will go on sale).

• Washington should take aggressiveaction to reduce transportation-sectorglobal warming pollution, includingactions that speed the deployment ofenvironmentally preferable advanced-technology vehicles (such as hybrids)and reduce the rate of growth in ve-hicle travel.

24 Cars and Global Warming

Projections of future global warm-ing pollution from automobilesdepend a great deal on the

assumptions used. This section details theassumptions we made about futuretrends and explains the methodology weused to estimate the impact of variousprograms.

Baseline Light-Duty VehicleCarbon Dioxide Emissions

Carbon dioxide emissions from light-duty vehicles (cars and light trucks) inWashington in 1990 and 2000 werebased on state-specific motor gasolineusage data from U.S. Department ofEnergy, Energy Information Administra-tion (EIA), State Energy Data 2000 Con-sumption, downloaded fromw w w. e i a . d o e . g o v / e m e u / s t a t e s /_use_multistate.html, 7 December 2004.Fuel consumption data for the transpor-tation sector in BTU was converted tocarbon dioxide emissions based on con-version factors from EIA, Annual EnergyOutlook 2003, Appendix H and EIA,Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in theUnited States 2001, Appendix B. Theproportion of transportation-sectorgasoline emissions attributable to light-duty vehicles was estimated by dividingenergy use by light-duty vehicles by to-tal transportation-sector motor gasolineuse as reported in EIA, Annual EnergyOutlook 2003.

Vehicle-Miles Traveled

Historic and projected vehicle-milestraveled data for Washington were ob-tained from Brian Calkins, Transporta-tion Economist, Washington StateDepartment of Transportation, Forecastof Fuels, Vehicles, and Related DataThrough 2031, November 2004.

VMT Percentages by VehicleType

To estimate the percentage of vehicle-miles traveled accounted for by cars andlight-duty trucks, we relied on twosources of data: actual VMT splits byvehicle type for 2000 through 2002 fromthe Federal Highway Administration,Highway Statistics series of reports andprojections of future VMT splits outputfrom the EPA’s MOBILE6 mobile sourceemission estimating model. (Washington-specific data on VMT splits are unavail-able but the state has a higher ratio ofregistered cars to trucks than the nationalaverage, according to Federal HighwayAdministration, Highway Statistics2002, October 2003, Table MV-1. Thismay cause our analysis to undercount tothe program’s benefits because per-mileemissions reductions for cars are greaterthan for trucks and total emissions re-ductions are undercounted in Washing-ton by using national figures for car andlight truck VMT.)

EPA’s projections of the VMT splitamong cars and light-duty trucks assignsignificantly more VMT to light-dutytrucks than has been the case over thepast several years, according to FHWAdata. However, EPA’s long-term projec-tion that light trucks will eventually rep-resent 60 percent of light-duty vehiclesales by 2008 appears to be reasonablein light of the continued trend towardsales of light trucks.

In order to estimate a trend that re-flects both the more car-heavy currentmakeup of VMT and the long-term trendtoward increasing travel in light trucks,we created two curves, one extrapolat-ing the continued linear decline in thecar portion of light-duty VMT based ontrends in FHWA data from 1990 to 2002and another using the EPA MOBILE6

ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODOLOGY

WashPIRG Foundation 25

estimates. We then assumed that the splitin VMT would trend toward the EPA es-timate over time, so that by 2020, carsare responsible for approximately 40 per-cent of light-duty VMT. (See Figure 9.)

VMT in the light-truck category werefurther disaggregated into VMT by“light” light trucks (in the CaliforniaLDT1 category) and heavier light trucks(California LDT2s), per EPA, Fleet Char-acterization Data for MOBILE6: Devel-opment and Use of Age Distributions,Average Annual Mileage AccumulationRates, and Projected Vehicle Counts forUse in MOBILE6, September 2001.

VMT Percentages by VehicleAge

Vehicle-miles traveled by age of vehiclewere determined based on VMT accu-mulation data presented in EPA, FleetCharacterization Data for MOBILE6:Development and Use of Age Distribu-tions, Average Annual Mileage Accumu-lation Rates, and Projected VehicleCounts for Use in MOBILE6, Septem-ber 2001.

Vehicle Carbon DioxideEmissions

Per-mile carbon dioxide emissionsfrom vehicles were based on assumed

levels of carbon dioxide emissions pergallon of gasoline (or equivalent amountof other fuel), coupled with assumptionsas to miles-per-gallon fuel efficiency.

For conventional vehicles, a gallon ofgasoline was assumed to produce 8,869grams (19.6 pounds) of carbon dioxide.This figure is based on carbon coeffi-cients and heat content data from U.S.Department of Energy, Energy Informa-tion Administration, Emissions ofGreenhouse Gases in the United States2001, Appendix B. Fuel economy esti-mates were based on EPA laboratory fueleconomy values from EPA, Light-DutyAutomotive Technology and FuelEconomy Trends: 1975 Through 2004,April 2004, multiplied by a degradationfactor of 0.84 for years 2000 through2020, based on the ratio of revised mpgto lab tested mpg as reported by EPA,Light-Duty Automotive Technology andFuel Economy Trends: 1975-2004, April2004. (The degradation factor representsthe degree to which real-world fueleconomy falls below that reported as aresult of EPA testing.)

For hybrid-electric vehicles used tocomply with AT-PZEV requirements,fuel economy was estimated to exceedthat of conventional vehicles by 30 per-cent, per National Research Council,National Academy of Engineering, The

Figure 9. Percentage of Light-Duty Vehicle-Miles Traveled in Cars

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Year

Per

cen

tag

e o

f L

igh

t-D

uty

VM

T

Trend Based on FHWADataBase Case Projection

EPA Projection

26 Cars and Global Warming

Hydrogen Economy: Opportunities,Costs, Barriers and R&D Needs, theNational Academies Press, 2004. Thissame document provided the assumptionthat hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles wouldachieve 58 percent greater fuel economythan conventional vehicles. This figurewas then input into the Argonne Na-tional Laboratory’s Greenhouse GasesRegulated Emissions and Energy Use inTransportation (GREET) model version1.5a to produce an estimated grams CO2/gasoline gallon equivalent for fuel-cellvehicles of 3,816 grams, which was thenused to estimate emissions from hydro-gen fuel-cell vehicles manufactured tocomply with the LEV II program. (Fuel-cycle emissions from hydrogen fuel-cellvehicles were used in lieu of directtailpipe emissions since fuel-cell vehiclesemit no pollution from the tailpipe andit was assumed that the hydrogen fuel—and its associated emissions—would becreated within Washington.)

For the global warming gas emissionstandards, we assumed percentage reduc-tions in per-mile vehicle emissions as de-scribed in California EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Air Resources Board,Staff Report: Initial Statement of Rea-sons for Proposed Rulemaking, PublicHearing to Consider Adoption of Regu-lations to Control Greenhouse GasEmissions from Motor Vehicles, 6 Au-gust 2004.

LEV II ProgramImplementation

In calculating emission reductions re-sulting from the LEV II program, we as-sumed implementation of the programbeginning in model year 2009 with thesame requirements as the California pro-gram. Vehicles meeting the AT-PZEVstandards were assumed to be “Type D”Hybrids (similar to the Toyota Prius),while vehicles meeting pure ZEV stan-dards were assumed to be hydrogen fuel-

cell vehicles whose fuel was producedfrom natural gas.

Percentages of vehicles meeting PZEV,AT-PZEV and ZEV criteria were esti-mated in the following manner:

• Light-duty vehicle sales in Washing-ton for each category (cars and lighttrucks) were estimated based on year2003 new vehicle registration figuresfrom Alliance of Automobile Manu-facturers, Light Truck Country, down-loaded from autoalliance.org/archives/000141.html, 27 August 2004, withthe light truck category divided intoheavy and light light-duty trucks us-ing EPA fleet composition estimatesas described above. These figures werethen multiplied by the percentage ofsales subject to the LEV II programfor each year.

• This number was multiplied by 0.9 toaccount for the six-year time lag incalculating the sales base subject to theLEV II program. (For example, amanufacturer’s requirements in the2009 through 2011 model years arebased on percentages of sales duringmodel years 2003 through 2005.)

• Where necessary, these values weremultiplied by the percentage of ve-hicles supplied by major manufactur-ers versus all manufacturers ascalculated from Ward’s Communica-tions, 2003 Ward’s Automotive Year-book, 233. (Non-major manufacturersmay comply with the entire LEV II pro-gram requirement by supplyingPZEVs.)

• This value was then multiplied by thepercentage sales requirement to arriveat the number of LEV II program cred-its that would need to be accumulatedin each model year.

• The credit requirement was divided bythe number of credits received by eachvehicle supplied as described in Cali-

WashPIRG Foundation 27

fornia Environmental ProtectionAgency, Air Resources Board, FinalRegulation Order: The 2003 Amend-ments to the California Zero EmissionVehicle Regulation, 9 January 2004.

• The resulting number of vehicles wasthen divided by total light-duty vehiclesales to arrive at the percentage of salesrequired of each vehicle type.

• No pure ZEVs were assumed to berequired for sale in Washington untilthe 2012 model year. For the 2012through 2017 model years, in whichthe pure ZEV requirement is based ona specific number of California sales,we divided the annual pure ZEV re-quirement in the California regula-tions by the number of new vehiclesregistered in California in 2001 perWard’s Communications, 2002Ward’s Automotive Yearbook, 272.We assumed that the same percentagewould apply to vehicle sales in Wash-ington.

It was assumed that manufacturerswould comply with ZEV and AT-PZEVrequirements through the sale of fuel-celland hybrid passenger cars. While heavierlight trucks are also covered by the LEVII program, manufacturers have the flex-ibility to use credits accumulated fromthe sale of cars to achieve the light-truckrequirement. Percentages of various ve-hicle types assumed to be required un-der the LEV II program are depicted inFigure 6, page 18 (assuming a roughly60/40 percentage split between light-truck sales and car sales throughout theentire period).

Fleet Emissions Projections

Based on the above data, three sce-narios were created: a “Base Case” sce-nario based on projected trends in vehiclefuel economy, VMT and vehicle mix; a“LEV II program” scenario based on the

implementation scenario describedabove; and a “Global Warming Pollu-tion Standards” scenario based on thepercentage emission reductions proposedby the CARB staff in August 2004. Eachscenario began with data from 2000 andcontinued through 2020.

Projected emissions were based on theyear-to-year increase (or decrease) inemissions derived from the estimationtechniques described above. These year-to-year changes were then applied to the2000 baseline emission level to createprojections through 2020.

Other Assumptions

In addition to the above, we made thefollowing assumptions:• Rebound effects – Research has shown

that improved vehicle fuel economyoften results in an increase in vehicle-miles traveled. By reducing the mar-ginal cost of driving, fuel economystandards and other efforts to improveefficiency provide an economic incen-tive for additional vehicle travel. Stud-ies have found that this “reboundeffect” may reduce the carbon diox-ide emission savings of fuel economy-improving policies by as much as 20to 30 percent.42 To account for thiseffect, carbon dioxide reductions ineach of the scenarios were discountedby 20 percent. This estimate is likelyquite conservative: in its own analy-sis using California-specific incomeand transportation data, CARB esti-mated a rebound effect ranging from7 percent to less than 1 percent.43

• Mix shifting – We assumed that nei-ther of the policies under study wouldresult in changes in the class of vehiclespurchased by Washington residents, orthe relative amount that they aredriven (rebound effect excluded). Inaddition, we assumed that the vehicleage distributions assumed by EPA re-

28 Cars and Global Warming

main constant under each of the poli-cies. In other words, we assumed thatany increase in vehicle prices broughtabout by the global warming emissionstandards would not dissuade con-sumers from purchasing new vehiclesor encourage them to purchase lighttrucks when they would otherwisepurchase cars (or vice versa). Mixshifting impacts such as these are quitecomplex and modeling them was be-yond the scope of this report, but theydo have the potential to make a sig-nificant impact on future carbon di-oxide emissions.

WashPIRG Foundation 29

1. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,IPCC Third Assessment Report – Climate Change2001: Summary for Policy Makers, 2001.

2. Ibid.

3. Data on the effects of global warming are fromU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, GlobalWarming-State Impacts: Washington, Office ofPolicy, Planning, and Evaluation, September 1997,unless otherwise noted.

4. Patrick Mazza, Climate Solutions, In Hot Wa-ter – A Snapshot of the Northwest’s ChangingClimate, June 1999.

5. Ibid.

6. Jim Kerstetter, Washington State UniversityEnergy Cooperative, for the Washington Depart-ment of Community, Trade, and Economic De-velopment, Washington State’s Greenhouse GasEmissions: Sources and Trends, June 2004.

7. California Environmental Protection Agency,Air Resources Board, Draft Staff Proposal Re-garding the Maximum Feasible and Cost-Effec-tive Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissionsfrom Motor Vehicles, 14 June 2004, 8.

8. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Inven-tory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks,1990-2002, 15 April 2004.

9. James Hansen and Larissa Nazarenko, “SootClimate Forcing Via Snow and Ice Albedos,” Pro-ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,101(2), 2004.

10. Jim Kerstetter, Washington State UniversityEnergy Cooperative, for the Department of Com-munity, Trade, and Economic Development,Washington State’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions:Sources and Trends, June 2004; breakdown ofdata in table 2 provided by Greg Nothstein, De-partment of Community, Trade, and EconomicDevelopment, personal communication, 24 Janu-ary 2005.

11. Motor gasoline accounts for 51% of emis-sions from the transportation sector (JimKerstetter, Washington State University EnergyCooperative, for the Department of Community,Trade, and Economic Development, WashingtonState’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Sources andTrends, June 2004). About 92 percent of motorgasoline use in the transportation sector is usedto power light duty vehicles (EIA, SupplementalTables to Annual Energy Outlook 2003).

12. Note that this data does not include the glo-bal warming emissions from electricity generatedoutside Washington but consumed in the state.Jim Kerstetter, Washington State University En-ergy Cooperative, for the Department of Com-munity, Trade, and Economic Development,Washington State’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions:

Sources and Trends, June 2004; breakdown ofdata in table 2 provided by Greg Nothstein, De-partment of Community, Trade, and EconomicDevelopment, personal communication, 26 Janu-ary 2005.

13. West Coast Governors’ Global Warming Ini-tiative, Staff Recommendations to the Governors,November 2004.

14. West Coast Governors’ Global Warming Ini-tiative, Staff Recommendations to the Governors,Appendix I: Setting Global Warming PollutionReduction Targets, November 2004.

15. State Attorney General’s Office, State Chal-lenges EPA Decision on Global Warming (pressrelease), 12 October 2003.

16. Brian Calkins, Transportation Economist,Washington State Department of Transportation,Forecast of Fuels, Vehicles, and Related DataThrough 2031, November 2004.

17. Ibid.

18. Stacy C. Davis, Susan W. Deigel, Center forTransportation Analysis, Oak Ridge NationalLaboratory, Transportation Energy Data Book:Edition 22, September 2002, Chapter 7.

19. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Light-Duty Automotive Technology and Fuel EconomyTrends: 1975 Through 2004, Appendix C, April2004. The federal law that established CAFE stan-dards also established the means for testing ofvehicles to determine compliance with the stan-dards. It has long been recognized that these test-ing methods overstate the “real world” fueleconomy of vehicles. EPA has begun to includeadjusted figures in its reporting of fuel economytrends and, in its 2004 report, included an esti-mate of real-world vehicle mileage based on in-creases in the percentage of urban driving. In thisreport, all discussions of vehicle fuel economy willrefer to “real world” efficiency levels rather than“EPA rated” levels.

20. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Light-Duty Automotive Technology and Fuel EconomyTrends: 1975 Through 2004, Appendix C, April2004.

21. Real world fuel economy: U.S. Environmen-tal Protection Agency, Light-Duty AutomotiveTechnology and Fuel Economy Trends: 1975Through 2004, Appendix C, April 2004. CAFEstandards: U.S. Department of Transportation,Summary of Fuel Economy Performance, March2003.

22. See note 20.

23. Ibid.

24. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, FleetCharacterization Data for MOBILE6: Develop-

NOTES

30 Cars and Global Warming

ment and Use of Age Distributions, Average An-nual Mileage Accumulation Rates, and ProjectedVehicle Counts for Use in MOBILE6, September2001; MOBILE6 run conducted by MASSPIRGEducation Fund based on national defaults, Janu-ary 2003.

25. Total emissions figure from Jim Kerstetter,Washington State University Energy Cooperative,for the Washington Department of Community,Trade, and Economic Development, WashingtonState’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Sources andTrends, June 2004.

26. See “Assumptions and Methodology” formethod of calculation.

27. California Environmental Protection Agency,Air Resources Board, Resolution 03-4, 24 April2003.

28. California Environmental Protection Agency,Air Resources Board, Cleaner Gas Cars, down-loaded from www.driveclean.ca.gov/en/gv/driveclean/vtype_cleaner.asp, 1 July 2004.

29. 2004 sales information based on announce-ments from Honda, Toyota, and Ford, which werethe only manufacturers to sell significant num-bers of hybrids in 2004. Toyota, Toyota ReachesTwo Million in Sales For The First Time in 47-Year History (press release), 4 January 2005;Honda, American Honda Sets New All-Time SalesRecord (press release), 4 January 2005; and SteveGeimann, Bloomberg, “Ford Expands Lineup ofGas-Electric Hybrid Vehicles (Update3),” 9 Janu-ary 2005.

30. California Air Resources Board, Clean Ve-hicle Search results for hybrid-electric vehicles,downloaded from www.driveclean.ca.gov/en/gv/vsearch/cleansearch_result.asp?vehicletypeid=7, 1July 2004; Ford Motor Company, 2005 FordEscape Hybrid Launches, 6 August 2004.

31. California Environmental Protection Agency,Air Resources Board, Upcoming Clean Cars: Hy-brids, downloaded from www.driveclean.ca.gov/en/gv/vsearch/upcoming.asp, 17 January 2005.

32. Based on estimated fuel-efficiency improve-ment factor of 1.45 from hybrid-electric vehiclesversus conventional vehicles in National ResearchCouncil, National Academy of Engineering, TheHydrogen Economy: Opportunities, Costs, Bar-riers and R&D Needs, The National AcademiesPress, 2004. This means that a conventional gaso-line-powered vehicle uses 1.45 times as much en-ergy as a hybrid-electric vehicle.

33. The reasons behind the lack of market suc-cess of the EV-Plus, EV1 and similar electric ve-hicles are complex, and may have much to dowith automakers’ failure to properly market theirvehicles to the public.

34. California Environmental Protection Agency,Air Resources Board, ARB Approves GreenhouseGas Rule (press release), 24 September 2004.

35. California Assembly Bill 1493, adopted 29July 2002.

36. California Environmental Protection Agency,Air Resources Board, Staff Report: Initial State-ment of Reasons for Proposed Rulemaking, Pub-lic Hearing to Consider Adoption of Regulationsto Control Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Mo-tor Vehicles, 6 August 2004. Earlier analysis byCARB suggested that even deeper cuts in vehicleemissions could be made more quickly. CARB’sinitial draft proposal for implementation of thestandards called for cost-effective emission reduc-tions of 22 percent from cars and 24 percent fromlight trucks in the near term. Over the mediumterm (2012 to 2014), cost-effective reductions of32 percent for cars and 30 percent for light-truckswere deemed feasible. In addition, the standardswere assumed to be phased in much more quicklythan under CARB’s most recent proposal. SeeCalifornia Environmental Protection Agency, AirResources Board, Draft Staff Proposal Regard-ing the Maximum Feasible and Cost-Effective Re-duction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Mo-tor Vehicles, 14 June 2004

37. California Environmental Protection Agency,Air Resources Board, ARB Approves GreenhouseGas Rule (press release), 24 September 2004.

38. California Environmental Protection Agency,Air Resources Board, Addendum Presenting andDescribing Revisions to: Initial Statement of Rea-sons for Proposed Rulemaking, Public Hearingto Consider Adoption of Regulations to ControlGreenhouse Gas Emissions from Motor Vehicles,10 September 2004.

39. Catherine Witherspoon, California Environ-mental Protection Agency, Air Resources Board,Regulations to Control Greenhouse Gas Emis-sions from Motor Vehicles, presentation atSTAPPA/ALAPCO Fall Membership Meeting, 23-27 October 2004.

40. California Environmental Protection Agency,Air Resources Board, Staff Report: Initial State-ment of Reasons for Proposed Rulemaking, Pub-lic Hearing to Consider Adoption of Regulationsto Control Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Mo-tor Vehicles, 6 August 2004; California Environ-mental Protection Agency, Air Resources Board,Addendum Presenting and Describing Revisionsto: Initial Statement of Reasons for ProposedRulemaking, Public Hearing to Consider Adop-tion of Regulations to Control Greenhouse GasEmissions from Motor Vehicles, 10 September2004.

WashPIRG Foundation 31

41. For a fuller list of transportation policy op-tions, see National Association of State PIRGs,Natural Resources Council of Maine, A Blueprintfor Action: Policy Options to Reduce Maine’sContribution to Global Warming, Summer 2004.

42. Paul Schimek, “Gasoline and Travel DemandModels Using Time Series and Cross-Section Datafrom the United States,” Transportation ResearchRecord, no. 1558 (1996), 83; U.S. General Ac-counting Office, Energy Policy Act of 1992: Lim-ited Progress in Acquiring Alternative Fuel Ve-hicles and Reaching Fuel Goals, February 2000.

43. See note 36.


Top Related