(Real-world CO₂ is typically 25% higher and real-world fuel economy is typically 20% lower than figures determined under test, the agencies noted. Thus the 3% to 6% range evaluated in the assessment would yield a range of real-world fuel economy values of approximately 37 to 50 mpg, which correspond to the regulatory test procedure values of 47 to 62, respectively.)

The technology pathways are intended to show the different cost impacts of achieving different levels of stringency, if the industry were to place more or less emphasis on hybrids, plug-in hybrids, and electric vehicles as compared to advanced gasoline technologies and vehicle mass reduction.

This initial assessment in the TAR produced projected vehicle cost estimates of approximately $800 to $3,500 and lifetime savings due to reduced fuel costs of about $5,000 to over $7,000, depending on the phase-in stringency scenario and the technology pathway. The more detailed analysis for the upcoming proposal will likely show that the industry average cost will be higher than this initial assessment, while individual manufacturer costs may be higher or lower, EPA noted.

EPA and NHTSA expect to issue, by November 30, 2010, a Supplemental Notice of Intent that will describe further design elements for the National Program and present an updated analysis of potential stringencies for model years 2017-2025 standards for GHGs and fuel economy. A principal goal of the Supplemental Notice will be to narrow the range of potential stringencies for the future proposed standards, as well as to reflect new technical data and information and, as appropriate, further analysis supplementing the Interim Joint TAR.

While the agencies do not intend to issue another TAR we do plan to do additional analysis and make it available as a part of the Supplemental Notice of Intent. In recent months, the agencies have had important discussions with many individual automobile manufacturers and other stakeholders, and our intention is to continue such discussions.

—Notice of Upcoming Joint Rulemaking

For the upcoming rulemaking, EPA and NHTSA expect to continue to develop standards on an attribute-based approach, using the vehicle size measure of footprint, as in the recent MY 2012-2016 rulemaking. This approach allows carmakers to attain the targets while maintaining their flexibility to continue offering a full range of vehicles to consumers, the agencies said. The future rulemaking will also consider what provisions may be appropriate to provide manufacturers flexibility in how they choose to comply with the program.

EPA, NHTSA, and CARB held numerous meetings with a wide variety of stakeholders to gather input to consider in developing the TAR, and to ensure that the agencies had available to them the most recent technical information. These stakeholders included the automobile original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), automotive suppliers, non-governmental organizations, states and state organizations, infrastructure providers, and labor unions.

In response to the agencies’ request, OEMs provided detailed and confidential input regarding several key areas including technology development, key regulatory design elements, infrastructure issues, perspective on the impacts on the US manufacturing base and jobs, costs, and potential regulatory incentives and flexibilities. A common theme across the auto firms is that they are all heavily investing in advanced technologies including hybrids (HEVs), plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs), electric vehicles (EVs), next generation internal combustion engines, and mass reduction technologies, and companies expect to increase their offerings and sales of these technologies significantly in the future.

The companies generally stated, however, that the degree to which these advanced technologies will penetrate the US market in the MYs 2017-2025 timeframe is dependent upon a number of challenges and factors, including future gasoline fuel prices, future decreases in battery costs, future regulatory fuel economy/GHG requirements, and government incentives for vehicle purchasers and owners such as the existing tax credits for EVs and PHEVs. EPA, NHTSA and CARB also met with a cross section of automotive suppliers as well as advanced technology infrastructure providers.

—Notice of Upcoming Joint Rulemaking

Technologies. The Federal agencies and ARB assessed more than 30 vehicle technologies that manufacturers could use to improve the fuel economy and reduce the CO₂ emissions of their vehicles during MYs 2017-2025. The technologies considered fall into five broad categories:

• engine technologies;
• transmission technologies;
• vehicle technologies (including mass reduction);
• electrification/accessory technologies; and
• hybrid/vehicle electrification technologies.

The agencies and ARB considered technologies that are readily available today as well as technologies that may not currently be in production but are beyond the research phase and under development and which are expected to be in production in the MYs 2017-2025 timeframe.

For each of the reduction scenarios, the three analyzed four technological pathways by which they could be met. They chose the technological pathway approach to capture both the diversity in strategies expressed by OEMs in this summer’s stakeholder meetings, and uncertainties in forecasting 10-15 years into the future the potential costs and use of various advanced technologies in the light-duty vehicle fleet.

They defined each of these technology pathways to emphasize a different mix of advanced technologies, by assuming various degrees of penetration of advanced gasoline technologies, mass reduction, hybrids, plug-in hybrids, and electric vehicles. For purposes of the assessment, the agencies denominated the pathways as Pathway A, Pathway B, Pathway C and Pathway D, respectively.

• Pathway A represents an approach where the industry focuses on HEVs, with less reliance on advanced gasoline vehicles and mass reduction, relative to Pathways B and C.
• Pathway B represents an approach where the industry utilizes advanced gasoline vehicles and mass reduction at a more moderate level, higher than in Pathway A but less than in Pathway C.
• Pathway C represents an approach where the industry focuses most on advanced gasoline vehicles and mass reduction, and to a lesser extent on HEVs.
• Pathway D represents an approach where the industry focuses on the use of PHEV, EV, and HEV technology, and relies less on advanced gasoline vehicles and mass reduction.

All four of these technology pathways include significant amounts of mass reduction, relative to 2008 model year vehicles, ranging from 15 to 30% in 2025.

The three determined, on the basis of the initial analysis in the TAR, that automotive technologies are available, or are expected to be available, to support a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and commensurate increase in fuel economy in 2017-2025 MY timeframe for the full range of scenarios examined in the TAR—i.e., up to 6% per year. The agencies have also determined, on the basis of the initial analysis, that increases come at increasing incremental cost.

Projections for MY 2025 preliminary per-vehicle cost estimates, vehicle owner payback, and net owner lifetime savings for each of the pathways under the different reduction scenarios. Source: EPA. Click to enlarge.

Technology Penetration Estimates. Source: EPA. Click to enlarge.

Consistent with stakeholder input obtained over the summer, we believe that in addition to advanced gasoline and diesel vehicles, electric drive vehicles can be an important part of the vehicle mix that will likely be used to meet future fuel economy and GHG emission standards. Electric drive vehicles including HEVs, PHEVs, EVs, and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (FCVs), can dramatically reduce petroleum consumption and tailpipe GHG emissions compared to conventional technologies.

—Notice of Upcoming Joint Rulemaking

EPA and NHTSA encourage comment on all aspects of the NOI and the TAR and have established dockets for accepting comments: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-0799 and/or NHTSA-2010-0131.

Resources

• Notice of Upcoming Joint Rulemaking

• Interim Joint Technical Assessment Report