Breaking down the final GHG Phase 2 rules

[kscarbel2]

Fleet Owner  /  August 17, 2016

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) officially rolled out “Phase 2” greenhouse gas (GHG) and fuel efficiency rules this week aimed at four distinct commercial equipment types: Class 7 and 8 tractors, trailers, heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans, plus vocational vehicles. The “phase-in” period for the new rules stretches from model year 2021 thru model year 2027, by which time units within the four groups mentioned must be in full compliance.

The EPA and NHTSA said the Phase 2 standards are expected to lower carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by approximately 1.1 billion metric tons, save vehicle owners fuel costs of about $170 billion, and reduce oil consumption by up to 2 billion barrels over the lifetime of the vehicles sold under the program.

Both agencies claim that the “typical buyer” of a new long-haul truck in 2027 could recoup the extra cost of the technology in just less than two years through fuel savings. In total, the program is expected to result in up to $230 billion in “net benefits” to society over the lifetime of vehicles sold under the program: benefits that include fuel savings, carbon reductions, improved health, better energy security, along with lower travel and refueling costs.

Class 7 and 8 tractors and their engines account for roughly 60% of total GHG emissions and fuel consumption from the heavy-duty sector, according to EPA and NHTSA, and the Phase 2 standards for them start in model year 2021, increase incrementally in model year 2024, and are expected to be fully phased-in by model year 2027. The standards differ by vehicle weight class, roof height, and cab type (sleeper or day cab). The fully phased-in standards are expected to achieve up to 25% lower CO2 emissions and fuel consumption levels compared to the Phase 1 standards, EPA and NHSTA said.

OEMs can meet the tractor standards via several avenues: improvements to engines, transmissions, drivelines, and aerodynamic design, along with the use of lower rolling resistance tires, extended idle reduction technologies, and other accessories.

For diesel engines, Phase 2 standards begin to be applied in model year 2021, with interim standards to be met by 2024 before full phase-in occurs in model year 2027. A revised test cycle is being adopted as well for “weighting” tractor engines to better reflect actual in-use operation. The final diesel engine standards will reduce CO2 emissions and fuel consumption by up to 5% for tractor engines and up to 4% for vocational engines compared to Phase 1, EPA and NHTSA said.

Technologies that could be used to meet the Phase 2 diesel engine standards include: combustion optimization; improved air handling; reduced friction within the engine; improved emissions after-treatment technologies; and waste heat recovery.

The Phase 2 program includes first-ever fuel efficiency standards for trailers. Compliance with the EPA’s Phase 2 GHG standards are voluntary starting in 2018, and are also voluntary for NHTSA from 2018 to 2020, with mandatory standards beginning in 2021. In general, the trailer standards apply only for box vans, flatbeds, tankers, and container chassis. Full compliance with the Phase 2 standards for trailers is expected by model year 2027; standards that should achieve up to 9% lower CO2 emissions and fuel consumption compared to an average model year 2017 trailer.

EPA and NHTSA said that some of the technologies trailer makers may use to meet the Phase 2 standards include: aerodynamic devices, lower rolling resistance tires, automatic tire inflation systems, and weight reducing designs.

Heavy- and medium- duty pickup trucks and vans represent about 23% of the fuel consumption and GHG emissions within the heavy- and medium-duty vehicle sector, EPA and NHTSA noted. The Phase 2 standards for heavy-duty pickups and vans, however, will apply largely in the same manner as the Phase 1 standards. Under this approach, all manufacturers face the same standards, but the average emission and fuel consumption rates applicable to each manufacturer depend on the manufacturer’s sales mix, with higher capacity vehicles (in terms of payload and towing) having less stringent targets.

Thus the Phase 2 standards for pickups and vans take the form of a set of target standard curves, based on a “work factor” that, as in Phase 1, combines a vehicle’s payload, towing capabilities, and whether or not it has 4-wheel drive. The standards become 2.5% more stringent every year from model years 2021 to 2027, with fully phased-in reductions in CO2 emissions and fuel consumption of about 16% beyond Phase 1.

EPA and NHTSA believe most pickup and van manufacturers will choose to meet the Phase 2 rules some of the same technologies already being used to meet the Phase 1 2014-2018 standards, including improvements in engines, transmissions, and lower rolling resistance tire technologies. Under Phase 2, though, both agencies expect newer, more advanced technologies such as engine stop/start and powertrain hybridization will introduced more broadly into this segment.

Vocational vehicles encompass a broad variety of units, including delivery trucks, emergency vehicles, cement and dump trucks, refuse haulers, public utility trucks, plus transit, shuttle, and school buses. Vocational vehicles represent about 17% of the total medium- and heavy-duty fuel consumption, EPA and NHTSA said, noting that Phase 2 rules for this segments start in model year 2021, with increased stringency in model year 2024 and full compliance by 2027.

Vocational vehicle standards will be differentiated using vehicle weights, driving cycle, and chassis type for emergency vehicles, cement mixers, coach buses, school buses, transit buses, refuse trucks, and motor homes may optionally use application-specific standards. The fully phased-in Phase 2 standards should achieve up to 24% in CO2 emissions and fuel consumption relative to Phase 1, the agencies predict, with improvements to engines, transmissions, and drivelines, plus the addition of lower rolling resistance tires, idle reduction systems, weight reducing designs, and some application of hybrid technology, to be used to gain compliance with the new rules.

The Phase 2 rules also include averaging, banking, and trading (ABT) compliance provisions for both the engine and vehicle standards in this program. EPA and NHTSA said such provisions allow manufacturers to trade credits, bank credits for future years, and average credits, which in turn allows manufacturers to certify engines or vehicles that do not perform up to the standard and offset them with engines or vehicles that perform better than the standard.

However, EPA and NHTSA said they are not adopting a full ABT program for the Phase 2 trailer standards because, in their words, “the nature of the industry makes it a challenge for trailer manufacturers to benefit from this type of program.” Instead, the agencies will finalize an averaging program available in model year 2027 for manufacturers of dry and refrigerated box vans as well as exemptions for non-box specialty trailer types that remove or reduce the burden for many small businesses.

The Phase 2 standards are fully aligned between EPA and NHTSA noted that the Phase 2 standards are “fully aligned” between them both as well as with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) so as to allow manufacturers to continue to build a “single fleet” of vehicles, equipment and engines for the U.S. market.

[kscarbel2]

Q&A with Eaton on Phase 2 powertrain efficiency

Fleet Owner  /  August 18, 2016

Hand-in-hand with the GHG Phase 2 final rule is the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Model — GEM for short — which defines and assigns values to fuel efficiency-increasing technologies for testing compliance with goals the rule sets. Global power management company Eaton Corp. says it helped get a word in edgewise for trucking that improved compliance testing by allowing for more flexible powertrain consideration.

Eaton contends the adjusted testing is "significantly improved" in that considers powertrain enhancements that can save fuel and help reach efficiency goals without simply having to add more technologies and cost to trucks.

That's a key point, since the rule addresses fuel economy of medium- and heavy-duty trucks from a vehicle perspective as well as for heavy-duty engines themselves, and fleets and trucking companies may choose to spec non-OEM powertrain options like the SmartAdvantage joint product offered by Cummins Inc. and Eaton. Fleet Owner heard from Mihai Dorobantu, engineering manager for Eaton's Truck Group technology team, about the adjusted compliance testing.

Q: Were there any changes from the GHG Phase 2 proposed rule to the final rule that you believe will help the trucking industry achieve the fuel economy goals set forth?

A: "Since the proposed rule, the EPA has improved two key testing alternatives that offer flexibility in achieving the standards. Transmission efficiency tests allow OEMs to take advantage of advanced technologies such as precision lubrication and gears designed for fuel efficiency.

"The powertrain test method also was significantly improved to allow the industry to quantify and take advantage of the efficiency driven by intelligent controls. Such technologies are not 'seen' by the default certification methodology, but do provide real fuel savings without adding cost, weight or complexity.

"The EPA has worked with the major industry stakeholders to ensure the testing methodologies are sound. Our advanced transmissions and controls help cover anywhere from one-tenth to two-thirds of the compliance gap, above and beyond the original estimates in the proposed rule."

Q: With the final rule, do you expect that all-new technologies will need to emerge and be added to improve efficiency?

A: "The proposed rule showed one path to compliance that was a mix of incremental improvements — for example, better lubrication or engine downspeeding — and totally new technologies such as waste heat recovery and electrification, which makes compliance very hard, adding cost, weight and complexity.

"As the industry started to think through the challenges of achieving compliance, other, better paths emerged. For example, our advanced automation and deep engine-transmission integration technologies also offer compliance value to our OEM customers between one-quarter and two-thirds of the compliance gap.

"These are examples of advanced technologies that do not add weight, complexity or cost, yet have dramatic results in terms of reducing fuel burn, and thus help achieve compliance. In many cases, by advancing the controls and intelligence of our transmissions, we enable OEMs to simplify and actually take weight out of the system.

"For example, improving transmission efficiency leads to cooler elimination, or using new dual-clutch technology allows the elimination of the notoriously inefficient torque converter while maintaining performance and drivability.

"So although the rule will likely force some new technologies in engines and aerodynamics, the ingenuity of the industry is already finding cost-effective means to use intelligence and controls to help compliance without adding new systems or hardware."

[kscarbel2]

Trucking seems cautiously optimistic about Phase 2 rules

Fleet Owner  /  August 17, 2016

Trucking OEMs, suppliers, trade groups, and fleets in the main seem “cautiously optimistic” regarding eventual compliance with the final Phase 2 greenhouse gas (GHG) and fuel efficiency rules issued this week by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), though in some cases the final rules benchmarks are tougher than what the agencies proposed in the draft phase of the rulemaking process.

[NOTE: to read the entire 1,690 page final Phase 2 rule, go here. To read through the detailed 1,116 page “regulatory impact analysis” of the final rule, go here. For the simplified 5-page fact sheet concerning the Phase 2 rules, go here. To review the specific modeling programs used by EPA and NHTSA for gauging compliance with the new rule, go here and here, respectively.]

Sean Waters, director of compliance and regulatory affairs at Daimler Trucks North America (DTNA), pointed out in a statement that improving overall efficiency for Class 7 and 8 tractors and vocational vehicles by as much as 25% over the course of more than a decade as called for by the new rules “is a tremendous challenge for an industry that has been treating fuel efficiency as a first order priority for our customers for many decades.”

He added that the up to 5% engine efficiency improvements included in the overall efficiency Phase 2 target will require “continued development of engine technology” as well, though he stressed DTNA is “confident that we are up to the challenge.”

The Truck Renting and Leasing Association (TRALA), for one, is concerned that the final rule “appears to have more stringent benchmarks” than the original proposed rule, yet is pleased that 2027 remains “the final target date” for full compliance as both EPA and NHTSA had considered “speeding up that process” by making the final date 2024.

“We are pleased that the EPA and NHTSA granted our request to have the final implementation year of Phase 2 remain in 2027,” noted Jake Jacoby, TRALA’s president and CEO, in a statement. “We’re also pleased that there appears to be harmonization of standards and some additional flexibility for the OEMs to reach these targets."

Glen Kedzie, vice president and energy and environmental counsel for the American Trucking Associations (ATA) trade group, added that industry representatives worked with EPA and NHTSA for three-and-a-half years to ensure Phase 2 standards took into account “the wide diversity of equipment and operations across the trucking sector,” which he believes remains the case.

“We are pleased that our concerns such as adequate lead-time for technology development, national harmonization of standards, and flexibility for manufacturers have been heard and included in the final rule,” he said in a statement.

“While efficiency milestones for vehicles, engines and trailers have all been slightly increased over the agencies’ initial proposal, we are encouraged that they addressed several important issues in the final rule including undertaking annual rule assessments, not accelerating compliance timelines from those originally proposed and refining emissions modeling based on industry data,” Kedzie stressed.

“However, while the potential for real cost savings and environmental benefits under this rule are there – fleets will ultimately determine the success or failure of this rule based on their comfort level purchasing these new technologies,” he said.

Yet the American consumer is also expected to benefit from the Phase 2 rules as well, according to the Consumer Federation of America (CFA), largely due to lower fuel usage by freight-hauling trucks. For example, CFA calculates that the average American family spends more than $1,100 per year on indirect freight truck fuel costs passed on to consumers.

“That’s almost as much as the average family spends on household electricity,” stressed Jack Gillis, CFA’s director of public affairs and vehicle expert, in a statement.

“For a long time, an efficiency gap has forced consumers to pay the freight for inefficient shipping,” he said. “These standards will save consumers money, just as other energy efficiency goals have saved families and businesses money on the total cost of owning and operating cars, light-duty trucks, and home appliances such as refrigerators and water heaters.”

[kscarbel2]

Special Report: Fuel Economy Phase 2

Fleet Owner  /  June 8, 2016

The joint announcement by EPA and NHTSA last year of proposed new greenhouse gas emissions regulations (GHG Phase 2) for heavy-duty trucks has brought about plenty of conjecture within the industry about what the rule will say when it’s finalized this summer and how truck makers and fleets will comply.

These goals are expected to include an approximately 24% fuel efficiency gain for tractors, 8% to 12% for trailers, and 4% for engines.

1. GHG Rule: Explaining Phase 2

Touted by the Obama Adminis­tration as a win-win-win for the enviro­nment, trucking industry and consumers, the proposed second round of fuel economy standards for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles are meant to reduce climate change impact while bolstering energy security and spurring manufacturing innovation.

But nearly a year after being jointly published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Dept. of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the honeymoon between the government and the industry—if there ever was one—is certainly over.

The greenhouse gas (GHG) final rule is still up in the air, and no one is quite sure what to expect from it when it is published. Broadly, the proposed rule pits the trucking industry, which wants a cautious, doable program, against clean air groups that insist on the most aggressive of the proposal’s goals and timelines. Even within trucking, factions have developed: Engine maker Cummins supports a separate engine-only standard, and trailer makers argue that EPA has no authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate them at all.

There’s also more than a little concern that any “technology-forcing” goals could result in performance and reliability issues similar to the implementation of EPA’s NOx regulations a decade ago—and that new, more strict NOx restrictions will be included in the GHG final rule, or follow shortly thereafter, with contradictory goals.

As for the timing, the rule is slated to be finalized this summer, but there is no statutory deadline. 

Here’s a general outline of where the proposal stands and the cases for or against the various elements in the complex and far-reaching plan.

THE BASICS

The proposed standards—dubbed Phase 2 as a follow-up to the original truck fuel economy standards that set targets for 2014 and 2017 model-year trucks—are expected to lower CO2 emissions by about 1 billion metric tons, cut fuel costs by about $170 billion, and reduce oil consumption by up to 1.8 billion barrels over the lifetime of the vehicles sold under the program.

Medium- and heavy-duty vehicles account for about 20% of GHG emissions and oil use in the U.S. transportation sector but only comprise about 5% of vehicles on the road, according to the federal government.

The proposed vehicle and engine performance standards would cover model years 2021-2027 and apply to semi-trucks, large pickup trucks and vans, and all types and sizes of buses and work trucks. They would achieve up to 24% lower CO2 emissions and fuel consumption than an equivalent tractor in 2018, based on the fully phased-in standards for the tractor alone in a tractor-trailer combination.

Unlike the automobile fuel economy standards, Phase 2 does not use an mpg measure. EPA considers such a measurement meaningless for the many trucks and applications covered under the proposal.

For highway tractors, the key is freight efficiency, or the amount of freight that can be hauled per mile, per gallon of fuel. In 2027, EPA estimates the average line-haul truck would achieve a 50% improvement with that potentially rising to 90% with the development and adoption of more efficient technologies.

Experts at the Environmental Defense Fund did the hypothetical math and put the 2027 goal at about 9.5 mpg for highway tractor-trailers compared to about 6 mpg in 2010.

In this next phase, EPA and NHTSA are also proposing efficiency and GHG standards for trailers for the first time. The EPA trailer standards would begin to take effect in model-year 2018 for certain trailers, while NHTSA’s standards would be in effect as of 2021. Credits would be available for voluntary participation before then.

DOABLE, OEMS SAY, BUT…

The goals for the federal truck fuel efficiency requirements will be achievable, says the head of the country’s largest truck maker—he’s just not sure yet what the solutions are going to be. And all bets are off if EPA’s Phase 2 GHG reduction program strays from the preliminary standards proposed, Daimler Trucks North America (DTNA) President and CEO Martin Daum told trucking media representatives last fall.

That proposed tar­­get of a 24% im­provement in heavy-duty fuel efficiency by 2027 is “a lot,” he concedes.

While DTNA is generally supportive of the program’s goals, Daum objects to the possible engine-only standard on top of the whole-vehicle requirements.

“I’ve never seen an engine alone running down the road,” he quips. “We need all the pieces to fit together to optimize [fuel efficiency]. But the higher the engine standard, the less room we have for optimization.”

DTNA would like to see a single national standard, but the real concern is for the possible development of a new NOx limit. Daum worries that the GHG rule will be finalized and manufacturers will begin to work toward meeting the requirements, and then EPA will set another NOx standard causing an industry disruption similar to 2006.

More formally, DTNA joined with Caterpillar, Navistar, Paccar, and Volvo Group in filing comments on the proposed rule. To assure that the rule benefits customers—and achieves environmental goals—the Phase 2 regulation must be finalized with seven basic principles in mind, the truck makers note:

• Regulation must appropriately reflect real-world reductions.
• There must be a single, national GHG regulation adopted by EPA, NHTSA and CARB.
• Expected technologies must be appropriately demonstrated.
• Expected technology penetration rates must align with market needs and legal restrictions.
• Regulation must take into account total cost of ownership.
• Protocols must be clearly defined and accommodate production and test variability.
• Regulation must recognize the trade-off of NOx and CO2 reduction targets.

FLEETS WANT ROI

Indeed, while the final rule is aimed at truck makers, truck buyers clearly have a stake. After all, if customers won’t buy the trucks, the environmental goals won’t be achieved, the American Trucking Assns. (ATA) notes in its formal comment.

“The consistent message from fleets to ATA regarding the Phase 2 rule is abundantly clear: Achieve the greatest efficiency improvements at the least overall cost while minimizing downtime, maximizing durability, and recognizing a positive return on investment over the course of equipment ownership,” ATA says.
Among ATA’s key points:

• ATA opposes the accelerated timeline option that pulls ahead the 2027 targets to 2024. “If Phase 2 results in customers being led down a path to purchase technologies that are not proven, cost-effective, or reasonable for a fleet’s applications, fleets will keep their vehicles and trailers longer and will pre-buy in advance of the changes, followed by a subsequent no-buy after the new standards take effect.”
• Technology costs remain suspect. “ATA believes the agencies under­estimated the costs of various technologies, making the payback period on these technologies much longer than is stated in the proposed rule.”
• Need for harmonization between state and federal GHG/fuel economy programs. “ATA supports these efforts as harmonization with California (or other states for that matter) is an extremely high priority. It is both unwise and unhealthy for the nation’s economy and the movement of the nation’s freight to allow a patchwork of state and federal tailpipe and fuel consumption standards for trucks to emerge.”
• Further evaluation and demonstration is needed before committing to a low-NOx engine standard. “Given EPA expects fleets to pay an additional $14,000 for a new tractor-trailer combination meeting the Phase 2 standards, the agencies must be sensitive to the cost impact additional regulatory pursuits will have on the trucking industry.”

TRAILER AUTHORITY

The trailer industry has questioned EPA’s right to even set trailer targets. “Unfortunately, by extending its proposed rule to semi-trailers, the EPA has adopted an unprecedented interpretation of its authority that exceeds its Congressional authorization,” Utility Trailer Manufacturing, the nation’s largest trailer builder, wrote in its filing. “Additionally, the agencies have based their analysis on assumptions that are completely untethered from the real world, resulting in proposed regulations that will yield minimal, if any, net greenhouse-gas reductions while imposing crippling administrative burdens on the semi-trailer industry.”

Specifically, the agencies’ assumptions about speed—from which the aerodynamic savings are projected—“bear no relationship to how tractors and trailers operate on America’s highways.” Utility provides its own fleet test data to refute the proposal’s assumption that a trailer travels at 65 mph 86% of the time. Even the fastest tractor-trailer in a three-fleet test traveled at 65 mph just 33% of the time, according to Utility.

The Truck Trailer Manu­­facturers Assn. (TTMA) urges the agencies to consider an alternative rule that would require trailer manufacturers to label and/or provide some test data to show that the trailer is capable of being assembled into a compliant tractor-trailer, and then impose the responsibility of combining compliant trailers with compliant tractors on the motor carriers.

“While we stand by our contention that EPA’s SmartWay program provides the optimal solution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and fuel consumption in the heavy-duty freight sector, we hope that if the agencies feel that additional regulation is needed, they will pursue the ‘alternative provisions’ approach and work with the trucking industry to create a set of reasonable and effective regulations,” TTMA writes.

ENGINE REQUIREMENTS

While the truck makers push for a “whole-vehicle” standard, engine maker Cummins makes the case for separate powerplant targets.

In a public hearing on Phase 2, Brian Mormino, executive director of worldwide environmental strategy and compliance, pointed to the proposal’s own characterization of a separate engine standard as “fundamental to the success of the program.”

An engine standard offers “a robust, clearly defined compliance program,” requires manufacturers to optimize CO2 and criteria pollutants together, and provides the only measure of engine fuel consumption and CO2 emissions under transient conditions, Cummins contends.

Cummins is concerned that the Phase 2 proposal’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions Model compliance simulation application drives more interaction between the engine and vehicle programs. The result is that it would require Cummins to release “proprietary and confidential business information.”

In Cummins’ formal comments, the company points to the advantages of a “well-established, representative, and robust set of engine test procedures” for emissions compliance enforcement.

“Using the same protocols for criteria and GHG emissions ensures linkage between all pollutants, forcing consideration of all constituents when optimizing engine performance and emissions,” Cummins says. “With differing certification cycles, one could trade off GHG improvement at the expense of nitrogen oxide increases. Such a situation would undermine regulatory integrity and environmental benefits from criteria emissions reductions achieved over the years.”

2. OEM Perspective: Getting there

With the tail end of the greenhouse gas (GHG) Phase 1 requirements now surfacing in engine makers’ more fuel-efficient 2017 lineups, a GHG Phase 2 rule is knock, knock, knocking on trucking’s door. How will the industry actually get there? How will manufacturers reach these fuel efficiency gains? Will they be measured as an average of all of an OEM’s products or carved out in segments?

The first and most basic answer to “getting there,” in many ways, is to reduce friction while maintaining performance. Reduce drag on the truck and trailer bodies and improve aerodynamics; use various methods to reduce friction in the engine itself; literally reduce resistance where the rubber hits the road; and any other opportunities you find as you claw your way to moving a hauling machine of up to 80,000 lbs. down the road at higher mpg.

By 2027, in what the involved federal agencies call “an ambitious, yet achievable program” in their proposal, combo tractors designed to pull trailers are likely to have a 24% fuel efficiency gain to meet and trailers another 8-12%, while separate standards for engines will likely call for 4% higher fuel efficiency compared with 2017 models. “For heavy trucks in 2027, let’s call it 9 mpg,” says Michael Roeth, executive director of the North American Council for Freight Efficiency (NACFE), simplifying and summing up the target goal from that angle.

There’s an app for that

To a point, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) have spelled out the technologies that come under GHG Phase 2 through their Greenhouse Gas Emissions Model (GEM) compliance simulation application for manufacturers. Companies input specs, usage parameters and particular fuel economy technologies for their tractors, engines or trailers and are essentially given a unit’s fuel efficiency figures used to monitor if the OEMs’ products are compliant with GHG targets.

“Each truck, for example, will get a number. As greenhouse gas stringency comes down from the federal government, manufacturers will run a number on every truck they build,” Roeth tells Fleet Owner. “You take all the trucks Kenworth builds, all the trucks that International builds and so on, and they’ll need a certain average to be compliant.

“There are many technologies to choose from,” he continues. “There’s aerodynamics on the tractor and trailer, lower rolling resistance tires, engine changes, gear ratios for downspeeding, automated manual transmissions, idle-reduction solutions—there’s a whole bunch of things the EPA has defined as technologies in the GEM program.”

According to EPA and NHTSA, the GEM program “is capable of recognizing most technologies that could be evaluated in both engine and chassis dynamometers and is [now] better able to reflect changes in technologies for compliance purposes.”

In GEM, some technology options for tractors are vehicle speed limiters, weight reduction, low-friction axle lubricants, predictive cruise control, high-efficiency A/C compressors, electric engine coolant and power steering pumps, automated tire inflation systems, and extended idle reduction. Vocational vehicles can add power take-off options, while trailers can have things like aerodynamic drag, weight reductions, and tire pressure inflation systems.

OEMs are innovating on their own, of course, as the GEM program envisions and is designed to accommodate. One driver of fuel economy innovation has been the SuperTruck public-private partnership, a project that’s now generated a sequel where the U.S. Dept. of Energy puts up grant funds to share costs for projects to reach large mpg improvement goals.

Volvo Trucks, for one, says its team developed some of the company’s latest engine improvements working in the SuperTruck program. Some enhancements that came from it are going into 2017 D11 and D13 engines particularly.

Those include Volvo’s “wave piston” technology and turbo compounding, and there’s also a new fuel rail, higher engine compression helping boost horsepower and torque, and other enhancements in terms of powertrain like improvements for I-Shift transmissions at both low and high speed. But the wave piston, as Volvo calls it, is one of the more standout technologies you’ll find claiming to unlock more fuel efficiency and making for a cleaner-burning engine.

In that patented design, explains John Moore, powertrain product manager, Volvo reshaped the top of the piston and therefore the combustion chamber. Imagine carving out six U’s end-to-end around the top of a piston and connecting them in a circle. You’ll have the high points where each U begins, the low points at the bottom of the curve, and the high points coming back up out of the U.

So think of those points as peaks and troughs of waves, and voila: “wave pistons.” Add to that a six-directional fuel injector nozzle that squirts fuel right at each wave trough or divot in the top of the piston.

“You’ve got six holes on the injectors—one hole for each of those tabs on the piston—that spray fuel right at those tabs. The fuel actually will hit them, turn around and come back to the center of the cylinder,” Moore explains. “We call that ‘flame propagation toward the center,’ and it fosters a more complete, cleaner burn. 

“With the conventional pistons we were using before, you would spray fuel from the injector into the cylinder; it would come straight down, hit the crown of the piston dome on top, then scatter and go to the piston walls,” he elaborates. “And once it ignited, you might have fuel on the cylinder walls that turned to soot.

“The wave pistons eliminate those ‘wet spots,’” Moore explains, “and that’s where we’re picking up a cleaner burn and increased fuel efficiency as well as 90% less soot output on the cylinder unit.”

Far from the majority yet

That’s just one closer look at how OEMs are finding myriad ways to boost mpg in trucks, engines and trailers, and you can expect to hear more—possibly from what’s been learned with concept vehicles—as 2017 engines start rolling off production lines.

“But have you ever seen one of those ‘SuperTrucks’?” asks Charlie Fetz, vice president of design and development at Great Dane Trailers. “How many of those things do you see running around on the road?”

It’s true, Fetz points out, that there are fleets reaching efficiency levels with their trailers today at the 2027 levels envisioned in GHG Phase 2. “There are fleets running lots of aero, running wide-base single tires, probably with weight savings and so forth,” he notes. “But they’re long-haul guys. Have you ever seen a tractor-trailer pulled up at a restaurant?

“The guy is there in the lot with his ramps coming out. He’s wheeling boxes of stuff into the restaurant with a hand truck,” Fetz continues. “He’s got ramps stored under his trailer, beverage canister racks and pallet racks, and he’s got a roll-up door at the rear.

“That trailer doesn’t have a lot of aero opportunities. He’s running short-haul. When he gets into the city, he’s going around doing multiple stops, creeping around restaurant to restaurant, probably averaging 18, 20 mph,” he explains. Thus, Fetz makes the point that trailers come in different shapes and sizes on trucks doing very different jobs, so getting to GHG Phase 2 fuel efficiency targets is far from cut-and-dried.

“Although there are a number of devices on the market today, trailer side skirts and low rolling resistance tires have proven to be most effective; as a result, they are the most adopted by U.S. fleets,” says Brian Bauman, vice president and general manager of Wabash Composites. “Generally, the aerodynamic devices that are being adopted most are those that are proving to be the most durable and least intrusive to the daily operations of the fleet.”

Stand-alone devices available for trailers can yield between about 1% to 9% fuel economy improvement in highway use, Bauman contends, and Wabash has device combinations available that can produce upwards of 10% fuel savings.

And the nature of trailers themselves is complicated, Fetz contends. “You don’t go to a Ford dealership and say, ‘I really like that Taurus, but can you make it two feet longer and add another axle?’” he points out. “But that kind of thing is commonplace with trailers.”

Before the final rule comes out, Fetz notes, trailer, truck and engine OEMs have stayed in touch with EPA and NHTSA to provide input and feedback. He notes that Great Dane has done that both on a one-on-one basis as well as with industry groups. “The EPA will be quick to tell you they want to have an effective rule that’s enforceable,” he says.

“We also try to help fleets understand what’s in this rule and what they may have to do,” he says, such as add low rolling resistance tires or a tire inflation system to their trailers. “The burden of compliance falls on manufacturers, but there are implications about the buyer having to maintain technologies on the equipment,” he notes. 

Squishy balloon

If you think OEMs getting to fuel efficiency targets in GHG Phase 2 is a given, you may have missed a few things, cautions Glen Kedzie, energy and environmental counsel for the American Trucking Assns. (ATA) and staff liaison for the organization’s Fuel Efficiency Working Group. It’s one of the channels by which federal agencies are interfacing with the trucking industry, as Fetz describes.

ATA has raised a few concerns: the diversity of trucking, volatility in the cost of fuel, and the difficulty of being accurate with estimates EPA and NHTSA make in the GHG Phase 2 rule for things like a fleet’s return on investment after purchasing fuel-saving technologies. But there’s another big variable out there, Kedzie says, and that is a potential reduction in NOx emissions that could hit “smack dab in the middle of implementation of the Phase 2 rule.”

He contends California is considering bringing a lower NOx emissions standard to the market soon. “Typically, when you’re trying to address NOx emissions, it’s going to have an inverse impact on fuel economy,” Kedzie tells Fleet Owner. “It’s kind of an unintended consequence we’ve seen.

“It’s like an ecosystem: All these things are interrelated. I call it the ‘squishy balloon concept’: If you squeeze one of those long balloons on  one end, the air goes to the other end,” he continues. “You’re still going to have the same amount of air in that balloon; it just depends on where the squeeze is happening and what the reaction is in other parts of it—unless it pops.”

In the final rule, OEMs will likely be able to carry over fuel efficiency deficits, should they have them, for up to three years. But on the other hand, if OEMs overachieve the rule’s targets, any overage can likely be put in their ‘credit piggy bank’ to balance the books if need be,” Kedzie says, and credits can be carried forward up to five years. So he does have some advice for OEMs: Get started strong and quickly with fuel efficiency technology, and build up extra credits to carry forward in case later targets are difficult to hit.

“Sell things that are super-efficient, and anything that’s over what the target is, bank those credits. It’s kind of a rainy day fund. It’s hard for OEMs to predict the future, but if they fall short, at least they can tap into their credit piggy bank.”

In a final point, NACFE’s Roeth thinks the medium- and heavy-duty trucking industries should take a deep breath.  “There are clearly challenges in getting to these levels of fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas reductions, but it’s possible,” he says. “We’ve got some time. We need the technologies to improve; we need their costs to come down; and we need their consequences to be reduced. But I believe it can be done.”

3. Fleet Perspective: Finding the right mix

When it comes to figuring out how to benefit from the fuel economy improvements purportedly being offered by greenhouse gas (GHG) regulations, fleets are finding that a lot of hard-to-calculate factors are involved, especially in terms of driver behavior.

“The biggest piece of fuel economy performance we’ve yet to really tap is the driver,” Glen McDonald, director of maintenance at Ozark Motor Lines, explains. “We give drivers all the tools—automated manual transmissions (AMTs), cruise control, etc. But radar [based cruise control] makes the truck stay back farther than they like. So how do we get the driver to sit back and let the truck do more of the work?”

It’s also about compensating for other external factors, he says, such as seasonal differences, road type, road conditions, and even the direction of the wind.

“I have a guy—one of my best drivers—who makes a run from Memphis to St. Louis and back. You can take his trip data and calculate his fuel mileage to a tenth of a mile every day,” McDonald says. “He can also tell you about real-world impact, such as tailwind, giving him 1 mpg better heading down to St. Louis.”

That doesn’t stop Ozark from spec’ing its equipment as fuel-efficiently as possible with improved  aerodynamics, McDonald stresses. Right now, the company operates a little over 700 Freightliner Cascadia tractors spec’d with the full Evolution aerodynamic package, a Detroit DT12 AMT mated to DD15 engines, and fuel-efficient tires. All of its 53-ft. dry van trailers are equipped with side skirts.

The fleet has even switched to full synthetic yet thinner viscosity motor oils. Longer change intervals allow the company “to get more fuel mileage from them with less maintenance,” McDonald notes.

Yet figuring out the role of specific pieces of the fuel-saving equation, i.e, AMT, trailer skirts, etc., is the tricky part. “We’re doing so many things at once. How does each piece contribute?” McDonald points out. “We really rely on our partners to help us pick the best specifications and solutions. We have to trust them. But I still have to use simple math to make it work. It has to pay out in the end.

“And the real world is very different than the test track,” he continues.  “It’s also hard to figure [those specific savings] with different drivers in different weather conditions on very different roads.”

Driver training

Paul Higgins, director of maintenance at Prime Inc., also struggles with similar questions and finds that the company requires a two-step solution that involves a focus on equipment specifications and on driver training.

“We have classes to teach drivers how to be the most fuel efficient. [It’s] a fairly straightforward process and not necessarily a magic pill,” he points out.

In terms of equipment, Higgins says Prime specs its trucks and trailers to be as “slick” as possible.

“Aerodynamics offer a huge opportunity for all of us to improve fuel mileage. We also realize we’re not doing all that we can to be more aerodynamic,” he explains. “Based on our model, it’s crazy to spec a ‘square hood’ truck now.”
Higgins points out that trailer skirts offer 6% fuel savings and can get up to 9% in some cases. “Since we make our own skirts, we can make modifications based on how we see them work,” he adds.

Researchers are also starting to put some numbers to aerodynamic improvements. The latest Confidence Report compiled by the North American Council for Freight Efficiency (NACFE), for example, determined that aerodynamic enhancements to Class 8 tractors can return a sizable saving in fuel efficiency—even for day cab models that many felt were incapable of benefiting from aerodynamics.

“During the past 20 years, truck manufacturers have done a good job of improving the aerodynamics of sleeper tractors, saving up to 10% in fuel costs,” the group notes in its Tractor Aerodynamics Report. “Tractor aerodynamic devices improve fuel efficiency by reducing drag so that it takes less fuel to move down the road, especially at higher speeds.”

Misperceptions

Even though day cab tractors operate at lower miles per hour, NACFE researchers found they benefit from the installation of aerodynamic devices.

“There is a long-standing misperception in the trucking industry that im­proved aerodynamics will only save fuel at speeds above 55 mph. Because of this, day cabs and other [tractor] duty cycles have lagged long-haul sleepers in their aerodynamic performance improvements,” the group notes.

“But in reality, aerodynamic drag is acting against the vehicle at all speeds above zero mph. Given the many low- or no-cost design elements that can reduce drag, even fleets operating at lower speeds should consider adoption,” NACFE adds.

Mike Roeth, the group’s executive director, believes truck manufacturers should make full aerodynamic packages like those offered on sleeper cabs standard on their day cab tractors.

“Not only do those packages provide substantial fuel economy benefits even at lower speeds, but fleets tend to have much longer trade cycles for their day cab trucks,” he says. “The fuel savings over a decade can also help fleets limit the risks of future diesel price increases.”

Other findings from the NACFE Tractor Aerodynamics Report include the following:

• If aerodynamic features are removed from an OEM’s aerodynamic base model, the fleet can expect to lose about 10% in fuel economy.
• Another 10% can be lost simply by pairing a mid-roof tractor with a dry van or refrigerated trailer. NACFE stresses that tractor and trailer heights should be matched for as many miles as possible.
• Even at today’s fuel prices of around $2/gal., a 10% savings in fuel represents $3,500 per year per truck.
• The greatest opportunity to benefit from aerodynamic tractor enhancements remains the on-highway van trailer segment for both day cabs and long-nose high-roof sleeper models.
• While the devices currently available on the market do add some weight to the vehicle, the impact of the weight on fuel economy is just 0.5  to 0.6% per 1,000 lbs.
• There is less than a 2,000-lb. weight difference between the most aggressively optimized aerodynamic tractors and the least, so the maximum mpg reduction due to aerodynamics is less than 1.2%—far smaller than the potential fuel savings offered by aerodynamic enhancements.
• Many day cabs operate at highway speeds during nearly all of their duty cycle, so aerodynamic styling can increase fuel efficiency for day cab models by as much as 13%. Even day cabs operating in start-stop city driving will see savings from certain aerodynamic technologies, NACFE found.

Consider all costs

Consulting firm Fleet Advantage takes all of that a step further with a new data index resource it has compiled. John Rickette, vice president of transaction management, notes the resource compares “all-in” costs of older model-year Class 8 trucks and calculates the savings of new model replacements to help fleets identify the sweet spot for replacement and which specs may add the most cost savings.

That all-in approach means taking into account operating costs related to fuel, finance, maintenance and repair, and tires, he explains.

“When you do that, you are looking for the point in time when a truck becomes economically obsolete,” Rickette says. “There’s always an inflection point, but that also depends on miles driven, type of duty cycle, etc. Roughly between 400,000 and 500,000 mi. is the sweet spot. That is when maintenance and repair costs spike; there’s degradation in fuel economy; resale value spikes; and warranty coverage begins to expire.”

Using its index, Fleet Advantage calculates that companies using Class 8 trucks would save approximately  $18,000 per truck in the first year by upgrading from a 2011 to a 2017 model-year day cab or sleeper unit while reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 14%.

Rickette does note that such calculations need to be addressed on a case-by-case basis to account for variables such as usage patterns and weather.

“The first six months represent  the break-in period, so fleets may not be getting [the fuel economy gains] they expect to be getting. That also applies to the seasons, as winter can affect performance,” he emphasizes.

On top of that, Fleet Advantage also plans to incorporate engine idle time, excessive speed, hours of operation, and other factors that affect vehicle wear and tear over the truck’s life­ cycle. “We’ll bake that in for the future,” Rickette notes.

Ozark’s McDonald stresses that when fleets try to project any sort of fuel savings, they must include items such as potential accident and repair costs.

“You’ve got to consider those,” he says. “For example, trailer tails save money on fuel for certain; however,  one fleet I work with found that they got torn up so much that the cost of repairing them could make the fuel savings a wash. That’s got to be factored in.”

Human behavior

What’s the ultimate ingredient for maximizing fuel economy no matter the fuel-efficient specification? According to Prime, this ingredient affects about 80% of the fuel economy equation—and that’s the driver.

So, anything that can be done to ease back on the vagaries of human behavior behind the wheel will help further boost fuel economy gains down the road.

“We finally agree that AMTs can equal the best driver using a manual. AMTs are nice, fast, and smooth in terms of gear shifting now and are not nearly as herky-jerky as they once were,” Prime’s Higgins says. “Using GPS technology to adjust the truck to the topography is the next step; going around a corner, shifting in neutral because [the transmission] knows from GPS what the road is like there.”

At the end of the day, Prime says, it all comes down to engine speed; driving the engine “slower” in terms of rpm makes a big difference not just in fuel consumption but also in safety and driver comfort.

“The driver arrives more relaxed than before, not to mention accident-free. That’s a huge win,” Higgins says.

[kscarbel2]

Canada looking to align with new Phase 2 GHG standards

Today’s Trucking  /  August 19, 2016

Canadian regulators are looking to align with the second round of vehicle emissions standards that the U.S. will roll out between 2018 and 2027.

The Phase 2 standards will ultimately slash Greenhouse Gas emissions by up to 25% – improving fuel economy as a result – and were officially released earlier this week by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

“The Phase 2 standards, like the Phase 1 standards which apply to Model Year 2014 and later heavy-duty vehicles and engines, will be aligned with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency standards,” confirmed a spokesman with Environment and Climate Change Canada, responding to questions from Today’s Trucking. “This alignment helps keep the costs down for industry, consumers and governments since most vehicles and engines sold in Canada are the same as those sold in the U.S.”

The first draft of the Canadian version of the regulations should be released in Canada Gazette Part 1 by the end of this year, he said. That is ultimately followed by a 75-day comment period before final regulations are published in Canada Gazette Part 2.

Still, there are unique challenges to address when comparing the jurisdictions, not the least of which is heavier Gross Vehicle Weights.

“The Government of Canada will be considering specific implications for the Canadian heavy-duty vehicle, engine and trailer sectors during its regulatory development process,” the spokesman says. 

Once the rules are released, they will guide how most engines, trucks and even trailers are designed.

Tractors

Proposed standards for tractors roll out in 2021 Model Years, tighten in 2024, and are fully established by 2027. The specific benchmarks vary by vehicle weight class, roof height, and cab type. Compared to Phase 1, carbon dioxide emissions drop 24%. That is to be met through enhanced engines, transmissions, drivelines, aerodynamics, low rolling resistance tires, idle-reducing technologies, and other accessories.

Trailers

Voluntary standards begin with certain types of trailers in the 2018 Model Year, while mandatory standards begin in 2021. By that point, the standards will apply refrigerated and dry vans. The standards become tougher in 2024, and the final round of changes come in 2027. The goal is to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions by 8%, relying on such things as aerodynamic devices, low rolling resistance tires, automatic tire inflation systems and reduced weights.

Vocational vehicles

The rules for vocational vehicles -– which represent a fifth of the emissions from medium- and heavy-duty equipment -- roll out in 2021, toughen in 2024, and reach final levels in 2027. They include three vehicle weights and three driving cycles. Compared to Phase 1, their carbon dioxide emissions will drop 16% thanks to changes in engines, transmissions, drivelines, lower rolling resistance tires, workday idle reduction technologies, and lower weights.

Diesel engines

Carbon dioxide emissions from diesel engines will drop 4% when compared to Phase 1, requiring optimized combustion, improved air handling, lower friction, enhanced aftertreatment for emissions, and waste heat recovery.

There are ways for manufacturers to offer equipment that doesn’t meet the specific targets, though. 

The U.S. rules include Averaging, Banking and Trading (ABT) provisions that allow manufacturers to certify engines and vehicles that fall short of the standards, as long as they are offset with engines or vehicles that do better. It’s similar to an approach established in the Phase 1 rules, but with minor revisions, according to the regulators. “We are not proposing to include a full ABT program for the trailer standards because the nature of the industry makes it a challenge for manufacturers to benefit from this type of program. Instead, we are proposing limited averaging provisions for certain trailer manufacturers,” the U.S. regulators added.

Still, there will be a limited number of credits available, despite the fact that on/off-road equipment, heavy haulers and Long Combination Vehicles also account for a larger share of Canada’s equipment. 

“I definitely hope that there will be some allowances because we know that some [referenced] technologies don’t work here,” adds Yves Provencher of PIT Group, a third-party testing organization based in Quebec. Low Rolling Resistance tires, for example, are not always practical when trucks face snow-covered roads. Some of the referenced technologies, such as engine heat recovery systems, are not even available yet, he says.

“On one hand it’s good for our business, but we just hope the OEMs will have the chance to do the testing and do the necessary improvements – if need be – and hit the market with technology that is proven.”

[kscarbel2]

GHG 2: Out with the old and in with the new

Fleet Owner  /  August 23, 2016

Logging in at almost 1,700 pages, it'll be sometime before all the details in last week's Greenhouse Gas Phase 2 (GHG 2) regulations are widely known. However, there weren't really many surprises in the final rule. Most of the proposals had been telegraphed by the government months ago. So at this point, it's really all about the details as industry experts dig in to the text and start plotting their emissions and fuel economy strategies for the next decade.

Because make no mistake about it, more than anything else in the world right now, GHG 2 will dictate the development and deployment of next-generation trucking powertrains over the next 10 years.

And, based on what is widely known about GHG 2 now, we can go ahead and make some educated cases as to what the next decade will bring about in terms of powertrain technology.

First off, it's important to note that GHG 2 actually gives OEMs and component suppliers a fair amount of leeway as to how they'll chose technology pathways to get to compliance. Which means we can expect to see OEMs play to their strengths initially, before they sink their teeth into the more difficult aspects of the new rule. 

So, for starters, we'll see "easy" challenges tackled very soon -- before summer is over, in fact -- as OEMs start to concentrate on tractor and trailer aerodynamics in a more integrated and complimentary fashion. Look for a whole lot more body sculpturing as sharp edges fade away and gentle, curves designed to expedite airflow take their place. 

Enhanced system integration is another easy way to optimize GHG 2 performance right away. So look for more efforts from OEMs and suppliers like Cummins and Eaton to fine-tune existing integrated drivetrains and enhance performance wherever they can.

Looking out a bit farther, I'd say it's a safe bet that before too long, fully-integrated, fuel-economy optimized "smart" drivetrains will be the standard powertrain option on new tractors. The same goes for automated manual transmissions (AMTs), too. It's very likely GHG 2 will be the rule that effectively kills off manual transmissions in heavy-duty trucking once and for all. I suspect that very soon, AMTs will be standard equipment on new trucks. And if you want a manual gearbox, you'll have to spec it. And you may even find yourself paying a premium for it, to boot. 

Once again, OEMs and powertrain suppliers will be able to "bank" emissions credits for early compliance. And they will be able to "spend" those credits later on as GHG 2 starts to take hold in the industry.

Moreover, OEMs and suppliers will be scored on the fuel efficiency and emissions compliance for entire annual builds. This means -- in theory, anyway -- that they can build X number of not-so-fuel-efficient trucks, as long as they build enough super-fuel-efficient trucks during the same time span to make sure the overall GHG 2 performance numbers average out when everything is said and done at year's end.

So, that means that it is possible some OEMs will continue to build long-nosed, slab-grilled tractors in the coming year.

But I wouldn't bet on it. In fact, I think it's entirely possible that GHG 2 will be the final death knell for most, if not all, long-nose conventional tractors. Even though many of those trucks work in applications where aerodynamics simply don't matter (heavy haul, for example) it's very likely OEMs will decide to simply offer specialized aerodynamic tractors for those roles in the near future, and just side-step any GHG 2 penalties they would've incurred for building those old style trucks in the first place.            

That gets most of the low-hanging fruit out of the way. But there are a couple of new technologies that OEMs are going to have to figure out how to refine to get to the really aggressive parts of GHG 2 when the law goes into full effect in 2027: namely waste heat recovery systems and hybrid drivetrains.

Waste heat recovery systems, as the name implies, are systems designed to capture heat energy produced by the engine as the truck is moving down the road. Previously, that heat energy was simply lost without contributing anything useful to the drivetrain's overall efficiency, as anyone who's ever placed their hand on the hood of a car or truck just after its been switched off can attest. These systems will capture that heat energy and put it to work, most likely by powering auxiliary systems on a truck such as the HVAC or engine cooling fan. 

As any driver knows, trucks burn more fuel in lower gears as the powertrain works hard to get a fully-loaded rig up to highway speed. Once at cruise speeds, the engine becomes highly efficient and fuel burn decreases significantly. 

That's why GHG 2 is forcing OEMs to look at developing hybrid-electric drive systems to provide additional torque to the wheels during the launch phase and help decrease big fuel burn spikes. Unlike internal combustion engines, electric motors provide 100 percent torque right away. Which means that extra power can be put to instantaneous use launching a truck.

Both of these systems featured prominently on the recent Super Truck vehicle development project jointly conducted by the trucking industry and the Federal government. And while the systems work -- they are expensive, and add weight and complexity in return for very modest fuel economy gains. So the pressure will be on OEMs to find ways to make these systems perform better, more reliably while being lighter, less complex and affordable. It's a tall order -- likely the most difficult technological challenge OEMs will face over the coming decade.

All in all, it seems that in the short run, we can expect GHG 2 to accelerate already well-established powertrain trends in trucking, with more cutting edge technology coming on line later on. Keep in mind however, that GHG 2 will not be the only guidelines influencing truck design over the next decade. Other trends, such as autonomous and platooning technology, as well as rapidly evolving vehicle communications systems will certainly leave their marks, too. 

The next generation of heavy-trucks will be here sooner, rather than later. And they will feature technology that was unheard of in the automotive world just a few short years ago. The challenges for fleets and OEMs alike will be significant. But, as usual, the industry will have no choice but to collectively roll it's sleeves up and take them on, one by one, and solve them all.

[kscarbel2]

Phase 2 truck emissions regulations officially slated for publication

Commercial Carrier Journal (CCJ)  /  October 24, 2016

A final rule to establish new emissions and fuel economy standards for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles, yielding huge fuel economy benefits, is expected to be published in the Federal Register Oct. 25 and take effect at the end of December.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the DOT’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration developed the Phase 2 greenhouse gas emissions and fuel efficiency standards to immediately follow the Phase 1 standards, which will be fully implemented in 2017.

Phase 2 standards will build on the Phase 1, according to the 2,762-page joint rulemaking. They are projected to boost fuel savings as much as 25 percent over the next decade, depending on the vehicle. The agencies admit the costs of Phase 2 are higher than that of Phase 1, but say the benefits of the standards “greatly exceed costs” and provide short payback periods that will result in “substantial net savings over the vehicle lifetime.”

The agencies estimate payback time on tractors and trailers to be just two years. The payback period is estimated to be four years for vocational vehicles and approximately three years for heavy-duty pickups and vans.

The rule calls for specific percentage reductions in carbon dioxide emissions for tractors, engines and trailers.

Tractor standards for model year 2027 require at least 25 percent lower carbon dioxide emissions and fuel consumption than a 2017 model year Phase 1 tractor. This can be achieved, the agencies say, through improvements in the engine, transmission, driveline, aerodynamic design, tire rolling resistance, idle performance or other aspects of the tractor.

By 2027, the rule requires engines to achieve reductions in carbon dioxide emissions and fuel consumption that are 5.1 percent better than the 2017 baseline. The rule also requires engines to reduce emissions by 1.8 percent by 2021 and 4.2 percent by 2024.

The rule also requires 2021 model year combination tractors and engines to achieve up to 14 percent lower carbon dioxide emissions and fuel consumption from a model year 2017 truck, and 20 percent in model year 2024 before meeting the 25 percent reduction by 2027.

The Phase 2 rulemaking introduces for the first time standards on trailers, which begins with model year 2018 trailers. The rule states these standards can be achieved through tire and aerodynamic technologies that are already on the market.

EPA also proposed a number of changes and clarifications for rules respecting glider kits and glider vehicles. A glider kit is considered a vehicle when “it includes a passenger compartment attached to a frame with one or more axles.”

The rule contains standards for glider vehicles, but no separate standards for glider kits. Under the final rule, gliders will generally be considered new trucks, and the engines installed in them must be compliant with the model year in which the truck is assembled.