Passenger Vehicle Greenhouse

Gas and Fuel Economy Standards:
A Global Update
Cars and Climate Change
The goal of the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT)
is to dramatically reduce conventional pollution and greenhouse
gas emissions from personal, public, and goods transportation in
order to improve air quality and human health, and mitigate climate
change. The Council is made up of leading government officials
and experts from around the world that participate as individuals
based on their experience with air quality and transportation issues.
The ICCT promotes best practices and comprehensive solutions to
improve vehicle emissions and efficiency, increase fuel quality and
sustainability of alternative fuels, reduce pollution from the in-use
fleet, and curtail emissions from international goods movement.
www.theicct.org
Published by The International Council on Clean Transportation
© July 2007 The International Council on Clean Transportation
Designed by Big Think Studios
Printed on 100% recycled paper with soy-based ink
This document does not necessarily represent the views of organizations
or government agencies represented by ICCT reviewers or participants.
2 Passenger Vehicle Greenhouse Gas and Fuel Economy Standards: A Global Update
Passenger Vehicle Greenhouse Gas and Fuel Economy Standards: A Global Update 3
Authors:
Feng An
Innovation Center for Energy and Transportation
Deborah Gordon
Transportation Policy Consultant
Hui He, Drew Kodjak, and Daniel Rutherford
International Council on Clean Transportation
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank our many colleagues around the
world that have generously contributed their time and insight in
reviewing and commenting on the draft version of this report. We
would like to thank the Hewlett and Energy Foundations for making
this report possible through their vision, energy and resources. We
are particularly grateful to the following International Council on
Clean Transportation participants who have reviewed this report
and support its findings and recommendations.
Dr. Axel Friedrich
Head, Environment, Transport, and Noise Division
Federal Environment Agency, Germany
Mr. Hal Harvey
Environment Program Director
William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, USA
Dr. Dongquan He
China Transportation Program Officer
Energy Foundation, China
Dr. Youngil Jeong
Director
Korean Institute for Machinery and Materials, Korea
Dr. Alan Lloyd
President
The International Council on Clean Transportation, USA
Ms. Charlotte Pera
Senior Program Officer
Energy Foundation, USA
Dr. Leonora Rojas-Bracho
Director General, Research on Urban and Regional Pollution
National Institute of Ecology, Mexico
Ms. Anumita Roychowdhury
Associate Director, Policy Research and Advocacy
Centre for Science and Environment, India
Mr. Michael Walsh
Chairman, Board of Directors
The International Council on Clean Transportation, USA
Dr. Michael Wang
Manager, Systems Assessment Section
Center for Transportation Research, Argonne National Laboratory,
USA
Dr. Martin Williams
Head, Air and Environment Quality Division
UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, UK
Table of contents
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1. THE STATE OF VEHICLE GHG EMISSION AND FUEL ECONOMY
REGULATIONS AROUND THE WORLD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.1 JAPAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.2 THE EUROPEAN UNION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1.3 CHINA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1.4 CANADA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
1.5 CALIFORNIA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1.6 THE UNITED STATES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
1.7 SOUTH KOREA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
1.8 OTHER REGIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2 COMPARING VEHICLE STANDARDS AROUND THE WORLD . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.1 OVERVIEW OF GLOBAL GHG EMISSION
AND FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.2 COMPARISON OF PASSENGER VEHICLE STANDARDS . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
APPENDIX: METHODOLOGY FOR ADJUSTING STANDARDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
4 Passenger Vehicle Greenhouse Gas and Fuel Economy Standards: A Global Update
Passenger Vehicle Greenhouse Gas and Fuel Economy Standards: A Global Update 5
Figures
Figure ES-1. Actual and Projected GHG Emissions for
New Passenger Vehicles by Country, 2002-2018 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Figure ES-2. Actual and Projected Fuel Economy for
New Vehicles by Country, 2002 to 2018 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Figure 1. New (2015) Japanese Standards Compared to Previous (2010) Standards. . . 11
Figure 2. New Versus Old Japanese Vehicle Emission Test Cycles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Figure 3. Average CO2 Emission Rates (g/km) by Automakers, EU Market, 2006 . . . . . . 13
Figure 4. California Motor Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Projections . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Figure 5. Actual and Projected GHG Emissions for
New Passenger Vehicles by Country, 2002-2018 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Figure 6. Actual and Projected Fuel Economy for
New Vehicles by Country, 2002 to 2018 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Figure 7. GHG Emission Reduction Associated
with the Most Recent Regulations By Country . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Figure A-1. Study Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Figure A-2. Modeled Fuel Economy, CAFE-JC08 Multiplier,
and CAFE Adjusted 2015 Japanese Fuel Economy Standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Figure A-3. CAFE Adjusted Projected New Vehicle
Average Fuel Economy in Japan, 2005-2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Tables
Table 1. Estimates of U.S. Light-Duty Truck Fuel Economy Targets
and Projected Percentage Gains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Table 2. Number of Registered Passenger Vehicles (by engine size)
and Fleet Average Fuel Economy Levels in S. Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Table 3. Fuel Economy and GHG Emissions Standards Around the World . . . . . . . . . . 22
Table A-1. Important Unit Conversions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Table A-2. Summary of International Test Cycles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Table A-3. Simulation Results for Gasoline Vehicle
Fuel Economy Ratings Under Various Test Cycles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Table A-4. Driving Test Cycle Multiplier Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
VehicIe slandards, eilher designed lo reduce fueI
consumplion or GHG emissions, can pIav an
imporlanl roIe in addressing bolh of lhese poIicv
goaIs. There is a greal deaI of poIicv aclivilv
around lhese issues lodav: lhe European Union
is working oul lhe speciñc reguIalorv poIicv lo
reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from pas-
senger vehicIes; Canada is expecled lo propose
new fueI economv slandards in lhe faII; lhe U.S.
Congress and a group of federaI agencies are
deveIoping separale proposaIs lo address fueI
economv and cIimale change respecliveIv; China
recenlIv revised ils vehicIe lax poIicv lo diminish
demand for Iarger, inefñcienl passenger vehicIes;
and lhe Slale of CaIifornia is awailing news on
a waiver from lhe U.S. governmenl lo reguIale
GHG emissions and facing Iiligalion from aulo-
makers for lrving lo do so.
This reporl compares on an equaI basis lhe
vehicIe slandards lhal have recenlIv been pul
in pIace, updaled or proposed bv governmenls
around lhe worId lo address lhese lwo poIicv
goaIs. Japan and Europe currenlIv Iead, and wiII
conlinue lo Iead, lhe worId in conlroIIing GHG
emissions and fueI consumplion from passenger
vehicIes, parlIv due lo fueI and vehicIe laxalion
poIicies lhal favor more efñcienl vehicIes. In
lerms of absoIule improvemenl, CaIifornia and
Canada are posed lo make lhe Iargesl gains in
lhe nexl decade, provided lhal IegaI and lechni-
caI barriers lo impIemenling and enforcing lheir
slandards can be overcome.
Olher counlries couId make meaningfuI slrides
in lhe coming vears, depending on how poIicv
aclions pIav oul. The U.S. and China are bolh
poised lo make imporlanl decisions in coming
vears on lhe nexl slages of lheir fueI economv reg-
uIalions. The mosl prominenl U.S. proposaI wiII
bring fueI economv cIose lo currenl Chinese Iev-
eIs, bul considering lhese lwo counlries logelher
accounl for cIose lo 4u percenl of gIobaI saIes,
each wiII have a greal deaI more lo do lo reduce
pelroIeum consumplion in coming vears (Aulo-
molive News 2uu,). A few counlries wilh sig-
niñcanl and growing vehicIe saIes, such as India
and Mexico, are nolabIv absenl from lhis reporl
and olhers, such as BraziI and Soulh Korea,
couId enacl slronger vehicIe slandards lo supporl
Governments around the world are currently
grappling with two distinct but interconnected
issues—how to reduce emissions of climate-
changing greenhouse gases (GHG) and how to
reduce dependence on finite, and often import-
ed, supplies of petroleum.
6 Passenger Vehicle Greenhouse Gas and Fuel Economy Standards: A Global Update
lheir poIicv goaIs. Decisions on how lo meel and
enforce fueI economv or GHG emission goaIs wiII
nol onIv affecl lheir own domeslic affairs, bul
worIdwide condilions for generalions lo come.
In 2uu4, lhe Pew Cenler on GIobaI CIimale
Change pubIished a groundbreaking reporl
lhal compiIed and compared GHG emission
slandards and passenger vehicIe fueI economv
from seven governmenls around lhe worId. The
reporl , <hfiZkblhgh_IZll^g`^kO^ab\e^?n^e
>\hghfrZg]@k^^gahnl^@Zl>fbllbhgLmZg&
]Zk]l:khng]ma^Phke] (An and Sauer 2uu4),
deveIoped a melhodoIogv for direclIv comparing
vehicIe slandards in lerms of European-slvIe
grams of CO2 per kiIomeler and U.S.-slvIe miIes
per gaIIon (mpg). Such a melhodoIogv is needed
since differenl parls of lhe worId use differenl
lesl procedures lo delermine fueI consumplion
and GHG emissions. Since lhe reporl`s pubIica-
lion in 2uu4, suslained high oiI prices and lhe
growing scienliñc evidence and reaI worId con-
sequences of gIobaI cIimale change have added
urgencv lo lhese imporlanl vehicIe performance
poIicies, increasing lhe need for accessibIe and
reIiabIe benchmarking across jurisdiclions.
This reporl presenls a signiñcanl updale lo lhe
2uu4 Pew Reporl. Major changes in vehicIe slan-
dards have occurred in Japan, Europe and lhe
Uniled Slales. In addilion, lhe melhodoIogv of
how slandards are converled÷in order lo com-
pare lhem on an equaI basis÷was updaled lo
reßecl a broader mix of vehicIes soId in lhe Euro-
pean and Japanese markels and a new Japanese
vehicIe lesl cvcIe. This reporl idenliñes new ñscaI
poIicies enacled in China and Canada lhal are
designed lo promole fueI-efñcienl vehicIes and
lo discourage Iarger, inefñcienl vehicIes. WhiIe
lhese ñscaI poIicies are nol reßecled in our com-
parisons of reguIalorv vehicIe slandards, lheir
imporlance shouId nol be overIooked or under-
eslimaled.
Imporlanl ñndings from lhis reporl incIude:
WhiIe Japan and Europe conlinue lo Iead lhe ·
worId wilh lhe mosl slringenl passenger vehi-
cIe greenhouse gas and fueI economv slan-
dards, recenl reguIalorv aclions have moved
lhese lwo imporlanl governmenls in opposile
direclions.
In 2uu6, Japan increased lhe slringencv of ils ·
fueI economv slandards, whiIe Europe is in
lhe process of weakening ils CO2 slandards.
As a resuIl, Japan`s slandards are expecled lo
Iead lo lhe Iowesl ßeel average greenhouse gas
emissions for new passenger vehicIes in lhe
worId (12õ g CO2]km) in 2u1õ.
CaIifornia`s GHG emission slandards for pas- ·
senger vehicIes are expecled lo achieve lhe
grealesl absoIule emission reduclions from
anv poIicv in lhe worId.
U.S. passenger vehicIe slandards conlinue ·
lo Iag behind olher induslriaIized nalions,
bolh in absoIule lerms as weII as in lhe reIa-
live improvemenls required under currenl
reguIalions lo 2u11. If largels under discus-
sion in lhe U.S. Congress are enacled, lhe U.S.
couId move ahead of Canada, AuslraIia, Soulh
Korean and CaIifornia bv 2u2u.
7 Executive Summary
100
2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018
240
260
220
200
180
160
140
120
280
C
O
2

E
Q
U
I
V
A
L
E
N
T

G
/
K
M
-
C
O
N
V
E
R
T
E
D

T
O

N
E
D
C

T
E
S
T

C
Y
C
L
E
CALIFORNIA
S. KOREA
AUSTRALIA
CANADA
1
CHINA
JAPAN
EUROPE
UNITED
STATES
US
EU
JAPAN
AUSTRALIA
CANADA
CHINA
CALIFORNIA
S. KOREA
FIGURE ES-1. Actual and Projected GHG Emissions for New Passenger Vehicles by Country, 2002-2018.
Note: Solid lines denote actual performance or projected performance due to adopted regulations; dotted lines denote proposed standards; Values normalized to
NEDC test cycle in grams of CO2-equivalent per km.
[1] For Canada, the program includes in-use vehicles. The resulting uncertainty on new vehicle fuel economy was not quantified.
eIiminale lhe preferenliaI lax rale lhal appIied
lo sporl uliIilv vehicIes (SUVs).
Soulh Korea is lhe onIv nalion in lhe worId ·
wilh fueI economv slandards for new passen-
ger vehicIes where ßeel average fueI economv
is projecled lo decIine over lhe nexl ñve vears.
The Soulh Korean governmenl is considering
poIicv oplions lo address lhis negalive lrend.
A comparison of lhe reIalive slringencv and
impIemenlalion scheduIes of GHG emissions
and fueI economv slandards around lhe worId
Canada has eslabIished lhe worId`s onIv aclive ·
feebale program wilh signiñcanl incenlives
and Ievies for vehicIes based on fueI consump-
lion. Al lhe same lime, Canada pIans lo issue
an allribule-based fueI economv reguIalion
lhis faII lo lake effecl in 2u11, whiIe il con-
linues lo impIemenl ils voIunlarv agreemenl
wilh aulomakers.
The Chinese governmenl warranls signiñcanl ·
nolice for reforming lhe passenger vehicIe
excise lax lo encourage lhe produclion and
purchase of smaIIer-engine vehicIes, and lo
8 Passenger Vehicle Greenhouse Gas and Fuel Economy Standards: A Global Update
45
50
40
35
30
25
20
2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018
CALIFORNIA
3
S. KOREA
AUSTRALIA
CANADA
2
CHINA
JAPAN
EUROPE
1
UNITED STATES
US
EU
JAPAN
AUSTRALIA
CANADA
CHINA
CALIFORNIA
S. KOREA
M
P
G
-
C
O
N
V
E
R
T
E
D

T
O

C
A
F
E

T
E
S
T

C
Y
C
L
E
FIGURE ES-2. Actual and Projected Fuel Economy for New Passenger Vehicles by Country, 2002-2018.
[1] The relative stringency of Europe’s CO2-based standards is enhanced under a fuel economy standard because diesel vehicles achieve a boost in fuel
economy ratings due to the higher energy content of diesel fuel.
[2] For Canada, the program includes in-use vehicles. The resulting uncertainty of this impact on new vehicle emissions was not quantified.
[3] Shaded area under the California trend line represents the uncertain amount of non-fuel economy related GHG reductions (N2O, CH4, HFCs, and upstream
emissions related to fuel production) that manufacturers will generate from measures such as low-leak, high efficiency air conditioners, alternative fuel vehicles,
and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles.
can be found in Iigure ES-1 and Iigure ES-2.
In order lo fairIv compare across slandards,
each counlrv`s slandard has been converled lo
unils of grams of carbon dioxide equivaIenl per
kiIomeler lraveIed on lhe New European Drive
CvcIe (NEDC) and miIes per gaIIon on lhe U.S.
Corporale Average IueI Economv (CAIE) lesl
procedure.
VehicIe performance slandards serve muIlipIe
priorilies÷simuIlaneousIv miligaling pelro-
Ieum dependencv, reducing greenhouse gas
emissions and increasing consumer weIfare.
Achieving lhe maximum feasibIe slandard is a
carefuI reguIalorv baIance lhal is slrenglhened
bv robusl benchmarking. This benchmarking
exercise proves lhal lhere is subslanliaI room for
improvemenl bv manv governmenls` poIicies.
BuiIding on lhis work, fulure anaIvses wiII exam-
ine lhe signiñcanl roIe lhal reguIalorv design
issues can pIav in ameIioraling compeliliveness
concerns whiIe achieving ambilious largels.
9 Executive Summary
Passenger Vehicle Greenhouse Gas and Fuel Economy Standards: A Global Update 10
nilrous oxide (N2O) from lhe calaIvlic con-
verler. GHG emissions slandards mav even
exlend bevond lhe vehicIe lo encompass lhe
GHG emissions generaled from lhe produc-
lion of fueIs.
The four Iargesl aulomobiIe markels÷
Norlh America, lhe European Union, China,
and Japan÷approach lhese new vehicIe
slandards quile differenlIv. Wilhin Norlh
America aIone, a wide varielv of approaches
have been laken: lhe U.S. federaI govern-
menl has reIied on CAIE slandards requir-
ing each manufaclurer lo meel speciñed ßeel
average fueI economv IeveIs for cars and Iighl
lrucks
1
; lhe slale of CaIifornia has passed
ßeel average GHG emission slandards for
new vehicIes soId in lhe slale; and Canada`s
voIunlarv agreemenl wilh aulomakers is
inlended lo reduce GHG emissions from new
and in-use vehicIes. The European Union
recenlIv announced lhal il wouId repIace a
voIunlarv agreemenl wilh aulomakers wilh
an enforceabIe reguIalorv program because
aulomakers were nol on lrack lo meel lheir
voIunlarv largels. China and Japan have sel
liered, weighl-based fueI economv slandards.
Japan`s slandards aIIow for credils and lrad-
ing belween weighl cIasses, whiIe China sels
minimum slandards lhal everv vehicIe musl
achieve or exceed.
Cerliñcalion of GHG emission and fueI
economv performance for new vehicIes
is based on lesl procedures inlended lo
reßecl reaI worId driving condilions and
behavior in each counlrv. The European
1. THE STATE OF VEHICLE
GHG EMISSION AND FUEL
ECONOMY REGULATIONS
AROUND THE WORLD
Nine governmenl enlilies worIdwide÷Japan,
lhe European Union, Uniled Slales, CaIifornia,
Canada, China, AuslraIia, Soulh Korea, and
Taiwan, China÷have proposed, eslabIished, or
are in lhe process of revising Iighl-dulv vehicIe
fueI economv or GHG emission slandards. Of
lhe 3u Organizalion for Economic Coopera-
lion and DeveIopmenl (OECD) nalions, onIv
ñve÷IceIand, Mexico, Norwav, SwilzerIand,
and Turkev÷do nol currenlIv have programs
lo reduce GHG emissions or pelroIeum use
from passenger vehicIes.
A number of differenl lesl procedures, for-
muIas, baseIines, and approaches lo reguIal-
ing fueI economv and GHG emissions have
evoIved over lhe Iasl severaI decades. The
poIicv objeclives of lhese reguIalions varv
depending on lhe priorilies of lhe reguIal-
ing bodv, bul mosl slandards are appIied lo
new vehicIes in order lo reduce eilher fueI
consumplion or GHG emissions. There are
imporlanl differences belween lhese lwo
approaches. IueI economv slandards seek lo
reduce lhe amounl of fueI used bv lhe vehi-
cIe per dislance driven. Melhods lo do so
mav incIude more efñcienl engine and lrans-
mission lechnoIogies, improved aerodvnam-
ics, hvbridizalion, or improved lires. GHG
emission slandards, on lhe olher hand, mav
largel eilher CO2 or lhe whoIe suile of GHG
emissions from lhe vehicIe, such as refrig-
eranls from lhe air condilioning svslem or

24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
500 1000 1500 2000 2500
K
M
/
L
VEHICLE WEIGHT (KG)
NEW JAPANESE FUEL
ECONOMY STANDARDS (2015)
OLD STANDARDS (2010)
FIGURE 1. New (2015) Japanese Standards Compared to Previous (2010) Standards.
The State of Vehicle GHG Emission and Fuel Economy Regulations Around the World 11
Union, Japan, and lhe U.S. have each
eslabIished lheir own lesl procedures.
China and AuslraIia use lhe European
Union`s lesl procedures. CaIifornia,
Canada, and Taiwan, China foIIow
lhe U.S. CAIE lesl procedures, whiIe
Soulh Korea adopls lhe U.S. Cilv lesl
procedure."
1.1 JAPAN
The Japanese governmenl ñrsl eslabIished
fueI economv slandards for gasoIine and
dieseI powered Iighl-dulv passenger and
commerciaI vehicIes in 1000 under ils
¯Top Runner" energv efñciencv program.
IueI economv largels are based on weighl
cIass, wilh aulomakers aIIowed lo accumu-
Iale credils in one weighl cIass for use in
anolher, subjecl lo cerlain Iimilalions. Pen-
aIlies appIv if lhe largels are nol mel, bul
lhev are minimaI. The effecliveness of lhe
slandards is enhanced bv highIv progressive
laxes Ievied on lhe gross vehicIe weighl and
engine dispIacemenl of aulomobiIes when
purchased and regislered. These ñnanciaI
incenlives promole lhe purchase of Iighler
vehicIes wilh smaIIer engines. Ior exampIe,
lhe Japan AulomobiIe Manufaclurers
Associalion eslimales lhal lhe owner of a
subcompacl car (,õu kg curb weighl) wiII
pav $4,uuu Iess in laxes reIalive lo a heavier
passenger car (1,1uu kg curb weighl) over
lhe Iifelime of lhe vehicIe (JAMA 2uu,).
In December 2uu6, Japan revised ils fueI
economv largels upward, and expanded lhe
number of weighl bins from nine lo sixleen
(Iigure 1). This revision look pIace before
lhe fuII impIemenlalion of lhe previous slan-
dards because lhe majorilv of vehicIes soId
in Japan in 2uu2 aIreadv mel or exceeded
lhe 2u1u slandards. This new slandard is
60
50
40
30
S
P
E
E
D

(
M
P
H
)
20
10
0
0 200 400 600
SECONDS
NEW JAPAN JC08 CYCLE OLD JAPAN 10-15 MODE
800 1000 1200
FIGURE 2. New Versus Old Japanese Vehicle Emission Test Cycles
Passenger Vehicle Greenhouse Gas and Fuel Economy Standards: A Global Update 12
projecled lo improve lhe ßeel average fueI
economv of new passenger vehicIes from
13.6 km]L in 2uu4 lo 16.8 km]L in 2u1õ, an
increase of 24 percenl. Based on our anaIv-
sis, lhe new largel reaches an average of 12õ
g]km for CO2 emissions on lhe NEDC lesl
cvcIe (see Iigure õ).
In 2u1u Japan wiII inlroduce a new lesl
cvcIe, lhe JCu8, lo measure progress loward
meeling lhe revised 2u1õ largels. ReIalive lo
lhe previous 1u-1õ lesl cvcIe, lhe JCu8 lesl
cvcIe is Ionger, has higher average and maxi-
mum speeds and requires more aggressive
acceIeralion. These differences are iIIuslraled
in Iigure 2.
According lo lhe Japanese governmenl, lhe
JCu8 cvcIe`s higher average speed
2
, quicker
acceIeralion, and new coId slarl increased
lhe slringencv of lhe lesl bv 0 percenl. The
governmenl delermined lhe reIalive slrin-
gencv bv measuring fueI economv of 2uu4
modeI vear vehicIes under each lesl cvcIe.
The ßeel average fueI economv for MY2uu4
vehicIes was 1õ.u km]L under lhe 1u-1õ lesl
cvcIe (MLIT 2uu6) and 13.6 km]L under lhe
JCu8 lesl cvcIe (ANRE]MLIT 2uu6). The
more-rigorous JCu8 lesl cvcIe serves lo fur-
lher increase lhe slringencv of lhe 2u1õ slan-
dards bevond lhe difference seen in Iigure 1.
1.2 THE EUROPEAN UNION
A decade ago, lhe European Union enlered
inlo a series of voIunlarv agreemenls wilh
lhe associalions of aulomobiIe manufaclur-
ers lhal seII vehicIes in lhe European markel
lo reduce CO2 laiIpipe emissions. These
agreemenls appIv lo each manufaclurer`s
new vehicIe ßeel, and sel an induslrv-wide
largel of 14u grams CO2 per kiIomeler.
(Olher GHGs were nol incIuded in lhe agree-
PEUGEOT/CITROEN 142
CO2 g/km
FIAT 146
RENAULT 147
TOYOTA 154
GENERAL MOTORS 157
HONDA 157
TOTAL 160
FORD 161
OTHER 162
VOLKSWAGEN 163
SUZUKI 168
HYUNDAI 168
NISSAN 169
MAZDA 175
MITSUBISHI 179
DAIMLER 181
BMW 185
CHRYSLER 238
A
U
T
O
M
A
K
E
R
S

I
N

T
H
E

E
U

M
A
R
K
E
T
,

2
0
0
6
130 150 170 190 210 230
FIGURE 3. Average CO2 Emission Rates (g/km) by
Automakers, EU Market, 2006
The State of Vehicle GHG Emission and Fuel Economy Regulations Around the World 13
menl.) This largel was designed lo achieve a
2õ percenl reduclion in CO2 emissions from
passenger cars from 100õ. The originaI agree-
menl wilh lhe European Car Manufaclurers
Associalion (ACEA) had an iniliaI compIi-
ance dale of 2uu8, whiIe lhe Asian manu-
faclurers (represenled bv Soulh Korean and
Japanese associalions, KAMA and JAMA)
were given unliI 2uu0 lo compIv
3
.
Currenl lrends slrongIv suggesl lhal lhe aulo-
makers wiII nol compIv wilh lhe 2uu8 largel.
In 2uu6, manufaclurer-ßeel average CO2
emissions ranged from 142-238 g]km, wilh
an induslrv-wide average of 16u g]km (Iig-
ure 3). Bv 2uu8, lhe passenger vehicIe ßeel
average CO2 emissions are projecled lo reach
1õõ g]km inslead of lhe 14u g]km largel.
In ils 2uu, review of lhe EU CO2 and
cars slralegv, lhe European Commission
announced lhal lhe EU objeclive of 12u g
CO2]km bv 2u12 wouId be mel lhrough an
¯inlegraled approach". In June 2uu,, lhe
CounciI of Environmenl Minislers formaIIv
adopled a resoIulion lo approve lhe shifl
lo mandalorv slandards and an inlegraled
approach lo achieve 12u g]km, wilh carmak-
ers achieving 13u g]km lhrough lechnicaI
improvemenls and lhe remaining 1u g]km
coming from compIemenlarv measures.
Those measures couId incIude efñcienl lires
and air condilioners, lire pressure monilor-
ing svslems, gear shifl indicalors, improve-
menls in Iighl-commerciaI vehicIes, and
increased use of biofueIs. The Commission
has announced lhal il wiII propose a IegisIa-
live framework for vehicIe slandards and
compIemenlarv poIicies if possibIe in 2uu,
and, al lhe Ialesl, bv 2uu8. The CounciI
expressed a desire lo incIude a Ionger-lerm
vehicIe emissions largel for 2u2u wilhin lhe
conlexl of an overaII slralegv lo address cIi-
male change.
The CounciI of Environmenl Minislers
insisled lhal lhe reguIalorv framework
shouId be as compeliliveIv neulraI as possi-
bIe. A review of 2uu6 dala on European pas-
senger vehicIes and CO2 emissions reveaIs a
wide range of ßeel averages from 142 lo 238
Passenger Vehicle Greenhouse Gas and Fuel Economy Standards: A Global Update 14
g CO2]km. SeveraI European aulomakers÷
Peugeol]Cilroen, Iial, RenauIl, and VoIk-
swagen÷are currenlIv seIIing vehicIes wilh
Iower CO2 emissions in lhe EU lhan mosl
Asian manufaclurers. This gives lhese Euro-
pean aulomakers an advanlage in lheir own
markel under lhe forlhcoming CO2 slan-
dards. However, lwo of lhe lhree German
aulo manufaclurers÷BMW and DaimIer÷
have reIaliveIv high CO2 emissions, whiIe
VoIkswagen is much cIoser lo lhe 2uu6 EU
ßeel-wide average of 16u g]km. The recenl
saIe of ChrvsIer has heIped DaimIer subslan-
liaIIv Iower ils passenger ßeel CO2 emissions.
1.3 CHINA
China is one of lhe newesl enlranls lo lhe
ñeId of reguIaling vehicuIar fueI economv.
Since 2uuõ, lhe counlrv`s rapidIv growing
new passenger vehicIe markel has been sub-
jecl lo fueI economv slandards, which are
geared loward reducing China`s dependence
on foreign oiI and encouraging foreign aulo-
makers lo bring more fueI-efñcienl vehicIe
lechnoIogies lo lhe Chinese markel. The new
slandards sel up maximum fueI consump-
lion Iimils bv weighl calegorv and are impIe-
menled in lwo phases. Phase 1 look effecl
on JuIv 1, 2uuõ for new modeIs and a vear
Ialer for conlinued modeIs. Phase 2 is due lo
lake effecl on Januarv 1, 2uu8 (new modeIs)
and Januarv 1, 2uu0 (conlinued modeIs).
According lo a recenl sludv bv CATARC,
Phase 1 has increased overaII passenger
vehicIe (incIuding SUVs) fueI efñciencv bv
approximaleIv 0 percenl, from 26 mpg in
2uu2 lo 28.4 mpg in 2uu6, despile increases
in gross weighl and engine dispIacemenl
(CATARC 2uu,).
China has recenlIv revised ils laxalion of
molor vehicIes lo slrenglhen incenlives
for lhe saIe and purchase of vehicIes wilh
smaIIer engines. The laxalion has lwo com-
ponenls: an excise lax Ievied on aulomakers
and a saIes lax Ievied on consumers. The
excise lax rales are based on engine dispIace-
menl. In 2uu6, lhe Chinese governmenl
updaled excise lax rales lo furlher encourage
lhe manufaclure of smaIIer-engine vehicIes.
SpeciñcaIIv, lhe lax rale on smaII-engine
(1.u-1.õ Iiler) vehicIes was cul from õ lo 3
percenl, whiIe lhe lax rale on vehicIes wilh
Iarger-engines (more lhan 4 Iilers) was
raised from 8 lo 2u percenl. AIso, as lhe
preferenliaI õ percenl lax rale lhal appIied lo
SUVs has been eIiminaled, aII SUVs are now
subjecl lo lhe same lax scheduIe as olher
vehicIes wilh lhe same engine dispIacemenl.
1.4 CANADA
Canada`s Companv Average IueI Consump-
lion (CAIC) program was inlroduced in
10,6 lo lrack lhe fueI consumplion of lhe
new Iighl dulv vehicIe ßeel. CAIC is simiIar
lo lhe U.S. CAIE program wilh lhe excep-
lion lhal lhe CAIC program does nol dis-
linguish belween domeslic and imporled
vehicIes. AIso, lhe CAIC program has been
voIunlarv since Canadian aulomakers made
a commilmenl lo meel lhe largels in lhe
earIv 108us. The fueI consumplion goaIs sel
oul bv lhe program have hisloricaIIv been
equivaIenl lo CAIE slandards. Since Cana-
The State of Vehicle GHG Emission and Fuel Economy Regulations Around the World 15
dian consumers lend lo buv more fueI-efñ-
cienl vehicIes lhan U.S. consumers, lhe aulo
induslrv, as a whoIe, has consislenlIv mel or
exceeded CAIC largels.
In 2uuu, lhe Governmenl of Canada sig-
naIed ils inlenlion lo seek signiñcanl
improvemenls in GHG emissions under
a voIunlarv agreemenl wilh aulomakers.
Negolialions cuIminaled in 2uuõ wilh lhe
signing of a voIunlarv Memorandum of
Underslanding (MOU) belween lhe govern-
menl and aulomakers. Under lhe MOU,
lhe aulomakers commilled lo reducing
on-road GHG emissions from vehicIes bv
õ.3 megalonnes CO2 equivaIenl (CO2eq)
per vear in 2u1u (MOU 2uuõ). The õ.3 Ml
largel is measured from a ¯reference case"
IeveI of emissions based on a 2õ percenl
reduclion largel in fueI consumplion lhal
is designed lo reßecl lhe aclions of aulo-
makers lhal wouId have occurred in lhe
absence of aclion on cIimale change. Under
lhe MOU, aulomakers can receive credils
for reduclions in: CO2 achieved bv reducing
vehicIe fueI consumplion; exhausl N2O and
melhane (CH4) emissions; hvdroßuorocar-
bon (HIC) emissions from air-condilioning
svslems; and reduclions in lhe difference
belween Iab-lesled and acluaI in-use fueI
consumplion. Since lhe MOU covers aII
GHGs emilled bv bolh lhe new and in-use
vehicIe ßeel, lhe need lo improve new vehi-
cIe fueI efñciencv wiII depend on whal olher
GHG reduclions wiII be achieved bv indus-
lrv and counled lowards lhe largel. Ior
lhis reason, lhe impacl of lhe MOU on fueI
efñciencv of lhe new ßeel cannol be forecasl
wilh precision. The MOU incIudes lhree
inlerim reduclion goaIs for 2uu,, 2uu8 and
2uu0, and a reporl on progress lo lhe 2uu,
goaI is due in mid-2uu8.
In Oclober 2uu6, lhe Canadian governmenl
announced a number of addilionaI measures
lo reduce air poIIulanls and GHG emissions.
Among lhese measures was a commilmenl
lo formaIIv reguIale molor vehicIe fueI con-
sumplion beginning wilh lhe 2u11 modeI
vear, signaIing lhe end of lhe voIunlarv
CAIC program. The governmenl pIans lo
issue a consuIlalion paper on lhe deveIop-
menl of lhese slandards in lhe faII of 2uu,.
In lhe 2uu, budgel, lhe Canadian Govern-
menl aIso inlroduced a program caIIed lhe
VehicIe Efñciencv Incenlive (VEI), which
came inlo effecl March 2uu,. The program
incIudes a rebale and lax componenl, bolh
of which are based on vehicIe fueI efñciencv.
The performance-based rebale program,
run bv Transporl Canada, offers $1,uuu lo
$2,uuu for lhe purchase or Iong-lerm Iease
(12 monlhs or more) of an eIigibIe vehicIe.
Transporl Canada mainlains a Iisl of lhe eIi-
gibIe vehicIes, which currenlIv incIudes new
cars achieving 6.õ L]1uukm (36 mpg) or bel-
ler, new Iighl lrucks gelling 8.3L]1uukm (28
mpg) or beller, and new ßexibIe fueI vehicIes
wilh combined fueI consumplion E8õ ral-
ings of 13L]1uukm (18 mpg of combined
fueI) or beller (Transporl Canada 2uu,).
The new excise lax, caIIed a ¯Green Levv",
is adminislered bv lhe Canada Revenue
Passenger Vehicle Greenhouse Gas and Fuel Economy Standards: A Global Update 16
Agencv on inefñcienl vehicIes. The sIiding
lax of up lo $4,uuu appIies onIv lo passenger
cars wilh a weighled average fueI consump-
lion of 3u2 g CO2]km or grealer and 18 mpg
or Iess (Canada Revenue Agencv 2uu,).
In addilion lo aclions laken bv lhe federaI
governmenl, some Canadian provinces have
aIso announced lheir own pIans lo furlher
reduce GHG emissions from molor vehicIes.
The provinces of Ouébec, Brilish CoIumbia
and Nova Scolia have announced pIans lo
adopl new vehicIe slandards lhal are consis-
lenl wilh CaIifornia`s GHG emission slandard.
1.5 CALIFORNIA
In 2uu2, CaIifornia enacled lhe ñrsl slale
Iaw (AB 1403) requiring GHG emission Iim-
ils from molor vehicIes
4
. As direcled bv lhe
slalule, lhe CaIifornia Air Resources Board
(CARB) issued reguIalions in Seplember
2uu4 Iimiling lhe ¯ßeel average greenhouse
gas exhausl mass emission vaIues from pas-
senger cars, Iighl-dulv lrucks, and medium-
dulv passenger vehicIes" (CaIifornia Code of
ReguIalions 2uu4). The ßeel average caps
ñrsl appIv lo modeI vear 2uu0 vehicIes. The
slandards become more slringenl annuaIIv,
so lhal bv 2u16, lhe new vehicIe ßeel aver-
age slandard wouId be 3u percenl beIow lhe
2uu0 IeveI.
BaseIine GHG emissions as of 2uu4 were
eslimaled al 386,6uu CO2 equivaIenl lons
per dav. The CaIifornia Air Resources Board
(CARB) eslimales lhal lhe proposed GHG
emission slandards wiII reduce projecled
GHG emissions from lhe fuII Iighl-dulv
vehicIe ßeel from baseIine IeveIs bv 1, per-
cenl in 2u2u and bv 2õ percenl in 2u3u
(CARB 2uu4). Afler accounling for increases
in vehicIe miIes lraveIed (VMT), GHG emis-
sions are expecled lo slabiIize around 2uu,
IeveIs unliI 2u2u, wilh a modesl increase
from 2u2u lo 2u3u as shown in Iigure 4.
The CaIifornia slandards cover lhe whoIe
suile of GHG emissions reIaled lo vehicIe
operalion and use. These incIude:
CO · 2, CH4 and N2O emissions resuIling
direclIv from vehicIe operalion;
CO · 2 emissions resuIling from energv con-
sumplion in operaling lhe air condilion-
ing (A]C) svslem;
HIC emissions from lhe A]C svslem ·
due lo eilher Ieakage, Iosses during
recharging, or reIease from scrappage
of lhe vehicIe al lhe end of Iife; and
Upslream emissions associaled wilh lhe ·
produclion of lhe fueI used bv lhe vehicIe.
Reduclions of non-fueI economv-reIaled
GHG emissions are expecled lo come from
a varielv of measures. Melhane emissions
are presenl in vehicIe exhausl al Iow Iev-
eIs, and lhree-wav calaIvsls are an effeclive
means of Iowering lhese emissions. Nilrous
oxide (N2O) emissions from mobiIe sources
accounled for 13 percenl of lolaI U.S. N2O
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
T
O
T
A
L

G
H
G

E
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
S

(
1
,
0
0
0

T
O
N
S

C
O
2

E
Q
U
I
V
A
L
E
N
T

P
E
R

D
A
Y
)
WITHOUT REGULATION
WITH REGULATION
FIGURE 4. California Motor Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Projections (CARB 2004)
The State of Vehicle GHG Emission and Fuel Economy Regulations Around the World 17
emissions in 2uu1. A recenl piIol sludv of
N2O emissions from vehicIes found lhal
cerlain newer vehicIes have subslanliaIIv
Iower N2O emissions lhan 100us vinlage
vehicIes, bul lhe lechnicaI reason has nol
been delermined (CARB 2uu4). The use of
improved compressors, reduced refrigeranl
Ieakage svslems, and aIlernalive refrigeranls
in mobiIe air condilioners couId aIso Iead
lo subslanliaI GHG reduclions
õ
. AIlernalive
fueI vehicIes, incIuding pIug-in hvbrids, can
generale credils for lhe vehicIe manufac-
lurer in proporlion lo lhe upslream emis-
sions miligaled bv an aIlernalive fueI and
lhe amounl of lhal fueI used over a vear
(CARB 2uu4).
Since lheir passage, lhe CaIifornia slandards
have been adopled bv eIeven olher slales.
If lhe program wilhslands IegaI chaIIenge,
lhese slandards wiII reduce GHG emissions
from more lhan one in lhree new vehicIes
soId in lhe U.S., impacling emissions from
lhe enlire U.S. vehicIe ßeel.
In December 2uuõ, CaIifornia requesled a
waiver from lhe U.S. EnvironmenlaI Prolec-
lion Agencv (EPA), as required bv Seclion
2u0 of lhe CIean Air Acl, lo promuIgale
GHG emission reguIalions. EPA deIaved
ils response unliI lhe U.S. Supreme Courl
sellIed lhe queslion as lo whelher lhe CIean
Air Acl granled lhe Agencv lhe aulhorilv
lo reguIale CO2. Wilh lhe ApriI 2uu, Mas-
sachusells v. EPA Supreme Courl decision
idenlifving CO2 as an air poIIulanl recog-
nized under lhe CIean Air Acl, CaIifornia`s
waiver has a grealer IikeIihood of approvaI.
Passenger Vehicle Greenhouse Gas and Fuel Economy Standards: A Global Update 18
1.6 THE UNITED STATES
The U.S. adopled ils CAIE slandards as parl
of a broad energv poIicv package in lhe wake
of lhe 10,3 oiI crisis. Al lhe lime lhe slan-
dards were adopled, lhe expressed goaI was
lo reduce lhe counlrv`s dependence on for-
eign oiI; environmenlaI oulcomes were nol
an expIicil poIicv goaI. The CAIE slandards
are sel bv lhe NalionaI Highwav Trafñc and
Safelv Adminislralion (NHTSA), whiIe EPA
is responsibIe for adminislering and reporl-
ing fueI economv lesls procedures.
When CAIE slandards were inlroduced,
Iighl lrucks were a smaII percenlage of lhe
vehicIe ßeel used primariIv for business and
agricuIluraI purposes. In order lo prolecl
smaII businesses and farmers, Iighl lrucks
were subjecl lo a Iess slringenl fueI economv
slandard. Since lhal lime, aulomakers have
inlroduced a number of crossover vehicIes,
such as minivans and SUVs, lhal combine
fealures of cars and Iighl lrucks. The use of
lhese vehicIes has shifled lo primariIv per-
sonaI lransporl and markel share has now
surpassed passenger cars. As a resuIl, lhere
has been a , percenl decrease in fueI econ-
omv of lhe overaII Iighl dulv ßeel since 1088
(EPA 2uu4).
Two separale CAIE slandards remain in
effecl for passenger vehicIes. The CAIE
slandard for passenger cars has remained
unchanged since 108õ al 2,.õ miIes per gaI-
Ion (mpg), aIlhough il was roIIed back for
severaI vears in lhe Iale 108us in response
lo pelilions ñIed bv severaI aulomakers. The
slandard for Iighl lrucks was increased in
lwo ruIemakings from 2u., mpg in 2uu4 lo
24.u mpg for 2u11 over seven modeI vears
from 2uuõ lo 2u11. In ils mosl recenl ruIe-
making, NHTSA began selling CAIE slan-
dards for Iighl lrucks based on vehicIe size
as deñned bv lheir ¯foolprinl" (lhe bollom
area belween lhe vehicIe`s four wheeIs). The
new slandard is based on a compIex formuIa
malching fueI economv largels wilh vehicIe
sizes. Ior lhe ñrsl lhree vears, manufaclurers
can choose belween lruck-ßeel average lar-
gels of 22., mpg in 2uu8, 23.4 mpg in 2uu0,
and 23., mpg in 2u1u, or size-based largels.
Beginning in 2u11, manufaclurers wiII be
required lo meel lhe size-based slandards
lhal are expecled lo resuIl in a ßeelwide
average of 24.u mpg (NHTSA 2uu6).
An anaIvsis bv NHTSA shows lhal, due lo
a wide varielv of size composilions of lhe
Iighl-dulv lruck ßeel, each aulomaker wouId
have ils own fueI economv largels depend-
ing on lhe foolprinls of lhe vehicIes lhev seII.
As demonslraled in TabIe 1, lhe major U.S.
aulomakers, DaimIerChrvsIer (DCX)
6
, Gen-
eraI Molors (GM) and Iord, aIong wilh lhe
Japanese aulomaker, Nissan, are expecled
lo have lhe Iowesl fueI economv largels of
aII aulomakers whiIe Hvundai, BMW and
Tovola have lhe mosl slringenl fueI economv
slandards in 2u11 (NHTSA and DOT 2uu6).
Responding lo consumer compIainls, EPA
recenlIv readjusled lhe fueI economv lesl
TABLE 1. Estimates of U.S. Light-Duty Truck Fuel Economy Targets and Projected Percentage Gains
FUEL ECONOMY TARGETS (MILES PER GALLON)
PERCENTAGE GAINS
2008-2011
2008 2009 2010 2011
General Motors 21.9 22.6 22.9 23.2 5.94%
Isuzu 22.2 22.9 23.2 23.4 5.41%
Toyota 22.6 23.0 23.2 23.8 5.31%
Nissan 22.3 23.3 23.7 23.9 7.17%
Ford 22.7 23.2 23.8 23.9 5.29%
Volkswagen 23.1 23.7 24.0 24.2 4.76%
Porsche 23.0 23.7 24.0 24.2 5.22%
Daimler Chrysler 23.2 23.7 24.1 24.3 4.74%
Honda 23.3 24.0 24.4 24.6 5.58%
Hyundai 23.9 25.0 25.0 25.4 6.28%
BMW 24.5 25.1 25.5 25.8 5.31%
Subaru 25.4 26.4 26.3 26.8 5.51%
Mitsubishi 25.1 25.8 26.3 27.0 7.57%
Suzuki 25.5 26.3 26.6 27.1 6.27%
Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation, 2006
The State of Vehicle GHG Emission and Fuel Economy Regulations Around the World 19
procedures lo more accuraleIv reporl reaI
worId consumer experience. WhiIe lhis does
nol affecl lhe CAIE slandard or compIiance
bv aulomakers, il does give consumers a
more accurale reßeclion of expecled fueI use.
Designing lesls lhal represenl reaI-worId
driving slvIes and condilions is an issue in
everv nalion lhal reguIales fueI economv and
GHG emissions. EPA`s new lesling melhod÷
which appIv lo modeI vear 2uu8 and Ialer
vehicIes÷incIudes lhe cilv and highwav
lesls used for previous modeIs aIong wilh
addilionaI lesls lo represenl fasler speeds
and acceIeralion, air condilioning use, coIder
oulside lemperalures, and wind and road
surface resislance.
In ApriI 2uu,, lhe U.S. Supreme Courl ruIed,
in a õ-4 decision, lhal GHG emissions are air
poIIulanls polenliaIIv subjecl lo federaI regu-
Ialion under lhe CIean Air Acl. In response,
lhe Bush Adminislralion signed an execulive
order direcling lhe U.S. EPA, in coIIabora-
lion wilh lhe Deparlmenls of Transporla-
lion and Energv, lo deveIop reguIalions lhal
couId reduce projecled
,
oiI use bv 2u percenl
wilhin a decade (Execulive Order 2uu,). The
Adminislralion suggesled lhal lhe ¯Twenlv
in Ten" goaI be achieved bv: (1) increasing
lhe use renewabIe and aIlernalive fueIs,
which wiII dispIace 1õ percenl of projecled
annuaI gasoIine use; and (2) bv furlher lighl-
ening lhe CAIE slandards for cars and Iighl
lrucks, which wiII bring aboul a furlher õ
percenl reduclion in projecled gasoIine use.
The U.S. Congress is currenlIv considering
severaI biIIs lhal wouId increase car and
TABLE 2. Number of Registered Passenger Vehicles (current and projected) by Engine Size and Fleet Average
Fuel Economy Levels in South Korea
CATEGORY BY
ENGINE SIZE
NUMBER OF VEHICLES REGISTERED
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
1,500 cc 5,651,382 5,832,221 6,043,342 6,286,954 6,509,959 6,724,541 6,907,027
r 1,500 cc 4,744,232 5,032,690 5,322,161 5,608,959 5,901,817 6,180,446 6,450,052
SHARE
1,500 cc 54.4% 53.7% 53.2% 52.8% 52.4% 52.1% 51.7%
r 1,500 cc 45.6% 46.3% 46.8% 47.2% 47.6% 47.9% 48.3%
FLEET AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY
30.8 30.8 30.7 30.7 30.7 30.7 30.6
Source: Youngil Jeong, Center for Environmentally Friendly Vehicles, 2007
Passenger Vehicle Greenhouse Gas and Fuel Economy Standards: A Global Update 20
lruck CAIE slandards or eslabIish fed-
eraI GHG emissions slandards for molor
vehicIes. Ior lhe ñrsl lime in manv vears, lhe
Senale passed a biII (S.3õ, ¯Ten in Ten") lhal
increasing passenger vehicIe fueI economv
slandards bv 1u mpg over a decade lo 3õ
mpg in 2u2u.
1.7 SOUTH KOREA
Soulh Korea eslabIished mandalorv fueI
economv slandards in 2uu4 lo repIace a voI-
unlarv svslem. Slarling in 2uu6 for domeslic
vehicIes and 2uu0 for imporls, slandards are
sel al 34.4 CAIE-normaIized mpg for vehi-
cIes wilh engine dispIacemenl under 1,õuu
cubic cenlimelers (cc) and 26.6 mpg for
lhose over 1,õuu cc. Credils can be earned
lo offsel shorlfaIIs. The program has shown
encouraging progress in ils earIv vears. How-
ever, lhe markel share of vehicIes wilh Iarger
engine size has been graduaIIv increas-
ing since recenl vears, whiIe lhe slandards
remain slalic from 2uu6 and lhereafler. As
a resuIl, lhe ßeel average fueI economv in
Soulh Korea is projecled lo decIine overlime.
This lrend is shown in TabIe 2. The Korean
Minislrv of Commerce and lhe Minislrv of
Environmenl are discussing counlermea-
sures such as redesigning lhe fueI economv
slandards or inlroducing passenger vehicIe
CO2 emissions slandards, according lo Dr.
YoungiI Jeong, Direclor of Cenler for Envi-
ronmenlaIIv IriendIv VehicIes in Korea.
1.8 OTHER REGIONS
In AuslraIia, a voIunlarv agreemenl caIIs ·
on lhe induslrv lo reduce ßeel average
fueI consumplion for passenger cars bv 1õ
percenl bv 2u1u (over a 2uu2 baseIine).
There are no speciñc enforcemenl mecha-
nisms or non-compIiance penaIlies idenli-
ñed under lhis agreemenl.
Taiwan, China`s fueI economv slandards, ·
eslabIished before lhe mainIand Chinese
slandards, are based on seven calegories
of engine size (measured in voIume). The
slandards cover aII gasoIine and dieseI
passenger cars, Iighl lrucks, and com-
merciaI vehicIes (<2,õuu kg) and range
Comparing Vehicle Standards Around The World 21
from 16.0 mpg for vehicIes wilh engine
dispIacemenl over 4,2u1 cc lo 36.2 mpg
for vehicIes Iess lhan 1,2uu cc.
BraziI pul in pIace a fueI economv pro- ·
gram caIIed EscoIha Cerlo (Righl Choice)
in lhe 108us, which was disconlinued
in lhe earIv 100us. In 1001, lhe counlrv
Iaunched lhe NalionaI Program for lhe
RalionaI Use of OiI and Gas (CONPET)
lo promole lhe efñcienl use of nonrenew-
abIe energv in aII major economic seclors
lhal consume oiI derivalives, incIuding
lransporlalion. A voIunlarv fueI economv
IabeIing program for passenger vehicIes
is now under discussion as an impor-
lanl componenl of CONPET. IIex fueI
vehicIes, which can run on pure elhanoI
or gasohoI (a bIend of ,õ percenl gasoIine
and 2õ percenl elhanoI÷lhe onIv gaso-
Iine-based fueI soId in BraziI), now domi-
nale new vehicIe saIes in BraziI. Because
of ils considerabIe use of non-gasoIine
fueIs, BraziI`s CO2 emission from lhe Iighl
dulv ßeel is reIaliveIv Iow compared wilh
olher nalions. Ior exampIe, a recenl sludv
bv Cenler for CIean Air PoIicv eslimaled
lhal average CO2 emissions from lhe
2uu4 Iighl dulv ßeel are as Iow as 124 g]
km (Krug el aI 2uu6).
2. COMPARING VEHICLE
STANDARDS AROUND THE
WORLD
This seclion compares lhe passenger vehicIe
slandards for bolh fueI economv and GHG
emissions in AuslraIia, CaIifornia, Canada,
China, lhe European Union, Japan, Soulh
Korea, lhe Uniled Slales, and Taiwan,
China. Each slandard`s slringencv is slrongIv
inßuenced bv lhe lesl procedure used lo
measure fueI economv or GHG emissions.
Over lhe Iasl severaI decades, Europe,
Japan and lhe Uniled Slales have deveIoped
unique lesl procedures reßecling IocaI reaI
worId driving condilions; as a resuIl, lhe
same vehicIe lesled on lhe Japanese lesl
procedure mav generale a markedIv differ-
enl fueI economv raling or GHG emissions
lhan lhe idenlicaI vehicIe lesled on lhe U.S.
or European lesl cvcIe.
To aIIow for comparison on an equaI basis,
each nalionaI slandard has been adjusled lo
common reference slandards bv lhe melhod-
oIogv originaIIv deveIoped in An and Sauer
(2uu4). The appendix lo lhis reporl oulIines
lhis melhodoIogv, whiIe aIso describing how
il was updaled lo incIude lhe new Japa-
nese lesl procedure and reñned lo reßecl a
broader mix of vehicIes soId in lhe European
and Japanese markels.
2.1 OVERVIEW OF GLOBAL
GHG EMISSION AND FUEL
ECONOMY STANDARDS
Depending on lhe poIicv priorilies in pIace,
passenger vehicIe slandards are designed
lo eilher Iower GHG emissions or reduce
fueI consumplion. GHG emission slandards
are inlended lo miligale cIimale change
and heIp achieve emission reduclion goaIs
associaled wilh inlernalionaI agreemenls.
Slaled aims of fueI economv slandards
TABLE 3. Fuel Economy and GHG Emissions Standards Around the World
COUNTRY/
REGION
STANDARD MEASURE STRUCTURE
TARGETED
FLEET
TEST
CYCLE
IMPLEMENTATION
Japan Fuel km/l Weight-based New JC08 Mandatory
European Union* CO2 g/km Single standard New NEDC Voluntary
China Fuel l/100-km Weight-based New NEDC Mandatory
Canada*
GHG
(CO2, CH4,
N2O, HFCs)
5.3 Mt
reduction
Vehicle class-
based
In-use
and new
U.S. CAFE Voluntary
California
GHG
(CO2, CH4,
N2O, HFCs)
g/mile
Vehicle class-
based
New U.S. CAFE Mandatory
United States Fuel mpg
Single standard
for cars and size-
based standards
for light trucks
New U.S. CAFE Mandatory
Australia Fuel l/100-km Single standard New NEDC Voluntary
South Korea Fuel km/l Engine size-based New
U.S. EPA
City
Mandatory
Taiwan, China Fuel km/l Engine size-based New U.S. CAFE Mandatory
*Europe and Canada are shifting to mandatory regulatory programs.
Passenger Vehicle Greenhouse Gas and Fuel Economy Standards: A Global Update 22
incIude prolecling consumers from rising
fueI prices and price spikes, reducing oiI
imporls, and reducing reIiance on unslabIe
oiI-producing nalions.
PoIicvmakers are faced wilh manv choices
when drafling eilher lvpe of slandard:
whelher lo sel a singIe ßeel-average slan-
dard or lake a liered approach, wilh muIlipIe
slandards disaggregaled according lo vehicIe
foolprinl, weighl, cIass, engine size, or
inlerior size; which lesl cvcIe lo adopl; and
whelher lhe slandard shouId be voIunlarv
or incorporale formaI sanclions for non-
compIiance. TabIe 3 summarizes lhe speciñc
poIicv approaches adopled bv lhe counlries
incIuded in lhis reporl.
WhiIe lhe reguIalions of lhe counlries
above dispIav considerabIe diversilv, com-
mon lrails are evidenl from TabIe 3. The
mosl common poIicv is a mandalorv fueI
economv slandard affecling new vehicIes
onIv and measured in lerms of dislance
lraveIed per voIume of fueI consumed, gen-
eraIIv under lhe composile CAIE lesl cvcIe
or one of ils subcomponenls. Manv of lhe
new programs deveIoped in recenl vears
(e.g. CaIifornia, Canada, Europe) dispIav
a preference for GHG or CO2 emission
slandards. Bul lhe lrend is nol deñnilive
as China recenlIv adopled a fueI economv
slandard, and Canada seems poised lo
repIace ils GHG program wilh a fueI econ-
omv program.
100
2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018
240
260
220
200
180
160
140
120
280
C
O
2

E
Q
U
I
V
A
L
E
N
T

G
/
K
M
-
C
O
N
V
E
R
T
E
D

T
O

N
E
D
C

T
E
S
T

C
Y
C
L
E
CALIFORNIA
S. KOREA
AUSTRALIA
CANADA
1
CHINA
JAPAN
EUROPE
UNITED
STATES
US
EU
JAPAN
AUSTRALIA
CANADA
CHINA
CALIFORNIA
S. KOREA
FIGURE 5. Actual and Projected GHG Emissions for New Passenger Vehicles by Country, 2002-2018.
Note: Solid lines denote actual performance or projected performance due to adopted regulations; dotted lines denote proposed standards; Values normalized to
NEDC test cycle in grams of CO2-equivalent per km.
[1] For Canada, the program includes in-use vehicles. The resulting uncertainty on new vehicle fuel economy was not quantified.
Comparing Vehicle Standards Around The World 23
2.2 COMPARISON OF PASSEN-
GER VEHICLE STANDARDS
Ior lhis sludv, we adopled reference slan-
dards corresponding lo lwo of lhe mosl
common wavs lo measure and reguIale fueI
consumplion and GHG missions from pas-
senger vehicIes: a GHG emission slandard
measured in lerms of grams of carbon diox-
ide equivaIenl per kiIomeler measured on
lhe EU NEDC cvcIe, and a fueI-economv
based slandard measured in lerms of CAIE-
adjusled miIes per gaIIon.
Iigure õ compares counlrv slandards in
lerms of grams of CO2-equivaIenl per kiIo-
meler adjusled lo lhe European NEDC lesl
cvcIe. Europe and Japan Iead lhe worId in
reducing GHG emissions from lheir vehicIe
ßeels. Ior mosl of vears oul lo 2u1õ, Japan`s
fueI efñciencv largels lransIale lo lhe mosl
slringenl passenger vehicIe GHG emission
slandards in lhe worId, wilh Europe as a
cIose second. Al lhe end of lheir reguIalorv
periods, Japan`s new passenger ßeel CO2
emissions are eslimaled lo be equivaIenl lo
12õ g]km in 2u1õ; Europe is projecled lo
achieve 13u g]km lhree vears earIier, in 2u12.
The U.S. new vehicIe ßeel is expecled lo
remain lhe worId`s mosl carbon inlensive for
45
50
40
35
30
25
20
2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018
CALIFORNIA
3
S. KOREA
AUSTRALIA
CANADA
2
CHINA
JAPAN
EUROPE
1
UNITED STATES
US
EU
JAPAN
AUSTRALIA
CANADA
CHINA
CALIFORNIA
S. KOREA
M
P
G
-
C
O
N
V
E
R
T
E
D

T
O

C
A
F
E

T
E
S
T

C
Y
C
L
E
FIGURE 6. Actual and Projected Fuel Economy for New Passenger Vehicles by Country, 2002-2018.
[1] The relative stringency of Europe’s CO2-based standards is enhanced under a fuel economy standard because diesel vehicles achieve a boost in
fuel economy ratings due to the higher energy content of diesel fuel.
[2] For Canada, the program includes in-use vehicles. The resulting uncertainty of this impact on new vehicle emissions was not quantified.
[3] Shaded area under the California trend line represents the uncertain amount of non-fuel economy related GHG reductions (N2O, CH4, HFCs, and
upstream emissions related to fuel production) that manufacturers will generate from measures such as low-leak, high efficiency air conditioners,
alternative fuel vehicles, and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles.
Passenger Vehicle Greenhouse Gas and Fuel Economy Standards: A Global Update 24
lhe foreseeabIe fulure, aIlhough signiñcanl
improvemenls couId be achieved shouId lhe
U.S. governmenl enacl lhe U.S. Senale CAIE
IegisIalion or lhe Presidenl`s ¯Twenlv in Ten"
Execulive Order. CaIifornia is nolabIe for ils
sleep improvemenl in GHG emission slan-
dards, parlicuIarIv in lhe earIv vears of lhe
program from 2uu0 lo 2u12. InlereslingIv,
counlries as diverse as China, Canada
8
, and
AuslraIia have adopled subslanliveIv equiva-
Ienl reguIalions, wilh lhe carbon inlensilies
of new vehicIes soId in each counlrv in lhe
2uu0-2u1u lime frame projecled lo be 168,
1,8, and 1,6 grams of CO2-equivaIenl per
kiIomeler, respecliveIv.
Iigure 6 shows acluaI and projecled ßeel
average fueI economv from 2uu2 lo 2u18
for new vehicIes in CAIE-normaIized miIes
per gaIIon. In each case, we assume lhal a
given counlrv`s ßeel exaclIv meels adopled
or anlicipaled fulure slandards. In 2uu6,
Europe and Japan had lhe mosl slringenl
fueI economv slandards for passenger vehi-
cIes in lhe worId, wilh an eslimaled 4u mpg
for bolh governmenls. Europe is expecled
lo Iead lhe worId in fueI economv lhrough
al Ieasl 2u1õ if nol Ionger, primariIv due lo
lhe expanded use of efñcienl dieseI engines
in ils Iighl-dulv vehicIe ßeel. The apparenl
discrepancv belween Europe and Japan`s
Comparing Vehicle Standards Around The World 25
performance on a mpg and grams of CO2eq]
km basis is due lo lhe Iarge numbers of die-
seI vehicIes in lhe European ßeel. DieseI fueI
conlains aboul 1u percenl more carbon and
more energv lhan gasoIine. As a resuIl, lhe
fueI economv of dieseI vehicIes is augmenled
bv bolh lhe energv efñciencv and lhe grealer
energv conlenl of lhe fueI when measured
using miIes per gaIIon. However, when con-
sidered under a GHG-basis, lhe higher car-
bon conlenl of lhe fueI is laken inlo accounl
and offsels lhe fueI-reIaled improvemenl
found on a mpg-basis
0
.
The shaded area under lhe CaIifornia Iine in
Iigure 6 represenls lhe range of uncerlainlv
generaled when lhose slandards are con-
verled lo unils of miIes per gaIIon. There are
lwo sources of lhis uncerlainlv: CARB`s air
condilioner credil, which aIIows aulomak-
ers who have improved lheir A]C svslems lo
¯offsel" some porlion of measured exhausl
emissions, and lhe use of biofueIs in ßex-fueI
vehicIes (IIVs) as a possibIe compIiance
mechanism. The air condilioner credil was
caIcuIaled based upon dala provided direclIv
bv CARB. The range of uncerlainlv allribul-
abIe lo biofueIs is dependenl on lhree vari-
abIes: lhe saIes rale of IIVs (assumed lo be
õu percenl in 2u2u); lhe biofueIs use rale
of lhe IIV buvers, and lhe reIalive GHG-
inlensilv of lhose fueIs. The uncerlainlv
band shown in Iigure 6 was delermined bv
varving bolh lhe biofueIs use rale and reIa-
live GHG savings of biofueIs belween 2õ
and õu percenl, which we have idenliñed as
reasonabIe upper and Iower bounds for lhose
vaIues; lhe resuIling uncerlainlv range was
lhen added lo lhe A]C credil. In each case,
lhe miIeage of IIVs on E8õ was assumed lo
be ,õ percenl lhal of lhe same vehicIe oper-
aled on gasoIine, which is consislenl wilh
lhe average of aII IIVs in modeI vears 2uu4-
2uu, according lo lhe EPA lesl cvcIe.
In conlrasl lo Europe and Japan, lhe Uniled
Slales has lhe mosl Iax nalionaI slandards
incIuded in our survev, a posilion lhal couId
change if eilher lhe Presidenl`s Execulive
Order or lhe Senale BiII are adopled or
enacled. As in Iigure õ, China, AuslraIia,
and Canada represenl inlermediale cases:
neilher of lhe former lwo counlries have
changed slandards since lhe 2uu4 reporl,
bul China has made subslanliaI progress
lhrough changes in ils lax code. The impacl
of Canada`s GHG emissions slandard, and
lhe uncerlainlies surrounding il, were dis-
cussed above. IinaIIv, Soulh Korea is lhe
onIv nalionaI governmenl incIuded in lhis
survev where ßeel average fueI economv is
projecled lo faII lhrough 2u12, primariIv due
lo growing saIes of Iarger, more powerfuI
vehicIes.
Iigures õ and 6 provide an appIes-lo-appIes
comparison of passenger vehicIe fueI econ-
omv and GHG emission slandards in eighl
regions. This anaIvsis demonslrales lhal,
despile lhe subslanliaI improvemenls lhal
proposed slandards wouId require, a Iarge
gap remains belween lhe slringencv of pas-
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
JAPAN
2004-2015
EU
IN PLACE: 1998-2006
PROPOSED: 2007-2012
CHINA
2005-2009
AUSTRALIA
2002-2010
CANADA
2000-2010
CALIFORNIA
2009-2016
UNITED STATES
2008-2011
G
R
A
M
S

C
O
2
E
Q

P
E
R

K
M
153
125
180
160
130
193
168
211
176
244
178
273
185
249
236

FIGURE 7. GHG Emission Reduction Associated with the Most Recent Regulations By Country
Note: Shaded bars denote in-place regulations; unshaded bars denote proposed regulations. Emissions data for Figure 7 are measured in grams
CO2-equivalent per kilometer under the NEDC test cycle. California and Canada’s programs include reductions in non-tailpipe and non- CO2 emissions.
Passenger Vehicle Greenhouse Gas and Fuel Economy Standards: A Global Update 26
senger vehicIe slandards in differenl parls of
lhe worId. A number of faclors pIav impor-
lanl roIes in delermining vehicIe ßeel perfor-
mance for lhese melrics, such as lechnoIogv
depIovmenl, vehicIe size and weighl, engine
size and horsepower, and IocaI driving con-
dilions. Some faclors are weII known. The
sharp increase in saIes of dieseI passenger
vehicIes in Europe÷now approximaleIv õu
percenl of new saIes÷has Iowered CO2 emis-
sions from lhe ßeel. Bv conlrasl, lhe increas-
ing popuIarilv of Iarger, heavier vehicIes wilh
Iarge engines has degraded lhe efñciencv of
passenger ßeels in severaI nalions, incIuding
lhe U.S. and Soulh Korea. WhiIe il is bevond
lhe scope of lhis anaIvsis lo expIore wilh
anaIvlicaI rigor lhe reIalionship belween
various faclors affecling vehicIe performance
in differenl counlries, lhis wouId cerlainIv be
a usefuI area for furlher research.
One wav lo parliaIIv conlroI for lhe impacl
of varialions in vehicIe size, weighl, lechnoI-
ogv penelralion, and engine performance
across counlries is lo compare slandards in
lerms of lhe absoIule improvemenl required
over each reguIalorv impIemenlalion period.
Iigure , shows lhe improvemenl required in
passenger vehicIe GHG emissions bv counlrv
and]or region for each respeclive impIemen-
lalion period as measured under Europe`s
NEDC lesl cvcIe.
As Iigure , demonslrales, lhe Iargesl abso-
Iule reduclions are expecled in counlries and
regions wilh reIaliveIv high baseIines bul
which have recenlIv adopled aggressive poIi-
cies lo reduce GHG emissions from Iighl-
Findings and Conclusions 27
dulv vehicIes. When fuIIv impIemenled,
CaIifornia`s slandards wiII cul average GHG
emissions from new passenger vehicIes
bv aImosl 0u grams of CO2 equivaIenl per
kiIomeler, bv far lhe Iargesl absoIule reduc-
lion in our survev. Second lo CaIifornia is
Canada`s voIunlarv program, which, if suc-
cessfuIIv impIemenled, is expecled lo reduce
GHG emissions bv 66 g]km from 2uuu lo
2u1u. Olher nolabIe counlries shown in
Iigure , incIude Japan, which is on largel
lo reduce GHG emissions bv 28 g]km off
of ils aIreadv Iow 2uu4 baseIine, and lhe
U.S., which, despile slarling wilh lhe high-
esl baseIine, expecls onIv meager reduclions
(13 g]km) under ils CAIE program belween
2uu8 and 2u11.
FINDINGS AND
CONCLUSIONS
A greal deaI of reguIalorv aclion has laken
pIace, and wiII conlinue lo evoIve, as gov-
ernmenls around lhe worId work lo reduce
GHG emissions and fueI consumplion from
passenger vehicIes. Japan and Europe are
Ieading lhe wav on GHG emission reduc-
lions and fueI economv improvemenls in
lheir Iighl-dulv vehicIe ßeels. CaIifornia`s
GHG emission reguIalions have now been
adopled bv 11 olher slales across lhe Uniled
Slales and received a IegaI boosl from lhe
U.S. Supreme Courl. The EU is currenlIv
designing a IegisIalive framework lo deIiver
ambilious reduclions in laiIpipe CO2 emis-
sions, parliaIIv bv moving from a voIunlarv
approach lo formaI slandards. IueI economv
slandards in lhe U.S. are aIso undergoing
an imporlanl pubIic debale. Canada is pIan-
ning lo issue new fueI economv reguIalions
lhis faII. China has adopled new lax poIicies
lo dampen demand for Iarger, Iess efñcienl
vehicIes. The nalions wilh lhe grealesl
molor vehicIe GHG emissions and fueI con-
sumplion wiII be crilicaI aclors on gIobaI
energv and environmenlaI issues. Decisions
on how lo meel and enforce GHG and fueI
economv goaIs wiII affecl nol onIv domeslic
affairs, bul aIso worIdwide condilions for
generalions lo come.
Fuel Economy or GHG
Emission Standard
Unadjusted
GHG Standard
Unadjusted Fuel
Economy Standard
NEDC Adjusted
GHG Standard
CAFE Adjusted Fuel
Economy Standard
Unit conversion
Test cycle
multiplier
Figure 5 Figure 6
FIGURE A-1. Study Methodology
Passenger Vehicle Greenhouse Gas and Fuel Economy Standards: A Global Update 28
APPENDIX:
METHODOLOGY FOR
ADJUSTING STANDARDS
Seclion 2 of lhe reporl compares eighl gov-
ernmenl`s fueI economv and GHG emission
slandards. In order lo correcl for differences
in lesl cvcIes, lhis reporl uses a melhodoIogv
simiIar lo lhal described in lhe appendix of
An and Sauer (2uu4). This appendix sum-
marizes lhal melhodoIogv and describes in
delaiI severaI changes made for lhis reporl,
incIuding lhe foIIowing:
The Japanese lesl cvcIe was updaled lo ·
lhe new JCu8 lesl cvcIe and lwo new
muIlipIiers were deveIoped lo lransIale
Japanese vehicIe slandards: JCu8 lo U.S.
CAIE and JCu8 lo lhe European NEDC
lesl cvcIe.
AddilionaI vehicIes were added lo lhe ·
simuIalion modeI lo beller caplure lhe
smaII-car bias of lhe Japanese and Euro-
pean ßeels.
A conslanl lesl cvcIe muIlipIier was ·
repIaced wilh a variabIe muIlipIier lo
reßecl lhe facl lhal lhe Ieniencv of lhe
CAIE lesl cvcIe reIalive lo olher lesl
cvcIes decIines as vehicIe fueI economv
improves.
As Iigure A-1 demonslrales, lhis anaIvsis
slarls wilh reguIalorv fueI economv or GHG
emissions slandards for each of lhe eighl
regions. Each slandard is converled lo an
adjusled fueI economv and GHG emission
slandard bv a lwo-slep process. Iirsl, aII vehi-
cIe slandards are converled lo lhe same pair
of unils÷CO2 g]km and mpg. Second, muI-
lipIiers are lhen used lo normaIize lhe slrin-
gencv of each vehicIe slandard lo lhe same
lesl cvcIe. The originaI 2uu4 reporl used lhe
European NEDC lesl cvcIe for CO2 and lhe
U.S. CAIE lesl cvcIe for miIes per gaIIon,
and we have conlinued lhal convenlion here.

Of course, lhe U.S. fueI economv slandard
(CAIE-adjusled fueI economv slandard) and
lhe European CO2 emission reduclion largel
(NEDC-adjusled CO2 slandard) require no
adjuslmenl. A ßowcharl of lhe lwo-slep con-
version process is produced beIow.
Fuel Economy or GHG
Emission Standard
Unadjusted
GHG Standard
Unadjusted Fuel
Economy Standard
NEDC Adjusted
GHG Standard
CAFE Adjusted Fuel
Economy Standard
Unit conversion
Test cycle
multiplier
Figure 5 Figure 6
FIGURE A-1. Study Methodology
TABLE A-1. Important Unit Conversions
METRIC STANDARD X STANDARD Y CONVERSION
Fuel economy
km/L mpg Y = X * 2.35
L/100 km mpg Y = 235.2/X
CO2 g/km mpg* Y = 5469/X
GHG standard
km/L CO2 g/km Y = 2325/X
L/100 km CO2 g/km Y = X * 23.2
mpg CO2 g/km Y = 5469/X
* For diesel vehicles, Y = 6424/X was used to reflect the higher carbon content of diesel fuel.
TABLE A-2. Summary of International Test Cycles
CYCLE
LENGTH
(SECONDS)
AVERAGE SPEED
(MPH)
MAX SPEED
(MPH)
MAX ACCELERATION
(MPH/S)
EPA Highway 766 48.2 59.9 3.3
EPA City 1375 19.5 56.7 3.3
CAFE ------- 32.4* 59.9 3.3
NEDC 1181 20.9 74.6 2.4
JC08 1204 15.2 50.7 3.8
* Based on 45/55 CAFE highway/city weighting, not test cycle length.
Appendix: Methodology for Adjusting Standards 29
In simpIiñed malhemalicaI form, a given
counlrv slandard is converled lo ils CAIE-
adjusled fueI economv and NEDC-adjusled
GHG equivaIenl lhrough lhe foIIowing pro-
cess:
ReguIalorv slandard x Unil conversion x
Tesl cvcIe muIlipIier = Adjusled slandard
TabIe A-1 shows lhe unil conversion faclors
used in lhis sludv. In each case, mpg refers lo
gasoIine onIv.
Europe, Japan, and lhe Uniled Slales have
each deveIoped lheir own lesl procedures
lo delermine fueI economv and GHG emis-
sions from new passenger vehicIes. The U.S.
lesl cvcIe is a combinalion of lwo cvcIes, one
represenling cilv driving and lhe olher high-
wav driving. TabIe A-2 summarizes saIienl
characlerislics from lhese ñve lesl cvcIes÷
lhe EPA cilv and highwav lesl cvcIes, lhe
composile CAIE cvcIe, lhe European NEDC
cvcIe, and lhe JCu8 lesl cvcIe. The European
NEDC cvcIe is used lo measure compIiance
under lhe EU`s voIunlarv CO2 emission slan-
dards for passenger vehicIes. The Japanese
JCu8 lesl cvcIe wiII be used slarling in 2u1u
lo measure progress loward Japan`s 2u1õ
¯Top Runner" fueI economv slandards for
Iighl-dulv passenger vehicIes.
As lhe labIe indicales, signiñcanl differences
exisl belween lhe ñve lesl cvcIes, which lhen
lransIale inlo differences in measured fueI
economv for idenlicaI vehicIes. The EPA
highwav cvcIe is lhe shorlesl cvcIe and aver-
ages 48 miIes per hour, or more lhan doubIe
Passenger Vehicle Greenhouse Gas and Fuel Economy Standards: A Global Update 30
lhe average speed of lhe olher cvcIes. Gener-
aIIv speaking, up lo a poinl (approximaleIv
õõ mph) higher average speeds generale
beller fueI economv. As a resuIl, a vehicIe
lesled on lhe EPA highwav lesl cvcIe (and
lhus under CAIE) wiII appear lo have supe-
rior energv efñciencv (i.e., a higher miIes per
gaIIon raling) compared lo lhe same vehicIe
measured under lhe olher cvcIes. A simiIar
reIalionship is expecled belween lhe NEDC
lo JCu8 cvcIes. NEDC has a higher aver-
age speed and more genlIe acceIeralion and
shouId resuIl in a higher fueI economv raling
compared lo lhe same vehicIes lesled on lhe
Japanese JCu8.
This reporl, and lhe originaI 2uu4 reporl,
uses lhe ModaI Energv and Emissions ModeI
(MEEM), a weII-eslabIished modeI aIIowing
for lhe simuIalion of fueI economv or CO2
emissions across a wide varielv of lesl cvcIes.
UnIike lhe 2uu4 reporl, lhis sludv incor-
porales non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions
lhrough adjuslmenls oulside of lhe modeI.
The MEEM inpuls kev phvsicaI and operaling
paramelers for vehicIes and engines (i.e. vehi-
cIe weighl, engine size, raled power, vehicIe
air and lire resislance, elc.), uses lhose param-
elers lo eslimale engine power demand based
on second-bv-second speed-lime lraces of a
given drive cvcIe, and converls lhe simuIaled
power demand inlo vehicIe fueI consumplion
and carbon dioxide emissions
1u
. Bv inpulling
represenlalive vehicIes and modeIing lhem
over a varielv of lesl cvcIes, we have been abIe
lo eslimale faclors (here caIIed muIlipIiers lo
dislinguish from unil-onIv conversion faclors)
bv which lo compare lhe slandards of indi-
viduaI counlries on an equaI basis.
In lhe 2uu4 sludv, faclors lo converl lhe
fueI economv of vehicIes measured under
European and Japanese lesl cvcIes lo a
CAIE equivaIenl were derived bv modeI-
ing and comparing lhe fueI economies of
six vehicIes represenlalive of lhe US ßeel
under lhe CAIE, NEDC, and Japanese lesl
cvcIes. Those six vehicIes incIuded a smaII
car, a Iarge car, a minivan, a SUV, a pick-up
lruck and a crossover vehicIe. Because lhis
sludv incIudes a grealer focus on lhe reguIa-
lorv changes lhal have laken pIace recenlIv
in Europe and Japan, we have expanded lhe
number of vehicIes lo incIude six addilionaI
makes and modeIs of smaII cars which are
more represenlalive of lhe European and
Japanese ßeels. ParlicuIar efforl was made
lo incIude vehicIes soId inlernalionaIIv and
in lhe same generaI fueI economv range of
currenl and fulure slandards in Europe and
Japan.
TabIe A-3 shows lhe vehicIes incIuded in
our anaIvsis, lheir mpg fueI economies as
eslimaled bv lhe MEEM modeI under lhe
NEDC, CAIE, and JCu8 lesl cvcIes, and lhe
muIlipIier required lo normaIize lhe resuIls
belween lesl cvcIes.
TABLE A-3. Simulation Results for Gasoline Vehicle Fuel Economy Ratings Under Various Test Cycles
TYPE MAKE MODEL
TEST CYCLE FE (MPG) TEST CYCLE MULTIPLIER
NEDC CAFE JC08
NEDC-
JCO8
CAFE-
JC08
CAFE-
NEDC
Small Car
Ford Focus 26.0 29.8 22.9 1.14 1.30 1.15
Toyota Corolla 32.4 34.8 27.6 1.17 1.26 1.08
Toyota Yaris 40.6 42.2 36.1 1.12 1.17 1.04
Honda Fit 36.0 40.1 31.8 1.13 1.26 1.11
Hyundai Accent 35.1 39.0 32.1 1.09 1.21 1.11
Kia Rio 35.4 39.1 32.2 1.10 1.21 1.10
Daewoo Aveo 31.2 35.5 26.1 1.19 1.36 1.14
Large Car Toyota Camry 24.7 26.6 21.5 1.15 1.24 1.08
Minivan Dodge Grand Caravan 20.5 23.9 17.2 1.19 1.39 1.17
SUV Ford Explorer 17.6 20.2 14.6 1.20 1.38 1.15
Pickup Chevrolet Silverado 15.9 18.8 13.5 1.18 1.39 1.18
Crossover Saturn Vue 23.0 26.3 19.8 1.16 1.33 1.14
Simple Average 1.15 1.29 1.12
Appendix: Methodology for Adjusting Standards 31
As lhe labIe indicales, lhe expeclalion lhal
lesling under lhe CAIE cvcIe wiII resuIl
in higher fueI economies lhan under lhe
NEDC and JCO8 cvcIes is supporled bv
lhe modeIing resuIls. The simpIe (non-
saIes weighled) average fueI economv gap
belween lhe JCu8 and CAIE cvcIes is
around 3u% (i.e. a CAIE-JCu8 muIlipIier
of 1.20). The gap belween JCu8 and lhe
European NEDC cvcIe is eslimaled lo be
on lhe order of 1õ%, and lhe gap belween
CAIE and NEDC is aboul 12%. Al lhe same
lime, TabIe A-3 suggesls lhal lhe discrep-
ancv belween lesl cvcIes is nol conslanl, bul
lends lo rise and faII depending on vehicIe
fueI economv. Ior exampIe, lhe smaIIesl dif-
ference belween lhe CAIE-JCu8 lesl cvcIes
is 1.1,, which beIongs lo lhe mosl efñcienl
vehicIe, lhe 42 mpg Tovola Yaris. Consis-
lenl wilh lhe lrend, lhe highesl ralio of 1.30
beIongs lo lhe Ieasl efñcienl vehicIe, lhe 10
mpg ChevroIel SiIverado.
There is a lechnicaI basis for lhe modeIed
reIalionship belween vehicIe fueI economv
and differences in lesl cvcIe resuIls. In gen-
eraI, vehicIes wilh higher fueI economies
have smaIIer engines lhal operale more
frequenlIv under higher efñciencv condi-
lions. As a resuIl, lhe fueI economv of lhose
vehicIes is Iess sensilive lo driving condilions
- lhus lhe smaIIer lesl cvcIe muIlipIier. Manv
advanced engines nol incIuded in lhis reporl,
nolabIv hvbrid eIeclric drivelrains, aIso
perform beller lhan convenlionaI inlernaI
combuslion engines under lhe slop-and-go
driving condilions simuIaled bv lhe NEDC
and JCu8 lesl cvcIes.
0.9
1.4 55
51
47
43
40
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.0
1.5
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 0
y = -0.2038Ln(x) + 1.7618
R
2
= 0.7458
2004
ACTUAL
(KM/L)
2015
STANDARD
(KM/L)
2015
STANDARD
(MPG)
C
A
F
E
-
J
C
0
8

M
U
L
T
I
P
L
I
E
R
FUEL ECONOMY (KM/L)
FIGURE A-2. Modeled Fuel Economy, CAFE-JC08 Multiplier, and CAFE Adjusted 2015 Japanese Fuel Economy
Standard
Passenger Vehicle Greenhouse Gas and Fuel Economy Standards: A Global Update 32
of 16.8 km]L, lhe muIlipIier is in lhe range of
1.10, corresponding lo a CAIE adjusled slan-
dard of 4, mpg. This vaIue compares lo an
unadjusled (muIlipIier of 1.u) fueI economv
of 4u mpg, and õõ mpg for a conversion fac-
lor of 1.4, corresponding lo lhe Ieasl fueI efñ-
cienl vehicIes incIuded in lhis reporl.
The ñnding lhal lhe CAIE-JCu8 lesl cvcIe
muIlipIier faIIs as vehicIes become more
fueI efñcienl means lhal care musl be laken
when adjusling a ßeel average fueI econ-
omv lo a differenl cvcIe: as fueI economv
improves, lhe muIlipIier changes, so using a
conslanl muIlipIier over lime wiII inlroduce
bias inlo lhe anaIvsis. TabIe A-4 shows lhe
four equalions used lo eslimale lhe lesl cvcIe
muIlipIiers for lhis sludv.
As lhe labIe indicales, lhe sensilivilv of a
given muIlipIier lo increasing fueI economv
Iigure A-2 pIols vehicIe fueI economv
againsl lhe MEEM lesl cvcIe ralio, or lesl
cvcIe muIlipIier, for lhe CAIE-JCu8 lesl
cvcIes. AIso shown on lhe graph is lhe
approximale Iocalion of lhe 2uu4 Japanese
passenger vehicIe ßeel average, and lhe 2u1õ
slandard in km]L (soIid verlicaI Iines). The
numbers Iocaled lo lhe righl of lhe righl axis
indicale lhe CAIE adjusled fueI economv of
lhe Japanese passenger ßeel emission slan-
dards al differenl lesl cvcIe muIlipIiers
11
. The
Iogarilhmic correIalion of lhe vehicIe modeIs
is shown as a dolled Iine (R
2
= u.,õ) exlrapo-
Ialed oul lwo unils for iIIuslralive purposes.
Iigure A-2 cIearIv shows lhe inverse reIa-
lionship belween lhe CAIE-JCu8 muIlipIier
and fueI economv, wilh more fueI efñcienl
vehicIes performing reIaliveIv beller on lhe
JCu8 cvcIe lhan Iess efñcienl modeIs. Ior
vehicIes represenlalive of lhe 2u1õ slandard
35
60
55
50
45
40
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2005
BEST FIT
MOST FE
LEAST FE
1.23
F
U
E
L

E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

(
C
A
F
E

-

M
P
G
)
1.22
1.21
1.39
1.17
1.20
1.19
FIGURE A-3. CAFE Adjusted Projected New Vehicle Average Fuel Economy in Japan, 2005-2015
* Boxed numbers denote test cycle multiplier.
Appendix: Methodology for Adjusting Standards 33
Iigure A-3 shows how lhe currenl and pro-
jecled fueI economv for new vehicIes in Japan
from 2uuõ lo 2u1õ was adjusled lo unils of
CAIE mpg in lhis reporl, a melhodoIogv lhal
was adopled for aII olher counlries and lesl
cvcIes. Three Iines are shown. The soIid Iine
represenls lhe fueI economv adjusled vear
bv vear using lhe Iog reIalionship derived in
Iigure A-2. The dolled red Iine represenls
lhe adjusled fueI economv based on a slalic
muIlipIier equaI lo lhe mosl fueI efñcienl
vehicIe in our sampIe. The lhird, lhe dol-
led green Iine, represenls lhe adjusled fueI
economv based on a slalic muIlipIier faclor
derived from lhe Ieasl fueI efñcienl vehicIe
in our sampIe. The approximale muIlipIier
faclor used in each lime period is provided in
lhe boxes nexl lo lhe appropriale Iine.
SeveraI concIusions can be drawn. Iirsl,
Iigure A-3 demonslrales lhal Japan`s ßeel
varies belween differenl lesl cvcIes. The Iarg-
esl sensilivilv is belween lhe JCu8 and CAIE
lesl cvcIes, which is more lhan doubIe lhal
lhe NEDC-CAIE muIlipIier. This is perhaps
nol surprising given lhal, as summarized in
TabIe A-1, lhe JCu8 and composile CAIE
lesl cvcIes are lhe mosl divergenl in lerms of
average lesl speed. Iurlhermore, lhe sensiliv-
ilv of lesl cvcIe muIlipIiers lo changes in fueI
economv suggesls lhal each cvcIe-lo-cvcIe
conversion musl be conducled independenlIv.
TABLE A-4. Driving Test Cycle Multiplier Equations
TEST CYCLE
CONVERSION
MULTIPLIER CORRELATION
CAFE-JC08
-0.2038 x Ln(JC08) +
1.7618
0.7458
NEDC-JC08
-0.0841 x Ln(JC08) +
1.3464
0.5607
NEDC-CAFE
0.0816 x Ln(CAFE) +
0.6243
0.5622
CAFE-NEDC
0.1021 x Ln(NEDC) +
0.5787
0.5800
Units: JC08 = km/L; CAFE =mpg; NEDC = g/km. The multiplier itself is
dimensionless.
Passenger Vehicle Greenhouse Gas and Fuel Economy Standards: A Global Update 34
Automotive News: Global Market Data Book.
Issue: June 25, 2007, pp. 8.
Barth, M., An F., Younglove T., Scora G.,
Wensel T., and Ross M. 2000. NCHRP Project
25-11: Development of a Comprehensive
Modal Emissions Model—The Final Report.
Transportation Research Board, National
Academy of Science, Washington, DC.
Canada Revenue Agency. 2007. Web access:
http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/agency/budget/2007/
excise-e.html.
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2004A.
Staff Proposal Regarding the Maximum Feasible
and Cost-Effective Reduction of Greenhouse Gas
Emissions from Motor Vehicles.
CARB. 2004B. Climate Change Emission Control
Regulations. Web access: http://arb.ca.gov/cc/
factsheets/cc_newfs.pdf.
California Code of Regulations. 2004. Title 13,
Section 1961.1.
China Automotive Technology and Research
Center (draft). 2007. (Chinese)
Code of Federal Register (CFR). 2006. Average
Fuel Economy Standards for Light Trucks, Model
Years 2008-2011. National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 49 CFR Parts 523, 533, 537,
Docket No. 2006-24306, NIN 2127-AJ61.
CFR. 2005. 29 CFR Part 533, Table 7, Light
Trucks, Average Fuel Economy; Model Years
2008-2011; Proposed Rules.
Commission of the European Communities.
2007. Communication from the Commission to
the Council and the European Parliament: Results
of the Review of The Community Strategy To
Reduce CO2 Emissions from Passenger Cars and
Light-Commercial Vehicles.
Cornell University News Service, Susan Lang.
2005. Cornell Ecologist’s Study Finds That
Producing Ethanol and Bio-Diesel from Corn
and Other Crops Is Not Worth The Energy. Web
access: http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/
July05/ethanol.toocostly.ssl.html.
Japanese Automobile Manufacturers
Association (JAMA). 2007. Taxes and
Automobiles (Japanese). Web access: http://
www.jama.or.jp/tax/tax_system/tax_system_3t1.
html. (Japanese)
Krug, T., et al. 2006. Greenhouse Gas Mitigation
in Brazil: Scenarios and Opportunities through
was aIreadv reIaliveIv fueI efñcienl in 2uuõ,
wilh a lesl cvcIe muIlipIier cIose lo lhe Iower
bound sel bv lhe mosl fueI-efñcienl vehicIe
incIuded in lhis reporl, lhe Tovola Yaris. In
addilion, lhe ñgure shows lhe sIighl ¯bend"
lhal occurs in lhe besl ñl Iine as lhe ßeel
average fueI efñciencv improves furlher over
lime. IinaIIv, Iigure A-3 iIIuslrales lhe con-
servalive nalure of our melhodoIogv, wilh
lhe adjusled slandard vaIue of 4, mpg pre-
senled in lhe main bodv of lhis reporl faII-
ing weII on lhe Iow side of lhe 46 lo õõ mpg
range deIinealing bv lhe mosl and Ieasl fueI-
efñcienl vehicIes incIuded in our survev.
REFERENCES
Agency for Natural Resources and Energy
(ANRE) and the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure
and Transport (MLIT). 2007. Concerning
Revisions of Evaluation Standards for
Automobile Manufacturers with Regard to
Energy Efficiency: Joint Final Report of the
Automobile Evaluation Standards Subcommittee
of the Advisory Committee for Natural Resources
and Energy and the Automobile Fuel Efficiency
Standards Subcommittee of the Council for
Transport Policy. February. (Japanese)
Agency for Natural Resources and Energy
(ANRE) and the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure
and Transport (MLIT). 2006. Concerning
Revisions of Evaluation Standards for
Automobile Manufacturers with Regard to
Energy Efficiency: Joint Interim Report of the
Automobile Evaluation Standards Subcommittee
of the Advisory Committee for Natural Resources
and Energy and the Automobile Fuel Efficiency
Standards Subcommittee of the Council for
Transport Policy. December. (Japanese)
An F. and Rousseau A. 2001. SAE Paper No.
2001-01-0954, SAE Special Publication (SP-
1607) on Advanced Hybrid Vehicle Powertrains.
Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA.
An F. and Sauer A. 2004. Comparison
of Passen ger Vehicle Fuel Economy and
Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards Around the
World.
References and Endnotes 35
4
AB 1403, aIso known as lhe CaIifornia VehicIe
GIobaI Warming Law, was signed inlo Iaw bv
Governor Grav Davis on JuIv 22, 2uu2.
õ
The induslrv-slandard mobiIe air condilioner
refrigeranl HIC-134a has a GIobaI Warming
PolenliaI of 13uu; aIlernalive refrigeranls such
as HIC 1õ2a and CO2 have GWPs of 12u and 1,
respecliveIv (CARB 2uu4).
6
DaimIer and ChrvsIer merged in 1008. On
Mav 14, 2uu,, DaimIer soId ChrvsIer lo Cerberus
CapilaI Managemenl. The dala in TabIe 1 are
drawn from lhe ñnaI CAIE ruIe in 2uu6, when
lhe lransaclion had nol occurred. Laler in lhis
reporl, ChrvsIer wiII be spIil oul from DaimIer.
,
Choosing lo sel reduclions goaIs from a baseIine
of projecled emissions ralher lhan a ñrm baseIine,
such as lhe vear in which lhe poIicv was adopled
or a poinl in lhe pasl, can Iimil lhe lolaI expecled
emission reduclions subslanliaIIv.
8
The Canada GHG emissions lrend shown in
Iigure õ is based on lhe 2uuõ Memorandum
of Underslanding belween lhe Canadian
governmenl and lhe aulo manufaclurers lo
achieve a õ.3 Ml GHG emissions reduclion bv
2u1u. The Canadian program cannol be forecasl
wilh precision since lhe MOU covers aII GHG
emissions from new and exisling passenger
vehicIes. The acluaI reduclions in GHG emissions
from new vehicIes, and lhe improvemenls in
fueI economv shown in Iigure 6, mav be Iower
depending on lhe reduclions achieved bv lhe
means discussed in lhe Seclion 1.4.
0
HisloricaIIv, dieseIs have required some lradeoff
belween fueI economv and poIIulanl emissions.
DieseI vehicIes soId in Europe conlinue lo have
higher emissions of nilrogen oxide and parlicuIale
maller, which can negaliveIv impacl bolh IocaI
air quaIilv and cIimale change. Slricler emissions
slandards have lhus far pIaved a signiñcanl
roIe in reslricling lhe markel share of dieseIs in
Iighl-dulv ßeels in lhe U.S. and Japan. However,
new emissions conlroI lechnoIogies are expecled
lo aIIow dieseIs lo meel lhe slriclesl passenger
vehicIe slandards currenlIv in pIace.
1u
Ior furlher informalion regarding lhe MEEM
modeI, see Barlh, M., el. aI, 2uuu; An and
Rousseau. 2uu1.
11
Nole lhal mpg equivaIenl numbers al lhe
far righl of lhe graph are speciñc lo lhe 2u1õ
slandard. As such, lhe CAIE equivaIenl for
lhe 2uu4 ßeel average (30 mpg) cannol be read
direclIv off lhis graph.
2025. Center for Clean Air Policy,
November 2006.
Lutsey, Nicholas. 2001. Impact of Canada’s
Voluntary Agreement on Greenhouse Gas
Emissions from Light Duty Vehicles. Institute of
Transportation Studies (University of California,
Davis) Paper RR-06-02, 2006.
Memorandum of Understanding Between the
Government of Canada and the Canadian
Automotive Industry Respecting Automobile
Greenhouse Gas Emissions. 2005.
MLIT. 2006. 2006 Survey of Automobile Fuel
Economy. Web access: http://www.mlit.go.jp/
jidosha/nenpi/nenpilist/nenpilist0603.pdf.
(Japanese)
President Bush’s Executive Order “Twenty
in Ten”. 2007. Web access: http://www.
whitehouse.gov/stateoftheunion/2007/initiatives/
energy.html.
Senate Bill 357, 2007.
Transport Canada. 2007. Web access: http://
ecoaction.gc.ca/ecotransport/ecoauto-eng.cfm.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
2004. Light-Duty Automotive Technology and
Fuel Economy Trends: 1975 through 2004.
U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) and Department of
Transportation (DOT). 2006.
ENDNOTES
1

Slarling as an oplion in modeI vear (MY)
2uu8 and required in MY2u11, lhe ßeel average
slandards in Iighl lruck CAIE wiII change lo a
size-based, conlinuous funclion slandard. See
seclion 1.6 for more delaiI.
2
Because Japanese vehicIes are caIibraled lo
sIower driving condilions, increases in lesl speeds
are cIaimed lo increase fueI consumplion, in
conlrasl lo resuIls for vehicIes soId in lhe U.S.
markel.
3
The ACEA incIuded BMW, DaimIerChrvsIer,
Iial, Iord, GM, Porsche, PSA Peugeol Cilroen,
RenauIl, and VW Group. The Korean AulomobiIe
Manufaclurers Associalion (KAMA) incIudes
Daewoo, Hvundai, Kia, and Sangvong. The
Japanese AulomobiIe Manufaclurers Associalion
(JAMA) incIudes Diahalsu, Honda, Isuzu, Mazda,
Milsubishi, Nissan, Subaru, Suzuki, Tovola.
Washington DC
1225 I St., Suite 1000, NW,
Washington, DC 20005
United States of America
phone: +1 (202) 347-8932
San Francisco
1 Hallidie Plaza, Suite 503
San Francisco, California 94102
United States of America
phone: +1 (415) 399-9019
www.theicct.org