| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 7
Review of the 21st Century Truck Partnership
1
Organization and Background
INTRODUCTION
This report reviews the 21st Century Truck Partnership (21CTP)—a cooperative research and development partnership formed in the year 2000 by four federal agencies (the U.S. Department of Energy [DOE], U.S. Department of Transportation [DOT], U.S. Department of Defense [DOD], and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]) with 15 industrial partners (Allison Transmission, BAE Systems, Caterpillar, Cummins, Detroit Diesel, Eaton Corporation, Freightliner, Honeywell, Navistar, Mack Trucks, NovaBUS, Oshkosh Truck, PACCAR, and Volvo Trucks North America).
The goal of the Partnership is to “reduce fuel usage and emissions while increasing heavy vehicle safety. The aim of the Partnership is to support research, development, and demonstration that enable achieving these goals with commercially viable products and systems” (DOE, 2006a, p. 1).
The 21CTP vision is “that our nation’s trucks and buses will safely and cost-effectively move larger volumes of freight and greater numbers of passengers while emitting little or no pollution and dramatically reducing the dependency on foreign oil” (DOE, 2006a, p. 1).
The Partnership addresses the following “national imperatives”: “(a) Transportation in America supports the growth of our nation’s economy both nationally and globally. (b) Our nation’s transportation system supports the country’s goal of energy security. (c) Transportation in our country is clean, safe, secure, and sustainable. (d) America’s military has an agile, well-equipped, efficient force capable of rapid deployment and sustainment anywhere in the world. (e) Our nation’s transportation system is compatible with a dedicated concern for the environment” (DOE, 2006a, p. 1).
The strategic approach of the Partnership includes the following elements (DOE, 2006a, p. 1):
Integrated vehicle systems R&D approach that validates and deploys advanced technology as necessary, for commercial and military trucks and buses
Research for engines, combustion, exhaust aftertreatment, fuels, and advanced materials to achieve higher efficiency and lower emissions
Research focused on heavy-duty hybrid propulsion systems
Research to reduce parasitic losses to achieve significantly reduced energy consumption
Development of technologies to improve the safety of trucks and buses, resulting in the reduction of fatalities and injuries in truck-involved crashes
Development and deployment technologies that reduce energy consumption and exhaust emissions during idling
Validation, demonstration, and deployment of advanced truck and bus technologies, and growing their reliability sufficient for adoption in the commercial marketplace
Policy Considerations
Worldwide oil consumption has risen rapidly in the past few years, mainly owing to rapid economic growth. This increased demand has resulted in a rapid rise in oil prices even though production capacity has kept pace with demand and is expected to exceed demand in the coming year (2009). With the nation highly dependent on imported oil, this increase in the price of oil has put a strain on the U.S. economy. As a consequence the United States is pursuing alternative sources of fuel and attempting to increase efficiency in oil usage.
Added to the concern over high-priced oil is the concern regarding global warming. Nations around the world are beginning to place more stringent control over human-made emissions, especially greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2). Thus for the foreseeable future, there will be pressure to control and reduce greenhouse emissions.
Both the limited availability of oil and the additional pressures to reduce CO2 will have a profound impact on automotive vehicles worldwide. These forces will pressure vehicle manufacturers to make renewed efforts to reduce both fuel
OCR for page 8
Review of the 21st Century Truck Partnership
consumption and exhaust emissions. Light-duty-vehicle manufacturers have already made significant improvements in reducing fuel consumption and even more progress in reducing vehicle emissions. Emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and particulate matter (PM) from heavy-duty vehicles will be significantly reduced by regulations that go into effect between 2007 and 2010. However, reductions in fuel consumption of the large commercial truck fleet have not been as impressive, partly because of the growth in the number of miles driven by large trucks during the past decade. Yet if the United States is to reduce its reliance on foreign sources of oil, it will be necessary to reduce the fuel consumption of commercial vehicles. The 21CTP can play an important role in this regard.
Organizational Background of the 21st Century Truck Partnership
In late 2006, the National Research Council (NRC) formed the Committee to Review the 21st Century Truck Partnership, which conducted an independent review of the 21CTP. This report critically examines and comments on the overall adequacy and balance of the 21st Century Truck Partnership to accomplish its goals and on progress in the program, and it presents recommendations, as appropriate, which the committee believes can improve the likelihood of the Partnership meeting its goals.
History
The 21st Century Truck Partnership was announced by Vice President Gore April 21, 2000, as a heavy-duty counterpart of the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV).1 The PNGV was a cooperative program, launched in 1994, that sought to develop and demonstrate the technology to triple the fuel economy of U.S. passenger vehicles (see, for example, NRC, 2001), and continues today as the FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership (involving the DOE, a number of vehicle and fuel companies, and a nonprofit corporation representing the Detroit-based auto manufacturers), discussed later in this chapter.
The launch of the 21CTP was welcomed by an earlier NRC committee (NRC, 2000, p. 11):
If this new initiative moves forward as planned, it will have a major impact on OHVT [the DOE Office of Heavy Vehicles Technology]. The program’s target year is 2010. The government agencies that will be involved include DOE, the U.S. Department of Transportation, the U.S. Department of Defense, and EPA; a number of private companies are also expected to join the partnership. The goal of this government-industry research program will be to develop production prototype vehicles with the following characteristics:
Improved fuel efficiency by (1) doubling the Class 8 long-haul truck fuel efficiency; (2) tripling the Class 2b and Class 6 truck (delivery van) fuel efficiency; and (3) tripling the Class 8 transit bus fuel efficiency
Lower emissions than expected standards for 2010
Meeting or exceeding the motor carrier safety goal of reducing truck fatalities by half
Affordability and equal or better performance than today’s vehicles.
Those goals have been updated twice since the launch of the program. The details of today’s goals are set out in technical white papers on engine systems, heavy-duty hybrids, parasitic losses, idle reduction, and safety (DOE, 2006a, pp. 2-3). The committee comments on the research and development (R&D) in each of those areas in each of following chapters.
Lines of Authority
The 21CTP was apparently expected to have a single stream of funds to support its research, so that it could set research projects according to their likely return.2 In practice, it has not been so simple. The Partnership was at first under the command of the DOD (the U.S. Army Tank-Automotive Research and Development Command). In November 2002, that authority passed to the Department of Energy (DOE, 2006b, p. 4-7), specifically to the FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies (FCVT) Program under the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE).
The other agencies have simply moved their own existing programs under the 21CTP umbrella, so DOE has little influence over the research programs of its DOT, DOD, or EPA partners. DOE staff organize meetings and conference calls, maintain the information-flow infrastructure (such as Web sites and e-mail lists), and have led the discussions for and preparation of the updated 21CTP roadmap and white papers laying out Partnership goals. The management of individual projects under the 21CTP umbrella rests with the individual federal agencies that have funded the work. These agencies use the 21CTP information-sharing infrastructure to coordinate efforts and ensure that valuable research results are communicated and that overlap of activities is reduced.
According to the official roadmap and technical white papers of the 21st Century Truck Partnership (DOE, 2006a, p. 6):
1
James Eberhardt, Director, Office of Heavy Vehicle Technologies (OHVT), DOE, “The 21st Century Truck, a Government-Industry Research Partnership,” Presentation to the Committee on Review of DOE’s Office of Heavy Vehicle Technologies, Washington, D.C., June 15, 2000; Paul Skalny, U.S. Army Tank-Automotive Command, “The 21st Century Truck Initiative: Developing Technologies for 21st Century Trucks,” Presentation to the Committee on Review of DOE’s Office of Heavy Vehicle Technologies, Washington, D.C., April 26, 2000.
2
Personal statement to the committee by Kenneth Howden, Director, 21st Century Truck Partnership, April 18, 2007.
OCR for page 9
Review of the 21st Century Truck Partnership
DOE has been assigned to lead the federal R&D component of this program because of the close alignment of the stated 21st Century Truck Program goals and research objectives with DOE’s mission “to foster a secure and reliable energy system that is environmentally and economically sustainable….” Since early 1996, DOE’s FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies Program (and predecessor offices), in collaboration with trucking industry partners and their suppliers, has been funding and conducting a customer-focused program to research and develop technologies that will enable trucks, buses, and other heavy vehicles to be more energy-efficient and able to use alternative fuels while simultaneously reducing emissions. DOT brings to this program its mission-oriented intelligent transportation systems and highway transportation safety programs. DOD, as a major owner and operator of trucks, will define the military mission performance requirements and will fund appropriate dual-use and military-specific technologies so that national security will benefit by innovations resulting from this Program. R&D will be closely coordinated with EPA so that critical vehicle emissions control breakthroughs cost-effectively address the increasingly stringent future EPA standards needed to improve the nation’s air quality.
Classes and Use Categories of Trucks and Buses
Industry classifies trucks and buses by weight based on the vehicle’s gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR), or the maximum in-service weight set by the manufacturer, or—in the trucking industry—on the gross vehicle weight (GVW) plus the average cargo weight. The use categories of vehicles are not as well defined as weight classes, and depend on widely varying industry usage. For example, the same vehicle may be called heavy-duty by one segment of the industry and medium-duty by another.
Table 1-1 lists one often-used system of categories—the Vehicle Inventory and Use Survey (VIUS) of the DOT—alongside the “common categories” used by many manufacturers, insurance companies, service shops, and truck drivers; as can be seen, some category boundaries differ between the two lists.
Some truck classifications used by the EPA and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) for emissions regulations differ from those shown in Table 1-1 and are discussed in the emission-related sections of this report and in Appendix D. DOT, in its safety regulation, uses the term “heavy truck” for vehicles above 10,000 lb GVWR (as discussed in Chapter 7). In other cases in this report the VIUS categories are used, in which “heavy truck” is the term used for vehicles over 10,000 lb GVWR.
The number of medium-duty and heavy-duty trucks has increased substantially as the U.S. economy has grown. Over the period from 1970 to 2003, energy consumption by light-duty trucks (less than 10,000 lb GVWR) grew 4.7 percent annually, while that of passenger cars grew only 0.3 percent. Meanwhile, energy consumption by heavy trucks increased 3.7 percent per year. Figure 1-1 displays this divergence in growth. Figure 1-2 displays the underlying pattern here: it is not so much the change in fuel economy as a dramatic increase in annual miles driven by heavy vehicles.
ECONOMIC CONTRIBUTIONS OF TRUCKS AND TRUCKING
Trucks and trucking are important contributors to the national income. According to the Economic Census of 2002 (DOC, Census Bureau, 2005), the truck transportation industry consisted of more than 112,698 separate establishments, with total revenues of $165 billion. These establishments employ 1,437,259 workers, who take home an annual payroll of $47 billion. Truck and bus manufacturing also account for a significant share of national income. According to the same census, light-truck and utility-vehicle manufacturers have total shipments of $137 billion. Heavy-duty-truck manufacturing had sales of $16 billion. Another way to look at the trucking industry’s economic contribution is to compare the revenue from trucks with other sectors in the transportation industry, in which case trucks account for about one-fourth of the industry’s total revenues (Figure 1-3).
TABLE 1-1 Widely Used Truck Weight Classes and Categories
Weight Class
Minimum GVWR (lb)
Maximum GVWR (lb)
VIUS Category
Common Category
Class 1
NA
6,000
Light-duty
Light duty
Class 2
6,001
10,000
Light-duty
Light duty
Class 3
10,001
14,000
Medium-duty
Light duty
Class 4
14,001
16,000
Medium-duty
Medium duty
Class 5
16,001
19,500
Medium-duty
Medium duty
Class 6
19,501
26,000
Light-heavy
Medium duty
Class 7
26,001
33,000
Heavy-heavy
Heavy duty
Class 8
33,001
NA
Heavy-heavy
Heavy duty
NOTE: GVWR, Gross Vehicle Weight Rating; VIUS, Vehicle Inventory and Use Survey; NA, not available to the committee.
SOURCE: Used by permission of Charlie Kerekes, Changin’ Gears, 2008. Available at http://changingears.com/rv-sec-tow-vehicles-classes.shtml. Accessed May 30, 2008.
OCR for page 10
Review of the 21st Century Truck Partnership
FIGURE 1-1 Energy consumption of heavy trucks (more than 10,000 lb gross vehicle weight rating [GVWR]) compared with that of light trucks and passenger vehicles, 1970-2003. Note that curves are additive. For context, 1 gallon of gasoline contains roughly 124,000 British thermal units (Btu), and 1 gallon of diesel fuel about 139,000 Btu. SOURCE: DOE, EERE, 2005.
FIGURE 1-2 Trends in annual miles driven by three different classes of vehicle: heavy trucks, light trucks, and passenger vehicles, 1966-2005. SOURCE: DOE, EIA, 2007, Table 2.8.
FIGURE 1-3 For-hire transportation services compared with other sectors of the transportation industry. SOURCE: DOC, Census Bureau, 2005.
THE NATIONAL OBJECTIVE OF REDUCING OIL IMPORTS
The president and the Congress have placed among the highest national objectives that of reducing fossil fuel imports (and in particular, petroleum). DOE’s EERE, parent of the FCVT and 21CTP, has as its top priority: “Dramatically reduce or even end dependence on foreign oil” by spurring creation of a domestic biofuel industry; increasing the viability and deployment of renewable energy technologies; increasing the energy efficiency of buildings and appliances; leading by example through government’s own actions; continuously improving the way EERE does business; reducing the burden of energy prices; increasing the energy efficiency of industry; and increasing the reliability and efficiency of electricity generation and use.3
While the fuel consumed per mile by light-duty vehicles improved substantially between 1966 and 2003, that of the average heavy-duty vehicle remained nearly constant (Figure 1-4). The flat fuel economy of heavy duty trucks was accompanied by a doubling of vehicle miles traveled per year (Figure 1-2). Fuel economy (miles per gallon) for passenger cars and light trucks such as sport utility vehicles and pickups rose from the late 1970s through the early 1990s. Fuel economy for passenger cars continued to rise through 2003 whereas the fuel economy of light trucks decreased from 2000 to 2003.
In fact, the U.S. transportation system relies nearly exclusively on petroleum, as shown in Figure 1-5 (DOE, EIA, 2006). That dependence grows more each year, despite attempts to substitute other fuels and energy sources.
The production of oil domestically, for its part, has declined continuously since 1985, so more and more of the nation’s fuels are imported (Figure 1-6). That fact alone makes it increasingly vital to the national interest to reverse this trend. Trucks account for increasing highway transportation energy use.
TRENDS IN HEAVY-VEHICLE EMISSION REGULATIONS
Emission standards have become increasingly stringent since the passage of the Clean Air Act in 1963. Their evolution following the passage of the Clean Air Act is discussed in more detail in Appendix D, “Vehicle Emission Regulations.” These increasingly stringent standards have dictated that new technologies be developed to comply with them. As an additional challenge, increasingly stringent emission standards for heavy-duty vehicles tend to adversely affect fuel economy at a time when there are challenges to improve fuel economy. Recognizing these dual challenges, the 21CTP adopted the simultaneous goals of improving the thermal
3
Ed Wall, DOE Office of FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies, “DOE FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies Program,” Presentation to the committee, Washington. D.C., February 8, 2007, Slide 3.
OCR for page 11
Review of the 21st Century Truck Partnership
FIGURE 1-4 Fuel economy (miles per gallon) of passenger vehicles, light trucks, and heavy-duty trucks (more than 10,000 lb), 1973-2005. SOURCE: DOE, EIA, 2007.
FIGURE 1-5 Energy use by the U.S. transportation sector, 1949-2005. SOURCE: DOE, EIA, 2007.
FIGURE 1-6 U.S. petroleum production and net imports, 1949-2005 (thousands of barrels per year). SOURCE: Data from DOE, EIA, 2006, Annual Energy Review 2006, Washington, D.C., Table 5.1
efficiency of heavy-duty diesel engines while, at the same time, achieving the increasingly stringent 2010 emission standards (discussed in Chapter 3 and in Appendix D).
Emission Standards
The progressively more stringent federal emission standards for light-duty vehicles are illustrated in Figure 1-7 (Ehlmann and Wolff, 2005). In the early 1960s, when exhaust emissions were unregulated, the subsequent exhaust emission regulations adopted by model year 2004 had reduced exhaust emissions from light-duty vehicles by the following amounts, based on certification-test emission levels (EPA, 2000):
Hydrocarbons (HC), by 99 percent
Carbon monoxide (CO), by 96 percent
Oxides of nitrogen (NOx), by 99 percent
The control of emissions from the engines of heavy-duty trucks with GVWR over 8,500 lb began in 1973 in California, and in 1974 in the United States as a whole (Johnson, 1988). As shown in Figure 1-8, the progressively more stringent emission standards for heavy-duty diesel engines followed trends similar to those for light-duty vehicles.
FIGURE 1-7 Historical trend in exhaust emission standards for light-duty vehicles, by model year. (The committee combined individual emission standards for hydrocarbons (HC), carbon monoxide (CO), and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) for illustration purposes.) SOURCE: Data from Ehlmann and Wolff (2005).
FIGURE 1-8 Historical trend in federal exhaust emission standards for heavy-duty diesel engines, by model year (in grams per brake-horsepower-hour (g/bhp-h), 1970-2010. HC, hydrocarbons; NMHC, nonmethane hydrocarbons. SOURCE: DOE, 2006a.
OCR for page 12
Review of the 21st Century Truck Partnership
The federal emissions standards for highway trucks were harmonized with California standards beginning with model year 2004. Emission standards that apply to model year 2007 and later heavy-duty highway engines are given in Table 1-2. Federal regulations do not require that complete heavy-duty diesel vehicles be chassis certified, instead requiring the certification of their engines. Consequently, the emission standards are expressed in grams per brake-horsepower-hour (g/bhp-h) and require emission testing over the transient Federal Test Procedure (FTP) engine dynamometer cycle. The useful lives of the engines are also shown in Table 1-3. The required useful life of an engine for a Class 8 truck (heavy heavy-duty diesel engines in trucks over 33,000 lb) is 435,000 miles, or 10 years, or 23,000 hours (EPA, 2006).
Additional emission testing requirements, first introduced in 1998 (Table 1-4) include the following:
Supplemental Emission Test (SET)
Not-to-Exceed (NTE) limits
The SET is a 13-mode steady-state test that was introduced to help ensure that heavy-duty engine emissions are controlled during steady-state type driving, such as the operation of a line-haul truck on a freeway. The NTE limits have been introduced as an additional instrument to ensure that heavy-duty engine emissions are controlled over the full range of speed and load combinations commonly experienced in use. The NTE requirement establishes an area (the “NTE zone”) under the torque curve of an engine where emissions must not exceed a specified value for any of the regulated pollutants.
Emission Standards Not Addressed by the 21CTP
In addition to the previously discussed exhaust emission standards that were incorporated as part of the 21CTP, several other emission standards that affect heavy-duty trucks which are not among the goals of the 21CTP are as follows:
Evaporative emissions—Federal and California standards control evaporative emissions to stringent levels in gasoline passenger cars and light-duty trucks. In recognition of the high temperatures that diesel fuel can experience in modern common rail fuel systems, evaporative emission standards for diesel fuel vehicles have also been adopted.
On-board diagnostics—On-board diagnostic (OBD) systems on vehicles ensure that the emission control system and other engine-related components are operating properly (Dieselnet, 2005; EPA, 2006). Table 1-5 shows the timetable for implementation of OBD II for heavy-duty vehicles.
TABLE 1-2 Heavy-Duty Emission Standards: Model Year 2007 and Beyond
Non-Methane Hydrocarbons (NMHC) (g/bhp-h)
Carbon Monoxide (CO) (g/bhp-h)
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) (g/bhp-h)
Particulate Matter (PM) (g/bhp-h)
0.14a
15.5
0.20a
0.01
aPhased in between 2007 and 2010 on a percentage sales basis: 50 percent for 2007-2009, 100 percent for 2010.
TABLE 1-3 Service Classes Used by EPA
Service Class
Required Useful Lives of Engines
Light heavy-duty diesel engine (LHDDE): Under federal regulations, between 8,500 and 19,500 lb gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR); in California, between 14,000 and 19,500 lb GVWRa
8 yr or 110,000 mi
Medium heavy-duty diesel engine (MHDDE): 19,500 lb to 33,000 lb GVWR
8 yr or 185,000 mi
Heavy heavy-duty diesel engine (HHDDE) (including those for diesel buses): heavier than 33,000 lb GVWR
10 yr or 435,000 mi or 23,000 hr
aUnder federal light-duty Tier 2 regulations, vehicles of GVWR up to 10,000 lb used for personal transportation are reclassified as medium-duty passenger vehicles (MDPV—primarily SUVs and passenger vans) and are subject to light-duty vehicle legislation.
TABLE 1-4 Additional Emission Requirements
Test
Limits
Supplemental Emission Test (SET)
Federal Test Procedure (FTP) Standards
Not-to-exceed (NTE) Limits
1.5 × FTP Standards
OCR for page 13
Review of the 21st Century Truck Partnership
TABLE 1-5 Timetable for Implementation of On-Board Diagnostic (OBD) II Systems for Heavy-Duty Vehicles (more than 14,000 lb GVWR)
Regulatory Body
Model Year
Comments
California Air Resources Board (CARB)
2007
Basic Engine Manufacturer Diagnostic (EMD) system
CARB
2010
Proposed Comprehensive OBD II system
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
2010
Proposed Notice of Proposed Rule
Defeat devices—Manufacturers must ensure that vehicle emission control systems operate in-use as they do on the prescribed test cycles. If, without the manufacturer’s properly informing EPA, an emission control system operates differently when in use than it did in the test cycles, the emission control system is considered “defeated” and is called a “defeat device.” EPA may seek judicial penalties for each vehicle sold containing a defeat device.4
Carbon Dioxide and Greenhouse Gases
Carbon dioxide does not absorb energy radiated from the Sun to Earth (high-temperature, short-wavelength radiation), but absorbs radiation in the infrared region (low-temperature, long-wavelength radiation). Consequently, long-wavelength heat radiated from Earth to space is absorbed by the atmosphere with increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide, thus raising the average temperature of the atmosphere (Obert, 1973).
Recently, a Supreme Court ruling declared carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases as air pollutants under the Clean Air Act and empowered the EPA to regulate vehicle emissions. As a result, EPA began a regulatory process aimed at promulgating final rules, possibly as soon as 2008 (EPA, 2007b). For engines using carbon-based fuels, potential carbon dioxide regulations will directly affect allowable vehicle fuel-economy levels. For every pound of typical hydrocarbon fuel burned, 3.1 pounds of carbon dioxide are generated.
In addition to potential carbon dioxide regulations, future greenhouse gas regulations may also target other gases, such as methane, (CH4), nitrous oxides, (N2O), and halogenated fluorocarbons (HFCs). Such regulations could affect heavy trucks by requiring additional emission control systems and by requiring new or modified air conditioning systems that may impact fuel economy.
Recent Fuel Regulations Affecting Future Vehicle Emissions
Ultra-low-sulfur diesel (ULSD) fuel has been regulated by EPA through a new standard for sulfur content in on-road diesel fuel sold in the United States since October 15, 2006. California had required it since September 1, 2006. The allowable sulfur content for ULSD is 15 parts per million (ppm), which is much lower than the previous U.S. on-highway standard for low-sulfur diesel (LSD) of 500 ppm. The rules mandate the use of ULSD in diesel engines. The move to lower sulfur content not only reduces the emissions of sulfur compounds, which are blamed for acid rain, but also allows the application of advanced emission control systems that would otherwise be poisoned by these compounds. These systems, which will greatly reduce emissions of oxides of nitrogen and particulates, will begin phasing in to diesel engines for highway applications in 2007(EPA, 2006).
The Need to Develop Nonpetroleum Fuels
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Public Law No. 109-058) amended the Clean Air Act to establish a Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program. The U.S. Congress gave EPA the responsibility to coordinate with DOE, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and stakeholders to design and implement this first-of-its-kind program. Three months after the Energy Policy Act of 2005 was signed by President George W. Bush, in December 2005, EPA set a statutory default standard that required 2.78 percent, which is 4.0 billion gallons, of the gasoline sold or dispensed in calendar year 2006 to be renewable fuel. In April 2007, EPA finalized the regulations for the RFS program for 2007 and beyond. These regulations require nationwide volumes of 7.5 billion gallons of renewable fuel annually by 2012 (EPA, 2007a).
Owing to the certainty provided to investors by the RFS program, production capacity for ethanol and other renewable fuels has significantly increased since the passage of the Energy Policy Act. The construction of new and expanded facilities is projected to continue. By 2012, nationwide volumes are projected to reach over 11 billion gallons, compared to the 7.5 billion gallons required (EPA, 2007a).
A renewable fuel is defined in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 as a motor fuel that is produced from plant or animal products or wastes, as opposed to having fossil fuel sources. Renewable fuels include ethanol, biodiesel, and other motor vehicle fuels made from renewable sources. The RFS program grants credit for both renewable fuels blended in to conventional gasoline or diesel and those used in their neat (unblended) form as motor vehicle fuel (EPA, 2007b).
4
See http://www.epa.gov/compliance/civil/caa. Accessed September 7, 2007.
OCR for page 14
Review of the 21st Century Truck Partnership
SAFETY OF HEAVY-DUTY TRUCKS
Highway safety remains a problem in the United States. In spite of continued improvement in the crashworthiness of cars and trucks, the annual number of fatalities has remained nearly constant for the past decade, at more than 41,000, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).5 In 2005 the number of fatalities reached 43,443. However, the fatality rate (per 100 million miles driven) has declined from 1.73 in 1995 to 1.47 in 2005. Still, it remains vital that the United States continue to strive to reduce the number of fatalities and injuries due to highway accidents.
Accidents involving large trucks account for about 12 percent of the total number of fatalities due to highway accidents, generally as many as 5,000 each year during the past decade. Some improvement was observed in 2006, as the fatality number dropped to 5,018 from 5,212 the previous year (Anonymous, 2007). According to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) of the DOT, large trucks pulling semi-trailers (Class 8) accounted for almost two-thirds of the truck-involved fatal crashes in 2005 (DOT/FMCSA, 2007).
Compared with the number of people who die in accidents involving Class 8 trucks and tractor-trailer combinations, substantially fewer people are killed in accidents involving medium-duty single-unit trucks (300 fatalities in 2005 for Classes 5 and 6 combined) due to the fact that these medium-duty trucks typically operate at lower speeds, in urban areas, and during daylight (DOE, 2006a, p. 59). Thus, the focus of DOE and DOT safety programs in the 21CTP has been on Class 8 trucks.
The number of fatalities associated with bus accidents is also quite low compared with those related to large trucks. In 2005, there was a total of 278 bus-related fatalities. Moreover, the safety record of school buses is very good. On average, from 1995 through 2005, 21 school age children died each year as a result of school transportation accidents (NHTSA, 2007).
Truck accidents have a direct impact on fuel consumption and the environment. Accidents involving large trucks and buses create significant highway traffic delays, particularly in congested areas, with consequent increases in fuel usage due to travel at low speeds and sitting in traffic at idle. There is a corresponding increase in exhaust emissions during these times. In some cases, the accidents involve vehicles carrying hazardous materials, creating an even more dangerous situation.
The Department of Transportation is responsible for standards, rules, and regulations governing all vehicles, including large trucks. DOT’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is responsible for promulgating safety standards for new vehicles.6 Many of the standards apply to all vehicles, inclusive of cars, light trucks, and heavy trucks. These rules, for example, include standards for controls and displays, transmission shift lever sequence, windshield defrosting and defogging systems, lamps and reflective devices, rearview mirrors, seat belt assembly, flammability of interior materials, and other automotive systems.
There are also NHTSA standards specifically for large trucks and for buses. For example, an important standard issued in January 1998, is FMVSS 233, which describes the required characteristics of under-ride guard structures used at the rear of trailers to prevent smaller vehicles from driving under the trailer when striking it from the rear. As noted earlier, this type of accident, the smaller vehicle rear-ending the trailer, is fairly common (causing 16 percent of truck related fatalities). FMVSS 232 describes standards for school bus seating and crash protection. Again, the NHTSA standards specify new vehicle requirements. For vehicles that are in service, DOT’s FMCSA is responsible for setting requirements for maintenance and inspection and for licensing the drivers.
As noted in Chapter 7, in spite of these new vehicle design standards and in-service operating requirements, substantial reductions in heavy truck related fatalities and injuries have not been realized. For that reason, the 21CTP includes goals for improving large-truck safety, and in particular, goals for reducing fatalities and injuries associated with large-truck accidents. In support of those goals, DOE and DOT have initiated a number of programs aimed at improving the safety of large trucks.
Previously the focus of vehicle safety has been crash protection, including improvements in structural crush resistance, door and window retention during a crash, and occupant protection systems such as air bags. However, it has become clear that in order to make significant reductions in injuries and fatalities, it will be necessary to develop technologies, systems, and training programs to prevent crashes from occurring in the first place. More recently, research at DOE and DOT has been directed at crash avoidance technology for large trucks, including advanced braking systems, rollover warning and prevention systems, lane departure warning, drowsy driver detection systems, and collision warning systems.
Many of these systems have been tested on the highway as part of Field Operational Tests, several of which are currently ongoing. Moreover, several of these advanced safety systems have been put into production, including the following:
Roll stability control systems,
Electronic stability control systems,
Lane-departure systems, and
Collision warning systems.
5
See http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov. Accessed April 29, 2008.
6
See http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/standards/FMVSS-Regs/index. Accessed May 12, 2008.
OCR for page 15
Review of the 21st Century Truck Partnership
A major DOT safety program is the Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) program. The ITS program is broad in scope, touching on road design and operation, vehicle technologies, human factors research and in-vehicle as well as intervehicle communications.7 The ITS programs involve not only federal government agencies, but also heavy- and light-vehicle manufacturers, state and local governments, and contract research groups including universities.
In summary, safety is an important part of the 21CTP, with support from both DOE and DOT, with DOT providing the majority of the budget. As crash protection measures have not substantially reduced highway fatalities during the past decade, the main objective going forward will be to prevent crashes using a myriad of crash avoidance technologies and in-vehicle communication systems. Because driver error is the cause of most highway accidents (Volpe Center Highlights, 2002), it will be necessary to focus on driver education, training, and law enforcement as well as advanced vehicle technologies.
PARTNERSHIP ACTIVITIES OF THE FREEDOMCAR AND VEHICLE TECHNOLOGIES PROGRAM
The FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies (FCVT) program is the home of two industry-government “partnership” activities; one of these, the FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership, is described as follows on the program’s Web site:8
FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership. “The Partnership is a collaborative effort among DOE, energy companies—BP America, Chevron Corporation, ConocoPhillips, Exxon Mobil Corporation, and Shell Hydrogen (US) and the U.S. Council for Automotive Research (USCAR) and partners—Chrysler Corporation LLC, Ford Motor Company, and General Motors Corporation.
“The FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership [FCFP] examines and advances the precompetitive, high-risk research needed to develop the component and infrastructure technologies necessary to enable a full range of affordable cars and light trucks, and the fueling infrastructure for them that will reduce the dependence of the nation’s personal transportation system on imported oil and minimize harmful vehicle emissions, without sacrificing freedom of mobility and freedom of vehicle choice.”9
The term “Freedom” refers to “Freedom from dependence on imported oil … and from pollutant emissions” as well as “Freedom for Americans to choose the kind of vehicle they want to drive, and to drive where they want, when they want”; and “Freedom to obtain fuel affordably and conveniently.” The Office of FreedomCar and Vehicle Technologies (OFCVT) works with a variety of industry partners to identify goals and timetables for research and development. The overall objective is “to accelerate advancements in technologies that enable reduced oil consumption and increased energy efficiency in passenger vehicles.”
The Partnership addresses a wide range of advanced automotive technologies, including fuel cells, hydrogen production and storage systems, lightweight materials, electrical storage systems, and advanced combustion and emission controls.
21st Century Truck Partnership. As explained in this chapter, the 21st Century Truck Partnership includes four federal agencies (DOE, DOD, DOT, and EPA) and 15 industry partners. Partnership activities are summarized in the introduction to this chapter.10
The 21CTP is a cooperative research and development effort launched in 2000, in which the partners work together to reduce fossil fuel imports and to improve the physical environment by increasing vehicles’ energy efficiency, promoting use of alternative fuels, and reducing emissions of particulate matter, oxides of nitrogen, sulfur dioxide, and other pollutants.
The 21CTP is more complex in its decision-making structure than is the FCFP. It includes not only the 15 partners identified earlier, but also four federal agencies whose interests may not always coincide.
BUDGET TRENDS OF THE 21ST CENTURY TRUCK PARTNERSHIP
The 21CTP itself has only a small (and apparently diminishing) research budget at DOE (Table 1-6). (Details of the research and development funding of the 21CTP and its parent organization are given in Appendix C.) Appropriations to the 21CTP from fiscal year (FY) 2003 through FY 2007 (shown in Figure 1-9 as “Heavy Duty”) represent a declining proportion of the FCVT program (DOE, 2007, pp. 265ff).11
The challenge of analyzing multiagency “partnerships” is underscored by the fact that no one can tell the committee how much the various non-DOE parts of the 21CTP spend on their activities. Even the DOE parts are clouded by “proprietary” restrictions imposed by industrial partners.
The 21CTP effort centers on research and development to increase engine efficiency, improve the performance of hybrid powertrains, reduce fatalities through advanced safety
7
Michael F. Trentacoste, Director, Office of Safety R&D, Federal Highway Administration, Turner Fairbank Highway Safety Center. “Federal Highway Administration Safety R&D Overview,” Presentation to the committee, Washington D.C., February 8, 2007.
8
See http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/about/partnerships/freedomcar/index.html. Accessed May 22, 2008.
9
See http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/about/partnerships/freedomcar/fc_partners.html. Accessed May 22, 2008.
10
See http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/about/partnerships/21centurytruck/index.html. Accessed May 22, 2008.
11
Ken Howden, DOE, FCVT, “21st Century Truck Partnership,” Presentation to the committee, Washington, D.C., February 8, 2007.
OCR for page 16
Review of the 21st Century Truck Partnership
TABLE 1-6 Funding of the 21st Century Truck Partnership (Department of Energy Funds Only), FY 1999-2008 (dollars in millions)
FY
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
FY 2004 Revised Structure
Appropriation ($ in millions)
Requested
Advanced Combustion Engine
Combustion and Emission Control
3.400
3.200
3.668
4.176
4.705
3.333
8.312
3.317
3.680
3.000
Light-Truck Engine
14.800
17.411
17.783
15.778
14.734
12.495
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Heavy-Truck Engine
NAa
4.830
5.914
9.396
12.174
11.831
13.832
9.270
14.490
3.519
Waste Heat Recovery
NA
NA
1.000
0.500
0.488
2.469
3.435
1.500
3.806
2.521
Health Impacts
NA
1.000
1.497
1.471
1.463
0.988
1.951
2.413
2.479
2.479
Off-highway Engine R&D
NA
NA
NA
0.500
3.414
3.457
0.000
3.369
0.000
0.000
Vehicle Systems
Heavy Vehicle Systems R&D
Vehicle System Optimization
1.500
2.915
4.230
9.369
9.555
10.187
8.764
8.457
5.922
5.913
Truck Safety Systems
NA
NA
0.500
0.400
0.397
0.395
0.099
0.096
0.000
0.000
STICK Program
NA
NA
NA
0.100
0.596
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Hybrid and Electric Propulsion
Subsys. Integ. & Dev. — Heavy Hybrid
NA
3.881
3.938
4.941
3.99
4.976
5.353
1.815
0.000
0.000
Fuels Technology
Advanced Petroleum Based Fuels
Heavy Trucks
2.700
3.873
4.854
5.853
7.996
6.321
5.876
3.375
3.511
2.623
Non-Petroleum Based Fuels & Lubes
Heavy Trucks
3.300
2.743
3.241
3.695
1.408
1.383
0.690
0.000
0.000
0.000
Medium Trucks
4.700
2.712
3.266
3.903
1.316
1.284
1.282
0.000
0.000
0.000
Fueling Infrastructure
0.200
2.000
1.979
1.966
0.906
0.889
1.183
0.000
0.000
0.000
Renewable & Synthetic Fuels Util.
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.395
1.367
2.940
3.059
4.031
Environmental Impacts
NA
2.000
2.973
2.789
2.282
1.975
0.986
0.000
0.000
0.000
Materials Technologies
Propulsion Materials Technology
Heavy Vehicle Propulsion Matls.
5.300
5.871
6.009
5.756
5.705
5.778
4.858
4.258
3.900
4.885
Lightweight Materials Technology
High Strength Wt. Redc’n Matls.
4.200
5.781
8.804
9.574
8.731
8.840
7.690
2.766
0.000
0.000
High Temp. Matls. Lab (HTML)b
5.500
2.000
5.588
5.502
5.463
5.531
6.015
7.217
4.374
4.375
Technical Support Services
0.733
0.979
1.141
1.142
0.925
1.188
TOTAL Heavy Vehicle Technologies
45.600
66.476
76.017
86.648
80.950
78.588
66.603
44.765
40.847
28.971
aNA, information not available to the committee.
bHTML became a separate line item in FY 2003.
SOURCE: Kenneth Howden, DOE, FCVT, “21st Century Truck Partnership,” Presentation to the committee, Washington D.C., March 28, 2007, Slide 13.
systems, reduce parasitic and idling losses, and validate and demonstrate these technologies.
There is no single source of funds for the 21CTP, as was probably intended by its creators (according to the presentation of Paul Skalny at the committee’s second meeting).12 Instead, each of the four agencies has its own stream of funds. Agency personnel in the 21CTP meet frequently and industrial partners meet frequently to ensure communication about new technologies and new industrial needs. That is the extent of the coordination.
In the part of the program administered by DOE/EERE, for example, the total appropriation each year is divided on the basis of several “technical areas,” which correspond to engines, lightweight technology, idle reduction, and so on. In addition, they must maintain funding to companies with multiyear cooperative agreements and with Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (in the DOE laboratories).
ORIGIN AND SCOPE OF THIS STUDY
In response to a request from the director of the DOE’s Office of FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies, the National Research Council formed the Committee to Review
12
Paul Skalny, U.S. Army Tank-Automotive Command, “The 21st Century Truck Initiative: Developing Technologies for 21st Century Trucks,” Presentation to the committee, Washington, D.C., March 28, 2007.
OCR for page 17
Review of the 21st Century Truck Partnership
FIGURE 1-9 Appropriations to the 21CTP, FY 2003-2007 (shown as “Heavy Duty”) represent a declining proportion of the FCVT Program. FY 2008 request is not meaningful for comparison, because several major subprograms are being reprogrammed. SOURCE: Kenneth Howden, “21st Century Truck Partnership,” Presentation to the committee, Washington D.C., March 28, 2007, Slide 13. FY 2005-2008 FCVT funding data from DOE, 2007, FY 2008 Congressional Budget Request, Vol. 3, Office of Chief Financial Officer, Doc. No. DOE/CF-016, February. Available at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/about/printable_versions/ fcvt_budget.html. Accessed May 12, 2008.
the 21st Century Truck Partnership (see Appendix A for biographical information on committee members). The committee was asked to fulfill the following statement of task:
The committee will conduct an independent review of the 21st Century Truck Partnership. In its review, the committee will critically examine and comment on the overall adequacy and balance of the 21st Century Truck Partnership to accomplish its goals, on progress in the program, and make recommendations, as appropriate, that the committee believes can improve the likelihood of the Partnership meeting its goals. In particular, the committee will:
Review the high-level technical goals, targets, and timetables for R&D efforts, which address such areas as heavy vehicle systems; hybrid electric propulsion; advanced internal combustion engines (ICEs); and materials technologies.
Review and evaluate progress and program directions since the inception of the Partnership toward meeting the Partnership’s technical goals, and examine ongoing research activities and their relevance to meeting the goals of the Partnership.
Examine and comment on the overall balance and adequacy of the 21st Century Truck Partnership’s research effort, and the rate of progress, in light of the technical objectives and schedules for each of the major technology areas.
Examine and comment, as necessary, on the appropriate role for federal involvement in the various technical areas under development.
Examine and comment on the Partnership’s strategy for accomplishing its goals, which might include such issues as (a) program management and organization; (b) the process for setting milestones, research directions, and making Go/No Go decisions; (c) collaborative activities within DOE, other government agencies, the private sector, universities, and others; and (d) other topics that the committee finds important to comment on related to the success of the program to meet its technical goals.
STUDY PROCESS AND ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT
The committee held four meetings. Information-gathering sessions included presentations on 21CTP activities by representatives of the four federal agencies involved in 21CTP, as well as individuals outside the program with expertise in the measurement and control of engine emissions, on issues related to light-duty and heavy-duty trucks, and on development needs relevant to the 21CTP program (see Appendix B for a list of the presenters and their topics). To clarify some aspects of the 21CTP, the committee also sent written questions to 21CTP representatives. The committee’s conclusions and recommendations are based on the information gathered during the study and on the expertise and knowledge of committee members.
Chapter 2 assesses the strategy for managing the 21CTP and also identifies management and process issues. Chapter 3 reviews research and development programs in the engine systems area. The topics addressed include engine thermal efficiency, fuels, exhaust aftertreatment systems, the High Temperature Materials Laboratory of Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and health effects of diesel exhaust.
Chapter 4 discusses programs in the area of heavy-duty hybrid vehicles, and Chapter 5 reviews programs covering parasitic losses, such as aerodynamic drag, friction, and rolling resistance. Chapter 6 reviews programs in the technology area of idle reduction, aimed at minimizing fuel consumption of utility systems such as air conditioning and power steering. Chapter 7 covers the safety research programs, including braking, rollover stability, visibility, and crashworthiness, of all of the 21CTP partners.
Appendix A presents biographical sketches of the committee members. Appendix B lists all of the public presentations at the committee’s four meetings. Appendix C contains funding details of the research and development of the FCVT program—that is, the parent program of the 21CTP. Appendix D is a brief account of trends in federal and
OCR for page 18
Review of the 21st Century Truck Partnership
state regulation of light- and heavy-duty vehicle emissions. Appendix E is a list of abbreviations and acronyms used in the report. Appendix F compiles engineering data on light duty electric vehicles. Appendix G provides complete and up-to-date information on the 21CTP membership.
The committee obtained a copy of the working draft of EPA’s new “Smart Way Fuel Efficiency Test Protocol for Medium and Heavy Duty Vehicles” (EPA, 2007c), but did not review or discuss it in detail, since it was not released until after the committee’s final meeting.
It should be noted that the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (Public Law No. 110-140) includes a variety of measures that may affect the technology of heavy-duty vehicles. It was enacted too late to be considered by the committee.
REFERENCES
Dieselnet. 2005. California adopts OBD requirements for heavy-duty engines. July 22. Available at http://www.dieselnet.com/news/2005/07carb.php. Accessed May 29, 2007.
DOC (U.S. Department of Commerce), Census Bureau. 2005. 2002 Economic Census, Industry-Product Analysis. Summary: 2002. Manufacturing Subject Series. Report No. EC02-31SX-1. March. Washington D.C.: Available at http://www.census.gov/prod/ec02/ec0231sx1.pdf. Accessed May 12, 2008.
DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 2006a. 21st Century Truck Partnership Roadmap and Technical White Papers. Doc. No. 21CTP-003. Washington, D.C. December.
DOE. 2006b. FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies Program, Multi-Year Program Plan: 2006–2011. Washington, D.C.: DOE, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. September.
DOE. 2007. FY 2008 Congressional Budget Request. Vol. 3, Office of Chief Financial Officer. Doc. No. DOE/CF-016. February. Washington, D.C.
DOE, EERE (Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy). 2005. Transportation Energy Data Book, Chapter 2. 25th ed. Washington, D.C.: DOE, EERE. Available at http://cta.ornl.gov/data/chapter2.shtml. Accessed May 12, 2008.
DOE, EIA (Energy Information Agency). 2006. “Petroleum Products Consumption.” Energy Information Sheets. Oct. Available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/infosheets/petroleumproductsconsumption.html. Accessed May 12, 2008.
DOE, EIA. 2007. Annual Energy Review. Table 2.8. Available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec2_23.pdf. Accessed May 12, 2008.
DOT (U.S. Department of Transportation), FMCSA (Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration). 2007. 2005 Large Truck Crash Overview. Publication No. FMCSA-RI-07-045. January. Washington, D.C.
Ehlmann, James, and George Wolff. 2005. Automobile Emissions—The Road Toward Zero. January. Air and Waste Management Association.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2000. Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements. EPA420-F-00-057. December. Washington, D.C.: Office of Transportation and Air Quality.
EPA. 2006. Regulatory Announcement: Proposed Rule on OBD for Heavy-Duty Engines. EPA 420-F-06-058. Washington, D.C.: Office of Transportation and Air Quality. April.
EPA. 2007a. EPA Finalizes Regulations for a Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) Program for 2007 and Beyond. EPA420-F-07-019. Washington, D.C.: Office of Transportation and Air Quality.
EPA. 2007b. Green Book [Non-attainment Areas under the Clean Air Act of 1972 as Amended]. Available at http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/index.html. Accessed June 14, 2007.
EPA. 2007c. Smart Way Fuel Efficiency Test Protocol for Medium and Heavy Duty Vehicles. Working Draft. EPA 420-P-07-003. November. Washington, D.C.
Johnson, J. H. 1988. Automotive Emissions. Pp. 39-46 in Air Pollution, the Automobile, and Public Health. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration). 2007. Truck-Related Fatalities Decline. Transport Topics. Washington, D.C. June 4.
NRC (National Research Council (NRC). 2000. Review of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Heavy Vehicle Technologies Program. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
NRC. 2001. Review of the Research Program of the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Obert, E. R. 1973. Internal Combustion Engines and Air Pollution. Scranton, Pa.: Intext Educational Publishers.
Volpe Center Highlights. 2002. Reducing Motor Vehicle Crashes with the DOT’s Intelligent Vehicle Initiative. Focus May/June.
Items in cart [1]
