In July 2010, the National Research Council (NRC) appointed the Committee to Review the 21st Century Truck Partnership, Phase 2, to conduct an independent review of the 21st Century Truck Partnership (21CTP). The results of the review are presented in this report. This Phase 2 review follows on the original review of the Partnership by the NRC, conducted in 2007 and resulting in what is referred to in this report as the NRC Phase 1 report, issued in 2008 (NRC, 2008).1 The Partnership’s responses to the recommendations in the Phase 1 report are contained in Appendix C of the present report.
The 21CTP is a cooperative research and development (R&D) partnership including four federal agencies (the U.S. Department of Energy [DOE], the U.S. Department of Transportation [DOT], the U.S. Department of Defense [DOD], and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]), and 15 industrial partners (Allison Transmission, ArvinMeritor, BAE Systems, Caterpillar, Cummins Inc., Daimler Trucks North America [which includes Freightliner], Detroit Diesel Corporation [DDC], Eaton Corporation, Honeywell International, Navistar, Mack Trucks, NovaBUS, Oshkosh Truck, PACCAR, and Volvo Trucks North America). The Partnership was formed in 2000 and announced on April 21, 2001, in a press event in Romulus, Michigan.2
The Partnership is a means of coordinating ongoing activities at the various agencies and private-sector companies to contribute to national goals that are, in the broadest terms, to “reduce fuel usage and emissions while increasing heavy vehicle safety” (DOE, 2010a). 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, 2010b).
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, 2010b).
This report builds on the NRC Phase 1 review and report and also, as part of its charge, comments on changes and progress that have occurred since the Phase 1 report was issued in 2008. The strategic approach of the Partnership includes the following elements as laid out in the 2006 21CTP roadmap (DOE, 2006, 2010b):
• Develop and implement an integrated vehicle systems research and development approach that validates and deploys advanced technology necessary for both commercial and military trucks and buses to meet the aforementioned national imperatives.
• Promote research for engines, powertrains, combustion, exhaust aftertreatment, fuels, and advanced materials to achieve both significantly higher efficiency and lower emissions.
• Promote research focused on advanced heavy-duty hybrid propulsion systems that will reduce energy consumption and pollutant emissions.
• Promote research to reduce vehicle power demands (also
1 The chair, John H. Johnson, of the NRC committee for the Phase 1 review testified before the Energy and Environmental Subcommittee of the U.S. House of Representatives, on March 9, 2009. This subcommittee of the Committee on Science and Technology developed H.R. 3246, the Advanced Vehicle Technologies Act of 2009, which passed the House on September 11, 2009. Senator Debbie Stabenow introduced a companion bill in the Senate on December 7, 2009, but the bill was not passed by the Senate.
2 For further details of the history, see DOE (2006) and NRC (2000, 2008).
referred to as parasitic losses) to achieve significantly reduced energy consumption.
• Promote the development of technologies to improve truck safety, resulting in the reduction of fatalities and injuries in truck-involved crashes.
• Promote the development and deployment of technologies that substantially reduce energy consumption and exhaust emissions during idling.
• Promote the validation, demonstration, and deployment of advanced truck and bus technologies, and grow their reliability sufficient for adoption in the commercial marketplace.
As is discussed in more detail in this report, the Partnership has been evolving and making some changes since the Phase 1 review. For example, the 2006 roadmap has been revised and updated, and a series of technical white papers that supported the 2006 roadmap have also undergone revisions (DOE, 2010c, 2011). The committee reviewed these updated documents as part of the Phase 2 review.
The federal government, including the DOE, has addressed in varying degrees the economic, energy security, and environmental aspects of energy supply, distribution, and use for many decades, and the focus of efforts has changed from time to time. In recent years all three areas have had increasing attention by the administration and the Congress, given the rapid rise in energy prices in the 2007-2008 period, the severe recession of the past few years, the involvement in wars in the Middle East and the importance of that region for global oil supplies, and the attention to the environmental issue of global climate change. In addition, because of concerns about air quality and human health, a number of regulations have been passed over the years leading to more stringent exhaust emissions standards for both light-duty vehicles (cars, vans, and light trucks) and medium- and heavy-duty vehicles (MHDVs).
The economic concerns related to energy supply and energy use are generally framed in the language of affordability for the individual consumer as well as the impact on the U.S. economy from high energy prices and/or shortages. In recent years, not only have high energy prices been experienced but also there seems to be increased volatility in energy prices. Although the recent global and U.S. economic slowdowns depressed global as well as U.S. oil demand, worldwide oil consumption in general has risen rapidly during the past decade, mainly owing to rapid economic growth around the world. Nevertheless, even though the recent recession has moderated U.S. demand for imported oil, the Energy Information Administration (EIA, 2010) forecasts that the nation will continue to be highly dependent on imported oil. If global oil prices rise rapidly again because of supply-and-demand imbalances, future prices of oil will likely continue to put a strain on the U.S. economy. BP’s recent Statistical Review of World Energy also shows an increase in world oil consumption of 3.1 percent from 2009 to 2010, reaching a level of 87.4 million barrels per day (bbl/day), and an increase in U.S. oil consumption of 2 percent, reaching 19.1 million bbl/day (BP, 2011). As a consequence, the United States is pursuing alternative sources of fuel and attempting to increase efficiency in oil usage.
The issue of energy security with regard to petroleum not only entails the economic concerns noted above but also is framed in terms of the U.S. dependence on imported petroleum. Oil use in the United States has varied during the past few years, but it has been around 20 million bbl/day and was 18.8 million bbl/day in 2009 (EIA, 2010). Most of this petroleum is used in the transportation sector, and about 25 percent of that is used for MHDVs. Regarding gasoline consumption, EIA (2010) projects that total transportation fuel use will grow between 2009 and 2035 but that total U.S. gasoline consumption will remain at about 9 million bbl/day from 2009 to 2035: these projections include the phasing in of new fuel economy regulations for light-duty vehicles by 2016 as discussed in the next section (EIA, 2010; Newell, 2010; see Figure 1-1). Total U.S. diesel fuel consumption, much of which is consumed by MHDVs, is projected to change from about 3.42 million bbl/day in 2009 to almost 4.5 million bbl/day in 2035. Fuel consumption by heavy-duty vehicles is projected to increase substantially in the United States as well as worldwide, and consumption by heavy-duty vehicles (Classes 6, 7, and 8; see the section below on “Classes and Use Categories of Trucks and Buses”) consumption is expected to increase between 2010 and 2035 by 40 percent.3,4 Thus, in round numbers, assuming an oil price of $100/bbl, expenditures for diesel fuel alone would be on the order of $125 billion per year in the United States.
The 21CTP is focused on reducing the fuel usage of heavy-duty vehicles, which consume about 25 percent of the petroleum currently used in the transportation sector, and the expected 40 percent increase in consumption by heavy-duty vehicles between 2010 and 2035. That usage is in contrast to light-duty vehicle consumption, which is expected to remain relatively unchanged. EIA (2010), in its liquid fuels projections, includes increasing the use of biofuels, which somewhat dampens the demand for petroleum-based fuels. EIA (2010) projects net petroleum imports to change from about 8.97 million bbl/day in 2009 to 8.52 million bbl/day in 2035, whereas total liquid fuels use (including the use of
3 P. Davis, DOE, “U.S. Department of Energy Vehicle Technologies Program Overview,” presentation to the committee, September 8, 2010, Washington, D.C.
4 No U.S. fuel economy standards for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles are in effect for the current model year. A Notice of Proposed Rule Making was issued October 26, 2010. Final standards issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) on September 15, 2011, will apply to model year 2014 (EPA/NHTSA, 2011). EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook 2010 projections do not include such standards.
biofuels) for transportation goes from about 13.5 million bbl/day in 2009 to 16.38 million bbl/day in 2035. Although the dependence on petroleum imports in these forecasts is somewhat ameliorated compared to recent trends, significant import dependence remains.
Added to the concern over high-priced oil and energy security is the concern regarding global warming. Nations around the world are beginning to exert more stringent control over human-made emissions, especially greenhouse gases (GHGs) such as carbon dioxide (CO2). Numerous discussions have taken place in Congress about climate change, and many pieces of climate change legislation have been proposed. The consumption of petroleum in the U.S. transportation sector accounted for about 1.81 billion metric tons of CO2-equivalent (CO2-eq) emissions in 2009, about 33 percent of total U.S. CO2-eq emissions from the burning of fuels. EIA (2010) forecasts that CO2-eq emissions from petroleum in the transportation sector in 2035 will be about 2.065 billion metric tons, about 33 percent of the projected U.S. total emissions of 6.32 billion metric tons of CO2-eq emissions from the burning of fuels. The EPA estimates that medium- and heavy-duty trucks and buses accounted for about 22 percent of CO2-eq emissions from the transportation sector in 2008 (EPA, 2010). Consequently, the transportation sector and the significant portion of that sector that is composed of MHDVs are important to any policies that are aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Thus, for the foreseeable future, there will be pressure to control and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. One approach to addressing such emissions is to use fuel more efficiently; another is to use fuels that emit less CO2 than petroleum-based fuels do.
Both the limited availability of oil and the additional pressures to reduce CO2 emissions will have a profound impact on automotive vehicles worldwide. In addition, as briefly discussed in the next section, the United States is implementing policies on fuel economy that will directly impact the vehicle sector. These forces will pressure vehicle manufacturers to make renewed efforts to reduce both fuel 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 have been significantly reduced by PM regulations that went into effect in 2007 and NOx regulations that were phased in 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 (NRC, 2008; NAS-NAE-NRC, 2009a).
Thus, with regard to economic considerations, energy security, and environmental reasons, the transportation sector is a key area for consideration and policy focus, and the medium- and heavy-duty vehicle component significant. The 21CTP can play an important role is this regard.
The economic and policy environment outside the DOE continues to change, and various external initiatives and policies can affect the DOE and specifically the Partnership: such developments that may affect the Partnership have continued to emerge since the publication of the NRC Phase 1 report (NRC, 2008). The control of emissions from the engines of heavy-duty trucks with gross vehicle weight (GVW) over 8,500 pounds (lb) began in 1973 in California and in 1974 in the United States as a whole. The federal standards were harmonized with California standards beginning with model year (MY) 2004, and stringent emissions standards for heavy-duty diesel engines came into effect, as noted in the previous section, in the 2007-2010 time period. These increasingly stringent engine emissions standards were an important driver for R&D for engine, emissions control, and fuels.5 Reaching low emissions of hydrocarbons (HCs), carbon monoxide (CO), NOx, and PM in terms of grams per brake horsepower-hour (g/bhp-h) was a significant challenge if fuel consumption was constrained to not increase. The changes in U.S. emission standards over time are presented in Figure 1-2 (DOE, 2010c, d).
With the increasing concern in Congress and the administration about energy security and greenhouse gas emissions, numerous actions are taking place that will create incentives for technology development for vehicles as well as improve the operational efficiency of managing the movement of freight in the United States (e.g., through driver education, longer combination vehicles, reducing congestion, etc.). Although the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has regulatory authority over fuel economy standards for vehicles, the EPA has the authority to regulate CO2 and other greenhouse gases as air pollutants under the Clean Air Act, thus empowering the EPA to regulate vehicle
5 A summary review of these emissions standards and changes can be found in the NRC Phase 1 report, Chapter 1 (NRC, 2008), as well as in references in this chapter (Ehlmann and Wolff, 2005; Johnson, 1988).
CO2 emissions, which are directly related to vehicle fuel consumption measures. Following the announcement6 in May 2009 of the President’s National Fuel Efficiency Policy, the NHTSA and EPA have promulgated nationally coordinated standards for tailpipe CO2-eq emissions and fuel economy for light-duty vehicles (LDVs)—which include both passenger cars and light-duty trucks.
The initial harmonized standards will affect MY 2012 LDVs, and compliance requirements will increase in stringency through MY 2016, building on the NHTSA’s enacted corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standard for MY 2011. The NHTSA has estimated the impact of the new CAFE standards and has projected that the proposed fleetwide standards for LDVs will increase fuel economy from 27.3 miles per gallon (mpg) in MY 2011 to 34.1 mpg in MY 2016, an average annual increase of 4.3 percent.7 The NHTSA and EPA have also issued a Notice of Intent and Technical Assessment Report for fuel economy and GHG regulations for LDVs for the 2017-2025 time period to raise the fuel economy levels beyond these.8
With regard to MHDVs, the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007 (Public Law No. 110-140) directed the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to conduct a study on the potential for technologies to reduce fuel consumption for such vehicles, and it directed the NHTSA to promulgate, for the first time ever, fuel economy standards for such vehicles. The NAS completed this task and submitted its report, Technologies and Approaches to Reducing the Fuel Consumption of Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles, to the NHTSA and Congress in March 2010 (NRC, 2010a). In November 2010, the NHTSA and EPA proposed to regulate many of these vehicles, issuing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, namely, Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles; Proposed Rule (40 CFR Parts 85, 86, 1036, et al.; and 49 CFR Parts 523, 534, and 535)(EPA/NHTSA, 2010).9 Final standards issued by the EPA and NHTSA on September 15, 2011, will begin with model year 2014 (EPA/NHTSA, 2011). (See below in this chapter for additional details.)
The NRC (2010a) report and the NHTSA’s and EPA’s work have created a rich data and analysis base to support the DOE’s efforts as well as providing background for the current review of the Partnership. In turn, the efforts of the DOE and the Partnership will be important in promoting technology development and helping to realize more efficient vehicles. Again, as with LDVs, these standards and attention to reducing fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions will stimulate R&D on advanced technologies for reducing fuel consumption for MHDVs.
Since the 1970s, Congress has supported legislation that requires increasing the production of fuels from renewable, bio-based sources and other alternative fuels as part of efforts to reduce petroleum-based fuel consumption. The EISA of 2007 includes a subtitle that amended the Renewable Fuels Standard contained in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005) and increased the volumes of renewable fuels to be phased in to the fuel supply substantially. The mandated volumes of renewable fuels to be used begin with 9 billion gallons in 2008 and reach 36 billion gallons in 2022. These fuels are anticipated to include corn-based ethanol, cellulosic-based ethanol, and biodiesel made from vegetable oils (e.g., from soybeans), animal fats, and cellulose. Much R&D is occurring to develop, demonstrate, and commercialize the advanced biofuels that would be made from cellulose, but costs and technology performance are still uncertain (NAS-NAE-NRC, 2009b).
Thus, the national landscape has shifted strongly toward addressing the nation’s dependence on petroleum imports as well as emissions of greenhouse gases. The role of the public sector—through advanced R&D, and especially in partnering with the private sector, where the ultimate decisions will be made to deploy and commercialize new technology—is an important complement to these regulatory, market-pull requirements. In this vein, the Partnership’s role in fostering technology that can reduce fuel consumption by medium- and heavy-duty vehicles has gained in importance since the NRC Phase 1 review.
6 See President Obama’s National Fuel Efficiency Policy at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/president-obama-directs-administration-create-first-ever-national-efficiency-and-em.
7 Note that this standard addresses CO2-eq emissions so that manufacturers have some other means of receiving credits for reducing these emissions such as reducing hydrofluorocarbons in air-conditioning systems or using alternative fuels. If manufacturers only rely on reductions in vehicle fuel consumption, NHTSA estimates that manufacturers will have to comply with a 35.5 mpg standard by 2016. This is about a 40 percent increase in fuel economy over current (2010) standards.
9 See http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/rulemaking/pdf/cafe/CAFE_2014-18_Trucks_FactSheet-v1.pdf. Accessed December 15, 2010.
As a means of providing focus and a set of goals and objectives for the Partnership as a whole, the Partnership developed a roadmap and supporting technical white papers (DOE, 2006). The roadmap with supporting background was reviewed during the NRC Phase 1 review and included a strategic vision, as well as a discussion of benefits of the program and the description of five main technical areas that the Partnership focused on, namely: (1) engine systems, (2) hybrid propulsion, (3) parasitic losses, (4) idle reduction, and (5) safety (DOE, 2006). The 21CTP established goals for each of these areas, and a fuller description of the five areas was included in the NRC Phase 1 report as well as an evaluation of progress toward the goals (NRC, 2008).
Since the NRC Phase 1 review, the Partnership has revised the roadmap and supporting white papers and goals (DOE, 2010c, 2011). The technical areas covered by the white papers are substantially the same, but there are some changes. The technical areas include (1) engine systems; (2) hybrid propulsion; (3) vehicle power demands, previously called parasitic losses, which included, for example, aerodynamics, tire rolling resistance, and other areas; (4) idle reduction; (5) safety; and (6) efficient operations, which is a new area that addresses the system of trucks and their operation for the efficient delivery of goods. These areas and the associated goals are discussed in further detail in the remaining chapters of this report. In addition, three major cost-shared contracts were awarded in the April through September 2010 time frame to carry out R&D and demonstrate for a complete tractor-trailer a freight efficiency improvement of 50 percent in ton-miles per gallon of fuel.
Activities of the Partners
The DOE’s Office of Vehicle Technologies, which is within its Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), has the primary role in the department for pursuing the development of advanced vehicle technologies both for LDVs and MHDVs. The LDV activities are included in what was the FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership (FCFP), which is now the U.S. DRIVE (Driving, Research, and Innovation for Vehicle efficiency and Energy sustainability) program; the medium- and heavy-duty activities are included in the 21CTP. The FCFP and U.S. DRIVE programs include work on combustion and emissions control, fuel cells, hydrogen storage, batteries, lightweight materials, and power electronics. In terms of budgets, the LDV program activities have been much larger than the 21CTP, and in fact during the past decade the emphasis has increased on LDVs and declined on MHDV activities. For example, in FY 2010, the budget of the Office of Vehicle Technologies was about $311 million, of which about $38.5 million was devoted to MHDV applications.10 There is some overlap between work that is done for LDVs and MHDVs—for example, in such areas as the understanding and modeling of advances in combustion, advances in lightweight materials, or advances in electrochemistry and battery technologies—and such overlapping areas are all managed under the Office of Vehicle Technologies to support both LDV and MHDV technologies, as appropriate. Consequently, advances made in technical areas that are characterized and budgeted as part of the U.S. DRIVE could benefit MHDVs.
The DOE also contracts work out to the private sector and involves the 21CTP industry partners. As noted in the previous section and discussed later in the report, for example, the DOE has awarded contracts to industry to address many aspects of reducing the fuel consumption of long-haul trucks. The EPA also has development work on hydraulic hybrid technologies for some classes of trucks and also funds work on combustion. It also works with the private sector and promotes and provides information on various technologies for the reduction of fuel consumption and of greenhouse gas emissions through its SmartWay program. The DOD also is very interested in improving the fuel efficiency and reducing the fuel consumption of its noncombat vehicles; for combat vehicles it is interested in increased power density and low heat rejection. The DOT is focused on safety issues, including the use of advanced technology and regulations that can improve highway safety, as well as the overall system and infrastructure for moving freight efficiently and economically.
Lines of Authority
The Partnership was originally under the leadership of the DOD (the U.S. Army Tank-Automotive Research and Development Command). In November 2002, that authority passed to the DOE (DOE, FCVT, 2006, pp. 4-7), specifically to the Office of FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies (which is now called the Office of Vehicle Technologies).
The other agencies associate their own existing programs that are relevant to the goals of the 21CTP under the 21CTP umbrella, so the DOE has little influence over the research programs of its DOT, DOD, and EPA partners. The other factor that makes budgets and projects involved in the 21CTP unclear is that the different agencies receive their budget appropriations from different committees in Congress. Thus, there is no central, overall management over 21CTP budgets and accountability. DOE staff organize meetings and conference calls, maintain the information-flow infrastructure (such as websites and e-mail lists), and have led the discussions for and preparation of the updated 21CTP Roadmap and Technical White Papers (DOE, 2010c) laying out Partner-
10 P. Davis, DOE, “U.S. Department of Energy Vehicle Technologies Program Overview,” Presentation to the committee, September 8, 2010, Washington, D.C.
ship 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 to ensure that valuable research results are communicated and that any overlap of activities among their respective efforts is reduced.
According to the official Roadmap and Technical White Papers of the 21CTP (DOE, 2006, p. 6):
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 on 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 the weight classes are; they 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.
Figure 1-3 gives an idea of the variety of medium- and heavy-duty vehicles to which developments in the 21CTP could be applied. It is based on the DOT classification system using a truck’s GVWR. The DOE Transportation Energy Data Book (Davis et al., 2009, Table 5.7) developed information on vehicle weight classification, as did the NRC (2010a) report on medium- and heavy-duty vehicles. In general:
• Class 1 and 2 vehicles lighter than 10,000 lb are considered light trucks, such as pickups, small vans, and sport utility vehicles. They are generally spark-ignited, gasoline-fueled internal combustion engines, and more than 80 percent are for personal use. This class of vehicle up to about 8,500 lb comes under CAFE requirements for cars. Class 2 trucks with GVWR above 8,500 lb are similar to Class 3 trucks. Class 2B trucks (8,500 to 10,000 lb GVWR) include pickup trucks, sport utility vehicles, and large vans.
• Classes 3 through 6 are medium- and heavy-duty vehicles with single rear axles and use either gasoline-
|U.S. Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicle Population, Mileage and Fuel Use by Weight Class|
|Vehicle Size||Population (millions)||Annual Miles (million miles)||Annual Fuel Use (million gallons)||% of Population||% of Annual Miles||% of Fuel Use|
SOURCE: Data for classes 3-8 from U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 2002, Vehicle Inventory and Use Survey, 2002. Data for Class 2B from Davis, S.C. and L.F. Truett, Investigation of Class 2b Trucks (Vehicles of 8,500 to 10,000 lbs GVWR), ORNL/TM-2002/49, March 2002, Table 16. Classes 3-8, 2002 population; Class 2b, 2000 population. Totals are approximate due to rounding errors.
or diesel-fueled engines; their GVWs are from 10,000 to 26,000 lb.
• Classes 7 and 8 are heavy-duty vehicles, using primarily diesel engines.
• Class 8 combination trucks have a tractor and one or more trailers and a gross combined weight (GCW) of up to 80,000 lb, with higher weights allowed in specific circumstances.
Some vehicle classifications used by the EPA and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) for emissions regulations differ from those of the DOT and Figure 1-3. There is great variety among MHDVs. Examples of Class 7-8 vehicles include box trucks, refuse trucks, utility vehicles, buses, dump trucks, cement trucks, tractor trailers, and many others.
As noted, there is a wide variety of medium- and heavy-duty vehicles. They are used in different applications—from refuse trucks that stop and go constantly and operate at low speeds, to long-haul tractor-trailers that spend much of their time at highway speeds. In addition, the numbers of trucks of different classes vary greatly. Consequently, the number of miles and fuel used vary greatly, depending on the application and the type of vehicle. Table 1-1 presents a summary for the United States of the approximate annual miles and fuel consumption for different vehicle classes, which was addressed in detail in NRC (2010a). The data presented in the table are based on the 2002 Vehicle Inventory and Use Survey (VIUS). According to Davis et al. (2010), the Census Bureau has not conducted a VIUS since 2002, so these are the latest survey data available. Note that Class 8, which includes tractor-trailers, represents about 20 percent of the fleet in total number of vehicles, but 61 percent of the fuel use in all heavy-duty vehicles. Note that Class 2B, Class 6, and Class 8 together account for more than 90 percent of the total fuel use for MHDVs (NRC, 2010a).
As noted in this chapter, the EPA and NHTSA issued final standards on September 15, 2011, for GHG emissions and fuel efficiency standards for medium- and heavy-duty engines and vehicles. These standards will be phased in and apply to model years 2014 to 2018 and are tailored to each of three main regulatory categories of vehicles: (1) combination tractors, commonly known as semi-trucks that typically pull trailers (Classes 7 and 8), although the agencies are not regulating trailers; (2) heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans (Classes 2b and 3); and (3) vocational vehicles, which comprise a very wide variety of truck and bus types (Classes 2b through 8).11
The final rules for vocational vehicles and combination tractors, which are semi trucks that typically pull trailers, have separate fuel consumption standards for vehicles and engines. Standards for fuel consumption of tractors are expressed in gallons per 1,000 ton-miles and in gallons/100 bhp-hr for engines (EPA/NHTSA, 2011). The standards for
11 The variety of vocational vehicles include delivery, refuse, utility dump, cement, shuttle bus, school bus, emergency vehicles, and others.
Class 7 and 8 tractor fuel consumption are voluntary for 2014 and 2015 model years and become mandatory in the 2016 model year. The new combination tractor standards for the 2017 model year reflect additional improvements in only the heavy-duty engines. The final standards will achieve from 9 to 23 percent reduction in fuel consumption from affected tractors compared to the 2010 baselines.
Vocational truck (Classes 2b through 8) standards are also expressed in gallons per 1,000 ton-miles and are set separately for light heavy-duty (Class 2b through 5), medium heavy-duty (Class 6-7), and heavy heavy-duty (Class 8). The agencies are regulating chassis manufacturers. Achieving standards for vocational vehicles is limited to tire technologies for reduced rolling resistance and engine improvements. The standards allow vocational truck manufacturers to quantify improvements due to hybrid powertrains as a means for compliance. The fuel consumption standards for vocational vehicles represent reductions from 6 to 9 percent compared to a 2010 baseline.
The fuel consumption standards for heavy-duty pickups and vans (Class 2b and 3) are expressed in gallons/100 miles with separate standards for gasoline-fueled and diesel-fueled vehicles. The EPA and NHTSA expect industry to apply similar technologies as the 2012-2016 light-duty vehicle program, but adapted to heavy-duty applications. The standards are fleetwide corporate average standards as in the case for light-duty vehicles. The fuel consumption standards are voluntary in 2014 and 2015. The final standards represent an average per-vehicle improvement in fuel consumption of 15 percent for diesel vehicles and 10 percent for gasoline vehicles, compared to a common baseline.
The 21CTP itself has only a small research budget at the DOE, and that had been diminishing during the past few years, although the FY 2011 level is about $37 million (see Table 1-2). Table 1-2 shows congressional appropriations to the heavy-vehicle R&D activities at the DOE from FY 1999 through FY 2010 and the DOE budget request for FY 2011. These appropriations have represented a declining proportion of the total of both the LDV and the heavy-duty vehicle funding from the Office of Vehicle Technologies. This trend was also noted in presentations to the NRC Phase 1 review.12 In addition to the DOE, the other three agencies have their own, separate budgets that are associated with the Partnership. At the time of this review, the budget resolution in April 2011 for the FY 2011 appropriations indicated significant reductions for the DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy from the FY 2011 budget request. However, how these reductions affected the FY 2011 funding for individual R&D areas for the DOE’s part of 21CTP was unknown.
As noted in the NRC Phase 1 report, 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. There are also other programs in the DOE in addition to the technical R&D areas listed in Table 1-2 that can be leveraged to promote advanced technologies for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles. For example, the Clean Cities Deployment Program, which provides funding for demonstration vehicles, also received more than $90 million in funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA, or the Stimulus Program) for such activities.
The ARRA has injected a significant amount of funding into activities, including R&D, on vehicles. Although this funding is a “one-shot” infusion and is not included as part of the congressional appropriations of each of the agencies, it has allowed the initiation of a number of both LDV and MHDV activities that can help to promote technologies for reducing fuel consumption. For example, approximately $2.8 billion was provided to accelerate the manufacturing and deployment of the next generation of U.S. batteries ($1.5 billion), to manufacture electric-drive components ($500 million), and for transportation electrification ($400 million).13Such efforts, for example, can help to promote the more rapid development of battery technologies and to stimulate the demonstration and deployment of hybrid vehicles.
ARRA funding also allowed a solicitation to be announced and funded called Systems Level Technology Development, Integration, and Demonstration for Efficient Class 8 Trucks (SuperTruck) and Advanced Technology Powertrains for Light-Duty Vehicles (ATP-LD). The heavy-vehicle part of this solicitation has a goal “to develop and demonstrate a 50-percent improvement in overall freight efficiency on a heavy-duty Class 8 tractor-trailer measured in ton-miles per gallon.”14 Three contracts were awarded in response to this solicitation: the total funding for these contracts was about $115 million, with about $100 million associated with ARRA funding for two of the contracts (see Chapter 8).
In the part of the 21CTP program that is administered by the DOE/EERE, for example, the total appropriation each year is divided on the basis of the several “technical areas” of the DOE/EERE, which correspond to engines, light-weighting, idle reduction, and so on. In addition, the DOE/EERE must maintain funding to companies with multiyear cooperative agreements and with Cooperative Research and
12 Ken Howden, Director, 21st Century Truck Partnership, “21st Century Truck Partnership,” presentation to the Phase 1 review committee, Washington, D.C., February 8, 2007.
13 P. Davis, DOE, “U.S. Department of Energy Vehicle Technologies Program Overview,” presentation to the committee, September 8, 2010, Washington, D.C.
|Appropriation ($ in Millions)||Request|
|Advanced Combustion Engine||Subtotal:||18.200||26.441||29.862||31.821||36.978||35.023||27.530||19.869||24.455||16.266||14.230||20.949||20.949|
• Combustion & Emission Control
• Light Truck Engine
• Heavy Truck Engine
• WHR / Solid-State Energy Conversion
• Health Impacts
• Off-highway Engine R&D
|Vehicle Systems (includes Hybrid Systems in 2010)||Subtotal:||1.500||2.915||4.730||9.869||10.548||10.582||8.863||8.553||5.922||5.870||2.916||4.605||2.800|
|Heavy Vehicle Systems R&D|
• Vehicle System Optimization
• Truck Safety Systems
• STICK Program
|Hybrid and Electric Propulsion (see Vehicle Systems for ’10)||Subtotal:||0.000||3.881||3.938||4.941||3.939||4.976||5.353||1.815||0.000||0.000||0.000||0.000||0.000|
|Subsys. Integ. & Dev. - Heavy Hybrid||—||3.881||3.938||4.941||3.939||4.976||5.353||1.815||0.000||0.000||0.000||0.000||0.000|
|Advanced Petroleum-Based Fuels|
• Heavy Trucks
|Non-Petroleum-Based Fuels & Lubes|
• Heavy Trucks
• Medium Trucks
• Fueling Infrastructure
• Renewable & Synthetic Fuels Util.
|Propulsion Materials Technology|
• Heavy Vehicle Propulsion Matls.
|Lightweight Materials Technology|
• High Strength Wt. Reduc’n Matls.
|High Temp. Matls. Lab. (HTML)*||5.500||8.260||5.588||5.502||5.463||5.531||6.015||7.217||4.374||6.564||5.670||5.662||0.000|
|Technical Support Services / SBIR / Peer Review||0.773||0.979||1.141||1.142||0.925||1.188||0.963||1.317||1.540||0.500|
|TOTAL Heavy Vehicle Technologies||45.600||66.476||76.017||86.648||80.950||78.588||66.603||44.765||40.847||34.545||29.687||45.486||36.719|
* HTML was a separate line item from FY 2003 to 2010
SOURCE: Submitted by Ken Howden, DOE, to the committee, October 28, 2010
Development Agreements (CRADAs) in the DOE laboratories. Table 1-2 was provided by the DOE to indicate the level of funding in each of the main areas that are considered part of 21CTP and which are the main areas that the committee focused on during its review.
The President’s FY 2012 budget request to Congress indicates a substantial increase in funding for the Office of Vehicle Technologies, from about $304 million in FY 2010 to a request of $588 million for FY 2012. It is unclear at the time of this review whether the Congress will appropriate this level of funding, and also what portion of this funding will be directed toward 21CTP activities.15
In response to a request from the director of the DOE’s Office of Vehicle Technologies, the National Research Council formed the Committee to Review the 21st Century Truck Partnership, Phase 2 (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 second 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:
(1) 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.
(2) Review and evaluate progress and program directions since the inception of the Partnership towards meeting the Partnership’s technical goals, and examine on-going research activities and their relevance to meeting the goals of the Partnership.
(3) Examine and comment on the overall balance and adequacy of the 21st Century Partnership’s research effort, and the rate of progress, in light of the technical objectives and schedules for each of the major technology areas.
(4) Examine and comment, as necessary, on the appropriate role for federal involvement in the various technical areas under development.
(5) 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.
(6) Examine and comment on the response of the Partnership to the recommendations made in the Phase 1 report, “Review of the 21st Century Truck Partnership” issued by the NRC in 2008.
After examining the 21st Century Truck Partnership activities and receiving presentations from federal government representatives and industry representatives, and outside experts, as appropriate, the committee will write a report documenting its review of the Partnership with recommendations for improvement, as necessary.
The statement of task as defined above contains a number of standard elements that the NRC has used for the review of a number of DOE R&D programs because it is general enough to allow a committee to make an assessment either narrowly, broadly, or both, as appropriate. In an ideal world, every technical area would have well-defined projects, budgets, milestones, and targets against which to assess progress. But in reality, given the multiagency-and-industry nature of the 21CTP, the identification of such well-defined projects that can fall under the 21CTP umbrella is not uniform across the various areas and agencies (see Chapter 2). However, as noted in this chapter, the Partnership has been focused around five technical areas and has white papers and goals for each of those areas, and a white paper for a new sixth area, efficient operations, has been drafted by the 21CTP. In some instances there are precise targets against which to measure progress; in others there are not. The assessments of the committee are contained in the respective technical chapters, which correspond to the areas addressed by the white papers. In some cases, such as in hybrid propulsion, the budgets have been zeroed out, but the Partnership has leveraged the work on various technical areas that are occurring at the DOE—in this example for light-duty hybrid vehicles. In following its statement of task to comment on the 21CTP strategy for accomplishing its goals (Item 5), the committee reviewed a 21CTP draft white paper for the new area on efficient operations; there are no goals and targets as yet but the committee has made suggestions to the Partnership on improving its white paper and on what might be addressed (see Chapter 9).
The present review has also been complicated by the fact that the white papers and some goals and targets have been undergoing revision during the committee’s review. Further, the important new undertaking called SuperTruck is following on the NRC Phase 1 report recommendations for integrating technology into whole vehicle systems (see Chapter 8). Given that the SuperTruck progam is new, the committee has not been able during this review to comment on specific progress toward technical targets. The committee has done what is possible in assessing progress but with the understanding that in some areas there are not well-defined targets and committee judgment has been used. The situation is not dissimilar to that during the Phase 1 review, from which the committee’s recommendations helped to focus some of the 21CTP efforts; the committee anticipates that the current
15 Ken Howden, DOE, “FY2012 Budget Request,” presentation to the committee, March 31, 2011, Washington, D.C.
report recommendations also will help the Partnership with its focus over the next few years.
The role of the federal government in R&D varies depending on the administration and the Congress and the issues that they deem important for the nation to address. An extensive economics literature on the subject points to the importance of R&D to promote technical innovation, especially for research for which the private sector finds it difficult to capture the returns on its investment; this is especially true for basic research, the results of which can be broadly used. Such innovation, if successful, can foster economic growth and productivity, with improvements in the standard of living (Bernanke, 2011). Furthermore, in the energy area, the government generally has to confront issues of national security, environmental quality, or energy affordability. Many of these issues are addressed through policy initiatives or regulations, which place a burden on private firms to achieve. Thus there is a role for the federal government in supporting R&D not only to help the private sector achieve these policy goals but also to help U.S. firms remain competitive in the face of international competition.
The committee believes that the federal government plays an important role in the development of technologies that can help to address government policies and regulations aimed at reducing emissions and fuel consumption from medium- and heavy-duty vehicles. There are similar reasons for the government playing a role in R&D for light-duty vehicles as well. Such partnerships as the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles, the FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership (which is now being replaced by U.S. DRIVE), and the 21CTP are examples of public-private efforts to support R&D and to develop advanced technologies for vehicles (NRC, 2001, 2010a,b). These partnerships generally include a variety of efforts (fundamental research, development, demonstration, and in some cases deployment). The federal government can support fundamental research through the national laboratories, and universities and industry can focus on development. The importance of having government-industry collaboration is that the private sector can help to transform improvements from research into cost-effective and marketable products. Generally, the contracting that is engaged in with the private sector is cost-shared, and those research contracts more closely associated with fundamental or basic research will have a majority of federal funding, whereas contracts with a strong development or product component will have significant support from the private sector. In its recommendations in each of the technical areas, the committee has considered what activities are most appropriate for the 21CTP to support. Implicit in all the recommendations that relate to the support of additional research, the committee believes that the federal government has a role in the R&D.
The committee held meetings to collect information through presentations on 21CTP activities by representatives of the four federal agencies involved in the Partnership, as well as individuals outside the program (see Appendix B for a list of the presenters and their topics). During the NRC Phase 1 review, the 21CTP had developed a roadmap and a series of white papers on the main technical areas that the Partnership had focused on (DOE, 2006); during the current, Phase 2 review the 21CTP was in the process of modifying these white papers. The white papers were very important to the committee in its information-gathering activities, because they provided the strategy, goals, and technical challenges from the viewpoint of the 21CTP for each of the technical areas under review. Drafts of the white papers were submitted to the committee in September 2010 (DOE, 2010c); updated versions were provided in March 2011 (DOE, 2011). A draft of a white paper for the new area, efficient operations, was submitted to the committee in March 2011. The committee provides feedback and suggestions to the 21CTP on this white paper in Chapter 9 of the present report.
To obtain clarifications on some aspects of the 21CTP, the committee sent written questions to 21CTP representatives and received very helpful answers in response. The committee also made site visits to Cummins Technical Center; Navistar Inc. Truck Development and Technology Center; Eaton Corporation’s Eaton Innovation Center; EPA; Oak Ridge National Laboratory; and the U.S. Army Tank Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center (TARDEC); each of the organizations visited are undertaking R&D under the 21CTP. The committee’s findings and recommendations are based on the information gathered during the study and on the expertise and knowledge of committee members.
Following is an overview of the topics covered in the rest of this report. Chapter 2 addresses the overall management strategy and priority setting of the Partnership. Chapter 3 addresses various engine programs at the DOE, the EPA, and DOD, discusses fuels and aftertreatment research, health-related research, high-temperature propulsion materials, as well as the High Temperature Materials Laboratory, a user facility run by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Chapter 4 focuses on hybrid vehicles. Chapter 5 addresses vehicle power demands, which are referred to by many as parasitic losses; they represent the power needed to overcome such resistive forces as aerodynamics, rolling resistance, and friction losses in the drivetrain, or to power auxiliary systems on a vehicle. Chapter 6 addresses idle reduction technologies for reducing fuel consumption and emissions during truck idle time. Chapter 7 deals with safety, which is mostly under the initiatives in the DOT. Chapter 8 addresses the newly established SuperTruck efforts that are focused on three major project teams. Finally, Chapter 9 offers some guidance on a new area for the 21CTP, efficient operations.
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 the list of recommendations from the Phase 1 NRC report as well as the 21CTP responses to them. Appendixes D through I provide some background material for various chapters, including a list of abbreviations and acronyms used in the report.
Bernanke, B.S. 2011. Promoting Research and Development: The Government’s Role. Issues in Science and Technology. A publication of the National Academies and the University of Texas-Dallas. Summer. Available at http://www.issues.org/27.4/.
BP. 2011. BP Statistical Review of World Energy. June. Available at bp.com/statisticalreview. Accessed July 13, 2011.
Davis, S., S. Diegel, and R.G. Boundy. 2009. Transportation Energy Data Book, Edition 28. Report No. ORNL-6984. Knoxville, Tenn.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
Davis, S., S. Diegel, and R.G. Boundy. 2010. Transportation Energy Data Book, Edition 29. Report No. ORNL-6985. Knoxville, Tenn.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 2006. 21st Century Truck Partnership Roadmap and Technical White Papers. Doc. No. 21CTP-003. December. Washington, D.C.: Office of FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies.
DOE. 2007. FY 2008 Congressional Budget Request.Vol. 3, Office of Chief Financial Officer. Doc. No. DOE/CF-016. Washington, D.C. February.
DOE. 2010a. Office of Vehicle Technologies, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy website. Available at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/about/partnerships/21centurytruck/21ct_goals.html. Accessed October 4, 2010.
DOE. 2010b. Office of Vehicle Technologies, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy website. Available at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/about/partnerships/21centurytruck/index.html. Accessed October 4, 2010.
DOE. 2010c. Updated 21st Century Truck Partnership Roadmap and Technical White Papers. Working draft, September 1, 2010. Washington, D.C.: Office of Vehicle Technologies.
DOE. 2010d. Engine Systems White Paper. Working draft, September 1. Washington, D.C.: Office of Vehicle Technologies.
DOE. 2011. Updated 21st Century Truck Partnership Technical White Papers. Working draft, February 25, 2011. Washington, D.C.: Office of Vehicle Technologies.
DOE, FCVT (DOE, FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies). 2006. FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies Program, Multi-Year Program Plan: 2006-2011. Washington, D.C.: DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
Ehlmann, J., and G. Wolff. 2005. Automobile Emissions—The Road Toward Zero. Pittsburgh, Pa.: Air and Waste Management Association. January.
EIA (Energy Information Administration). 2010. AEO [Annual Energy Outlook] 2011. Early Release Overview. December 16. Available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/forecasts/aeo/. Accessed January 15, 2011.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2010. Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2008. Report No. EPA 430-R-10-006. April 15. Available at http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads10/US-GHG-Inventory-2010_Report.pdf.
EPA/NHTSA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/National Highway Traffic Safety Administration). 2010. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles. Dockets No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162 and No. NHTSA-2010-0079, October 25, 2010. Available at http://www.regulations.gov. Accessed November 15, 2010.
EPA/DOT NHTSA. 2011. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles, Final Rules, September 15, 2011. Available at http://www.nhtsa.gov/fuel-economy.
Johnson, J.H. 1988. Automotive Emissions. Pp. 39-46 in Air Pollution, the Automobile, and Public Health. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
NAS-NAE-NRC (National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, National Research Council). 2009a. America’s Energy Future: Real Prospects for Energy Efficiency in the United States. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.
NAS-NAE-NRC. 2009b. Liquid Transportation Fuels from Coal and Biomass: Technological Status, Costs, and Environmental Impacts. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.
Newell, R. 2010. Annual Energy Outlook 2011 Reference Case. Presented at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, December 16. Washington, D.C. Available at http://www.eia.gov/neic/speeches/newell_12162010.pdf. Accessed December 18, 2010.
NRC (National Research Council). 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.
NRC. 2008. Review of the 21st Century Truck Partnership. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.
NRC. 2010a. Technologies and Approaches to Reducing the Fuel Consumption of Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.
NRC. 2010b. Review of the Research Program of the FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership, Third Report. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.