1

Introduction and Background

INTRODUCTION

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).



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © 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 9
1 Introduction and Background INTRODUCTION terms, to “reduce fuel usage and emissions while increasing heavy vehicle safety” (DOE, 2010a). The 21CTP vision In July 2010, the National Research Council (NRC) is “that our nation’s trucks and buses will safely and cost- appointed the Committee to Review the 21st Century Truck effectively move larger volumes of freight and greater Partnership, Phase 2, to conduct an independent review of numbers of passengers while emitting little or no pollution the 21st Century Truck Partnership (21CTP). The results of and dramatically reducing the dependency on foreign oil” the review are presented in this report. This Phase 2 review (DOE, 2010b). follows on the original review of the Partnership by the NRC, conducted in 2007 and resulting in what is referred The Partnership addresses the following “national impera- to in this report as the NRC Phase 1 report, issued in 2008 tives”: (NRC, 2008).1 The Partnership’s responses to the recom- (a) Transportation in America supports the growth of our mendations in the Phase 1 report are contained in Appendix nation’s economy both nationally and globally. (b) Our C of the present report. nation’s transportation system supports the country’s goal The 21CTP is a cooperative research and development of energy security. (c) Transportation in our country is clean, safe, secure, and sustainable. (d) America’s mili- (R&D) partnership including four federal agencies (the U.S. tary has an agile, well-equipped, efficient force capable of Department of Energy [DOE], the U.S. Department of Trans- rapid deployment and sustainment anywhere in the world. portation [DOT], the U.S. Department of Defense [DOD], (e) Our nation’s transportation system is compatible with and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]), and a dedicated concern for the environment (DOE, 2010b). 15 industrial partners (Allison Transmission, ArvinMeritor, BAE Systems, Caterpillar, Cummins Inc., Daimler Trucks This report builds on the NRC Phase 1 review and report North America [which includes Freightliner], Detroit Diesel and also, as part of its charge, comments on changes and Corporation [DDC], Eaton Corporation, Honeywell Interna- progress that have occurred since the Phase 1 report was tional, Navistar, Mack Trucks, NovaBUS, Oshkosh Truck, issued in 2008. The strategic approach of the Partnership PACCAR, and Volvo Trucks North America). The Partner- includes the following elements as laid out in the 2006 ship was formed in 2000 and announced on April 21, 2001, 21CTP roadmap (DOE, 2006, 2010b): in a press event in Romulus, Michigan.2 The Partnership is a means of coordinating ongoing • Develop and implement an integrated vehicle systems activities at the various agencies and private-sector compa- research and development approach that validates and nies to contribute to national goals that are, in the broadest deploys advanced technology necessary for both com- mercial and military trucks and buses to meet the afore- mentioned national imperatives. 1 The chair, John H. Johnson, of the NRC committee for the Phase 1 • Promote research for engines, powertrains, combustion, review testified before the Energy and Environmental Subcommittee of the exhaust aftertreatment, fuels, and advanced materials to U.S. House of Representatives, on March 9, 2009. This subcommittee of the achieve both significantly higher efficiency and lower Committee on Science and Technology developed H.R. 3246, the Advanced emissions. Vehicle Technologies Act of 2009, which passed the House on September • Promote research focused on advanced heavy-duty hybrid 11, 2009. Senator Debbie Stabenow introduced a companion bill in the propulsion systems that will reduce energy consumption Senate on December 7, 2009, but the bill was not passed by the Senate. and pollutant emissions. 2 For further details of the history, see DOE (2006) and NRC (2000, • Promote research to reduce vehicle power demands (also 2008). 9

OCR for page 9
10 REVIEW OF THE 21ST CENTURY TRUCK PARTNERSHIP, SECOND REPORT Review of World Energy also shows an increase in world referred to as parasitic losses) to achieve significantly reduced energy consumption. oil consumption of 3.1 percent from 2009 to 2010, reach- • Promote the development of technologies to improve ing a level of 87.4 million barrels per day (bbl/day), and an truck safety, resulting in the reduction of fatalities and increase in U.S. oil consumption of 2 percent, reaching 19.1 injuries in truck-involved crashes. million bbl/day (BP, 2011). As a consequence, the United • Promote the development and deployment of technolo- States is pursuing alternative sources of fuel and attempting gies that substantially reduce energy consumption and to increase efficiency in oil usage. exhaust emissions during idling. The issue of energy security with regard to petroleum • Promote the validation, demonstration, and deployment not only entails the economic concerns noted above but of advanced truck and bus technologies, and grow their also is framed in terms of the U.S. dependence on imported reliability sufficient for adoption in the commercial mar- petroleum. Oil use in the United States has varied during ketplace. 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 As is discussed in more detail in this report, the Partner- this petroleum is used in the transportation sector, and about ship has been evolving and making some changes since the 25 percent of that is used for MHDVs. Regarding gasoline Phase 1 review. For example, the 2006 roadmap has been consumption, EIA (2010) projects that total transportation revised and updated, and a series of technical white papers fuel use will grow between 2009 and 2035 but that total that supported the 2006 roadmap have also undergone revi- U.S. gasoline consumption will remain at about 9 million sions (DOE, 2010c, 2011). The committee reviewed these bbl/day from 2009 to 2035: these projections include the updated documents as part of the Phase 2 review. phasing in of new fuel economy regulations for light-duty vehicles by 2016 as discussed in the next section (EIA, NATIONAL CONCERNS 2010; Newell, 2010; see Figure 1-1). Total U.S. diesel fuel consumption, much of which is consumed by MHDVs, is The federal government, including the DOE, has addressed projected to change from about 3.42 million bbl/day in 2009 in varying degrees the economic, energy security, and envi- to almost 4.5 million bbl/day in 2035. Fuel consumption by ronmental aspects of energy supply, distribution, and use for heavy-duty vehicles is projected to increase substantially in many decades, and the focus of efforts has changed from time the United States as well as worldwide, and consumption to time. In recent years all three areas have had increasing by heavy-duty vehicles (Classes 6, 7, and 8; see the section attention by the administration and the Congress, given the below on “Classes and Use Categories of Trucks and Buses”) rapid rise in energy prices in the 2007-2008 period, the severe consumption is expected to increase between 2010 and 2035 recession of the past few years, the involvement in wars in by 40 percent.3,4 Thus, in round numbers, assuming an oil the Middle East and the importance of that region for global price of $100/bbl, expenditures for diesel fuel alone would oil supplies, and the attention to the environmental issue be on the order of $125 billion per year in the United States. of global climate change. In addition, because of concerns The 21CTP is focused on reducing the fuel usage of about air quality and human health, a number of regulations heavy-duty vehicles, which consume about 25 percent of the have been passed over the years leading to more stringent petroleum currently used in the transportation sector, and the exhaust emissions standards for both light-duty vehicles expected 40 percent increase in consumption by heavy-duty (cars, vans, and light trucks) and medium- and heavy-duty vehicles between 2010 and 2035. That usage is in contrast vehicles (MHDVs). to light-duty vehicle consumption, which is expected to The economic concerns related to energy supply and remain relatively unchanged. EIA (2010), in its liquid fuels energy use are generally framed in the language of afford- projections, includes increasing the use of biofuels, which ability for the individual consumer as well as the impact somewhat dampens the demand for petroleum-based fuels. on the U.S. economy from high energy prices and/or short- EIA (2010) projects net petroleum imports to change from ages. In recent years, not only have high energy prices been about 8.97 million bbl/day in 2009 to 8.52 million bbl/day experienced but also there seems to be increased volatility in in 2035, whereas total liquid fuels use (including the use of 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 dur- 3 P. Davis, DOE, “U.S. Department of Energy Vehicle Technologies ing the past decade, mainly owing to rapid economic growth Program Overview,” Presentation to the committee, September 8, 2010, around the world. Nevertheless, even though the recent reces- Washington, D.C. sion has moderated U.S. demand for imported oil, the Energy 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 Information Administration (EIA, 2010) forecasts that the was issued October 26, 2010. Final standards issued by the U.S. Environ - nation will continue to be highly dependent on imported oil. mental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Transportation If global oil prices rise rapidly again because of supply-and- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) on September demand imbalances, future prices of oil will likely continue 15, 2011, will apply to model year 2014 (EPA/NHTSA, 2011). EIA’s Annual to put a strain on the U.S. economy. BP’s recent Statistical Energy Outlook 2010 projections do not include such standards.

OCR for page 9
11 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 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 con- sumption 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 sec- FIGURE 1-1 Trends in actual and projected U.S. transportation fuel tor is a key area for consideration and policy focus, and the use, 1995-2035. SOURCE: EIA (2010); Newell (2010). medium- and heavy-duty vehicle component significant. The 1-1.eps 21CTP can play an important role is this regard. bitmap biofuels) for transportation goes from about 13.5 million bbl/day in 2009 to 16.38 million bbl/day in 2035. Although RECENT POLICY INITIATIVES the dependence on petroleum imports in these forecasts is The economic and policy environment outside the DOE somewhat ameliorated compared to recent trends, significant continues to change, and various external initiatives and poli- import dependence remains. cies can affect the DOE and specifically the Partnership: such Added to the concern over high-priced oil and energy developments that may affect the Partnership have continued security is the concern regarding global warming. Nations to emerge since the publication of the NRC Phase 1 report around the world are beginning to exert more stringent control (NRC, 2008). The control of emissions from the engines over human-made emissions, especially greenhouse gases of heavy-duty trucks with gross vehicle weight (GVW) (GHGs) such as carbon dioxide (CO2). Numerous discussions over 8,500 pounds (lb) began in 1973 in California and in have taken place in Congress about climate change, and many 1974 in the United States as a whole. The federal standards pieces of climate change legislation have been proposed. were harmonized with California standards beginning with The consumption of petroleum in the U.S. transportation model year (MY) 2004, and stringent emissions standards sector accounted for about 1.81 billion metric tons of CO2- for heavy-duty diesel engines came into effect, as noted in equivalent (CO2-eq) emissions in 2009, about 33 percent of the previous section, in the 2007-2010 time period. These total U.S. CO2-eq emissions from the burning of fuels. EIA increasingly stringent engine emissions standards were an (2010) forecasts that CO2-eq emissions from petroleum in important driver for R&D for engine, emissions control, the transportation sector in 2035 will be about 2.065 billion and fuels.5 Reaching low emissions of hydrocarbons (HCs), metric tons, about 33 percent of the projected U.S. total emis- carbon monoxide (CO), NOx, and PM in terms of grams per sions of 6.32 billion metric tons of CO2-eq emissions from brake horsepower-hour (g/bhp-h) was a significant challenge the burning of fuels. The EPA estimates that medium- and if fuel consumption was constrained to not increase. The heavy-duty trucks and buses accounted for about 22 percent changes in U.S. emission standards over time are presented of CO2-eq emissions from the transportation sector in 2008 in Figure 1-2 (DOE, 2010c, d). (EPA, 2010). Consequently, the transportation sector and the With the increasing concern in Congress and the adminis- significant portion of that sector that is composed of MHDVs tration about energy security and greenhouse gas emissions, are important to any policies that are aimed at reducing numerous actions are taking place that will create incentives greenhouse gas emissions. Thus, for the foreseeable future, for technology development for vehicles as well as improve there will be pressure to control and reduce greenhouse gas the operational efficiency of managing the movement of emissions. One approach to addressing such emissions is to freight in the United States (e.g., through driver education, use fuel more efficiently; another is to use fuels that emit less longer combination vehicles, reducing congestion, etc.). CO2 than petroleum-based fuels do. Although the National Highway Traffic Safety Administra- Both the limited availability of oil and the additional tion (NHTSA) has regulatory authority over fuel economy pressures to reduce CO2 emissions will have a profound standards for vehicles, the EPA has the authority to regulate impact on automotive vehicles worldwide. In addition, as CO2 and other greenhouse gases as air pollutants under the briefly discussed in the next section, the United States is Clean Air Act, thus empowering the EPA to regulate vehicle 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 5 A summary review of these emissions standards and changes can be consumption and exhaust emissions. Light-duty vehicle found in the NRC Phase 1 report, Chapter 1 (NRC, 2008), as well as in manufacturers have already made significant improvements references in this chapter (Ehlmann and Wolff, 2005; Johnson, 1988).

OCR for page 9
12 REVIEW OF THE 21ST CENTURY TRUCK PARTNERSHIP, SECOND REPORT ted 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 Rule- making, 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.) FIGURE 1-2 Historical trends in emission standards for new diesel 1-2.eps The NRC (2010a) report and the NHTSA’s and EPA’s engines, 1970-2010. SOURCE: DOE (2010c,d). bitmap 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 CO2 emissions, which are directly related to vehicle fuel con- sumption measures. Following the announcement6 in May DOE and the Partnership will be important in promoting technology development and helping to realize more efficient 2009 of the President’s National Fuel Efficiency Policy, the vehicles. Again, as with LDVs, these standards and attention NHTSA and EPA have promulgated nationally coordinated to reducing fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions standards for tailpipe CO2-eq emissions and fuel economy will stimulate R&D on advanced technologies for reducing for light-duty vehicles (LDVs)—which include both pas- fuel consumption for MHDVs. senger cars and light-duty trucks. Since the 1970s, Congress has supported legislation that The initial harmonized standards will affect MY 2012 requires increasing the production of fuels from renewable, LDVs, and compliance requirements will increase in stringency bio-based sources and other alternative fuels as part of efforts to through MY 2016, building on the NHTSA’s enacted corporate reduce petroleum-based fuel consumption. The EISA of 2007 average fuel economy (CAFE) standard for MY 2011. The includes a subtitle that amended the Renewable Fuels Standard NHTSA has estimated the impact of the new CAFE standards contained in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005) and and has projected that the proposed fleetwide standards for increased the volumes of renewable fuels to be phased in to the LDVs will increase fuel economy from 27.3 miles per gallon fuel supply substantially. The mandated volumes of renewable (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 fuels to be used begin with 9 billion gallons in 2008 and reach 36 billion gallons in 2022. These fuels are anticipated to include a Notice of Intent and Technical Assessment Report for fuel corn-based ethanol, cellulosic-based ethanol, and biodiesel economy and GHG regulations for LDVs for the 2017-2025 time period to raise the fuel economy levels beyond these.8 made from vegetable oils (e.g., from soybeans), animal fats, and cellulose. Much R&D is occurring to develop, demon- With regard to MHDVs, the Energy Independence and strate, and commercialize the advanced biofuels that would be Security Act (EISA) of 2007 (Public Law No. 110-140) made from cellulose, but costs and technology performance are directed the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to con- still uncertain (NAS-NAE-NRC, 2009b). duct a study on the potential for technologies to reduce fuel Thus, the national landscape has shifted strongly toward consumption for such vehicles, and it directed the NHTSA addressing the nation’s dependence on petroleum imports as to promulgate, for the first time ever, fuel economy standards well as emissions of greenhouse gases. The role of the public for such vehicles. The NAS completed this task and submit- sector—through advanced R&D, and especially in partner- ing with the private sector, where the ultimate decisions will 6 See President Obama’s National Fuel Efficiency Policy at http://www. be made to deploy and commercialize new technology—is whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/president-obama-directs-administration- an important complement to these regulatory, market-pull create-first-ever-national-efficiency-and-em. 7 Note that this standard addresses CO -eq emissions so that manufactur- requirements. In this vein, the Partnership’s role in fostering 2 ers have some other means of receiving credits for reducing these emissions technology that can reduce fuel consumption by medium- such as reducing hydrofluorocarbons in air-conditioning systems or using and heavy-duty vehicles has gained in importance since the alternative fuels. If manufacturers only rely on reductions in vehicle fuel NRC Phase 1 review. 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. 8 S ee http://www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHTSA/Press+Releases/2010/ DOT+and+EPA+Announce+Next+Steps+toward+Tighter+Tailpipe+and+ 9 See http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/rulemaking/pdf/cafe/CAFE_2014- Fuel+Economy+Standards+for+Passenger+Cars+and+Trucks. Accessed October 15, 2010. 18_Trucks_FactSheet-v1.pdf. Accessed December 15, 2010.

OCR for page 9
13 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OVERVIEW OF THE 21ST CENTURY TRUCK MHDV applications.10 There is some overlap between work PARTNERSHIP: AREAS OF INTEREST AND that is done for LDVs and MHDVs—for example, in such ORGANIZATION areas as the understanding and modeling of advances in combustion, advances in lightweight materials, or advances As a means of providing focus and a set of goals and in electrochemistry and battery technologies—and such objectives for the Partnership as a whole, the Partnership overlapping areas are all managed under the Office of Vehicle developed a roadmap and supporting technical white papers Technologies to support both LDV and MHDV technologies, (DOE, 2006). The roadmap with supporting background as appropriate. Consequently, advances made in technical was reviewed during the NRC Phase 1 review and included areas that are characterized and budgeted as part of the U.S. a strategic vision, as well as a discussion of benefits of the DRIVE could benefit MHDVs. program and the description of five main technical areas that The DOE also contracts work out to the private sector and the Partnership focused on, namely: (1) engine systems, (2) involves the 21CTP industry partners. As noted in the previ- hybrid propulsion, (3) parasitic losses, (4) idle reduction, ous section and discussed later in the report, for example, and (5) safety (DOE, 2006). The 21CTP established goals the DOE has awarded contracts to industry to address many for each of these areas, and a fuller description of the five aspects of reducing the fuel consumption of long-haul trucks. areas was included in the NRC Phase 1 report as well as an The EPA also has development work on hydraulic hybrid evaluation of progress toward the goals (NRC, 2008). technologies for some classes of trucks and also funds work Since the NRC Phase 1 review, the Partnership has on combustion. It also works with the private sector and revised the roadmap and supporting white papers and goals promotes and provides information on various technologies (DOE, 2010c, 2011). The technical areas covered by the for the reduction of fuel consumption and of greenhouse white papers are substantially the same, but there are some gas emissions through its SmartWay program. The DOD changes. The technical areas include (1) engine systems; (2) also is very interested in improving the fuel efficiency and hybrid propulsion; (3) vehicle power demands, previously reducing the fuel consumption of its noncombat vehicles; for called parasitic losses, which included, for example, aerody - combat vehicles it is interested in increased power density namics, tire rolling resistance, and other areas; (4) idle reduc- and low heat rejection. The DOT is focused on safety issues, tion; (5) safety; and (6) efficient operations, which is a new including the use of advanced technology and regulations area that addresses the system of trucks and their operation that can improve highway safety, as well as the overall for the efficient delivery of goods. These areas and the asso- system and infrastructure for moving freight efficiently and ciated goals are discussed in further detail in the remaining economically. chapters of this report. In addition, three major cost-shared contracts were awarded in the April through September 2010 Lines of Authority time frame to carry out R&D and demonstrate for a complete tractor-trailer a freight efficiency improvement of 50 percent The Partnership was originally under the leadership of the in ton-miles per gallon of fuel. DOD (the U.S. Army Tank-Automotive Research and Devel- opment Command). In November 2002, that authority passed to the DOE (DOE, FCVT, 2006, pp. 4-7), specifically to the Activities of the Partners Office of FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies (which is now called the Office of Vehicle Technologies). The DOE’s Office of Vehicle Technologies, which is The other agencies associate their own existing programs within its Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy that are relevant to the goals of the 21CTP under the 21CTP (EERE), has the primary role in the department for pursuing umbrella, so the DOE has little influence over the research the development of advanced vehicle technologies both for programs of its DOT, DOD, and EPA partners. The other LDVs and MHDVs. The LDV activities are included in what factor that makes budgets and projects involved in the 21CTP was the FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership (FCFP), which unclear is that the different agencies receive their budget is now the U.S. DRIVE (Driving, Research, and Innovation appropriations from different committees in Congress. Thus, for Vehicle efficiency and Energy sustainability) program; there is no central, overall management over 21CTP budgets the medium- and heavy-duty activities are included in the and accountability. DOE staff organize meetings and confer- 21CTP. The FCFP and U.S. DRIVE programs include work ence calls, maintain the information-flow infrastructure (such on combustion and emissions control, fuel cells, hydrogen as websites and e-mail lists), and have led the discussions storage, batteries, lightweight materials, and power elec- for and preparation of the updated 21CTP Roadmap and tronics. In terms of budgets, the LDV program activities Technical White Papers (DOE, 2010c) laying out Partner- 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, 10 P. Davis, DOE, “U.S. Department of Energy Vehicle Technologies the budget of the Office of Vehicle Technologies was about Program Overview,” presentation to the committee, September 8, 2010, $311 million, of which about $38.5 million was devoted to Washington, D.C.

OCR for page 9
14 REVIEW OF THE 21ST CENTURY TRUCK PARTNERSHIP, SECOND REPORT Classes and Use Categories of Trucks and Buses ship goals. The management of individual projects under the 21CTP umbrella rests with the individual federal agencies Industry classifies trucks and buses by weight, based on that have funded the work. These agencies use the 21CTP the vehicle’s Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR), or on information-sharing infrastructure to coordinate efforts and the maximum in-service weight set by the manufacturer, to ensure that valuable research results are communicated or—in the trucking industry—on the gross vehicle weight and that any overlap of activities among their respective (GVW) plus the average cargo weight. The use categories efforts is reduced. of vehicles are not as well defined as the weight classes are; According to the official Roadmap and Technical White they depend on widely varying industry usage. For example, Papers of the 21CTP (DOE, 2006, p. 6): the same vehicle may be called heavy-duty by one segment of the industry and medium-duty by another. DOE has been assigned to lead the federal R&D component Figure 1-3 gives an idea of the variety of medium- and of this program because of the close alignment of the stated heavy-duty vehicles to which developments in the 21CTP 21st Century Truck Program goals and research objectives could be applied. It is based on the DOT classification system with DOE’s mission “to foster a secure and reliable energy using a truck’s GVWR. The DOE Transportation Energy system that is environmentally and economically sustain- Data Book (Davis et al., 2009, Table 5.7) developed informa- able….” Since early 1996, DOE’s FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies Program (and predecessor offices), in collabo- tion on vehicle weight classification, as did the NRC (2010a) ration with trucking industry partners and their suppliers, has report on medium- and heavy-duty vehicles. In general: been funding and conducting a customer-focused program to research and develop technologies that will enable trucks, • Class 1 and 2 vehicles lighter than 10,000 lb are con- buses, and other heavy vehicles to be more energy-efficient sidered light trucks, such as pickups, small vans, and and able to use alternative fuels while simultaneously re- sport utility vehicles. They are generally spark-ignited, ducing emissions. DOT brings to this program its mission- gasoline-fueled internal combustion engines, and oriented intelligent transportation systems and highway more than 80 percent are for personal use. This class transportation safety programs. DOD, as a major owner and of vehicle up to about 8,500 lb comes under CAFE operator of trucks, will define the military mission perfor- requirements for cars. Class 2 trucks with GVWR mance requirements and will fund appropriate dual-use and above 8,500 lb are similar to Class 3 trucks. Class 2B military-specific technologies so that national security will benefit by innovations resulting from this Program. R&D trucks (8,500 to 10,000 lb GVWR) include pickup will be closely coordinated with EPA so that critical vehicle trucks, sport utility vehicles, and large vans. emissions control breakthroughs cost-effectively address • Classes 3 through 6 are medium- and heavy-duty the increasingly stringent future EPA standards needed to vehicles with single rear axles and use either gasoline- improve the nation’s air quality. FIGURE 1-3 Illustrations of typical vehicles in the various weight classes. 1-3.eps bitmap

OCR for page 9
15 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND TABLE 1-1 Summary of Annual Miles and Fuel Use for Different Classes of Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles in the United States Based on 2002 Survey Data U.S. Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicle Population, Mileage and Fuel Use by Weight Class Population Annual Miles Annual Fuel Use % of % of Annual Vehicle Size (millions) (million miles) (million gallons) Population Miles % of Fuel Use 5.800 76,700 5,500 52.8 35.1 19.3 Class 2B 0.691 9,744 928 6.3 4.5 3.3 Class 3 0.291 4,493 529 2.6 2.1 1.9 Class 4 0.166 1,939 245 1.5 0.9 0.9 Class 5 1.710 21,662 3,095 15.6 9.9 10.0 Class 6 0.180 5,521 863 1.6 2.5 3.0 Class 7 2.154 98,522 17,284 19.6 45.1 60.8 Class 8 Total 10.992 218,580 28,444 100 100 100 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. Bureau has not conducted a VIUS since 2002, so these are or diesel-fueled engines; their GVWs are from 10,000 the latest survey data available. Note that Class 8, which to 26,000 lb. includes tractor-trailers, represents about 20 percent of the • Classes 7 and 8 are heavy-duty vehicles, using primar- fleet in total number of vehicles, but 61 percent of the fuel ily diesel engines. use in all heavy-duty vehicles. Note that Class 2B, Class 6, • Class 8 combination trucks have a tractor and one or and Class 8 together account for more than 90 percent of the more trailers and a gross combined weight (GCW) of total fuel use for MHDVs (NRC, 2010a). up to 80,000 lb, with higher weights allowed in specific circumstances. PROPOSED FUEL CONSUMPTION AND Some vehicle classifications used by the EPA and the GREENHOUSE GAS REGULATIONS FOR California Air Resources Board (CARB) for emissions MEDIUM- AND HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES regulations differ from those of the DOT and Figure 1-3. As noted in this chapter, the EPA and NHTSA issued There is great variety among MHDVs. Examples of Class 7-8 final standards on September 15, 2011, for GHG emissions vehicles include box trucks, refuse trucks, utility vehicles, and fuel efficiency standards for medium- and heavy-duty buses, dump trucks, cement trucks, tractor trailers, and many engines and vehicles. These standards will be phased in others. and apply to model years 2014 to 2018 and are tailored to each of three main regulatory categories of vehicles: (1) ANNUAL MILES AND FUEL CONSUMPTION BY combination tractors, commonly known as semi-trucks that VEHICLE WEIGHT CLASSES typically pull trailers (Classes 7 and 8), although the agencies are not regulating trailers; (2) heavy-duty pickup trucks and As noted, there is a wide variety of medium- and heavy- vans (Classes 2b and 3); and (3) vocational vehicles, which duty vehicles. They are used in different applications—from comprise a very wide variety of truck and bus types (Classes refuse trucks that stop and go constantly and operate at low 2b through 8).11 speeds, to long-haul tractor-trailers that spend much of their The final rules for vocational vehicles and combination time at highway speeds. In addition, the numbers of trucks tractors, which are semi trucks that typically pull trailers, of different classes vary greatly. Consequently, the number of have separate fuel consumption standards for vehicles and miles and fuel used vary greatly, depending on the applica- engines. Standards for fuel consumption of tractors are tion and the type of vehicle. Table 1-1 presents a summary expressed in gallons per 1,000 ton-miles and in gallons/100 for the United States of the approximate annual miles and bhp-hr for engines (EPA/NHTSA, 2011). The standards for 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 11 The variety of vocational vehicles include delivery, refuse, utility dump, Survey (VIUS). According to Davis et al. (2010), the Census cement, shuttle bus, school bus, emergency vehicles, and others.

OCR for page 9
16 REVIEW OF THE 21ST CENTURY TRUCK PARTNERSHIP, SECOND REPORT Class 7 and 8 tractor fuel consumption are voluntary for 2014 these reductions affected the FY 2011 funding for individual and 2015 model years and become mandatory in the 2016 R&D areas for the DOE’s part of 21CTP was unknown. model year. The new combination tractor standards for the As noted in the NRC Phase 1 report, the challenge of 2017 model year reflect additional improvements in only the analyzing multiagency partnerships is underscored by the heavy-duty engines. The final standards will achieve from 9 fact that no one can tell the committee how much the vari- to 23 percent reduction in fuel consumption from affected ous non-DOE parts of the 21CTP spend on their activities. tractors compared to the 2010 baselines. Even the DOE parts are clouded by proprietary restrictions Vocational truck (Classes 2b through 8) standards are imposed by industrial partners. There are also other programs also expressed in gallons per 1,000 ton-miles and are set in the DOE in addition to the technical R&D areas listed in separately for light heavy-duty (Class 2b through 5), medium Table 1-2 that can be leveraged to promote advanced tech- heavy-duty (Class 6-7), and heavy heavy-duty (Class 8). The nologies for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles. For example, agencies are regulating chassis manufacturers. Achieving the Clean Cities Deployment Program, which provides standards for vocational vehicles is limited to tire technolo- funding for demonstration vehicles, also received more than gies for reduced rolling resistance and engine improvements. $90 million in funding from the American Recovery and The standards allow vocational truck manufacturers to quan- Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA, or the Stimulus Program) tify improvements due to hybrid powertrains as a means for for such activities. compliance. The fuel consumption standards for vocational The ARRA has injected a significant amount of funding vehicles represent reductions from 6 to 9 percent compared into activities, including R&D, on vehicles. Although this to a 2010 baseline. funding is a “one-shot” infusion and is not included as part The fuel consumption standards for heavy-duty pickups of the congressional appropriations of each of the agencies, and vans (Class 2b and 3) are expressed in gallons/100 miles it has allowed the initiation of a number of both LDV and with separate standards for gasoline-fueled and diesel-fueled MHDV activities that can help to promote technologies for vehicles. The EPA and NHTSA expect industry to apply reducing fuel consumption. For example, approximately $2.8 similar technologies as the 2012-2016 light-duty vehicle billion was provided to accelerate the manufacturing and program, but adapted to heavy-duty applications. The stan- deployment of the next generation of U.S. batteries ($1.5 bil- dards are fleetwide corporate average standards as in the case lion), to manufacture electric-drive components ($500 mil- lion), and for transportation electrification ($400 million).13 for light-duty vehicles. The fuel consumption standards are voluntary in 2014 and 2015. The final standards represent Such efforts, for example, can help to promote the more rapid an average per-vehicle improvement in fuel consumption of development of battery technologies and to stimulate the 15 percent for diesel vehicles and 10 percent for gasoline demonstration and deployment of hybrid vehicles. vehicles, compared to a common baseline. ARRA funding also allowed a solicitation to be announced and funded called Systems Level Technology Development, Integration, and Demonstration for Efficient Class 8 Trucks BUDGET TRENDS OF THE 21ST CENTURY (SuperTruck) and Advanced Technology Powertrains for TRUCK PARTNERSHIP Light-Duty Vehicles (ATP-LD). The heavy-vehicle part of The 21CTP itself has only a small research budget at the this solicitation has a goal “to develop and demonstrate a DOE, and that had been diminishing during the past few 50-percent improvement in overall freight efficiency on a years, although the FY 2011 level is about $37 million (see heavy-duty Class 8 tractor-trailer measured in ton-miles per gallon.”14 Three contracts were awarded in response to Table 1-2). Table 1-2 shows congressional appropriations to the heavy-vehicle R&D activities at the DOE from FY 1999 this solicitation: the total funding for these contracts was through FY 2010 and the DOE budget request for FY 2011. about $115 million, with about $100 million associated with These appropriations have represented a declining proportion ARRA funding for two of the contracts (see Chapter 8). of the total of both the LDV and the heavy-duty vehicle fund- In the part of the 21CTP program that is administered by ing from the Office of Vehicle Technologies. This trend was the DOE/EERE, for example, the total appropriation each also noted in presentations to the NRC Phase 1 review.12 In year is divided on the basis of the several “technical areas” addition to the DOE, the other three agencies have their own, of the DOE/EERE, which correspond to engines, light- separate budgets that are associated with the Partnership. At weighting, idle reduction, and so on. In addition, the DOE/ the time of this review, the budget resolution in April 2011 for EERE must maintain funding to companies with multiyear the FY 2011 appropriations indicated significant reductions cooperative agreements and with Cooperative Research and for the DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy from the FY 2011 budget request. However, how 13 P. Davis, DOE, “U.S. Department of Energy Vehicle Technologies Program Overview,” presentation to the committee, September 8, 2010, 12 Ken Howden, Director, 21st Century Truck Partnership, “21st Century Washington, D.C. 14 See http://www07.grants.gov/search/search.do?&mode=VIEW&flag Truck Partnership,” presentation to the Phase 1 review committee, Washing- ton, D.C., February 8, 2007. 2006=false&oppId=47867.

OCR for page 9
17 TABLE 1-2 Department of Energy Budgets for Heavy-Duty Vehicle Technologies, 1999-2011 (millions of dollars) FY 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 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 3.400 3.200 3.668 4.176 4.705 3.333 8.312 3.317 3.680 13.738 12.442 18.422 18.422 • Light Truck Engine 14.800 17.411 17.783 15.778 14.734 12.945 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 • Heavy Truck Engine — 4.830 5.914 9.396 12.174 11.831 13.832 9.270 14.490 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 • WHR / Solid-State Energy Conversion — — 1.000 0.500 0.488 2.469 3.435 1.500 3.806 2.528 1.788 2.527 2.527 • Health Impacts — 1.000 1.497 1.471 1.463 0.988 1.951 2.413 2.479 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 • Off-highway Engine R&D — — — 0.500 3.414 3.457 0.000 3.369 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 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 • ehicle System V Optimization 1.500 2.915 4.230 9.369 9.555 10.187 8.764 8.457 5.922 5.870 2.916 4.605 2.800 • Truck Safety Systems — — 0.500 0.400 0.397 0.395 0.099 0.096 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 • STICK Program — — — 0.100 0.596 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Hybrid and Electric Propulsion 0.000 0.000 0.000 (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 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 Fuels Technology Subtotal: 10.900 13.327 16.313 18.206 13.908 12.247 11.384 6.315 6.570 6.630 6.364 12.224 4.705 Advanced Petroleum-Based Fuels • Heavy Trucks 2.700 3.872 4.854 5.853 7.996 6.321 5.876 3.375 3.511 2.599 2.333 4.068 0.000 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 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 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 0.000 0.000 0.000 • Renewable & Synthetic Fuels Util. — — — — — 0.395 1.367 2.940 3.059 4.031 4.031 8.156 4.705 Environmental Impacts — 2.000 2.973 2.789 2.282 1.975 0.986 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Materials Technologies Subtotal: 15.000 19.912 20.401 20.832 19.899 20.149 18.563 14.242 8.274 11.380 10.530 11.830 7.765 Propulsion Materials Technology • Heavy Vehicle Propulsion Matls. 5.300 5.871 6.009 5.756 5.705 5.778 4.858 4.259 3.900 4.816 4.860 5.668 5.645 Lightweight Materials Technology • igh Strength Wt. Reduc’n H Matls. 4.200 5.781 8.804 9.574 8.731 8.840 7.690 2.766 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.500 2.120 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.

OCR for page 9
18 REVIEW OF THE 21ST CENTURY TRUCK PARTNERSHIP, SECOND REPORT Development Agreements (CRADAs) in the DOE laborato- (6) Examine and comment on the response of the Partner- ship to the recommendations made in the Phase 1 report, ries. Table 1-2 was provided by the DOE to indicate the level “Review of the 21st Century Truck Partnership” issued by of funding in each of the main areas that are considered part the NRC in 2008. of 21CTP and which are the main areas that the committee After examining the 21st Century Truck Partnership ac- focused on during its review. tivities and receiving presentations from federal government The President’s FY 2012 budget request to Congress representatives and industry representatives, and outside indicates a substantial increase in funding for the Office of experts, as appropriate, the committee will write a report Vehicle Technologies, from about $304 million in FY 2010 documenting its review of the Partnership with recommenda- to a request of $588 million for FY 2012. It is unclear at the tions for improvement, as necessary. time of this review whether the Congress will appropriate this level of funding, and also what portion of this funding The statement of task as defined above contains a number will be directed toward 21CTP activities.15 of standard elements that the NRC has used for the review of a number of DOE R&D programs because it is general ORIGIN AND SCOPE OF THIS STUDY enough to allow a committee to make an assessment either narrowly, broadly, or both, as appropriate. In an ideal world, In response to a request from the director of the DOE’s every technical area would have well-defined projects, bud- Office of Vehicle Technologies, the National Research gets, milestones, and targets against which to assess progress. Council formed the Committee to Review the 21st Century But in reality, given the multiagency-and-industry nature of Truck Partnership, Phase 2 (see Appendix A for biographical the 21CTP, the identification of such well-defined projects information on committee members). The committee was that can fall under the 21CTP umbrella is not uniform across asked to fulfill the following statement of task: the various areas and agencies (see Chapter 2). However, as noted in this chapter, the Partnership has been focused The committee will conduct an independent second review around five technical areas and has white papers and goals of the 21st Century Truck Partnership. In its review, the com- for each of those areas, and a white paper for a new sixth mittee will critically examine and comment on the overall area, efficient operations, has been drafted by the 21CTP. adequacy and balance of the 21st Century Truck Partnership In some instances there are precise targets against which to to accomplish its goals, on progress in the program, and measure progress; in others there are not. The assessments make recommendations, as appropriate, that the committee believes can improve the likelihood of the Partnership meet- of the committee are contained in the respective technical ing its goals. In particular, the committee will: chapters, which correspond to the areas addressed by the (1) Review the high-level technical goals, targets, and time- white papers. In some cases, such as in hybrid propulsion, the tables for R&D efforts, which address such areas as heavy budgets have been zeroed out, but the Partnership has lever- vehicle systems; hybrid electric propulsion; advanced internal aged the work on various technical areas that are occurring combustion engines (ICEs); and materials technologies. at the DOE—in this example for light-duty hybrid vehicles. (2) Review and evaluate progress and program directions In following its statement of task to comment on the 21CTP since the inception of the Partnership towards meeting the strategy for accomplishing its goals (Item 5), the committee Partnership’s technical goals, and examine on-going research reviewed a 21CTP draft white paper for the new area on activities and their relevance to meeting the goals of the efficient operations; there are no goals and targets as yet but Partnership. the committee has made suggestions to the Partnership on (3) Examine and comment on the overall balance and adequacy of the 21st Century Partnership’s research effort, improving its white paper and on what might be addressed and the rate of progress, in light of the technical objectives (see Chapter 9). and schedules for each of the major technology areas. The present review has also been complicated by the (4) Examine and comment, as necessary, on the appropri- fact that the white papers and some goals and targets have ate role for federal involvement in the various technical areas been undergoing revision during the committee’s review. under development. Further, the important new undertaking called SuperTruck (5) Examine and comment on the Partnership’s strategy for is following on the NRC Phase 1 report recommendations accomplishing its goals, which might include such issues as for integrating technology into whole vehicle systems (see (a) program management and organization; (b) the process Chapter 8). Given that the SuperTruck progam is new, the for setting milestones, research directions, and making Go/ committee has not been able during this review to comment No Go decisions; (c) collaborative activities within DOE, on specific progress toward technical targets. The committee other government agencies, the private sector, universities, and others; and (d) other topics that the committee finds im- has done what is possible in assessing progress but with the portant to comment on related to the success of the program understanding that in some areas there are not well-defined to meet its technical goals. 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 15 Ken Howden, DOE, “FY2012 Budget Request,” presentation to the the 21CTP efforts; the committee anticipates that the current committee, March 31, 2011, Washington, D.C.

OCR for page 9
19 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND STUDY PROCESS AND ORGANIZATION report recommendations also will help the Partnership with OF THE REPORT its focus over the next few years. The committee held meetings to collect information through presentations on 21CTP activities by representatives ROLE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT of the four federal agencies involved in the Partnership, as The role of the federal government in R&D varies depend- well as individuals outside the program (see Appendix B for ing on the administration and the Congress and the issues that a list of the presenters and their topics). During the NRC they deem important for the nation to address. An extensive Phase 1 review, the 21CTP had developed a roadmap and a economics literature on the subject points to the importance series of white papers on the main technical areas that the of R&D to promote technical innovation, especially for Partnership had focused on (DOE, 2006); during the current, research for which the private sector finds it difficult to Phase 2 review the 21CTP was in the process of modifying capture the returns on its investment; this is especially true these white papers. The white papers were very important to for basic research, the results of which can be broadly used. the committee in its information-gathering activities, because Such innovation, if successful, can foster economic growth they provided the strategy, goals, and technical challenges and productivity, with improvements in the standard of living from the viewpoint of the 21CTP for each of the technical (Bernanke, 2011). Furthermore, in the energy area, the gov- areas under review. Drafts of the white papers were submitted ernment generally has to confront issues of national security, to the committee in September 2010 (DOE, 2010c); updated environmental quality, or energy affordability. Many of these versions were provided in March 2011 (DOE, 2011). A draft issues are addressed through policy initiatives or regulations, of a white paper for the new area, efficient operations, was which place a burden on private firms to achieve. Thus there submitted to the committee in March 2011. The committee is a role for the federal government in supporting R&D not provides feedback and suggestions to the 21CTP on this only to help the private sector achieve these policy goals white paper in Chapter 9 of the present report. but also to help U.S. firms remain competitive in the face of To obtain clarifications on some aspects of the 21CTP, international competition. the committee sent written questions to 21CTP representa- The committee believes that the federal government plays tives and received very helpful answers in response. The an important role in the development of technologies that committee also made site visits to Cummins Technical can help to address government policies and regulations Center; Navistar Inc. Truck Development and Technology aimed at reducing emissions and fuel consumption from Center; Eaton Corporation’s Eaton Innovation Center; EPA; medium- and heavy-duty vehicles. There are similar reasons Oak Ridge National Laboratory; and the U.S. Army Tank for the government playing a role in R&D for light-duty Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center vehicles as well. Such partnerships as the Partnership for (TARDEC); each of the organizations visited are undertak- a New Generation of Vehicles, the FreedomCAR and Fuel ing R&D under the 21CTP. The committee’s findings and Partnership (which is now being replaced by U.S. DRIVE), recommendations are based on the information gathered and the 21CTP are examples of public-private efforts to sup- during the study and on the expertise and knowledge of port R&D and to develop advanced technologies for vehicles committee members. (NRC, 2001, 2010a,b). These partnerships generally include Following is an overview of the topics covered in the rest a variety of efforts (fundamental research, development, of this report. Chapter 2 addresses the overall management demonstration, and in some cases deployment). The federal strategy and priority setting of the Partnership. Chapter 3 government can support fundamental research through the addresses various engine programs at the DOE, the EPA, and national laboratories, and universities and industry can focus DOD, discusses fuels and aftertreatment research, health- on development. The importance of having government- related research, high-temperature propulsion materials, as industry collaboration is that the private sector can help to well as the High Temperature Materials Laboratory, a user transform improvements from research into cost-effective facility run by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Chapter and marketable products. Generally, the contracting that 4 focuses on hybrid vehicles. Chapter 5 addresses vehicle is engaged in with the private sector is cost-shared, and power demands, which are referred to by many as parasitic those research contracts more closely associated with fun- losses; they represent the power needed to overcome such damental or basic research will have a majority of federal resistive forces as aerodynamics, rolling resistance, and fric- funding, whereas contracts with a strong development or tion losses in the drivetrain, or to power auxiliary systems on product component will have significant support from the a vehicle. Chapter 6 addresses idle reduction technologies for private sector. In its recommendations in each of the techni- reducing fuel consumption and emissions during truck idle cal areas, the committee has considered what activities are time. Chapter 7 deals with safety, which is mostly under the most appropriate for the 21CTP to support. Implicit in all initiatives in the DOT. Chapter 8 addresses the newly estab- the recommendations that relate to the support of additional lished SuperTruck efforts that are focused on three major research, the committee believes that the federal government project teams. Finally, Chapter 9 offers some guidance on a has a role in the R&D. new area for the 21CTP, efficient operations.

OCR for page 9
20 REVIEW OF THE 21ST CENTURY TRUCK PARTNERSHIP, SECOND REPORT Appendix A presents biographical sketches of the commit- Ehlmann, J., and G. Wolff. 2005. Automobile Emissions—The Road Toward Zero. Pittsburgh, Pa.: Air and Waste Management Association. January. tee members. Appendix B lists all of the public presentations EIA (Energy Information Administration). 2010. AEO [Annual Energy Out- at the committee’s four meetings. Appendix C contains the list look] 2011. Early Release Overview. December 16. Available at http:// of recommendations from the Phase 1 NRC report as well as www.eia.doe.gov/forecasts/aeo/. Accessed January 15, 2011. the 21CTP responses to them. Appendixes D through I pro- EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2010. Inventory of Green - vide some background material for various chapters, includ- house Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2008. Report No. EPA 430- R-10-006. April 15. Available at http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ ing a list of abbreviations and acronyms used in the report. emissions/downloads10/US-GHG-Inventory-2010_Report.pdf. EPA/NHTSA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/National Highway Traffic Safety Administration). 2010. Greenhouse Gas Emissions REFERENCES Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy- Bernanke, B.S. 2011. Promoting Research and Development: The Gov- Duty Engines and Vehicles. Dockets No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162 and ernment’s Role. Issues in Science and Technology. A publication of No. NHTSA-2010-0079, October 25, 2010. Available at http://www. the National Academies and the University of Texas-Dallas. Summer. regulations.gov. Accessed November 15, 2010. Available at http://www.issues.org/27.4/. EPA/DOT NHTSA. 2011. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel BP. 2011. BP Statistical Review of World Energy. June. Available at bp.com/ Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Ve- statisticalreview. Accessed July 13, 2011. hicles, Final Rules, September 15, 2011. Available at http://www.nhtsa. Davis, S., S. Diegel, and R.G. Boundy. 2009. Transportation Energy Data gov/fuel-economy. Book, Edition 28. Report No. ORNL-6984. Knoxville, Tenn.: U.S. Johnson, J.H. 1988. Automotive Emissions. Pp. 39-46 in Air Pollution, the Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Automobile, and Public Health. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Energy. Press. Davis, S., S. Diegel, and R.G. Boundy. 2010. Transportation Energy Data NAS-NAE-NRC (National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Book, Edition 29. Report No. ORNL-6985. Knoxville, Tenn.: U.S. Engineering, National Research Council). 2009a. America’s Energy Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Future: Real Prospects for Energy Efficiency in the United States. Energy. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press. DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 2006. 21st Century Truck Partnership NAS-NAE-NRC. 2009b. Liquid Transportation Fuels from Coal and Roadmap and Technical White Papers. Doc. No. 21CTP-003. December. Biomass: Technological Status, Costs, and Environmental Impacts. Washington, D.C.: Office of FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press. DOE. 2007. FY 2008 Congressional Budget Request. Vol. 3, Office of Chief Newell, R. 2010. Annual Energy Outlook 2011 Reference Case. Presented at Financial Officer. Doc. No. DOE/CF-016. Washington, D.C. February. the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, December DOE. 2010a. Office of Vehicle Technologies, Office of Energy Efficiency 16. Washington, D.C. Available at http://www.eia.gov/neic/speeches/ and Renewable Energy website. Available at http://www1.eere.energy. newell_12162010.pdf. Accessed December 18, 2010. gov/vehiclesandfuels/about/partnerships/21centurytruck/21ct_goals. NRC (National Research Council). 2000. Review of the U.S. Department html. Accessed October 4, 2010. of Energy’s Heavy Vehicle Technologies Program. Washington, D.C.: DOE. 2010b. Office of Vehicle Technologies, Office of Energy Efficiency National Academy Press. and Renewable Energy website. Available at http://www1.eere.energy. NRC. 2001. Review of the Research Program of the Partnership for a New gov/vehiclesandfuels/about/partnerships/21centurytruck/index.html. Generation of Vehicles. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Accessed October 4, 2010. NRC. 2008. Review of the 21st Century Truck Partnership. Washington, DOE. 2010c. Updated 21st Century Truck Partnership Roadmap and Techni- D.C.: The National Academies Press. cal White Papers. Working draft, September 1, 2010. Washington, D.C.: NRC. 2010a. Technologies and Approaches to Reducing the Fuel Consump- Office of Vehicle Technologies. tion of Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles. Washington, D.C.: The DOE. 2010d. Engine Systems White Paper. Working draft, September 1. National Academies Press. Washington, D.C.: Office of Vehicle Technologies. NRC. 2010b. Review of the Research Program of the FreedomCAR and DOE. 2011. Updated 21st Century Truck Partnership Technical White Fuel Partnership, Third Report. Washington, D.C.: The National Acad - Papers. Working draft, February 25, 2011. Washington, D.C.: Office of emies Press. 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.