particulate emissions from the CIDI engine while maintaining its inherently high efficiency and low carbon emissions. Within the Low Emissions Partnership (LEP) lean NOx catalyst and non-thermal plasma cooperative research efforts, a new goal of 90 percent or greater NOx conversion is being considered and selective catalytic reduction (SCR) is being added to the NOx reduction strategies. Fuels and aftertreatment programs continue to be more closely linked to minimize in-cylinder emissions while optimizing the performance of new clean fuels as emission control reductants. Two new three-year cooperative agreements to develop emission control systems for the Ford and DaimlerChrysler PNGV engines have brought the expertise of catalyst suppliers more directly into the program. In addition, the DOE has been working with EPA, Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA) members and emission control manufacturers through the Diesel Emission Control Sulfur Effects (DECSE) project to determine the effects of sulfur in diesel on emission control devices.
The committee is not convinced that PNGV has conducted an adequate analysis of how emission requirements, fuel economy, carbon dioxide emissions, and fuel quality will affect the choice of the CIDI engine. As the committee noted in previous chapters, meeting the Tier 2 emission standards with a CIDI engine will be a formidable challenge, especially in the time frame of the PNGV program. The committee understands that the setting of the Tier 2 standards, although not supported by robust statistical analysis and analytical data, was driven by broad considerations of public health and air quality (Federal Register, 1999). Given the impact of these standards, the committee’s recommendation from the fifth report has become even more important. However, PNGV did not provide a program plan that responds to the recommended assessment.
Recommendation. Without compromising proprietary information of the USCAR partners, the PNGV should conduct in-depth cost analyses and use the results to guide subsystem and vehicle affordability studies.
PNGV’s Response. PNGV agrees that it needs to conduct in-depth cost analyses. This necessarily occurs at the vehicle and subsystem levels. The vehicle-level analyses, completed in 1998, are company and configuration specific and thus can only be reviewed in the individual company proprietary sessions. The PNGV directors used the information from their proprietary analyses to jointly develop subsystem-level cost targets for generic fuel cell and hybrid-electric vehicles.
Each technical team used the targets from these generic models to optimize their respective subsystems. An update of the subsystem cost analyses will be presented by the Technical Teams at the November 1999 Collaborative Peer Review.
The projected production costs of all candidate PNGV vehicles presented to the committee far exceed the cost objectives of the program, which are for a vehicle with equivalent costs of ownership, adjusted for economics, to a 1994 family sedan. The committee received cost estimates for some candidate vehicles from some of the PNGV participants. Because cost is a critical factor, the