1

Introduction

Trucks range in size and use, although many associate “trucks” with large vehicles, such as delivery vans and tractor trailers. Trucks are categorized by gross vehicle weight (GVW). Heavy-duty trucks weigh more than 26,000 pounds (lbs). (For current emissions regulations, heavy-duty trucks are defined as vehicles with a GVW of more than 8,500 lbs). Medium trucks weigh between 10,001 and 26,000 lbs, and light trucks weigh less than 10,000 lbs. In addition, finer distinctions are made by size. Figure 1-1 shows the truck classes used by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Heavy Vehicle Technologies (OHVT). The definition of light-duty trucks varies in the transportation literature: some data sources use 8,500 lbs as a maximum; others use 10,000 lbs as a maximum.

Sales of light-duty trucks have increased very rapidly in the past decade as consumers have opted to buy pickup trucks, vans, and sport utility vehicles (SUVs) instead of automobiles for personal transportation. Light-duty trucks of 8,500 lbs or less now represent about 50 percent of annual automotive sales. In addition, the number of medium and heavy-duty trucks has increased substantially as the economy has grown (see Figure 1-2).

In 1973, the transportation sector accounted for about 51.2 percent of total U.S. petroleum consumption. By 1998, it had increased to 66.3 percent (Davis, 1999). At the same time, domestic petroleum production has declined steadily since 1985. In 1998, petroleum consumed in the transportation sector as a whole was close to 12 million barrels (bbl)/day (crude oil equivalent), the highest level since 1973. In 1997, all on-highway vehicles used about 76 percent of the petroleum consumed in the transportation sector; trucks (including light trucks) used about 41 percent of transportation consumption.

The growth rate in fuel use for trucks in general is higher than for automobiles. If current trends persist, automobiles in 2020 will consume about 4 million bbl/day; Class 1 and 2 trucks (pickup trucks, vans, and SUVs) about 4.5 million bbl/day; and Class 3 to 8 trucks about 3 million bbl/day (see Figure 1-2 and Figure 1-3). Hence, by 2020, trucks will dominate on-highway fuel consumption (DOE, 1996, 1997, 2000; EIA, 1999).

In 1975, Congress enacted the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, requiring that automotive manufacturers selling cars in the United States increase the corporate average fuel economy (CAFÉ) of their new car fleet to 27.5 miles per gallon (mpg) in model year (MY) 1985 and thereafter (unless the requirement was relaxed by the Secretary of Transportation). Because the CAFÉ standard for light trucks is 20.7 mpg for MY00, and because light trucks now constitute a laarger fraction of vehicle sales for personal use, the fuel efficiency of the vehicle fleet as a whole has declined. Overall fleet fuel economy for passenger cars dropped by 0.4 mpg from MY98 to MY99. The light truck fleet CAFÉ has been almost constant for the last five MYs (DOT, 2000). If the decline in domestic oil production continues, the nation 's dependence on imported petroleum will increase. Therefore, improving fuel economy or using fuels that are not derived from petroleum and are available domestically would help to reduce reliance on petroleum imports.1

Improved fuel economy would also reduce the amount of carbon dioxide emitted per mile driven. The transportation sector accounted for about 31 percent of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel consumption in 1997 and, in particular, highway vehicles accounted for almost a quarter of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions (Davis, 1999). Although carbon dioxide is not a regulated pollutant, it is a greenhouse

1  

Light trucks of less than 10,000 lbs GVW consumed about 226 trillion British Thermal Units (Btus) of diesel fuel and 5,950 trillion Btus of gasoline in 1997. Thus, eliminating diesel engines would not have an enormous impact on gasoline consumption for light trucks, but the inability to use higher efficiency diesel engines to replace gasoline engines would be a lost opportunity for improving fuel efficiency for light trucks.



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 6
Review of the U.S. Department of Energy's Heavy Vehicle Technologies Program 1 Introduction Trucks range in size and use, although many associate “trucks” with large vehicles, such as delivery vans and tractor trailers. Trucks are categorized by gross vehicle weight (GVW). Heavy-duty trucks weigh more than 26,000 pounds (lbs). (For current emissions regulations, heavy-duty trucks are defined as vehicles with a GVW of more than 8,500 lbs). Medium trucks weigh between 10,001 and 26,000 lbs, and light trucks weigh less than 10,000 lbs. In addition, finer distinctions are made by size. Figure 1-1 shows the truck classes used by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Heavy Vehicle Technologies (OHVT). The definition of light-duty trucks varies in the transportation literature: some data sources use 8,500 lbs as a maximum; others use 10,000 lbs as a maximum. Sales of light-duty trucks have increased very rapidly in the past decade as consumers have opted to buy pickup trucks, vans, and sport utility vehicles (SUVs) instead of automobiles for personal transportation. Light-duty trucks of 8,500 lbs or less now represent about 50 percent of annual automotive sales. In addition, the number of medium and heavy-duty trucks has increased substantially as the economy has grown (see Figure 1-2). In 1973, the transportation sector accounted for about 51.2 percent of total U.S. petroleum consumption. By 1998, it had increased to 66.3 percent (Davis, 1999). At the same time, domestic petroleum production has declined steadily since 1985. In 1998, petroleum consumed in the transportation sector as a whole was close to 12 million barrels (bbl)/day (crude oil equivalent), the highest level since 1973. In 1997, all on-highway vehicles used about 76 percent of the petroleum consumed in the transportation sector; trucks (including light trucks) used about 41 percent of transportation consumption. The growth rate in fuel use for trucks in general is higher than for automobiles. If current trends persist, automobiles in 2020 will consume about 4 million bbl/day; Class 1 and 2 trucks (pickup trucks, vans, and SUVs) about 4.5 million bbl/day; and Class 3 to 8 trucks about 3 million bbl/day (see Figure 1-2 and Figure 1-3). Hence, by 2020, trucks will dominate on-highway fuel consumption (DOE, 1996, 1997, 2000; EIA, 1999). In 1975, Congress enacted the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, requiring that automotive manufacturers selling cars in the United States increase the corporate average fuel economy (CAFÉ) of their new car fleet to 27.5 miles per gallon (mpg) in model year (MY) 1985 and thereafter (unless the requirement was relaxed by the Secretary of Transportation). Because the CAFÉ standard for light trucks is 20.7 mpg for MY00, and because light trucks now constitute a laarger fraction of vehicle sales for personal use, the fuel efficiency of the vehicle fleet as a whole has declined. Overall fleet fuel economy for passenger cars dropped by 0.4 mpg from MY98 to MY99. The light truck fleet CAFÉ has been almost constant for the last five MYs (DOT, 2000). If the decline in domestic oil production continues, the nation 's dependence on imported petroleum will increase. Therefore, improving fuel economy or using fuels that are not derived from petroleum and are available domestically would help to reduce reliance on petroleum imports.1 Improved fuel economy would also reduce the amount of carbon dioxide emitted per mile driven. The transportation sector accounted for about 31 percent of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel consumption in 1997 and, in particular, highway vehicles accounted for almost a quarter of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions (Davis, 1999). Although carbon dioxide is not a regulated pollutant, it is a greenhouse 1   Light trucks of less than 10,000 lbs GVW consumed about 226 trillion British Thermal Units (Btus) of diesel fuel and 5,950 trillion Btus of gasoline in 1997. Thus, eliminating diesel engines would not have an enormous impact on gasoline consumption for light trucks, but the inability to use higher efficiency diesel engines to replace gasoline engines would be a lost opportunity for improving fuel efficiency for light trucks.

OCR for page 6
Review of the U.S. Department of Energy's Heavy Vehicle Technologies Program FIGURE 1-1 Truck classification by gross vehicle weight (GVW). Note that Class 2 is composed of Class 2a (6,001–8,500 lbs), and Class 2b (8,501–10,000 lbs). Tractor trailers in Class 7 or Class 8 can be single trailers, double trailers, and, in some cases, triple trailers. Source: DOC, 1995; Davis, 1999; Eberhardt, 2000a. gas. If regulations are imposed in the future to reduce greenhouse gases because of concerns about climate change, improved vehicle fuel economy would help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Improved fuel economy would help heavy-duty trucks to compete in the very price-sensitive freight hauling market, in which the cost of fuel affects truck operating expenses significantly. The recent rise in fuel prices has focused attention on how actions by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), disruptions in supply (e.g., pipeline disruptions), low stocks, increased driver demand, as well as requirements for cleaner fuels, such as reformulated gasoline, can lead to increased fuel prices. The level at which sulfur is regulated in future diesel fuels may also have a significant impact on fuel prices. Another important public policy issue is the impact of the transportation sector on air quality. The primary concern about emissions from combustion engines is the effects of pollutants on health and the environment (HEI, 2000). Although the contribution of the transportation sector varies by region and metropolitan area, it is significant. In 1997 (for emissions from economic activity), highway vehicles accounted for about 57.5 percent of carbon monoxide (CO), 29.8 percent of oxides of nitrogen (NOx), 27.2 percent of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), 0.8 percent of fine particulates (less than 10 micrometers aerodynamic diameter or less, PM10), 2.5 percent of PM2.5 (less than 2.5 micrometers aerodynamic diameter), 1.6 percent of sulfur dioxide, and 7.6 percent of ammonia emissions (Davis, 1999). Table 1-1 summarizes the contributions of light trucks and heavy vehicles compared to on-highway vehicles as a whole (Davis, 1999). In response to growing concerns about current and projected levels of air quality, more stringent emission standards have been instituted both in California and at the national level. These complex emission regulations vary depending on vehicle type, and all standards have phase-in schedules and durability requirements. The following discussion focuses on the technical challenges facing diesel-powered vehicles for meeting these standards. In December 1999, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued the Tier 2 standards, which will eventually

OCR for page 6
Review of the U.S. Department of Energy's Heavy Vehicle Technologies Program FIGURE 1-2 Number of Class 7 and 8 trucks in use, 1982–1997. Source: Eberhardt, 2000a. supplant the current Tier 1 emission standards. Tier 1 and Tier 2 standards differ for light-duty trucks (Classes 1 and 2), depending on the class and weight of the truck; the phasein period for Tier 2 is 2004–2009. Figure 1-4 and Figure 1-5 illustrate the dramatic changes that will be realized with Tier 2 NOx and PM standards once they are finally phased in (France, 2000). Current emission standards differ for different vehicle weights, but Tier 2 standards will eliminate these differences and reduce vehicle emissions by as much as 95 percent. The Tier 2 standards treat vehicles and fuels as a system and apply the same emissions standards to all light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks. In addition, large passenger vans and SUVs are included in the Tier 2 program under a new category of vehicles called medium-duty passenger vehicles (MDPVs), which includes SUVs and passenger vans weighing between 8,500 and 10,000 lbs GVW but excludes pickup trucks in this weight range. FIGURE 1-3 Energy use by trucks, 1970–2020. Source: DOE, 2000; Eberhardt, 2000a; EIA, 1999. EPA has also created a “bin” system that allows manufacturers to average emissions across the fleet of vehicles they sell each year. Table 1-2 shows the “Full-Life Exhaust Emission Bins.” EPA believes that the combination of bins, averaging, and a phase-in period will promote the orderly development of clean diesel technology and that the interim standards are feasible based on the current 500 ppm level for sulfur in fuel. The final standards will require after-treatment technology and low-sulfur fuel (proposed to be no greater than 15 ppm by June 1, 2006 [EPA, 2000]). The highest bin

OCR for page 6
Review of the U.S. Department of Energy's Heavy Vehicle Technologies Program TABLE 1-1 Emissions from Light Trucks and Heavy Vehicles in 1997 (as a percentage of emissions from all highway vehicles) Vehicles CO NOx VOCs PM10 PM2.5 Gasoline Powered Vehicles           Light trucksa 36.5 27.0 37.6 15.0 12.1 Heavy vehicles 6.7 4.6 5.1 3.4 2.9 Diesel-Powered Vehicles           Light trucks 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.7 1.0 Heavy vehicles 2.9 26.8 4.2 57.7 65.7 Other Vehiclesb 53.9 41.4 53.0 23.2 18.3 TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Note: Estimates of total emissions from economic sectors are approximate. Estimates from the transportation sector are based on computer models, which were critiqued in a recent report (NRC, 2000). a Less than 8,500 lbs. b Includes automobiles, other light vehicles of less than 8,500 lbs GVW, and motorcycles. Source: EPA, 1998; Davis, 1999. in the interim program is a maximum at 0.6 g/mile for NOx and 0.08 g/mile for PM (Bin 10). Hence, diesel, heavy light-duty trucks can be certified in this bin during early product introduction (2004–2006) and then certified with low-sulfur fuel and an integrated emissions-control system that includes after-treatment for NOx and PM emissions in 2007–2009. Bin 11, which is for MDPVs, is phased out in 2008. Diesel-powered MDPVs can meet the heavy-duty standards until 2007. The highest bin of the eight bins that are phased in by 2009 is 0.2 g/mile NOx and 0.02 g/mile PM. The final standards are not fully phased in for heavy light-duty trucks (HLDTs; 6,001 to 8,500 lbs) and MDPVs until 2009. Certification bins 1–8 will remain in effect in 2009 when the Tier 2 emission standards are fully phased in. The vehicles certified in a particular bin must meet all of the individual emission standards (NOx, nonmethane organic gases, CO, formaldehyde, PM) for that bin. In addition, the average NOx emissions level of the entire fleet sold by a manufacturer will have to meet the average NOx standard of 0.07 g/mile. Emissions from diesel engines used in heavy-duty trucks (more than 8,500 lbs GVW) must also be reduced. In the early 1980s, some heavy-duty truck engines had emissions of 10 to 15 g/brake horsepower-hour (bhp-h) of NOx and 1 g/bhp-h of PM.2 The standards have been FIGURE 1-4 Comparison of current vehicle emission standards for oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and final Tier 2 standards. (Reductions range from 77 to 95 percent.) Source: France, 2000. significantly reduced in the past two decades (see Table 1-3). In 1996, the EPA, the state of California, and major engine manufacturers prepared a Statement of Principles (SOP) that required emissions reductions to 2.4 g/bhp-h of NOx plus nonmethane hydrocarbons (NMHC) or 2.5 g/bhp-h of NOx plus NMHC, with a maximum of 0.5 g/bhp-h of NMHC by 2004. A recent action by the EPA and the U.S. Department of Justice resulted in a Consent Decree with seven major diesel-engine manufacturers that moves the SOP requirements up to October 2002 and places caps on emissions at all operating conditions. Meeting tighter emissions standards without new technology usually requires a trade-off with reductions in engine efficiency. Note: LDT1 (light-duty truck 1) has a GVW of up to 6,000 lbs and a loaded vehicle weight (LVW) of up to 3,750 lbs; LDT2 has a GVW of up to 6,000 lbs and between 3,751 and 5,750 lbs LVW; LDT3 has a GVW between 6,001 and 8,500 lbs and a test weight (TW) of up to 5,750 lbs; LDT4 has a GVW between 6,001 and 8,500 lbs and a TW of more than 5,750 lbs. LVW= curb weight + 300 lbs; TW= average of curb weight and GVW. In May 2000, the EPA proposed new standards for heavy-duty engines and vehicles and highway diesel-fuel sulfur-control (EPA, 2000). EPA's proposed PM emissions standard for new heavy-duty engines (see Table 1-3) would take full effect in MY07. The NOx and NMHC standards would be phased in together from 2007–2010. The phase-in would be on a percent-of-sales basis: 25 percent in 2007, 50 percent in 2008, 75 percent in 2009, and 100 percent in 2010. 2   Heavy-duty truck emission standards (mass per horsepower-hour) are based on engine dynamometer tests, whereas emission standards (mass per mile) for automobiles and light trucks are based on vehicle dynamometer tests.

OCR for page 6
Review of the U.S. Department of Energy's Heavy Vehicle Technologies Program FIGURE 1-5 Comparison of current vehicle emission standards for particulate matter (PM) and final Tier 2 standards. (Reductions range from 88 to 92 percent.) Source: France, 2000. Proposed standards for certifying heavy-duty vehicles would be implemented on the same schedule as engine standards. EPA notes that these standards would not apply to vehicles of more than 8,500 lbs that are classified as MDPVs under Tier 2 because of their primary use as passenger vehicles. The certification of complete vehicles by a chassis TABLE 1-2 Full-Life Exhaust Emission “Bins” (g/mile) Bin Number NOx NMOG CO HCHO PM 11 0.9 0.280 7.3 0.032 0.12 10 0.6 0.156/0.230 4.2/6.4 0.018/0.027 0.08 9 0.3 0.090/0.180 4.2 0.018 0.06 [The bins above expire in 2006 (for LDV and LLDTs) and 2008 (for HLDTs and MDPVs)] 8 0.20 0.125/0.156 4.2 0.018 0.02 7 0.15 0.090 4.2 0.018 0.02 6 0.10 0.090 4.2 0.018 0.01 5 0.07 0.090 4.2 0.018 0.01 4 0.04 0.070 2.1 0.011 0.01 3 0.03 0.055 2.1 0.011 0.01 2 0.02 0.010 2.1 0.004 0.01 1 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.000 0.00 Note: NMOG = nonmethane organic gases; CO = carbon monoxide; HCHO = formaldehyde; LDV= light-duty vehicle; LLDT= light LDT (up to 6,000 lbs GVW); HLDT= heavy LDT (6,001 to 8,500 lbs). For LDVs and LLDTs, full useful life is a period of use of 10 years or 100,000 miles, whichever occurs first. For HLDTs, full useful life is a period of use of 11 years or 120,000 miles, whichever occurs first. Bin 11 is for MDPVs and expires after MY08. Source: France, 2000. TABLE 1-3 Heavy-Duty Truck Engine Emission Standards (g/bhp-h) and Complete Vehicle Standards (g/mile)   PM NOx NMHC 1998 0.10a 4.0   2002 0.10a 2.4b   Proposed Standards       2007 0.01 0.2d 0.14d 2010 0.01 0.2 0.14 Complete Vehicle Standardsc       8,500-10,000 lbs 0.02 0.2 0.195 10,000-14,000 lbs 0.02 0.4 0.230 a PM emissions are less than 0.05 g/bhp-h for transit buses. b Standard for NOx+ NMHC. c Proposed standards for heavy-duty vehicles would be implemented on the same schedule as engine standards. The new standards would not apply to vehicles of more than 8,500 lbs, which EPA classifies as medium-duty passenger vehicles (MDPVs) as part of the Tier 2 program because of their primary use as passenger vehicles. dTwenty-five percent of sales in 2007; 50 percent of sales in 2008; 75 percent of sales in 2009; and 100 percent of sales in 2010. Source: DOE, 2000; EPA, 2000. test for vehicles of more than 8,500 lbs GVW is new in these proposed regulations. In the past, heavy-duty engine standards have been based on an engine dynamometer test. EPA is proposing that diesel fuel sold to customers for use in highway vehicles have a sulfur content of no more than 15 ppm beginning June 1, 2006. This proposed sulfur cap (maximum value) is based on EPA 's assessment of how advanced sulfur-intolerant after-treatment technologies will be and a corresponding assessment of the feasibility of low-sulfur fuel production and distribution (EPA, 2000). California has different vehicle emission standards, with different categories of vehicles, as well as durability categories. For example, low-emission vehicle II (LEV II) standards for new 2004 and subsequent MYs for light-duty trucks (8,500 lbs GVW or less), medium-duty vehicles of 8,501 to 10,000 lbs GVW, and medium-duty vehicles of 10,001 to 14,000 lbs GVW are divided into LEVs, ultra low-emission vehicles (ULEVs), and super low-emission vehicles (SULEVs). Table 1-4 summarizes emission levels for three LEVs and three pollutants (CARB, 1999). The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has labeled PM emissions from diesel-fueled engines as a toxic air contaminant (TAC) (CARB, 1998). California has also instituted a process to reduce the adverse health effects of TAC emissions from diesel-fueled engines. Up to now, the California standards have typically been more stringent than the federal standards and have addressed

OCR for page 6
Review of the U.S. Department of Energy's Heavy Vehicle Technologies Program diesel emissions sooner. As federal Tier 2 emissions standards are phased in, federal and California standards are expected to be in closer alignment. However, the LEV II program includes a requirement for a zero-emission vehicle that will force advanced technology development. The more stringent federal and California emission standards represent a major technical challenge for diesel-fueled vehicles, which will probably require new fuel formulations, catalyst systems, and emission-control systems. TABLE 1-4 California LEV II Exhaust Emission Standards (g/mile) Type of LEV NMOG at 50,000 miles NOxat 50,000 miles PM at 120,000 miles LEV 0.075 0.05 0.01 ULEVa 0.040 0.05 0.01 SULEV 0.010 0.02 0.01 All at 120,000 miles       aFleet average nonmethane organic gases (NMOG) standard of 0.035 g/mile means most vehicles will have to meet ULEV standards. SUMMARY OF OHVT'S ACTIVITIES AND BUDGET The DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy oversees the Office of Transportation Technologies, which includes OHVT, the Office of Advanced Automotive Technologies (OAAT), the Office of Fuels Development, and the Office of Technology Utilization. OHVT was created in March 1996 when the Office of Transportation Technologies was reorganized. The OAAT focuses on the development of advanced automotive technologies, while OHVT focuses mostly on technologies for trucks. OHVT's mission is “to conduct in collaboration with our heavy vehicle industry partners and their suppliers, a customer-focused national program to research and develop technologies that will enable trucks and other heavy vehicles to be more energy efficient and capable of using alternative fuels while simultaneously reducing emissions ” (Eberhardt, 2000a). Table 1-5 summarizes OHVT's budget from fiscal year 1996 (FY96) to FY00, as well as the budget request for FY01 (see Chapter 2 and the OHVT Roadmap [DOE, 2000] for more detail). The program started off at a relatively modest funding level of about $30 million/year. Funding was increased about 50 percent from FY99 to FY00 and increased again in the administration 's request to Congress for FY01. In FY99, the balance of funding for research and development was distributed as follows: 72 percent by industry; 18 percent by the national laboratories; 4 percent by universities; and 6 percent by others (e.g., small businesses, states, etc.) (Eberhardt, 2000a). 21ST CENTURY TRUCK INITIATIVE During this study, the committee was given a presentation on the 21st Century Truck Initiative, which was announced by Vice President Gore on April 21, 2000 (Eberhardt, 2000b; Skalny, 2000). If this new initiative moves forward as planned, it will have a major impact on OHVT. The program's target year is 2010. The government agencies that will be involved include DOE, the U.S. Department of Transportation, the U.S. Department of Defense, and EPA; a number of private companies are also expected to join the partnership. The goal of this government-industry research program will be to develop production prototype vehicles with the following characteristics: improved fuel efficiency by (1) doubling the Class 8 long-haul truck fuel efficiency;3 (2) tripling the Class 2b and Class 6 truck (delivery van) fuel efficiency; and (3) tripling the Class 8 transit bus fuel efficiency lower emissions than expected standards for 2010 meeting or exceeding the motor carrier safety goal of reducing truck fatalities by half affordability and equal or better performance than today's vehicles The committee was not charged with reviewing the 21st Century Truck Initiative, and the technical details of the proposed program were not included in the presentation. However, the committee wishes to highlight the ways in which the initiative is relevant to OHVT. First, the technical goals of the 21st Century Truck Initiative parallel those of the OHVT program (i.e., the intent of the new initiative is to produce knowledge and technical developments to improve future fuel economy and meet low emission standards). Second, the fuel economy goals of both programs are very challenging. Third, the R&D areas proposed by both programs are generally parallel. And finally, the 21st Century Truck Initiative faces many of the same constraints as OHVT, such as changing regulatory requirements, uncertain funding, and globalization of the marketplace. Regardless of the direction of these programs, interaction between OHVT and the 21st Century Truck program will be beneficial, and OHVT should be a major participant in the program if it moves forward. As discussed in Chapter 2 and Chapter 3, the time horizon of the new initiative is consistent with the committee 's recommendations that the OHVT program establish longer term objectives for its R&D. SCOPE AND ORIGIN OF THIS STUDY In response to a request from the director of OHVT, the National Research Council established the Committee on 3   Fuel efficiency in the 21st Century Truck Initiative is measured on a ton-mile per gallon basis.

OCR for page 6
Review of the U.S. Department of Energy's Heavy Vehicle Technologies Program TABLE 1-5 OHVT Budget by Activity (millions of dollars)a Program Activity FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 Total for FY96-FY00 FY01 Vehicle Technologies               Advanced combustion engine               Combustion and after-treatment 1.95 1.5 1.8 3.4 3.15 11.8 4.0 Light-truck engines — 5.6 9.4 14.8 18.0 47.8 18.0 Heavy-truck enginesb 3.45 — — — 5.0 8.45 7.0 Health impacts — — — — — — l.0 Heavy-vehicle system               Vehicle-system optimization — — 1.7 1.5 3.2 6.2 4.5 Truck safety systems — — — — —   0.5 Stimulation of truck innovative concepts and knowledge — — — — —   0.65 Hybrid systems               Heavy-vehicle propulsion systems — — — — 4.0 4.0 3.5 Subtotals 5.4 7.1 12.9 19.7 33.15 78.25 39.15 Fuels Utilization               Advanced petroleum-based fuels               Heavy trucks 0.0 0.0 2.4 2.7 4.0 9.1 5.0 Alternative fuels               Heavy trucks 9.3 12.4 3.765 3.27 4.3 33.035 3.5 Medium trucks 0.0 0.0 6.31 4.7 4.3 15.31 3.5 Fueling infrastructure 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 2.0 2.2 2.5 Environmental impacts — — — — —   2.0 Subtotals 9.3 12.4 12.475 10.87 14.6 59.645 16.5 Transportation Materials Technology               Propulsion materials technology               Heavy-vehicle propulsion system materials 8.0 5.0 4.95 5.3 6.05 29.3 7.0 Lightweight-materials technology               High-strength, weight-reduction materials 2.5 2.8 3.1 4.2 5.95 18.55 4.9 High-Temperature Materials Laboratory               Heavy-propulsion systems 5.2 4.7 5.2 5.5 8.5 29.1 5.6 Subtotals 15.7 12.5 13.25 15.0 20.5 76.95 17.5 TOTALS 30.4 32.00 38.625 45.57 68.25 218.845 73.15 a FY96 to FY00 represent congressional appropriations. FY01 represents the administration's budget request. b Note that in FY97 R&D focused on light-truck engines. Source: Eberhardt, 2000a. Review of DOE's Office of Heavy Vehicle Technologies (see Appendix A for biographical information on committee members). The committee was asked to fulfill the following Statement of Task: A National Research Council committee will be established to conduct an independent review of the DOE's Office of Heavy Duty Technologies. It will examine goals, objectives, strategy for program implementation, program activities which duplicate or overlap activities conducted by other organizations, and whether there are activities which, based on the program goals, should be included in the program but have been omitted. The committee will also consider and comment on: the program's balance among the three program elements (Vehicle Technologies, Fuels Utilization, Material Technologies); program's balance between industry, national laboratories and universities; adequacy of program funding; reasonableness of program milestones. After examining the OHVT program and receiving presentations from DOE representatives, the committee will write a report documenting its review of the OHVT program with recommendations for improvement, as necessary.

OCR for page 6
Review of the U.S. Department of Energy's Heavy Vehicle Technologies Program STUDY PROCESS AND ORGANIZATION OF REPORT The committee held three meetings. Information-gathering sessions included presentations on OHVT program activities by representatives of the OHVT program, as well as individuals outside the program with expertise in the measurement and control of engine emissions, issues related to light-duty and heavy-duty trucks, and development needs relevant to the OHVT program (see Appendix B). To clarify some aspects of the OHVT program, the committee also sent written questions to OHVT representatives. The committee's conclusions and recommendations are based on the information gathered during the study and the expertise and knowledge of committee members. Chapter 1 presents some brief background material related to light-truck and heavy-truck issues and the rationale for the OHVT program. Chapter 2 reviews the components of the OHVT program and makes recommendations, as appropriate, for these component activities. Chapter 3 focuses on the findings and recommendations for the OHVT program as a whole. REFERENCES CARB (California Air Resources Board). 1998.Particulate Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines as a Toxic Air Contaminant , November 3, 1998. Available on line at:http://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/dieseltac/dieseltac.htm. CARB 1999.LEV II and CAP 2000 Amendments. Final Regulation Order. Available on line at:http//www.arb.ca.gov/regat/levii.htm. Davis, S. 1999.Transportation Energy Data Book.(19th ed.) Springfield, Va.:U.S. Department of Commerce, Technical Information Service DOC (U.S. Department of Commerce). 1995.1992 Truck Inventory and Use Survey. Washington, D.C.:Bureau of the Census.Available on line at:http://www.census.gov/svsd/www/tiusview.html. DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 1996.Office of Transportation Technologies Strategic Plan (August 8). Washington, D.C.:U.S. Department of Energy. DOE. 1997.OHVT Technology Roadmap. DOE/OSTI-11690 (October). Washington, D.C.:U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Heavy Vehicles Technologies. DOE. 2000.OHVT Technology Roadmap. DOE/OSTI-11690/R (January) Washington, D.C.:U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Heavy Vehicles Technologies. DOT (U.S. Department of Transportation). 2000.Twenty-Fourth Annual Report to Congress, Calendar Year 1999. Washington, D.C.:U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Eberhardt, J. 2000a.Origin and Rationale for the DOE Heavy Vehicle Technologies Program .Presentation by J. Eberhardt, Director, OHVT, DOE, to the Committee on Review of DOE's Office of Heavy Vehicle Technologies,National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., February 16, 2000. Eberhardt, J. 2000b.The 21st Century Truck, A Government-Industry Research Partnership .Presentation by J. Eberhardt, Director, OHVT, DOE, to the Committee on Review of DOE's Office of Heavy Vehicle Technologies,National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., June 15, 2000. EIA (Energy Information Administration). 1999.Annual Energy Outlook 2000 with Projections to 2020. DOE/EIA-0383, December 1999. Washington, D.C.:Energy Information Administration. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1998.National Air Pollutant Emission Trends, 1900-1997. Washington, D.C.:Environmental Protection Agency. EPA. 2000.Proposed Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements. Regulatory Announcement EPA-F-00-022 (May). Washington, D.C.:Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Transportation and Air Quality. France, C.J. 2000.Tier 2 Vehicles, Heavy-Duty Diesels, and Diesel Fuel. Presentation by C.J. France, Director, Assessment & Standards Division, Environmental Protection Agency, to the Committee on Review of DOE's Office of Heavy Vehicle Technologies, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., April 26, 2000. HEI (Health Effects Institute). 2000.National Morbidity, Mortality, and Air Pollution Study, Parts I and II. Cambridge, Mass.:Health Effects Institute. NRC (National Research Council). 2000.Modeling Mobile-Source Emissions. Washington, D.C.:National Academy Press. Skalny, P. 2000.The 21st Century Truck Initiative: Developing Technologies for 21st Century Trucks.Presentation by P. Skalny, U.S. Army Tank Automotive Command, to the Committee on Review of DOE's Office of Heavy Vehicle Technologies,National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., April 26, 2000.