New Fuels and Vehicles: Integration Issues for Air Quality Modelers

1. New Fuels and Vehicles:Integration Issues for Air Quality Modelers K. Shaine Tyson National Renewable Energy Laboratory

2. Possible DOE Policy Shifts • DOE Policy Ofc. and Office of Fuels Development • Models do not show market penetration of E85 • May de-emphasize neat biofuels until petroleum prices rise • Considering more emphasis on Ethanol and Biodiesel blends - E17, B20, B2, clean fuels • Heavy Vehicle Technology Programs • Focused on Clean Diesel Fuels • for existing fleets and for future engine technology • Larger emphasis on blends of FT, DMM, DEE, DME, and others with diesel

3. Discussion Focus • AFVs vs. Alternative Fuel Blends (AFBs) • AFB can expand use of alternative fuels • Offer air quality benefits • Enhance air quality strategies • more options for regulators • potential for lower cost options • Site specific options vs. national fuel standards • More customer choices

4. Diesel Fuel Changes • Clean Diesel Fuel • Low Sulfur Low Aromatics High Cetane • Particulate Toxicity • Improve catalyst performance • Assist OEMs with future emission standards • AFBs may lead to Clean Diesel Fuels • B20 EPAct Option • AFV Credit for using blends • Opens door to blends with other Alt fuels

5. New EPACT Options • B20 AFV Credit • Allows regulated fleets to use 450 gallons of pure biodiesel each year • In vehicles > 8,500 lbs gross weight • In blends of at least 20% biodiesel • Up to 50% of the fleet AFV requirements • No trading or selling or carry overs • Save Fed. Gov $10 million per year

6. EPACT Compliance Options

7. B20 EPACT Opens the Door • Diesel mixed with • Biodiesel • various blend levels up to pure biodiesel • Fischer-Tropsch Diesel • No one standardized type of FT diesel yet • various blend levels possible • Ethanol • Only one blend level tested so far • DMM, DME, DEE • various blend levels undetermined yet

8. Market Barrier to AFBs Not Petroleum Industry • Local air quality regulators are unwilling to approve local use of new fuels or fuel blends in fleets without reviewing impact on SIPs. • Most AFV strategies at the state level are driven by • Air quality concerns • Budget • Meeting multiple federal program objectives • AFBs not integrated into state or many Federal programs • missing opportunities

9. Data Needs • Air Quality regulators and modelers • Need sufficient databases to include in Mobile and Part or modify for older Mobile versions • Alternative fuel • AFBs • Need to know how good the data is • What are the data development protocols for submission to EPA databases? • How much data is enough? How little? • Standards?

10. EPA Data Development - Diesel • Typically based on engine certification data • modified by aging factors • terrain and other geographic parameters • driving cycles • Chassis dynamometer data limited • No load on engine • No good correlation to engine stand emissions • Needs better protocol for diesel vehicles

11. Emission Data for Diesel Blends • Need a protocol for building emission databases for EPA models for new fuels on in-use vehicles • How do we really know, legally or statistically, if a new fuel blend will “do no harm” or “reduce emission by X% on average” on a wide variety of in-use engines • Engines are not required to be certified on new fuels

12. Current Practices • EPA FTP emission tests on engine stands • After market engines • Some fuels extensively tested like biodiesel • Some fuels have more limited test data • Data shows significant engine-to-engine variability for new fuels • Repeatability an issue in older or poorly maintained engines

13. Generating EPA Emission Data for Diesel Blends • CARB certification engine - DDC Series 60 at SRI • Not widely representative of general vehicle population • Minimizes costs of multiple engine tests • e.g., recertification testing on all engines on market • Provides a statistical protocol for “do no harm” and for estimating benefits • EPA 211 (b) Health Effects Testing • trigger point for serious consideration

14. Other AFB Opportunities • AFBs for off road vehicles • AFBs for aircraft engines • ethanol and B20/Jet A • AFBs should be included in existing programs for airports and clean fleets • AFBs could be used in AFV hybrids • flexible option to use alt fuels

15. SIP Credits • Can be important incentives depending on value • Should be general • e.g., inclusive of AFV and alternative fuels used in blends • displace more petroleum • expand options/flexibility for achieving air quality goals • gives consumers more choices

16. Hybrids and Flex Fuel Vehicles • Mostly don’t use alternative fuels • Models should reflect that • Should be required to purchase XX amount of alternative fuel annually • or lose credit status • DOE has no mandate to implement this option • CAFÉ credits strategies • A light duty diesel can be a B100 engine with low investment by OEM

17. Life Cycle Data • Biodiesel Life Cycle • Soy only • Ethanol Life Cycle • corn and biomass • Fischer - Tropsch Fuels • natural gas and biomass • DMM, DEE, DME others? • Some info available

18. Differences in LCA • Data sources remarkably similar • Key differences caused by allocation assumptions • Mass Energy • Carbon Market Value etc. • Life Cycle methodology not standardized • subject to personal interpretation and choice

19. Life Cycle Caveats • Technologies often too simplified • conversion • end use • Some life cycles are futuristic - “unreal” • Feedstocks don’t match practice • A lot of data out of date • Referenced in 1993 traced back to a 1977 report • Some data are impossible to find • Confusion in handling TPM/PM10 & THC and other HC

20. LCAs as Regulatory Tools • NOT as they currently stand • too generalized • too generic • will not withstand legal scrutiny or challenges • They will not provide accurate, site specific data • With a standardized database and a standardized methodology, LCA can be ADAPTED to regulatory use

21. Life Cycle Recommendations • EPA could update/standardize data sources for LC data • AP42 etc. • Make data available to users through web • EPA could standardize methodology and assumptions for their own needs • Users should always use local emission data where available

22. Life Cycle Questions • Given the growing sophistication of local emission databases, aren’t all pertinent sources of emissions relevant to a regional air shed already represented? • What is the value of representing emissions that occur outside of air shed? • How does it complicate or benefit an air shed analysis or interpretation?