Alternative 1.....................          141          122          102           93           83           72
Alternative 2.....................          161          141          121          113          103           93
Alternative 3.....................          165          148          132          116           99           82
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 119--Projected Achieved Levels With Faster BEV Acceptance, for No Action Case, Proposed and Alternatives--
                                            Cars and Trucks Combined
                                                [CO2 grams/mile]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        2027         2028         2029         2030         2031         2032
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No Action.........................          147          131          100           76           79           71
Proposed..........................          157          129          107           86           73           59
Alternative 1.....................          156          128          104           80           66           53
Alternative 2.....................          157          136          116          100           80           71
Alternative 3.....................          159          140          118           96           90           76
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Table 120--BEV Penetrations With Faster BEV Acceptance, for No Action Case, Proposed and Alternatives--Cars and
                                                 Trucks Combined
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     2027  (%)    2028  (%)    2029  (%)    2030  (%)    2031  (%)    2032  (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No Action.........................           36           42           54           63           63           66
Proposed..........................           38           46           55           63           69           75
Alternative 1.....................           38           46           55           63           69           76
Alternative 2.....................           38           46           54           61           69           73
Alternative 3.....................           38           46           54           63           66           71
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Table 121--Average Incremental Vehicle Cost vs. No Action Case for Faster BEV Acceptance, Proposed and Alternatives--Cars and Trucks Combined
                                                                     [2020 Dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   2027         2028         2029         2030         2031         2032       6-yr avg
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed.....................................................         $287         $982         $809         $602         $746         $712         $690
Alternative 1................................................          317        1,001        1,209        1,533        1,675        1,445        1,196
Alternative 2................................................          212          214          -34         -194          179          163           90
Alternative 3................................................           54           33         -176         -235          -66           53          -56
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Slower BEV Acceptance

 Table 122--Projected Targets With Slower BEV Acceptance for No Action Case, Proposed and Alternatives--Cars and
                                                 Trucks Combined
                                                [CO2 grams/mile]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        2027         2028         2029         2030         2031         2032
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No Action.........................          164          162          162          161          161          160
Proposed..........................          153          133          112          103           93           82
Alternative 1.....................          143          122          102           92           83           72
Alternative 2.....................          163          142          122          112          103           92
Alternative 3.....................          167          149          132          115           99           82
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 123--Projected Achieved Levels With Slower BEV Acceptance, for No Action Case, Proposed and Alternatives--
                                            Cars and Trucks Combined
                                                [CO2 grams/mile]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        2027         2028         2029         2030         2031         2032
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No Action.........................          161          160          154          159          152          158
Proposed..........................          150          131          110          101           92           82
Alternative 1.....................          144          118           99           90           81           74
Alternative 2.....................          160          140          119          111          101           90
Alternative 3.....................          164          148          128          113           97           80
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Table 124--BEV Penetrations With Slower BEV Acceptance, for No Action Case, Proposed and Alternatives--Cars and
                                                 Trucks Combined
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     2027  (%)    2028  (%)    2029  (%)    2030  (%)    2031  (%)    2032  (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No Action.........................           22           23           28           27           33           31
Proposed..........................           34           42           53           59           63           68
Alternative 1.....................           36           47           55           61           66           69
Alternative 2.....................           29           39           50           55           59           64
Alternative 3.....................           28           35           45           53           61           68
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Table 125--Average Incremental Vehicle Cost vs. No Action Case for Slower BEV Acceptance, Proposed and Alternatives--Cars and Trucks Combined
                                                                     [2020 Dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   2027         2028         2029         2030         2031         2032       6-yr avg
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed.....................................................         $877       $1,135         $755         $898         $995       $1,498       $1,026

Alternative 1................................................        1,336        1,470        1,143        1,244        1,393        1,731        1,386
Alternative 2................................................          695          853          560          689          888        1,344          838
Alternative 3................................................          508          734          473          702        1,005        1,621          841
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Impact of Sensitivities on Proposed LD GHG Standards
    The following is a summary of the sensitivities conducted and a
comparison on resulting BEV penetrations and incremental technology
costs for the proposed standards compared to the respective No Action
case.
    As can be seen, the projected targets for the proposed standards
are not affected by the range of sensitivities discussed in this
section. It is important to note that manufacturers are able to meet
the targets for the proposed standards in every year for the range of
sensitivities analyzed here. However, the achieved levels do vary in
each sensitivity: in some cases, there is greater level of
overcompliance (most notably in the High BEV acceptance case).
    Table 126 and Table 127 give a comparison for the projected targets
and achieved levels for the proposed standards, based on the various
identified sensitivities. While BEV penetrations projected to meet the
proposed standards (shown in Table 128) do not vary much across the
sensitivity cases, BEV penetrations in the No Action case do vary
significantly: projected MY 2032 BEV penetrations range from 31 percent
to 61 percent based on different input assumptions which affect either
required BEV share (in the case of the State-level Policies scenario)
or consumer demand for electric vehicles. The range of BEV penetrations
in the No Action case is provided in Table 129.
    Of the metrics considered, the range of sensitivities have the
greatest impact on incremental vehicle cost compared to the No Action
case. Compared to a 6-year average incremental costs of about $1100 for
the Central Case, these sensitivities result in a range of 6-year
average incremental costs from $200 per vehicle to about $1600. The two
sensitivity cases which result in less BEV penetrations in the No
Action case--High Battery Costs and the Slower BEV Acceptance cases--
result in the highest incremental costs, while the lower incremental
costs are for the three sensitivity cases that result in more BEVs in
the No Action case: The Low Battery Costs, Faster BEV Acceptance, and
the State-Level Policies scenario.

                  Table 126--Range of Targets for Proposed Standards--Cars and Trucks Combined
                                                [CO2 grams/mile]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        2027         2028         2029         2030         2031         2032
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Central Case......................          152          131          111          102           93           82
State-level Policies..............          151          131          111          102           93           82
Low Battery Costs.................          152          132          111          102           93           82
High Battery Costs................          153          132          112          102           93           82
Faster BEV Acceptance.............          151          132          112          103           93           83
Slower BEV Acceptance.............          153          133          112          103           93           82
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

              Table 127--Range of Achieved Levels for Proposed Standards--Cars and Trucks Combined
                                                [CO2 grams/mile]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        2027         2028         2029         2030         2031         2032
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Central Case......................          151          129          107           97           91           81
State-level Policies..............          149          129          107           96           90           81
Low Battery Costs.................          154          130          110          100           83           80
High Battery Costs................          151          130          110          100           92           81
Faster BEV Acceptance.............          157          129          107           86           73           59
Slower BEV Acceptance.............          150          131          110          101           92           82
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

              Table 128--Range of BEV Penetrations for Proposed Standards--Cars and Trucks Combined
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     2027  (%)    2028  (%)    2029  (%)    2030  (%)    2031  (%)    2032  (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Central Case......................           36           45           55           60           63           67
State-level Policies..............           38           46           54           59           66           68
Low Battery Costs.................           38           46           54           59           66           68
High Battery Costs................           33           41           51           55           60           65
Faster BEV Acceptance.............           38           46           55           63           69           75
Slower BEV Acceptance.............           34           42           53           59           63           68
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                Table 129--Range of BEV Penetrations for No Action Case--Cars and Trucks Combined
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     2027  (%)    2028  (%)    2029  (%)    2030  (%)    2031  (%)    2032  (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Central Case......................           27           32           37           40           40           39
State-level Policies..............           32           42           49           52           52           54
Low Battery Costs.................           34           39           51           52           55           51
High Battery Costs................           21           26           28           29           29           29
Faster BEV Acceptance.............           36           42           54           63           63           66
Slower BEV Acceptance.............           22           23           28           27           33           31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    Table 130--Range of Incremental Vehicle Cost vs. No Action Case for Proposed Standards--Cars and Trucks Combined
                                                                     [2020 Dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   2027         2028         2029         2030         2031         2032       6-yr avg
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Central Case.................................................         $633         $497         $401         $526         $866       $1,164         $681
State-level Policies.........................................          172           56           11           57          268          423          164
Low Battery Costs............................................          623          553          303          313          365          490          441
High Battery Costs...........................................        1,246        1,057        1,329        1,553        2,103        2,505        1,632
Faster BEV Acceptance........................................          287          982          809          602          746          712          690
Slower BEV Acceptance........................................          877        1,135          755          898          995        1,498        1,026
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Sensitivities--MD GHG Compliance Modeling

1. Battery Costs (Low and High)
    For medium duty vehicles, we have carried over the high and low
battery pack cost sensitivities, similar to those conducted for the
light-duty GHG analysis (for more information refer to Section IV.E.2).
The low and high battery pack cost sensitivities have been combined
into the summary tables in this section.
    Table 131 and Table 132 gives a comparison for the targets and the
projected achieved levels for the proposed standards, based on battery
costs assumed for the central case and the low and high cost
sensitivity cases.
    The range of BEV penetrations for the proposed MD standards are
provided in Table 133.
    Battery costs have the greatest impact on incremental vehicle cost
compared to the No Action case. Compared to a 6-year average
incremental costs of about $700 for the Central Case, these
sensitivities result in a range of incremental costs from $300 per
vehicle to about $1500. Incremental vehicle costs for the proposed
standards for the three sensitivities are provided in Table 134.

  Table 131--Projected Targets for Proposed Standards: Central Case, Low and High Battery Sensitivities--Medium
                                                  Duty Vehicles
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        2027         2028         2029         2030         2031         2032
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Central Case......................          438          427          389          352          312          275
Low Battery Costs.................          437          423          386          349          312          275
High Battery Costs................          439          428          390          355          316          276
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Table 132--Projected Achieved Levels for Proposed Standards: Central Case, Low and High Battery Sensitivities--
                                              Medium Duty Vehicles
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        2027         2028         2029         2030         2031         2032
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Central Case......................          437          426          390          347          310          272
Low Battery Costs.................          436          423          385          350          307          273
High Battery Costs................          439          428          389          352          313          273
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Table 133--BEV Penetrations for Proposed Standards: Central Case, Low and High Battery Sensitivities--Medium
                                                  Duty Vehicles
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      2027 (%)     2028 (%)     2029 (%)     2030 (%)     2031 (%)     2032 (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Central Case......................           17           20           28           34           43           46
Low Battery Costs.................           17           18           26           33           38           44
High Battery Costs................           14           17           25           27           36           43
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Table 134--Average Incremental Vehicle Cost vs. No Action Case for Proposed Standards: Central Case, Low and High Battery Sensitivities--Medium Duty
                                                                        Vehicles
                                                                     [2020 dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   2027         2028         2029         2030         2031         2032       6-yr avg
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Central Case.................................................         $364         $249         $290         $654         $944       $1,784         $714
Low Battery Costs............................................          118            4         -142            5          564        1,094          274
High Battery Costs...........................................          810          640          919        1,648        2,191        3,072        1,547
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. EPA's Basis That the Proposed Standards Are Feasible and Appropriate
Under the Clean Air Act

A. Overview

    As discussed in Section II of this preamble, there is a critical
need for further criteria pollutant and GHG reductions to address the
adverse impacts of air pollution from light and medium duty vehicles on
public health and welfare. With continued advances in internal
combustion emissions controls and vehicle electrification technologies
coming into the mainstream as primary vehicle emissions controls, EPA
believes substantial further emissions reductions are feasible and
appropriate under the Clean Air Act.
    The Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to establish emissions standards
for motor vehicles to regulate emissions of air pollutants that
contribute to air pollution which, in the Administrator's judgment, may
reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. As
discussed in Section II, emissions from motor vehicles contribute to
ambient levels of pollutants for which EPA has established health-based
NAAQS. These pollutants are linked with respiratory and/or
cardiovascular problems and other adverse health impacts leading to
increased medication use, hospital admissions, emergency department
visits, and premature mortality.
    In addition, light and medium-duty vehicles are significant
contributors to the U.S. GHG emissions inventories, and additional
reductions in GHGs from vehicles are needed to avoid the worst
consequences of climate change as discussed in Section II.
    This proposed rule also considers the large potential impact that
the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) will have on facilitating production
and adoption of PEV technology, which is highly effective technology
for controlling tailpipe emissions of criteria pollutants and GHGs.
Prior to the passage of the IRA, EPA received input from auto
manufacturers that increasing the market share of PEVs is now
technologically feasible but that it is important to address consumer
issues such as charging infrastructure and the cost to purchase a PEV,
as well as manufacturing issues such as battery supply and
manufacturing costs. The IRA provides powerful incentives in all of
these areas that will help facilitate increased market penetration of
PEV technology in the time frame considered in this rulemaking. Thus,
it is an important element of EPA's cost and feasibility assessment,
and EPA has considered the impacts of the IRA in our assessment of the
appropriate proposed standards.\738\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \738\ It is important to note that, although E.O. 14037
identified a goal for 50 percent of U.S. new vehicle sales to be
zero-emission vehicles by 2030, the E.O. only directed EPA to
consider beginning work on a new rulemaking and to do so consistent
with applicable law. EPA exercised its technical judgment based on
the record before it in developing this proposal consistent with the
authority of section 202 of the Clean Air Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Consideration of Technological Feasibility, Compliance Costs and
Lead Time

    The technological readiness of the auto industry to meet the
proposed standards for model years 2027-2032 is best understood in the
context of over a decade of light-duty vehicle emissions reduction
programs in which the auto industry has introduced emissions-reducing
technologies in a wide lineup of ever more cost effective, efficient,
and high-volume vehicle applications . Among the range of technologies
that have been demonstrated over the past decade, electrification
technologies have seen particularly rapid development and lower costs,
and as a result the number of PEVs projected across all the policy
alternatives considered here is much higher than in any of EPA's prior
rulemaking analyses. In particular, BEVs have zero tailpipe emissions
and so are capable of supporting rates of annual stringency increases
that are much greater than were typical in earlier rulemakings.
    In this rulemaking, unlike some prior vehicle emissions standards,
the technology necessary to achieve significantly more stringent
standards has already been developed and demonstrated in production
vehicles. PEVs are now being produced in large numbers in every segment
and size of the current light-duty fleet, ranging from small cars such
as GM's Bolt EV to light trucks such as Ford's F150 Lightning, and
their production for the U.S. market is roughly doubling every
year.\739\ Large fleet owners have also begun fulfilling fleet
electrification commitments by taking delivery of rapidly growing
numbers of BEV medium-duty delivery vans.\740\ In setting standards,
EPA considers the extent of further deployment that is warranted in
light of the benefits to public health and welfare, and potential
constraints, such as costs, raw material availability, component
supplies, redesign cycles, infrastructure, and consumer acceptance. The
extent of these potential constraints has diminished significantly,
even since the 2021 rule, in light of increased investment by
automakers, increased acceptance by consumers, and significant support
from Congress to address such areas as upfront purchase price, charging
infrastructure, critical mineral supplies, and domestic supply chain
manufacturing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \739\ Estimated at 8.4 percent of production in MY 2022, up from
4.4 percent in MY 2021 and 2.2 percent in MY 2020. See also the
discussion of U.S. PEV penetration in I.A.2.ii.
    \740\ See the discussion of fleet electrification commitments in
I.A.2.ii.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At the same time, in response to the increased stringency of the
proposed standards, automakers would be expected to adopt advanced
technologies at an increasing pace across more of their vehicle fleets.
EPA has carefully considered potential constraints on further
deployment of these advanced technologies. For example, in addition to
considering the breadth of current product offerings, EPA has also
considered vehicle redesign cycles. Based on previous public comments
and industry trends, manufacturers generally require about five years
to design, develop, and produce a new vehicle model.\741\ EPA's
technical assessment for this proposal

accounts for these redesign limits.\742\ Within the modeling that EPA
conducted to support this proposal, we have assumed limits to the rate
at which a manufacturer can choose to ramp in the transition from an
ICE vehicle to a BEV. We have also applied limits to the ramp up of
battery production, considering the time needed to increase the
availability of raw materials and construct or expand battery
production facilities. Constraints for redesign and battery production
in our compliance modeling are described in more detail in Chapter 2.6
of the DRIA. Our modeling also incorporates constraints related to
consumer acceptance. Under our central case analysis assumptions, the
model anticipates that consumers will in the near term tend to favor
ICE vehicles over PEVs when two vehicles are comparable in cost and
capability.\743\ Taking into account individual consumer preferences,
we anticipate that PEV acceptance and adoption will continue to
accelerate as consumer familiarity with PEVs grows, as demonstrated in
the scientific literature on PEV acceptance and consistent with typical
diffusion of innovation. Adoption of PEVs is expected to be further
supported by expansion of key enablers of PEV acceptance, namely
increasing market presence of PEV, more model choices, expanding
infrastructure, and decreasing costs to consumers.\744\ See also
Preamble Section IV.C.5 and DRIA Chapter 4. Overall, given the number
and breadth of current low- or zero-emission vehicles and the
assumptions we have made to limit the rate at which new vehicle
technologies are adopted, our assessment shows that there is sufficient
lead time for the industry to more broadly deploy existing technologies
and successfully comply with the proposed standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \741\ For example, in its comments on the 2012 rule, Ford stated
that manufacturers typically begin to firm up their product plans
roughly five years in advance of actual production. (Docket OAR-
2009-0472-7082.1, p. 10.)
    \742\ In our compliance modeling, we have limited vehicle
redesign opportunities through MY 2029 in our compliance modeling to
every 7 years for light- and medium-duty pickup trucks and medium-
duty vans, and 5 years for all other vehicles. We are assuming that
manufacturers have sufficient lead team to adjust product redesign
years after MY 2029, so we do not continue to apply redesign
constraints for MYs 2030 and beyond.
    \743\ EPA's compliance modeling estimates the consumer demand
for BEV and ICE vehicles using a consumer ``generalized cost'' that
includes elements of the purchase cost (including any purchase
incentives), vehicle maintenance and repair costs, and fuel
operating costs as described in DRIA Chapter 4.1.
    \744\ Jackman, D K, K S Fujita, H C Yang, and M Taylor. 2023.
Literature Review of U.S. Consumer Acceptance of New Personally
Owned Light Duty Plug-in Electric Vehicles. Washington, DC: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our analysis projects that for the industry overall, 65 percent of
new vehicles in MY 2032 would be BEVs. EPA believes that this is an
achievable level based on our technical assessment for this proposal
that includes consideration of the feasibility and lead time required
for BEVs and acceptance of BEVs in the market. Our assessment of the
appropriateness of the level of BEVs in our analysis is also informed
by public announcements by manufacturers about their plans to
transition fleets to electrified vehicles, as described in Section
I.A.2 of this Preamble and further developed in DRIA <IP_ADDRESS>. More
detail about our technical assessment, and the assumptions for the
production feasibility and consumer acceptance of BEVs is provided in
Section IV of this Preamble, and Chapters 2, 3, 4, and 6 of the DRIA.
    At the same time, we note that the proposed standards are
performance-based and do not mandate any specific technology for any
manufacturer or any vehicle. Moreover, the overall industry does not
necessarily need to reach this level of BEVs in order to comply--the
projection in our analysis is one of many possible compliance pathways
that manufacturers could choose to take under the performance-based
standards. For example, manufacturers that choose to increase their
sales of HEV and PHEV technologies or apply more advanced technology to
non-hybrid ICE vehicles would require a smaller number of BEVs than we
have projected in our assessment to comply with the proposed standards.
    In considering feasibility of the proposed standards, EPA also
considers the impact of available compliance flexibilities on
automakers' compliance options.\745\ The advanced technologies that
automakers are continuing to incorporate in vehicle models today
directly contribute to each company's compliance plan (i.e., these
vehicle models have lower criteria pollutant and GHG emissions), and
manufacturers can choose to comply with the proposed standards outright
through their choice of emissions reducing technologies. In addition,
automakers typically have widely utilized the program's established
averaging, banking, and trading (ABT) provisions which provide a
variety of flexible paths to plan compliance. We have discussed this
dynamic at length in past rules, and we anticipate that this same
dynamic will support compliance with this rulemaking. Although the ABT
program for GHG and criteria pollutants have some differences (as
discussed in detail in Sections III.B.4 and III.C.9), they
fundamentally operate in a similar fashion. The credit program was
designed to recognize that automakers typically have compliance
opportunities and strategies that differ across their fleet, as well a
multi-year redesign cycle, so not every vehicle will be redesigned
every year to add emissions-reducing technology. Moreover, when
technology is added, it will generally not achieve emissions reductions
corresponding exactly to a single year-over-year change in stringency
of the standards. Instead, in any given model year, some vehicles will
be ``credit generators,'' over-performing compared to their criteria
pollutant standards or footprint-based CO2 emissions targets
in that model year, while other vehicles will be ``debit generators''
and under-performing against their standards or targets. As the
proposed standards reach increasingly lower numerical emissions levels,
some vehicle designs that had generated credits in earlier model years
may instead generate debits in later model years. In MY 2032 when the
proposed standards reach the lowest level, it is possible that only
BEVs and PHEVs are generating positive credits, and all ICE vehicles
generate varying levels of deficits. Even in this case, the application
of ICE technologies can remain an important part of a manufacturer's
compliance strategy by reducing the amount of debits generated by these
vehicles. A greater application of ICE technologies (e.g., strong
hybrids) can enable compliance with fewer BEVs than if less ICE
technology was adopted, and therefore enable the tailoring of a
compliance strategy to the manufacturer's specific market and product
offerings. Together, an automaker's mix of credit-generating and debit-
generating vehicles determine its compliance with both criteria
pollutant and GHG standards for that year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \745\ While EPA is considering these compliance flexibilities in
assessing the feasibility of the proposed standards, EPA is not
reopening such flexibilities, except to the extent that we are
proposing or soliciting comment on a specific flexibility as in
Section III of this preamble. Specifically, EPA is not reopening
ABT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, the trading provisions of the program allow manufacturers
to design a compliance strategy relying not only on overcompliance and
undercompliance by different vehicles or in different years, but even
by different manufacturers. Credit trading is a compliance flexibility
provision that allows one vehicle manufacturer to purchase credits from
another, accommodating the ability of manufacturers to make strategic
choices in planning for and reacting to normal fluctuations in an
automotive business cycle. When credits are available for less

than the marginal cost of compliance, EPA would anticipate that an
automaker might choose to adopt a compliance strategy relying on
purchasing credits.
    The proposed performance-based standards with ABT provisions give
manufacturers a degree of flexibility in the design of specific
vehicles and their fleet offerings, while allowing industry overall to
meet the standards and thus achieve the health and environmental
benefits projected for this rulemaking at a lower cost. EPA has
considered ABT in the feasibility assessments for many previous
rulemakings since EPA first began incorporating ABT credits provisions
in mobile source rulemakings in the 1980s (see Section III.B.4 for
further information on the history of ABT) and continues that practice
here. First, by fully averaging across vehicles in the car and truck
regulatory classes and by allowing for credit banking across years,
manufacturers have the flexibility to adopt emissions-reducing
technologies in the manner that best suits their particular market and
business circumstances. Similarly, with the opportunity to trade
credits with other firms, each manufacturer can, in effect, average
credits among a pool of vehicles that extends beyond their own fleet.
EPA's annual Automotive Trends Report illustrates how different
automakers have chosen to make use of the GHG program's various credit
features.\746\ It is clear that manufacturers are widely utilizing the
various credit programs available, and we have every expectation that
manufacturers will continue to take advantage of the compliance
flexibilities and crediting programs to their fullest extent, thereby
providing them with additional tools in finding the lowest cost
compliance solutions in light of the proposed revised standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \746\ ``The 2022 EPA Automotive Trends Report, Greenhouse Gas
Emissions, Fuel Economy, and Technology since 1975,'' EPA-420-R-22-
029 December 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the potential value of credit trading as a means of reducing
costs to automakers was always clear, there is increasing evidence that
automakers have successfully adopted credit trading as an important
compliance strategy that reduces costs. The market for trading credits
is now well established. As shown in the most recent EPA Trends Report,
19 vehicle firms collectively have participated in nearly 100 credit
trading transactions totaling 169 Tg of credits since the inception of
the EPA program through Model Year 2021. These firms include many of
the largest automotive firms.\747\ Several of these manufacturers have
publicly acknowledged the importance of considering credit purchase or
sales as part of their business plans to improve their competitive
position.748 749 For firms with new vehicle production made
up entirely or primarily of credit-generating vehicles, the revenue
generated from credit sales can help to fund the development of GHG-
reducing technologies and offset production costs. Other firms have the
option of purchasing credits if they choose to make a fleet that is
overall deficit-generating. This can be a cost-effective compliance
strategy, especially for companies that make lower-volume vehicles
where the incremental development costs for GHG-reducing technologies
would be higher on a per-vehicle basis than for another company. The
opportunity to purchase credits can also enable a company to continue
specializing in vehicle applications where the application of advanced
GHG-reducing technologies may be more costly than purchasing credits.
For example, manufacturers of light- and medium-duty pickups might
choose to purchase credits rather than apply BEV technology to some of
those vehicles used frequently for long distance towing applications,
at least in the shorter term when higher capacity batteries might be
used to accommodate the existing charging infrastructure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \747\ EPA 2020 Trends Report, page 110 and Figure 5.15.
    \748\ ``FCA historically pursued compliance with fuel economy
and greenhouse gas regulations in the markets where it operated
through the most cost effective combination of developing,
manufacturing and selling vehicles with better fuel economy and
lower GHG emissions, purchasing compliance credits, and, as allowed
by the U.S. federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy (``CAFE'')
program, paying regulatory penalties.'' Stellantis N.V. (2020).
``Annual Report and Form 20-F for the year ended December 31,
2020.''
    \749\ ``We have several options to comply with existing and
potential new global regulations. Such options include increasing
production and sale of certain vehicles, such as EVs, and curtailing
production of less fuel efficient ICE vehicles; technology changes,
including fuel consumption efficiency and engine upgrades; payment
of penalties; and/or purchase of credits from third parties. We
regularly evaluate our current and future product plans and
strategies for compliance with fuel economy and GHG regulations''
General Motors Company (2022). ``Annual Report and Form 10-K for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2021.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In light of the evidence of increased adoption of trading as a
compliance strategy, EPA has included the ability of manufacturers to
trade credits as part of our central case compliance modeling for this
proposal, rather than as a sensitivity analysis as we did in the
modeling for the 2021 rule. We anticipate that the economic
efficiencies of credit trading will generally be attractive to
automakers, and thus we consider it appropriate to take trading into
account in estimating the costs of the standards. However, trading is
an optional compliance flexibility, and we recognize that automakers
may choose to use it in their compliance strategies to varying degrees.
If a manufacturer chooses not to participate in credit trading for
whatever reason, additional compliance strategies can be used to
supplement the adoption of emissions-reducing technologies. For
example, such manufacturers also could elect to shift market segments
and sales volumes as a strategy for increasing the proportion of
credit-generating vehicles relative to debit-generating vehicles. Thus,
reduced use of credit trading may result in somewhat higher costs for
the program, but we do not believe it would alter our conclusion that
the standards are feasible.
    As part of its assessment of technological feasibility and lead
time, EPA has considered the cost for the auto industry to comply with
the proposed revised standards. See Section VI.B and Chapter 10 of the
DRIA for our analysis of compliance costs.
    The estimated average costs to manufacturers to meet the proposed
standards are approximately $1,200 (2020 dollars) per vehicle in MY
2032, which is within the range of costs projected in prior rules,
which EPA estimated at about $1,800 (2010 dollars) and $1,000 (2018
dollars) per vehicle for the 2012 and 2021 rules respectively. Across
the range of sensitivities, the projected costs are approximately $200
to $1,600 per vehicle in MY 2032, which is a range EPA believes is
reasonable and within the range of cost estimates in prior rules. The
estimated MY 2032 costs of $1,200 represent under 3 percent of the
average cost of a new vehicle today (about $46,000 in 2022).\750\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \750\ Note that these values are averages across all body
styles, powertrains, makes, models, and trims, and there will be
differences for each individual vehicle. Also note that, as
discussed in DRIA Chapter 4.2, the price of a new vehicle has been
increasing over time due to factors not associated with our rules.
If the average price of a MY 2032 vehicle is higher than that of a
MY 2022 vehicle, this estimated increase in cost could well be
smaller than 3 percent compared to the cost of a new MY 2032
vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As also discussed in Section I.A.2.ii of this Preamble, EPA has
observed a shift toward electrification both in vehicle sales and
across the automotive industry at large, and that these changes are
being driven to a large degree by the technological innovation of the
automotive industry and the significant funds, estimated at $1.2
trillion by at

least one analysis,751 752 those firms intend to spend by
2030 on developing and deploying electrification technologies. EPA
believes its standards will support this very significant investment
and, particularly in light of the available compliance flexibilities
and multiple paths for compliance, are feasible and will not cause
economic disruption in the automotive industry. We do not believe the
estimated increase in marginal vehicle cost will lead to detrimental
effects to automakers for multiple reasons, including the fact that
macroeconomic effects are a much larger factor in OEM revenues (for
example, the chip shortage), and that automakers regularly adjust
product plans and choose the mix of vehicles they produce to maximize
profits. We also note that through the third quarter of 2022, domestic
automakers reported their highest profits since 2016, even though
domestic vehicle sales fell from the previous year. In addition, the
significant investments by industry and Congress (e.g., BIL and IRA) in
supporting technology which eliminates both criteria and GHG tailpipe
emissions, presents an opportunity for a significant step forward in
achieving the goals of the Clean Air Act. The compliance costs per
vehicle in this proposal are reasonable and consistent with those in
past GHG rules while the standards would achieve substantially greater
emissions reductions of GHGs and substantial emissions reductions for
criteria pollutants as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \751\ Reuters, ``A Reuters analysis of 37 global automakers
found that they plan to invest nearly $1.2 trillion in electric
vehicles and batteries through 2030,'' October 21, 2022. Accessed on
November 4, 2022 at https://graphics.reuters.com/AUTOS-INVESTMENT/ELECTRIC/akpeqgzqypr/.
    \752\ Reuters, ``Exclusive: Automakers to double spending on
EVs, batteries to $1.2 trillion by 2030,'' October 25, 2022.
Accessed on November 4, 2022 at https://www.reuters.com/technology/exclusive-automakers-double-spending-evs-batteries-12-trillion-by-2030-2022-10-21/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For this proposal, EPA finds that the expected compliance costs for
automakers are reasonable in light of the emissions reductions in air
pollutants and the resulting benefits for public health and welfare.

C. Consideration of Emissions of GHGs and Criteria Air Pollutants

    An essential factor that EPA considered in determining the
appropriate level of the proposed standards is the reductions in air
pollutant emissions that would result from the program, including
emissions of GHGs, criteria pollutants and air toxics and associated
public health and welfare impacts.
    The cumulative GHG emissions reductions through 2055 are projected
to be 7,400 MMT of CO2, 0.12 MMT of CH4 and 0.13
MMT of N2O, as the fleet turns over year-by-year to new
vehicles that meet the proposed light- and medium-duty standards. This
represents a 26 percent reduction in CO2 over that time
period relative to the no-action case. See Section VI and Chapter 9 of
the DRIA. We also project, in calendar year 2055, 35 percent to 40
percent reductions in PM2.5, NOX, and
SOX emissions. Further, we project over 40 percent reduction
in VOC emissions in the year 2055. See Section VII and Chapter 9 of the
DRIA. EPA finds that the additional emissions reductions that would be
achieved under these proposed standards are important in reducing the
public health and welfare impacts of air pollution.
    As discussed in Section VIII, we monetize benefits of the proposed
standards and evaluate other costs in part to enable a comparison of
costs and benefits pursuant to E.O. 12866, but we recognize there are
benefits that we are currently unable to fully quantify. EPA's practice
has been to set standards to achieve improved air quality consistent
with CAA section 202, and not to rely on cost-benefit calculations,
with their uncertainties and limitations, as identifying the
appropriate standards. Nonetheless, our conclusion that the estimated
benefits considerably exceed the estimated costs of the proposed
program reinforces our view that the proposed standards are appropriate
under section 202(a).
    The present value of climate benefits attributable to the proposed
standards are estimated at $83 billion to $1.0 trillion across a range
of discount rates and values for the social cost of carbon (present
values in 2027 for GHG reductions through 2055). See Section VIII and
Chapter 10 of the DRIA for a full discussion of the SC-GHG estimates
used to monetize climate benefits and the data and modeling limitations
that naturally restrain the ability of SC-GHG estimates to include all
the important physical, ecological, and economic impacts of climate
change, such that the estimates are a partial accounting of climate
change impacts and will therefore, tend to be underestimates of the
marginal benefits of abatement. The present value of PM2.5-
related health benefits attributable to the proposed standards through
2055 are estimated to total $64 billion to $290 billion (assuming a 7
percent and 3 percent discount rate, respectively, as well as different
long-term PM-related mortality risk studies; see Section VIII.E).\753\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \753\ The criteria pollutant benefits associated with the
standards presented here do not include the full complement of
health and environmental benefits that, if quantified and monetized,
would increase the total monetized benefits (such as the benefits
associated with reductions in human exposure to ambient
concentrations of ozone). See Section VIII.E and DRIA Chapter 7 for
more information about benefits we are not currently able to fully
quantify.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Consideration of Impacts on Consumers, Energy, Safety and Other
Factors

    EPA also considered the impact of the proposed light- and medium-
duty standards on consumers as well as on energy and safety. EPA
concludes that the proposed standards would be beneficial for consumers
because the lower operating costs would offset increases in vehicle
technology costs, irrespective of BEV purchase incentives in the IRA.
Vehicle technology cost increases for light-and medium-duty vehicles
through 2055 are estimated at $260 billion to $380 billion (7 and 3
percent discount rates.) Total fuel savings, net of reduced liquid fuel
and increased electricity, for consumers through 2055 are estimated at
$560 billion to $1.1 trillion (7 percent and 3 percent discount rates.)
Reduced maintenance and repair costs through 2055 are estimated at $280
billion to $580 billion (7 percent and 3 percent discount rates) (See
Sections VIII.B and VIII.F and Chapter 10 of the DRIA). Thus, the
proposal would result in significant savings for consumers.
    EPA also carefully considered the consumer impacts of these
proposed standards. We recognize that increases in upfront purchase
costs are likely to be of particular concern to low-income households,
but we anticipate that automakers will continue to offer a variety of
models at different price points (see Chapter 4 of the DRIA). Moreover,
because lower-income households spend more of their income on fuel than
other households, the effects of reduced fuel costs may be especially
important for these households. Similarly, low-income households are
more likely to buy used vehicles and own older vehicles, and thus would
benefit from significant savings in repair and maintenance costs if
they purchase electric vehicles. Furthermore, for used BEVs, there is
evidence that the original purchase incentive is passed on to the next
buyer (i.e., reduces the used price of BEVs). In addition, BEV purchase
incentives for used vehicles are provided for the first time ever
through the IRA.

    EPA also evaluated the impacts of the proposed light- and medium-
duty standards on energy, in terms of fuel consumption and energy
security. This proposal is projected to reduce U.S. gasoline
consumption by 950 billion gallons through 2055 (see DRIA Chapter 9).
EPA considered the impacts of this projected reduction in fuel
consumption on energy security, specifically the avoided costs of
macroeconomic disruption (See Section VIII.G). A reduction of U.S. net
petroleum imports reduces both financial and strategic risks caused by
potential sudden disruptions in the supply of petroleum to the U.S.,
thus increasing U.S. energy security. We estimate the energy security
benefits of the proposal through 2055 at $21 billion to $42 billion (7
percent and 3 percent discount rate, see Chapter 10 of the DRIA). EPA
considers this proposal to be beneficial from an energy security
perspective.
    Section 202(a)(4)(A) of the CAA specifically prohibits the use of
an emission control device, system or element of design that will cause
or contribute to an unreasonable risk to public health, welfare, or
safety. EPA has a long history of considering the safety implications
of its emission standards,\754\ up to and including the more recent
light-duty GHG regulations: The 2010 rule which established the MY
2012-2016 light-duty vehicle GHG standards, the 2012 rule which first
established MY 2017-2025 light-duty vehicle GHG standards, and the 2020
and 2021 rules. The relationship between GHG emissions standards and
safety is multi-faceted, and can be influenced not only by control
technologies, but also by consumer decisions about vehicle ownership
and use. EPA has estimated the impacts of this proposal on safety by
accounting for changes in new vehicle purchase, fleet turnover and VMT,
changes in vehicle footprint, and vehicle weight changes that are in
some cases lower (as an emissions control strategy) and in other cases
higher (with the additional weight often associated with electrified
vehicles). EPA finds that under this proposal, there is no
statistically significant change in the estimated risk of fatalities
per distance traveled. EPA is presenting non-statistically significant
values here in part to enable comparison with prior rules. We have
found virtually no change in fatality risk as a result of the proposed
standards, with an estimated increase of 0.2 percent per distance
traveled (see Section VIII.F). However, as the costs of driving decline
due to the improvement in fuel economy, consumers overall will choose
to drive more miles (this is the ``VMT rebound'' effect). As a result
of this personal decision by consumers to drive more due to the reduced
cost of driving, EPA projects this will result in an increase in
accidents, injuries, and fatalities (i.e., although the rate of injury
per mile stays virtually unchanged, an increase in miles driven results
in an increase in total number of injuries). EPA's goal in setting
motor vehicle standards is to protect public health and welfare while
recognizing the importance of the mobility choices of Americans.
Because the only statistically significant projected increase in
accidents, injuries, and fatalities would be the result of consumers'
voluntary choices to drive more when operating costs are reduced, EPA
believes it Is appropriate to place emphasis on the level of risk of
injury per mile traveled, and to consider the projected change in
injuries in that context.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \754\ See, e.g., 45 FR 14496, 14503 (1980) (``EPA would not
require a particulate control technology that was known to involve
serious safety problems.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The increase in fatalities per distance traveled is not
statistically significant, and the only statistically significant
increase in fatalities is due to consumers' voluntary choices to drive
more. As with the 2021 rule, EPA considers safety impacts in the
context of all projected health impacts from the rule including public
health benefits from the projected reductions in air pollution. In
considering these estimates in the context of anticipated public health
benefits, EPA notes that the estimated present value of monetized
benefits of reduced PM2.5 through 2055 is between $63
billion and $280 billion (depending on study and discount rate), and
that the illustrative air quality modeling which, as discussed further
in Chapter 8 of the DRIA assesses a regulatory scenario with lower
rates of PEV penetration than EPA is projecting in this proposal,
estimates that in 2055 such a scenario would prevent between 730 and
1,400 premature deaths associated with exposure to PM2.5 and
prevent between 15 and 330 premature deaths associated with exposure to
ozone. We expect that the cumulative number of premature deaths avoided
that would occur during the entire period of 2027-2055 as a result of
the proposed rule would be much larger than the 2055 estimate.

E. Selection of Proposed Standards Under CAA 202(a)

    Under section 202(a) EPA has a statutory obligation to set
standards to reduce air pollution from classes of motor vehicles that
the Administrator has found contribute to air pollution that may be
expected to endanger public health and welfare. Consistent with our
longstanding approach to setting motor vehicle standards, the
Administrator has considered a number of factors in proposing these
vehicles standards. In setting such standards, the Administrator must
provide adequate lead time for the development and application of
technology to meet the standards, taking into consideration the cost of
compliance. Furthermore, in setting standards for NMOG+NOX,
PM and CO for heavy duty vehicles (including MDVs and light trucks over
6,000 pounds GWVR), standards shall reflect the greatest degree of
emissions reduction that the Administrator determines is achievable for
the model year, giving appropriate consideration to cost, energy and
safety factors. EPA's proposed standards properly implement these
statutory provisions. As discussed in Sections II, VI, and VII, the
proposed standards will achieve significant and important reductions in
emissions of a wide range of air pollutants that endanger public health
and welfare. Furthermore, as discussed throughout this preamble, the
emission reduction technologies needed to meet the proposed standards
have already been developed and are feasible and available for
manufacturers to utilize in their fleets at reasonable cost in the
timeframe of these proposed standards, even after considering key
constraints including battery manufacturing capacity, critical
materials availability, and vehicle redesign cadence.
    Moreover, the flexibilities already available under EPA's existing
regulations, including fleet average standards and the ABT program--in
effect enabling manufacturers to spread the compliance requirement for
any particular model year across multiple model years--support EPA's
conclusion that the proposed standards provide sufficient time for the
development and application of technology, giving appropriate
consideration to cost.
    Section 202(a)(3) is explicit that, for certain pollutants for
certain vehicles, the Administrator shall establish standards that
achieve the greatest degree of emissions reduction achievable, although
the provision identifies other factors to consider and requires the
Administrator to exercise judgment in weighing those factors. Section
202(a)(1)-(2) provides greater discretion to the Administrator to weigh
various factors but, as with the 2021 rule, the Administrator notes
that the purpose of adopting standards under that provision of the
Clean Air Act is to

address air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger
public health and welfare and that reducing air pollution has
traditionally been the focus of such standards. Thus, for this proposal
the agency's focus in identifying proposed standards, and a range of
alternative standards, is on achieving significant emissions
reductions, within the constraints identified by CAA section 202.
    There have been very significant developments in the adoption of
PEVs since EPA promulgated the 2021 rule. While at the time of the 2021
rule, estimates of financial commitments to electric vehicles by the
automotive industry were in the range of $500-600 billion, more recent
estimates are $1.2 trillion, approximately twice that of only two years
ago.755 756 The European Union has given preliminary
approval to a requirement to end tailpipe GHG emissions by 2035 (with a
55% reduction for cars by 2030), to complement other countries'
decisions to phase out ICE engines. In the United States, sales of PEVs
have continued to follow an accelerated rate of growth, reaching 8.4
percent of U.S. light-duty vehicle production in 2022, up from 4.4
percent in MY 2021 and 2.2 percent in MY 2020.\757\ In 2022, BEVs alone
accounted for about 807,000 U.S. new car sales, or about 5.8 percent of
the new light-duty passenger vehicle market, up from 3.2 percent BEVs
the year before.\758\ The year-over-year growth in U.S. BEV sales
suggests that an increasing share of new vehicle buyers are concluding
that a PEV is the best vehicle to meet their needs. Waiting lists for
BEVs, as well as recent published studies, indicate that consumer
demand for PEVs is strong, and that limited availability is likely a
greater constraint than consumer acceptance.\759\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \755\ Reuters, ``A Reuters analysis of 37 global automakers
found that they plan to invest nearly $1.2 trillion in electric
vehicles and batteries through 2030,'' October 21, 2022. Accessed on
November 4, 2022 at https://graphics.reuters.com/AUTOS-INVESTMENT/ELECTRIC/akpeqgzqypr/.
    \756\ Reuters, ``Exclusive: Automakers to double spending on
EVs, batteries to $1.2 trillion by 2030,'' October 25, 2022.
Accessed on November 4, 2022 at https://www.reuters.com/technology/exclusive-automakers-double-spending-evs-batteries-12-trillion-by-2030-2022-10-21/.
    \757\ Environmental Protection Agency, ``The 2022 EPA Automotive
Trends Report: Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Fuel Economy, and
Technology since 1975,'' (forthcoming).
    \758\ Colias, M., ``U.S. EV Sales Jolted Higher in 2022 as
Newcomers Target Tesla,'' Wall Street Journal, January 6, 2023.
    \759\ Gillingham, K, A van Benthem, S Weber, D Saafi, and X He.
2023. ``Has Consumer Acceptance of Electric Vehicles Been
Increasing: Evidence from Microdata on Every New Vehicle Sale in the
United States.'' American Economics Association: Papers &
Proceedings, forthcoming, Bartlett, Jeff. 2022. More Americans Would
Buy and Electric Vehicle, and Some Consumers Would Use Low-Carbon
Fuels, Survey Shows. Consumer Reports. July 7. Accessed March 2,
2023. https://www.consumerreports.org/hybrids-evs/interest-in-electric-vehicles-and-low-carbon-fuels-survey-a8457332578/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One of the most significant developments for U.S. automakers and
consumers is Congressional passage of the IRA, which takes a
comprehensive approach to addressing many of the potential barriers to
wider adoption of PEVs in the United States. The IRA provides tens of
billions of dollars in tax credits and direct Federal funding to reduce
the upfront cost to consumers of purchasing PEVs, to increase the
number of charging stations across the country, to reduce the cost of
manufacturing batteries, and to promote domestic sources of critical
minerals and other important elements of the PEV supply chain. By
addressing all of these potential obstacles to wider PEV adoption in a
coordinated, well-financed, strategy, Congress significantly advanced
the potential for PEV adoption in the near term.
    In developing this proposal, EPA has recognized that these
significant developments in automaker investment, PEV market growth,
and Congressional support through the BIL and IRA represent a
significant opportunity to ensure that the emissions reductions these
developments make possible will be realized as fully as possible and at
a reasonable cost over the time frame of the rule. It is clear that
these prior developments have already led to PEVs being increasingly
employed across the fleet in both light-duty and medium-duty
applications, largely independent of EPA's prior standards. Although
the 2021 rule projected a PEV penetration rate of 17 percent for 2026,
our updated modeling of the No Action case for this rule suggests a PEV
penetration rate for 2027 of 27 percent, even with no change in the
standards. This projection is consistent with, if not more conservative
than, the projections of third-party analysts.760 761 This
proposal seeks to build on the trends that these developments and
projections indicate, and accelerate the continued deployment of these
technologies to achieve further emissions reductions in 2027 and
beyond.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \760\ In 2021, IHS Markit projected 27.8 percent BEV, PHEV, and
range-extended electric vehicle (REX) for 2027. ``US EPA Proposed
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Model Years 2023-2026; What
to Expect,'' August 9, 2021. Accessed on October 28, 2021 at https://www.spglobal.com/mobility/en/research-analysis/us-epa-proposed-greenhouse-gas-emissions-standards-my2023-26.html.
    \761\ In early 2023 ICCT projected 39 percent PEVs for 2027
under the moderate IRA impact scenario. See International Council on
Clean Transportation, ``Analyzing the Impact of the Inflation
Reduction Act on Electric Vehicle Uptake in the US,'' ICCT White
Paper, January 2023. Available at https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/ira-impact-evs-us-jan23.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In developing our PEV penetration estimates, EPA considered a
variety of constraints which have to date limited PEV adoption and/or
could limit it in the future, including: Cost to manufacturers and
consumers; refresh and redesign cycles for manufacturers; availability
of raw materials, batteries, and other necessary supply chain elements;
adequate electricity supply and distribution; and barriers to consumer
acceptance such as adequate charging infrastructure and a wide range of
vehicle model choices that meet a diverse set of consumer needs.\762\
EPA has consulted with analysts from other agencies, including the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE, DOT, and the Joint Office
for Energy and Transportation, extensively reviewed published
literature and other data, and, as discussed thoroughly in this
preamble and the accompanying DRIA, has incorporated limitations into
our modeling to address these potential constraints, as appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \762\ Although has considered consumer acceptance (including
consumer costs) in exercising our discretion under the statute based
on the record before us, to assess the feasibility and
appropriateness of the proposed standards, we note that it is not a
statutorily-enumerated factor under section 202(a)(1)-(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also developed further analyses, recognizing that there are
uncertainties in our projections. For example, battery costs may turn
out to be higher, or lower, than we project, and consumers may adopt
PEVs faster or slower than we anticipate. Overall, we identified a
range of potential costs and PEV penetrations which we view as
representing a wider range of possible, and still feasible and
reasonable, compliance pathways under the proposed standards.
    Taking both the significant developments in the automotive market
and all of these potential constraints and uncertainties into account,
EPA's analyses found that it would be feasible to reduce net emissions
(compared to the No Action case) by 46 percent for CO2, 35
percent for PM2.5, 40 percent for NOX, and 47
percent for VOCs by the final year analyzed. EPA also analyzed a range
of standards which are somewhat more stringent and somewhat less
stringent than the proposed standards. EPA anticipates that the
appropriate choice of final standards within this range will reflect
the Administrator's judgments about the uncertainties in EPA's analyses
as well

as consideration of public comment and updated information where
available. However, EPA proposes to find that standards substantially
more stringent than Alternative 1 would not be appropriate because of
uncertainties concerning the cost and feasibility of such standards.
EPA proposes to find that standards substantially less stringent than
Alternative 2 or 3 would not be appropriate because they would forgo
feasible emissions reductions that would improve the protection of
public health and welfare.
    Taking into consideration the importance of reducing criteria
pollutant and GHG emissions and the primary purpose of CAA section 202
to reduce the threat posed to human health and the environment by air
pollution, the Administrator finds it is appropriate and consistent
with the text and purpose of section 202 to adopt standard that, when
implemented, would result in significant reductions of light-duty
vehicle emissions both in the near term and over the longer term,
taking into consideration the cost of compliance within the available
lead time. Likewise, the Administrator concludes that these standards
are consistent with the text and purpose of section 202 for heavy-duty
vehicles by achieving significant reductions of GHGs, taking into
consideration the cost of compliance within the available lead time,
and by achieving the greatest degree of emissions reduction achievable
for certain other pollutants, taking into consideration cost, lead-
time, energy and safety factors.
    Finally, EPA notes that the estimated benefits of the proposed
standards exceed the estimated costs, and estimates net benefits of
this proposal through 2055 at $850 billion to $1.6 trillion (7 percent
and 3 percent discount rates, with 3 percent SC-GHG) (see Section VIII
and Chapter 10 of the DRIA). We recognize the uncertainties and
limitations in these estimates (including unquantified benefits), and
the Administrator has not relied on these estimates in identifying the
appropriate standards under section 202. Nonetheless, our conclusion
that the estimated benefits considerably exceed the estimated costs of
the proposed program reinforces our view that the proposed standards
are appropriate.
    In summary, after consideration of the very significant reductions
in criteria pollutant and GHG emissions, given the technical
feasibility of the proposed standards and the moderate costs per
vehicle in the available lead time, and taking into account a number of
other factors such as the savings to consumers in operating costs over
the lifetime of the vehicle, safety, the benefits for energy security,
and the significantly greater quantified benefits compared to
quantified costs, EPA believes that the proposed standards are
appropriate under EPA's section 202(a) authority.

VI. How would this proposal reduce GHG emissions and their associated
effects?

A. Estimating Emission Inventories in OMEGA

    To estimate emission inventory effects due to a potential policy,
OMEGA uses as inputs a set of vehicle, refinery and electricity
generating unit (EGU) emission rates. In an iterative process, we first
generate emission inventories using very detailed emissions models that
estimate inventories from vehicles (EPA's MOVES model) and EGUs (EPA's
Power Sector Modeling Platform, v.6.21763 764).
The generation of those inventories is described in Chapters 8 and 5,
respectively, of the DRIA. However, upstream EGU inventories used a set
of bounding runs that looked at two possible futures--one with a low
level of fleet electrification and another with a higher level of
electrification. These bounding runs represented our best estimate of
these two possible futures--the continuation of the 2021 rule (lower)
and our proposal (upper)--at the time that those model runs were
conducted. With those bounded sets of inventories, and the associated
electricity demands within them, we can calculate emission rates for
the two ends of these bounds. Using those rates, we can interpolate,
using the given OMEGA policy scenario's fuel demands, to generate a
unique set of emission rates for that OMEGA policy scenario. Using
those unique rates, OMEGA then generates emission inventories for any
future OMEGA policy scenario depending on the liquid fuel and
electricity demands of that specific policy. This is explained in
greater detail in Chapter 9 of the DRIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \763\ https://www.epa.gov/power-sector-modeling.
    \764\ https://www.epa.gov/power-sector-modeling/epas-power-sector-modeling-platform-v6-using-ipm-summer-2021-reference-case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For vehicle criteria pollutant emissions (which are discussed
further in Preamble Section VII), CH4 and N2O
emissions, EPA used two sets of MOVES emission inventory runs--one
assuming no future use of gasoline particulate filters and one assuming
such use. Using the miles traveled (for tailpipe, tire wear, and brake
wear emissions) and liquid fuel consumed (for evaporative and fuel
spillage emissions), we can then generate sets of emission rates for
use in OMEGA. Using those rates, which are specific to fuel types and
vehicle types (car vs. truck, etc.), we can then generate unique
emission inventories for the given OMEGA policy scenario. This is
important given the changing nature of the transportation fleet (BEV vs
ICE, car vs CUV vs pickup) and the way those change for any possible
policy scenario and the many factors within OMEGA that impact the
future fleet composition and the very different vehicle emission rates
for BEVs vs ICE vehicles. This is especially true given the consumer
choice elements within OMEGA and the wide variety of input parameters
that can have significant impacts on the projected future fleet. This
is explained in greater detail in Chapter 9 of the DRIA. Note that
OMEGA estimates CO2 emissions based on the policy scenario.
    Regarding refinery emissions, EPA did not have GHG refinery
emissions from which to generate GHG emission rates associated with
refineries. We did estimate refinery emissions in OMEGA for some
criteria air pollutants and describe that in Section VII.

B. Impact on GHG Emissions

    Using OMEGA as described in Section VI.A, we estimated annual GHG
emissions impacts (accounting for vehicles and EGUs) associated with
the proposed program for the calendar years 2027 through 2055, as shown
in Table 135. The table shows that the proposed program would result in
significant net GHG reductions compared to the No Action scenario. The
cumulative CO2, CH4 and N2O emissions
reductions from the proposed program total 7,300 MMT, 0.12 MMT, and
0.13 MMT, respectively, through 2055. Table 136, Table 137 and Table
138 show the analogous results for alternatives 1, 2 and 3,
respectively.

               Table 135--Estimated GHG Impacts of the Proposed Standards Relative to the No Action Scenario, Light-Duty and Medium-Duty *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Emission impacts relative to no action          Percent change from no action
                                                                           (million metric tons per year)         --------------------------------------
                          Calendar year                           ------------------------------------------------
                                                                         CO2             CH4             N2O           CO2          CH4          N2O
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027.............................................................            -5.8       -0.000025        -0.00013         -0.4         -0.1         -0.6
2028.............................................................             -15       -0.000076        -0.00029         -1.2         -0.2         -1.3
2029.............................................................             -27        -0.00017        -0.00052         -2.3         -0.4         -2.4
2030.............................................................             -42        -0.00028        -0.00078         -3.6         -0.8         -3.8
2031.............................................................             -60        -0.00043         -0.0011         -5.4         -1.2         -5.7
2032.............................................................             -82        -0.00062         -0.0015         -7.6         -1.9         -7.9
2033.............................................................            -110        -0.00087          -0.002        -10.1         -2.9        -10.4
2034.............................................................            -130         -0.0012         -0.0024          -13         -4.1          -13
2035.............................................................            -150         -0.0015         -0.0028          -16         -5.6          -16
2036.............................................................            -170         -0.0018         -0.0032          -18         -7.1          -18
2037.............................................................            -200         -0.0022         -0.0036          -21         -9.0          -20
2038.............................................................            -220         -0.0027          -0.004          -24          -11          -23
2039.............................................................            -240         -0.0031         -0.0044          -26          -14          -25
2040.............................................................            -260         -0.0036         -0.0048          -29          -16          -27
2041.............................................................            -280         -0.0041         -0.0052          -31          -19          -29
2042.............................................................            -300         -0.0045         -0.0055          -34          -21          -31
2043.............................................................            -320          -0.005         -0.0058          -36          -24          -33
2044.............................................................            -330         -0.0054          -0.006          -38          -27          -34
2045.............................................................            -350         -0.0059         -0.0063          -39          -30          -35
2046.............................................................            -360         -0.0063         -0.0065          -41          -32          -37
2047.............................................................            -370         -0.0067         -0.0067          -42          -35          -38
2048.............................................................            -390         -0.0072         -0.0069          -44          -38          -39
2049.............................................................            -400         -0.0076         -0.0071          -45          -40          -39
2050.............................................................            -410          -0.008         -0.0073          -46          -43          -40
2051.............................................................            -410         -0.0081         -0.0074          -46          -44          -40
2052.............................................................            -420         -0.0082         -0.0075          -47          -44          -41
2053.............................................................            -420         -0.0083         -0.0076          -47          -45          -41
2054.............................................................            -420         -0.0084         -0.0077          -47          -45          -41
2055.............................................................            -420         -0.0084         -0.0077          -47          -45          -41
Sum..............................................................          -7,300           -0.12           -0.13          -26          -17          -25
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* GHG emission rates were not available for calculating GHG inventories from refineries.

                   Table 136--Estimated GHG Impacts of Alternative 1 Relative to the No Action Scenario, Light-Duty and Medium-Duty *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Emission impacts relative to no action          Percent change from no action
                                                                           (million metric tons per year)         --------------------------------------
                          Calendar year                           ------------------------------------------------
                                                                         CO2             CH4             N2O           CO2          CH4          N2O
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027.............................................................            -6.1       -0.000027        -0.00014         -0.5         -0.1         -0.6
2028.............................................................             -17       -0.000073        -0.00031         -1.3         -0.2         -1.4
2029.............................................................             -31        -0.00015        -0.00053         -2.5         -0.4         -2.5
2030.............................................................             -49        -0.00026        -0.00084         -4.2         -0.7         -4.1
2031.............................................................             -69        -0.00042         -0.0012         -6.2         -1.2         -6.0
2032.............................................................             -93        -0.00062         -0.0016         -8.6         -1.9         -8.3
2033.............................................................            -120        -0.00089         -0.0021        -11.5         -2.9        -11.0
2034.............................................................            -150         -0.0012         -0.0026          -14         -4.2          -14
2035.............................................................            -170         -0.0016          -0.003          -17         -5.8          -17
2036.............................................................            -200          -0.002         -0.0034          -20         -7.5          -19
2037.............................................................            -220         -0.0024         -0.0039          -23         -9.6          -22
2038.............................................................            -250         -0.0028         -0.0043          -26          -12          -24
2039.............................................................            -270         -0.0033         -0.0048          -29          -14          -27
2040.............................................................            -290         -0.0038         -0.0052          -32          -17          -29
2041.............................................................            -320         -0.0043         -0.0056          -35          -20          -32
2042.............................................................            -330         -0.0048         -0.0059          -37          -23          -33
2043.............................................................            -360         -0.0054         -0.0062          -40          -26          -35
2044.............................................................            -370         -0.0059         -0.0065          -42          -29          -37
2045.............................................................            -390         -0.0064         -0.0068          -43          -32          -38
2046.............................................................            -400         -0.0069         -0.0071          -45          -35          -40
2047.............................................................            -410         -0.0073         -0.0073          -47          -38          -41
2048.............................................................            -430         -0.0078         -0.0075          -48          -41          -42
2049.............................................................            -440         -0.0083         -0.0077          -50          -44          -43
2050.............................................................            -450         -0.0088         -0.0079          -51          -47          -43
2051.............................................................            -450         -0.0089          -0.008          -51          -48          -44
2052.............................................................            -460          -0.009         -0.0081          -51          -48          -44
2053.............................................................            -460         -0.0091         -0.0082          -52          -49          -44

2054.............................................................            -460         -0.0091         -0.0083          -52          -49          -44
2055.............................................................            -460         -0.0092         -0.0083          -52          -49          -44
Sum..............................................................          -8,100           -0.13           -0.14          -29          -18          -27
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*GHG emission rates were not available for calculating GHG inventories from refineries.

                   Table 137--Estimated GHG Impacts of Alternative 2 Relative to the No Action Scenario, Light-Duty and Medium-Duty *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Emission impacts relative to no action          Percent change from no action
                                                                           (million metric tons per year)         --------------------------------------
                          Calendar year                           ------------------------------------------------
                                                                         CO2             CH4             N2O           CO2          CH4          N2O
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027.............................................................            -4.2       -0.000021         -0.0001         -0.3          0.0         -0.4
2028.............................................................             -11       -0.000058        -0.00021         -0.9         -0.1         -1.0
2029.............................................................             -22        -0.00014        -0.00042         -1.8         -0.4         -2.0
2030.............................................................             -34        -0.00023        -0.00064         -2.9         -0.6         -3.1
2031.............................................................             -49        -0.00036        -0.00094         -4.4         -1.0         -4.8
2032.............................................................             -69        -0.00054         -0.0013         -6.4         -1.7         -6.8
2033.............................................................             -92        -0.00077         -0.0017         -8.8         -2.5         -9.2
2034.............................................................            -120         -0.0011         -0.0022          -11         -3.7          -12
2035.............................................................            -140         -0.0014         -0.0026          -14         -5.0          -14
2036.............................................................            -150         -0.0017         -0.0029          -16         -6.4          -16
2037.............................................................            -180          -0.002         -0.0033          -19         -8.2          -19
2038.............................................................            -200         -0.0024         -0.0037          -21          -10          -21
2039.............................................................            -220         -0.0028         -0.0041          -24          -12          -23
2040.............................................................            -240         -0.0033         -0.0044          -26          -15          -25
2041.............................................................            -260         -0.0037         -0.0048          -28          -17          -27
2042.............................................................            -270         -0.0041         -0.0051          -30          -20          -29
2043.............................................................            -290         -0.0046         -0.0054          -32          -22          -31
2044.............................................................            -300          -0.005         -0.0056          -34          -25          -32
2045.............................................................            -310         -0.0054         -0.0058          -35          -27          -33
2046.............................................................            -330         -0.0059         -0.0061          -37          -30          -34
2047.............................................................            -340         -0.0063         -0.0063          -38          -32          -35
2048.............................................................            -350         -0.0067         -0.0065          -40          -35          -36
2049.............................................................            -360         -0.0071         -0.0066          -41          -38          -37
2050.............................................................            -370         -0.0075         -0.0068          -42          -40          -37
2051.............................................................            -370         -0.0076         -0.0069          -42          -40          -38
2052.............................................................            -380         -0.0076          -0.007          -42          -41          -38
2053.............................................................            -380         -0.0077         -0.0071          -42          -41          -38
2054.............................................................            -380         -0.0077         -0.0071          -43          -41          -38
2055.............................................................            -380         -0.0078         -0.0072          -43          -42          -38
Sum..............................................................          -6,600           -0.11           -0.12          -23          -15          -23
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*GHG emission rates were not available for calculating GHG inventories from refineries.

                   Table 138--Estimated GHG Impacts of Alternative 3 Relative to the No Action Scenario, Light-Duty and Medium-Duty *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Emission impacts relative to no action          Percent change from no action
                                                                           (million metric tons per year)         --------------------------------------
                          Calendar year                           ------------------------------------------------
                                                                         CO2             CH4             N2O           CO2          CH4          N2O
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027.............................................................            -3.4       -0.000023        -0.00009         -0.3         -0.1         -0.4
2028.............................................................            -8.9       -0.000062        -0.00019         -0.7         -0.1         -0.9
2029.............................................................             -16        -0.00012        -0.00033         -1.3         -0.3         -1.6
2030.............................................................             -27         -0.0002        -0.00054         -2.3         -0.5         -2.6
2031.............................................................             -44        -0.00033        -0.00088         -4.0         -1.0         -4.4
2032.............................................................             -66        -0.00051         -0.0013         -6.2         -1.6         -6.7
2033.............................................................             -91        -0.00075         -0.0017         -8.7         -2.5         -9.2
2034.............................................................            -120          -0.001         -0.0022          -11         -3.7          -12
2035.............................................................            -140         -0.0014         -0.0027          -14         -5.1          -15
2036.............................................................            -160         -0.0017          -0.003          -17         -6.6          -17
2037.............................................................            -190         -0.0021         -0.0035          -20         -8.5          -19
2038.............................................................            -210         -0.0026         -0.0039          -22          -11          -22
2039.............................................................            -230          -0.003         -0.0043          -25          -13          -24

2040.............................................................            -250         -0.0035         -0.0047          -28          -15          -27
2041.............................................................            -280         -0.0039         -0.0051          -31          -18          -29
2042.............................................................            -290         -0.0044         -0.0054          -33          -21          -31
2043.............................................................            -310         -0.0049         -0.0057          -35          -24          -32
2044.............................................................            -330         -0.0053          -0.006          -37          -26          -34
2045.............................................................            -340         -0.0058         -0.0062          -39          -29          -35
2046.............................................................            -360         -0.0063         -0.0065          -41          -32          -37
2047.............................................................            -370         -0.0067         -0.0067          -42          -35          -38
2048.............................................................            -390         -0.0072         -0.0069          -43          -38          -39
2049.............................................................            -400         -0.0076         -0.0071          -45          -40          -39
2050.............................................................            -410         -0.0081         -0.0073          -46          -43          -40
2051.............................................................            -410         -0.0082         -0.0074          -46          -44          -41
2052.............................................................            -420         -0.0083         -0.0075          -47          -44          -41
2053.............................................................            -420         -0.0083         -0.0076          -47          -45          -41
2054.............................................................            -420         -0.0084         -0.0077          -47          -45          -41
2055.............................................................            -420         -0.0084         -0.0077          -47          -45          -41
Sum..............................................................          -7,100           -0.12           -0.13          -25          -16          -24
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*GHG emission rates were not available for calculating GHG inventories from refineries.

C. Global Climate Impacts Associated With the Proposal's GHG Emissions
Reductions

    The transportation sector is the largest U.S. source of GHG
emissions, representing 27.2 percent of total GHG emissions.\765\
Within the transportation sector, light-duty vehicles are the largest
contributor, at 57.1 percent, and thus comprise 15.5 percent of total
U.S. GHG emissions,\766\ even before considering the contribution of
medium-duty Class 2b and 3 vehicles which are also included under this
rule. Reducing GHG emissions, including the three GHGs (CO2,
CH4, and N2O) affected by this program, will
contribute toward the goal of holding the increase in the global
average temperature to well below 2 [deg]C above pre-industrial levels,
and subsequently reducing the probability of severe climate change
related impacts including heat waves, drought, sea level rise, extreme
climate and weather events, coastal flooding, and wildfires. While EPA
did not conduct modeling to specifically quantify changes in climate
impacts resulting from this rule in terms of avoided temperature change
or sea-level rise, we did quantify the climate benefits by monetizing
the emission reductions through the application of the social cost of
greenhouse gases (SC-GHGs), as described in Section VIII.D of this
preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \765\ Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks:
1990-2020 (EPA-430-R-22-003, published April 2022).
    \766\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. How would the proposal impact criteria and air toxics emissions
and their associated effects?

    As described in Section VI.A (and in more detail in Chapter 9 of
the DRIA), EPA has used OMEGA to estimate criteria air pollutant and
air toxic emission inventories associated with the proposed standards
and with Alternatives 1 and 2. These estimates are presented in Section
VII.A. OMEGA's emissions estimates include emissions from vehicles
(using MOVES), electricity generation (using IPM, as described in
Section IV.B.3), and refineries.\767\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \767\ Illustrative Air Quality Analysis for the Light and Medium
Duty Vehicle Multipollutant Proposed Rule Technical Support Document
(TSD) contained in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section VII.B discusses the air quality impacts of these emissions
changes.

A. Impact on Emissions of Criteria and Air Toxics Pollutants

    Table 139 through Table 142 present changes in emissions of
criteria air pollutants from vehicles for the light-duty proposal and
each of the light-duty alternatives. Each of these tables also includes
changes in emissions of criteria air pollutants from vehicles due to
the medium-duty proposal.
    Table 143 through Table 146 present changes in emissions from EGUs
and refineries for the light-duty proposal and each of the light-duty
alternatives. Each of these tables also includes changes in emissions
from EGUs and refineries due to the medium-duty proposal.
    Table 147 through Table 150 present net changes in emissions of
criteria air pollutants from vehicles, EGUs and refineries due to the
light-duty proposal and each of the light-duty alternatives. Each of
these tables also include changes due to the medium-duty proposal.
    Table 151 presents net changes in emissions of criteria air
pollutants from vehicles and EGUs without any impacts associated with
refinery emissions. This table shows results for the proposal and
includes changes due to the medium-duty proposal. We present these
results as a sensitivity given the uncertainty surrounding how changes
in domestic demand for liquid fuel may or may not impact domestic
refining of liquid fuel.
    Table 152 through Table 155 present changes in emissions of air
toxic pollutants from vehicles due to the light-duty proposal and each
of the light-duty alternatives. Each of these tables also includes
changes in air toxic emissions from vehicles due to the medium-duty
proposal.
    The vehicle reductions in PM2.5, NOX, NMOG,
and CO emissions shown in Table 139 through Table 142 are related to
the proposed standards for these pollutants and the technologies we
project that manufacturers will choose to use to comply with them,
including both BEV technologies and, for gasoline-powered vehicles,
gasoline particulate filters. Vehicle SOX emissions are a
function of the sulfur content of gasoline and diesel fuel. Therefore,
the reductions in SOX emissions from vehicles result from
the decrease in

gasoline and diesel fuel consumption associated with the GHG standards.

Table 139--OMEGA Estimated Vehicle Criteria Emission Impacts of the Proposed Standards Relative to the No Action
                                      Scenario, Light-duty and Medium-Duty
                                              [U.S. tons per year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Calendar year                PM2.5            NOX            NMOG             SOX             CO
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027............................             -68            -720          -1,100             -50         -24,000
2028............................            -170          -1,700          -3,400            -130         -61,000
2029............................            -310          -3,200          -7,200            -230        -110,000
2030............................            -790          -4,800         -12,000            -350        -180,000
2031............................          -1,300          -6,800         -18,000            -490        -250,000
2032............................          -1,800          -9,100         -25,000            -650        -330,000
2033............................          -2,300         -12,000         -33,000            -830        -430,000
2034............................          -2,900         -14,000         -42,000          -1,000        -530,000
2035............................          -3,400         -17,000         -52,000          -1,200        -640,000
2036............................          -4,000         -19,000         -62,000          -1,300        -720,000
2037............................          -4,500         -21,000         -73,000          -1,500        -820,000
2038............................          -5,100         -24,000         -85,000          -1,600        -930,000
2039............................          -5,600         -26,000         -96,000          -1,800      -1,000,000
2040............................          -6,100         -28,000        -110,000          -1,900      -1,100,000
2041............................          -6,600         -30,000        -120,000          -2,000      -1,200,000
2042............................          -7,000         -32,000        -130,000          -2,100      -1,300,000
2043............................          -7,500         -33,000        -140,000          -2,300      -1,400,000
2044............................          -7,900         -35,000        -150,000          -2,300      -1,400,000
2045............................          -8,200         -36,000        -160,000          -2,400      -1,500,000
2046............................          -8,500         -37,000        -170,000          -2,500      -1,600,000
2047............................          -8,800         -38,000        -180,000          -2,500      -1,600,000
2048............................          -9,000         -39,000        -180,000          -2,600      -1,700,000
2049............................          -9,200         -40,000        -190,000          -2,600      -1,700,000
2050............................          -9,400         -41,000        -190,000          -2,700      -1,700,000
2051............................          -9,500         -42,000        -200,000          -2,700      -1,800,000
2052............................          -9,600         -43,000        -200,000          -2,700      -1,800,000
2053............................          -9,700         -43,000        -200,000          -2,700      -1,800,000
2054............................          -9,800         -44,000        -200,000          -2,800      -1,800,000
2055............................          -9,800         -44,000        -200,000          -2,800      -1,800,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 140--OMEGA Estimated Vehicle Criteria Emission Impacts of the Proposed Standards Relative to the No Action
                                      Scenario, Light-Duty and Medium-Duty
                                              [U.S. tons per year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Calendar year                PM2.5            NOX            NMOG             SOX             CO
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027............................             -70            -750          -1,200             -53         -25,000
2028............................            -180          -1,800          -3,600            -140         -65,000
2029............................            -320          -3,100          -7,200            -250        -110,000
2030............................            -790          -4,900         -12,000            -400        -180,000
2031............................          -1,300          -6,900         -19,000            -550        -260,000
2032............................          -1,800          -9,300         -26,000            -730        -350,000
2033............................          -2,300         -12,000         -35,000            -940        -450,000
2034............................          -2,900         -15,000         -46,000          -1,100        -570,000
2035............................          -3,400         -18,000         -57,000          -1,300        -680,000
2036............................          -4,000         -20,000         -69,000          -1,500        -780,000
2037............................          -4,500         -23,000         -81,000          -1,700        -900,000
2038............................          -5,100         -25,000         -94,000          -1,800      -1,000,000
2039............................          -5,600         -27,000        -110,000          -2,000      -1,100,000
2040............................          -6,100         -30,000        -120,000          -2,100      -1,200,000
2041............................          -6,600         -32,000        -130,000          -2,300      -1,300,000
2042............................          -7,100         -34,000        -140,000          -2,400      -1,400,000
2043............................          -7,500         -36,000        -160,000          -2,500      -1,500,000
2044............................          -7,900         -37,000        -170,000          -2,600      -1,600,000
2045............................          -8,200         -39,000        -180,000          -2,700      -1,700,000
2046............................          -8,600         -40,000        -190,000          -2,800      -1,700,000
2047............................          -8,800         -41,000        -190,000          -2,800      -1,800,000
2048............................          -9,100         -42,000        -200,000          -2,900      -1,800,000
2049............................          -9,300         -43,000        -210,000          -2,900      -1,900,000
2050............................          -9,500         -44,000        -210,000          -3,000      -1,900,000
2051............................          -9,600         -45,000        -220,000          -3,000      -1,900,000
2052............................          -9,700         -46,000        -220,000          -3,000      -2,000,000
2053............................          -9,700         -46,000        -220,000          -3,000      -2,000,000
2054............................          -9,800         -47,000        -220,000          -3,000      -2,000,000
2055............................          -9,800         -47,000        -230,000          -3,000      -2,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 141--OMEGA Estimated Vehicle Criteria Emission Impacts of the Proposed Standards Relative to the No Action
                                      Scenario, Light-Duty and Medium-Duty
                                              [U.S. tons per year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Calendar year                PM2.5            NOX            NMOG             SOX             CO
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027............................             -49            -570            -810             -36         -17,000
2028............................            -120          -1,300          -2,400             -91         -42,000
2029............................            -250          -2,600          -5,600            -180         -88,000
2030............................            -730          -3,900          -9,400            -280        -140,000
2031............................          -1,200          -5,800         -14,000            -400        -200,000
2032............................          -1,700          -7,900         -20,000            -540        -270,000
2033............................          -2,300         -10,000         -28,000            -720        -360,000
2034............................          -2,800         -13,000         -36,000            -890        -460,000
2035............................          -3,400         -15,000         -45,000          -1,000        -560,000
2036............................          -3,900         -17,000         -54,000          -1,200        -640,000
2037............................          -4,500         -20,000         -64,000          -1,300        -730,000
2038............................          -5,000         -22,000         -74,000          -1,500        -830,000
2039............................          -5,500         -24,000         -85,000          -1,600        -920,000
2040............................          -6,100         -26,000         -96,000          -1,700      -1,000,000
2041............................          -6,500         -28,000        -110,000          -1,800      -1,100,000
2042............................          -7,000         -29,000        -120,000          -1,900      -1,200,000
2043............................          -7,400         -31,000        -130,000          -2,000      -1,300,000
2044............................          -7,800         -32,000        -130,000          -2,100      -1,300,000
2045............................          -8,200         -34,000        -140,000          -2,200      -1,400,000
2046............................          -8,500         -35,000        -150,000          -2,200      -1,400,000
2047............................          -8,800         -36,000        -160,000          -2,300      -1,500,000
2048............................          -9,000         -37,000        -160,000          -2,300      -1,500,000
2049............................          -9,200         -38,000        -170,000          -2,400      -1,600,000
2050............................          -9,400         -39,000        -170,000          -2,400      -1,600,000
2051............................          -9,500         -39,000        -180,000          -2,500      -1,600,000
2052............................          -9,600         -40,000        -180,000          -2,500      -1,600,000
2053............................          -9,700         -40,000        -180,000          -2,500      -1,600,000
2054............................          -9,700         -41,000        -180,000          -2,500      -1,600,000
2055............................          -9,800         -41,000        -190,000          -2,500      -1,600,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 142--OMEGA Estimated Vehicle Criteria Emission Impacts of the Proposed Standards Relative to the No Action
                                      Scenario, Light-Duty and Medium-Duty
                                              [U.S. tons per year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Calendar year                PM2.5            NOX            NMOG             SOX             CO
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027............................             -43            -550            -800             -30         -15,000
2028............................            -110          -1,200          -2,300             -75         -39,000
2029............................            -190          -2,100          -4,500            -130         -68,000
2030............................            -670          -3,400          -7,800            -220        -110,000
2031............................          -1,200          -5,400         -12,000            -360        -180,000
2032............................          -1,600          -7,700         -19,000            -530        -260,000
2033............................          -2,200         -10,000         -26,000            -710        -360,000
2034............................          -2,800         -13,000         -35,000            -910        -470,000
2035............................          -3,300         -16,000         -44,000          -1,100        -570,000
2036............................          -3,800         -18,000         -54,000          -1,200        -660,000
2037............................          -4,400         -20,000         -65,000          -1,400        -770,000
2038............................          -5,000         -23,000         -76,000          -1,600        -870,000
2039............................          -5,500         -25,000         -88,000          -1,700        -980,000
2040............................          -6,000         -27,000        -100,000          -1,900      -1,100,000
2041............................          -6,500         -29,000        -110,000          -2,000      -1,200,000
2042............................          -7,000         -31,000        -120,000          -2,100      -1,300,000
2043............................          -7,400         -33,000        -130,000          -2,200      -1,400,000
2044............................          -7,800         -34,000        -140,000          -2,300      -1,400,000
2045............................          -8,100         -36,000        -150,000          -2,400      -1,500,000
2046............................          -8,500         -37,000        -160,000          -2,500      -1,600,000
2047............................          -8,700         -38,000        -170,000          -2,500      -1,600,000
2048............................          -9,000         -39,000        -180,000          -2,600      -1,700,000
2049............................          -9,200         -40,000        -190,000          -2,600      -1,700,000
2050............................          -9,400         -41,000        -190,000          -2,700      -1,700,000
2051............................          -9,500         -42,000        -200,000          -2,700      -1,800,000
2052............................          -9,600         -43,000        -200,000          -2,700      -1,800,000
2053............................          -9,700         -43,000        -200,000          -2,700      -1,800,000
2054............................          -9,800         -44,000        -200,000          -2,800      -1,800,000
2055............................          -9,800         -44,000        -200,000          -2,800      -1,800,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 143 through Table 146 show the ``upstream'' emissions impacts
from EGUs and refineries. As explained in Section IV.B.3, our power
sector modeling predicts that EGU emissions will decrease between 2028
and 2055 due to increasing use of renewables. As a result, the increase
in EGU emissions associated with the proposal's increased electricity
generation would peak in the late 2030's/early 2040's (depending on the
pollutant) and then generally decrease or level off through 2055.
Section VI.A provides more detail on the estimation of refinery
emissions, which we predict would decrease as a result of the decreased
demand for liquid fuel associated with the proposed GHG standards.

 Table 143--OMEGA Estimated Upstream Criteria Emission Impacts of the Proposed Standards Relative to the No Action Scenario, Light-Duty and Medium-Duty
                                                                  [U.S. tons per year]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                EGU                                          Refinery
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             PM2.5        NOX        NMOG         SOX        PM2.5        NOX        NMOG         SOX
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027....................................................         140         800          68         660        -130        -510        -440        -200
2028....................................................         310       1,800         150       1,500        -330      -1,200      -1,100        -490
2029....................................................         540       3,100         260       2,500        -590      -2,300      -1,900        -890
2030....................................................         790       4,400         380       3,600        -900      -3,400      -2,900      -1,400
2031....................................................       1,100       5,900         510       4,800      -1,300      -4,800      -4,100      -1,900
2032....................................................       1,300       7,500         660       6,000      -1,700      -6,400      -5,500      -2,600
2033....................................................       1,600       9,000         800       7,100      -2,100      -8,100      -7,000      -3,300
2034....................................................       1,900      10,000         940       8,100      -2,600      -9,900      -8,500      -4,000
2035....................................................       2,100      11,000       1,100       8,800      -3,100     -12,000      -9,900      -4,700
2036....................................................       2,300      12,000       1,100       9,000      -3,400     -13,000     -11,000      -5,200
2037....................................................       2,400      12,000       1,200       9,300      -3,800     -14,000     -12,000      -5,800
2038....................................................       2,500      13,000       1,300       9,300      -4,200     -16,000     -13,000      -6,400
2039....................................................       2,600      13,000       1,300       9,100      -4,500     -17,000     -14,000      -6,900
2040....................................................       2,600      13,000       1,400       8,700      -4,900     -18,000     -16,000      -7,400
2041....................................................       2,600      12,000       1,400       8,100      -5,200     -19,000     -16,000      -7,900
2042....................................................       2,600      12,000       1,400       7,300      -5,500     -20,000     -17,000      -8,300
2043....................................................       2,600      11,000       1,400       6,500      -5,700     -21,000     -18,000      -8,700