1. COPERT 4 v.10.0 revisions

2. Outline Gasoline and diesel PCs: new subsector classification Gasoline and diesel PCs:CO 2 correction option Diesel PCs Euro 5/6: Emissions update PCs: E85 subsector (new) Mopeds: Emissions update Gasoline PCs: Methane update PCs: CNG subsector (new)

3. New PC subsectors (gasoline and diesel) The Gasoline<0.8 l subsector has been added for gasoline passenger cars of Euro 4-6 technologies Gasoline<1.4 l subsector becomes Gasoline 0.8-1.4 l The Diesel<1.4 l subsector has been added for diesel passenger cars of Euro 4-6 technologies Diesel <2.0l subsector becomes Diesel 1.4-2.0 l

4. Modelling Approach for new subsectors GOAL: to provide FC factors using simulated vehicles models (no difference in emission factors) Use of specific vehicle features (where available) to design powertrain system level simulations (AVL CRUISE) Collection/estimation of vehicle technical specifications: physical characteristics (weight, wheel base, drag coefficient, tyre dimensions, etc.) vehicle architecture and control systems

5. Modelling Approach Model building embedding of performance (energy, emission, output, …) maps for main components (engine, motor, battery, transmission) based on available data or expected improvements Calibration of vehicle model performance via cycle testing Type approval cycle runs (NEDC, EUDC, UDC) and acceleration data based on available data for validation purposes only. ARTEMIS cycles for real-world fuel consumption estimation

6. Modelling plan Vehicle Specifications Model Building Startup Simulations (NEDC, UDC, EUDC, acceleration tests) Model Modifications (calibrate consumption by tuning of subsystems performance) Revised Simulations (plus variations) Validation (e.g. with chassis models or similar simulations)

7. Gasoline <0.8l modelling Starting with the CO 2 monitoring database, three representative passenger cars with an engine capacity of less than 800cc were chosen (based on their popularity and engine capacity distribution) This subsector contained a very limited choice of passenger cars. Simulation was weighted based on vehicle registrations.

8. Gasoline <0.8l models The Fiat 500 vehicle typically exceeds the 0.8l range. However, due to the limited of vehicles in the CO 2 database and the low-consumption performance of this vehicle, it was still included in the simulation. ModelEngine CapacityNEDC consumption (lt/100km) Smart Fortwo Coupe698 cm 3 5.21 Chevrolet Matiz796 cm 3 5.04 Fiat 500875 cm 3 4.11

9. Gasoline <0.8l results

10. The fitting equation type was based on the Gasoline <1.4l, since this subsector is a subset. Goodness of fit: Adjusted R-square: 0.884 RMSE: 3.558 alphabetagammadeltaepsilonzRF 1100.0261-1.670.0002250.031200

11. Diesel <1.4l modelling Using the CO 2 monitoring database six representative passenger cars with an engine capacity of less than 1400cc were chosen (based on their popularity and engine capacity distribution) Simulation was weighted based on vehicle registrations.

12. Diesel <1.4l models ModelEngine Capacity (cm 3 ) NEDC consumption (lt/100km) Smart Coupe cdi7993.4 Ford Fiesta TDCi 1.413984.3 VW Polo 1.2 TDI11993.76 Lancia Ypsilon 1.3 MJ12484.6 Fiat Grande Punto 1.3 MJ12484.5 Toyota Yaris 1.4D13644.5

13. Diesel <1.4 l results

14. The fitting equation type was based on the Diesel<2l since this subsector is a subset. Goodness of fit: Adjusted R-square: 0.6971 RMSE: 2.456 alphabetagammadeltaepsilonzRF 5000.743.040.0015150.25300

15. Diesel <1.4 l validation Average vehicle results as well as the FC emission factor were compared to the A300DB content on Diesel<1,4 l Euro 4 & 5 cars. The difference is similar to differences between this database and higher capacity diesel vehicles in COPERT. FC in g/kmArtemis Urban hot Artemis Rural hot Artemis MW150 hot Average Vehicle (simulation)44.230.340.8 Emission factor43.831.540.3 A300DB content44.229.244.3

16. CO 2 Correction: Real-world vs. Type Approval Type-approval emissions are not considered representative of real-world driving conditions According to the JRC Report: “Parameterisation of fuel consumption and CO2 emissions of passenger cars and light commercial vehicles for modelling purposes,” a set of models based on type-approval FC, and vehicle mass can predict real-world fuel consumption

17. CO 2 Correction: Modelling logic A simple model should be introduced into COPERT methodology The chosen set of models can be used for all passenger car capacities is ideal to predict consumption of new car registrations because it uses mean vehicle mass, capacity, and type-approval CO 2 to correct emissions, which are readily available from the CO 2 monitoring database

18. CO 2 Correction: Modelling details The model equations for the real-world fuel consumption of passenger cars are: Where FC TA stands for type-approval fuel consumption, m stands for the vehicle reference mass (empty weight + 75 kg for driver and 20 kg for fuel), and CC stands for the engine capacity in cm 3 ):

19. CO 2 Correction option Average values for mass, engine capacity, and TA CO 2 figures are required user input, per passenger car category COPERT first calculates emissions normally, based on custom input circulation data If the CO 2 correction option is selected, a calibration process introduces a correction coefficient This coefficient is then used to calculate the modified FC and CO 2 emission factors

20. Example: Gasoline<1.4, Euro 5 COPERT calculated FC emission factors (U/R/H): 50.0/ 44.3/ 48.2 g/km Speed profile: 40/ 60/ 100 km/h Shares: U20%/ R40%/ H40% The model fuel consumption for Euro 5 cars <1.4 l leads to 6.41 l/100km or 48.1 g/km. This reflects mean consumption over CADC. average mass: 1200 kg average capacity: 1150cc average type-approval FC: 40 g/km (~5.26 l/100km)

21. CO 2 Correction example: Gasoline<1.4l The average consumption of vehicles over CADC on which the COPERT 4 emission factors is based is 59.5 g/km Hence a correction coefficient has to be introduced of 48.1/ 59.5 = 0.808 Applying the coefficient will produce modified FCs of 0.808 x 50.0 = 40.4 g/km for urban (was 50 g/km) 0.808 x 44.3 = 35.8 g/km for rural (was 44.3 g/km) 0.808 x 48.2 = 39.0 g/km for highway (was 48.2 g/km) CO 2 calculation proceeds as normal based on the modified FC

22. COPERT FC average factors The mean FC SAMPLE was calculated as the average FC of the vehicle sample used in developing COPERT EFs over the three CADC parts (Urban, Road and Motorway) The CO 2 monitoring database (2011, v3) specifications were used to estimate the FC InUSE (mass, capacity and type- approval FC) The correction factor is then calculated as:

23. COPERT sample mean FC (CADC) SubsectorFC average (COPERT) in g/km G < 0.8l47.0 G 0.8 - 1.4l59.5 G 1.4-2.0l66.2 G >2.0l72.8 D<1.4l38.8 D1.4-2.0l54.4 D >2.0l67.8

24. Correction (%) with respect to country stats: The difference was calculated based on this equation CO 2 Correction – Gasoline (2010) CountryG<0.8l*G0.8-1.4lG1.4-2.0lG>2.0l Austria -13.8-16.0-11.513.6 Germany -13.8-15.2-10.110.5 Italy -13.8-20.4-12.819.5 UK -13.8-18.3-12.716.8 *Value refers to total database (all EU) due to the low number of available vehicles, reported per country

25. CO 2 Correction – Diesel (2010) CountryD<1.4lD1.4-2.0lD>2.0l Germany 3.22-3.34-2.17 Italy 5.02-7.38-0.29 Great Britain 5.61-7.89-2.11 Austria 9.06-3.91-2.84

26. Implementation to COPERT Euro 4 to Euro 6 Annual correction factor (2005-2020) calculated on the basis of mean mass, capacity, CO 2,TA, new registrations. Available in both: 1753/2000/EC database 443/2009 database Weighted average correction factor per emission standard is calculated and used per emission standard

27. Implementation to COPERT

28. CO 2 Correction Remarks - 1 Large Gasoline FC increases by 10-20% due the high average capacity in the database (>3500cc). All the other subsectors have a 10-20% decrease in FC. The G<0.8l subsector was non-existent when the CO 2 correction model was compiled The G0.8-1.4l subsector FC average was extracted for capacity around 1390cc while the country averages are ~1250cc. The G1.4-2l subsector FC average was extracted for capacity close to the CO2 monitoring database which can explain the smaller corrections The FC SAMPLE was based on Euro 4 measurements so it is expected to be somewhat higher than Euro 5 cars

29. CO 2 Correction Remarks - 2 Diesel vehicles have much lower correction factors D<1.4l and D1.4-2l show opposite trends; the correction was compiled with the old COPERT classification (only D<2.0l). High capacity (D>2.0l) vehicles have very small corrections; the capacity average in this case is much closer to 2.0l (less than 2500cc)

30. Diesel Euro 5/6 update Diesel Euro 5 vehicles exceed NOx emissions in real-world operation: tuned engine and aftertreatment components only strive to achieve type approval limits reducing fuel consumption and GHG emissions are the priority Euro 5 testing coordinated in the framework of the ERMES activity Representative NOx emission factors are still under development Intermediate solution had to be found!

31. Available measurements (ERMES group) LabEU5 SIEU5 CIEU6 SIEU6 CI TNO57-3 ADAC13-1 TUG55-5 EMPA104 JRC84 LAT31 Total322408 (7 diff. Models)

32. Diesel Euro 5/6 update Available data show that Euro 5 is the highest light duty NOx emission technology ever Considerably lower NOx emissions are shown for the small sample of Euro 6 cars tested, however these models are of advanced emission control technology it is not yet known if this technology will be used in the future exact type-approval procedure has not been decided yet Real-world PM levels appear consistent with the type approval reductions and current COPERT emission factors (very efficient diesel particle filters (DPFs) in all diesel cars post Euro 5)

33. Average NO x emission levels (ERMES)

34. Average PM emission levels (ERMES)

35. Diesel Euro 5/6 update Correction in COPERT will be applied to diesel NO x emission factors only Detailed emission factors exist in COPERT for Euro 4. Proposed reduction factors based on Euro 4: Negative reduction factor implies an increase

36. Diesel Euro 5/6 update Proposed ‘reduction factor’ will lead to a substantial increase in NO x emissions compared to the previous COPERT version The increase will be more important to countries where the stock of Euro 5 cars is relatively more important. Detailed emission factors for Euro 5 and Euro 6 will be made available in Spring 2013 through ERMES and will be introduced in the next COPERT version. No big differences expected compared to v10.0

37. E85 medium passenger car Bioethanol is the most widely used biofuel in the world Compared to biodiesel, ethanol has a higher production potential due to a larger range of possible biomass sources The most popular blend is E85 (85% ethanol and 15% gasoline by volume) A comparison of E85 vs. E0/E5/E10 in Euro4 – Euro5 passenger cars was carried out, mostly based on a database held by AVL MTC. Study was performed within ERMES activity

38. Tested Fuels Neat gasoline, with no ethanol blend, referred to as E0 E5, consisting of standard gasoline fuel containing 5% of ethanol. A blend of 15% gasoline and 85% ethanol, referred to as E85

39. Tested vehicles (Euro 4) TypeEngine (cm 3 )TechnologyFuel Volvo V501798Euro 4petrol / E85 Saab 9-5 Biopower1985Euro 4petrol / E85 Ford Focus FFV1798Euro 4petrol / E85 Renault Megane FFV1598Euro 4petrol / E85 Peugeot 307 Bio flex1587Euro 4petrol / E85 Volkswagen Golf 1.61595Euro 4petrol / ethanol

40. Tested vehicles and fuels (Euro 4) TypeTest fuel Volvo V50E5 and E85 Saab 9-5 BiopowerE5 and E85 Ford Focus FFVE5 and E85 Renault Megane FFVE5 and E85 Peugeot 307 Bio flexE0 and E85 Volkswagen Golf 1.6E0 and E85

41. Test details (Euro 4) The Common Artemis Driving Cycle (CADC) was used for the tests Only the ‘hot’ phase of the urban part of the cycle was considered The ambient temperature for all tests was around 22-25 o C.

42. Tested vehicles and cycles (Euro 4) TypeTest cycle Number of vehicles Volvo V50CADC1 Saab 9-5 BiopowerCADC4 Ford Focus FFVCADC3 -//-Artemis_total_hot2 Renault Megane FFVCADC3 -//-Artemis_total_hot3 Peugeot 307 Bio flexCADC3 -//-Artemis_total_hot3 Volkswagen Golf 1.6CADC2

43. Emission measurements (Euro 4) Pollutant # of values for E85/E5 comparison # of values for E85/E0 comparison CO3818 HC3818 NOx3818 NO2-18 CO23218 Fuel Consumption3818 PM3218 PM (PMP)-15 PN3218 CH4912 NMHC912

44. CO Results (Euro 4): E85 vs. E5 and E0

45. HC Results (Euro 4): E85 vs. E5 and E0

46. NO x Results (Euro 4): E85 vs. E5 and E0

47. CO 2 Results (Euro 4): E85 vs. E5 and E0

48. FC Results (Euro 4): E85 vs. E5 and E0

49. CO conclusions (Euro 4) Significant decreases in CO by using E85 over E5 or E0 fuel. in the order of 50% collectively for the E85/E5 and E85/E0 ratios. 59% for the E85/E5 ratio and 27% for the E85/E0 ratio Reduction is approximately 30% at urban conditions and 65% at highway conditions

50. HC conclusions (Euro 4) The overall mean when using E85 over E5 or E0 is 33% less than using gasoline alone 42% reduction for the E85/E5 ratio, compared to 14% for the E85/E0 ratio In urban speeds, use of E85 over E5 leads to an increase in emissions by 25% while emissions over highway conditions drop by 53%

51. NO x conclusions (Euro 4) Impacts on NO x overall are negligible, with an overall increase when using E85 of 4% The increase is limited to 1% when comparing E85 vs. E5 and 4% when comparing E85 vs. E0

52. CO 2 conclusions (Euro 4) Tailpipe CO 2 emissions actually are lower when using E85 compared to lower blends Use of E85 results to 5% lower CO 2 than E5 and 3% less CO 2 than E0.

53. FC conclusions (Euro 4) Neat gasoline has an energy density of approximately 33 MJ/l compared to approximately 25 MJ/l for E85 (E85 has an approximately 25-30% lower energy density ) Fuel consumption increases by 39% when using E85 in our sample Increase ranges from 37% for the E85 over E5 ratio compared to 43% for the E85 over the E0 ratio

54. Tested vehicles (Euro 5) Type Engine (cm3) Technolog y Fuel Audi A4 2.0 TFSI Flex 1984Euro 5petrol / E85 Opel Insignia 2.0 Turbo Bifuel 1998Euro 5petrol / E85 Passat 1.4 TSI Multifuel 1390Euro 5petrol / E85

55. Tested vehicles and fuels (Euro 5) TypeTest fuel Audi A4 2.0 TFSI FlexE5 and E85 Opel Insignia 2.0 Turbo BifuelE10 and E85 Passat 1.4 TSI MultifuelE10 and E85

56. Test details (Euro 5) The Common Artemis Driving Cycle (CADC) was used for Audi A4 2.0 TFSI Flex Opel Insignia 2.0 Turbo Bifuel and Passat 1.4 TSI Multifuel, were tested with CADC and the ERMES driving cycle.

57. Ermes Driving Cycle

58. Emission measurements (Euro 5) Pollutant# of values for E5# of values for E85 CO129 HC129 NOx129 CO2129 Fuel Consumption129 PN129 NMHC129 Audi A4 2.0 TFSI Flex

59. Emission measurements (Euro 5) Pollutant # of values for E85/E10 comparison CO8 HC8 NOx8 NO8 CO28 Fuel Consumption8 PN8 Opel Insignia 2.0 Turbo Bifuel – Passat 1.4 TSI Multifuel

60. CO Results (Euro 5): E85 vs. E5

61. HC Results (Euro 5): E85 vs. E5

62. NO x Results (Euro 5): E85 vs. E5

63. CO 2 Results (Euro 5): E85 vs. E5

64. FC Results (Euro 4): E85 vs. E5

65. CO conclusions (Euro 5) E85 use over E5 or E10 overall leads to 51% lower CO emissions Euro 5 cars appears as very low emitters at urban speeds

66. HC conclusions (Euro 5) Use of E85 on average over E5 and E10 leads to a slight increase of 2% in HC emissions The E85 over E5 leads to a 17% reduction in emissions and the E85 over E10 leads to a 29% increase in emissions The Euro 4 dataset exhibited 33% decrease in emissions so the results appear inconsistent

67. NO x conclusions (Euro 5) The average NOx when using E85 was 32.5% lower than E5 and E10 for the Euro 5 cars 41% reduction for the E85 over E5 and 21.5% reduction for the E85 over E10. This is in contrast to the Euro 4 negligible impact.

68. CO 2 conclusions (Euro 4) CO2 emissions appear overall 9% lower with E85 over E5 and E10 E85 vs E5 appearing 6% lower and E85 over E10 appearing 11.5% lower.

69. FC conclusions (Euro 5) The E85 over E5 fuel consumption appears 30% higher This is consistent with the expected difference in the energy density between the two fuels

70. Final proposed values Pollutant/ Consumption Geom. Mean Difference (%) Geom. 95% -CI (%) Geom. 95% +CI (%) Sample Size CO (g/km)-50-58-4173 HC (g/km)-25-36-1467 NO x (g/km)-6-23+1573 FC (l/100 km)+38364060 CO 2 (g/km)-6-7-568 Impact of E85 blends on post Euro 4 FFVs hot emissions and consumption compared to gasoline (gasoline is considered any blend up to maximum E10)

71. Notes FC difference appears very high and a check of its calculation in the AVL measurements has to be conducted HC emissions do not contain the complete range of non methane organic gases (NMOG) which is a better descriptor for E85 emissions. If E85 fuel specifications are known for the tests used in this report, then these can be used to improve the estimates of the ranges in the table.

72. Mopeds update Mopeds (or scooters) are small two wheel vehicles with a maximum capacity of 50 cc that are used for road transport Despite the small size of their engine, they can emit significant levels of air pollutants as a result of their primitive emission control systems a significant number of vehicles are still powered by 2- stroke engines which are known of being high hydrocarbon emitters as the result of scavenging losses and direct in- cylinder lube oil addition

73. Mopeds update COPERT 4 v9.0 Included an averaged emission factor for moped, independent of the combustion system (2S or 4S) This emission factor was derived from a very limited number of measurements (~10) COPERT 4 v10.0 Moped emission factors split to 2-stroke and 4-stroke Database built based on literature data and some (Italian) unpublished values

74. Vehicles and measurements in database -Euro – Conv.Euro 1Euro 2Euro 3* Unknown /not specified 2-S mopeds13191727 2-S measurements 263359618 4-S mopeds021000 4-S measurements 041500 * Demo vehicles only

75. Average CO Results (g/km)

76. CO: comparison with COPERT COPERT 4 emission reductions have been consistent with the values in the database, in terms of CO reductions assumed at Euro 2 level are not achievable in reality, especially when cold-start cycles are included in the database reductions at Euro 3 level are higher than what assumed in COPERT, but the two vehicles included in the database should be considered as demonstration vehicles (not necessarily representative Euro 3).

77. Average HC Results (g/km)

78. HC: comparison with COPERT COPERT included a higher emission factor than the emission rate of conventional vehicles in the database. HC emission factors are very substantial from this vehicle type. Emissions decrease for subsequent emission levels and COPERT and database values are rather consistent. In terms of Euro 3 and similar to CO, the emission rates from the demonstration vehicles included in the database appear quite low.

79. Average NO x Results (g/km)

80. NO x : comparison with COPERT NO x emission measurements in the database show the increase from conventional vehicles to Euro standards There is a shift from rich mixtures at a conventional level to leaner mixtures as the technology gradually improves. This has been in general consistent with what COPERT emission factors also predicted but the absolute levels differ. Euro 3 levels should be seen as a potential rather than a representative for the average of this vehicle technology.

81. Two-stroke, four-stroke comparison: CO

82. Two-stroke, four-stroke comparison: HC

83. Two-stroke, four-stroke comparison: NO x

84. Two-stroke, four-stroke comparison Differences in the emission performance are to be expected between the two combustion types, especially in off-cycle driving conditions. Several data missing in the database for four-stroke vehicles so a clear picture of the comparison cannot be obtained. HC emissions are much higher for two stroke than four stroke vehicles (scavenging losses of this combustion concept). No clear differences can be seen for other pollutants (high variability of the emission levels)

85. Database mean values (g/km) Two stroke mopeds COHCNOxPM Conventional14.78.40.060.176 Euro 14.63.40.180.045 Euro 22.82.60.170.026 Euro 30.640.420.110.018

86. Database mean values (g/km) Four stroke mopeds COHCNOxPM Conventional---- Euro 16.70.780.220.040 Euro 24.20.790.170.007 Euro 3----

87. Discussion - 1 The two stroke vehicle sample for Conventional, Euro 1, and Euro 2 vehicles is quite satisfactory in terms of number of measurements, so these values can be safely used as emission factors for the corresponding vehicle categories. The Euro 3 motorcycles emission rates originate from a study that wishes to show the potential for improvement, using state-of-the-art emission control systems.

88. Discussion - 2 We suggest using fabricated emission factors derived from the Euro 2 ones and the expected changes in the emission standards that will come into force with the new regulations. It is expected that the Euro 3 emission standards will have the same emission limit with Euro 2 with the addition of a cold-start type approval procedure and a 30% weighing factor for the cold start part. In order to find the expected reduction of the Euro 3 emission factor (which includes a cold-start part), over the Euro 2 (which only refers to hot conditions), we estimated a Euro 2 equivalent emission standard.

89. Discussion This hypothetical emission standard (ES Euro2Cold ) corresponds to the equivalent Euro 2 emission standard, in case the Euro 2 type approval was given on the basis of the Euro 3 cycle (cold start):

90. Discussion WF is the weighting factor for the cold part of the cycle (30%), and Cold/Hot is the assumed contribution of cold start emissions for Euro 2 mopeds. Since the Euro 2 and Euro 3 emission limits are numerical identical, the two last equations reduce the following one: RF stands for the reduction factor of Euro 2 over Euro2, i.e. Euro 3 = Euro 2* RF

91. Reduction factors (Euro 3 emission levels) SourceColdHotRatio (Reference)COHCNOxCOHCNOxCOHCNOx [18]2.31.90.350.601.150.393.91.60.9 [17]1.00.90.170.410.540.1252.51.70.9 [3]1.85.50.050.881.050.0562.05.30.9 [3]1.91.30.160.600.700.203.21.80.8 [3]0.920.0750.150.100.0926.020.00.8 Average (excl. outlier)2.92.60.9 RF0.640.681.04

92. Discussion The reduction factor for NO x appears more than 1. This is an artifact of the method used, because cold start levels are higher than Euro 2 levels. We do not expect this to be occurring in reality so we assume that Euro 2 and Euro 3 levels will be identical. Despite the small size of the database for four-stroke vehicles, results are rather consistent. Hence, it is considered safe to retain these values as emission factors as well.

93. Discussion For Euro 4 vehicles we use the 2-stroke ratios Euro 2 over Euro 3 also on 4-stroke ones. This is because we expect the introduction of cold-start to have the same impact on both combustion technologies. For conventional 4-stroke (dominated by 2-stroke vehicles), we suggest using the same emission factors as Euro 2 ones. Exact 4-stroke conventional emission factors is of little relevance to the final calculation. the approach utilized for HC has also been adopted for PM, as PM basically is formed due to the condensation of hydrocarbons for such vehicle types.

94. Final proposed values (g/km) Two stroke mopeds COHCNOxPM Conventional14.78.40.0560.176 Euro 14.63.40.180.045 Euro 22.82.60.170.026 Euro 31.8 0.170.018

95. Final proposed values (g/km) Four stroke mopeds COHCNOxPM Conventional14.78.40.0560.176 Euro 16.70.780.220.040 Euro 24.20.790.170.007 Euro 32.70.540.170.004

96. Final proposed values There is limited information for fuel consumption. A value of 25 g/km is proposed for conventional vehicles dropping to 20 g/km for all Euro stages, due to the better utilization of the fuel. No distinction is possible between two stroke and four stroke vehicles.

97. Gasoline PCs CH 4 correction (Euro 4/5/6) Current COPERT version includes the same Euro 4 methane emission factor for Euro 5 and Euro 6. Studies report that gasoline Euro 5 PCs may have decreased cold CH 4 emissions compared to Euro 4 vehicles. Hot methane emissions also differ; COPERT deems that there are no CH 4 highway hot emissions while some studies show that highway methane emissions are in fact higher than urban and rural emissions. The Biogasmax study includes two Euro 4 vehicles and one Euro 5 vehicle which can run either on CNG or gasoline

98. CH 4 correction: Cold emissions The UDC cycle was chosen for the cold emissions estimation The proposed correction: Calculates the bulk cold HC emission factor (g/km) in COPERT Uses the UDC CH 4 /HCs ratio from the study (Ratio CH4/HC ) Calculates the CH 4 corrected cold emission factor as the product: This ratio was compared to the COPERT cold CH 4 /HCs ratio:

99. CH 4 Cold emissions comparison with COPERT Report Ratio(CH 4 /HCs) % Euro 421.4 Euro 59.8 Euro 4/514.1 Ratio(CH4/HCs) % depending on the database used HCs CH 4 based on COPERT CH 4 based on Euro 4 CH 4 based on Euro 5 CH 4 based on Euro 4/5 G<1.4 0.2920.0570.0290.0620.041 G1.4 -2l 0.3630.0570.0350.0780.051 G>2l 0.2710.0570.0260.0580.038 Results in g/km. Bulk cold HC EF was calculated using Germany 2010 database with an urban speed of 25km/h. COPERT Ratio(CH 4 /HCs) % G<1.4 19.48 G1.4 -2l 15.67 G>2l 21.01

100. CH 4 correction: Hot emissions The CADC cycle was chosen for the hot emissions estimation (real-world conditions) The previous approach is used for the calculation of hot CH 4 emissions This calculation is applied for urban, rural and highway emissions. Hot HC emissions use the same factor for all gasoline PCs

101. Final CH4 values for gasoline cars (g/km) VersionHot UrbanRuralHighway V9.00.001960.002000.00000 V10.00.002870.002690.00508 Euro 4/5/6Cold urban V9.0(Biogasmax) G<1.4 0.0570.041 G1.4 -2l 0.0570.051 G.2l 0.0570.038

102. Notes It is evident that the ratio of methane vs. HCs for cold emissions is similar to the existing COPERT values (~20%) Lower values are reported for Euro 5 vehicles but the database is very limited to validate this trend. Therefore, the existing cold emission factor for methane remains Hot values for methane provide slight changes in urban and rural emissions, but quite a difference in highway conditions, where COPERT assumed zero CH 4 emissions. Hot emissions are updated with the new values.

103. CNG PCs subsector Methane vehicles (Compressed Natural Gas – CNG) represent a mature technology that may lead to a moderate reduction in CO 2, compared to their gasoline counterparts Natural gas can be blended with bio-methane, generated from biomass, leading to a further reduction of CO 2 emissions COPERT current version includes CNG busses, but no CNG passenger cars. V10.0 adds a CNG medium-size passenger car category

104. CNG PCs subsector The combustion process as well as the engine out emissions in natural gas operation are similar to those of gasoline operation (similar exhaust aftertreatment technology) For retrofitted natural gas vehicles (NGVs) and first generation of OEM NGVs, exhaust emissions were often significantly higher than gasoline (imperfections in mixture preparation) Modern OEM-NGVs exhibit similar emissions with gasoline vehicles

105. Evidence from TNO work on CNG/LPG Due to the huge difference in OEM NGV / non-OEM converted ones, we have left NOx, CO, PM emission factors identical to gasoline ones, until the situation clarifies.

106. CNG PCs subsector: Emissions Emphasis was placed on fuel consumption (FC), CO 2, HC and CH 4 emissions, for which consistent differences may be seen FC estimation is based on a reduction factor applied upon the gasoline fuel consumption factor (differnce in enthalpy of combustion) Tailpipe CO 2 is based on calculated FC HCs are computed by correcting PCG emission factors based on experimental evidence CH 4 bulk emissions have been calculated based on experimental evidence

107. CNG PCs subsector: FC Fuel consumption is estimated on the assumption that NGV engine efficiency is the same with PCG Neat gasoline has an energy density of ~43.8 MJ/kg compared to ~48 MJ/kg for natural gas. This yields a reduction factor: RF=(480-438)/480=0.088 Therefore CNG PCs are estimated to consume 8.8% less than gasoline PCs, which is less optimistic than the typically 20-25% advertised gain for OEM NGVs

108. CNG vs. gasoline comparison in NEDC Source: Bach et al. (2010), Exhaust gas aftertreatment and emissions of natural gas and biomethane driven vehicles, BIOGASMAX - Integrated Project

109. CNG vs. gasoline comparison in CADC Source: Bach et al. (2010), Exhaust gas aftertreatment and emissions of natural gas and biomethane driven vehicles, BIOGASMAX - Integrated Project

110. HC emission calculation HC emission calculation will be based on the HC emission for medium-sized gasoline (G1.4-2.0l) cars. The ratio of HC emissions between a CNG PC and a gasoline equivalent based on UDC measurements is calculated This process is separately followed for cold emissions as well as hot emissions HCs are then computed as the product of this ratio and the HC emissions of a gasoline car.

111. HC hot emissions calculation The HC hot emission factors for medium CNG PCs: This ratio is used as a reduction factor (1-RF) over hot gasoline emissions (RF=-3.06). CADCHCs (CNG) *HCs (gasoline) *Ratio Urban 0.0210.0045.25 Rural 0.0130.0052.60 Highway 0.0780.0184.33 Average 4.06 *Results in g/km. Bulk HC EF was calculated using Germany 2010 database.

112. HC cold emission calculation The HC cold emission factor for medium CNG PCs: This ratio is used as a modifier over cold gasoline emissions. UDCHCs (gasoline) *HCs (CNG) *Ratio CNG medium 0.1920.1450.755 *Results in g/m. Bulk cold HC EF was calculated using Germany 2010 database with an urban speed of 25km/h.

113. HC cold emission calculation Using the cold and the hot ratios the cold/hot emission ratio of CNG would become: The updated A, B,C coefficients are: CNG vehicles use the same calculation as gasoline vehicles of the same technology (same reduction over Euro 1) Speed rangeABC 10.118568-0.156335.538047 20.212969-0.255263.339635 30.035948-0.3602310.39479

114. CH 4 emission calculation CH 4 emission calculation will be based on the previously calculated CNG HC emissions The ratio of CNG CH 4 /HC emissions using the UDC measurements of the study is calculated This process is followed for cold emissions as well as hot emissions CH 4 are then computed as the product of this ratio and the previously calculated CNG HC emissions

115. CH 4 cold emission calculation The CH 4 emission factors for medium CNG PCs: This ratio is then multiplied by cold HC emissions to extract cold CH 4 emissions UDCCH4 (CNG) *HCs (CNG) *Ratio CNG medium 0.0900.145 0.620 *Results in g/km. Bulk cold HC EF was calculated using Germany 2010 database with an urban speed of 25km/h.

116. CH 4 hot emissions calculation The CH 4 hot emission factors for medium CNG PCs: *Results in g/km. Bulk HC EF was calculated using Germany 2010 database. CADCCH4(CNG) *HCs(CNG) *RatioCH4 (proposed)* Urban 0.0200.0210.952 0.05730 Rural 0.0120.0130.923 0.02773 Highway 0.0570.0780.730 0.04339

117. Notes CNG HC emissions are lower than gasoline for cold start and higher in the hot state. CH 4 emissions dominate HC emissions for all types of hot emissions and most of the cold start as well.