[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 113 (Monday, June 12, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36986-36992]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-14446]
[[Page 36985]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part V
Department of Energy
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10 CFR Part 474
Electric and Hybrid Vehicle Research, Development, and Demonstration
Program; Petroleum-Equivalent Fuel Economy Calculation; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 113 / Monday, June 12, 2000 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 36986]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
10 CFR Part 474
[Docket No. EE-RM-99-PEF]
RIN 1904-AA40
Electric and Hybrid Vehicle Research, Development, and
Demonstration Program; Petroleum-Equivalent Fuel Economy Calculation
AGENCY: Department of Energy.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE) is revising its regulations on
electric vehicles to provide a petroleum-equivalency factor (PEF) and
procedures for calculating the petroleum-equivalent fuel economy of
electric vehicles. The petroleum-equivalent fuel economy values of an
automobile manufacturer's electric vehicles may be included in the
calculation of that manufacturer's corporate average fuel economy
(CAFE), according to regulations prescribed by the Environmental
Protection Agency and the Department of Transportation.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is effective July 12, 2000.
ADDRESSES: Written comments received in response to the notice of
proposed rulemaking, a transcript of oral comments presented at the
public hearing on August 17, 1999, and supporting technical information
described in the notice of proposed rulemaking are filed at the DOE
Freedom of Information Reading Room under docket number EE-RM-99-PEF.
You may read and copy any of this docket material at: DOE Freedom of
Information Reading Room, Room 1E-190, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000
Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-3142. Hours: 9
a.m.-4 p.m., Monday through Friday except Federal holidays.
Additional background materials are also available at the DOE
Freedom of Information Reading Room. Copies of the hearing transcript
and written comments received regarding the withdrawn February 4, 1994,
proposed rule are filed under Docket No. EE-RM-94-101. Earlier
materials related to the calculation of the PEF are contained in Docket
No. EE-RM-93-301.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Technical Information: Mr. Rogelio Sullivan, U.S. Department of Energy,
Office of Transportation Technologies, EE-32, Rm 5G-046, 1000
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-8042.
Legal Information: Mr. Eugene Margolis, U.S. Department of Energy,
Office of General Counsel, GC-72, Rm 6B-256, 1000 Independence Avenue
SW, Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-9526.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
II. Discussion
A. Requirements of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost
Savings Act, as amended
B. PEF Development Process
C. PEF Calculation Procedures
1. General Form of the PEF Equation
2. Gasoline-Equivalent Energy Content of Electricity Factor
3. ``Fuel Content'' Factor
4. Petroleum-Powered Accessory Factor
5. Driving Pattern Factor
6. Use of the PEF
7. Sample Calculations
III. Public Comments Received on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
and DOE's Responses
IV. Procedural Requirements
I. Background
In 1975, Congress mandated fuel economy standards for automobiles
produced in or imported into the United States in an effort to conserve
energy through improvements in the efficiency of motor vehicles. The
new law required that every manufacturer or importer of automobiles in
the United States meet a corporate average fuel economy standard for
the fleet of vehicles produced or imported in any model year. Although
certain classes of electric vehicles qualify as ``automobiles'' under
the law, they do not consume ``fuel'' as defined in the law. Therefore,
inclusion of electric vehicles in a manufacturer's corporate average
fuel economy is impossible without a method for expressing the
electrical energy consumption rate as an equivalent consumption rate of
gasoline. Congress directed the Secretary of Energy to establish a
method for determining the petroleum-equivalent fuel economy of
electric vehicles.
Congress anticipated that allowing manufacturers to include the
expected high equivalent ``fuel economy'' of electric vehicles in
corporate average fuel economy calculations would provide an incentive
for vehicle manufacturers to produce and sell electric vehicles.
Congress anticipated that the existence of such an incentive would help
to accelerate the commercialization of electric vehicles.
DOE published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) on July 14,
1999 (64 FR 37905), describing a revised petroleum-equivalency factor
(PEF) and supporting rationale. DOE solicited public comments on the
proposed rule and received comments from five organizations
representing a cross section of stakeholders. DOE considered these
comments carefully before preparing today's final rule. A summary of
the comments and DOE's responses are provided in section III of this
document. DOE believes that the final rule presented today is
responsive to Congressional intent, addresses stakeholder comments and
concerns with the proposed rule, is consistent with the regulatory
treatment of other types of alternative fuel vehicles, and is
straightforward to understand and implement.
Administrative responsibilities for the corporate average fuel
economy program are assigned to the Department of Transportation and
the Environmental Protection Agency under the Motor Vehicle Information
and Cost Savings Act (49 U.S.C., Subtitle VI, Part C). The Secretary of
Transportation is responsible for prescribing the corporate average
fuel economy standard and enforcing the penalties for failure to meet
these standards. The Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency is responsible for establishing test procedures, for testing the
efficiency of vehicles subject to corporate average fuel economy
standards, and for calculating a manufacturer's corporate average fuel
economy value. DOE is responsible for developing and promulgating the
petroleum-equivalency factor, the key component in the calculation of
petroleum-equivalent fuel economy values for electric vehicles.
II. Discussion
A. Requirements of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act,
as Amended
Section 503(a)(3) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings
Act (49 U.S.C. 32904(a)(2)) requires DOE to determine the petroleum-
equivalent fuel economy values for electric vehicles, taking into
account the following parameters:
(i) The approximate electric energy efficiency of the vehicles
considering the vehicle type, mission, and weight;
(ii) The national average electricity generation and transmission
efficiencies;
(iii) The need of the Nation to conserve all forms of energy, and
the relative scarcity and value to the Nation of all fuel used to
generate electricity; and
[[Page 36987]]
(iv) The specific driving patterns of electric vehicles as compared
with those of petroleum-fueled vehicles.
Section 503(a)(3) also provides for revision of such values if
necessary.
B. PEF Development Process
The development process of the PEF and the rationale were presented
in detail in the notice of proposed rulemaking, and are not repeated in
full here. Section C provides a brief description of each of the terms
in the PEF equation. Section III also provides an abbreviated
discussion of several of the key issues underlying DOE's rationale.
C. PEF Calculation Procedures
The PEF is based on the existing regulatory approach at 49 U.S.C.
32905 for determining the petroleum-equivalent fuel economy of
alternative fueled vehicles. The calculation procedure converts the
measured electrical energy consumption of an electric vehicle into a
raw gasoline-equivalent fuel economy value, and then divides this value
by 0.15 to arrive at a final petroleum-equivalent fuel economy value
which may then be included in the calculation of the manufacturer's
corporate average fuel economy. Two additional factors are present in
the equation, but these will usually have a value of unity and thus
will not influence the value of the PEF. The terms comprising the PEF
and the procedure for applying the PEF are described in greater detail
below.
1. General Form of the PEF Equation
The general form of the PEF equation is:
PEF = Eg * 1/0.15 * AF * DPF
where:
Eg = Gasoline-equivalent energy content of electricity
factor
1/0.15 = ``Fuel content'' factor
AF = Petroleum-fueled accessory factor
DPF = Driving pattern factor
The development of these factors is described below.
2. Gasoline-Equivalent Energy Content of Electricity Factor
When comparing gasoline vehicles with electric vehicles, it is
essential to consider the efficiency of the respective ``upstream''
processes in the two fuel cycles. A full description of the differences
in the processes is beyond the scope of this rulemaking, but the
critical difference is that a gasoline vehicle burns its fuel on-board
the vehicle, and an electric vehicle burns its fuel (the majority of
electricity in the U.S. is generated at fossil fuel burning
powerplants) off-board the vehicle. In both cases, the burning of fuels
to produce work is the least efficient step of the respective energy
cycles.
Therefore, the PEF includes a term for expressing the relative
energy efficiency of the full energy cycles of gasoline and
electricity. This term, the gasoline-equivalent energy content of
electricity factor, abbreviated as Eg, is defined as:
Eg = gasoline-equivalent energy content of electricity =
(Tg * Tt * C) Tp
where:
Tg = U.S. average fossil-fuel electricity generation
efficiency = 0.328
Tt = U.S. average electricity transmission efficiency =
0.924
Tp = Petroleum refining and distribution efficiency = 0.830
C = Watt-hours of energy per gallon of gasoline conversion factor =
33,705 Wh/gal
Eg = (0.328 * 0.924 * 33705)/0.830 = 12,307 Wh/gal
The derivation of these values is straightforward but lengthy and
is therefore not discussed in this notice. Details on the assumptions,
calculations, and data sources used to derive these values are
described in materials contained in Docket No. EE-RM-99-PEF, which may
be reviewed at the DOE Freedom of Information Reading Room, at the
address and times stated above.
3. ``Fuel Content'' Factor
The fuel content factor has a value of 1/0.15 and is included in
the PEF for the reasons described in the notice of proposed rulemaking
and the responses to comments section of this notice. Briefly, these
reasons are:
(i) Consistency with existing regulatory and statutory procedures;
(ii) Provision of similar treatment to manufacturers of all types
of alternative fuel vehicles; and
(iii) Simplicity and ease of use.
The fuel content factor value of 1/0.15 is equivalent to a multiple
of 6.67.
4. Petroleum-Powered Accessory Factor
A minority of electric vehicles, primarily those that may be
operated in colder climates, may be equipped with auxiliary petroleum-
powered accessories, such as cabin heater/defroster systems. DOE
addresses the possible use of such petroleum-powered accessories in the
PEF calculations by incorporating an Accessory Factor (AF). This factor
reduces the PEF by ten percent when an electric vehicle is equipped
with any petroleum-powered accessories. This results in two possible
accessory factor values:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accessory
Petroleum-powered accessories installed? factor (AF)
value
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No...................................................... 1.00
Yes..................................................... 0.90
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE recognizes that there are many variables affecting the actual
energy efficiency penalty of petroleum-powered accessories, but
believes that the ten percent penalty is a reasonable representative
value. DOE has prepared a supporting technical analysis of the
magnitude of the actual energy efficiency penalty of petroleum-powered
accessories, and placed this analysis in the docket. Because this
approach penalizes electric vehicles equipped with petroleum-powered
accessories, it provides an incentive for manufacturers to develop
vehicles with electrically-powered accessories.
5. Driving Pattern Factor
Congress required that DOE consider the potential that electric
vehicles may be used differently than gasoline vehicles, primarily due
to its shorter range and longer ``refueling'' times. However, to meet
the definition of an ``automobile'' at 40 CFR part 600 and be eligible
for inclusion in the calculation of a manufacturer's corporate average
fuel economy, a vehicle must be ``manufactured primarily for use on
public streets, roads, or highways.'' Thus, DOE believes that electric
vehicles eligible for inclusion in CAFE will offer capabilities
(perhaps excepting driving range) similar to those of conventional
vehicles. For these reasons, DOE is setting the value of the Driving
Pattern Factor (DPF) at unity (1.00).
6. Use of the PEF
The value of the PEF is equal to the product of the values of the
gasoline-equivalent energy content of electricity (Eg), the
fuel content factor of 1/0.15, the petroleum-fueled accessory factor
(AF), and the driving pattern factor (DPF):
PEF = Eg * 1/0.15 * AF * DPF
substituting values,
PEF = (12,307 Wh/gal)*(1/0.15)*(1.00 or 0.90)*(1.00)
or,
PEF = 82,049 Wh/gal (if no petroleum-powered accessories are installed)
PEF = 73,844 Wh/gal (if any petroleum-powered accessories are
installed)
Dividing the PEF by the combined (city and highway) energy
consumption of an electric vehicle yields the petroleum-equivalent fuel
economy of that electric vehicle in miles per gallon:
mpg = PEF (Wh/gal) combined [electrical] energy consumption
(Wh/mile)
[[Page 36988]]
7. Sample Calculations
Sample calculations of the petroleum-equivalent fuel economy of
hypothetical electric vehicles are presented in the Appendix of the
rule.
III. Public Comments Received on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
and DOE's Responses
The Department encouraged public participation in this rulemaking.
DOE, in the NOPR, urged individual vehicle manufacturers, fuel
producers and providers, trade associations, vehicle owners and
operators, States or other governmental entities, and other affected or
interested parties to submit written comments on the proposal and/or to
testify at a hearing held on August 17, 1999, in Washington, DC.
You may review the written comments and the hearing transcript, as
well as other docket material in the DOE Freedom of Information Reading
Room at the address shown at the beginning of this rulemaking. The
materials are filed under docket number EE-RM-99-PEF.
DOE received written comments on the proposed rule from five
organizations:
1. Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (AAM--representing BMW,
DaimlerChrysler, Fiat, Ford, General Motors, Isuzu, Mazda, Nissan,
Toyota, Volkswagen, and Volvo);
2. California Air Resources Board (CARB);
3. Electric Vehicle Association of the Americas (EVAA);
4. Georgia Power; and
5. Virginia Power
EVAA also testified at the public hearing. The common thread
through most of the comments was the strong desire to have the final
rule in place as soon as possible. Commentors also suggested that DOE
only consider changes to the proposed rule if such changes would not
delay issuance of the final rule.
Following are summaries of the comments received and DOE's
responses. In most cases, similar comments have been grouped together
and given a single response. Additional supporting analyses may be
found in the docket.
Comment 1: EVAA, Georgia Power, and Virginia Power generally
support DOE's revised approach. The PEF value of 81,407 Wh/gal [in the
proposed rule] is acceptable, with the modifications described in the
provided comments. EVAA specifically believes that the proposed PEF
aligns EVs with other alternative fuel vehicles for fuel economy
purposes. (EVAA, Georgia Power, Virginia Power)
Response: DOE acknowledges the general support for the revised
approach and consistent treatment of Alternative Fuel Vehicles. DOE
values the opinions of these informed stakeholders. The suggested
modifications are discussed below.
Comment 2: Publishing a final rule should be the top priority--
don't delay publication of the final rule.
The Alliance supports the proposal as is and urges that it
be finalized at the earliest possible time. (AAM)
DOE should make the simple corrections suggested before
publication of the final rule. (EVAA, Georgia Power, Virginia Power)
DOE should attempt to address the larger issues (such as
explicitly quantifying the relative scarcity of fuels), but only if it
will not delay the publication of a final rule. (EVAA, Georgia Power,
Virginia Power)
Response: DOE agrees that under present conditions, timely
publication of a final rule is a higher priority than technical hair
splitting. DOE will still make several adjustments to the final rule,
as described below.
Comment 3: Publish the final rule rapidly; fine-tune it later. DOE
should establish a schedule in the final rule for addressing items that
could not be quickly resolved at this time. (Georgia Power, Virginia
Power)
Response: The NOPR explicitly states (Sec. 474.5) that DOE will
perform a review five years after publication of the final rule to
determine whether any updates and/or revisions are necessary. DOE
anticipates that better data on many aspects of EV use will be
available by that time.
Comment 4: Incorporate a scarcity factor in the equation as
required by law. DOE's own analysis shows scarcity and energy security
advantages for electricity and that fuels used to produce electricity
are abundant, and that reserves of nuclear and renewables are
essentially unlimited. By not including a scarcity factor, DOE is not
being responsive to this requirement of the Act and is failing to
credit electricity for use of these abundant resources. (EVAA, Georgia
Power, Virginia Power)
Response: The final rule is based on the relevant factors in
Section 503 (a)(3) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Saving
Act, including the relevant scarcity of fuel used to generate
electricity. As described in the NOPR, DOE performed a careful and
thorough analysis of the present and projected availability of energy
resources. This analysis showed that fuels (raw resources) used to
produce electricity are abundant, as are the raw resources used to
produce gasoline and diesel fuel (in fact, ``proved reserves'' of all
of these energy resources tend to increase over time as new resources
are discovered and better recovery techniques are developed). Since all
of these fuels are abundant, the concept of ``relative scarcity'' is
difficult to quantify objectively, and in DOE's judgement, should not
be an appropriate guiding factor in the rulemaking at this time.
The commentors' claim that electricity is the only vehicle fuel
that can be produced from nuclear or renewable sources is incorrect.
For example, both hydrogen and ethanol can be produced totally from
nuclear and/or renewable sources.
The 1/0.15 factor used in the equation is not intended to be a
scarcity factor per se, but it does result in a very substantial
adjustment to the raw calculated energy efficiency of electric
vehicles. It is included to reward electric vehicles' benefits to the
Nation relative to petroleum-fueled vehicles, in a manner consistent
with the regulatory treatment of other types of alternative fueled
vehicles and the authorizing legislation.
Comment 5: Georgia Power and Virginia Power support the use of the
1/0.15 factor in simplifying the calculation, but DOE should provide a
technical basis for its application to EVs, or else modify the factor
accordingly. (Georgia Power, Virginia Power)
Response: DOE agrees that the replacement of the previously
proposed ``scarcity factor'' with the 1/0.15 factor does make the
calculation considerably simpler, but this was not the only reason DOE
replaced the scarcity factor with the 1/0.15 factor approach.
In the NOPR, DOE describes its assessment of the technical basis
for the application of a factor of 1/0.15 to the measured fuel economy
of liquid-alternative fueled vehicles (e.g., M85 fueled vehicles) under
existing law (64 F.R. 37907). The NOPR also observes that the law
applies the same 1/0.15 factor to gaseous-alternative fueled vehicles,
even though there is not an obvious technical basis for doing so.
DOE determined that the most equitable and viable approach would be
to apply the same 1/0.15 factor to electric vehicles in order to
maintain consistency with the existing regulatory treatment of other
types of alternative fueled vehicles.
All alternative fuels offer the intrinsic benefit of being
substitutes for petroleum, on which nearly 100 percent of the Nation's
transportation depends. In other words, any alternative fuel helps the
Nation avoid having all of its transportation ``eggs'' in the petroleum
[[Page 36989]]
``basket.'' Each mile driven in an alternative fuel vehicle offsets
approximately one mile driven in a petroleum-fueled vehicle.
Comment 6: Assigning one fuel content factor (1/0.15) to all
alternative fuel vehicles is inappropriate since ``the fuel efficiency
benefits of electric vehicles far exceed those of other alternative
fuel vehicles.'' DOE should use a fuel content factor that more
accurately represents electric vehicle benefits in comparison to other
alternative fuels. (CARB)
Response: The efficiency of EVs varies widely as a function of
motor and drivetrain efficiency, driving cycle, and the round-trip
efficiency of the battery. The energy source which offers the greatest
benefits depends on many factors, and the energy source that offers the
greatest benefit to one set of users may not be the most beneficial for
a different set of users or the general public. These benefits may vary
by geography, fuel and generating method.
As noted in the NOPR, DOE invested considerable time and effort in
attempting to develop a method that could rigorously account for the
advantages to the Nation offered by electric vehicles compared to
conventional vehicles, but was unable to identify a method that was
sufficiently objective, robust, and consistent with established policy
directions.
Thus, DOE stands by its proposal to provide electric vehicles the
same reported-fuel-efficiency incentive (the 1/0.15 factor) that other
alternative fuel vehicles currently enjoy.
Although electric vehicles and other alternative fuel vehicles will
have its energy-equivalent fuel economy adjusted by the same incentive
factor, electric vehicles will still enjoy favorable regulatory
treatment under DOE's proposal. This is because EVs are specifically
exempt from caps on the amount that alternative fuel vehicles are
allowed to contribute to raising a manufacturer's overall CAFE (49
U.S.C. 32906(a)).
Comment 7: The U.S. Average Electricity Generation factor
(Tg = 0.328) is based only on fossil fuel generation, and
does not account for the efficiencies of nuclear or renewable energy
generation. Counting the efficiency of these sources relative to fossil
fuel generation as 100 percent, the Eg factor should be
equal to about 0.53. (EVAA says 0.40 to 0.53 depending on treatment of
the nuclear component). (EVAA, Georgia Power, Virginia Power)
Response: DOE reminds the commentors that the Eg factor
represents relative efficiency, not resource abundance. There are two
reasons why DOE chose to use conversion efficiencies for electricity
that reflect the typical efficiencies of fossil fuel-fired powerplants.
First, existing nuclear and hydroelectric plants are now operated at
essentially full capacity. Since no significant additions to U.S.
nuclear or hydro-electric capacity are planned, any increase in
electricity demand that results from expanded production and use of
electric vehicles is very likely to be met by fossil fuel-fired
powerplants. Second, although the fuel supply for nuclear, hydro, and
renewable generated electricity is plentiful, the process for
converting the raw fuel or physical energy to electricity is, in most
cases, less efficient than fossil fuel plants. Further, no energy
conversion process is 100 percent efficient.
Since several comments were provided on this issue, DOE took a
closer look at the relative efficiency of nuclear vs. fossil fuel
generation. Nuclear power plants generate steam at lower temperatures
than fossil power plants, reducing their relative thermodynamic
efficiency. Typically, nuclear plants generate steam at a maximum cycle
temperature of about 575 Kelvin (575 deg.F), while fossil
plants generate steam at temperatures of about 825 Kelvin
(1025 deg.F). Thus, assuming both cycles reject heat to
the surroundings at 294 Kelvin (70 deg.F), their respective
theoretical limiting Carnot efficiencies (1--(TL/
TH)) is 49 percent for nuclear and 64 percent fossil. The
Eg factor uses the actual average fossil fuel-to-electricity
conversion efficiency, which is 32.8 percent. Scaling the nuclear
Carnot efficiency by the same ratio suggests that nuclear plants
achieve conversion efficiencies on the order of 25 percent. While this
is a very crude analysis, it is likely that a more rigorous analysis
would yield qualitatively similar results.
Therefore, including the nuclear component in the calculation of
the Eg factor would likely cause the factor to change
downward, not upward as suggested by the commentors.
Data on the ``efficiency'' of hydroelectric generation are somewhat
difficult to obtain, though hydroelectric generation efficiency may be
higher than typical fossil fuel-fired powerplants. This is because
hydroelectric power generation is based on principles of momentum and/
or pressure transfer and not combustion and heat transfer. Without
suitable data, and without taking a significant amount of additional
time for detailed analysis, DOE notes that the relatively small amount
of relatively high-efficiency hydroelectric generation tends to offset
the larger amount of relatively less-efficient nuclear power
generation. Thus, the two trends tend to cancel each other and the
efficiency of fossil generation would continue to dominate.
Therefore, DOE has continued to use the value of Eg =
0.328 in light of: (1) the commentors' clear desire to place a higher
priority on timely publication of a final rule, than on performing
additional technical analyses; and (2) since the fossil generation
component will dominate the marginal electrical generation efficiency
for many years.
Comment 8: The U.S. Average Electricity Transmission and
Distribution Efficiency factor Tt places a unique and unfair
additional penalty on electric vehicles since fuel distribution
efficiency is not included in the mileage calculations for any other
vehicle energy source. DOE should assign a value of unity to the
Tt factor. (Georgia Power, Virginia Power)
Response: As the commentors note, the Tt factor is
required by the authorizing legislation. DOE is aware of the potential
for such a factor to unfairly penalize EVs; this is the reason why DOE
added the U.S. Petroleum Refining and Distribution factor Tp
(= 0.830) in the denominator of the Eg factor equation to
offset the Tt (= 0.924) factor in the numerator.
Note that Tp includes refining as well as distribution
in order to include most of the corresponding steps in the energy
chain--just as the equation attempts to do with the electric energy
chain. Note that raw resource extraction (mining, drilling, etc.) is
not counted. Data that can be used to measure the ``efficiency'' of
these processes is difficult to obtain, and varies widely depending on
the characteristics of the individual site. DOE believes that the
relative difference in ``efficiency'' of resource extraction (i.e.,
energy expended in recovery relative to the energy content of the
resource recovered) between individual sites of one type (e.g., coal
mines) is probably greater than the difference in the average
efficiency of different extraction processes (e.g., mining vs.
pumping).
Together, the ratio of the factor's Tt / Tp
(= 1.113) increases the assigned petroleum-equivalent fuel economy of
EVs. Therefore, the Tt factor is not an ``unfair penalty''
on EVs, but is in fact a benefit for EVs.
Comment 9: The energy content of a gasoline factor, C = 33,440 Wh/
gal, is inconsistent with the ``accepted actual value'' [``physical
constant'' in EVAA's oral comments] used by other DOE programs. DOE
should use the value of 33,705 Wh/gal (115,000 Btu/gal 3.412
Btu/Wh) that is reported by the
[[Page 36990]]
Alternative Fuels Data Center. (EVAA, Georgia Power, Virginia Power)
Response: DOE disagrees that a single ``actual'' value for the
energy content of gasoline exists. Gasoline is a varying blend of
hundreds of components, and thus the energy content of individual
batches of gasoline varies by several percentage points from grade-to-
grade and from brand-to-brand. The energy content also varies
regionally, seasonally, and over the long-term in response to changes
in available feedstock, regulatory requirements, and economic
pressures.
DOE agrees, however, that a consistent ``average'' value should be
used across government programs. Since the PEF is attempting to compare
the energy efficiency of electric vehicles to the fuel economy of
conventional vehicles as measured by the EPA, the energy content of
gasoline value used in the PEF should match the energy content of the
gasoline used by EPA in testing the fuel economy of gasoline vehicles.
However, EPA has not provided a value for the energy content of its
testing gasolines. Therefore, DOE will use the value of 33,705 Wh/gal,
obtained by dividing the 115,000 Btu/gal value reported by the
Alternative Fuel Data Center, by the (rounded) conversion factor of
3.412 Btu/Wh.
Comment 10: Develop a technical basis for the accessory factors
used when the vehicle has petroleum-fueled accessories installed.
(CARB, Georgia Power, Virginia Power)
Response: On the basis of the comments received and DOE's
additional analysis of the impact of petroleum-fueled accessories, DOE
has decided to replace the two accessory factors with a single
accessory factor that would be applied if an electric vehicle includes
any petroleum-powered accessories. The value of this single accessory
factor will be 0.9, i.e., a 10 percent penalty.
A technical analysis of the magnitude of this penalty is now
included in the docket. DOE notes that many variables affect the actual
energy efficiency impact of petroleum-powered accessories on EVs,
including accessory sizing (e.g., heater capacity) and the efficiency
of both the vehicle and the accessory. To be truly accurate, it would
be necessary to measure the actual consumption of the accessories
installed in each vehicle and project this consumption over a suitable
duty cycle for the vehicle. This process would add significant
complexity, would place a substantial burden on automobile
manufacturers and the EPA, and would provide few policy benefits not
obtainable with the fixed accessory factor.
DOE expects that very few electric vehicles will be equipped with
petroleum-powered accessories, as such accessories contradict many of
the motivations and attractions that lead customers to purchase
electric vehicles.
Comment 11: DOE should encourage the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) to rely on the test procedures established by CARB for the
testing and certification of EVs (these procedures are based on SAE
J1634). The CARB procedures are consistent with current industry
practice. (AAM, EVAA)
Response: As the comments suggest, EPA rather than DOE is
responsible for selecting and implementing the EV test procedures. DOE
suggests that EVAA and AAM offer their recommendations on test
procedures directly to EPA.
Comment 12: The 55 percent urban and 45 percent highway weighting
factors proposed do not represent the way that electric vehicles are
used, particularly, those EVs that are designed for non-highway and/or
neighborhood use. (CARB)
Response: There are actually two issues raised by this comment. The
first is that the weightings do not reflect the usage patterns of at
least a portion of EVs. The second issue, which is not stated but is
implied, is that DOE should adjust the factors to accommodate limited
performance EVs.
DOE agrees that there are some EVs that perform differently and
will be used differently from conventional automobiles. DOE also
anticipates that a limited number of customers with suitable ``mission
requirements'' will purchase and operate limited performance EVs as
replacements for conventional automobiles. However, DOE notes that to
be included in CAFE calculations, a vehicle must meet the definition of
an automobile at 40 CFR part 600, which states that such a vehicle must
be ``manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, or
highways.'' Limited performance EVs (such as neighborhood electric
vehicles) that cannot keep up with highway traffic clearly do not meet
this requirement and are categorically ineligible for inclusion in CAFE
unless 40 CFR part 600 is appropriately amended.
DOE believes that Congress intended the PEF to be an incentive for
manufacturers to produce roadworthy electric vehicles that provide an
alternative to conventional petroleum-powered automobiles.
As for the weightings themselves, EPA defines these weightings. DOE
used the 55 percent urban and 45 percent highway weighting factors in
the sample calculations because these are the factors used by EPA for
conventional vehicles. The paragraph in the NOPR that describes the
``city'' and ``highway'' test procedures and the 55/45 percent
apportioning of energy consumption values is intended only as an
example of how to apply the PEF to determine the petroleum-equivalent
fuel economy of an electric vehicle. The 55/45 percent weightings could
change if EPA's CAFE calculation procedures are changed in the future.
DOE also notes that the preceding arguments provide a compelling
justification for setting the value of the Driving Pattern Factor in
the PEF to unity (1.00).
Comment 13: Review how changes in EV driving range and
infrastructure availability might affect driving patterns of EVs in the
future. (CARB)
Response: As noted in the preceding response, electric vehicles
eligible for inclusion in a manufacturer's CAFE calculation must be
competitive with conventional vehicles. This strongly suggests that the
Driving Pattern Factor should be equal to unity.
DOE intends to monitor developments related to EVs and their use
closely. Consideration of modifications to the Driving Pattern Factor
and/or the PEF, in general, will be made at the 5-year review specified
in the Sec. 474.5.
IV. Procedural Requirements
A. Environmental Protection Agency Review
Pursuant to section 7(a) of the Federal Energy Administration Act
of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 766(a)), DOE submitted a copy of this rulemaking to
the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency for the
Administrator's concurrence. The Administrator has concurred.
B. National Environmental Policy Act Review
This rulemaking has been reviewed in accordance with the
requirements of the DOE National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), and the DOE regulations in 10 CFR part
1021. This rulemaking amends 10 CFR part 474 so that electric vehicles
receive similar treatment to what Congress has required for other
alternative fuel vehicles under 49 U.S.C. 32905. The Department has
determined that this rule is covered by Categorical Exclusion in
paragraph A5 to subpart D, 10 CFR part 1021 (rulemaking, interpreting
or amending an existing regulation, no change in environmental effect).
Accordingly, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental
impact statement is required.
[[Page 36991]]
C. Regulatory Review
Today's final rule has been determined not to be a ``significant
regulatory action,'' as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review.'' 58 FR 51735 (October 4,
1993). Accordingly, this action was not subject to review under the
Executive Order by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in
the Office of Management and Budget.
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) requires that an
agency prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis to be
published at the time the final rule is published. This requirement
(which appears in section 603) does not apply if the agency certifies
that the rule will not, if promulgated, have a ``significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.''
DOE certifies that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. It is directed at
vehicle manufacturers that will be concerned with a mix of petroleum
and electric fueled vehicles in their annual production. None of these
manufacturers is a small entity.
E. Federalism Review
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 4, 1999) requires that
regulations or rules be reviewed for any substantial direct effects on
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among
various levels of government. If there are sufficient substantial
direct effects, then Executive Order 13132 requires agencies to engage
in intergovernmental consultation and take other steps before
promulgating such a regulation or rule. This action and 10 CFR part 474
serve only to provide a method of interpreting 40 CFR part 600 (Fuel
Economy of Motor Vehicles) for electric vehicles. The action does not
involve any substantial direct effects on States or other
considerations stated in Executive Order 13132.
F. ``Takings'' Assessment Review
It has been determined that pursuant to Executive Order 12630 (52
FR 8859, March 18, 1988) this final rule would not result in any
takings which might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment to
the United States Constitution.
G. Review Under Executive Order 12988
With respect to the review of existing regulations and the
promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988,
``Civil Justice Reform,'' 61 FR 4729 (February 7, 1996), imposes on
executive agencies the general duty to adhere to the following
requirements: (1) eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write
regulations to minimize litigation; and (3) provide a clear legal
standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard and
promote simplification and burden reduction. With regard to the review
required by section 3(a), section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988
specifically requires that executive agencies make every reasonable
effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) clearly specifies the
preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for
affected conduct, while promoting simplification and burden reduction;
(4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines
key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting a clarity
and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney
General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires executive
agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in
section 3(a) and section 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it
is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the
required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law,
this final rule meets the relevant standards of Executive Order 12988.
H. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written assessment of the
effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that
may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments,
in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million in any one
year. The Act also requires a Federal agency to develop an effective
process to permit timely input by elected officers of State, local, and
tribal governments on a proposed ``significant intergovernmental
mandate,'' and requires an agency plan for giving notice and
opportunity to timely input to potentially affected small governments
before establishing any requirements that might significantly or
uniquely affect small governments. The final rule published today does
not contain any Federal mandate, so these requirements do not apply.
I. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family
Policymaking Assessment for any proposed rule or policy that may affect
family well-being. Today's final rule would not have any impact on the
autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE
has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking
Assessment.
J. Congressional Notification
Consistent with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
Act of 1996, DOE will submit to Congress a report regarding the
issuance of today's final rule prior to the effective date set forth at
the outset of this notice. The report will note the Office of
Management and Budget's determination that this rule does not
constitute a ``major rule'' under that Act 5 U.S.C. 801, 804.
K. Review under the Paperwork Reduction Act
DOE has determined that this rule does not contain any new or
amended record keeping, reporting, or other type of collection of
information subject to clearance by the Office of Management and Budget
under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 474
Corporate average fuel economy, Electric (motor) vehicle, Electric
power, Energy conservation, Fuel Economy, Motor vehicles, Research.
Issued in Washington, DC, on May 25, 2000.
Dan W. Reicher,
Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DOE revises Part 474 of
Chapter II of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth
below:
PART 474--ELECTRIC AND HYBRID VEHICLE RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND
DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM; PETROLEUM-EQUIVALENT FUEL ECONOMY
CALCULATION
Sec.
474.1 Purpose and scope.
474.2 Definitions.
474.3 Petroleum-equivalent fuel economy calculation.
474.4 Test procedures.
474.5 Review and update.
Appendix to Part 474--Sample Petroleum-Equivalent Fuel Economy
Calculations
[[Page 36992]]
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 32901 et seq.
Sec. 474.1 Purpose and Scope.
This part contains procedures for calculating a value for the
petroleum-equivalent fuel economy of electric vehicles, as required by
49 U.S.C. 32904(a)(2). The petroleum-equivalent fuel economy value is
intended to be used by the Environmental Protection Agency in
calculating corporate average fuel economy values pursuant to
regulations at 40 CFR Part 600--Fuel Economy of Motor Vehicles.
Sec. 474.2 Definitions.
For the purposes of this part, the term:
Combined energy consumption value means the weighted average of the
Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule and the Highway Fuel Economy Driving
Schedule energy consumption values (weighted 55/45 percent,
respectively), as determined by the Environmental Protection Agency in
accordance with 40 CFR parts 86 and 600.
Electric vehicle means a vehicle that is powered by an electric
motor drawing current from rechargeable storage batteries or other
portable electrical energy storage devices, provided that:
(1) Recharge energy must be drawn from a source off the vehicle,
such as residential electric service; and
(2) The vehicle must comply with all provisions of the Zero
Emission Vehicle definition found in 40 CFR 88.104-94(g).
Highway Fuel Economy Driving Schedule energy consumption value
means the average number of watt-hours of electrical energy required
for an electric vehicle to travel one mile of the Highway Fuel Economy
Driving Schedule, as determined by the Environmental Protection Agency.
Petroleum equivalency factor means the value specified in
Sec. 474.3(b) of this part, which incorporates the parameters listed in
49 U.S.C. 32904(a)(2)(B) and is used to calculate petroleum-equivalent
fuel economy.
Petroleum-equivalent fuel economy means the value, expressed in
miles per gallon, that is calculated for an electric vehicle in
accordance with Sec. 474.3(a) of this part, and reported to the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency for use in
determining the vehicle manufacturer's corporate average fuel economy.
Petroleum-powered accessory means a vehicle accessory (e.g., a
cabin heater, defroster, and/or air conditioner) that:
(1) Uses gasoline or diesel fuel as its primary energy source; and
(2) Meets the requirements for fuel, operation, and emissions in 40
CFR part 88.104-94(g).
Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule energy consumption value means
the average number of Watt-hours of electrical energy required for an
electric vehicle to travel one mile of the Urban Dynamometer Driving
Schedule, as determined by the Environmental Protection Agency.
Sec. 474.3 Petroleum-equivalent fuel economy calculation.
(a) The petroleum-equivalent fuel economy for an electric vehicle
is calculated as follows:
(1) Determine the electric vehicle's Urban Dynamometer Driving
Schedule energy consumption value and the Highway Fuel Economy Driving
Schedule energy consumption value in units of Watt-hours per mile;
(2) Determine the combined energy consumption value by averaging
the Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule energy consumption value and the
Highway Fuel Economy Driving Schedule energy consumption value using a
weighting of 55 percent urban/45 percent highway; and
(3) Calculate the petroleum-equivalent fuel economy by dividing the
appropriate petroleum-equivalency factor (depending on whether any
petroleum-powered accessories are installed; see paragraph (b) of this
section) by the combined energy consumption value, and round to the
nearest 0.01 miles per gallon.
(b) The petroleum-equivalency factors for electric vehicles are as
follows:
(1) If the electric vehicle does not have any petroleum-powered
accessories installed, the value of the petroleum equivalency factor is
82,049 Watt-hours per gallon.
(2) If the electric vehicle has any petroleum-powered accessories
installed, the value of the petroleum-equivalency factor is 73,844
Watt-hours per gallon.
Sec. 474.4 Test procedures.
(a) The electric vehicle energy consumption values used in the
calculation of petroleum-equivalent fuel economy under Sec. 474.3 of
this part will be determined by the Environmental Protection Agency
using the Highway Fuel Economy Driving Schedule and Urban Dynamometer
Driving Schedule test cycles at 40 CFR parts 86 and 600.
(b) The ``Special Test Procedures'' provisions of 40 CFR 86.090-27
may be used to accommodate any special test procedures required for
testing the energy consumption of electric vehicles.
Sec. 474.5 Review and Update
The Department will review Part 474 five years after the date of
publication as a final rule to determine whether any updates and/or
revisions are necessary. DOE will publish a notice in the Federal
Register soliciting stakeholder input in this review. The Department
will publish the findings of the review and any resulting adjustments
to Part 474 in the Federal Register.
Appendix to Part 474--Sample Petroleum-Equivalent Fuel Economy
Calculations
Example 1: An electric vehicle is tested in accordance with
Environmental Protection Agency procedures and is found to have an
Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule energy consumption value of 265
Watt-hours per mile and a Highway Fuel Economy Driving Schedule
energy consumption value of 220 Watt-hours per mile. The vehicle is
not equipped with any petroleum-powered accessories. The combined
electrical energy consumption value is determined by averaging the
Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule energy consumption value and the
Highway Fuel Economy Driving Schedule energy consumption value using
weighting factors of 55 percent urban, and 45 percent highway:
combined electrical energy consumption value = (0.55 * urban) +
(0.45 * highway) = (0.55 * 265) + (0.45 * 220) = 244.75 Wh/mile
Since the vehicle does not have any petroleum-powered
accessories installed, the value of the petroleum equivalency factor
is 82,049 Watt-hours per gallon, and the petroleum-equivalent fuel
economy is:
(82,049 Wh/gal) (244.75 Wh/mile) = 335.24 mpg
Example 2: The vehicle from Example 1 is equipped with an
optional diesel-fired cabin heater/defroster. For the purposes of
this example, it is assumed that the electrical efficiency of the
vehicle is unaffected.
Since the vehicle has a petroleum-powered accessory installed,
the value of the petroleum equivalency factor is 73,844 Watt-hours
per gallon, and the petroleum-equivalent fuel economy is:
(73,844 Wh/gal) (244.75 Wh/mile) = 301.71 mpg
[FR Doc. 00-14446 Filed 6-9-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P