36986 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 113 / Monday, June 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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 petroleumequivalency 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withdrawn February 4, 1994, proposed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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 113 / Monday, June 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 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 petroleumequivalent fuel economy of alternative

fueled vehicles. The calculation

procedure converts the measured

electrical energy consumption of an

electric vehicle into a raw gasolineequivalent 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 gasolineequivalent 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:

Petroleum-powered accessories installed?Accessory factor (AF) value

No ......................................... 1.00

Yes ........................................ 0.90

DOE recognizes that there are many

variables affecting the actual energy

efficiency penalty of petroleumpowered 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 petroleumpowered 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 gasolineequivalent 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 petroleumpowered accessories are installed)

PEF = 73,844 Wh/gal (if any petroleumpowered 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)

36988 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 113 / Monday, June 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

7. Sample Calculations

Sample calculations of the petroleumequivalent 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

(§ 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 liquidalternative 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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 113 / Monday, June 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 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 °F), while fossil plants

generate steam at temperatures of about

825 Kelvin (∼1025 °F). Thus, assuming

both cycles reject heat to the

surroundings at 294 Kelvin (70 °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 fuelto-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 lessefficient 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

36990 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 113 / Monday, June 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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 petroleumpowered 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 petroleumpowered 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 § 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.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 113 / Monday, June 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 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 PetroleumEquivalent Fuel Economy Calculations

36992 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 113 / Monday, June 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 32901 et seq.

§ 474.1 Purpose and Scope.

This part contains procedures for

calculating a value for the petroleumequivalent 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.

§ 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 § 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 § 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 Watthours 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.

§ 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 petroleumequivalency factor is 73,844 Watt-hours

per gallon.

§ 474.4 Test procedures.

(a) The electric vehicle energy

consumption values used in the

calculation of petroleum-equivalent fuel

economy under § 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.

§ 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 Watthours per gallon, and the petroleumequivalent 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