Environmental Protection Agency 

Fuel Economy Label 

Phase 2 Focus Groups 
Environmental Protection Agency 


Fuel Economy Label
 

Phase 2 Focus Groups
 

Office of Transportation and Air Quality 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

and 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
 

United States Department of Transportation
 

Prepared for EPA by
 

PRR, Inc.
 

EPA Contract No. GS-23F-0364P
 

Task Order 0001
 

EPA-420-R-10-904 

August 2010 
Table of Contents 

Introduction........................................................................3

Current Label Use................................................................7

Factors influencing vehicle choice............................................7

Current fuel economy label use................................................9

Current fuel economy label on hybrid vehicles.........................10

Electric Vehicles................................................................13

Awareness about electric vehicles..........................................13

Desirable fuel economy label information for electric vehicles...14

Fuel economy label metrics for electric vehicles......................16

Extended Range Electric Vehicles........................................23

Awareness about extended range electric vehicles...................23

Desirable fuel economy label information

for extended range electric vehicles.......................................24

Fuel economy label metrics for

extended range electric vehicles............................................27

Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles..........................................35

Awareness about plug-in hybrid electric vehicles.....................35

Desirable fuel economy label information

for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles.........................................36

Fuel economy label metrics for plug-in

hybrid electric vehicles ........................................................37

Comparison Across Vehicle Types........................................43

Overall Summary...............................................................45

Appendices.......................................................................53

Appendix A: Moderator Guide................................................53

Appendix B: Participants’ Profile............................................62

Appendix C: Current Label....................................................70

Appendix D: Prius Label........................................................70

Appendix E: EV Label Elements.............................................71

Appendix F: EV Label Elements Tally......................................73

Appendix G: Teaching Tool Handout.......................................75

Appendix H: EREV Label Elements.........................................76

Appendix I: EREV Label Elements Tally...................................78

Appendix J: PHEV Label Elements.........................................82

Appendix K: PHEV Label Elements Tally.................................85

Appendix L: At-A-Glance Comparison Across Technologies........87

Phase 2 Focus Groups 1
2 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Introduction 

Background 

In 2006, EPA updated how the city and highway fuel economy 

values are calculated to better reflect typical real-world driving 

patterns and provide more realistic fuel economy estimates. In 

addition, EPA redesigned the fuel economy label to make it more 

informative for consumers. The redesigned label more prominently 

featured annual fuel cost information, provided contemporary and 

easy-to-use graphics for comparing the fuel economy of different 

vehicles, used clearer text, and included a Web site reference to 

www.fueleconomy.gov which provided additional information. 

EPA is now initiating a new rule making to ensure that American 

consumers continue to have the most accurate, meaningful and 

useful information, as well as an understanding of how the labeled 

vehicle impacts the environment. In 2006 EPA did not include a 

consumption-based metric in the new label design, however EPA 

did recognize at that time that a distance-based metric such as 

MPG can be misleading and that a fuel consumption metric might 

be more meaningful to consumers. In this rulemaking, EPA wants 

to ‘gallons per 100 miles’ as a potential fuel consumption metric 

on the label. Additionally, EPA wishes to provide metrics that 

are relevant and useful for advanced technology vehicles, such as 

Electric Vehicles, Extended Range Electric Vehicles and Plug-in 

Hybrid Electric Vehicles. 

Phase 2 Focus Groups 3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To help inform the creation of the new label, EPA engaged PRR 

Inc. to work with them in the design and implementation of several 

information gathering protocols including: 

• Literature review 

• Focus groups (in 3 phases, including pre-group online 

surveys) 

• Online survey of new vehicle buyers 

• Expert panel 

It was decided to use a three-phase approach for the focus groups 

in order to accommodate the sheer amount of information required 

to be covered in the focus groups, as well as to use each phase to 

inform the next phase on overall label design in regard to both 

content and look. The three phases were designed to address the 

following issues: 

• Phase I – Use of the current label and design of the label for 

internal combustion engine vehicles 

• Phase II – Understandability of metrics for advanced 

technology vehicle labels 

• Phase III – Assessment of full label designs and messaging 

testing for educational/marketing campaign 

This document provides a preliminary overview of the Phase II 

focus groups and is designed specifically to inform the next phase 

of focus groups. It is not intended as a comprehensive report of 

results from the Phase II focus groups; that will come at the end of 

all three phases of focus groups in the form of a full, comprehensive 

report. It should be noted that all results reported here refer to 

the focus group discussions, except when specifically identified as 

results from the pre-group online survey. 

4 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Methodology 

Focus groups are the optimum approach to use when the task 

calls for qualitative, in-depth understanding of consumer’s 

understanding of fuel economy labels. Focus groups allow for 

probing around such issues as why some label designs are more 

understandable, how label designs would be used in the vehicle 

purchase process, and which label metrics are most important to 

consumers. The focus group discussion can also provide insights 

about how a label design may nudge consumers toward greater 

use of the fuel economy label, as well as nudging them toward the 

purchase of more fuel-efficient vehicles. 

Eight focus groups were convened between April 5th and 15th, 

2010 in the cities of Seattle, Chicago, Houston and Charlotte. In 

each city, two groups (one male, one female) were conducted in 

English and each lasted for two hours. A moderator guide was used 

to structure the focus group discussions (see Appendix A). 

Participants were recruited from databases developed and 

maintained by the focus group facility used in each city. Twelve 

persons were recruited for each group, with the assumption that 

eight to ten would be present for participation. With the exception 

of the male group in Seattle (which had seven participants), the rest 

of the groups consisted of eight participants each. In order to screen 

out ‘professional focus group participants,’ only those who had not 

participated in a focus group in the last six months were included. 

In addition, participants were required to demonstrate evidence 

that they had purchased a new vehicle (not a used or pre-owned 

vehicle; not a motorcycle; not a ‘Cash for Clunkers’ purchase) in 

the last 12 months and had been the sole or primary decision maker 

with regard to this new vehicle purchase. Internet accessibility was 

also a requirement, so that they could complete the pre-group 

online survey. To ensure a good cross-section, participants were 

selected that specifically differed in terms of: type of new vehicle, 

price range of new vehicle, distance typically travelled daily, if they 

had seriously considered an advanced technology vehicle before 

purchasing their vehicle, and demographics (see Appendix B for 

participant profiles). 

Phase 2 Focus Groups 5 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Participants were asked to complete an online survey before they 

took part in the focus group discussions. The purpose of the online 

survey was to obtain additional information regarding their vehicle 

purchase process, the role of fuel economy in their purchase decision, 

how they used the current fuel economy label, and motivators and 

barriers to their purchasing advanced technology vehicles. The pregroup online survey did not present new label designs (these were 

covered exclusively in the focus groups). It should be noted that 

the pre-group online surveys are not meant to be representative 

of new vehicle buyers in general (since focus group participants 

are in many ways unique), but rather to provide additional 

information about these specific participants. The online survey 

was approximately 12 to 15 minutes in length and was completed 

by 95 of the recruited participants. Of those who had completed 

the online survey, 31 male recruits and 32 female recruits in total 

participated in the focus group discussions. While there were some 

no-show cases for each group, those who participated in the group 

discussions were selected to ensure a good mix of participants with 

regard to their age, education, ethnicity, the type of new vehicle 

they recently purchased, the price range of their new vehicle, the 

distance they typically travelled daily in their new vehicle, and 

if they had seriously considered an advanced technology vehicle 

before making their purchase. 

6 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Current Label Use 

Factors influencing vehicle choice 

Participants across all the groups were asked about the top two 

factors that influenced their vehicle choice, whether they had 

considered fuel efficiency during the purchase process, and whether 

there were other factors that stopped them from buying a vehicle 

that in all other ways met their needs. 

Top.factors.in.vehicle.choice 

Participants explained that their vehicle choice was primarily 

governed by the type of vehicle1 they wanted or needed. Because they 

had a good idea of the type of vehicle they were looking to purchase, 

they searched for information that was pertinent to the particular 

vehicles that fit their needs and used the information to help narrow 

their choices to the vehicle they subsequently purchased. As detailed 

below, participants stated they considered very specific criteria when 

shopping. It is also interesting to note that even if all criteria were 

satisfied, with rare exceptions, they would not purchase a vehicle 

that did not meet their aesthetic standards. 

The online survey revealed that 88% of those surveyed (N=88) 

had a specific type of vehicle in mind when they started the 

purchase process, and the majority (90%) stated that they ended 

up purchasing the same type of vehicle. Yet, when specifically asked 

which vehicles they considered before making their final purchase 

decision, participants did not stick to one particular vehicle 

type, but selected vehicles across typical EPA vehicle classes that 

“I knew I wanted a SUV and a 

6-cylinder engine. I knew I was 

limited to a few choices. From 

there, it was comfort, then 

price.” – Houston Female 

1 Note that when thinking of “type of vehicle” participants thought in relatively broad terms such as SUVs, minivans, sport cars, 

trucks, economy cars, and midsize cars. Many participants also defined vehicle type as those vehicles that fit my needs, which, 

for example, could include all vehicle type that carry at least seven passengers. These definitions of vehicle types differ from 

EPA’s definition of vehicle class. 

Phase 2 Focus Groups 7 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

suited their particular needs and wants. According to the online 

survey results, once participants had determined which vehicles 

they were interested in, comfort to drive the vehicle was the next 

most important factor. (9.1 on a 1 to 10 scale, where 1 was ‘not 

important at all’ and 10 was ‘very important’). The next top ten 

factors (all fairly close in importance) influencing their vehicle 

purchase decision included safety (mean importance rating = 9), 

price/affordability (8.8), reliability (8.7), interior and exterior 

appearance (8.6), performance (8.5), gas mileage/fuel economy 

(8.4), warranty (8.2), size/interior volume (8.0), brand name (7.6) 

and seating capacity (7.4). 

The focus group discussions reflected this as well. Across all cities, 

most participants said that when considering the vehicles they 

were interested in, they next considered factors such as price, fuel 

economy, comfort, safety, reliability, appearance, and performance, 

etc. when making their final vehicle purchase decision. 

Across all groups, the majority of participants confirmed that they 

had considered fuel efficiency in the decision of which vehicle they 

chose to buy. With regard to the factors that would stop them from 

buying a vehicle that in all other ways met their needs, responses 

included high vehicle price, bad appearance, unavailability, and 

negative brand reputation. 

b..The.part.played.by.fuel.economy 

In the online survey fuel economy emerged to be the 7th most 

important factor that respondents considered when making a 

vehicle purchasing decision and it was rated a ‘7’ or higher (on a 

10 point importance scale) by 86% of respondents (n = 88). Close 

to two-thirds (65% in the online survey) reported that they had 

searched for fuel economy information before buying their most 

recent new vehicle. Multiple sources were consulted to gather fuel 

economy information. Most commonly used sources included 

manufacturers’ websites (69%), fuel economy label on vehicles 

(62%), Consumer Reports (41%), auto dealers (36%), Edmunds. 

com (29%), consulted others with similar vehicles (26%), auto 

magazines (16%), government websites (16%) and television ads 

(16%). It should be noted that many, if not most, of these sources 

are consulted prior to visiting a car lot and the fuel economy label. 

“I haul things for my business. 

I wanted good gas mileage, but 

also fold down seats, space.” 

– Seattle Female 

“I bought a hybrid. I had good 

luck with Toyota in the past, 

and wanted to stick with 

Toyota.” – Seattle Male 

8 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

With few exceptions focus group participants indicated that the “I used it as a comparison, but 

environmental impact of the vehicle did not affect the type of vehicle not as a deciding factor.” 

they purchased. Even those who indicated they had considered a – Houston Female 

hybrid vehicle often discounted it for other factors such as vehicle 

price and fuel economy when purchasing their new vehicle. “The environment was a side 

benefit [of the hybrid], it was 

No major differences were found in the priority of factors that economics mainly.” 

influenced people’s vehicle choice based on geographic location – Charlotte Male 

or gender. 

Based on the above findings, it may be said that participants 

reported starting with a specific vehicle or vehicle type in mind 

that fit their individual needs, They then searched for information 

relevant to those specific vehicles. Assuming the vehicle meets their 

affordability threshold and aesthetic preference participants looked 

for information on factors such as comfort, safety, reliability, fuel 

economy, performance, etc. that they considered important to their 

final vehicle purchase decision (regardless of gender or geographic 

location). It should be noted that participants’ views of vehicle type 

varied by their individual needs and preferences and did not match 

EPA’s typical vehicle classes. While fuel economy also figures high 

on the consideration list, other factors such as safety, reliability, 

past experience with the brand, etc. also have a strong influence on 

the purchase decision. At this time, environmental impact does not 

seem to influence vehicle preference considerably. 

Current fuel economy label use 

Participants in all the groups were asked if they had used the 

fuel economy label (see Appendix C) when deciding on their new 

vehicle purchase. The moderator handed out individual copies of 

the current fuel economy label to the participants. They were then 

asked how they had used it, when in the vehicle choice process did 

they use it, and what information on the label had influenced their 

purchasing decision. 

While the online survey found that two-thirds (66.6%) considered 

the fuel economy label to be important (rated a ‘7’ or more on a 

10-point importance scale) in helping them to choose the make and 

model of their new vehicle, the focus group discussions revealed 

that some of these participants had only briefly glanced at the 

label and did not use it extensively when deciding on their new 

Phase 2 Focus Groups 9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

vehicle purchase. Many of the participants explained that they had 

researched the vehicles in their consideration set before they visited 

the dealers, were selective about going to only those dealers who 

sold these vehicles, and had looked at the fuel economy label only 

when they viewed vehicles at the dealerships. Further, they mainly 

used the label to get city and highway gas mileage estimates and 

used the information to compare among the different vehicles they 

were considering for purchase. 

No major city or gender differences were found with regard to 

people’s use of the fuel economy label. 

Based on the above findings, it may be said that participants currently 

use the fuel economy label after they have selected a specific type 

of vehicle and done other research. The label is primarily used to 

compare city and highway gas mileage estimates among different 

vehicles under consideration for purchase. 

Current fuel economy label on hybrid 

vehicles 

In this section, participants were asked to identify hybrid vehicles 

that they were aware of and whether they had noticed that these 

hybrid vehicles used the same fuel economy label as a conventional 

gasoline engine vehicle. The moderator then handed out individual 

copies of a Toyota Prius fuel economy label and asked them whether 

they knew why these labels were similar. Following this discussion, 

the moderator handed out individual copies and read out loud the 

following statement to explain how the hybrid worked: 

“A Gasoline hybrid uses gasoline to propel the vehicle. It can 

recoup some energy through regenerative braking. It does not plug 

in to charge the battery.” 

Across all groups, Toyota Prius was the hybrid vehicle most 

frequently mentioned. Other hybrid vehicles on the market that 

were mentioned included those by Lexus, Honda and Ford. 

“I looked at it, but it wouldn’t be 

a deciding factor. Even if I found 

a car I liked, even if it was less 

efficient, I would just deal with 

it.” – Houston Female 

“The fuel rating things are 

worthless for this part of the 

country. It’s different, because 

of our hills. You’ll never get the 

advertised fuel economy.” 

– Seattle Male 

“I usually look at city and 

highway, and then compare to 

other vehicles in class.” 

– Seattle Female 

“I looked at it when I went to 

test drive it. I looked at it for 

reassurance, I guess.” 

– Chicago Male 

10 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Participants indicated that they had not noticed that hybrid vehicles 

used the same fuel economy label as the conventional gasoline 

engine vehicle. When asked about the reason behind the similarity 

in these labels in spite of the difference in vehicle technologies, 

a few participants said that it was due to the use of gasoline as 

fuel in both types of vehicles. Participants appeared to understand 

the workings of a hybrid with some confusion about when or if 

they operated on electricity only and when re-charging took place 

during vehicle operation. 

In short, while most participants were aware of hybrids such as the 

Toyota Prius on the market and had a basic understanding of how 

they worked, few knew that they used the same fuel economy label 

as the conventional gasoline engine vehicle. 

Phase 2 Focus Groups 11 
12 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Electric Vehicles 

Awareness about electric vehicles 

Gauging participants’ awareness about electric vehicles was the 

first critical step towards designing a fuel economy label for electric 

vehicles. Awareness played an important role in understanding how 

knowledgeable they were with regard to electric vehicles and how 

these functioned. Participants across all the groups were asked if 

they were aware of any totally electric vehicles (EVs) that were on 

the market or that were coming on the market. 

Chevy Volt, Nissan Leaf and Tesla were the vehicles that participants 

thought of when asked about their awareness of EVs that were 

coming onto the market. It should be noted that the Chevy Volt 

is not an all-electric vehicle, but rather an extended range electric 

vehicle that also has a gasoline engine. 

Male participants in Houston and female participants in Seattle 

appeared to be more aware of EVs that were on the market (or 

were coming on the market shortly) as compared to other groups. 

In both these groups, more participants recalled the names of EVs, 

as compared to the other groups. Interestingly, female participants 

in Houston and Chicago stated that they were aware of EVs being 

released in the market but were not able to recall the names of 

these vehicles. A few participants thought the Smart Car was an 

electric vehicle. 

With regard to city differences, participants in Chicago appeared 

to be less aware of EVs coming on the market as compared to 

other cities. Women participants in Chicago could not recall any 

EV brand and only one male participant mentioned Tesla. 

Phase 2 Focus Groups 13 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In short, participants were aware of EVs that (coming) on the market. 

Further, gender differences were found in Houston where male 

participants showed greater awareness of EVs (coming) on the market 

as compared to women participants. In addition, women participants 

in Seattle also came across as being more aware of the EVs (coming) 

on the market as compared to men participants in Seattle. With regard 

to location, Chicago participants appeared to be less aware of EVs 

(coming) on the market as compared to other cities. 

Desirable fuel economy label information 

for electric vehicles 

In this part of the discussion, the moderator read out loud the 

following description of electric vehicles to participants: 

“Electric Vehicles use electricity stored in batteries to propel the 

vehicle. The battery is charged by plugging it into an electrical 

outlet. This could be a standard electric outlet or a high voltage 

custom-installed charging station for more rapid charging. Like 

hybrid vehicles, some energy is recouped through regenerative 

braking. The vehicle travels until the charge is depleted or it is 

re-charged. There is no option to run it on gasoline.” 

Participants across all groups indicated that they understood the 

concept of EVs based on the description that was read to them. 

They were then asked to identify the information that they would 

want to see on a fuel economy label if they were considering the 

purchase of an EV. 

Across all the groups, the following information was most 

frequently identified: 

• Range/distance on charge (“how far can one go on a fully 

charged battery”; “how many miles can one travel on a fully 

charged battery”; “what is the distance one could travel per 

fully charged battery”; “miles on full charge”; “miles per 

minutes of charging”; “what is the range of a fully charged 

battery”; “range of battery for highway and city”) 

• Cost of charging (“how much does it cost to fully recharge 

the battery”; “how much will my electricity bill go up to 

charge the battery”; “what is the impact of charging on the 

14 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

electricity bill”; “how much does it cost to charge it at charge 

stations”; “what is the cost to rapidly charge the battery”; 

“what is the estimated annual cost of charging the battery”)
�

•	� Time to charge (“how long would it take to recharge the 

battery”)
�

•	� Battery cost, life and replacement (“what is the maintenance 

cost of the batteries”; “what is the battery life”; “how many 

charges per battery”; “how long will the battery last”; “what 

is the durability of the battery”; “how soon does one have 

to replace the battery”; “what is the cost of replacing the 

battery”; “what is the warranty on the battery”)
�

•	� Charging system/plug for charging (“how will you charge 

the battery”; “what is impact on charging based on the 

type of plug used to charge”; “what is the type of plug one 

needs to charge the car”; “does one need a special outlet 

plug”; “where can it be plugged for charging”; “what are 

the rules for charging the battery?”)
�

Other information that some participants identified included 

vehicle performance (“how fast can it go from 0 to 60?”; “what 

is the impact of speed/power on charge?”); safety of EVs; impact 

of battery on seating capacity, load capacity and accessory use; “What happens if you’re in the 

information on emergency charging and help with breakdown; middle of nowhere, will AAA be 

environmental impact of discarding the battery; and sensitivity to able to recharge the battery?” 

weather and electronic interference. – Chicago Female 

When asked to select the three factors that were most important, “With the range, just like the 

participants indicated distance on charge, cost of charging and time fuel, I’d like to know high and 

to charge. low, and the difference how 

I drive makes, similar to the 

No	� major gender differences were found with regard to the difference between city and 

information that participants wanted to see on the fuel economy highway driving.” 

label for EVs. Interestingly, both male and female participants in – Houston Male 

Chicago showed more interest in information related to the impact 

of weather on battery performance as compared to other cities. “I would want to know how The	�Chicago participants were interested in knowing how the much electricity it will use, like temperature differences affected the performance of batteries in how Energy Star appliances tell summer and winter seasons. 

you how much it will cost per 

year.” – Houston Female 

Phase 2 Focus Groups 15 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Based on the findings above, it may be said that participants thought 

the most important information to include on the label for electric 

vehicles included range, cost of charging, and time to charge. Also of 

interest was: battery cost, battery life and replacement costs, and plug 

type for charging. While no gender differences were found across the 

groups, participants in Chicago were more interested in knowing 

how temperature differentials affected the performance of EVs. 

Fuel economy label metrics for electric 

vehicles 

Participants were provided a list of potential label elements (see 

Appendix E). They were asked to utilize this list, along with the 

list they generated as a group during the previous discussion, and 

individually write or sketch a potential label design using those 

elements that they thought were most important to them. They 

were also invited to add any additional elements that they thought 

were important. A group discussion followed whereby participants 

worked together to design a single label for an EV using the 

elements that they had each identified as most important. 

The following were the key findings across all groups for EVs 

(please see Appendix F for tally): 

• Charging time 

Participants across all groups stated that charging time 

was a crucial piece of information that they wanted to 

see on the fuel economy label. In essence, they wanted to 

know whether charging the battery in an EV was a time 

consuming process. 

No major gender or city differences were found with regard 

to participants’ preference for wanting to see charging time 

information on the fuel economy label for EVs. 

The following are design and wording suggestions provided 

by participants: 

“What happens if I’m driving 

somewhere and I only have a 

limited time to recharge? How 

long will it take to recharge is 

important.” – Chicago Male 

16 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

•	� Participants in the Houston female group suggested 

using ‘charging time for a completely depleted battery’ 

instead of ‘charging time’ as the headline for this 

section of the label. According to them, ‘charging 

time for a completely depleted battery’ sounded more 

specific and accurate.
�

•	� Participants in the Seattle male group suggested using a 

larger font for the phrase‘Using 220v outlet’.According 

to them, it was critical that people understood if a 

particular outlet was required.
�

• Range 

Participants across all groups stated that range was a “It’s not really like any other 

crucial piece of information that they wanted to see on car, its miles per charge, not 

the fuel economy label for EVs. This was also in line with MPG, it’s a complete paradigm 

the previous discussion where they stated that information shift. This range is probably 

regarding ‘distance on charge’ was important for them. important, how far you go on 

a charge. There isn’t room 

In all groups, participants wanted to understand how far they for error; it has to be awfully 

could go on a fully charged battery. They expressed concern accurate.” – Chicago Male 

about having access to charging when away from home. 

Further, with the exception of female participants in 

Houston and male participants in Charlotte, participants 

stated that they wanted to see city and highway estimates as 

well as a combined estimate of range on the fuel economy 

label for EVs. Participants explained that having all three 

estimates provided insights for individual differences in 

city and highway driving while also providing a sense 

of expectation for combined driving. Participants who 

only wanted the city and highway range estimates on the 

label explained that they either drove in the city or on the 

highway, and hence knowing these estimates was sufficient 

for them. Some others added that they never paid attention 

to the combined range estimate on the current label and 

were less likely to seek such information in the future.
�

Phase 2 Focus Groups 17 
• Fuel cost 

Participants across all groups stated that fuel cost was a 

crucial piece of information that they wanted to see on 

the fuel economy label for EVs. This was also in line with 

the previous discussion in which participants stated that 

information on the ‘cost of charging’ was important. 

In all the groups, participants enquired about how much 

it was going to cost them to charge the batteries in an EV. 

In essence, they wanted to know whether there was going 

to be a big difference in the amount of money they were 

currently spending on electricity and the amount that they 

would spend if they were regularly charging an EV. 

With regard to preference in expressing fuel cost on the 

label, ‘per mile’ emerged to be the preferred fuel cost 

metric by more of the groups (Chicago male2 and female 

group, Charlotte male group, Seattle male and female2 

group). According to participants, a per-mile metric gave 

them the cost information that they could use to accurately 

calculate their specific cost estimates based on their driving 

patterns. Of those who preferred the annual fuel cost metric 

(Houston groups, Seattle female group, and Chicago male 

group), they said that they liked it because it was similar to 

the estimate on the current label and they were comfortable 

thinking in terms of annual cost. Of those who preferred 

the monthly metric (Charlotte female group and Seattle 

male3 group), they said that it helped them because it was 

most in sync with how they think of other household costs 

(such as rent, mortgage, car payments etc.). 

A majority of the participants across most groups 

preferred both city and highway estimates of the fuel cost. 

They explained that they primarily drove in the city or on 

highway and did not need a combined estimate for fuel 

cost. Some added that they had never paid attention to the 

combined fuel cost estimate on the current label and were 

not likely to seek such information in the future. 

“If I were to plug in at home, 

how much would my electric 

bill increase?” – Seattle Female 

“You would have to give it a rate 

per kilowatt hour, because here, 

energy is very expensive. It may 

not be as expensive elsewhere.” 

– Houston Female 

“Per mile seems like it would be 

more manageable to estimate. 

People drive widely different 

mileage. ” – Seattle Male 

“When I got to the grocery 

store, I always look at the unit 

cost, cents per mile is the same 

idea.” – Seattle Female 

“Everyone’s electricity varies 

depending on how much they 

use. You need something to 

figure it out yourself.” 

– Houston Female 

“I used monthly, because I 

pay monthly on my car.” 

– Seattle Male 

“If I have a regular car and see 

this car on the lot, annual cost 

provides a means to compare.” 

– Houston Male 

18 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 Chicago male group also liked the 

annual city and highway fuel cost 

metric. 

3 Seattle female group also liked the 

combined annual fuel cost metric. 

4 Seattle male group also liked the 

per mile city and highway fuel cost 

metrics. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“I feel that would be more 

beneficial for my use, because 

I don’t understand kilowatt 

hours.” – Chicago Female 

“If you really want to know 

what something costs, what 

does ‘MPGe’ tell you?” 

– Houston Female 

“You’re getting more miles per 

gallon, but you’re not filling your 

car with gallons, so I don’t really 

see the value in it.” 

– Houston Male 

“I think by the time these cars 

get out we’ll be more used to 

this, but this doesn’t mean 

anything to me right now. Keep 

it simple.” – Charlotte Male 

Importantly, participants in most of the groups strongly 

suggested that instead of the term ‘fuel cost’, the metric 

needed to be called ‘electricity cost’. According to them, the 

word fuel does not easily apply to electricity. 

In addition, participants across all groups also said that 

it was important to make clear that “estimated fuel cost 

based on 15,000 miles per year at 12 cents per kW-hour” 

to provide information on the basic assumptions on which 

these numbers were estimated. 

Many participants had a strong negative reaction to kWh 

indicating they would rather it not be used and that they 

do not think in those terms even when looking at their 

home electricity usage. 

• Fuel consumption 

Participants across all the groups indicated an interest in 

seeing fuel consumption information on the label for EVs. 

‘MPGe’ emerged as the most popular fuel consumption 

metric (preferred by all the male groups and Charlotte 

female5 group) followed by ’kW-hrs per 100 miles’ and 

’kW-hrs per mile’. According to those who preferred 

MPGe, they liked it because they were familiar with the 

concept of MPG and it was easier for them to think of 

electric energy in equivalent terms. Those who preferred 

‘kW-hrs per 100 miles’ (female participants in Charlotte 

and Houston) said that the numbers looked similar to the 

estimates for their current gasoline powered vehicles and 

that they were familiar with thinking in such terms. Those 

who preferred ‘kW-hrs per mile’ (Charlotte male6 group 

and Chicago female group) said that they wanted to know 

how much energy their vehicle consumed per mile and that 

they could figure out the rest of the math for themselves. 

5 Charlotte female group wanted both MPGe and kW-hrs 

per 100 miles as the consumption metrics on the label and 

suggested using smaller font for MPGe metric. 

6 Charlotte male group wanted both MPGe and kW-hrs per 

miles as the consumption metrics on the label and suggested 

using smaller font for MPGe metric. 

Phase 2 Focus Groups 19 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is important to note that in Seattle many individuals 

thought that MPGe was a cost-equivalence metric. In 

subsequent groups this was not an issue and a description 

was added to clarify any misunderstandings. 

The Chicago male group wanted combined city/highway 

estimates only. The Chicago female group and Houston 

male group wanted all the three estimates – city, highway, 

and combined. Participants in all the remaining groups 

said that they wanted only the city and highway estimates 

of fuel consumption. They explained that they either drove 

in the city or on the highway and that they did not need a 

combined estimate for fuel consumption. Some added that 

they had never paid attention to the combined estimate 

on the current label and were less likely to seek such 

information in the future. 

Some of the other suggestions included: 

• A few participants across different groups suggested 

adding the definition on MPGe to the label. According 

to them, not many people were aware of MPGe and 

needed this information to use the fuel consumption 

metric correctly. 

• Participants in most groups suggested that instead 

of ‘fuel consumption’, the metric needed to be called 

‘electricity consumption’. According to them, the latter 

sounded more appropriate for electric vehicles. 

• Participants in the Chicago male group suggested 

adding the combined annual and per mile fuel cost 

in this section along with the qualifier information 

“estimated fuel cost based on 15,000 miles per year at 

12 cents per kW-hour”.According to these participants, 

having all this information under one heading made 

understanding and comparison easier. 

• Environmental impact 

All groups seemed less enthusiastic about the environmental 

impact metric as compared to the above discussed metrics. 

Those who supported the idea of including environmental 

impact information on the label explained that people 

“This car is an environmental 

statement. Most people who 

are going to buy this car want 

something to say it’s an eco-car. 

I guarantee the person who 

buys this car wants to see this 

information” – Chicago Female 

20 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

who bought EVs were more likely to be motivated “From what I’m gathering, an 

by environmental reasons and would want to see this electric car won’t have any CO2 

information during the decision-making process. emissions, so why put it on 

there?” – Houston Female 

The slider bar without the CO2 grams per mile format was 

the preferred metric for environmental impact as chosen 

“The 1-10 scale is more by the Houston groups and the Chicago male group. 

According to these participants, the slider bar format simplistic. I don’t understand 

without the CO meaning of ‘888.’ It seems 2 grams per mile was simple, informative 

arbitrary.” – Houston Male and visually appealing. Male participants in Charlotte 

indicated that they did not want an environmental metric 

on the label.
� “I don’t need to know the actual 

grams per mile, I just need to Those who preferred the ‘rating out of 10 ‘metric (female know how it compares with participants in Charlotte and Chicago and male participants other cars [i.e. the 1-10 scale].” in Chicago7

), said that it was simple, straightforward –Houston Male and uncluttered. Those who liked the leaf format (male 

participants in Seattle) said that it was visually appealing 

and in sync with the environmental impact theme. Further,
�

a few participants in the Seattle female group suggested 

the label could carry a measure that was indicative of how 

much the vehicle saved in 100 lbs of CO2 for each year.
�

Further, participants in the Seattle groups also wanted 

information on battery life on the fuel economy label 

for EVs. They wanted the label to carry information on 

average battery life and average cost to replace the battery.
�

With regard to gender differences, women participants 

appeared to be more interested than males in wanting to 

see environmental impact information on the fuel economy 

label for EVs.
�

In summary,it may be said that participants wanted to see information 

on charging time, range (city, highway and combined range estimates), 

‘electricity’ cost (city and highway per mile estimates) and qualifier 

information, and ‘electricity’ consumption (city and highway MPGe 

estimates) on the fuel economy label for EVs. 

Participants said that charging time was important because it gave 

them an idea about how time consuming the process was. For range, 

they wanted to see city, highway and combined range estimates on 

the fuel economy label for EVs because these estimates gave them a 

7 They also wanted to add the 

sliding bar (1-888 grams of 

CO2) in this group. 

Phase 2 Focus Groups 21 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

sense of whether the batteries in EVs held enough charge for them 

to travel desired distances without worrying about charging the 

batteries en-route or getting stranded. 

For cost, participants wanted to see city and highway per mile 

‘electricity’ cost and qualifier information on the fuel economy 

label for EVs because they wanted to know how much it was going 

to cost them to travel a mile, and whether or not these vehicles were 

cost-effective. 

For consumption, participants wanted to see city and highway 

MPGe estimates of ‘electricity’ consumption on the fuel economy 

label for EVs. While fuel economy was one of the top factors that 

influenced participants’ vehicle choice, the equivalency of MPGe 

with MPG and their familiarity and ease of thinking in terms of 

MPG made MPGe appealing. 

Environmental impact was not as important for many participants. 

While women participants showed more enthusiasm for environmental 

information as compared to men, no one metric emerged to be 

preferred by all groups. However, many preferred the slider bar 

without the CO2 grams per mile format because they found it to be 

more informative and visually appealing than other formats. 

Participants agreed that the word “fuel” should be avoided when 

describing electricity and kWh as a metric should be avoided when 

possible. 

22 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Extended Range 

Electric Vehicles 

Awareness about extended range 

electric vehicles 

Gauging participants’ awareness about extended range electric 

vehicles was the first critical step towards designing a fuel economy 

label for extended range electric vehicles. Awareness played an 

important role in understanding how knowledgeable they were 

with regard to these vehicles and how these vehicles functioned. 

In this part of the discussion, the moderator handed out individual 

copies and read aloud the following description of extended range 

electric vehicles (EREVs) to participants: 

“An EREV has 2 modes of operation and can be plugged in to 

charge the battery. 

1.	� It uses wall electricity to propel the vehicle (like an EV) 

until the wall electricity is used up. 

2.	� Once the stored wall electricity is used up, it runs like 

a gasoline hybrid, using gasoline to propel the vehicle 

with some regenerative braking. 

Important: daily driving distance can GREATLY affect amount 

of gasoline used. Can go all the way from zero gasoline (if 

shorter commutes and plenty of recharging) to entirely gasoline 

(if longer drives and no recharging).” 

Participants were then asked if they were aware of any EREVs that 

were on the market or that were coming onto the market. 

Phase 2 Focus Groups 23 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“For me, the gas back up 

instills a sense of security that 

I’m not going to get stranded 

somewhere.” – Seattle Male 

“Keep the word hybrid in there, 

because everyone knows what 

that is.” – Chicago Male 

“Empty battery sounds 

negative.” -- Charlotte Male 

Participants across different groups had several questions after they 

read and heard the description of EREVs. Although they understood 

that EREVs charge the battery by plugging into an electricity 

source, they required further explanation to understand how these 

were different from hybrids and EVs, how it would benefit them 

to purchase an EREV, what was the utility of the EREV, what was 

the charge storage capacity in EREV batteries, and what did the 

term “wall electricity” mean. No one was able to name any EREVs 

that were on the market or that were coming onto the market. The 

moderator then told that the Chevy Volt was an example of an 

EREV that would be available shortly. 

In short, participants were not aware of any vehicles using this 

technology and did not readily understand how vehicles using this 

technology operated. This was true even though limited information 

about EREVs had been provided in the pre-group online survey. 

Desirable fuel economy label information 

for extended range electric vehicles 

In this part of the discussion, participants were asked to suggest 

terms that could be used to describe an EREV and its two modes 

of operation in a better way, and to identify the information that 

they would want to see on the fuel economy label of an EREV. The 

moderator distributed the teaching tool handout (see Appendix G) 

to participants to aid their understanding of how the technology 

worked and to help illustrate how driving distance impacted the 

operation and fuel cost efficiency of EREVs. They were then asked 

to confirm their understanding of how EREVs operated. 

Description.of.EREV.modes.on.the.label 

Most participants across the different groups liked the terms 

“electricity” and “gasoline” to describe the EREV’s two operational 

modes. According to them, these terms were simple, straightforward 

and easy to understand. Other terms suggested by participants to 

describe the gasoline operation of an EREV included “hybrid”, 

“gasoline back-up”, “depleted mode”, and “no-charge”. Terms 

suggested to describe the electric operation of an EREV included 

“reverse hybrid”, “full charge”, and “electric mode”. The terms 

suggested by participants to describe the merged mode for both 

(electric and gas) operations in EREVs included “super hybrid”, 

24 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“dual power”, “e before g”, and “e 2 g”. The term “discharge” was 

unpopular and was especially not favored by female participants 

across all groups. 

Metrics.for.the.EREV.label 

When asked about the information that they would want to see on 

the fuel economy label of an EREV, the participants mentioned the 

following label elements that they considered to be most important 

and wanted to see on the EREV label: 

• For electric mode of operation: 

•	� Range/distance on charge (“how far can one go on a 

fully charged battery”; “how many miles can one travel 

on a fully charged battery”; “what is the distance one 

could travel per fully charged battery”; “miles on full 

charge”; “miles per minutes of charging”; “what is the 

range of a fully charged battery”; “range of battery for 

highway and city”) 

•	� Cost of charging (“how much does it cost to fully 

recharge the battery”; “how much will my electricity 

bill go up to charge the battery”; “what is the impact 

of charging on the electricity bill”; “how much does it 

cost to charge it at charge stations”; “what is the cost 

to rapidly charge the battery”; “what is the estimated 

annual cost of charging the battery”) 

•	� Time to charge (“how long would it take to recharge 

the battery”) 

•	� Battery cost, life and replacement (“what is the 

maintenance cost of the batteries”; “what is the battery 

life”; “how many charges per battery”; “how long will 

the battery last”; “what is the durability of the battery”; 

“how soon does one have to replace the battery”; 

“what is the cost of replacing the battery”; “what is the 

warranty on the battery”) 

•	� Charging system/plug for charging (“how will you charge 

the battery”; “what is impact on charging based on the 

type of plug used to charge”; “what is the type of plug 

one needs to charge the car”; “does one need a special 

Phase 2 Focus Groups 25 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

outlet plug”; “where can it be plugged for charging”; 

“what are the rules for charging the battery?”) 

• For gasoline mode of operation: 

• Range/distance on gas (“Miles per gallon”;“range for gas”) 

• Gas cost estimate (“annual gas cost”) 

• For merged electric and gasoline operation: 

• merged range (“what is the merged (electric and gas) 

metric for distance”, “full to empty range”; “what is 

the city and highway range in merged mode”) 

• merged cost (“what is the merged (electric and gas) 

metric for cost”) 

Other desirable EREV information suggested by participants 

included impact of charge on vehicle performance (“how fast 

can it go from 0 to 60?”; “what is the impact of speed/power on 

charge?”); safety of EREVs; impact of battery on seating capacity, 

load capacity and accessory use; information on emergency charging 

and help with breakdown; environmental impact of discarding the 

battery; sensitivity to weather and electronic interference; size of 

the batteries; and size of the gas tank. 

Of all the above mentioned items, those that were most important 

to participants included range, cost and charging time. 

No major gender or city differences were found with regard to the 

information that participants stated (unaided) they wanted to see 

on the fuel economy label for EREVs. 

Participants across all the groups found the teaching tool handout to 

be very useful in understanding the overall functioning of EREVs, the 

impact of driving distance on an EREV’s efficiency, and how driving 

distance impacted the numbers that would appear on the fuel economy 

label for EREVs. They understood that driving shorter distances while 

relying entirely on electricity could be more cost-efficient in an EREV 

as compared to long distances that require gasoline operation. Many 

participants across different groups expressed that the EREV (blue) 

bar chart and the distance-cost matrix used in the handout were very 

informative and suggested that similar information be made available 

to educate people about EREVs. 

“Everyone has had gas engines 

their whole lives. Most people 

have a feel for what they can do. 

This is a learning process. You 

have to have more information 

for these cars, it’s new, and we 

need information to understand 

it.” – Houston Male 

26 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Based on the findings above, it may be said that participants liked 

the terms “electricity” and “gasoline” to describe the two operational 

modes in the EREV because these were simple, straightforward and 

easy to understand. Information identified as the most important 

for label included distance on electricity-only and the total (electric 

and gas) range, the cost to charge, cost of gas, and total (electric and 

gas cost), time to charge, battery cost, battery life and replacement 

costs, and plug type for charging. Participants understood that driving 

shorter distances could be more cost-efficient in an EREV as compared 

to long distances. No gender or city differences were found. 

Fuel economy label metrics for extended 

range electric vehicles 

Participants were provided a list of potential label elements (see 

Appendix H). They were asked to utilize this list, along with the 

list they generated as a group during the previous discussions, and 

think of a potential label design using those elements that they 

thought were most important to them. They were also invited to 

add any additional elements that they thought were important. A 

group discussion followed whereby participants worked together 

to design a single label for an EREV using the elements that they 

had each identified as most important. 

Following are the key findings across all groups (please see 

Appendix I for tally of label elements chosen): 

• Charging time 

Participants across all groups stated that charging time was 

a crucial piece of information that they wanted to see on 

the fuel economy label. 

Participants in all groups wanted to know how long it 

would take to fully charge the battery in an EREV. No 

major gender or city differences were found with regard to 

participants’ preference for wanting to see charging time 

information on the fuel economy label for EREVs. 

Phase 2 Focus Groups 27 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• Range 

Participants across all groups stated that range was a 

crucial piece of information that they wanted to see on 

the fuel economy label for EREVs. They restated that 

information regarding ‘distance on electricity-only mode, 

gas-only mode and the merged range (the overall range 

that could be achieved when the vehicle operated on 

electric and then on gasoline)’ was important for them. 

Participants were more interested in range estimates for 

the electric mode than for the gasoline mode. This was 

because they wanted to know how far they could go before 

the gasoline operation kicked in. 

For the electric mode of operation, the majority of 

participants in Charlotte, Houston and the Chicago 

male group stated that they wanted to see both the city 

and highway range estimates on the EREV label. They 

explained that they were used to looking at the city and 

highway estimates on the current label and would look for 

these estimates in the new labels. 

More male participants (in Seattle, Chicago and Houston) 

were interested in seeing the combined (city and highway) 

range estimate for electric mode as compared to the women 

participants (only Seattle female group showed interest 

in this metric). The provision to see an estimate without 

doing the math themselves was considered convenient and 

helpful to these individuals. 

For the gasoline mode of operation, both of the Houston 

groups, the Seattle male group and the Charlotte female 

group were interested in seeing the city and highway range 

estimates on the label as compared to just a combined 

range estimate. As before, these participants said that they 

were used to looking at the city and highway estimates on 

the current label and would look for these same estimates 

in the new labels as well. 

As for the merged range (electric and gasoline) that could 

be achieved in EREVs, participants in Chicago groups 

and the Houston male group wanted to see city range 

estimates, highway range estimates, as well as combined 

“Range is a big issue for me. I 

want to know how far I can get on 

a charge before I’m kind of out 

there with no place to plug my 

car in.” – Chicago Male 

“I like to separate the electric 

and gas component. Your car is 

designed to use electricity first. 

We should know what it can do 

until that is exhausted. “ 

—Seattle Male 

“Most people are buying this 

car for the electricity, the gas is 

insurance.” –Charlotte Male 

“For the EREV, to me, combined 

means your combined gas/ 

electric consumption, not your 

city highway/consumption, that’s 

what is confusing.” 

– Charlotte Female 

28 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(city and highway) range estimates on the label. According 

to them, having all these estimates was useful for everyone 

irrespective of individual differences in city and highway 

driving ratios. Male participants in Seattle only wanted to see 

the combined (city and highway) range estimate. According 

to them, the opportunity to see an estimate without doing 

the math themselves was convenient and helpful. 

• Fuel cost 

Participants across all groups stated that fuel cost was a 

crucial piece of information that they wanted to see on the 

fuel economy label for EREVs. This was also in line with 

the previous discussion where they stated (unaided) that 

information on cost of charging, gas cost and merged cost 

(gas + electric) was important to them. 

While fuel cost was an important factor in participants’ 

vehicle choice and a fuel cost metric was something that they 

wanted to see on the EREV label, no consensus was reached 

with regard to the preference of metrics to express fuel cost 

on the label. However, the majority of participants across 

all the groups said that they liked separate cost metrics 

for the electric mode and the gasoline mode, and would 

prefer a merged (electric and gas modes) cost metric only 

as additional information if there was room on the label. 

According to them, it was helpful to know the electricity 

cost estimate separately from the merged (electric and 

gasoline) estimate because they could more easily determine 

how charging the EREV would affect their electricity bill. 

“Need information for long 

distance drivers to understand 

what the car is doing so they can 

calculate costs.” 

– Charlotte Female 

“If you’re doing your budget, you 

need to know how much more 

your electric bill is and how 

much less your gas bill is.” 

– Charlotte Female 

The following fuel 

different groups: 

cost metrics were preferred by the 

• For electric-only operation, a per-mile estimate 

that combined the city and highway estimates was 

preferred. Those participants (Seattle groups and 

Chicago male group) who liked this metric said that 

they were driving on both city roads and highways 

and it was useful for them to have combined city and 

highway estimates. They also said that knowing the 

combined cost per mile estimate would provide them 

the base information for doing the math themselves. 

Phase 2 Focus Groups 29 
• For gasoline operation, a per-mile estimate broken down 

into the separate city and highway estimates were preferred 

over others. Those participants (male participants in 

Seattle and Charlotte) who liked this metric said that they 

were used to seeing separate city and highway gas cost 

estimates on the current label. Further, they added that 

knowing the ‘per mile’ estimate would provide them the 

base information for doing the math themselves. 

• For those who liked an average of the electric and 

gasoline cost estimates merged together into one value, 

the metric ‘annual gas + electric cost’ was preferred 

over other metrics. Those participants (male groups 

in Chicago and Houston) who liked this estimate 

said that they wanted to see fewer numbers on the 

label. Further, they added that they wanted a single 

cost metric that they could use to compare different 

vehicles irrespective of whether it was based on 

gasoline, electricity, or both. 

Interestingly, some participants (Houston female group8 and 

Chicago male group9

) said that they preferred an annual 

metric for fuel cost on the EREV label. According to them, 

they were familiar with an annual cost estimate on the 

current fuel economy label and wanted a similar metric on 

the new labels. Additionally, a few participants (Charlotte 

female group10) said that they liked a monthly metric for 

fuel cost on the EREV label, explaining that the monthly 

estimate would be useful to include with their other monthly 

household costs (such as monthly auto loan payment). 

In addition, participants across all groups said that it was 

important to add the qualifier information “estimated 

fuel cost based on 15,000 miles per year at 12 cents per 

kW-hour and $3.00 per gallon” for people to know the 

assumptions on which these numbers were estimated. 

• Fuel consumption 

Participants across all groups stated that fuel consumption 

was a crucial piece of information that they wanted to see 

on the fuel economy label for EREVs. This was also in line 

30 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8 These participants preferred the 

city and highway annual fuel 

cost estimates for electric-only 

mode, and the combined annual 

fuel cost estimate for gas-only 

mode on the EREV label. 

9 These participants preferred 

the combined annual fuel cost 

estimate for electric-only mode 

on the EREV label. 

10 These participants preferred 

combined monthly fuel cost 

estimates for electric -only mode 

and gasoline only mode on the 

EREV label. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

with the previous discussion where they stated (unaided) 

that information on gas mileage and distance per fully 

charged battery in EREVs was important for them. 

As before, the majority of the participants across all the “Until we all understand what this 

groups stated that they would like to see separate fuel means, they need to dumb the 

consumption metrics for electric and gas modes and would label down.” – Chicago Female 

prefer a merged estimate (electric and gas modes) metric 

only as an add-on, if there was room on the label. 

With regard to the metric for the electric mode, ‘MPGe’ 

emerged as the most popular fuel consumption metric 

followed by ’kW-hrs per 100 miles’. According to those 

who preferred MPGe, they liked it because they were 

familiar with the concept of MPG and it was easier for 

them to think of electric energy in equivalent terms. 

Further, of those who liked the MPGe metric, most said 

that they wanted to see city and highway MPGe estimates 

instead of the combined MPGe estimate. They explained 

that they were used to seeing separate city and highway 

estimates on current label and wanted the new label for 

EREVs to resemble it. Those few who preferred ‘kW-hrs 

per 100 miles’ (female participants in Houston) said that 

the numeric values looked similar to the estimates for their 

current gasoline powered vehicles and that they were used 

to thinking in such numbers. 

As for the preferred metric for the gasoline mode, MPG 

emerged as the most popular fuel consumption metric 

across the different groups. Those participants who liked 

MPG said that they were familiar with the concept of 

MPG. Here again, most wanted a separate MPG estimate 

for city and highway and did not seem too enthusiastic 

about a combined MPG estimate. 

For those who liked a merged value of the electric and 

gasoline consumption estimates together into one value, 

‘MPGe of gas + electric’ combined emerged as the most 

popular fuel consumption metric in both Chicago groups and 

the Houston male group. According to these participants, 

the metric ‘MPGe of gas + electric’ could be used to compare 

different vehicles irrespective of the technology. 

Phase 2 Focus Groups 31 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The following additional suggestions were made by some 

participants: 

• Participants in the Seattle female group and Chicago 

male group suggested adding the distance-cost matrix 

and blue bar chart from the teaching tool handout 

to the label. They said that these graphics could 

serve as useful aids in explaining the concept of fuel 

consumption in EREVs. 

• Participants in the Chicago female group suggested 

adding separate city and highway ‘MPGe of gas + 

electric’ estimates for the merged (electric and gas) fuel 

consumption estimate in EREVs. According to them, it 

was helpful to see the city and highway breakdowns in 

addition to the combined (city and highway) estimate for 

merged (electric and gas) fuel consumption in EREVs. 

• Environmental impact 

Participants across the different groups seemed less 

enthusiastic about the environmental impact metric as 

compared to the above discussed metrics. Those who 

supported the idea of including environmental impact 

information on the label explained that people who bought 

EREVs were more likely to be motivated by environmental 

reasons and would want to see this information during the 

decision-making process. 

The slider bar without the CO2 grams per mile format 

emerged to be the preferred environmental metric for those 

in the Houston groups, Seattle female group and Chicago 

male group. According to these participants, the slider 

bar format without the CO2 grams per mile was simple, 

informative and visually appealing. 

Those who liked the ‘number rating’ (out of 10) without 

the CO2 grams per mile format (female participants in 

Chicago), said that it was simple, straightforward and 

‘uncluttered’. Those who liked the leaf format (male 

participants in Seattle and female participants in Charlotte) 

said that it was visually appealing and was consistent with 

the environmental impact theme. 

“I think CO2 is important, but the 

number doesn’t mean much.” 

– Seattle Male 

“CO2— I don’t think the general 

public will understand it.” 

– Charlotte Female 

“You have to read the scale to 

understand what the numbers 

mean, but the leaves say 

environment.” – Charlotte Female 

32 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Male participants in Charlotte indicated that they did 

not want an environmental metric on the label while 

participants in the Seattle groups wanted information on 

battery life and average cost to replace the battery. 

In summary, it may be said that participants wanted to see 

information on charging time, range, fuel cost and fuel consumption 

on the fuel economy label for EREVs. They were less enthusiastic 

about including an environmental impact metric on the label as 

compared to these metrics. 

Participants said battery charging time was important because it let 

them know if they would have enough time to charge between trips. 

For range, they wanted to see city and highway estimates for each 

mode of operation separately. For the merged range (the overall 

range that could be achieved when the vehicle operated on electric 

and then on gasoline), participants wanted city and highway as 

well as combined (city and highway) estimates. According to them, 

having all these estimates gave them a more complete sense of how 

far they could travel on the EREV. 

For cost, participants wanted to see separate estimates for electric 

and gasoline modes and preferred a merged cost estimate as an addon to these estimates only if there was room on the labels. Further, 

participants indicated that they preferred the ‘per mile’ estimates 

for electric and gasoline modes because it more easily allowed them 

to do the math for their specific driving requirements. They also 

wanted the total annual gas and electric cost as well as the qualifier 

information (“estimated fuel cost based on 15,000 miles per year at 

12 cents per kW-hour and $3.00 per gallon”) on the fuel economy 

label for EREVs. 

For fuel consumption, participants wanted separate estimates for 

electric and gasoline modes on the fuel economy label for EREVs 

and preferred a merged consumption estimate as an add-on to 

these estimate if there was room on the labels. Participants also 

indicated that they preferred the city and highway MPG estimate 

for gasoline mode, city and highway MPGe estimate for electric 

mode, and the ‘MPGe for electric + gas consumption’ for merged 

fuel consumption on the label for EREVs. The equivalency of 

MPGe with MPG and their familiarity and ease of thinking in 

terms of MPG, made MPGe appealing to the participants. 

Phase 2 Focus Groups 33 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

With regard to the environmental impact, participants were less 

enthusiastic about this metric as compared to the other metrics. 

With regard to format preference, many preferred the slider bar 

without the CO2 grams per mile format because they found it to be 

more informative and visually appealing over others. 

Participants agreed that the word “fuel” should be avoided when 

describing electricity. 

34 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Plug-In Hybrid Electric 

Vehicles* 

Awareness about plug-in hybrid electric 

vehicles 

Gauging participants’ awareness about plug-in hybrid electric 

vehicles was the first critical step towards designing a fuel economy 

label for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. Awareness played an 

important role in understanding how knowledgeable they were 

with regard to these vehicles and how these vehicles functioned. 

In this part of the discussion, the moderator handed out individual 

copies and read out loud the following description of plug-in hybrid 

electric vehicles (PHEVs) to participants: 

“A PHEV has 2 modes of operation and can be plugged in to 

charge the battery.
�

1.	� It uses wall electricity intermingled with some gasoline to 

propel the vehicle until the wall electricity is used up.
�

2.	� Once the stored wall electricity is used up, it runs like a 

gasoline hybrid, using gasoline to propel the vehicle with 

some regenerative braking.
�

Important: daily driving distance can GREATLY affect amount 

of gasoline used. ”
�

Participants were asked to refer to the PHEV mode in the teaching 

tool handout (refer back to Appendix G) and then asked if they 

were aware of PHEVs that were on the market or that were coming 

on the market. * By PHEVs, we are specifically 

referring to blended PHEVs. 

Phase 2 Focus Groups 35 
Participants across different groups had several questions when 

they read and heard the description of blended PHEVs. Although 

they understood that PHEVs charge by plugging into an electricity 

source, they required additional discussion to understand how 

these were different from hybrids and EREVs, how it would 

benefit them to purchase PHEVs, and how the batteries operated in 

PHEVs. No one in any of the groups was aware of any PHEVs that 

were on the market or that were coming onto the market. When 

the moderator mentioned Prius PHEV as an example of the PHEVs 

that was coming onto the market, participants said that they were 

not aware of it. 

In short, participants were not really aware of the concept of blended 

PHEVs and had limited information about blended PHEVs based 

on what they had learned about them in the pre-group online survey. 

As a result, participants had several questions regarding how PHEVs 

operate and how they differed from hybrid vehicles. 

Desirable fuel economy label information 

for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles11 

In this part of the discussion, participants were asked to suggest 

alternative terms that could be used to describe the PHEV’s two 

modes of operation and identify the information that they wanted 

to see on the fuel economy label of a PHEV. 

Description.of.PHEV.modes.on.the.label 

Participants across the different groups liked the terms “hybrid” 

and “gasoline” to describe the two PHEV operational modes. 

According to them, the term “hybrid” explained the blended mode 

of operation and the term “gasoline” explained the gasoline-only 

mode of operation.12 Other terms that were suggested to describe 

the overall operations included “gas assisted phase 1 mode and 

battery assisted phase 2 mode” and “continuous dual mode”. 

Metrics.for.the.PHEV.label. 

The following information was most frequently identified as 

important and desirable to include on the fuel economy label: 

36 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

11 Note that only ‘blended’ 

(electric with gas) and ‘gasoline’ 

(after battery power is depleted) 

modes of operation was 

discussed for PHEVs. In regards 

to ‘merged’ metrics (where 

numbers for operation under 

‘blended’ and ‘gasoline’ modes 

are combined), this issue was 

not discussed in the PHEV 

section of the discussion as 

this issue had been addressed 

under the EREV discussion. 

Participants repeatedly stated 

that no matter what ended 

up being included on the fuel 

economy labels, it should be 

consistent across vehicle types 

so to ease comparisons across 

vehicle technologies. 

12 Note that such use of the term 

“hybrid” to describe the blended 

mode of operation in PHEVs 

would not be the same as used 

in the context of a conventional 

hybrid vehicle. In fact, the 

gasoline mode in PHEVs is 

the operational mode that is 

technologically similar to how 

conventional hybrids function. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• For blended (electric and gasoline) mode of operation: 

•	� Range (“what is the distance on charge and gas”; 

“miles on full charge and full tank”; “gasoline and 

battery range”)
�

•	� Cost (“what is the combined (electric and gas) metric 

for cost”)
�

• For gasoline-only mode of operation: 

•	� Range/distance on gas (“Miles per gallon”;“range for gas”) 

•	� Gas cost estimate (“annual gas cost”) 

Participants wanted similar information for PHEVs as they did for 

the EVs and EREVs. Most important to participants were range, “It sounds like we’re talking about 

cost and charging time. Additionally, participants requested the the same things [as EREV]” 

label for PHEVs include the size of the gas tank. – Chicago Male 

No major gender or city differences were found with regard to the “We’re still using separate electric information that participants stated (unaided) they wanted to see and gas, it’s just the vehicle is on the fuel economy label for PHEVs. running it differently. I would still 

want to know the same stuff.” Based on the findings above, it may be said that participants liked – Charlotte Female the terms “hybrid” and “gasoline” to describe the two operational 

modes of PHEVs because these were simple and descriptive of how 

the PHEVs function in the blended mode and the gasoline-only mode. 

Further, the information that they thought was most important and 

needed to be on the label for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles included 

distance [in blended (electric and gas) mode and gas only mode], cost 

(of charging for blended mode and gas mode functioning), and time 

to charge. No gender or city differences were found. 

Fuel economy label metrics for plug-in 

hybrid electric vehicles 

Participants were provided a list of potential label elements (see 

Appendix J). Using the distributed list and the list generated by the 

group they worked as a team to design a label for PHEVs. 

Across all groups the following key elements were most desired: 

(see Appendix K for tally): 

Phase 2 Focus Groups 37 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• Charging time 

Participants felt it was critical to know how long it would 

take to fully charge the battery in a PHEV. They wanted 

to know whether charging the battery in the PHEV would 

meet their driving needs. 

No major gender or city differences were found with regard 

to participants’ preference for wanting to see charging time 

information on the fuel economy label for PHEVs. 

• Range 

Participants wanted the label to show the PHEV’s blended 

(electric and gasoline) range for a fully charged battery, and 

to show how far the PHEV could go in gasoline-only mode. 

Interestingly, more participants were interested in learning 

about the PHEV range estimates for the blended mode. This 

was because they wanted to know how fuel efficient a PHEV 

was as compared to a traditional gasoline powered vehicle. 

For the blended (electric and gasoline) mode of operation, 

the Chicago female group and Houston male group wanted 

to see city range, highway range, as well as combined 

(city and highway) range estimates on the PHEV label. 

According to them, having all these estimates was useful 

for everyone irrespective of individual differences in city 

and highway driving ratios. Participants in the Seattle male 

group and the Chicago male group wanted to see only the 

combined (city and highway) range estimate on the label. 

According to them, the opportunity to see an estimate 

without doing the math themselves was convenient and 

helpful. Seattle male group further explained that they 

wanted the PHEV label to resemble the EREV label for 

consistency in label design and hence wanted the same 

metrics that they chose for EREV label to be on the PHEV 

label. The female participants in Charlotte wanted separate 

city and highway range estimates as opposed to combined 

(city and highway) range estimates for blended mode of 

operation on the label. According to them, they were used 

to seeing these two estimates separately on the current 

label and would look for the same on newer labels. 

“You can pretty much calculate 

from below half full when you 

need to get gas with your own 

experience with the car. Now you 

have two things...when do I need 

to charge, when do I fill the tank? 

Are you just going to do it more 

than you need to, or be stressed 

about it, lose confidence in the 

car?” – Seattle Male 

38 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As for the gasoline mode of operation, participants in the 

Houston male and female groups were interested in seeing 

the city and highway range estimates on the label for 

PHEVs. As before, these participants said that they were 

used to looking at the city and highway estimates on the 

current label and would look for these estimates in the new 

labels as well. 

• Fuel cost 

Participants across all groups stated that fuel cost was a 

crucial piece of information that they wanted to see on the 

fuel economy label for PHEVs. This was consistent with 

the previous discussion where they stated (unaided) that 

information on cost of charging, blended operation (gas + 

electric) cost, and gas operation cost and cost for merged 

(gas + electric) was important for them. 

Many participants said they preferred a metric for blended 

mode on the fuel cost section of the PHEV label. They 

explained that because the PHEV was a “super-hybrid” 

that functioned in the blended mode for the first 50 miles 

and then used gasoline as its main fuel source for the 

remaining miles, it was more important to know the fuel 

cost for the blended mode in PHEVs. 

With regard to the preferred fuel cost metric for blended 

mode, many liked the combined (city and highway) per mile 

estimate. Those participants (Seattle groups and Chicago 

male group) who liked this metric said that they were driving 

on both city roads and highways and it was useful for them 

to have combined city and highway estimates. Moreover, 

many of these participants added that they wanted the 

PHEV label to resemble the EREV label for consistency in 

label design and hence wanted the same metrics that they 

chose for EREV label to be on the PHEV label. 

“Just the combined, so there’s 

not so much information.” 

– Chicago Male 

“You want the same information 

for all the labels.” 

– Chicago Female 

This was followed by combined (city and highway) annual 

estimate for the blended mode as indicated by some in 

the Seattle female group and in the Houston male group. 

According to these participants, they were used to seeing an 

annual fuel cost estimate on the current label and wanted 

something similar on the newer labels. Moreover, they 

Phase 2 Focus Groups 39 
wanted a combined estimate because it was simple and 

easier to compare different vehicles using one consolidated 

fuel metric. 

Interestingly, some participants (Houston female group13) 

said that they preferred separate city and highway metrics 

for annual fuel cost on the PHEV label. According to them, 

they were driving either on city roads or on highways, 

and it was useful for them to have separate city and 

highway breakdowns of their fuel cost. A few participants 

(Charlotte female group14) said that they liked a monthly 

metric for fuel cost on the PHEV label because monthly 

estimates were useful in budgeting with their other monthly 

household costs (such as monthly auto loan payment). 

Participants across all groups also said that it was 

important to add the qualifier information “estimated fuel 

cost based on 15,000 miles per year at 12 cents per kWhour and $3.00 per gallon” for people to know the basic 

assumptions on which these numbers were estimated. 

• Fuel consumption 

Participants said that they preferred a fuel consumption 

metric for the blended mode over the gasoline only mode 

on the PHEV label. They explained that because the PHEV 

was a “super-hybrid” that functioned in the blended mode 

for the first 50 miles and then used gasoline as its main fuel 

source for the remaining miles, it was most important to 

know the fuel consumption for the blended mode as well 

as the consumption metric for gasoline-only mode. 

With regard to the metric for blended mode in PHEVs, city 

and highway ‘MPGe of gas + electric’ estimate emerged 

to be the most popular fuel consumption metric across 

all groups, closely followed by combined ‘MPGe of gas + 

electric’ estimate. According to those who liked the city 

and highway ‘MPGe of gas + electric’ estimate, they were 

used to seeing separate city and highway estimates on 

the current label and wanted the new label for PHEVs to 

resemble it. Those who liked the combined ‘MPGe of gas 

+ electric’ estimate said that they wanted a single estimate 

that could be used to compare fuel consumption across 

different PHEVs. 

“Need combined fuel 

consumption, because the car 

won’t work without gasoline.” 

– Charlotte Female 

40 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

13 These participants preferred the 

city and highway annual fuel cost 

estimates for the gas-only mode 

and the blended (electric and gas) 

mode on the PHEV label. 

14 These participants preferred 

combined (city and highway) 

monthly fuel cost estimates for 

blended mode and gasoline only 

mode on the PHEV label. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Most participants preferred MPG for the gasoline mode 

because they were familiar with the concept of MPG. Here 

again, most wanted a separate MPG estimate for city and 

highway and seemed less enthusiastic about a combined 

MPG estimate. 

Participants in the Seattle female group suggested adding 

the orange bar chart (see Appendix G) from the teaching 

tool handout to the label. They said that these graphics 

could serve as useful aids in explaining the concept of fuel 

consumption in PHEVs. 

• Environmental impact 

Participants across the different groups seemed less 

enthusiastic about the environmental impact metric as 

compared to the above discussed metrics. 

The ‘number rating’ (out of 10) without the CO2 grams 

per mile count format emerged to be the preferred metric 

for environmental impact chosen by female participants in 

Charlotte and Chicago, and male participants in Houston. 

According to these participants, this rating was simple, 

straightforward and uncluttered. 

Those who liked the slider bar without the CO2 grams per 

mile format (female participants in Seattle and Houston), 

said that it was simple and visually appealing. Those who 

liked the leaf format with the CO2 grams per mile count 

(male participants in Seattle and female participants in 

Charlotte) said that it was visually appealing and was 

consistent with the environmental impact theme. Male 

participants in Charlotte indicated that they did not want 

an environmental metric on the label. 

“As we work through the 

transition, it’s really important for 

the agencies to educate us and 

give the tools so that when we 

walk on the lot and we are trying 

to be more environmentally aware 

of what we are doing, the labels 

need to help us understand why 

they are a better option, but it 

needs to be in a metric that we 

In summary, it may be said that participants wanted to see 

information on charging time, range, fuel cost and fuel consumption 

on the fuel economy label for PHEVs. They were less enthusiastic 

about the inclusion of the environmental impact metric on the label 

as compared these metrics. This was similar to what was seen in the 

EV and EREV label design preference. 

understand.” – Chicago Female 

Phase 2 Focus Groups 41 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Participants indicated that battery charge time was important 

because it gave them information on how to accommodate their 

driving requirements. To illustrate range, they wanted to see 

combined (city and highway) estimates for the blended (electric and 

gas) mode of operation. For the gasoline only mode, participants 

wanted city and highway estimates of range. According to them, all 

these estimates gave them a more complete sense of how far they 

could drive the PHEV. 

For both fuel cost and consumption, participants wanted to see 

combined (city and highway) estimates for the blended mode of 

operation. They explained that because the PHEV was a “superhybrid” that functioned in the blended mode for the first 50 miles 

and then used gasoline as its main fuel source for the remaining 

miles, it was more important to know the fuel consumption and 

cost while in blended mode. While a combined (city and highway) 

per mile estimate for the mode emerged as the most popular fuel 

cost estimate, separate city and highway ‘MPGe of gas + electric’ 

estimates for blended mode emerged to be the most popular fuel 

consumption metrics across most groups. The equivalency of MPGe 

with MPG and their familiarity and ease of thinking in terms of 

MPG made MPGe appealing to the participants. 

Participants were less enthusiastic about an environmental metric 

as compared to the other metrics. With regard to format preference, 

many preferred the number rating (out of 10) without the CO2 

grams per mile count format because they found it to be simple, 

straightforward and visually appealing over others. 

42 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comparison Across 

Vehicle Types 

When asked if it was important to be able to compare across 

different types of vehicle technologies (conventional gasoline 

powered vehicles, EVs, EREVs and PHEVs), virtually every 

participant said yes15. They indicated that they wanted to use the 

“What you put on the sticker information to compare different vehicles across technologies in 

needs to be simple, basic, their consideration and therefore be able to make an informed 

because it’s going to scare a decision. They added that they wanted labels that were easy to 

lot people away from the car if read and understand and consistent in content and design across 

there are too many figures.” different vehicle technologies. This meant using same/similar label 

– Chicago Male elements for describing fuel economy in a vehicle irrespective of 

whether it was a conventional gasoline powered vehicle, EV, EREV 

or PHEV. The majority of participants thought that fuel cost and 

fuel consumption were the two critical elements on the labels that 

would allow them to compare all the different types of vehicles as 

part of their decision process. 

With regard to participants’ preference for expressing metrics 

using bookend approach (i.e. separate estimates for each mode of 

operation) versus merged approach (i.e. one estimate for all modes 

of operation) for purposes of comparison, most wanted the merged 

estimate as an add-on to bookend estimates only if there was room 

on the labels. 

When asked if it was important to have a label that explained in more 

detail how a particular type of vehicle worked, most participants 

said that they would not want this type of information on the fuel 

economy label. Instead, they would look for it on websites or on 

informational brochures. 15 Participants in the Houston 

female group were not asked this 

question because the group ran 

out of time. 

Phase 2 Focus Groups 43 
44 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Overall Summary
�

Gender and Location Affects 

Based on the results of these Phase 2 focus groups, no systematic 

gender or city location differences were found. Those reported here 

appear to be random, but will be further tracked and reviewed as 

Phase 3 of the focus groups is completed. 

Vehicle Choice Process and Current Label Use 

The findings in the Phase 2 focus group supported the vehicle 

choice process identified in Phase 1. 

Buyers actively began the vehicle purchasing process with specific 

vehicles or vehicle type in mind that fit their individual needs. They 

then searched for information relevant to those particular vehicles. 

Assuming the vehicle met their affordability threshold and aesthetic 

preference, and had positive brand reputation and was available on 

the market, information on factors such as comfort, safety, reliability, 

fuel economy, performance, warranty, size, seating capacity, etc. 

became critical in influencing one’s vehicle choice regardless of one’s 

gender or location. It should be noted that participants’ views of 

vehicle type varied by their individual needs and preferences and did 

not match EPA’s typical vehicle classes. 

Participants used the current fuel economy label to compare 

different vehicles within the same type, primarily relying on city 

and highway gas mileage estimates. While fuel economy figured 

high on the consideration list, it was considered along with other 

factors (such as comfort, safety, reliability, size, performance, brand 

name, past experience with the brand, etc.) in comparing different 

vehicles in the consideration set. Environmental impact did not 

seem to significantly impact vehicle choice. 

Phase 2 Focus Groups 45 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Participants were well-aware of hybrid technology and brands such 

as the Toyota Prius that are currently on the market. They had a 

basic understanding of the technology, but also did not understand 

how the battery and gasoline work together to power the vehicle. 

They were not aware that hybrids currently use the same fuel 

economy label as conventional gasoline engine vehicles. 

Electric Vehicles 

Some participants were able to recall a few electric vehicles (EVs) 

that are coming onto the market. The focus group discussions 

included basic information on the technology which provided a 

foundation for participants to know more about EVs. 

With regard to the fuel economy label for EVs, information on range, 

charging time, electricity cost and consumption were important to 

participants. They wanted to see each of these elements on the fuel 

economy label. 

Range gives them a sense of how far they can go on a fully charged 

battery. They wanted to see this information broken out for city, 

highway, and combined. Charging time tells them how it long it 

takes to charge the EV battery and if they can accommodate it 

within their schedules. All three of these estimates gave participants 

a sense of whether the batteries in EVs will hold enough charge for 

them to travel desired distances. 

With regard to fuel cost in EVs, participants strongly recommended 

calling it ‘electricity cost’ on the label because they did not readily 

associate the word ‘fuel’ with electricity. Participants wanted to 

see city and highway cost per mile information in addition to the 

qualifier information “estimated fuel cost based on 15,000 miles 

per year at 12 cents per kW-hour” on the label. Knowing the cost 

to travel a mile will allows them to calculate whether these vehicles 

are cost-effective or not in regard to their personal annual miles 

traveled and local cost for electricity. To understand consumption 

estimates, participants wanted to see city and highway MPGe 

estimates. While fuel economy was one of the important factors 

that influenced participants’ vehicle choice, the equivalency of 

MPGe with MPG and their familiarity and ease of thinking in 

terms of MPG made MPGe appealing. 

46 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Environmental information was currently not sought after for many 

participants as their vehicle choice was not largely influenced by 

environmental impact. Although participants did not feel strongly 

about including such an environmental metric, many preferred the 

slider bar without the CO2 grams per mile format. They found this 

format to be more informative and visually appealing over other 

formats. Further, women participants were more enthusiastic about 

including an environmental impact metric as compared to men. 

Extended Range Electric Vehicles 

Participants were not aware of the concept of extended range 

electric vehicles (EREVs) and had limited information about EREVs 

based on what they had learned in the pre-group online survey. As 

a result, they had several questions regarding how EREVs operate 

and how they differ from hybrid vehicles. 

As participants learned how EREVs worked in the focus groups, 

they preferred the terms “electricity” and “gasoline” to describe the 

two operational modes. According to them, these terms are simple, 

straightforward and easily understood. It was clear to participants 

that driving shorter distances can be more cost-efficient in an EREV 

as compared to long distances. 

For EREVs, participants thought that range, charging time, fuel 

cost and fuel consumption were most important and needed to 

be included on the EREV label. Environmental impact was less 

important and they were less enthusiastic about including an 

environmental impact metric on the EREV label compared to these 

other metrics. 

For range, they wanted to see city and highway estimates for 

electric-only and gasoline-only modes of operation. Charging 

time was important because it gives them information about how 

time consuming the battery charging process will be and if they 

can accommodate it within their schedules. For the merged range 

estimate (an average of the electric and gasoline range estimates 

combined together into one value), they wanted city, highway, and 

combined (city and highway) estimates on the fuel economy label. 

According to them, all these estimates give them a more complete 

sense of how far they can travel in an EREV. 

Phase 2 Focus Groups 47 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Participants wanted to see separate fuel cost estimates for electric and 

gasoline modes on the fuel economy label and preferred a merged) 

cost estimate (an average of the electric and gasoline cost estimates 

combined together into one value) as an add-on only if there was 

room on the label. Participants preferred ‘per mile’ estimates for 

electric-only mode and gasoline-only mode because these metrics are 

indicative of how much it is going to cost them to travel a mile and 

are useful in figuring out their own personal costs based their typical 

mileage. They also wanted the qualifier information (“estimated fuel 

cost based on 15,000 miles per year at 12 cents per kW-hour and 

$3.00 per gallon”) on the fuel economy label. 

With regard to fuel consumption, participants wanted separate 

estimates for electric and gasoline modes and preferred a merged 

consumption estimate (an average of the electric and gasoline 

consumption estimates combined together into one value) as an 

add-on if there is room on the label. As for the metric for fuel 

consumption, participants preferred the city and highway MPG 

estimate for gasoline mode, city and highway MPGe estimate for 

electric mode, and the ‘MPGe for electric + gas consumption’ for 

total fuel consumption. The equivalency of MPGe with MPG and 

their familiarity and ease of thinking in terms of MPG made MPGe 

appealing to them. 

Participants were less enthusiastic about the environmental metric 

as compared to the other metrics. However, with regard to format, 

many preferred the slider bar without the CO2 grams per mile 

format as they found it to be informative and visually appealing 

over others. 

Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles 

Participants were not aware of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles 

(PHEVs) and had limited information about PHEVs based on what 

they had learned about them in the pre-group online survey. As 

a result, participants had several questions regarding how PHEVs 

operate and how they differ from hybrid vehicles and EREVs. 

As participants learned how PHEVs worked in the focus groups, 

they preferred the terms “hybrid” and “gasoline” to describe the 

two operational modes because these are simple and descriptive of 

how PHEVs function in the blended and gasoline-only modes. 

48 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As for the fuel economy label for PHEVs, participants thought that 

charging time, range, fuel cost and fuel consumption were most 

important. Environmental impact was less important and they 

were less enthusiastic about including an environmental impact 

metric on the EREV label compared these other metrics. 

According to participants, charging time was important because it 

gives them information about how time consuming the charging 

process is and if they can accommodate it within their schedules. For 

range, they wanted to see combined (city and highway) estimates 

for blended (electric and gas) mode of operation. With regard to the 

metrics for range, participants wanted city and highway estimates 

for the gasoline-only modes of operation on the fuel economy label. 

According to them, all these estimates give them a more complete 

sense of how far they can travel in a PHEV. 

For both fuel cost and consumption, participants wanted to see 

combined (city and highway) estimates for the blended mode of 

operation. Participants described the PHEV as a “super-hybrid” 

that functions in the blended mode for the first 50 miles and then 

uses gasoline as its fuel source for the remaining miles, it was more 

important to participants to know the fuel consumption and cost 

for the blended mode in PHEVs. Combined (city and highway) 

cost per mile for the blended mode was the most preferred fuel 

cost estimate. With regard to fuel consumption, city and highway 

‘MPGe of gas + electric’ estimates for blended mode was the most 

preferred metric. The equivalency of MPGe with MPG and their 

familiarity and ease of thinking in terms of MPG made MPGe 

appealing to the participants. 

Participants were less enthusiastic about the environmental metric 

as compared to the other metrics. However, with regard to format 

preference, many preferred the ‘rating out of 10’ without the CO2 

grams per mile format as they found it to be simple, straightforward 

and visually appealing over other formats. 

Comparison Across Vehicle Types 

Participants thought that it was important to be able to compare 

across different types of vehicle technologies (conventional gasoline 

powered vehicles, EVs, EREVs and PHEVs). They wanted labels 

that are easy to read and understand and consistent in content and 

design across different vehicle technologies. 

Phase 2 Focus Groups 49 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Participants thought that fuel cost and fuel consumption were the 

two critical elements on the labels that will allow them to compare 

all the different types of vehicles. When it comes to explaining in 

more detail how a particular type of vehicle works, participants 

want this type of information on websites or on informational 

brochures instead of the fuel economy label. 

Preferred Metrics by Vehicle Type 

When looking at the preferred metrics by vehicle type it was found 

that16: (To see this information in a table format see Appendix L.) 

• Charging time: All the groups wanted charging time across 

all the labels. 

• Range: 

• For ‘electric only’ mode: More groups wanted 

city, highway and combined (city and highway) 

range estimates for EVs than EREVs. This may be 

explained by the fact that EVs run on electricity only 

and hence participants attached sole importance to 

these estimates. On the other hand, EREVs use both 

electricity and gasoline to propel the vehicle, and 

hence each mode received distributed attention from 

participants. 

• For ‘gas only’ mode: More groups wanted separate city 

and highway range estimates for EREVs than PHEVs. 

• Fuel cost: 

• For ‘electric only’ mode: More groups wanted city, 

highway and/or combined (city and highway) fuel 

cost estimates17 for EVs than EREVs. This may be 

explained by the fact that EVs run on electricity only 

and hence participants attached sole importance to 

electric only estimates. On the other hand, EREVs use 

both electricity and gasoline to propel the vehicle, and 

hence each mode received distributed attention from 

participants. 

16 This section does not include 

a discussion on comparison 

of blended mode in PHEVs 

(because no such corresponding 

mode exists for EVs or EREVs), 

or comparison of merging of 

operations in EREVs and PHEVs 

(because the PHEV section did 

not involve a discussion around 

the merging of the blended and 

the gas operations) 

17 Most preferred per mile estimates 

for EVs and EREVs. 

50 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

•	� For ‘gas only’ mode: More groups wanted separate city 

and highway cost estimates for EREVs than PHEVs. 

• Fuel consumption: 

•	� For ‘electric only’ mode: More groups wanted city, 

highway and/or combined (city and highway) fuel 

consumption estimates18 for EVs than EREVs. This 

may be explained by the fact that EVs run on electricity 

only and hence participants attached sole importance 

to these estimates. On the other hand, EREVs use 

both electricity and gasoline to propel the vehicle, and 

hence each mode received distributed attention from 

participants. 

•	� For ‘gas only’ mode: More groups wanted separate city 

and highway MPG estimates for EREVs than PHEVs. 

• Environmental impact: 

•	� The slider bar format was preferred by a comparable 

number of groups for the EV and EREV labels, 

•	� For PHEVs, most groups preferred rating number out 

of 10 

•	� For all vehicle types, the majority of groups preferred 

an environmental measure that did not include a CO2 

grams per mile metric. 

18 Most preferred MPGe estimates 

for EVs and EREVs. 

Phase 2 Focus Groups 51 
52 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 
 

Appendices 

Appendix A: Moderator Guide 

Introduction (8 minutes) 

•	� Moderator introduces herself/himself. 

•	� [Explain:] A focus group is a group discussion where we can learn 

more in-depth about peoples’ ideas and opinions (compared to 

telephone or written surveys). 

•	� My job is to facilitate the discussion and make sure that everyone 

has an opportunity to speak and to make sure that no one 

dominates the conversation. 

•	� Mention observers in separate room. Our discussion today 

is being recorded. These recordings allow us to write a more 

complete report, and to make sure we accurately reflect your 

opinions. 

•	� Housekeeping – Toilets and refreshments. 

•	� Mention ground rules: 

•	� There is no right or wrong answer; we’re interested in your 

honest and candid opinions and ideas. 

•	� Our discussion is totally confidential. We will not use your 

name or contact information in any report. 

•	� Please only speak one at a time, so that the recorder can 

pick up all your comments. 

•	� It is important to tell YOUR thoughts, not what you think 

others will think, or what you think others want to hear. 

•	� Please turn off cell phones 

•	� Your stipend will be provided as you leave. 

•	� Relax and enjoy 

Thank you all for participating in the survey we sent to you in advance. 

Today we will continue the discussion talking about new car purchases. 

Any questions before we begin? 

Phase 2 Focus Groups 53 
 

• Let’s start off by getting to know a little more about each other. 

I’d like us to go around the room with each person answering the 

following questions (Listed on poster chart): 

• Your first name 

• When did you buy your last new vehicle? 

• What make and model did you buy? 

• Did you consider buying a hybrid, or clean diesel, or some 

other alternative fuel vehicle? 

Current Label Use (10 minutes) 

1. What were the top two things that influenced your vehicle choice? 

Could I see a show of hands of those who considered fuel efficiency 

in the decision of which vehicle you chose to buy? 

Are there other things that you haven’t mentioned that would 

stop you from buying this vehicle that in all other ways meets 

your needs? (Listen for and probe on things like performance, 

attractiveness, ‘cool factor’, impact on the environment, etc.) 

2. Did you use the fuel economy label when deciding on your new 

vehicle purchase? Why or why not? How did you use it? When in 

the vehicle choice process did you use it? (Handout copies of the 

existing fuel economy label) and ask what information on the label 

most influenced their purchasing decision. 

3. What are some of the hybrid vehicles that are on the market today? 

If you look at these vehicles on a new car lot you will see that 

hybrid vehicles use the same fuel economy label as a conventional 

gasoline engine vehicle. (Handout copies of a Prius fuel economy 

label Why is that? (Listen for their understanding of how hybrids 

work and then explain that: 

(Handout copies and read the following statement) 

A Gasoline hybrid uses gasoline to propel the vehicle. It can recoup some 

energy through regenerative braking. Does not plug in to charge the 

battery. Validate that they understand this. 

Electric Vehicles (27 minutes) 

Now we’re going to talk about Electric Vehicles. 

4. Are you aware of any totally electric vehicles that are on the market 

or that will be coming on the market? (Listen for Nissan Leaf.) 

54 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 
 

 

Read the following (Handout copies and read the following statement): 

Electric Vehicles use electricity stored in batteries to propel the 

vehicle. The battery is charged by plugging it into an electrical 

outlet. This could be a standard electric outlet or a high voltage 

custom-installed charging station for more rapid charging. Like 

hybrid vehicles, some energy is recouped through regenerative 

braking. The vehicle travels until the charge is depleted or it is recharged. There is no option to run it on gasoline. 

5.	� If you were considering the purchase of an Electric Vehicle, what 

information do you want to see on the Fuel Economy Label? 

(Capture list on poster chart) Now let’s identify the top two most 

important. (Listen for items such as range, fuel efficiency, fuel cost, 

and environmental impact.) If battery life comes up and its related 

replacement cost – ask why that is important relative to the entire 

lifetime cost of gasoline they pay for in a conventional gasoline 

vehicle. 

6.	� (Pass out a blank label template and puzzle pieces for EV) For the 

next couple minutes I’d like you to look at the list of elements on 

the poster chart that we discussed as well as these potential label 

elements (puzzle pieces). Using only those that are important to 

you sketch or write down how you might design the label (Have 

the participants individually work on this for 3 minutes. If they are 

struggling with this move to the group discussion exercise). 

Now let’s work together to design a label for Electric Vehicles 

using the elements you each identified. (Utilize a large board that 

is a blank label with pre-created elements (the puzzle pieces) that 

can be stuck on the board – blank pieces will also be created for 

additional elements that the group identifies). Probe on use of City 

and Highway for some of the metrics, e.g., consumption, MPGe, 

range. There is likely to be a difference in these values across the 

two conditions. 

a.	� kwhr/100 miles (or another consumption measure) 

b.	� miles per gallon equivalent - MPGe 

•	� If not mentioned, ask about a vehicle that gets 300 

MPGe. Probe on: 

•	� What does MPGe mean to you? After they answer, 

moderator to explain that MPGe is an energy 

efficiency measure, with 34 kW-hr of energy = 1 

gallon of gas. 

•	� Do you think this is useful considering an electric 

vehicle does not consume gallons? Why or Why not? 

•	� Should MPGe be on the label? Why or why not? 

Phase 2 Focus Groups 55 
 

 

 

c. Fuel cost (Probe on annual, per month, weekly, cents per 

mile, cents per 100 miles.) 

d. Range 

e. Charging time 

f. Info on how to charge 

g. Environmental impact 

7. Once label elements have been added, probe on the following: 

• Does this give them the information they need? 

• Do they need all of this info? 

• Do they need additional info? 

• Do you want a technology description on the label? 

Ask client if they have any additional questions regarding Electric Vehicle 

discussion. 

Extended Range Electric Vehicle (30 minutes) 

Now we’re going to talk about another type of vehicle that some refer to 

as an Extended Range Electric Vehicle. 

(Handout copies and read the following statement. Leave the conventional 

vehicle label and just designed EV label showing for reference.) 

An EREV has 2 modes of operation and can be plugged in to charge 

the battery. 

1. It uses wall electricity to propel the vehicle (like an EV) until 

the wall electricity is used up. 

2. Once the stored wall electricity is used up, it runs like a 

gasoline hybrid, using gasoline to propel the vehicle with some 

regenerative braking. 

Important: daily driving distance can GREATLY affect amount of 

gasoline used. Can go all the way from zero gasoline (if shorter 

commutes and plenty of recharging) to entirely gasoline (if longer 

drives and no recharging) Validate that they understand this. 

8. Are you aware of any Extended Range Electric Vehicles that are on the 

market or that will be coming on the market? (Listen for Chevy Volt.) 

9. Use EREV teaching tool here to point directly to the two modes . 

56 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10. How can we better describe this? If the label has electric mode 

information on one side and gasoline mode on the other, how should 

the two sides of the label be labeled? What should we call the two 

modes? (Write suggestions on poster chart. Listen and suggest the 

following if not mentioned – then get a show of hands vote on the 

most preferred from just the list below and probe on why.) 

Full Battery and Empty Battery 

Electricity and Gasoline 

All Electric and Gasoline 

Charged and Discharged 

Other? 

11. If you were considering the purchase of an Extended Range Electric 

Vehicle, what information would you want to include on the Fuel 

Economy Label? (Refer back to list created for EV and ask them 

which of these they would want and to add others needed.) Now 

let’s identify the top two most important. (Listen for items such as 

range, fuel efficiency, fuel cost, and environmental impact.) 

12. Is it important to you to understand that some of these things will 

be different depending on the mode of operation? Why or why not? 

(Use ‘EREV Mode Teaching Tool’ (blue example) as a handout to get 

them to see the impact of different mode configurations.) 

13. (Pass out copies of the EREV puzzle pieces) Now let’s work together 

to design a label for Extended Range Electric Vehicle using the 

elements you identified as well as the elements on the “puzzle 

pieces”. (Utilize a large board that is a blank label with pre-created 

elements as listed below, that can be stuck on the board – blank 

pieces will also be created for additional elements that the group 

identifies). 

a. Range 

b. Fuel efficiency 

c. Fuel cost 

d. Environmental impact. 

Phase 2 Focus Groups 57 
 

 

 

 

MODERATOR NOTE: . Additionally, EVERY time an MPGe value is 

chosen ask the following questions: 

 -Why did you chose MPGe? 

 -What will you use it for? 

 -Remind them of why (if this is true) they did not like it/trust it/ 

found it confusing in the initial conversation of MPGe in the EV section, 

then ask again/confirm whether they still want to chose MPGe now. 

14. Once label elements have been added, probe on the following: 

• Does this give them the information they need? 

• Do they need all of this info? 

• Do they need additional info? 

• Do they need City and Highway, even if values are close? 

(Recognize impact of wanting City and Highway on quantity of 

information.) 

• Do you want a technology description on the label? 

15. Driving distance has huge impact on most of the numbers you 

placed on the label—does that matter in your vehicle choice or in 

understanding the label? 

(Look at EREV Mode Teaching Tool with merged info) Is this 

helpful? Why or why not? 

16. In order to compare across vehicle types would it help to merge 

some of this information for vehicles that have two modes of 

operation? Or is it better to keep these separate? 

For total cost: 

• Do the “bookends” of all-electric and all-gasoline numbers give 

enough info? Why or why not? Or do you want us to make some 

assumptions about what percentage of time you will drive in 

each mode of operation and merge that to come up with a 

blended number? (show examples here of actual bookend and 

blended numbers) 

• Electric mode annual cost - $618 

• Gasoline mode annual cost - $1,194 

• Merged annual cost - $889 

For energy/fuel consumption: 

• Do the “bookends” of all-electric and all-gasoline numbers give 

enough info? Why or why not? Or, do you want us to make 

some assumptions about what percentage of time you will drive 

in each mode of operation and merge that to come up with a 

58 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 
 

blended number? (show examples here of actual bookend and 

blended numbers) 

•	� Electric mode – 98 MPGe 

•	� Gasoline mode – 38 MPG 

•	� Merged – 56 MPGe 

Ask client if they have any additional questions about Extended Range 

Electric Vehicles. 

PHEV Vehicles (25 minutes) 

Now we’re going to talk about a label for what is known as a Plug In 

Hybrid Electric Vehicle, also referred to as PHEVs. 

(Handout copies and read the following statement). 

A PHEV has 2 modes of operation and can be plugged in to charge 

the battery. 

1.	� It uses wall electricity intermingled with some gasoline to 

propel the vehicle until the wall electricity is used up. 

2.	� Once the stored wall electricity is used up, it runs like a 

gasoline hybrid, using gasoline to propel the vehicle with some 

regenerative braking. 

Important: daily driving distance can GREATLY affect amount of 

gasoline used. Validate that they understand this. (Refer to PHEV 

Mode Teaching Tool for example) 

17. Are you aware of any Plug In Hybrid Electric Vehicles that are on 

the market or that will be coming on the market? (Listen for Prius 

PHEV.) 

18. How can we better describe this? If the label has electric mode 

information on one side and gasoline mode on the other, how 

should the two sides of the label be labeled? What should we call 

the two modes of operation in a PHEV? (Write the following on 

poster chart and add others that they suggest – then get a show of 

hands vote on the most preferred from just the list below and probe 

on why.) 

•	� Full Battery and Empty Battery 

•	� Electricity and Gasoline 

•	� Mostly Electric (with some gasoline) and Gasoline 

•	� Charged and Discharged 

Phase 2 Focus Groups 59 
 

 

 

 

19. If you were looking considering the purchase of a Plug-In Hybrid 

Electric Vehicle, what information do you want to include on the 

Fuel Economy Label? (Refer back to list created for EV and EREV 

and ask them which of these they would want and to add others 

needed to either add others needed.) Now let’s identify the top two 

most important. (Listen for items such as range, fuel efficiency, fuel 

cost, and environmental impact.) 

20. (Pass out copies of the PHEV puzzle pieces) Now let’s work 

together to design a label for just the electric mode (since gas 

operation is identical to EREV) of a Blended Plug in Hybrid Electric 

Vehicle using the elements you identified as well as the elements 

on the “puzzle pieces” (Utilize a large board that is a blank label 

with pre-created elements as listed below, that can be stuck on the 

board – blank pieces will also be created for additional elements 

that the group identifies). 

a. Range 

b. Fuel efficiency 

c. Fuel cost 

d. Environmental impact 

MODERATOR NOTE: . Additionally, EVERY time an MPGe value is 

chosen ask the following questions: 

 -Why did you chose MPGe? 

 -What will you use it for? 

 -Remind them of why (if this is true) they did not like it/trust it/ 

found it confusing in the initial conversation of MPGe in the EV section, 

then ask again/confirm whether they still want to chose MPGe 

21. Once label elements have been added, probe on the following: 

• If the full battery mode of the PHEV had a small all-electric 

range (a few miles), would you want that on the label even if 

the all electric range is not guaranteed. (Example, if you step on 

the accelerator really hard during this small electric range, you 

would probably start to use some gasoline.) 

• Does this give them the information they need? 

• Do they need all of this info? 

• Do they need additional info? 

• Do you want a technology description on the label? 

(Note: this section is particularly tricky and where we most need 

to get input—the balance between providing enough info so that 

people can make the right choice for their driving needs and making 

60 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 
 

it understandable is our greatest challenge. It will be important to 

make sure they know, if they tend toward simple, what they are 

giving up—and probe on whether that matters to them or not. Refer 

to their list of potential elements as a discussion guide in probing 

this area) 

Ask client if they have any additional questions about PHEVs. 

Comparison Across Vehicle Types (15 minutes) 

22. Show all three labels that were developed. For each, ask what 

are the two most important pieces of information? (moderator to 

identify these by circling these or crossing out the others. 

23. Is it important to be able to compare across these different types 

of vehicles, meaning conventional, electric, extended range 

electric, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles? Why or why not? Or is it 

more important to have a label that explains in more detail how a 

particular type of vehicle works? 

24. Is there a particular element of these labels that would allow 

you to compare all the different types of vehicles as part of your 

decision process? What would that be? (Probe on fuel cost and fuel 

consumption.) 

25. Do you care what is behind the ratings (4 out of 5 stars, or 9 out 

10, etc.) or do you just want a rating to use as you compare vehicle 

to vehicle? Why? 

26. Should the current label for gasoline vehicles be revised to make it 

easier to compare with the labels for these other kinds of vehicles? 

Why or why not? 

Wrap-Up (5 minutes) 

27. Is there information that we have not discussed today that would 

influence you to choose a fuel efficient vehicle? 

28. Anything else you would like our clients to know about your 

thoughts about fuel economy labels? 

Phase 2 Focus Groups 61 
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 

Appendix B: Participants’ ProfileSeattle.Male.Group

Q9. Type of vehiclepurchased 

Q10. How is thisvehicle powered? 

Q11. Distance inmiles of typicaldaily travel in thevehicle 

Q12. Price range of new vehicle 

Q13. Age range Q14. Education Q15. Ethnicity 

Gasoline Powered $20,000- Some College or 1 Passenger Car 10-19 Miles 65+ Caucasian Vehicle $30,000 College Graduate

Gasoline powered $20,000- Some College or 2 Passenger Car 20-29 Miles 65+ Caucasian vehicle $30,000 College Graduate

$20,000- Some College or 3 Passenger Car Hybrid 10-19 Miles 65+ Caucasian $30,000 College Graduate

$20,000- Some College or 4 Passenger car Hybrid 40+ miles 65+ Caucasian $30,000 College Graduate

Gasoline Powered Less than 10 $20,000- Some College or 5 Passenger car 20-34 Hispanic Vehicle miles $30,000 College Graduate

$40,000- Some College or 6 Passenger Car Hybrid 30-39 Miles 50-64 Caucasian $50,000 College Graduate

$20,000-- Some College or 7 Passenger Car Hybrid 30-39 miles 35-49 Asian $30,000 College Graduate

Gasoline Powered $20,000- Some College or 8 SUV 40+ Miles 35-49 Caucasian Vehicle $30,000 College Graduate 

62 
 Seattle.Female.Group

Q9. Type of vehiclepurchased 

Q10. How is thisvehicle powered? 

Q11. Distance inmiles of typicaldaily travel in thevehicle 

Q12. Price range of new vehicle 

Q13. Age range Q14. Education Q15. Ethnicity 

1 Passenger Car Gasoline Powered Vehicle 40+ Miles $30,000- $40,000 20-34 Some College or College Graduate Caucasian 

2 Passenger Car Gasoline Powered Vehicle 20-29 Miles $20,000- $30,000 20-34 Some College or College Graduate Mixed Race 

3 Passenger Car Gasoline Powered Vehicle 10-19 Miles $20,000- $30,000 35-49 Some College or College Graduate Caucasian 

4 Passenger Car Gasoline Powered Vehicle 20-29 miles $20,000- $30,000 20-34 Some College or College Graduate Caucasian 

5 Passenger Car Gasoline Powered Vehicle 10-19 Miles Less than $15,000 20-34 Some College or College Graduate Asian 

6 Passenger Car Gasoline Powered Vehicle 20-29 Miles $40,000- $50,000 35-49 Some College or College Graduate Asian 

7 Passenger Car Gasoline Powered Vehicle 20-29 Miles $40,000- $50,000 50-64 Some College or College Graduate Caucasian 

8 SUV Gasoline Powered Vehicle 40+ Miles $20,000- $30,000 35-49 Some College or College Graduate Caucasian 

Phase 2 Focus Groups 63 
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 

Chicago.Female.Group

Q9. What type ofvehicle did youpurchase? 

Q10. How is thisvehicle powered? 

Q11. What is thedistance in milesof your typicaldaily travel inthis vehicle? 

Q12. Price range of new vehicle 

Q13. Age Q14. Education Q15. Ethnicity 

Some college or 1 Passenger car Gasoline powered 20-29 miles $30-40k 35-49 African American college graduateSome college or 2 SUV Gasoline powered 20-29 miles $20-30k 20-34 Caucasian college graduateSome college or 3 SUV Gasoline powered 10-19 miles $20-30k 35-49 African American college graduateSome college or 4 Passenger car Gasoline powered 20-29 miles $15-20k 50-64 Caucasian college graduateSome high school

5 Passenger car Gasoline powered 10-19 miles $15-20k 35-49 or high school Caucasian 

graduate or GEDSome college or 6 Passenger car Gasoline powered 10-19 miles $20-30k 50-64 Caucasian college graduate

Station wagon or Some college or 7 Gasoline powered 30-39 miles $20-30k 35-49 Caucasian minivan college graduate

Some high school Less than 10 8 Passenger car Gasoline powered $20-30k 35-49 or high school African American miles graduate or GED 

64 
 Seattle.Male.Group

Q9. What type ofvehicle did youpurchase? 

Q10. How is thisvehicle powered? 

Q11. What is thedistance in milesof your typicaldaily travel inthis vehicle? 

Q12. Price range of new vehicle 

Q13. Age Q14. Education Q15. Ethnicity 

1 Passenger car Gasoline powered 30-39 miles $30-40k 20-34 Some college or college graduate Asian 2 SUV Gasoline powered 10-19 miles $30-40k 35-49 Some college or college graduate African American 

3 Passenger car Gasoline powered 10-19 miles $50k+ 20-34 Some college or college graduate African American 

4 Passenger car Hybrid 30-39 miles $30-40k 20-34 Graduate degree Caucasian 

5 Passenger car Gasoline powered 40 or more miles $20-30k 20-34 Graduate degree Caucasian 6 Passenger car Hybrid 20-29 miles $20-30k 50-64 Graduate degree Caucasian 7 Passenger car Gasoline powered Less than 10 miles $15-20k 35-49 Some high school or high school graduate or GED Caucasian 8 Passenger car Gasoline powered 30-39 miles Less than $15k 50-64 Some college or college graduate Hispanic 

Phase 2 Focus Groups 65 
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 

Houston.Femaie.Group

Q9. What type ofvehicle did youpurchase? 

Q10. How is thisvehicle powered? 

Q11. What is thedistance in milesof your typicaldaily travel inthis vehicle? 

Q12. Price range of new vehicle 

Q13. Age Q14. Education Q15. Ethnicity 

Less than 10 Some College or 1 Passenger Car Gasoline $25k 50-64 Caucasian Miles College Graduate

Some College or 2 Passenger Car Gasoline 40 or more miles $25k 35-49 African American College GraduateSome College or 3 SUV Gasoline 20-29 Miles $32k 35-49 Caucasian College GraduateSome College or 4 SUV Gasoline 40 or more miles $35k 35-49 Hispanic College GraduateSome College or 5 SUV Gasoline 20-29 Miles $30-40k 35-49 Caucasian College GraduateSome College or 6 SUV Gasoline 40 or more miles $40-50k 20-34 Caucasian College Graduate

7 SUV Gasoline 20-29 Miles $20-30k 35-49 Graduate Degree Asian 

Some College or 8 Passenger Car Gasoline 30-39 miles $30-40k 50-64 Caucasian College Graduate 

66 
 Houston.Male.Group

Q9. What type ofvehicle did youpurchase? 

Q10. How is thisvehicle powered? 

Q11. What is thedistance in milesof your typicaldaily travel inthis vehicle? 

Q12. Price range of new vehicle 

Q13. Age Q14. Education Q15. Ethnicity 

1 SUV Gasoline powered 20-29 miles $40-50k 20-34 Some college or college graduate Asian 

2 Passenger Car Gasoline powered 30-39 miles $15-20k 50-64 Some college or college graduate Caucasian 3 SUV Gasoline powered 20-29 miles $40-50k 65+ Some college or college graduate Caucasian 

4 SUV Diesel powered 30-39 miles $20-30k 50-64 Some college or college graduate Caucasian 

5 Passenger Car Gasoline powered 10-19 miles $21k 20-34 Some college or college graduate Hispanic 

6 Passenger Car Gasoline powered 20-29 miles $14k 35-49 Some college or college graduate African American 

7 Pickup Truck Gasoline powered 30-39 miles $30k 20-34 Some college or college graduate Caucasian 

8 SUV Gasoline powered 40 or more miles $20k 20-34 Some college or college graduate Caucasian 

Phase 2 Focus Groups 67 
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 

Charlotte.Femaie.Group

Q9. What type ofvehicle did youpurchase? 

Q10. How is thisvehicle powered? 

Q11. What is thedistance in milesof your typicaldaily travel inthis vehicle? 

Q12. Price range of new vehicle 

Q13. Age Q14. Education Q15. Ethnicity 

Some college or 1 Passenger Car Gasoline powered 20-29 miles Less than $15k 35-49 Caucasian college graduateSome college or 2 Passenger Car Gasoline powered 40 or more miles Less than $15k 50-64 Caucasian college graduateSome high school

3 Passenger Car Gasoline powered 10-19 miles $20-$30k 50-64 or high school Caucasian 

graduate or GED

4 SUV Gasoline powered 10-19 miles $20-$30k 35-49 Graduate degree Caucasian 

Some college or 5 Passenger Car Gasoline powered 20-29 miles $20-$30k 35-49 Caucasian college graduateSome college or 6 Passenger Car Gasoline powered 40 or more miles $15-$20k 20-34 African American college graduateSome college or 7 Passenger Car Hybrid 20-29 miles $20-$30k 35-49 Asian college graduateSome college or 8 Passenger Car Hybrid 40 or more miles $20-$30k 35-49 Caucasian college graduate 

68 
 Charlotte.Male.Group

Q9. What type ofvehicle did youpurchase? 

Q10. How is thisvehicle powered? 

Q11. What is thedistance in milesof your typicaldaily travel inthis vehicle? 

Q12. Price range of new vehicle 

Q13. Age Q14. Education Q15. Ethnicity 

1 Passenger Car Hybrid 40 or more miles $20-$30k 50-64 Some college or college graduate Caucasian 

2 Passenger Car Hybrid 40 or more miles $20-$30k 35-49 Some college or college graduate Caucasian 3 SUV Gasoline powered 40 or more miles $30-$40k 35-49 Some college or college graduate Caucasian 

4 Passenger Car Gasoline powered 20-29 miles $15-$20k 20-34 Some college or college graduate Caucasian 5 SUV Gasoline powered 10-19 miles $30-$40k 35-49 Some college or college graduate Caucasian 

6 Passenger Car Gasoline powered 40 or more miles Less than $15k 50-64 Some college or college graduate Caucasian 7 Passenger Car Gasoline powered 10-19 miles $15-$20k 20-34 Some college or college graduate Caucasian 8 SUV Gasoline powered 40 or more miles $20-$30k 50-64 Some college or college graduate Caucasian 

Phase 2 Focus Groups 69 
 

Appendix C: Current Label 

Current.Label 

Appendix D: Prius Label 

Current.Label 

70 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 
 

Appendix E: EV Label Elements
�

Phase 2 Focus Groups 71 
72 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix F: EV Label Elements Tally 

EV:.Charging.Time.and.Range 

Seattle Chicago Charlotte Houston 

Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Total 

Charging time X X X X X X X X 8 

Range: “On a full charge, until 

the battery is exhausted, vehicle 

can travel” 

Separate City & 

Highway X X X X X X X X 8 

Combined (city 

and highway) X X X X X X 6 

EV:.Fuel.Cost 

Seattle Chicago Charlotte Houston 

Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Total 

Separate City & 

Highway 

Annual X X 2 

Per mile X X X 3 

Monthly X X 2 

Combined City & 

Highway 

Annual X X X 3 

Per mile X X X 3 

Monthly X 1 

Phase 2 Focus Groups 73 
 

 

 

 

 

 

EV:.Fuel.Consumption 

Seattle Chicago Charlotte Houston 

Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Total 

ELECTRIC ONLY 

kW-hrs per 

100 miles 

City and highway X X 2 

Combined 

kW-hrs 

per mile 

City and highway X X 2 

Combined X 1 

miles per 

kW-hrs 

City and highway 

Combined 

MPGe 

City and highway X X X 3 

Combined X X 2 

kW-hrs 

per year 

City and highway 

Combined 

EV:.Environmental.Impact 

Seattle Chicago Charlotte Houston 

Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Total 

Leaves With CO2 grams per 

mile count 

X 1 

Without CO2 grams 

per mile count 

Slider Bar With CO2 grams per 

mile count 

Without CO2 grams 

per mile count 

X X X 3 

Rating 

Number 

out of 10 

With CO2 grams per 

mile count 

X 1 

Without CO2 grams 

per mile count 

X X 2 

74 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 
 Appendix G: Teaching Tool Handout 

Phase 2 Focus Groups 75 
 

Appendix H: EREV Label Elements 

76 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 
Phase 2 Focus Groups 77 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix I: EREV Label Elements Tally 

EREV:.Charging.Time.And.Range 

Seattle Chicago Charlotte Houston 

Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Total 

Charging time X X X X X X X X 8 Range 

ELECTRIC ONLY 

:”On a full 

charge, until 

the battery 

is exhausted, 

vehicle can 

travel” 

Separate 

City & 

Highway 

X X X X X 5 

Combined 

(city and 

highway) 

X X X X 4 

GASOLINE ONLY: 

“Without a 

charge, until all 

fuel is exhausted, 

vehicle can 

travel” 

Separate 

City & 

Highway 

X X X X 4 

Combined 

(city and 

highway) 

X 1 

MERGED 

ESTIMATE FOR 

BOTH MODES: 

“From full 

charge, until all 

fuel is exhausted, 

vehicle can 

travel” 

Separate 

City & 

Highway 

X X X 3 

Combined 

(city and 

highway) 

X X X X 4 

78 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EREV:.Fuel.Cost 

Seattle Chicago Charlotte Houston 

Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Total 

ELECTRIC ONLY 

Separate City & 

Highway 

Annual X 1 

Per mile X 1 

Monthly 

Combined City & 

Highway 

Annual X 1 

Per mile X X X 3 

Monthly X 1 

GASOLINE ONLY 

Separate City & 

Highway 

Annual 

Per mile X X 2 

Monthly 

Combined City & 

Highway 

Annual X 1 

Per mile 

Monthly X 1 

MERGED COST FOR BOTH MODES 

Combined X X 2 

Phase 2 Focus Groups 79 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EREV:.Fuel.Consumption 

Seattle Chicago Charlotte Houston 

Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Total 

ELECTRIC ONLY 

kW-hrs per 

100 miles 

City and highway X 1 

Combined 

kW-hrs per 

mile 

City and highway 

Combined 

miles per 

kW-hrs 

City and highway 

Combined 

MPGe 

City and highway X X 2 

Combined X 1 

kW-hrs per 

year 

City and highway 

Combined 

GASOLINE ONLY 

MPG 

City and highway X X X X X X 6 

Combined X 1 

gallons per 

100 miles 

City and highway 

Combined 

gallons per 

mile 

City and highway 

Combined 

gallons per 

year 

City and highway 

Combined 

MERGED CONSUMPTION 

FOR BOTH MODES 

kW-hrs + gallons per 100 miles 

kW-hrs per 100 miles + MPG 

MPGe of gas + electric X X X 3 

80 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EREV:.Environmental.Impact 

Seattle Chicago Charlotte Houston 

Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Total 

Leaves 

With CO2 grams per 

mile count X 1 

Without CO2 grams 

per mile count X 1 

Slider Bar 

With CO2 grams per 

mile count 

Without CO2 grams 

per mile count X X X X 4 

Rating 

Number 

out of 10 

With CO2 grams per 

mile count 

Without CO2 grams 

per mile count X 1 

Phase 2 Focus Groups 81 
 

Appendix J: PHEV Label Elements 

82 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 
Phase 2 Focus Groups 83 
84 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix K: PHEV Label Elements Tally 

PHEV:.Charging.Time.and.Range 

Seattle Chicago Charlotte Houston 

Total 

Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male 

Charging time X X X X X X X X 8 Range 

BLENDED (GAS/ 

ELECTRIC) MODE: 

On a full charge, 

until the battery is 

exhausted, vehicle 

can travel “ 

Separate 

City & 

Highway 

X X X 3 

Combined 

(city and 

highway) 

X X X X 4 

Separate 

GASOLINE ONLY: City & X X 2 

“Without a Highway 

charge, until all 

fuel is exhausted, Combined 

vehicle can travel” (city and X 1 

highway) 

PHEV:.Fuel.Cost 

Seattle Chicago Charlotte Houston 

Total 

Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male 

BLENDED MODE 

Separate City 

& Highway 

Annual X 1 

Per mile X 1 

Monthly 

Combined City 

& Highway 

Annual X X 2 

Per mile X X X 3 

Monthly 

GASOLINE ONLY 

Separate City 

& Highway 

Annual X 1 

Per mile X 1 

Monthly 

Combined City 

& Highway 

Annual 

Per mile 

Monthly X 1 

Phase 2 Focus Groups 85 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PHEV:.Fuel.Consumption 

Seattle Chicago Charlotte Houston Total 

Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male 

BLENDED MODE

 MPGe 

of gas + 

electric 

City and highway X X X X X 5 

Combined X X X X 4 

GASOLINE ONLY 

MPG City and highway X X X 3 

Combined X 1 

gallons per 

100 miles 

City and highway 

Combined 

gallons 

per mile 

City and highway 

Combined 

gallons 

per year 

City and highway 

Combined 

PHEV:.Environmental.Impact 

Seattle Chicago Charlotte Houston 

Total 

Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male 

Leaves 

With CO2 grams 

per mile count X X 2 

Without CO2 

grams per mile 

count 

Slider Bar 

With CO2 grams 

per mile count 

Without CO2 

grams per mile 

count 

X X 2 

Rating 

Number 

out of 10 

With CO2 grams 

per mile count 

Without CO2 

grams per mile 

count 

X X X 3 

86 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 
 

Appendix L: At-A-Glance Comparison Across Technologies
�

EV 

(# of groups) 

EREV 

(# of groups) 

PHEV 

(# of groups) 

Charging time 8 8 8 

Range 

Electric only Separate City and Highway 8 5 n/a 

Combined City and Highway 6 4 n/a 

Gas Only Separate City and Highway n/a 4 2 

Combined City and Highway n/a 1 1 

Fuel Cost Electric only 

Separate City & 

Highway 

Annual 2 1 n/a 

Per mile 3 1 n/a 

Monthly 2 n/a 

Combined City & 

Highway 

Annual 3 1 n/a 

Per mile 3 3 n/a 

Monthly 1 1 n/a 

Gas only 

Separate City & 

Highway 

Annual n/a 1 

Per mile n/a 2 1 

Monthly n/a 

Combined City & 

Highway 

Annual n/a 1 

Per mile n/a 

Monthly n/a 1 1 

Phase 2 Focus Groups 87 
 

EV 

(# of groups) 

EREV 

(# of groups) 

PHEV 

(# of groups) 

Fuel Consumption Electric only 

kW-hrs per 100 

miles 

City and highway 2 1 n/a 

Combined n/a 

kW-hrs per mile 

City and highway 2 n/a 

Combined 1 n/a 

miles per kW-hrs 

City and highway n/a 

Combined n/a 

MPGe 

City and highway 3 2 n/a 

Combined 2 1 n/a 

kW-hrs per year 

City and highway n/a 

Combined n/a 

Gas only 

MPG 

City and highway 6 3 

Combined 1 1 

Gallons per 100 

miles 

City and highway 

Combined 

Gallons per mile 

City and highway 

Combined 

Gallons per year 

City and highway 

Combined 

Environmental impact 

Leaves 

With CO2 grams per mile 

count 

1 1 2 

Without CO2 grams per mile 

count 

1 

Slider Bar 

With CO2 grams per mile 

count 

Without CO2 grams per mile 

count 3 4 2 

Rating Number 

out of 10 

With CO2 grams per mile 

count 

1 

Without CO2 grams per mile 

count 

2 1 3 

88 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign