----- Original Message ----- 

 From: Gina McCarthy 

 Sent: 08/26/2010 04:12 PM EDT 

 To: Cass_R._Sunstein@omb.eop.gov; Dmancini@omb.eop.gov 

 Cc: Oge.Margo@EPA.GOV; Dunham.Sarah@EPA.GOV 

 Subject: latest version 

Cass - We did out best to accept as many changes as we could. Even though the agencies believe that 

our recommended approach represent the most appropriate and effective way to meet our legal 

requirements and policy objectives, we have opened the door to changes that allow full discussion of 

alternatives that other agencies feel warrant consideration. At this point, the discussion of the 

alternatives has more "meat" than the recommended proposal. For that reason we do not believe it is 

appropriate to consider any additional changes that would elevate the stature of these alternatives any 

further and minimize the importance of the agencies' recommended approach. 

The attached documents accept all changes except the following: 

I. Page 1: The language that highlights the alternatives. This language is unnecessary. 

II. Page 4: The language the talks about the owners manual. This is not the subject of this 

rulemaking. 

III. Page 7: The reference to the useful life of the vehicle. We cannot commit to this level of 

analysis. 

IV. Page 7: The added reference to ranking changes. This language is unnecessary. 

V. Page 7: The footnote. This level of detail in not necessary and premature. 

Thanks for all your guidance on this. 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments Received on Draft Rule under EO 12866 Review.  Subject to

Further Policy Review

1

Draft Preamble Section II.B.4.a 

a. Upstream Emissions 

This section discusses how the agencies plan to address the issue of greenhouse gas 

emissions associated with the use of motor vehicles, in the context of a program specifically 

designed to provide consumers with information that will be useful when purchasing a vehicle. 

The agencies’ approach takes into account (1) the statutory language, (2) the fact that the law 

requires a great deal of information to be presented on the label, (3) the limited amount of 

information that can be provided on a label, (4) the importance of simplicity, clarity, accuracy, 

and intelligibility on the label, and (5) the ability to provide the public with additional and 

comprehensive information in a consumer-friendly format on a website.1

 This discussion 

focuses on, but is not limited to, the advanced technology vehicles that use electricity from the 

grid to power vehicles, such as the electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids that are expected to enter 

the market in larger numbers in the coming years; the discussion also refers to the use of 

renewable fuels in gasoline-powered vehicles. 

As explainedFor reasons outlined below, our proposed approach would limit the label to 

tailpipe-only emissions while providing much fuller information on a website. But we also 

identify, and seek comments on, an. alternative approaches, also designed to accommodate,

using. the relevant variables label as well as the website to account for the greenhouse gas 

emissions associated with electric utilities, refineries, and other upstream inputs to motor vehicle 

fuels..

The agencies believe that the proposed approach follows from a reasonable interpretation 

of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), as amended by the Energy Independence 

and Security Act (EISA) of 2007. The statute states that NHTSA must require vehicles to be 

labeled with information “reflecting an automobile’s performance ... [with respect to] 

greenhouse gas ... emissions ... of the automobile.”2

 This information is to be based on criteria 

developed by EPA. NHTSA believes that a reasonable interpretation of this provision is that 

only GHG emissions directly from the vehicle itself are required for the label. On that 

interpretation, the information on performance and the rating of the vehicles would both be based 

on the emissions of the vehicle itself. This interpretation is also consistent with the history of the 

EPA labeling program and its focus on the vehicle itself. NHTSA believes that it would also be 

reasonable to interpret the statutory language such that the required label information on GHG 

                                                           

1

 On the relationship between summary disclosure, as on the label, and full disclosure, as on the website, see [OIRA 

guidance document]. 

2

 49 U.S.C. 32908(g)(1)(A)(i). 49 U.S.C.32908(g)(1)(A)(ii) also refers to GHG “emissions of automobiles,” and further requires a designation of 

automobiles “with the lowest greenhouse gas emissions over the useful life of the vehicles.”

Formatted: Font color: Blue

Formatted: Font color: Blue
Summary of Interagency Working Comments Received on Draft Rule under EO 12866 Review.  Subject to

Further Policy Review

2

emissions would include additional information on the upstream GHG emissions associated with 

electricity or other fuels used by the vehicle. This additional information could provide a 

broader context for reflecting the automobile’s performance with respect to GHG emissions. 

The agencies recognize that “lifecycle” GHG emissions are associated with the 

production and distribution of all automotive fuels used by motor vehicles. Lifecycle GHG 

emissions are associated with gasoline, diesel, and other fuels such as natural gas, electricity, and 

renewable biofuels. The agencies also recognize that while tailpipe-only emissions provide 

important information but that, a significant number of consumers may want, or benefit from, 

access to information on the total upstream GHG emissions associated with the operation of their 

vehicles. For example, electric vehicles do not have any tailpipe emissions since their motors do 

not burn fuel, but producing the electricity used to power such vehicles most likely emits 

greenhouse gases. Consumers might seek, or benefit from, a label that allows for simple and 

accurate comparisons across vehicles on the total upstream GHG emissions, in addition to 

tailpipe emissions. However, the agencies emphasize that developing the relevant information, 

and providing it to consumers in a manner that is accurate and meaningful, raises a number of 

challenging issues, particularly in the context of the label. 

A full lifecycle evaluation would include an evaluation of a comprehensive set of GHG 

and energy impacts associated with both the vehicle (extraction and processing of materials, 

energy used in assembly, distribution, use, and disposal, etc.), and the fuel (feedstock extraction, 

feedstock transport, fuel processing, fuel transport, indirect effects, etc.). In practice, however, 

offering even the more limited accounting for GHG emissions from production and distribution 

of the fuel, including electricity, presents complex challenges. EPA currently does not measure 

fuel combustion/electricity generation GHG emissions in its vehicle testing. The agencies 

recognize that modeling can be performed to assist in estimating these emissions. But in 

developing upstream GHG emissions values, modeling would need to be done carefully to avoid 

inaccuracy and consumer confusion, especially in light of variations across time and across 

regions. For example, GHG emissions from electricity generation will vary significantly in the 

future, based on the different fuels used at generating stations -- perhaps by as much as an order 

of magnitude between coal and non-fossil feedstocks. 

It is true that the EPA has undertaken extensive lifecycle modeling of biofuels for the 

Renewable Fuel Standard rulemaking in response to the requirements of the Energy 

Independence and Security Act. But that assessment was done in the context of the particular 

mix of biofuels required nationally in 2022 by the Act, with a series of assumptions and 

estimates that may not be accurate today. 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments Received on Draft Rule under EO 12866 Review.  Subject to

Further Policy Review

3

One overriding issue is whether the agencies could reasonably provide a single, national 

value for GHG emissions from electricity generation or could provide instead different values 

customized for various regions of the country.3

 There are data sources upon which a single 

national number could be derived. For individual owners, however, a single national value would 

generally not be accurate, and the individual would need access to additional information, such 

as regional values, to evaluate the impact of a specific vehicle.4

 In addition, the agencies would 

have to decide (1) whether to use average or marginal (i.e., reflecting the fact that increased 

vehicle demand might change the overall mix of electricity sources) GHG emissions factors, and 

(2) if the marginal approach is used, whether to assume all nighttime charging or a mix of 

daytime and nighttime charging. Another major consideration is whether to base electricity 

generation GHG emissions values on today's electricity markets or on projected changes in 

electricity markets that might occur by 2020 or some other year (note that vehicles produced in 

the next few years will remain in the fleet for 15 or 20 years or more). 

Some states have already passed legislation that could require major changes in how 

electricity is produced in those states in the future, and Congress has considered landmark 

legislation as well. It is clear that the question of how electricity will be produced in the future is 

a very fluid issue. As a result of the Energy Independence and Security Act biofuel mandates, 

for example, the agencies expect the amount of biofuel in the transportation fuel market to 

increase significantly over time, and the contribution of feedstocks to change over that time as 

well. Information that addresses lifecycle emissions of biofuels would need to take these 

considerations into account. 

The agencies believe that all of these complex factors can be best addressed by providing 

a great deal of relevant information on a website, which can go into great depthconsiderable 

detail and be changed and updated as appropriate. We currently do not have a full lifecycle 

analysis from which to draw for labeling purposes across the full range of vehicles and fuels. 

The datainformation reported to EPA on emissions from fuel production varyvaries across fuel 

types and is much more detailed for gasoline production. At the present time, it would be 

difficult to represent emissions from energy generation on a national label in a way that is both 

useful and accurate for consumers, given regional variations, how generation within regions is 

dispatched, and access to green power purchases. 

 Therefore, EPA and NHTSA are proposing that the label should limit itself to tailpipe 

only emissions (clearly identified as such) and include a more complete discussion on energy 

generation and lifecycle analysis on the webpage. We believe that this approach will prove 

sufficiently informative to consumers. It also allows us the opportunity to provide a fuller 

                                                           

3

 See http://www.eia.doe.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=electricity_in_the_united_states for an overview of the national U.S. electric 

power industry net generation by fuel type.

4

 Regional values could be provided on a web site. EPA has a website (http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-and-you/how-clean.html) on 

which consumers can enter their zip code and find out what fuel mix is used to produce the electricity they use.
Summary of Interagency Working Comments Received on Draft Rule under EO 12866 Review.  Subject to

Further Policy Review

4

discussion of GHG emissions associated with energy generation for alternative vehicles, as well 

as emissions from fuel production (gasoline and biofuels). For example, a website could provide 

calculator tools that could reflect regional variations in the GHG emissions associated with 

electricity generation as well as use national averages. A website could also provide information 

on the projected fuel lifecycle impacts associated with biofuels. The website could be updated 

over time as the mix of electricity fuel sources and biofuels changes. This approach could help 

the consumer understand over the lifetime of their vehicles how their electricity generation 

emissions impacts might be changing. 

{MOVED TO PAGE 6}

At this point in time, any effort to provide complete lifecycle information for fuels on the 

label could well produce undue confusion. A label that clearly presents tailpipe emissions 

appears to be the best available way to combine accuracy and disclosure, so long as fuller 

information is available on the website. The agencies believe that even though many consumers 

will not visit the website, it will be used by many groups and organizations, and as a result, the 

information that it provides will be made available and used in the marketplace. We also note 

that in a separate rulemaking, we will develop information to be provided in the owner’s manual, 

per the requirements of EISA, for alternative fuel vehicles, which will describe the capability and 

benefits of using alternative fuels, including the renewable nature and environmental benefits of 

such fuels (see 49 USC 32908(g)). We. seek comment on our current view that the web is the 

better place, compared to the label, to address the complex issues associated with emissions 

associated with electricity generation and lifecycle emissions more generally. 

We invite both general and particular comments on the proposed approach. For example, 

we encourage commenters to be as specific as possible with any recommendations on how to 

address fuel combustion/electricity generation GHG emissions on the website. If information on 

these emissions is to be provided on a website, exactly what information? The agencies 

specifically invite comment on how to address fuel combustion emissions associated with the 

electricity used to power the advanced technology vehicles starting to enter commerce, such as 

electric vehicle,s (EVs) and plug-in hybrid vehicles (PHEVs). The agencies also invite 

comment on how to address full GHG emissions from biofuels on a website. Should emissions 

be identified specifically for the emissions associated with the combustion of fuel to produce 

electricity? Should such emissions be determined on a regional or a national basis? Should 

these emissions be provided as a relative comparison to a gasoline or diesel fuel, the current 

predominant fuels? 

For the convenience of commenters, we have prepared the table below as an illustrative 

example of one simplified way that some lifecycle emissions information related to electricity 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments Received on Draft Rule under EO 12866 Review.  Subject to

Further Policy Review

5

production could be accounted for on a website, based on certain assumptions.5 It is important to 

note that for comparison purposes, the agencies would need to develop methodologies to 

compare upstream emissions impacts from all other fuels as well, including diesel, renewable 

fuels, and natural gas. Consistent with the discussion above, it is important to emphasize that the 

tailpipe + lifecycle values in the table below are based on 2005 national average electricity GHG 

emissions, and could be very different for certain regions of the country today and for the nation 

in the future if there are major changes in the mix of methods used to generate electricity or in 

the GHG emissions associated with its generation. 

 Proposal--TailpipeOnly Tailpipe + Upstream

Vehicle CO2/mile CO2/mile 

Example EV 0 197 

Example PHEV 1 89 210 

Example PHEV2 133 217 

Toyota Prius HEV 178 224 

Honda Civic HEV 212 266 

Honda Insight HEV 217 273 

Ford Fusion HEV 228 287 

In general, for purposes of providing information on the web, the agencies invite 

comment on the appropriate metrics to use and the specific suggestions for content and format, if 

appropriate. The agencies also request comment on which web resources it should prioritize for 

development that would provide the most useful information to consumers. 

                                                           

5

    The key assumptions underlying the illustrative numbers in the right-hand column are that:EV and PHEVs all assumed to use 200 Watt-hours 

per mile when operating on electricity over the EPA test and assuming a 30% range (43% electricity consumption) shortfall from test to road. 

• PHEV 1 assumed to operate on electricity 50% of the time. 

• PHEV 2 assumed to operate on electricity 25% of the time. 

• Uses 2005 nationwide average value of 0.642 grams of GHG per Watt-hour at powerplant (adjusted to include GHG emissions from 

feedstock extraction, transportation, and processing as well) from MY2012-2016 light-duty vehicle GHG final rule (75 Federal 

Register 25437). 

• Assumes typical 7% electricity grid transmission losses. 

• Uses 2250 grams GHG per gallon of gasoline.
Summary of Interagency Working Comments Received on Draft Rule under EO 12866 Review.  Subject to

Further Policy Review

6

The agencies acknowledge that more consumers will look at the label than at the website, 

and that a “0” figure for GHG emissions might prove confusing to some consumers. While 

accurate and more complete information will be provided on the website, putting 0 grams 

CO2/mile on the label may lead some consumers to perceive that driving their EV does not 

contribute to GHG emissions. With respect to the label itself, the agencies are also requesting 

comment on alternative options for the label that, in addition to presenting tailpipe emissions, 

refer to or identify in some manner the emissions associated with the lifecycle of the fuel. Under 

one version of this alternative that is under serious consideration, similar to a co-proposal, the 

EV label would continue to reflect the "0" CO2g/mile number currently displayed on the coproposed labels (Figures III-2, III-10), but the label would be modified by adding either a symbol 

or an asterisk and explanatory text which states, "The only C02 emissions are from electricity 

generation." Likewise, the agencies would modify the co-proposed PHEV labels (Figures III-3, 

III-6, III-1, III-12) inserting either a symbol or asterisk next to the current CO2g/mile number 

displayed with the following explanatory text, “Does not include CO2 from electricity 

generation.” 

The agencies acknowledge that more consumers will look at the label than at the website, 

and that a “0” figure for GHG emissions might prove confusing to some consumers. While 

accurate and more complete information will be provided on the website, putting 0 grams 

CO2/mile on the label may lead some consumers to misperceive that driving their EV does not 

contribute to GHG emissions. This alternative approach might provide more accuracy and clarity 

for purchasers by more explicitly indicating that the CO2 emissions from generation of 

electricity are not reflected in the CO2 numbers on the label. Under this alternative, FFV labels 

(for FFV vehicles only) would continue to reflect the gasoline only CO2g/mile number currently 

displayed on the co-proposed labels (Figures III-8 and III-14), but the label (for FFVs only) 

would be modified by adding either a symbol or an asterisk and explanatory text that might state, 

“The CO2 emissions listed here are from gasoline combustion only. They do not reflect the use 

of renewable biofuels.” The agencies request comment on this alternative option. 

The agencies are also giving consideration to an approach that in addition to the tailpipe 

emissions, includes information on upstream emissions on the label for the various fuels. For 

example, for electric vehicles , for example, GHG emissions are (on an average basis, GHG 

emissions are ) a function of KwH per mile, and thus could in principle be calculated, and if a 

full or nearly full accounting could be provided in a clear and intelligible form, there would be 

advantages to providing it on the label to consumers, in addition to providing the tailpipe 

emissions data. Therefore, the agencies invite comment on the feasibility and usefulness of an 

alternative approach that in addition to identifying tailpipe emissions, would include a separate 

value for upstream emissions on the label as well as on the website. 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments Received on Draft Rule under EO 12866 Review.  Subject to

Further Policy Review

7

In particular, the agencies invite comment on what type of information should be 

considered as “upstream,” and whether a label including the upstream emissions could be based 

on national averages. The agencies might consider making reasonable assumptions to develop 

national averages. 

Note, however, the number of assumptions that agencies would need to make may be a

substantial number of assumptions to develop such averages.6 These include assumptions about 

the overall impact on electric car recharging on the grid mix, which would include making 

assumptions about (1) the time-of-day distribution of recharging and (2) the subsequent impacts 

on the base and peak load electricity generation as well as recognition(3) the nature of regional 

variability and (4) potential changes in the electricity generation fleet. A relevant source for this 

type of information may be the Energy Information Administration (EIA), which provides 

estimates of the future electricity generation mix, so there may be some basis for estimating 

future GHG emissions based on current state and federal policies; but these estimates will 

inevitably also rest on some uncertain assumptions. The same type of analysis (national 

averages for feedstocks and fuel production) would need to be developed and equivalent 

assumptions made related to upstream emissions from gasoline and diesel production as well as 

renewable fuels, natural gas, and hydrogen. over the useful life of the vehicle. 

The agencies invite comments on whether and how the possible inclusion of upstream 

emissions information on the label might affect other elements of the label such as design, 

format, presentation of the various ratings and other information as well as the ranking of 

vehicles on the label. It is possible that inclusion of upstream emissions would have impacts on 

vehicle ratings and rankings, for example by virtue of the effects on electric vehicles. Comments 

are invited on how this possibility might be incorporated in both of the co-proposals.

The agencies also recognize that notwithstanding the many challenges, a potential 

advantage of including upstream emissions on the label is that consumers may be able to 

compare different EVs with respect to their upstream emissions, as some will require more 

energy per mile which would likely result in different upstream emissions impacts. Consumers 

may be able to make similar comparisons betweenamong EVs, PHEVs, gasoline and diesel 

powered vehicles as well as other fueled vehicles on the basis of upstream emissions. Regardless 

of what would be presented on the label, the agencies will continue to provide detailed 

information about the lifecycle GHG impacts of different vehicles on the website in a way that 

                                                           

6 The agencies note that some national averages are already used on the label to calculate fuel costs for electric 

vehicles (12 cents per KW hour), fuel price on the label ($2.80), and the number of vehicle miles travelled (15,000). 

The agencies also believe, however, that the number of assumptions needed would be much greater in instance of 

GHG emissions, and that the variability in upstream or lifecycle emissions is greater than the current information 

provided on the table. We specifically request comment on this issue. 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments Received on Draft Rule under EO 12866 Review.  Subject to

Further Policy Review

8

may provide a better way for individuals to take their region, driving habits, and other specific 

factors into account in their purchase decisions. 

In view of the many assumptions the agencies would need to make to conduct such an 

analysisinclude upstream emissions on the label, we emphasize that this alternative would have 

to overcome several serious challenges. We ask for comment on whether and how each of those 

challenges, outlined above, could be addressed if considered for a label. 
Draft Preamble Section II.B.4.a 

a. Upstream Emissions 

This section discusses how the agencies plan to address the issue of greenhouse gas 

emissions associated with the use of motor vehicles, in the context of a program specifically 

designed to provide consumers with information that will be useful when purchasing a vehicle. 

The agencies’ approach takes into account (1) the statutory language, (2) the fact that the law 

requires a great deal of information to be presented on the label, (3) the limited amount of 

information that can be provided on a label, (4) the importance of simplicity, clarity, accuracy, 

and intelligibility on the label, and (5) the ability to provide the public with additional and 

comprehensive information in a consumer-friendly format on a website.1

 This discussion 

focuses on, but is not limited to, the advanced technology vehicles that use electricity from the 

grid to power vehicles, such as the electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids that are expected to enter 

the market in larger numbers in the coming years; the discussion also refers to the use of 

renewable fuels in gasoline-powered vehicles. 

For reasons outlined below, our proposed approach would limit the label to tailpipe-only 

emissions while providing much fuller information on a website. But we also identify, and seek 

comments on, alternative approaches, designed to accommodate the relevant variables. 

The agencies believe that the proposed approach follows from a reasonable interpretation 

of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), as amended by the Energy Independence 

and Security Act (EISA) of 2007. The statute states that NHTSA must require vehicles to be 

labeled with information “reflecting an automobile’s performance ... [with respect to] 

greenhouse gas ... emissions ... of the automobile.”2

 This information is to be based on criteria 

developed by EPA. NHTSA believes that a reasonable interpretation of this provision is that 

only GHG emissions directly from the vehicle itself are required for the label. On that 

interpretation, the information on performance and the rating of the vehicles would both be based 

on the emissions of the vehicle itself. This interpretation is also consistent with the history of the 

EPA labeling program and its focus on the vehicle itself. NHTSA believes that it would also be 

reasonable to interpret the statutory language such that the required label information on GHG 

emissions would include additional information on the upstream GHG emissions associated with 

electricity or other fuels used by the vehicle. This additional information could provide a 

broader context for reflecting the automobile’s performance with respect to GHG emissions. 

The agencies recognize that “lifecycle” GHG emissions are associated with the 

production and distribution of all automotive fuels used by motor vehicles. Lifecycle GHG 

                                                           

1

 On the relationship between summary disclosure, as on the label, and full disclosure, as on the website, see [OIRA 

guidance document]. 

2

 49 U.S.C. 32908(g)(1)(A)(i). 49 U.S.C.32908(g)(1)(A)(ii) also refers to GHG “emissions of automobiles,” and further requires a designation of 

automobiles “with the lowest greenhouse gas emissions over the useful life of the vehicles.”
emissions are associated with gasoline, diesel, and other fuels such as natural gas, electricity, and 

renewable biofuels. The agencies also recognize that while tailpipe-only emissions provide 

important information, a significant number of consumers may want, or benefit from, access to 

information on the total upstream GHG emissions associated with the operation of their vehicles. 

For example, electric vehicles do not have any tailpipe emissions since their motors do not burn 

fuel, but producing the electricity used to power such vehicles most likely emits greenhouse 

gases. Consumers might seek, or benefit from, a label that allows for simple and accurate 

comparisons across vehicles on the total upstream GHG emissions, in addition to tailpipe 

emissions. However, the agencies emphasize that developing the relevant information, and 

providing it to consumers in a manner that is accurate and meaningful, raises a number of 

challenging issues, particularly in the context of the label. 

A full lifecycle evaluation would include an evaluation of a comprehensive set of GHG 

and energy impacts associated with both the vehicle (extraction and processing of materials, 

energy used in assembly, distribution, use, and disposal, etc.), and the fuel (feedstock extraction, 

feedstock transport, fuel processing, fuel transport, etc.). In practice, however, offering even the 

more limited accounting for GHG emissions from production and distribution of the fuel, 

including electricity, presents complex challenges. EPA currently does not measure fuel 

combustion/electricity generation GHG emissions in its vehicle testing. The agencies recognize 

that modeling can be performed to assist in estimating these emissions. But in developing 

upstream GHG emissions values, modeling would need to be done carefully to avoid inaccuracy 

and consumer confusion, especially in light of variations across time and across regions. For 

example, GHG emissions from electricity generation will vary significantly in the future, based 

on the different fuels used at generating stations -- perhaps by as much as an order of magnitude 

between coal and non-fossil feedstocks. 

It is true that the EPA has undertaken extensive lifecycle modeling of biofuels for the 

Renewable Fuel Standard rulemaking in response to the requirements of the Energy 

Independence and Security Act. But that assessment was done in the context of the particular 

mix of biofuels required nationally in 2022 by the Act, with a series of assumptions and 

estimates that may not be accurate today. 

One overriding issue is whether the agencies could reasonably provide a single, national 

value for GHG emissions from electricity generation or could provide instead different values 

customized for various regions of the country.3

 There are data sources upon which a single 

national number could be derived. For individual owners, however, a single national value would 

generally not be accurate, and the individual would need access to additional information, such 

as regional values, to evaluate the impact of a specific vehicle.4

 In addition, the agencies would 

                                                           

3

 See http://www.eia.doe.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=electricity_in_the_united_states for an overview of the national U.S. electric 

power industry net generation by fuel type.

4

 Regional values could be provided on a web site. EPA has a website (http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-and-you/how-clean.html) on 

which consumers can enter their zip code and find out what fuel mix is used to produce the electricity they use.
have to decide (1) whether to use average or marginal (i.e., reflecting the fact that increased 

vehicle demand might change the overall mix of electricity sources) GHG emissions factors, and 

(2) if the marginal approach is used, whether to assume all nighttime charging or a mix of 

daytime and nighttime charging. Another major consideration is whether to base electricity 

generation GHG emissions values on today's electricity markets or on projected changes in 

electricity markets that might occur by 2020 or some other year (note that vehicles produced in 

the next few years will remain in the fleet for 15 or 20 years or more). 

Some states have already passed legislation that could require major changes in how 

electricity is produced in those states in the future, and Congress has considered landmark 

legislation as well. It is clear that the question of how electricity will be produced in the future is 

very fluid. As a result of the Energy Independence and Security Act biofuel mandates, for 

example, the agencies expect the amount of biofuel in the transportation fuel market to increase 

significantly over time, and the contribution of feedstocks to change over that time as well. 

Information that addresses lifecycle emissions of biofuels would need to take these 

considerations into account. 

The agencies believe that all of these complex factors can be best addressed by providing 

a great deal of relevant information on a website, which can go into considerable detail and be 

changed and updated as appropriate. We currently do not have a full lifecycle analysis from 

which to draw for labeling purposes across the full range of vehicles and fuels. The information 

reported to EPA on emissions from fuel production varies across fuel types and is much more 

detailed for gasoline production. At the present time, it would be difficult to represent emissions 

from energy generation on a national label in a way that is both useful and accurate for 

consumers, given regional variations, how generation within regions is dispatched, and access to 

green power purchases. 

 Therefore, EPA and NHTSA are proposing that the label should limit itself to tailpipe 

only emissions (clearly identified as such) and include a more complete discussion on energy 

generation and lifecycle analysis on the webpage. We believe that this approach will prove 

sufficiently informative to consumers. It also allows us the opportunity to provide a fuller 

discussion of GHG emissions associated with energy generation for alternative vehicles, as well 

as emissions from fuel production (gasoline and biofuels). For example, a website could provide 

calculator tools that could reflect regional variations in the GHG emissions associated with 

electricity generation as well as use national averages. A website could also provide information 

on the projected fuel lifecycle impacts associated with biofuels. The website could be updated 

over time as the mix of electricity fuel sources and biofuels changes. This approach could help 

the consumer understand over the lifetime of their vehicles how their electricity generation 

emissions impacts might be changing. 

At this point in time, any effort to provide complete lifecycle information for fuels on the 

label could well produce undue confusion. A label that clearly presents tailpipe emissions 

appears to be the best available way to combine accuracy and disclosure, so long as fuller 

information is available on the website. The agencies believe that even though many consumers 
will not visit the website, it will be used by many groups and organizations, and as a result, the 

information that it provides will be made available and used in the marketplace. We seek 

comment on our current view that the web is the better place, compared to the label, to address 

the complex issues associated with emissions associated with electricity generation and lifecycle 

emissions more generally. 

We invite both general and particular comments on the proposed approach. For example, 

we encourage commenters to be as specific as possible with any recommendations on how to 

address fuel combustion/electricity generation GHG emissions on the website. If information on 

these emissions is to be provided on a website, exactly what information? The agencies 

specifically invite comment on how to address fuel combustion emissions associated with the 

electricity used to power the advanced technology vehicles starting to enter commerce, such as 

electric vehicles (EVs) and plug-in hybrid vehicles (PHEVs). The agencies also invite comment 

on how to address full GHG emissions from biofuels on a website. Should emissions be 

identified specifically for the emissions associated with the combustion of fuel to produce 

electricity? Should such emissions be determined on a regional or a national basis? Should 

these emissions be provided as a relative comparison to a gasoline or diesel fuel, the current 

predominant fuels? 

For the convenience of commenters, we have prepared the table below as an illustrative 

example of one simplified way that some lifecycle emissions information related to electricity 

production could be accounted for on a website, based on certain assumptions.5

 It is important to 

note that for comparison purposes, the agencies would need to develop methodologies to 

compare upstream emissions impacts from all other fuels as well, including diesel, renewable 

fuels, and natural gas. Consistent with the discussion above, it is important to emphasize that the 

tailpipe + lifecycle values in the table below are based on 2005 national average electricity GHG 

emissions, and could be very different for certain regions of the country today and for the nation 

in the future if there are major changes in the mix of methods used to generate electricity or in 

the GHG emissions associated with its generation. 

 Proposal--TailpipeOnly Tailpipe + Upstream

Vehicle CO2/mile CO2/mile 

Example EV 0 197 

                                                           

5

    The key assumptions underlying the illustrative numbers in the right-hand column are that:EV and PHEVs all assumed to use 200 Watt-hours 

per mile when operating on electricity over the EPA test and assuming a 30% range (43% electricity consumption) shortfall from test to road. 

• PHEV 1 assumed to operate on electricity 50% of the time. 

• PHEV 2 assumed to operate on electricity 25% of the time. 

• Uses 2005 nationwide average value of 0.642 grams of GHG per Watt-hour at powerplant (adjusted to include GHG emissions from 

feedstock extraction, transportation, and processing as well) from MY2012-2016 light-duty vehicle GHG final rule (75 Federal 

Register 25437). 

• Assumes typical 7% electricity grid transmission losses. 

• Uses 2250 grams GHG per gallon of gasoline.
Example PHEV 1 89 210 

Example PHEV2 133 217 

Toyota Prius HEV 178 224 

Honda Civic HEV 212 266 

Honda Insight HEV 217 273 

Ford Fusion HEV 228 287 

In general, for purposes of providing information on the web, the agencies invite 

comment on the appropriate metrics to use and the specific suggestions for content and format, if 

appropriate. The agencies also request comment on which web resources it should prioritize for 

development that would provide the most useful information to consumers. 

The agencies acknowledge that more consumers will look at the label than at the website, 

and that a “0” figure for GHG emissions might prove confusing to some consumers. While 

accurate and more complete information will be provided on the website, putting 0 grams 

CO2/mile on the label may lead some consumers to perceive that driving their EV does not 

contribute to GHG emissions. With respect to the label itself, the agencies are also requesting 

comment on alternative options for the label that, in addition to presenting tailpipe emissions, 

refer to or identify in some manner the emissions associated with the lifecycle of the fuel. Under 

one version of this alternative that is under serious consideration, similar to a co-proposal, the 

EV label would continue to reflect the "0" CO2g/mile number currently displayed on the coproposed labels (Figures III-2, III-10), but the label would be modified by adding either a symbol 

or an asterisk and explanatory text which states, "The only C02 emissions are from electricity 

generation." Likewise, the agencies would modify the co-proposed PHEV labels (Figures III-3, 

III-6, III-1, III-12) inserting either a symbol or asterisk next to the current CO2g/mile number 

displayed with the following explanatory text, “Does not include CO2 from electricity 

generation.” 

This alternative approach might provide more accuracy and clarity for purchasers by 

more explicitly indicating that the CO2 emissions from generation of electricity are not reflected 

in the CO2 numbers on the label. Under this alternative, FFV labels (for FFV vehicles only) 

would continue to reflect the gasoline only CO2g/mile number currently displayed on the coproposed labels (Figures III-8 and III-14), but the label (for FFVs only) would be modified by 

adding either a symbol or an asterisk and explanatory text that might state, “The CO2 emissions 

listed here are from gasoline combustion only. They do not reflect the use of renewable 

biofuels.” The agencies request comment on this alternative option. 
The agencies are also giving consideration to an approach that in addition to the tailpipe 

emissions, includes information on upstream emissions on the label for the various fuels. For 

electric vehicles, for example, GHG emissions are (on an average basis) a function of KwH per 

mile, and thus could in principle be calculated, and if a full or nearly full accounting could be 

provided in a clear and intelligible form, there would be advantages to providing it on the label to 

consumers, in addition to the tailpipe emissions data. Therefore, the agencies invite comment on 

the feasibility and usefulness of an alternative approach that in addition to identifying tailpipe 

emissions, would include a separate value for upstream emissions on the label as well as on the 

website. 

In particular, the agencies invite comment on what type of information should be 

considered as “upstream,” and whether a label including the upstream emissions could be based 

on national averages. The agencies might consider making assumptions to develop national 

averages.

Note, however, that agencies would need to make a substantial number of assumptions to 

develop such averages. These include assumptions about the overall impact on electric car 

recharging on the grid mix, which would include making assumptions about (1) the time-of-day 

distribution of recharging and (2) the subsequent impacts on the base and peak load electricity 

generation as well as (3) the nature of regional variability and (4) potential changes in the 

electricity generation fleet. A relevant source for this type of information may be the Energy 

Information Administration (EIA), which provides estimates of the future electricity generation 

mix, so there may be some basis for estimating future GHG emissions based on current state and 

federal policies; but these estimates will also rest on some uncertain assumptions. The same type 

of analysis (national averages for feedstocks and fuel production) would need to be developed 

and equivalent assumptions made related to upstream emissions from gasoline and diesel 

production as well as renewable fuels, natural gas, and hydrogen. 

The agencies invite comments on whether and how the possible inclusion of upstream 

emissions information on the label might affect other elements of the label such as design, 

format, presentation of the various ratings and other information as well as the ranking of 

vehicles on the label. 

The agencies also recognize that notwithstanding the many challenges, a potential 

advantage of including upstream emissions on the label is that consumers may be able to 

compare different EVs with respect to their upstream emissions, as some will require more 

energy per mile which would likely result in different upstream emissions impacts. Consumers 

may be able to make similar comparisons among EVs, PHEVs, gasoline and diesel powered 

vehicles as well as other fueled vehicles on the basis of upstream emissions. Regardless of what 

would be presented on the label, the agencies will continue to provide detailed information about 

the lifecycle GHG impacts of different vehicles on the website in a way that may provide a better 

way for individuals to take their region, driving habits, and other specific factors into account in 

their purchase decisions. 
In view of the many assumptions the agencies would need to make to include upstream 

emissions on the label, we emphasize that this alternative would have to overcome several 

serious challenges. We ask for comment on whether and how each of those challenges, outlined 

above, could be addressed.