Petroleum-Equivalent Fuel Economy Calculation, 22041-22060 [2024-06101]
Download as PDF
22041
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
Vol. 89, No. 62
Friday, March 29, 2024
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains regulatory documents having general
applicability and legal effect, most of which
are keyed to and codified in the Code of
Federal Regulations, which is published under
50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by
the Superintendent of Documents.
Table of Contents
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 474
[EERE–2021–VT–0033]
RIN 1904–AF47
Petroleum-Equivalent Fuel Economy
Calculation
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE) publishes a final rule that
revises the value for the petroleumequivalency factor (PEF). This final rule
revises DOE’s regulations regarding
procedures for calculating a value for
the petroleum-equivalent fuel economy
of electric vehicles (EVs). The PEF is
used by the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) in calculating light-duty
vehicle manufacturers’ compliance with
the Department of Transportation’s
(DOT) Corporate Average Fuel Economy
(CAFE) standards.
DATES: This rule is effective June 12,
2024.
SUMMARY:
The docket for this
rulemaking, which includes Federal
Register notices, public meeting
attendee lists and transcripts,
comments, and other supporting
documents/materials, is available for
review at www.regulations.gov/docket/
EERE-2021-VT-0033. All documents in
the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. However,
not all documents listed in the index
may be publicly available, such as
information that is exempt from public
disclosure.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Kevin Stork, U.S. Department of
Energy, Vehicle Technologies Office,
EE–3V, 1000 Independence Avenue SW,
Washington, DC 20585. Telephone:
(202) 586–8306. Email: Kevin.Stork@
ee.doe.gov.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
ADDRESSES:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:53 Mar 28, 2024
Jkt 262001
Ms. Laura Zuber, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of the General Counsel,
Forrestal Building, GC–33, 1000
Independence Avenue SW, Washington,
DC 20585. Telephone: (240) 306–7651.
Email: laura.zuber@hq.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction and Background
II. Public Comments on the 2023 NOPR
III. Discussion of Final Rule
A. Statutory Factors
B. Current Methodology
C. Revised Methodology
1. Approximate Electrical Energy
Efficiency of EVs
2. Gasoline-Equivalent Fuel Economy of
Electricity
a. Average Electricity Generation and
Transmission Efficiency
b. Petroleum Refining and Distribution
Efficiency
c. Annual Gasoline-Equivalent Fuel
Economy of Electricity
3. Cumulative Gasoline-Equivalent Fuel
Economy of Electricity
4. Fuel Content Factor
5. Accessory Factor
6. Driving Pattern Factor
7. Revised PEF Value
8. Compliance Period
9. Annual Review
IV. Responses to Additional Comments
A. Revisions to Section 474.3
B. Consideration of All Forms of Energy
Conservation
C. Need for Multiple PEF Values
D. Impact of Revised PEF on Plug-In
Hybrid Electric Vehicles
E. Compliance With NHTSA and EPA
Standards
F. Related Rulemakings
G. Miscellaneous
V. Revisions to 10 CFR P art 474
A. 10 CFR 474.3
B. Appendix to Part 474
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866,
13563 and 14094
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995
D. Review Under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995
H. Review Under the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act of 1999
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
J. Review Under the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act, 2001
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
L. Congressional Notification
VII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
I. Introduction and Background
In an effort to conserve energy
through improvements in the energy
efficiency of motor vehicles, in 1975,
Congress passed the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act (EPCA), Public Law
94–163. Title III of EPCA amended the
Motor Vehicle Information and Cost
Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.) (the
Motor Vehicle Act) by mandating fuel
economy standards for automobiles
produced in, or imported into, the
United States. This legislation, as
amended, requires every manufacturer
to meet applicable specified corporate
average fuel economy (CAFE) standards
for their fleets of light-duty vehicles
under 8,500 pounds that the
manufacturer manufactures in any
model year.1 The Secretary of
Transportation (through the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA)) is responsible for prescribing
the CAFE standards and enforcing the
penalties for failure to meet these
standards. 49 U.S.C. 32902. The
Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible
for calculating each manufacturer’s fleet
CAFE value. 49 U.S.C. 32902 and 32904.
On January 7, 1980, President Carter
signed the Chrysler Corporation Loan
Guarantee Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96–185).
Section 18 of the Chrysler Corporation
Loan Guarantee Act of 1979 added a
new paragraph (2) to section 13(c) of the
Electric and Hybrid Vehicle Research,
Development, and Demonstration Act of
1976 (Pub. L. 94–413). Part of the new
section 13(c) added paragraph (a)(3) to
section 503 of the Motor Vehicle Act.
That subsection provides:
If a manufacturer manufactures an
electric vehicle, the Administrator [of
EPA] shall include in the calculation of
average fuel economy under paragraph
(1) of this subsection equivalent
petroleum based fuel economy values
determined by the Secretary of Energy
for various classes of electric vehicles.
The Secretary shall review those values
each year and determine and propose
necessary revisions based on the
following factors:
1 The relevant provisions of the CAFE program,
including DOE’s establishment of equivalent
petroleum-based fuel economy values were
transferred to Title 49 of the U.S. Code by Public
Law 103–272 (July 5, 1984). See 49 U.S.C. 32901
et seq. The authority for DOE’s establishment of
equivalent petroleum-based fuel economy values
was transferred to 49 U.S.C. 32904(a)(2)(B).
E:\FR\FM\29MRR1.SGM
29MRR1
22042
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 62 / Friday, March 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
(i) The approximate electrical energy
efficiency of the vehicle, considering the
kind of vehicle and the mission and weight
of the vehicle.
(ii) The national average electrical
generation and transmission efficiencies.
(iii) The need of the United States to
conserve all forms of energy and the relative
scarcity and value to the United States of all
fuel used to generate electricity.
(iv) The specific patterns of use of electric
vehicles compared to petroleum-fueled
vehicles.
49 U.S.C. 32904(a)(2)(B).
Section 18 of the Chrysler Corporation
Loan Guarantee Act of 1979 further
amended the Electric and Hybrid
Vehicle Research, Development, and
Demonstration Act of 1976 by adding a
new paragraph (3) to section 13(c),
which directed the Secretary of Energy,
in consultation with the Secretary of
Transportation and the Administrator of
EPA, to conduct a seven-year evaluation
program of the inclusion of electric
vehicles 2 in the calculation of average
fuel economy. As required by section
503(a)(3) of the Motor Vehicle Act, DOE
proposed a method of calculating the
petroleum-equivalent fuel economy of
electric vehicles utilizing a PEF in a
new 10 CFR part 474 on May 21, 1980.
45 FR 34008. The rule was finalized on
April 21, 1981, and became effective
May 21, 1981. 46 FR 22747. The sevenyear evaluation program was completed
in 1987, and the calculation of the
annual petroleum equivalency factors
was not extended past 1987.
DOE published a proposed rule for a
permanent PEF for use in calculating
petroleum-equivalent fuel economy
values of electric vehicles on February
4, 1994, and obtained comments from
interested parties. 59 FR 5336.
Following consideration of comments,
DOE’s own internal re-examination of
the assumptions underlying the
proposed rule, and existing regulations
for other classes of alternative fuel
vehicles, DOE decided to modify the
PEF calculation approach proposed in
1994. The 1994 proposed rule was later
withdrawn, and DOE proposed a
modified approach in a July 14, 1999,
notice of proposed rulemaking. 64 FR
37905 (1999 NOPR). DOE published a
final rule with a PEF of 82,049 Watthours per gallon on June 12, 2000, that
amended 10 CFR part 474. 65 FR 36985
(2000 Final Rule). DOE has not updated
10 CFR part 474 since the 2000 Final
Rule.
On October 22, 2021, DOE received a
petition for rulemaking from the Natural
2 For
purposes of paragraph (a)(2) of 49 U.S.C.
32904, EPCA defines an ‘‘electric vehicle’’ as ‘‘a
vehicle powered primarily by an electric motor
drawing electrical current from a portable source.’’
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:53 Mar 28, 2024
Jkt 262001
Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and
Sierra Club requesting DOE to update its
regulations at 10 CFR part 474. DOE
published a notice of receipt of the
petition on December 29, 2021, and
solicited comment on the petition and
whether DOE should proceed with a
rulemaking. 86 FR 73992.
In April 2023, DOE agreed that the
inputs upon which the calculations and
PEF values are based were outdated and
that the technology and market
penetration of EVs has significantly
changed since the 2000 Final Rule and
granted the petition from NRDC and
Sierra Club. When granting the petition,
DOE also published a notice of
proposed rulemaking. 88 FR 21525
(2023 NOPR).
In the 2023 NOPR, DOE proposed to
update the PEF value and revise the
methodology used to calculate the PEF.
Specifically, the 2023 NOPR proposed
the following revisions to the
methodology:
• Change the accessory factor, used to
account for petroleum-fueled on-board
accessories, to 1.
• Revise the generation and
transmission efficiency factor by using
updated grid mix projection that
account for policy changes since June
2000 and more recent data.
• Remove the fuel content factor.
In accordance with these proposed
revisions, DOE proposed a revised PEF
value of 23,160 Watt-hours per gallon.
88 FR 21525, 21532. In addition, DOE
proposed that the revised PEF value
would apply to model year (MY) 2027
and later electric vehicles. 88 FR 21525,
21531. DOE also proposed to delete 10
CFR 474.5, which requires DOE to
review the PEF value every five years.
88 FR 21525, 21533.
The public comment period for the
2023 NOPR closed on June 12, 2023.
DOE received 20 comments on the
proposed rule.3 Several commenters,
including the Alliance for Automotive
Innovation (Alliance), expressed
concern that auto manufacturers would
not have sufficient lead time to
incorporate changes into their plans for
MY 2027 vehicles, given that the new
PEF value would significantly impact
their CAFE compliance and given that
manufacturing changes require
significant lead times. On September 14,
2023, DOE issued letters to member
companies of the Alliance that invited
recipients to provide data, documents,
or analysis to clarify the Alliance’s
concerns in relation to the proposed
3 DOE received comments from an individual on
October 1, 2023, after the comment period closed.
Doc. No. 36. Despite the fact that these comments
were filed late, DOE considered the issues raised in
these comments when reviewing the rule.
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
effective date. DOE also published a
Notification of Ex Parte Communication
and Request for Comments in the
Federal Register, which stated that DOE
sent the September 14, 2023, letters and
asked interested stakeholders to provide
similar data, documents, or analysis. 88
FR 67682 (Oct. 2, 2023).
DOE received data in response to the
letters and the notification and
incorporated the data into its analysis.
The letters and responses to the letters
and the notification are available in the
docket.
DOE is finalizing revisions to 10 CFR
part 474 and the methods to calculate
the PEF value in accordance with the
statutory factors in 49 U.S.C.
32904(a)(2)(B). After considering
comments, DOE is modifying the
methodology as initially proposed in the
2023 NOPR in the following ways:
• Updating the grid mix projection
from the 2021 National Renewable
Energy Laboratory (NREL) ‘‘95 by 2050’’
Scenario to the more current electricity
generation forecast in the 2022 NREL
‘‘Standard Scenario Mid-Case,’’ which
accounts for the latest technology and
policies.
• Changing the method of calculating
the PEF value from using an average of
annual PEF values between MY 2027 to
MY 2031 to calculating a PEF value
based on the survivability-weighted
lifetime mileage schedule of the fleet of
vehicles sold during the regulatory
period.
• Phasing-out the use of the fuel
content factor between MY 2027 and
MY 2030 rather than removing it from
the PEF equation as of the effective date
of the rule, as proposed in the 2023
NOPR.
Each of these changes are discussed in
detail in the following sections.
II. Public Comments on the 2023 NOPR
DOE received comments in response
to the 2023 NOPR from the individuals
and interested parties listed in Table 1.
These comments are available in the
public docket for this rulemaking. The
specific issues relating to the final rule
raised by the commenters are addressed
in section III of this document. A
parenthetical reference at the end of a
comment quotation or paraphrase
provides the location of the item in the
public record.4
4 The parenthetical reference provides a reference
for information located in the docket for this
rulemaking. (Docket No. EERE–2021–VT–0033,
which is maintained at www.regulations.gov). The
references are arranged as follows: commenter
name, comment docket ID number, page of that
document.
E:\FR\FM\29MRR1.SGM
29MRR1
22043
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 62 / Friday, March 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 1—2023 NOPR WRITTEN COMMENTS
Commenter(s)
Abbreviation
Gilles DeBrouwer ....................................................................................................................................
Vivat ........................................................................................................................................................
Anonymous 1 ..........................................................................................................................................
Transport Evolved ...................................................................................................................................
Tesla, Inc .................................................................................................................................................
International Council on Clean Transportation .......................................................................................
Natural Resources Defense Council and Sierra Club ............................................................................
Zero Emission Transportation Association .............................................................................................
Ford Motor Company ..............................................................................................................................
National Automobile Dealers Association ...............................................................................................
Porsche Cars ...........................................................................................................................................
Alliance for Automotive Innovators .........................................................................................................
American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers .....................................................................................
State of California et al ...........................................................................................................................
Our Children’s Trust ................................................................................................................................
American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy ...............................................................................
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America .....
American Free Enterprise Chamber of Commerce et al ........................................................................
Clean Fuels Development Coalition et al ...............................................................................................
Omer Sevindir .........................................................................................................................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
Tesla ..............................
ICCT ...............................
NRDC and Sierra Club ..
ZETA ..............................
Ford ................................
NADA .............................
Porsche ..........................
Alliance ..........................
AFPM .............................
California et al ................
........................................
ACEEE ...........................
UAW ...............................
AmFree et al ..................
Clean Fuels et al ...........
........................................
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
III. Discussion of Final Rule
A. Statutory Factors
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 32904,
DOE reviewed the equivalent
petroleum-based fuel economy values
for EVs, including both the current PEF
value and the methodology used to
calculate that value, which are found in
10 CFR part 474. When reviewing the
equivalent petroleum-based fuel
economy values for EVs, DOE must
consider four factors:
(i) The approximate electrical energy
efficiency of the vehicle, considering the
kind of vehicle and the mission and
weight of the vehicle.
(ii) The national average electrical
generation and transmission
efficiencies.
(iii) The need of the United States to
conserve all forms of energy and the
relative scarcity and value to the United
States of all fuel used to generate
electricity.
(iv) The specific patterns of use of
electric vehicles compared to
petroleum-fueled vehicles.
49 U.S.C. 32904(a)(2)(B).
Based on more recent data, changes to
market conditions, and comments
received in response to the 2023 NOPR,
DOE is revising the methodology used
to calculate PEF and the resulting PEF
value in this final rule. DOE discusses
its consideration of the statutory factors
and its conclusions in the following
sections.
B. Current Methodology
10 CFR 474.3 provides the current
methodology for determining the
equivalent petroleum-based fuel
economy values for EVs. First, DOE
determines the EVs’ urban and highway
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:53 Mar 28, 2024
Jkt 262001
energy consumption value in Watthours (Wh) per mile. To do this, DOE
uses the energy consumption values
provided by the Highway Fuel Economy
Driving Schedule (HFEDS) and Urban
Dynamometer Driving Schedule (UDDS)
test cycles established by EPA at 40 CFR
parts 86 and 600. 10 CFR 474.3(a)(1).
DOE then determines the combined
energy consumption value by averaging
the urban and highway energy
consumption values using a weighting
of 55 percent urban and 45 percent
highway. 10 CFR 474.3(a)(2). Finally,
DOE converts this combined energy
consumption value (expressed in Wh
per mile) to a petroleum-equivalent fuel
economy value, which is measured in
miles per gallon (mpg), by dividing the
PEF (measured in Wh per gallon) by the
combined energy consumption value.
The current PEF calculation
procedure converts the measured
electrical energy consumption of an
electric vehicle into a gasolineequivalent fuel economy of electricity
(Eg). 65 FR 36986, 36987. Then, the
methodology multiplies the Eg by the
fuel content factor (FCF), which is
intended to represent the energy content
equivalent the alternative fuel to a
gallon of gasoline; the accessory factor
(AF), which represents possible use of
petroleum-powered accessories, such as
cabin heater/defroster systems; and the
driving pattern factor (DPF), which
represents the potential for different
uses of EVs compared to internal
combustion engine (ICE) vehicles. Id.
The general form of the PEF equation is:
PEF = Eg × FCF × AF × DPF
In the 2000 Final Rule, DOE used this
equation to calculate the PEF value and
determined that the PEF for EVs that do
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Document No.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
36
not have any petroleum-powered
accessories is 82,049 Watt-hours per
gallon (Wh/gal). See 10 CFR 474.3(b)(1).
For EVs that have petroleum-powered
accessories, DOE determined that the
PEF is 73,844 Wh/gal. See 10 CFR
474.3(b)(2).
C. Revised Methodology
As stated previously, DOE concluded
that the current PEF value and
methodology were based on outdated
data and that the technology and market
penetration of EVs has significantly
changed since the 2000 Final Rule.
Accordingly, in the 2023 NOPR, DOE
proposed a revised PEF value and
revisions to the methodology used to
calculate the PEF. Specifically, the 2023
NOPR proposed changing the accessory
factor to 1.0, revising the generation and
transmission efficiency factor by using
updated electrical grid mix projections,
and removing the fuel content factor.
The 2023 NOPR also proposed
maintaining the driving pattern factor at
1.0.
1. Approximate Electrical Energy
Efficiency of EVs
DOE considers the approximate
electrical energy efficiency of EVs in
determining the PEF value pursuant to
49 U.S.C. 32904(a)(2)(B)(i). As
discussed, the current methodology
converts the energy consumption of an
EV from Wh of electricity to gallons of
gasoline based upon energy
consumption values provided by
Highway Fuel Economy Driving
Schedule (HFEDS) and Urban
Dynamometer Driving Schedule (UDDS)
test cycles established by EPA at 40 CFR
parts 86 and 600. See 10 CFR 474.3 and
E:\FR\FM\29MRR1.SGM
29MRR1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 62 / Friday, March 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
474.4. In the 2023 NOPR, DOE proposed
to retain this methodology because it
provided an ‘‘accurate measure of the
electrical energy efficiency of the
relevant EV during typical use and is
appropriately utilized in the PEF
equation.’’ 88 FR 21525, 21527.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
One commenter supported
maintaining the current energy
efficiency regime. Tesla, Doc. No. 18,
pg. 2. In addition, although NRDC and
Sierra Club did not oppose the current
methodology expressly, they urged DOE
to ‘‘clarify whether it will use
unadjusted dynamometer testing results
or adjusted values’’ when measuring
energy consumption of an EV. NRDC
and Sierra Club, Doc. No. 20, pg. 5.
NRDC and Sierra Club observed that
dynamometer testing overstates realworld performance for vehicles by as
much as 30 percent. NRDC and Sierra
Club, Doc. No. 20, pg. 5 (citing 87 FR
25710, 25720 (May 2, 2022)). Thus, they
recommended that DOE consider using
adjusted dynamometer values to better
approximate the actual electrical
efficiency of EVs for use in determining
the equivalent petroleum-based fuel
economy values for EVs. NRDC and
Sierra Club, Doc. No. 20, pg. 5.
Other commenters opposed retaining
the current methodology and argued
that both HFEDS and UDDS test cycles
are unrepresentative of typical use cases
of EVs. AFPM, Doc. No. 26, pg. 5; Clean
Fuels et al., Doc. No. 32, pg. 3; AmFree,
Doc. No. 31, pg. 4. Specifically, these
commenters claimed that HFEDS fails to
capture the most typical use case of EVs,
such as commuting to and from work.
AFPM, Doc. No. 26, pg. 5; Clean Fuels
et al., Doc. No. 32, pg. 3–4. In addition,
they asserted that UDDS fails to capture
variations in climate or extended
periods of idling. AFPM, Doc. No. 26,
pg. 6; Clean Fuels et al., Doc. No. 32, pg.
4. As a result of these and other failures,
these commenters argued that these test
cycles overestimate the performance of
EVs. AFPM, Doc. No. 26, pg. 6; Clean
Fuels et al., Doc. No. 32, pg. 4–5. These
commenters stated that ‘‘DOE must
revisit its chosen procedure and apply
more robust and accurate test methods,’’
and that DOE’s decision to retain the
current methodology is arbitrary and
capricious. Clean Fuels et al., Doc. No.
32, pg. 5; AFPM, Doc. No. 26, pg. 6. The
commenters noted there are other more
representative tests currently available,
like EPA’s 5-cycle formula, to calculate
the fuel economy of vehicles. AFPM,
Doc. No. 26, pg. 6; Clean Fuels et al.,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:53 Mar 28, 2024
Jkt 262001
Doc. No. 32, pg. 5; AmFree, Doc. No. 31,
pg. 4.
Both of these comments regarding
adjusting the dynamometer readings or
using different test cycles were
addressed in DOE’s methodology for
calculating the energy consumption of
an EV in terms of miles per gallon. DOE
notes that DOE’s methodology is aligned
with EPA’s methodology for calculating
the compliance fuel economy values for
ICE vehicles in the CAFE program. The
adjustment and the test cycles
recommended by commenters, however,
are not used to calculate fuel economy
for purposes of CAFE compliance.
Rather, the recommended adjustment
and test cycles are used to calculate fuel
economy for the EPA/DOT Fuel
Economy and Environment Label
(window sticker).5 DOE notes that 49
U.S.C. 32904(c) requires EPA to use the
‘‘same procedures for passenger
automobiles the Administrator used for
model year 1975’’ to measure the fuel
economy of passenger vehicles for CAFE
purposes. Pursuant to this directive,
EPA uses the HFEDS and UDDS test
cycles to calculate fuel economy for ICE
vehicles and does not adjust the
dynamometer results. A consistent
methodology applied to all auto
manufacturers for calculating the fuel
economy of ICE vehicles helps to ensure
a level playing field. Because the
purpose of the PEF is to provide a fuel
economy conversion factor for EVs (so
that they may be averaged with ICE
vehicles for determining CAFE
performance) it is reasonable and
appropriate to keep all else as equal as
possible. Because CAFE compliance for
ICE vehicles is determined using the
HFEDS and UDDS test cycles,
determining EV energy consumption
values using those two same test cycles
is consistent and reasonable.
In this final rule, as proposed in the
2023 NOPR, DOE retains its current
methodology to convert energy
consumption of an EV into gallons of
gasoline based upon energy
consumption values provided by the
HFEDS and UDDS test cycles
established by EPA at 40 CFR parts 86
and 600. See 10 CFR 474.3 and 474.4.
DOE determines that using unadjusted
dynamometer results from the HFEDs
and UDDS to calculate energy
consumption for EVs provides a
calculation of fuel economy for EVs
5 Similarly, other commenters, such as Hyundai,
suggested that DOE harmonize the PEF with EPA’s
use of 33,705 Wh/gal used by EPA in its fuel
economy labeling. Hyundai, Doc. No. 39, pg. 2.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
most comparable to the existing gasoline
fuel economy that EPA calculates.
Because the PEF value provides a fuel
economy conversion factor for EVs (so
that they may be averaged with ICE
vehicles for determining CAFE
performance), it is reasonable and
appropriate to adopt a consistent
methodology that helps ensure a level
playing field.
2. Gasoline-Equivalent Fuel Economy of
Electricity
When comparing ICE vehicles with
EVs, it is essential to consider the
efficiency of the respective upstream
processes in the two relevant energy
cycles.6 The critical difference between
the processes is that an ICE vehicle
burns its fuel on-board, and an EV burns
its fuel (the majority of electricity in the
U.S. is generated at fossil fuel burning
powerplants) off-board. In both cases,
the burning of fuels to produce work is
the least efficient step of the respective
energy cycles. Therefore, the 2000 Final
Rule included a term, gasolineequivalent energy content of electricity
(Eg), to express the relative energy
efficiency of the full energy cycles of
gasoline and electricity. 65 FR 36986,
36987.
Under the current rule, the gasolineequivalent energy content of electricity,
is calculated by multiplying the U.S.
average electricity generation efficiency
(Tg), the U.S. average electricity
transmission efficiency (Tt), and the
Watt-hours of energy per gallon of
gasoline conversion factor (C) 7, and
then dividing that value by the
petroleum refining and distribution
efficiency (Tp). 65 FR 36986, 36987. The
equation calculating the gasolineequivalent energy content of electricity
factor is written as follows.8
In the 2000 Final Rule, DOE
calculated a gasoline-equivalent energy
content of electricity factor of 12,307
Wh/gal by using the following inputs:
6 In this context ‘‘upstream’’ means everything
prior to storage of energy on the vehicle, also
commonly referred to as well-to-tank.
7 The Watt-hours of energy per gallon of gasoline
conversion factor is a standard value, 33705 Wh/
gal.
8 The equation is revised from the form in the
2000 Final Rule to correct a printing error in the
2000 Final Rule. The calculation of Eg is correct in
the 2000 Final Rule despite the printing error.
E:\FR\FM\29MRR1.SGM
29MRR1
ER29MR24.053
22044
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 62 / Friday, March 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
0.328 x 0.924
22045
Wh
33,705 gal
Wh
E = ------=-=-::-:::------ = 12,307-l
n
0.830
ga
65 FR 36986, 36987.
The gasoline-equivalent energy
content of electricity factor involves the
consideration of the national average
electrical generation and transmission
efficiencies and the need to conserve all
forms of energy and the relative scarcity
and value to the United States of all fuel
used to generate electricity. 49 U.S.C.
32904(a)(2)(B)(ii) and (iii). In the
analysis that follows, DOE updates the
electricity generation and transmission
efficiency factor and the petroleum
refining and distribution efficiency
factor used to calculate the gasolineequivalent fuel economy of electricity.
X
a. Average Electricity Generation and
Transmission Efficiency
The calculation for electricity
efficiency considers production of the
energy source, generation of electricity
from that source, and transmission of
the electricity to the EV charging
location. The efficiency of the
production of the energy source and the
generation of electricity from that source
vary widely.
In the 2023 NOPR, DOE updated its
calculations of the average generation
and transmission efficiency for all fuels
based on the latest data available. In the
2023 NOPR, DOE used the efficiency
data from Greenhouse Gases, Regulated
Emissions, and Energy use in
Transportation (GREET).9 To calculate
the well-to-tank efficiency for electricity
from specific energy sources, DOE
multiplied the production efficiency,10
generation efficiency,11 and
transmission efficiency 12 for each
source. The efficiencies of electricity
generated from specific sources used in
this analysis are provided in Table 2.
DOE used the same efficiencies of
electricity generated from specific
sources in this final rule.
TABLE 2—ELECTRICITY GENERATION AND TRANSMISSION EFFICIENCY BY SOURCE
Natural gas ......................................................................................................
Coal ..................................................................................................................
Oil .....................................................................................................................
Biomass ...........................................................................................................
Nuclear .............................................................................................................
Solar .................................................................................................................
Wind .................................................................................................................
Hydroelectric ....................................................................................................
Geothermal ......................................................................................................
91.81
97.90
88.41
97.54
97.40
100
100
100
100
47.34
34.55
31.92
21.65
100
100
100
100
100
Transmission
efficiency
(%)
Calculated
efficiency
(%)
95.14
95.14
95.14
95.14
95.14
95.14
95.14
95.14
95.14
41.35
32.18
26.85
20.09
92.67
95.14
95.14
95.14
95.14
In the 2023 NOPR, due to the
abundance of renewable energy sources
such as wind and solar, DOE proposed
treating renewable energy sources as
effectively 100 percent efficient in their
generation. 88 FR 21525, 21530. DOE
also treated nuclear electricity
generation as effectively 100 percent
efficient because, like solar and wind,
there is no practical, aggregate resourceavailability limitation for nuclear
materials. 88 FR 21525, 21530.
Some commenters disagreed with
DOE’s proposal to treat renewable and
nuclear energy generation as effectively
100 percent efficient. AmFree, Doc. No.
31, pg. 4–5; AFPM, Doc. No. 26, pg. 9.
These commenters asserted that there is
no basis for DOE to assume renewable
or nuclear energy generation is 100
percent efficient, and therefore DOE
must revise its generation efficiencies
for such energy. AmFree, Doc. No. 31,
pg. 4–5; AFPM, Doc. No. 26, pg. 9.
In response to these concerns, DOE
notes that the methodology accounts for
transmission losses from such electricity
sources. The DOE interpretation of
energy scarcity relies on primary energy
sources. As such, with an effectively
inexhaustible supply of primary
energy—sun, wind, fissile nuclear
material—it is not appropriate to use a
conversion efficiency with these sources
when calculating the PEF. By contrast,
fossil energy sources used to generate
electricity are large but finite. DOE
considers the combustion efficiency of
electric generation as part of the full
energy lifecycle. Renewable gaseous fuel
burned for electricity, though expected
to be a small contributor to renewable
electricity overall, are treated similarly
to fossil natural gas with respect to
combustion efficiency. DOE is retaining
the 100 percent conversion efficiency
assumption for nuclear and renewable
generation (other than for renewable
natural gas) in this rule.
9 The GREET model is a life-cycle analysis tool,
structured to systematically examine the energy and
environmental effects of a wide variety of
transportation fuels and vehicle technologies in
major transportation sectors (i.e., road, air, marine,
and rail) and other end-use sectors, and energy
systems. Development of the GREET model by
Argonne National Laboratory has been supported by
multiple offices of DOE, DOT, and other agencies
over the past 28 years. The GREET model is
available at greet.anl.gov/, doi:10.11578/GREETNet-2021/dc.20210903.1.
10 ‘‘Production efficiency’’ includes efficiencies
related to producing the raw material and transport
to the electricity generation facility.
11 ‘‘Generation efficiency’’ relates to the
conversion of the limited resources into electricity,
e.g., by combustion, heating a boiler, and turning
a turbine.
12 Under GREET, electricity transmission has a
national average efficiency of 95.14 percent.
i. Efficiency of Renewable and Nuclear
Electricity Generation
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Generation
efficiency
(%)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:53 Mar 28, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
ii. U.S. Electrical Grid Projections
As discussed in section III.C.3, in this
final rule, DOE adopts a methodology
that calculates a PEF value based on the
expected survivability-weighted lifetime
mileage schedule of the fleet of vehicles
sold over the regulatory period. DOE
recognizes that while the average life of
a vehicle is around 15 years, the
influence of a fleet of vehicles produced
in a given model lasts much longer. To
capture this influence, DOE has adopted
the survivability-weighted annual
vehicle miles traveled parameters from
E:\FR\FM\29MRR1.SGM
29MRR1
ER29MR24.054
Production
efficiency
(%)
Energy source
22046
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 62 / Friday, March 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
the CAFE model that establishes values
for a 40-year span. Beyond 40 years,
only an insignificant population of
vehicles from that given model year will
remain on the road.13 Thus, calculating
a PEF value based on the expected fleet
of EVs requires calculating electricity
generation and transmission efficiency
40 years into the future. This
methodology provides a better
representation of how vehicles sold
during the regulatory period will be
used than did the methodology used in
the 2023 NOPR of averaging the
calculated annual PEF based on the grid
characteristics at the time the vehicles
were sold. When calculating electricity
generation and transmission efficiency,
DOE weights each of the generation
source-specific total efficiencies based
on that source’s share of the entire U.S.
electricity grid. This mix of energy
sources changes over time and is likely
to continue changing in the future.
Thus, the mix of electricity generation
sources is a critical variable impacting
the value of the PEF, consistent with
Congressional direction at 49 U.S.C.
32904(a)(2)(B)(ii) and (iii) to consider
the national average electrical
generation efficiency and the need to
conserve all forms of energy.
In the 2023 NOPR, DOE considered
numerous projections available in 2022
and selected the projection model 2021
Electrification 95 by 2050, Standard
Scenario, from NREL, in which the
United States achieves 95 percent
renewable generation of electricity by
2050 (NREL 2021 95 by 2050). 88 FR
21525, 21531. In selecting this grid
projection, DOE stated that NREL 2021
95 by 2050 is more representative of the
likely future grid mix after the effects of
recent policy changes, such as those in
the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022
(IRA) and the Infrastructure Investment
and Jobs Act (IIJA), are fully realized,
particularly given that these policies
will result in a substantial addition of
renewable resources onto the grid. In
the 2023 NOPR, DOE noted that it also
considered EIA’s Annual Energy
Outlook (AEO) Reference Case for 2022
(AEO 2022). DOE opted not to use AEO
2022 because it did not incorporate
recent policy changes in the IRA. 88 FR
21525, 21531. While NREL 2021 95 by
2050 also did not incorporate IRA
13 In its notice of proposed rulemaking that
establishes CAFE standards for passenger cars and
light trucks for MY 2027–2032, NHTSA estimates
the average maximum lifespan of such vehicles to
be 40 years. 88 FR 56128 (Aug. 17, 2023); Light
Duty Central Analysis, file LD_Central_
Analysis.zip, spreadsheet: parameters_ref.xlsx, on
tab ‘‘Vehicle Age Date’’. Available at
www.nhtsa.gov/file-downloads?p=nhtsa/
downloads/CAFE/2023-NPRM-LD-2b3-2027-2035/
Central-Analysis/.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:53 Mar 28, 2024
Jkt 262001
impacts, the NREL forecast better
represented expected renewable energy
growth through 2030 than the AEP 2022
forecast. However, DOE said that for the
final rule, it would consider using other
projections, such as EIA’s AEO for 2023
(AEO 2023), which was not available
when DOE conducted its analysis for
the 2023 NOPR.
Some commenters supported DOE’s
decision to use the 95 by 2050 grid
projections from NREL’s 2021 forecast.
Tesla, Doc. No. 18, pg. 3–4; ICCT, Doc.
No. 19, pg. 1. Other commenters
believed that DOE should use AEO
2023. NRDC and Sierra Club, Doc. No.
20, pg. 3; California et al., Doc. No. 27,
pg. 4–5. These commenters noted that
the grid projections in AEO 2023
account for policy changes in IRA. They
also observed that NHTSA uses the EIA
AEO model in the recent CAFE
rulemaking. NRDC and Sierra Club, Doc.
No. 20, pg. 3. Another commenter stated
that DOE should use the ‘‘relative
scarcity’’ scenario explored in the
spreadsheet that accompanied the 2023
NOPR. Alliance, Doc. No. 25, pg. 14.
For this final rule, DOE assessed the
grid projections that have become
available since 2022. These include
AEO 2023, which does account for some
impacts of the IRA and IIJA, and the
‘‘relative scarcity’’ scenario. After this
consideration and analysis, in this final
rule, DOE continues to use the NREL
model (updated for 2022 data) that it
used in the 2023 NOPR, but DOE selects
the Standard Scenario Mid-Case instead
of the 95 by 2050 Scenario. Specifically,
DOE is using the NREL 2022 Standard
Scenario, ‘‘Mid-case, nascent techs,
current policies’’ to forecast the grid mix
for the final rule.
Among the factors the Secretary must
consider when setting the PEF is ‘‘the
need of the United States to conserve all
forms of energy and the relative scarcity
and value to the United States of all fuel
used to generate electricity.’’ 49 U.S.C.
32904(a)(2)(B)(iii). DOE believes that
Congress’ directive to set a PEF and to
consider the conservation of all forms of
energy, including the relative scarcity
and value of fuels used to generate
electricity, are intended to ensure that
average fuel economy of a
manufacturer’s entire fleet recognize
and account for the full energy
conservation benefits of EVs relative to
ICE vehicles, taking into account both
energy conservation overall, and the
relative need for and supply constraints
of different types of fuels. ‘‘[T]he
relative scarcity and value to the United
States of all fuel used to generate
electricity’’ is anticipated by every
forecast DOE considered to change over
time, largely in response to U.S.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
government policy decisions regarding
‘‘the need of the United States to
conserve energy.’’ Renewable and other
clean energy sources of electricity are
integral in addressing the need to
conserve energy and improve energy
security, and so current policies are
directed at increasing the production of
electricity from such energy sources. In
this specific statutory context, DOE
believes it is particularly important to
ensure that the model used to estimate
the future energy conservation benefit of
EVs focuses on projecting how the mix
of renewable and other clean energy
generation in the grid will change over
the long term. The NREL model has this
specific focus. In the 2023 NOPR, DOE
selected the 2021 NREL 95 by 2050
scenario because DOE believed it was
the closest forecast to approximately
capture the projected impacts of the
IRA, which had been adopted too
recently to be fully incorporated into
any published projection.14 Since DOE
published the 2023 NOPR, the NREL
2022 forecast has been published. To
affect the purposes of this statute, DOE
believes the NREL 2022 Standard Midcase scenario best captures the impact of
the IRA and IIJA on renewable and other
clean electricity generation over time.
As described on NREL’s website:
‘‘[e]very year, the Standard Scenarios
includes a scenario called the Mid-case
that serves as a baseline or middleground scenario to reflect what might
happen if current trends and conditions
continue. The Mid-case has central
values for model inputs like technology
and fuel costs and how much electricity
people use. In addition, the Mid-case
represents currently enacted electric
sector policies.’’ 15 In addition, the AEO
scenarios have historically made
relatively more conservative
assumptions regarding the growth of
renewable generation, relative to the
NREL model. Because DOE believes
that, for the reasons described
previously, the 2022 NREL 2022
Standard Scenario, ‘‘Mid-case, nascent
techs, current policies’’ best captures
the impact of the IRA and IIJA on
renewable and other clean electricity
generation on the U.S. electrical grid for
the specific purposes of this rule, DOE
used this projection in its calculation of
the PEF value. DOE will annually
review forecasts for electricity
generation and determine if a change is
necessary for this value for future model
14 The NREL 2021 forecast did include impacts of
some relatively recent policies, such as the IIJA.
15 See www.nrel.gov/news/program/2024/nrelreleases-the-2023-standard-scenarios.html.
E:\FR\FM\29MRR1.SGM
29MRR1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 62 / Friday, March 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
years as required by 49 U.S.C.
32904(a)(2)(B).
b. Petroleum Refining and Distribution
Efficiency
In the 2023 NOPR, DOE also updated
its calculations of the petroleum
refining and distribution efficiency
factor to reflect the most recent GREET
data. 88 FR 21525, 21527. In the 2023
NOPR, DOE used GREET efficiency
factors to determine that crude oil
production and transportation has an
efficiency of 93.96 percent, gasoline
refining has an efficiency of 87.01
percent, and gasoline transportation and
distribution has an energy efficiency of
99.52 percent. Multiplying these three
terms provides an overall well-to-tank
petroleum refining and distribution
efficiency of 81.36 percent.
NRDC and Sierra Club argued that
petroleum refining and distribution
efficiency should not be considered
when considering the national average
electrical generation and transmission
efficiency. NRDC and Sierra Club, Doc.
No. 20, pg. 4. They asserted that section
32904(a)(2)(B)(ii) only directs DOE to
consider ‘‘electrical generation and
transmission efficiencies,’’ and does not
direct DOE to consider petroleum
refining and distribution efficiencies or
compare them to electric ones. NRDC
and Sierra Club, Doc. No. 20, pg. 4.
Furthermore, these commenters stated
that because nothing in the statute
requires DOE to consider petroleum
refining and distribution efficiency,
DOE should remove the term from the
methodology used to calculate PEF.
NRDC and Sierra Club, Doc. No. 20, pg.
4.
Comparing electricity and gasoline on
an equivalent basis requires
consideration of the full energy-cycle
energy efficiency from the point of
primary energy production through enduse to power a vehicle for both gasoline
and electricity. Assessing the full energy
cycle of electricity and conventional
fuel requires a holistic approach to
address energy conservation when
energy losses occur at different stages of
an energy cycle for different energy
products and fuels, such as electricity
and gasoline. Moreover, DOE interprets
the ‘‘need of the U.S. to conserve
energy’’ as applying broadly to all forms
of energy, which includes petroleum. 49
U.S.C. 32904(a)(2)(B)(iii). Therefore, it is
appropriate to assess the full energy
cycle of both gasoline and electricity the
energy is converted to a useful form at
different stages—gasoline onboard the
vehicle, electricity upstream—and a
reasonable comparison of the two
systems requires taking into account the
same steps.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:53 Mar 28, 2024
Jkt 262001
Another commenter opposed the
calculations for petroleum refining and
distribution efficiency because they
believed that the data available from the
fossil fuel industry is unreliable.
Transport Evolved, Doc. No. 17, pg. 2.
In this final rule, as with the 2023
NOPR, DOE used the best data available
on refining and distribution efficiency
by using the efficiency numbers in the
GREET model. It is a widely used lifecycle analysis model for vehicle
technologies and transportation fuels
and has been used in regulation
development and evaluation by DOE,
EPA, and DOT. The data obtained from
the GREET model are reliable.
22047
TABLE 3—ANNUAL GASOLINE-EQUIVALENT FUEL ECONOMY OF ELECTRICITY—Continued
Year
2049 ......................................
2050 and later ......................
Annual Eg
(Wh/gal)
28,434
28,097
The Alliance argued that the 2000
Final Rule underestimates the fuel
economy of EVs because EVs do not use
any petroleum (or only minimal
amounts through the grid) when
operating in fully electric mode.
Alliance, Doc. No. 25, pg. 15. They note
that the electrical grid has only become
c. Annual Gasoline-Equivalent Fuel
more efficient since 2000. Therefore,
Economy of Electricity
they argue that the 2027 PEF value
should be higher than the 2000 PEF.
As discussed previously, DOE uses
This argument both misunderstands the
the average electricity generation and
purpose of the PEF in the compliance
transmission efficiency and the
calculations and discounts the DOE’s
petroleum refining and distribution
attempt to better align the PEF with the
efficiency to determine the gasolinestatutory factors prescribed by Congress.
equivalent fuel economy of electricity
The purpose of the PEF is to convert the
(Eg). In order to calculate the electricity
energy used by EVs to a miles per
generation and transmission efficiency,
gallon-equivalent in order to average EV
DOE uses the 2022 NREL Standard
and ICE vehicle fuel economy for
Scenario, ‘‘Mid-case, nascent techs,
determining vehicle manufacturers’
current policies’’ to forecast the U.S.
electrical grid mix. The annual gasoline- CAFE performance. Although DOE
agrees that the electrical grid has
equivalent fuel economy of electricity
become more efficient since 2000, in
values used in this analysis are
this rulemaking, DOE is holistically
provided in Table 3. The modeling
reviewing all of the factors used to
source only goes until 2050, so DOE
calculate the PEF, including the use of
assumed an unchanging grid for
the fuel content factor. The efficiency of
subsequent years.
the grid is only one input to these
TABLE 3—ANNUAL GASOLINE-EQUIVA- calculations and does not solely
LENT FUEL ECONOMY OF ELEC- determine the final result.
TRICITY
3. Cumulative Gasoline-Equivalent Fuel
Economy of Electricity
Annual Eg
Year
In the 2023 NOPR, DOE explained
(Wh/gal)
that NHTSA’s next CAFE regulation was
2023 ......................................
21,407 expected to cover MYs 2027–2031 and
2024 ......................................
22,299 proposed that the proposed PEF value
2025 ......................................
22,880 would be the applicable PEF for
2026 ......................................
23,481
calculating EV fuel economy when
2027 ......................................
24,897
2028 ......................................
26,449 enforcing the CAFE regulations those
2029 ......................................
27,498 model years. 88 FR 21525, 21531. To
2030 ......................................
28,595 calculate a PEF value usable over the
2031 ......................................
29,000 entire period covered by the next
2032 ......................................
29,404 revision of the CAFE regulations, DOE
2033 ......................................
29,788 considered a forward-looking approach
2034 ......................................
30,171 based on projections for the electricity
2035 ......................................
30,412
2036 ......................................
30,651 generation grid in the future. In the 2023
2037 ......................................
30,717 NOPR, DOE only considered the annual
2038 ......................................
30,781 calculated PEF over the expected
2039 ......................................
30,836 regulatory period and used an average of
2040 ......................................
30,889 those values. DOE explained that the
2041 ......................................
30,613 average of the annually calculated value
2042 ......................................
30,349 of the PEF, based on calendar-year
2043 ......................................
30,041
projections for the electric grid, would
2044 ......................................
29,747
2045 ......................................
29,490 be applied for MYs 2027 through 2031.
2046 ......................................
29,243 88 FR 21525, 21531.
Several commenters opposed this
2047 ......................................
29,011
2048 ......................................
28,787 approach and noted that vehicles are
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\29MRR1.SGM
29MRR1
22048
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 62 / Friday, March 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
driven for many years after their initial
sale, not just the five years considered
in the 2023 NOPR. DeBrouwer, Doc. No.
14, pg. 1; ACEEE, Doc. No. 29, pg. 1–
2. On further analysis, and in response
to these comments, this final rule adopts
a PEF value based on the expected
survivability-weighted lifetime mileage
schedule of the fleet of vehicles sold
during the regulatory period. To
determine this, DOE uses the
survivability-weighted lifetime mileage
schedule derived from NHTSA’s CAFE
rulemaking.16 The data that NHTSA
used to develop the average annual
vehicle miles traveled (VMT) schedule
used in its analysis divided the light
duty vehicle fleet 17 into three
categories: passenger cars, pickup
trucks, and Vans/SUVs. Each vehicle
category has different scrappage rates
and annual driving patterns. For this
analysis DOE used a weighted average
of 62.4 percent Vans/SUVs, 17.4 percent
pickup trucks, and 20.2 percent
passenger cars to generate the average
annual VMT shown in Table 4 below.18
DOE uses the same average for the
electric-fueled sub-fleet because DOE
lacks accurate information about
individual automaker plans for
electrifying their product lines. Table 4
shows the average annual VMT
expected for the fleet of vehicles for the
first forty years after initial sale.
TABLE 4—ANNUAL VMT FOR LIGHT
DUTY VEHICLE FLEET—Continued
TABLE 4—ANNUAL VMT FOR LIGHT
DUTY VEHICLE FLEET
Year after
initial sale
Annual VMT
1 ............................................
2 ............................................
3 ............................................
4 ............................................
5 ............................................
6 ............................................
7 ............................................
8 ............................................
9 ............................................
10 ..........................................
11 ..........................................
12 ..........................................
13 ..........................................
14 ..........................................
15 ..........................................
16 ..........................................
17 ..........................................
18 ..........................................
19 ..........................................
20 ..........................................
21 ..........................................
22 ..........................................
23 ..........................................
24 ..........................................
25 ..........................................
26 ..........................................
27 ..........................................
28 ..........................................
29 ..........................................
16,647
15,989
15,336
14,679
14,012
13,331
12,627
11,894
11,131
10,334
9,504
8,639
7,755
6,873
6,008
5,188
4,439
3,773
3,196
2,704
2,293
1,953
1,674
1,443
1,253
1,096
965
856
764
Year after
initial sale
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Annual VMT
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
686
564
463
380
312
256
209
171
139
114
92
The current methodology uses the
annual gasoline-equivalent fuel
economy of electricity to calculate PEF.
Thus, the current PEF methodology
must be revised to calculate a PEF value
based on expected operation of the
vehicles sold. To represent the expected
operation of these vehicles, DOE
calculates a cumulative gasolineequivalent fuel economy of electricity
(CEg) in Table 5. The cumulative
gasoline-equivalent fuel economy of
electricity is determined by multiplying
the annual gasoline-equivalent fuel
economy of electricity by the
corresponding annual share of lifetime
VMT based on the survivabilityweighted lifetime mileage schedule.
TABLE 5—CUMULATIVE GASOLINE-EQUIVALENT FUEL ECONOMY OF ELECTRICITY FOR MY 2027 EVS
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Calendar year
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
Vehicle age
.............................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................
16 See NHTSA NPRM Draft Technical Support
Document, Chapter 4, p. 4–41, Table 4–12, ‘‘VMT
Schedule by Body Style and Age’’ for vehicle type
breakdown and Section 4.2.2.3.3, ‘‘Estimating the
Scrappage Models’’, beginning on p. 4–26. NHTSA
TSD available at: www.nhtsa.gov/document/cafe-
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:53 Mar 28, 2024
Jkt 262001
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2027-2032-hdpuv-2030-2035-draft-technicalsupport-document.
17 This rule considers all passenger cars and
trucks up to 8,500 pounds to be light-duty vehicles.
This aligns to those vehicles that are subject to
NHTSA’s CAFE regulations for passenger cars and
light trucks.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Annual share of
lifetime VMT
(%)
Eg
24,898
26,450
27,498
28,596
29,000
29,405
29,789
30,171
30,413
30,651
30,717
30,782
30,836
30,889
30,613
30,349
30,042
29,747
29,490
29,243
29,011
28,788
28,434
7.94
7.62
7.31
7.00
6.68
6.36
6.02
5.67
5.31
4.93
4.53
4.12
3.70
3.28
2.86
2.47
2.12
1.80
1.52
1.29
1.09
0.93
0.80
Partial CEg
1,976
2,016
2,011
2,001
1,937
1,869
1,793
1,711
1,614
1,510
1,392
1,268
1,140
1,012
877
751
636
535
449
377
317
268
227
18 The distribution was derived from the file: LD_
Central_Analysis.zip/output/LD_ref/reports_csv/
vehicles_report.csv available at: www.nhtsa.gov/
file-downloads?p=nhtsa/downloads/CAFE/2023NPRM-LD-2b3-2027-2035/Central-Analysis/.
E:\FR\FM\29MRR1.SGM
29MRR1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 62 / Friday, March 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
22049
TABLE 5—CUMULATIVE GASOLINE-EQUIVALENT FUEL ECONOMY OF ELECTRICITY FOR MY 2027 EVS—Continued
Calendar year
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
2066
Annual share of
lifetime VMT
(%)
Eg
Partial CEg
.............................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
28,097
28,097
28,097
28,097
28,097
28,097
28,097
28,097
28,097
28,097
28,097
28,097
28,097
28,097
28,097
28,097
28,097
0.69
0.60
0.52
0.46
0.41
0.36
0.33
0.27
0.22
0.18
0.15
0.12
0.10
0.08
0.07
0.05
0.04
193
168
147
129
115
102
92
76
62
51
42
34
28
23
19
15
12
CEg .......................................................................................................
........................
........................
............................
28,996
DOE recognizes that the value of CEg
is substantially higher than the value of
Eg used in the 2000 rule (12,307 Wh/
gal). This change is due to a
combination of: increased fossil
generation efficiency; increased
renewable generation; the assumption of
resource inexhaustibility for nuclear
and renewables; increases in electric
transmission efficiency; reduction in
petroleum production, refining and
distribution efficiency; and the use of a
forward-looking grid mix. By far the
largest impact is due to changes to
electricity generation since the 2000
Final Rule. The grid mix used in the
2000 Final Rule had almost no nonhydropower renewable generation,
while renewables are forecasted to grow
to over half of total electricity
generation by 2030. As described
previously, DOE treats nuclear, solar,
wind, and hydro power as 100 percent
efficient based on the effective
inexhaustibility of the energy source. In
addition, fossil generation now includes
a significant amount of combined cycle
generation, which has a much higher
thermal efficiency than conventional
combustion for heat generation. Changes
in efficiency due to petroleum
production, refining and distribution,
and electricity transmission are smaller.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Vehicle age
4. Fuel Content Factor
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 32904(a)(2)(B),
among the factors the Secretary must
consider when setting the PEF is ‘‘the
need of the United States to conserve all
forms of energy and the relative scarcity
and value to the United States of all fuel
used to generate electricity.’’ 49 U.S.C.
32904(a)(2)(B)(iii). In the 2000 Final
Rule, DOE added the current 1.0/0.15
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:53 Mar 28, 2024
Jkt 262001
fuel content factor to the PEF to reward
electric vehicles for their ‘‘benefits to
the Nation relative to petroleum-fueled
vehicles, in a manner consistent with
the regulatory treatment of other types
of alternative fueled vehicles and the
authorizing legislation.’’ 65 FR 36986,
36988. In the 2000 Final Rule, DOE
explained that it chose the 1.0/0.15 ratio
for the fuel content factor (1) for
consistency with existing regulatory and
statutory procedures for alternative fuel
vehicles under 49 U.S.C. 32905, (2) to
provide similar treatment of all types of
alternative fueled vehicles, and (3) for
simplicity and ease of use in calculating
the PEF. 65 FR 36986, 36988.
In the 2023 NOPR, DOE proposed
removing the fuel content factor and
requested comment on its elimination.
88 FR 21525, 21528–21530. DOE stated
that it considered the need of the United
States to conserve all forms of energy
and the relative scarcity and value to the
United States of all fuel used to generate
electricity in proposing to eliminate the
factor. 88 FR 21525, 21528. As
discussed in the 2023 NOPR in more
detail, in considering the need for
energy conservation and the relative
scarcity and value of fuels used to
generate electricity, in particular DOE
emphasized the need to conserve finite
petroleum resources. 88 FR 21525,
21529–215230. Conserving petroleum
resources can be achieved through
increased production and sales of EVs
and through fuel economy
improvements to ICE vehicles.
In the context of the statutory
directive for the PEF and the need to
conserve finite petroleum resources,
DOE identified in the 2023 NOPR three
key reasons supporting removal of the
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
fuel content factor. 88 FR 21525, 21528–
21530. First, DOE explained that the
fuel content factor does not accurately
represent current EV technology or
market penetration. Second, DOE stated
that applying the current fuel content
factor to EVs results in miles per gallon
equivalent ratings significantly higher
than ICE vehicles. This overvaluing of
EVs can allow a few EV models to
provide overall compliance with CAFE
standards, which in turn permits
manufacturers to maintain less efficient
ICE vehicles and disincentivizes
production of additional EVs. 88 FR
21525, 21529–21530. Third, DOE
proposed that the reasoning offered in
the 2000 Final Rule in support of the
use of 1.0/0.15 as a fuel content factor
was not grounded in DOE’s authority to
set the PEF in section 32904, although
DOE also noted that a fuel content factor
could potentially be justified under the
four factors of section 32904. 88 FR
21525, 21530.
Several commenters supported the
elimination of the fuel content factor.
California et al., Doc. No. 27, pg. 5;
NRDC and Sierra Club, Doc. No. 20, pg.
1–2; Tesla, Doc. No. 18, pg. 3; ICCT,
Doc. No. 19, pg. 1; AFPM, Doc. No. 26,
pg. 2. Specifically, California et al. and
AFPM stated that the current fuel
content factor is based on an
inapplicable statutory section.
California et al., Doc. No. 27, pg. 5;
AFPM, Doc. No. 26, pg. 2. In addition,
NRDC and Sierra Club asserted that the
current fuel content factor ‘‘dwarfs the
rest of the PEF calculation, and has no
factual, legal, or logical connection to
electricity/petroleum equivalence.’’
NRDC and Sierra Club, Doc. No. 20, pg.
E:\FR\FM\29MRR1.SGM
29MRR1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
22050
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 62 / Friday, March 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
2. Commenters noted that the fuel
content factor leads to the overvaluation
of EVs, which is counter to the need to
conserve energy, particularly petroleum.
Other commenters, however, opposed
the elimination of the fuel content
factor. For example, the Alliance stated
that DOE should focus on the role of the
PEF as an incentive for manufacturing
EVs, which would keep DOE’s analysis
more closely tied to the applicable
statutory factors. Alliance, Doc. No. 25,
pg. 10. Similarly, UAW asserted that the
fuel content factor is needed to continue
to incentivize the production of EVs.
UAW, Doc. No. 30, pg. 1–2. The
Alliance and UAW stated that the 2023
NOPR overstated the scale of the EV
market and encouraged DOE to
‘‘incorporate a more realistic projection
of EV adoption and charging
infrastructure build-out.’’ Alliance, Doc.
No. 25, pg. 7–8; UAW, Doc. No. 30, pg.
2. Furthermore, the Alliance and UAW
noted that federal investment and
incentives would take time to reach
maturity. Alliance, Doc. No. 25, pg. 8;
UAW, Doc. No. 30, pg. 2. The Alliance
argued that EV purchase incentive
provisions in IRA are evidence that
Congress believes EVs are not
sufficiently commercialized. Alliance,
Doc. No. 25, pg. 10. And finally, the
Alliance noted that supply constraints
and investment limitations impair
manufacturers’ ability to respond
rapidly to changes in the PEF value,
arguing that research and production
resources are effectively zero-sum.
Alliance, Doc. No. 25, pg. 17. The
Alliance stated that the proposal could
cause manufacturers to divert scarce
investment resources to ICE vehicle
lines and away from EV production, and
noted the difficulty with doing even
that, citing a lack of opportunity for
engine redesigns, and arguing that
engine design and development cycles
are typically much longer than three
years. Id.
After careful consideration of the
comments, DOE concludes that
removing the fuel content factor will,
over the long term, further the statutory
goals of conserving all forms of energy
while considering the relative scarcity
and value to the United States of all
fuels used to generate electricity. This is
because, as explained in the 2023 NOPR
and in more detail below, by
significantly overvaluing the fuel
savings effects of EVs in a mature EV
market with CAFE standards in place,
the fuel content factor will
disincentivize both increased
production of EVs and increased
deployment of more efficient ICE
vehicles. Hence, the fuel content factor
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:53 Mar 28, 2024
Jkt 262001
results in higher petroleum use than
would otherwise occur.
DOE recognizes, however, the
persuasive points made by commenters
as to how the fuel content factor will
continue to incentivize EV production
in the near term. As commenters note,
while EV market penetration has
dramatically increased, EVs currently
represent only approximately 10 percent
of new passenger car and light truck
sales.19 Moreover, while the recently
adopted IIJA and IRA are in effect, the
critical incentives and support for EVs
and charging infrastructure that these
laws provide are in the early stages of
implementation and will become more
fully operative and effective over time.
DOE agrees with commenters that there
is still an opportunity to incentivize
additional EV production, and the
resulting greater petroleum
conservation, through a fuel content
factor over the next several years. Thus,
as explained in more detail below, DOE
is retaining the current fuel content
factor through MY 2026, under a revised
statutory basis, and then gradually
phasing out the fuel content factor by
MY 2030.
DOE begins with the statutory text.
Congress directed DOE to set the PEF
based, in part, on ‘‘the need of the
United States to conserve all forms of
energy’’ and ‘‘the relative scarcity and
value to the United States of all fuel
used to generate electricity.’’ 49 U.S.C.
32904(a)(2)(B)(iii). First, DOE confirms
that increased use of EVs, relative to ICE
vehicles, would help the United States
meet its need to conserve all forms of
energy, taking into consideration the
relative scarcity and value of all fuel
used to generate electricity. As detailed
in the 2023 NOPR, EVs are substantially
more energy efficient than ICE vehicles
on an energy input required basis. In
addition, when comparing EVs to ICE
vehicles on the basis of their use of
scarce fuels, EVs provide even greater
fuel conservation benefits when
compared to gasoline used in ICE
vehicles. See 88 FR 21525, 21536
(calculating a significantly higher PEF
when using a methodology that
compares only vehicle-based petroleum
use and electricity production using
scarce fossil energy resources).
Accordingly, an increased use of EVs,
relative to ICE vehicles, would allow the
United States to get greater
transportation value from relatively
19 DOE, Plug-in EV Sales in December of 2023
Rose to 9.8% of All Light-Duty Vehicles Sales in the
U.S., January 15, 2024. Available at
www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1325january-15-2024-plug-ev-sales-december-2023-rose98-all-light-duty.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
scarce fuels, including those used to
generate electricity.
These individual-vehicle measures
understate the magnitude of the fuel
conservation benefits of substantially
increasing EV production and use in the
near term. Accelerating adoption of EVs
now can significantly further accelerate
and increase EV market penetration, due
to network effects related to expanded
demand for and availability of charging
infrastructure. These network effects
include rapid shifts in consumer
acceptance and increased access to
immediate incentives, the redeployment
of capital and human resources at the
firm and country level, accelerated
technology development with greater
production of vehicles in multiple
segments at scale, and increases in
domestic battery manufacturing
capacity in line with projected market
demand. This has been demonstrated
based on the EV adoption experience of
other countries, which tends to follow
an ‘‘S-Curve’’—a long period of
relatively slow adoption followed by a
rapid increase in adoption as EV sales
grow.20 This implies that if EV adoption
is accelerated in the near term to reach
the tipping point of growth sooner,
significantly more EV adoption could
result in a shorter timeframe than would
otherwise occur. The energy
conservation benefits would also
accelerate commensurately.
Accordingly, DOE concludes that the
nation’s need to conserve all forms of
energy is best served not simply by EV
adoption generally, but specifically by
accelerating EV adoption in the near
term.
Next, DOE evaluates the maturity of
the EV market and the sufficiency of the
incentives, other than the fuel content
factor, for EV production and sales in
the near term. As DOE stated in the
2023 NOPR, since the 2000 Final Rule,
EV technology has matured and the
market share of EVs is growing. 88 FR
21525, 21528. Advances in
electrification technology have resulted
in improved performance and efficiency
and reduced costs. 88 FR 21525, 21529.
Commenters also noted that technology
development, infrastructure
20 See International Energy Agency, Global EV
Outlook 2022, (May 2022), available at www.iea.org/
reports/global-ev-outlook-2022; Energy and Power
Group, Department of Engineering Science,
University of Oxford, Forecast of electric vehicle
uptake across counties in England: Dataset from Scurve analysis, (Dec. 2021), available at
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S2352340921009379?via%3Dihub; European
Commission, Joint Research Centre, Analysis and
testing of electric car incentive scenarios in the
Netherlands and Norway (2020), available at
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0040162519301210#fig0004.
E:\FR\FM\29MRR1.SGM
29MRR1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 62 / Friday, March 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
deployment, and especially recent
changes to Federal law, such as the IRA
and the IIJA, provide significant
incentives for tremendous investment in
the entire EV ecosystem. These
incentives are driving investments in
further technological development of
EVs and charging infrastructure,
production (especially domestic
production) of EVs, components such as
batteries and chargers, and production
of supply chain components, including
critical minerals. These laws also
provide multiple substantial incentives
for EV purchases and leases, private
purchases, and installation of charging
infrastructure, and the build-out of a
nationwide public charging system.
It is critical to note, however, that the
EV market is still small relative to ICE
vehicles, and while these incentives are
already driving massive industry
investments, it will take some years for
all these investments to fully translate
into production and sales. Further,
although consumer purchase incentives
are currently available, only a relatively
limited number of vehicles qualify for a
portion or all of the available credits.
Over the next six years, these incentives
will increasingly result in greater EV
deployment on the roads, as their
effectiveness phases in over time. For
example, as a result of component
sourcing requirements and developing
supply chains in the EV battery sector,
DOE projected that an increasing share
of electric vehicles will benefit from IRA
tax incentives between 2023 and 2032,
with a fleetwide average credit
increasing from $3,900 per vehicle in
2023 to $6,000 in 2032 (nominal
dollars).21 Similarly, DOE’s IIJA-enabled
investments in enabling infrastructure,
such as EV fast charging and domestic
EV component manufacturing, will
scale over time as projects are
identified, permitted, and constructed.
Considering the timing over which the
bulk of the IIJA and IRA EV incentives
will become fully effective, DOE
concludes that there is still a fuel
conservation benefit from additional EV
incentives in the near term. By 2030,
DOE expects that the EV market will be
sufficiently developed that further
support from the fuel content factor will
be unnecessary.
As noted previously, commenters
disagreed whether the fuel content
factor incentivizes or disincentivizes EV
production. On the basis of the record
before it, DOE concludes that the
21 See Department of Energy, ‘‘Estimating Federal
Tax Incentives for Heavy Duty Electric Vehicle
Infrastructure and for Acquiring Electric Vehicles
Weighing Less Than 14,000 Pounds,’’ March 11,
2024. Available at https://www.regulations.gov/
docket/EERE-2021-VT-0033.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:53 Mar 28, 2024
Jkt 262001
answer is: it depends. In other words,
the effect of the fuel content factor on
manufacturer EV production will vary
according to the maturity of the EV
market and the effectiveness of other
available incentives at the time DOE
applies the fuel content factor and
resulting PEF value. Vehicle
manufacturers indicate that the present
fuel content factor is an important
incentive for current EV production. See
Alliance, Doc. No. 25, pg. 7–8; Porsche,
Doc. No. 24, pg. 2. By significantly
increasing the PEF, the fuel content
factor makes it relatively more costeffective for manufacturers to improve
their fleets’ average fuel economy by
selling more EVs. Where manufacturers
are not yet adequately incentivized to
develop, manufacture, and market EVs,
as is currently the case, an inflated fuel
content factor can increase EV adoption
and the accompanying petroleum
conservation in the near term. In the
context of an emerging market for EVs,
this additional near-term EV production
is disproportionately valuable in
leveraging network effects and further
accelerating EV adoption and petroleum
conservation. Because including the fuel
content factor when calculating the PEF
value can increase EV adoption, in the
near term, which results in greater
petroleum conservation, retaining the
fuel content factor in the near term is
consistent with ‘‘the need of the United
States to conserve all forms of energy.’’
See 49 U.S.C. 32904(a)(2)(B)(iii).
However, as explained in the 2023
NOPR, an ‘‘artificially inflate[d]’’ fuel
content factor may conversely allow
manufacturers to meet CAFE standards
with fewer EVs and little improvement
in their ICE fleets. As also explained in
the 2023 NOPR, the higher the PEF, the
greater the value of each EV for
compliance purposes, and the fewer EVs
(or improvements in ICE fuel economy
savings) are needed. DOE expects this
effect to predominate as the incentives
for producing and selling EVs, such as
those included in IRA and IIJA, ramp up
and as the EV market grows. Once
manufacturers are selling relatively
large numbers of EVs, giving each EV a
higher effective fuel economy for CAFE
compliance purposes is less likely to
incentivize greater EV production and
more likely simply to eliminate the need
for ICE fuel economy improvements,
given the statutory structure of the
CAFE program.
In the 2023 NOPR, DOE explained its
view that ‘‘current EV technology and
market penetration’’ are sufficiently
developed such that further incentives
for EVs through the PEF are
unnecessary. 88 FR 21525, 21534. Based
on DOE’s review of comments and
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
22051
further analysis, DOE concludes that
incentives provided by IRA and IIJA,
coupled with the expansion of
supporting infrastructure, such as
public fast chargers, and increasing
consumer interest in EVs, will
eventually provide adequate incentives,
and the anticipated network effects, to
achieve widespread EV adoption. DOE
thus affirms the analysis in the 2023
NOPR that, at such time, a fuel content
factor will reduce, and eventually
eliminate, the net energy conservation
benefit of incentivizing EV deployment
through the fuel content factor.
Although the 2023 NOPR identified
recent changes, such as IRA and IIJA
incentives, as reasons to remove the fuel
content factor (88 FR 21525, 21534),
because these incentives will not be
fully available when the PEF becomes
effective, DOE concludes that EVs will
remain inadequately incentivized for
purposes of energy conservation over
the next few years.22 Additionally, DOE
expects a continued reduction in battery
prices from innovation and economies
of scale, resulting in lower purchase
price and increased competitiveness of
EVs by 2030. Accordingly, DOE expects
that incentivizing EVs through a fuel
content factor will reduce petroleum use
in the near term. Based on DOE’s
determination that EVs will be
adequately incentivized for purposes of
energy conservation by 2030, DOE has
determined that the fuel content factor
can be, and ought to be, phased out by
2030.
DOE concludes that, for a limited
time, retaining a fuel content factor in
the PEF calculation is likely to
incentivize manufacturers’ production
of EVs in the near term. DOE determines
that phasing out a fuel content factor, as
compared to removing it over a single
model year, will help manufacturers
continue to invest in the EV transition
and serve as a near-term incentive for
vehicle manufacturers to invest in and
sell EVs, thereby contributing to the
reduced consumption of petroleum by
accelerating the widespread adoption of
EVs in the United States during this
pivotal time. Moreover, given the
industry’s concern that revising the PEF
value over the course of a single model
year could actually slow EV adoption in
the near term, due to the potential need
for industry to rapidly shift investment
from EV development back to interim
22 See, e.g., IRA, Section 50142 (provides $3
billion to DOE’s Advanced Technology Vehicle
Manufacturing Loan Program through September
30, 2028, for loans to manufacture clean vehicles
and their components in the United States); IRA,
Section 50143 (provides $2 billion to the U.S.
Treasury through September 30, 2031, to provide
grants for the domestic production of EVs).
E:\FR\FM\29MRR1.SGM
29MRR1
22052
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 62 / Friday, March 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
ICE based vehicle development, a phase
in of the revised value would be more
consistent with the statute and better
spur the technological transition that
will ultimately result in greater energy
conservation. In addition, by phasing in
a new PEF value over several years, the
risk for manufacturers of expediting
their investment in EV technology is
reduced, because they are able to spread
product changes (and associated
research and production dollars) over
more model years. Alleviating this risk
for manufacturers is likely to result in
an increase in EV development and
adoption in the near term. For these
reasons, DOE determines that
immediate and complete removal of the
fuel content factor from the PEF
calculation would not serve the need of
the United States to conserve energy.
In addition, DOE finds that there is an
adequate statutory basis for retaining the
fuel content factor for a limited time
period. As stated in the 2023 NOPR,
DOE concludes that it need not rely
upon 49 U.S.C. 32905 to apply a fuel
content factor to EVs. 88 FR 21525,
21530. That provision applies to the use
of alternative fuels, not to EVs. Section
32904(a)(2)(B), which requires the
Secretary to consider, among other
things, ‘‘the need of the United States to
conserve all forms of energy and the
relative scarcity and value to the United
States of all fuel used to generate
electricity,’’ does, however, provide a
basis to apply a fuel content factor to the
PEF calculation in the circumstances
where applying such a fuel content
factor would in fact conserve energy. As
discussed previously, in this final rule
DOE finds that for the immediate near
term the fuel content factor serves to
incentivize EV production, and hence to
conserve energy, specifically petroleum.
Accordingly, currently the fuel content
factor meets the statutory directive to set
the PEF taking into account the need ‘‘to
conserve all forms of energy and the
relative scarcity and value to the United
States of all fuel used to generate
electricity.’’ 49 U.S.C. 32904(a)(2)(B).
DOE also finds in this rule, however,
that as the EV market matures and the
incentives under the IRA and IIJA
become more powerful, the fuel content
factor will rapidly shift from
incentivizing EV production and energy
conservation to undercutting the
effectiveness of other requirements for
energy conservation. These conclusions
support the current use, and eventual
phase-out, of the fuel content factor.
Therefore, to reflect its declining net
conservation benefit, the PEF
calculation methodology in this final
rule will gradually increase the
denominator of the fuel content factor,
starting with the currently applicable
1.0/0.15 factor in MY 2026 and
increasing the denominator to a value of
1.00 by MY 2030. Given the date of 2030
for full phase out, DOE will reduce the
impact of the fuel content factor by
increasing the denominator of the factor
by 4four equal increments of 0.2125
over MYs 2027 through 2030. The
annual increase in the fuel content
factor denominator value will decrease
the factor’s value until it is phased out
in MY 2030. The fuel content factor for
MYs 2026 to 2030 is represented in
Table 6.
TABLE 6—FUEL CONTENT FACTOR FOR MY 2026 TO 2030
Model year
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
Fuel content factor ...............................................................
1/0.15
1/0.3625
1/0.575
1/0.7875
1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
5. Accessory Factor
The 2000 Final Rule added an
accessory factor to the PEF calculation
to account for petroleum-fueled onboard accessories, such as cabin heaters,
defrosters, or air-conditioning, which
were envisioned as an approach to
avoid low energy-density and/or low
power-density limitations of battery
technology at the time.23 No EVs
currently produced include such
accessories and it is unlikely that future
EVs will include them. Furthermore,
plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs)
petroleum-fueled on-board accessories
are distinct from gasoline consumption,
with a fuel economy weighted according
to the expected percentage of driving
attributed to charge-depleting and
charge-sustaining modes. Therefore, in
the 2023 NOPR, DOE proposed to set
the accessory factor equal to 1.00 in its
calculation. Two commenters supported
setting the accessory factor to 1. NRDC
and Sierra Club, Doc. No. 20, pg. 7;
California et al., Doc. No. 27, pg. 3–4.
23 For example, in the mid-1990s, the
experimental Ford Ecostar vehicle, a two-door,
small van, included a diesel-powered heater while
being powered primarily by a sodium-sulfur battery
with notable power density limitations and a very
high operating temperature.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:53 Mar 28, 2024
Jkt 262001
These commenters agreed with DOE’s
determination that no EVs in production
use petroleum powered accessories. No
commenter opposed setting the
accessory factor equal to 1.00.
Accordingly, as proposed in the 2023
NOPR, DOE sets the accessory factor
equal to 1.00 in its PEF calculation.
6. Driving Pattern Factor
In the 2000 Final Rule, DOE
established a driving pattern factor to
account for the statutory criterion in 49
U.S.C. 32904(a)(2)(B)(iv). The purpose
of the driving pattern factor is to
recognize the fact that electric vehicles
may be used differently than gasoline
vehicles, primarily due to their shorter
range and longer ‘‘refueling’’ times.
Then-existing EPA regulations,
however, did not make driving-patternbased adjustments to the fuel economy
of various classes of gasoline vehicles
when calculating a manufacturer’s
CAFE value, even though gasolinepowered vehicles are also used in many
different ways. 64 FR 37907, 37908.
Therefore, DOE set the driving pattern
factor at 1.00 because it believed that
EVs offer capabilities like those of
conventional gasoline-powered
vehicles. 65 FR 36986, 36987. In the
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
2023 NOPR, DOE did not propose a
change to the driving pattern factor and
proposed keeping the driving pattern
factor at 1.00. 88 FR 21525, 21530. DOE
stated that it continued to believe that
EVs are equivalently capable vehicles
that are likely to be used similarly to
gasoline-powered or hybrid-electric
vehicles. 88 FR 21525, 21530.
DOE received comments that
supported the proposed driving pattern
factor. For example, NRDC, Sierra Club,
the Alliance, and California et al.,
supported a driving pattern factor of 1.0
and agreed that current EVs are full
utility vehicles. NRDC and Sierra Club,
Doc. No. 20, pg. 7; Alliance, Doc. No.
25, pg. 27; California et al., Doc. No. 27,
pg. 6.
By contrast, AFPM opposed the
proposed driving pattern factor and
asserted that the driving patterns and
use of ICE vehicles are different from
that of EVs, primarily due to range
considerations for EVs. AFPM, Doc. No.
26, pg. 16. AFPM asserted that DOE
should analyze specific patterns of use
of EVs compared to ICE vehicles. AFPM,
Doc. No. 26, pg. 16. In its comments,
AFPM claimed that EVs are more likely
to be driven shorter distances for
purposes such as commuting or running
E:\FR\FM\29MRR1.SGM
29MRR1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 62 / Friday, March 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
errands, as compared to ICE vehicles,
which are more associated with longer
trips and towing. AFPM, Doc. No. 26,
pg. 17.
In addition, AFPM cited a study by
iSeeCars.com that examined usedvehicle listings showing that used-EVs
had driven fewer miles than used-ICE
vehicles.24 However, a more recent
study 25 noted that the iSeeCars.com
study methodology is biased toward
examining older vehicles with lower EV
ranges because it explored used-EV
listings from 2016–2022 from the
secondary market, and the more recent
study advocated for updating the
iSeeCars.com study to reflect newer
EVs. A range of annual miles have been
found in previous studies of BEV use
ranging from 6,300 miles per year to
12,522 miles per year.26 Another study
by University of California-Davis
researchers found that long-range BEVs
are driven significantly more than shortrange BEVs and more than ICE
vehicles.27 That same study uncovered
other factors influencing the number of
miles that EVs are driven, such as how
many additional ICE vehicles are
operated within a household. Many
early EV adopters owned several
vehicles, thus reducing the miles
operated by each vehicle. While some
EVs are currently driven less than
comparable conventional vehicles, the
difference between them is clearly
shrinking. Moreover, current and
growing EV ranges support DOE’s
position that EVs are equivalently
capable vehicles likely to be used
similarly to ICE vehicles or hybrid
electric vehicles.
Accordingly, as proposed in the 2023
NOPR, DOE maintains the driving
pattern factor at 1.00 in this final rule.
DOE continues to believe that current
EVs are equivalently capable vehicles
that are likely to be used similarly to
gasoline-powered or hybrid-electric
vehicles. In addition, the deployment of
a national charging network, enabled by
the DOT’s National Electric Vehicle
Infrastructure program along with
additional private investment, will help
ensure EVs can continue to match the
utility and driving demands of ICE
vehicles. DOE maintains that current
EVs are full-utility vehicles, capable of
comparable performance and range to
conventional counterparts.
7. Revised PEF Value
As discussed in the preceding
sections, DOE concluded that the
current PEF value and methodology
22053
were based on outdated data and that
the technology and market penetration
of EVs has significantly changed since
the 2000 Final Rule. In this final rule,
DOE uses the following equation to
calculate the PEF:
PEF = CEg × FCF × AF × DPF
Where CEg, or cumulative Eg, is the
sum of annual gasoline-equivalent
energy content of electricity (Eg) over
the 40-year survivability-weighted
lifetime mileage schedule (in Wh/gal),
FCF is the fuel content factor (unitless
and taking the value indicated in Table
6, above), AF is the accessory factor
(unitless and equal to 1), and DPF is the
driving pattern factor (unitless and
equal to 1). In Sections III.C.3, III.C.4,
III.C.5, and III.C.6, DOE calculated the
values for CEg, FCF, AF, and DPF
respectively. The CEg is 28,996 Wh/gal
and AF and DPF are each 1.0. In
addition, the final rule gradually
reduces the fuel content factor, starting
with the currently applicable 1.0/0.15
factor in MY 2026 and phasing out to a
factor of 1.0/1.00 by MY 2030, see
Section III.C.4 for a full discussion.
Table 7 provides the inputs for MY 2024
to MY 2030 EVs. The final rule adopts
the PEF values for the model years
specified in Table 7.
TABLE 7—REVISED PEF VALUES FOR MY 2024–MY 2030 EVS AND LATER
Model year
CEg
2024–2026 ...........................................................................
2027 .....................................................................................
2028 .....................................................................................
2029 .....................................................................................
2030 and later ......................................................................
a 12,307
FCF
a 12,307
28,996
28,996
28,996
28,996
AF
DPF
b 1.0
1/0.15
1/0.3625
1/0.575
1/0.7875
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
PEF
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
82,049
79,989
50,427
36,820
28,996
Wh/gal is the Eg for MY 2024–2026, not the CEg as the revised PEF methodology does not apply to MY 2024–2026 EVs.
no petroleum-powered accessories for MY 2024–2026 EVs.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
b Assumes
Several commenters, mainly auto
manufacturers and their representatives,
opposed the revised PEF value.28 Some
commenters argued that DOE should
maintain the PEF established in the
2000 Final Rule. Porsche, Doc. No. 24,
pg. 1; NADA, Doc. No 23, pg. 2–3;
UAW, Doc. No. 30, pg. 1. They noted
that the consistent PEF has provided
regulatory certainty to automakers and
that the PEF is an important planning
tool and regulatory incentive in the
context of CAFE compliance strategies
that rely on the existing PEF to improve
efficiency. Porsche, Doc. No. 24, pg.1;
NADA, Doc. No. 23, pg. 2–3. NADA
claimed that unless CAFE standards are
lowered, changing the PEF as proposed
will force automobile manufacturers to
alter CAFE compliance strategy by
reverting to investing more in costly ICE
24 iSeeCars, The Most and Least Driven Electric
Cars. Available at www.iseecars.com/most-drivenevs-study.
25 Zhao et al., ‘‘Quantifying electric vehicle
mileage in the United States’’, Joule, Volume 7,
Issue 11, 15 November 2023, pg. 2537–2551.
Available at doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2023.09.015.
26 Davis, L.W., How much are electric vehicles
driven? Appl. Econ. Lett. 26, 1497–1502 (2019),
available at www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/
13504851.2019.1582847; Tal, G., Raghavan, S.S.,
Karanam, V.C., Favetti, M.P., Sutton, K.M.,
Ogunmayin, J.M., Lee, J.H., Nitta, C., Kurani, K.,
Chakraborty, D. et al., advanced plug-in electric
vehicle travel and charging behavior final report
(2020), available at csiflabs.cs.ucdavis.edu/∼cjnitta/
pubs/2020_03.pdf; Burlig, F., Bushnell, J., Rapson,
D., and Wolfram, C., Low energy: estimating electric
vehicle electricity use. AEA Pap. Proc. 111, 430–
435 (2021), available at www.aeaweb.org/
articles?id=10.1257/pandp.20211088; Rush, L.,
Zhou, Y., and Gohlke, D., Vehicle residual value
analysis by powertrain type and impacts on total
cost of ownership (2022), available at www.osti.gov/
biblio/1876197; Jia, W., and Chen, T.D., Beyond
adoption: examining electric vehicle miles traveled
in households with zero-emission vehicles. Transp.
Res. Rec. 2676, 642–654 (2022), available at
journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/
03611981221082536; Chakraborty, D., Hardman, S.,
and Tal, G., Integrating plug-in electric vehicles
(PEVs) into household fleets-factors influencing
miles traveled by PEV owners in California. Travel
Behaviour and Society 26, 67–83 (2022), available
at doi.org/10.1016/j.tbs.2021.09.004.
27 UC Davis, Advanced Plug-in Electric Vehicle
Travel and Charging Behavior Final Report, April
10, 2020. Available at csiflabs.cs.ucdavis.edu/
∼cjnitta/pubs/2020_03.pdf.
28 DOE notes that these commenters opposed the
revised PEF value proposed in the 2023 NOPR. In
this final rule, the revised PEF value differs from
the PEF value proposed in the 2023 NOPR.
Specifically, the final rule retains the fuel content
factor and phases it out over MY 2027 to MY 2030.
In addition, the final rule uses an updated NREL
projection of the electrical grid. Overall, these
differences result in a greater PEF value for MY
2027 to MY 2030 EVs than proposed in the 2023
NOPR.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:53 Mar 28, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\29MRR1.SGM
29MRR1
22054
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 62 / Friday, March 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
vehicle technology improvements or
incur penalties. NADA, Doc. No 23, pg.
2. Porsche stated that if PEF must
change, then the change should be
phased in to reduce the effect on auto
manufacturers. Porsche, Doc. No. 24, pg.
6.
DOE has a specific task of developing
a PEF value that accounts for EV
efficiency, national electrical generation
and transmission efficiencies,
conservation of all energy types and the
relative scarcity and value of all fuels
used to generate electricity, and EV
driving patterns compared to petroleumfueled vehicles. Although the
Department has not changed the PEF
value for over 23 years, DOE has
statutory authority to review the PEF
value on an annual basis. After
reviewing the current PEF value and
inputs, DOE determined that it was
necessary to revise the PEF value
consistent with the statutory factors
identified in section 32904(a)(2)(B) and
described above in greater detail. The
revised PEF value reflects updated
inputs upon which PEF values are
calculated and advancements in the
technology and market penetration of
EVs since the 2000 Final Rule.
8. Compliance Period
As noted in the 2023 NOPR, DOE
proposed that the new PEF value take
effect with MY 2027 vehicles. 88 FR
21525, 21531. DOE explained that
NHTSA’s next CAFE regulation was
expected to cover MYs 2027–2031 and
that the proposed PEF value would be
the applicable PEF for calculating EV
fuel economy for those model years. 88
FR 21525, 21531. DOE stated that
having a fixed PEF value for the CAFE
standard period improves NHTSA’s
ability to set CAFE standards that are
the maximum feasible average fuel
economy level and provides greater
certainty to stakeholders from year to
year. 88 FR 21525, 21531. DOE
requested comment on this approach.
DOE received comments on this
approach from numerous and diverse
stakeholder groups, including nongovernmental organizations, auto
manufacturers and their representatives,
energy and agricultural interest groups,
and members of the public. Some
commenters, such as NRDC and Sierra
Club, supported the proposed effective
date and agreed that DOE should
conduct its most in-depth reviews of the
PEF to coincide with anticipated CAFE
rulemakings. NRDC and Sierra Club,
Doc. No. 20, pg. 6.
In contrast, most auto manufacturers
and automotive industry representatives
opposed the proposed effective date and
asserted that incorporating PEF-driven
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:53 Mar 28, 2024
Jkt 262001
changes into existing product plans for
MY 2027 vehicles would be challenging.
The Alliance explained that several
years of lead time is necessary to
incorporate technologies into new
vehicles, electric or ICE. Alliance, Doc.
No. 25, pg. 17. In particular, the
Alliance noted that by the time the PEF
rule is finalized, it is likely to be near
the market introduction of MY 2025
vehicles and asserted that ‘‘[e]ngine
design and development cycles are
typically much longer than three years.’’
Alliance, Doc. No. 25, pg. 17.
On September 14, 2023, DOE issued
letters to member companies of the
Alliance that invited recipients to
provide data, documents, or analysis to
clarify the concerns the Alliance
expressed on behalf of its member
companies in its response to comments
on the 2023 NOPR in relation to the
proposed effective date. DOE received
responses from several Alliance member
companies that provided data on how
the proposed PEF value could affect
their ability to comply with proposed
CAFE standards for MYs 2027 to MY
2031. Specifically, Hyundai, Toyota,
Stellantis, Mitsubishi, and the Alliance
indicated that the proposed PEF value
could lead to challenges complying with
the proposed CAFE standards. Alliance,
Doc. No. 25, pg. 6, 10, 11; Hyundai Doc.
No. 38, pg. 1; Toyota, Doc. No. 54, pg.
1; Stellantis, Doc. No. 53, pg. 6–7;
Mitsubishi, Doc. No. 50, pg. 1 Alliance,
Doc. No. 25, pg. 6, 10, 11.
In response to this request for
clarification on the lead-time challenges
expressed by the Alliance on behalf of
its member companies, several
commenters opposed delaying the
implementation date beyond what was
proposed in the 2023 NOPR. These
commenters echoed comments from
AFPM and stated that DOE lacks
authority to postpone the effective date
because DOE is required to review the
PEF annually. See Tesla, Doc. No. 18,
pg. 2; NRDC and Sierra Club, Doc. No.
20, pg. 2; AmFree et al., Doc. No. 31, pg.
3. Additionally, these commenters also
observed that lead time challenges are
not included amongst the statutory
factors DOE must consider when
reviewing the PEF. Tesla, Doc. 18, pg. 2;
AmFree et al., 31, pg. 2.
Although DOE is sensitive to the
concerns of auto manufacturers, 49
U.S.C. 32904 clearly identifies the
factors DOE must consider when
reviewing the PEF. DOE has a specific
task of developing a PEF that accounts
for EV efficiency, national electrical
generation and transmission
efficiencies, conservation of all energy
types and the relative scarcity and value
of fuels used to generate electricity, and
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
EV driving patterns compared to
petroleum-fueled vehicles. See 49
U.S.C. 32904(a)(2)(B). While NHTSA is
required to provide 18 months of lead
time for new CAFE standards per 49
U.S.C. 32902, lead time is not included
in the factors that DOE must consider in
its required annual review of the PEF.
DOE is not required to consider lead
time. However, DOE believes that
applying the revised PEF beginning
with MY 2027 vehicles is reasonable
This will provide automotive
manufacturers with more time to
incorporate a new PEF than is required
under the mandate that DOE review the
PEF each year and determine if
revisions to the PEF are required.
Moreover, as DOE explained in the 2023
NOPR, applying revised PEF values to a
predictable schedule provides greater
certainty to stakeholders from year to
year. Accordingly, as proposed in the
2023 NOPR, the revised PEF value will
apply beginning with MY 2027 EVs.
9. Annual Review
In the 2023 NOPR, DOE stated that
the statutory directive for an annual
review is sufficient to require DOE to
review the PEF. Accordingly, DOE
proposed to delete section 10 CFR
474.5, which currently requires DOE to
review 10 CFR part 474 every five years.
88 FR 21525, 21533. DOE stated that it
would review the PEF value annually
and if DOE determined that the PEF
value needed to be changed, DOE would
initiate a rulemaking to revise the value
PEF appropriately. DOE also noted its
intention to seek stakeholder input for
its annual reviews through available
methods (e.g., requests for information).
88 FR 21525, 21533.
Several commenters opposed the
deletion of 10 CFR 474.5. NRDC and
Sierra Club, Doc. No. 20, pg. 6;
California et al., Doc. No. 27, pg. 7–8.
These commenters acknowledged that
DOE must review the PEF value on an
annual basis and supported DOE’s
intention to seek stakeholder input
during these annual reviews. However,
they stated that § 474.5 requirements for
public participation and publication are
warranted to ensure DOE fulfills its
statutory responsibilities to review the
PEF. NRDC and Sierra Club, Doc. No.
20, pg. 6; California et al., Doc. No. 27,
pg. 7–8. Instead of deleting § 474.5,
NRDC and Sierra Club suggested that
DOE revise § 474.5 to reflect the review
process described in the 2023 NOPR.
NRDC and Sierra Club, Doc. No. 20, pg.
6.
DOE does not believe additional
regulation regarding public review is
necessary for DOE to meet its statutory
responsibilities. The public is
E:\FR\FM\29MRR1.SGM
29MRR1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 62 / Friday, March 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
authorized to petition DOE should DOE
neglect its duties.29 In addition, if DOE
determines that it is necessary to change
the PEF value, this will require
revisions to 10 CFR part 474, which
would require DOE to publish a notice
of proposed rulemaking and request
comments. Thus, any revisions to the
PEF value or changes to the
methodology will be published in the
Federal Register and the public may file
comments, making the language in
§ 474.5 requiring public participation
and publication unnecessary.
Accordingly, in this final rule, DOE
deletes § 474.5 as proposed in the 2023
NOPR.
DOE also received comments that
expressed concern that DOE would only
change the revised PEF value for MYs
2027–2031 if there is a ‘‘compelling
reason’’ to change the PEF calculation.
AFPM, Doc. No. 26, pg. 4 (citing 88 FR
21525, 21533). However, AFPM noted
that the statute does not require a
compelling reason to change the PEF
value. AFPM, Doc. No. 26, pg. 4. DOE
agrees that 49 U.S.C. 32904 does not
require a ‘‘compelling reason’’ to change
the PEF calculation. However, DOE did
not intend to imply such a requirement
exists. Rather, as explained previously,
in this final rule, DOE provides the PEF
values for MYs 2024 EVs and later. The
2023 NOPR expressed DOE’s view that
it was unlikely that over the near term,
annual reviews will identify sufficient
changes in the inputs to warrant
revising the PEF value. Regardless, if
DOE concludes during an annual review
that grid mix projections or any other
changes result in a PEF value that
meaningfully differs from the revised
PEF values set forth in this final rule,
DOE will take steps to revise the PEF
accordingly.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
IV. Responses to Additional Comments
A. Revisions to Section 474.3
One commenter noted that the 2023
NOPR proposed revisions to 10 CFR
474.3 that remove all description of the
PEF value that applies to EVs prior to
MY 2027. Alliance, Doc. No. 25, pg. 27.
It was not DOE’s intention to imply that
there would be no PEF value from the
effective date of the final rule to MY
2027. Accordingly, DOE revises § 474.3
to retain the current regulatory
description relating to the PEF value
that applies to EVs prior to MY 2027.
This clarification requires revisions to
the definition of the ‘‘petroleum29 AFPM stated that its comments to the 2023
NOPR are also a petition for a rulemaking to update
the PEF for 2024/25. DOE will undertake an annual
review process. Therefore, AFPM’s petition is
premature at this time.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:53 Mar 28, 2024
Jkt 262001
equivalency factor’’ in 10 CFR 474.2.
DOE revises the definition of
‘‘petroleum-equivalency factor’’ to
reference the new paragraphs in § 474.3
that provide the revised PEF values
applicable to MY 2027 EVs and later.
B. Consideration of All Forms of Energy
Conservation
Commenters suggested that DOE
needed to consider all forms of energy
conservation. AFPM, Doc. No. 26, pg.
12–16. For example, AFPM asserted that
DOE did not account for resource
depletion associated with transitioning
to renewable electricity (e.g., constraints
on critical minerals for EV batteries and
copper for transmission wiring), energy
used to develop and manufacture EVs
and infrastructure, and barriers to new
renewable energy projects. AFPM
suggested that DOE consider lifecycle
energy demand associated with
production of batteries, minerals,
concrete, transition and storing, and
charging infrastructure.
DOE notes in response that energy use
associated with production of vehicles
and components are incorporated in the
lifecycle analysis methodology within
GREET, which does include energy use
of all associated vehicle materials.
Charging infrastructure does not impact
vehicle fuel economy, with the
exception of grid losses, which are
accounted for. Other factors, such as
commodity pricing and supply, are
beyond the factors DOE is directed to
consider.
In contrast, the Alliance asserted that
DOE’s rulemaking should focus only on
the lifetime petroleum consumption of
passenger vehicles. However, such a
limited focus is not supported by the
statute. Developing ‘‘equivalent
petroleum based fuel economy
values[,]’’ as required in 49 U.S.C.
32904, requires DOE to develop a way
to equate EV fuel economy in miles per
kWh with a miles per gasoline gallon
equivalent. If Congress wanted DOE to
only consider petroleum consumption
of EVs in calculating PEF, it would not
have required DOE to consider the
national average electrical generation
and transmission efficiencies. 49 U.S.C.
32904(a)(2)(B)(ii). In addition, Congress
would not have identified four distinct
factors for DOE to consider when
reviewing the equivalent petroleumbased fuel economy values of EVs. In
particular, the statutory language about
‘‘the need of the United States to
conserve all forms of energy and the
relative scarcity and value to the United
States of all fuel used to generate
electricity’’ would be superfluous. DOE
must consider all of the factors
presented by Congress and it cannot
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
22055
isolate a single factor, such as petroleum
consumption, and use it exclusively
when calculating the PEF value.
However, this final rule does give
special consideration to the capability of
EVs to conserve scarce fuels like
petroleum, including by retaining a fuel
content factor through 2030, as
discussed in Section III.C.4.
C. Need for Multiple PEF Values
AFPM also asserted that one PEF for
all EVs of different types and sizes is
inappropriate, and instead, there should
be PEF values that reflect actual energy
efficiency of various classes of EVs
during real world operation. However,
the PEF is not designed to reflect the
actual energy efficiency of various
classes of EVs. Rather, the PEF value is
a conversion factor between the forms of
energy that are used in a vehicle,
specifically to convert a Watt-hour of
electricity into a gallon of gasoline for
purposes of fuel economy regulation.
The energy efficiency of various classes
of EVs are determined by calculating the
EV’s combined electrical energy
consumption value. An EV’s combined
energy consumption value is not
considered when calculating the PEF
value, but it is part of the equation to
calculate the EV’s petroleum-equivalent
fuel economy. 10 CFR 474.3(a). To
determine an EV’s petroleum-equivalent
fuel economy, one divides the
appropriate PEF value by the EV’s
combined energy consumption value. 10
CFR 474.3(a)(3).
Because the combined electrical
energy consumption value already
accounts for the energy efficiency of
different types and sizes of EVs, DOE
determines that having multiple PEF
values is unnecessary here. DOE agrees,
however, that 49 U.S.C. 32904(a)(2)(B)
would allow DOE to apply various
factors to the CEg when calculating the
PEF value for ‘‘various classes of electric
vehicles,’’ if DOE determined that such
factors were necessary. For example, 49
U.S.C. 32904(a)(2)(B)(iv) requires DOE
to consider ‘‘the specific patterns of use
of electric vehicles compared to
petroleum-fueled vehicles.’’ In this final
rule, DOE determines that current
classes of EVs are equivalently capable
vehicles that are likely to be used
similarly to ICE vehicles. Accordingly,
DOE maintains a driving pattern factor
as 1.0. However, if there were a class of
EVs that are used differently than ICE
vehicles, then DOE could include a
different driving pattern factor to reflect
this different use when calculating the
PEF value for such vehicles. DOE will
monitor the field and consider whether
including different driving pattern
E:\FR\FM\29MRR1.SGM
29MRR1
22056
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 62 / Friday, March 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
factors for different classes of EVs is
appropriate during its annual reviews.
D. Impact of Revised PEF on Plug-In
Hybrid Electric Vehicles
Some stakeholders commented on the
application of the PEF to Plug-in Hybrid
EVs (PHEVs) and argued that PHEVs
were disproportionately advantaged by
the new PEF. Tesla, Doc. No. 18, pg. 4;
ZETA, Doc. No. 21, pg. 2. Specifically,
they asserted that revised PEF value
would decrease the fuel economy of
PHEVs to approximately 60 to 75
percent of their current levels. However,
according to these commenters, the
revised PEF value would decrease the
fuel economy of battery EVs (BEVs) to
approximately 30 percent of their
current levels. These commenters stated
that DOE should address this ‘‘skewed
incentive’’ because the revised PEF
value would favor the inefficient PHEVs
over more efficient BEVs. Tesla, Doc.
No. 18, pg. 4; ZETA, Doc. No. 21, pg. 2.
The PEF value is used to convert the
measured electrical energy consumption
of an EV into a gasoline-equivalent fuel
economy of electricity. For PHEVs,
which consume both electricity and
petroleum, PEF only applies to the
measured electrical energy consumption
and does not apply to the energy
consumption of petroleum.
Accordingly, the impact of a decreased
PEF value on the fuel economy of a
PHEV is less than the impact of a
decreased PEF value on the fuel
economy of a BEV, which consumes
only electricity. In addition, the fuel
economy of a BEV is still significantly
greater than that of a PHEV.
Accordingly, under the revised PEV
value, auto manufacturers are still
incentivized to invest in the more
efficient BEVs.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
E. Compliance With NHTSA and EPA
Standards
Several commenters expressed
concerns that the revised PEF value
would negatively affect auto
manufacturers’ ability to comply with
NHTSA’s CAFE standards and EPA’s
standards related to greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions. Ford and the Alliance
asserted that the proposed PEF value
would cause the NHTSA and EPA
compliance programs to become
misaligned. Alliance, Doc. No. 25, pg.
21; Ford, Doc. No. 22, pg. 2. Several
commenters stated that the revised PEF
would expose auto manufacturers to
additional penalties associated with
noncompliance with the NHTSA and or
EPA compliance programs. Ford, Doc.
No. 22, pg. 2; Alliance Doc. No. 25, pg.
6, 10, 11.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:53 Mar 28, 2024
Jkt 262001
DOE has carefully considered the
impact of the revised PEF value under
the factors in section 32904. The
imposition of any penalties associated
with noncompliance with the CAFE and
GHG programs is not within the
considerations required by section
32904(a)(2)(B) and is therefore outside
the scope of this rulemaking. Because
NHTSA and EPA are responsible for the
CAFE and GHG compliance programs,
those agencies are in the best position
to consider any such concerns from
commenters.
F. Related Rulemakings
Several commenters expressed
concerns with the timing of the DOE’s
rulemaking and noted that EPA and
NHTSA were considering their GHG
and CAFE standards. For example, the
Alliance asserted that DOE should defer
action on the 2023 NOPR to allow
NHTSA and EPA to finalize their
pending rulemakings first.30 Porsche
also objected to the publication of 2023
NOPR prior to the release of the
proposed CAFE rule. Specifically,
Porsche argued that DOE is prejudging
the relevancy of the PEF value to future
CAFE standards that had not been
proposed at the time of the 2023 NOPR.
Porsche, Doc. No. 24, pg. 5.
DOE is obligated to complete the PEF
rulemaking without further delay, given
that an assessment of the PEF value is
several years past due. In the 2023
NOPR, DOE acknowledged that the
inputs upon which the calculations and
PEF values in current 10 CFR part 474
are based are outdated, and the
technology and market penetration of
electric vehicles has significantly
changed since the 2000 Final Rule. 88
FR 21525, 21526. DOE is statutorily
mandated to review the PEF annually
and to revise it as necessary. Such
review is neither contingent upon nor
tied to NHTSA and EPA rulemakings,
and any impact of the PEF value on
other programs is not part of the factors
DOE must consider. Accordingly, DOE
is not deferring this statutorily required
action to update the PEF.
G. Miscellaneous
DOE received a number of comments
that are outside the scope of its
authority or outside the scope of this
rulemaking. For example, Transport
Evolved argued that automakers should
not be permitted to transfer CAFE
credits from year-to-year or with other
automakers. Transport Evolved, Doc.
No. 17, pg. 2. In addition, Transport
30 Alliance, Doc. No. 25, pg. 24. DOE notes that
several auto manufacturers and their
representatives made similar arguments in their
letters responded to the September 14, 2023, letters.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Evolved stated that CAFE calculations
should account for the size of vehicles,
specifically by reducing the benefit for
‘‘larger, heavier, more inefficient
vehicles.’’ Transport Evolved, Doc. No.
17, pg. 2. However, these comments
from Transport Evolved relate to
standards or programs administered by
other federal agencies, NHTSA’s CAFE
program and the greenhouse gas and
fuel economy calculations of EPA and
NHTSA, and are, therefore, outside the
scope of this rulemaking.
Our Children’s Trust stated that the
revised PEF value would authorize a
level of GHG emissions that exceed
levels safe for children. Our Children’s
Trust, Doc. No. 28, pg. 1. The PEF value
does not authorize (or limit) GHG
emissions. In this final rule DOE
addresses the statutorily mandated
factors for consideration in establishing
the PEF value. The comments expressed
concerns outside the scope of the PEF
or the statutory factors.
UAW suggested that DOE incorporate
a more realistic projection of EV
adoption and charging infrastructure in
the considerations, with an eye towards
ensuring domestic manufacturing and
the relevant supply chain. UAW, Doc.
No. 30, pg. 2. In section III.3, DOE
explained its methodology for deriving
the PEF value.
Omer Sevindir asserted that the
change to the PEF will hinder the ability
of individuals who prefer ICE vehicles
to acquire them. Doc. No. 36, pg. 1. The
PEF value does not dictate market
strategy for automakers. Each automaker
selects its own manufacturer-specific
CAFE compliance strategy and
determines the vehicle models it will
offer for sale.
An anonymous commenter suggested
that DOE nationalize the oil and gas
industry. This comment is not relevant
to the scope of this rulemaking.
V. Revisions to 10 CFR Part 474
A. 10 CFR 474.3
In the 2023 NOPR, DOE proposed
revising § 474.3 by revising paragraph
(b) and adding paragraph (c). Proposed
paragraph (b) stated that the PEF value
is 23,160 Watt-hours per gallon. 88 FR
21525, 21539. Proposed paragraph (c)
provided that the PEF value applies to
MY 2027 and later EVs. 88 FR 21525,
21539. As previously discussed, DOE
received comments that stated the
proposed revisions to § 474.3 would
remove all description of the PEF value
that applies to EVs prior to MY 2027.
Alliance, Doc. No. 25, pg. 27. It was not
DOE’s intention to imply that there
would be no PEF value from the
effective date of the final rule to MY
E:\FR\FM\29MRR1.SGM
29MRR1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 62 / Friday, March 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
2027. Accordingly, DOE revises § 474.3
to retain the current regulatory
description relating to the PEF value
that applies to EVs prior to MY 2027.
Specifically, DOE revises paragraph (b)
to clarify that the current PEF value
applies to pre-MY 2027 EVs. DOE also
adds paragraph (c)–(f) to provide PEF
values for MY2027 to MY 2030 and later
vehicles. These revised PEF values
reflect the decreasing fuel content factor
that applies to MY 2027 to MY 2030
EVs.
The revisions to § 474.3 also
necessitate revisions to the definition
for ‘‘petroleum equivalency factor’’ in
§ 474.2 to include references to new
paragraphs (c)–(f).
B. Appendix to Part 474
In the 2023 NOPR, DOE also proposed
revisions to the appendix to part 474.
The proposed revisions to the sample
petroleum-equivalent fuel economy
calculations reflected the proposed
revised PEF. In the final rule, DOE
amends the appendix to part 474 to
reflect the revisions to the PEF
methodology and PEF value adopted in
the final rule. For example, the sample
calculation reflects the revised PEF
value for MY 2029, which includes a
fuel content factor of 1/0.7875. In
addition, the DOE revises the appendix
to clarify that the fuel content factor is
part of the calculation of PEF, not the
calculation of petroleum-equivalent fuel
economy. Instead, to calculate the
petroleum-equivalent fuel economy, one
divides the PEF by the combined
electrical energy consumption value.
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory
Review
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
A. Review Under Executive Orders
12866, 13563 and 14094
Executive Order (‘‘E.O.’’) 12866,
‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review,’’ 58
FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), as
supplemented and reaffirmed by E.O.
13563, ‘‘Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review,’’ 76 FR 3821 (Jan.
21, 2011) and amended by E.O. 14094,
‘‘Modernizing Regulatory Review,’’ 88
FR 21879 (April 11, 2023), requires
agencies, to the extent permitted by law,
to (1) propose or adopt a regulation only
upon a reasoned determination that its
benefits justify its costs (recognizing
that some benefits and costs are difficult
to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to
impose the least burden on society,
consistent with obtaining regulatory
objectives, taking into account, among
other things, and to the extent
practicable, the costs of cumulative
regulations; (3) select, in choosing
among alternative regulatory
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:53 Mar 28, 2024
Jkt 262001
approaches, those approaches that
maximize net benefits (including
potential economic, environmental,
public health and safety, and other
advantages; distributive impacts; and
equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify
performance objectives, rather than
specifying the behavior or manner of
compliance that regulated entities must
adopt; and (5) identify and assess
available alternatives to direct
regulation, including providing
economic incentives to encourage the
desired behavior, such as user fees or
marketable permits, or providing
information upon which choices can be
made by the public. DOE emphasizes as
well that E.O. 13563 requires agencies to
use the best available techniques to
quantify anticipated present and future
benefits and costs as accurately as
possible. In its guidance, the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs
(‘‘OIRA’’) within the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has
emphasized that such techniques may
include identifying changing future
compliance costs that might result from
technological innovation or anticipated
behavioral changes.
For the reasons stated in this
preamble, this regulatory action is
consistent with these principles. As a
preliminary matter, we note that the
PEF is a numeric value determined
through a highly technical analysis,
which bounds DOE’s discretion in
deriving the value. Once calculated, the
PEF has no independent effects, but
serves as an input to calculations that
other agencies perform. Thus, the
general costs and benefits that could be
attributed to these revisions are
somewhat removed from this action,
and DOE has not attempted to quantify
them here. From a qualitative
perspective, however, as discussed in
section III.C, DOE expects the decision
to retain a fuel content factor over the
next several years, when combined with
the revised PEF value and methodology
to result in greater petroleum
conservation by incentivizing EV
production and adoption. On the other
hand, the phaseout of the fuel content
factor and the use of the revised PEF
value may lead some manufacturers to
incur additional costs, because of the
potential effects of the revised PEF
value on the average fuel economy of
their fleets. The fact that the fuel
content factor is phased out over four
years, however, should have the effect
of mitigating any such costs.
Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also
requires agencies to submit ‘‘significant
regulatory actions’’ to the OIRA for
review. OIRA has determined that this
action constitutes a significant
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
22057
regulatory action within the scope of
section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly,
this action was subject to review by
OIRA.
B. Review Under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires the
preparation of an initial regulatory
flexibility analysis (IRFA) for any rule
that by law must be proposed for public
comment, unless the agency certifies
that the rule, if promulgated, will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
As required by E.O. 13272, Proper
Consideration of Small Entities in
Agency Rulemaking, 67 FR 53461 (Aug.
16, 2002), DOE published procedures
and policies on February 19, 2003, to
ensure that the potential impacts of its
rules on small entities are properly
considered during the rulemaking
process. 68 FR 7990. The Department
has made its procedures and policies
available on the Office of General
Counsel’s website: www.energy.gov/gc/
office-general-counsel.
The final rule revises DOE’s
regulations on electric vehicles
regarding procedures for calculating a
value for the petroleum-equivalent fuel
economy of EVs for use in the CAFE
program administered by DOT. Once
calculated, the PEF has no independent
effects, but serves as an input to
calculations that other agencies perform.
Because this final rule does not directly
regulate small entities but instead only
amends a factor used to calculate the
average fuel economy of a
manufacturer’s entire fleet, DOE
certifies that this final rule will not have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities,
and, therefore, no regulatory flexibility
analysis is required.31 Mid-Tex Elec. CoOp, Inc. v. F.E.R.C., 773 F.2d 327 (1985).
Accordingly, DOE certifies that this rule
would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities, and, therefore, no regulatory
flexibility analysis is required. DOE
transmitted a certification and
supporting statement of factual basis to
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration for
review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
C. Review Under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995
The final rule does not impose new
information or record keeping
requirements. Accordingly, OMB
31 DOE notes that passenger vehicle
manufacturers that manufacture fewer than 10,000
vehicles per year can petition NHTSA to have
alternative CAFE standards. See 49 U.S.C. 32902(d).
E:\FR\FM\29MRR1.SGM
29MRR1
22058
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 62 / Friday, March 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
clearance is not required under the
Paperwork Reduction Act. (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.).
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
D. Review Under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
DOE analyzed this regulation in
accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(‘‘NEPA’’) and DOE’s NEPA
implementing regulations (10 CFR part
1021). DOE’s regulations include a
categorical exclusion for amending an
existing rule or regulation that does not
change the environmental effect of the
rule or regulation being amended. 10
CFR part 1021, subpart D, appendix A5.
This rulemaking qualifies for categorical
exclusion A5 because this final rule,
which amends an existing rule or
regulation does not change the
environmental effect of the rule or
regulation being amended, no
extraordinary circumstances exist that
require further environmental analysis,
and it otherwise meets the requirements
for application of a categorical
exclusion. See 10 CFR 1021.410.
Because this rule revises and updates
the PEF value to ensure that it continues
to serve the statutory purpose of
conserving energy and conserving
petroleum, given changes in
circumstances that would diminish the
effectiveness of the prior PEF value over
time, this rule does not change the
environmental effect of the prior rule.
Thus, DOE concludes that this
rulemaking to amend 10 CFR part 474
does not change the environmental
effect of 10 CFR part 474. In addition,
no extraordinary circumstances exist
that would require further
environmental analysis and the final
rule otherwise meets the requirements
for application of categorical exclusion
A5.
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’
64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999), imposes
certain requirements on agencies
formulating and implementing policies
or regulations that preempt State law or
that have federalism implications. The
E.O. requires agencies to examine the
constitutional and statutory authority
supporting any action that would limit
the policymaking discretion of the
States and to carefully assess the
necessity for such actions. The E.O. also
requires agencies to have an accountable
process to ensure meaningful and timely
input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that
have federalism implications. On March
14, 2000, DOE published a statement of
policy describing the intergovernmental
consultation process it will follow in the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:53 Mar 28, 2024
Jkt 262001
development of such regulations. See 65
FR 13735. DOE examined this final rule
and determined that it will not preempt
State law and will not have a substantial
direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of Government. No further action
is required by E.O. 13132.
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
With respect to the review of existing
regulations and the promulgation of
new regulations, section 3(a) of E.O.
12988, ‘‘Civil Justice Reform,’’ 61 FR
4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), imposes on Federal
agencies the general duty to adhere to
the following requirements: (1)
eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity;
(2) write regulations to minimize
litigation; and (3) provide a clear legal
standard for affected conduct, rather
than a general standard and promote
simplification and burden reduction.
Section 3(b) of E.O. 12988 specifically
requires that executive agencies make
every reasonable effort to ensure that the
regulation: (1) clearly specifies its
preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly
specifies any effect on existing Federal
law or regulation; (3) provides a clear
legal standard for affected conduct,
while promoting simplification and
burden reduction; (4) specifies its
retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately
defines key terms; and (6) addresses
other important issues affecting clarity
and general draftsmanship under any
guidelines issued by the Attorney
General. Section 3(c) of E.O. 12988
requires executive agencies to review
regulations in light of applicable
standards in section 3(a) and section
3(b) to determine whether they are met,
or it is unreasonable to meet one or
more of them. DOE has completed the
required review and determined that, to
the extent permitted by law, the final
rule does meet the relevant standards of
E.O. 12988.
G. Review Under the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L.
104–4) requires each Federal agency to
assess the effects of Federal regulatory
actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. For
a proposed regulatory action likely to
result in a rule that may cause the
expenditure by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector of $100 million or more
in any one year (adjusted annually for
inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires
a Federal agency to publish a written
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
statement that estimates the resulting
costs, benefits, and other effects on the
national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a) and
(b)). The section of UMRA also requires
a Federal agency to develop an effective
process to permit timely input by
elected officers of State, local, and tribal
governments on a proposed ‘‘significant
intergovernmental mandate’’ and
requires an agency plan for giving notice
and opportunity for timely input to
potentially affected small governments
before establishing any requirements
that might significantly or uniquely
affect small governments. On March 18,
1997, DOE published a statement of
policy on its process for
intergovernmental consultation under
UMRA (62 FR 12820) (also available at
www.energy.gov/gc/office-generalcounsel). This final rule contains
neither an intergovernmental mandate
nor a mandate that may result in the
expenditure of $100 million or more in
any year by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, so these requirements
under the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act do not apply.
H. Review Under the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act of 1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act of 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires
Federal agencies to issue a Family
Policymaking Assessment for any rule
that may affect family well-being. This
final rule would not have any impact on
the autonomy or integrity of the family
as an institution. Accordingly, DOE
concludes that it is not necessary to
prepare a Family Policymaking
Assessment.
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
DOE has determined, under E.O.
12630, ‘‘Governmental Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally
Protected Property Rights,’’ 53 FR 8859
(Mar. 18, 1988), that this final rule will
not result in any takings which might
require compensation under the Fifth
Amendment to the United States
Constitution.
J. Review Under the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001
Section 515 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note)
provides for agencies to review most
disseminations of information to the
public under guidelines established by
each agency pursuant to general
guidelines issued by OMB. OMB’s
guidelines were published at 67 FR
E:\FR\FM\29MRR1.SGM
29MRR1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 62 / Friday, March 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use,’’ 66 FR 28355 (May
22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to
prepare and submit to OIRA, a
Statement of Energy Effects for any
proposed significant energy action. A
‘‘significant energy action’’ is defined as
any action by an agency that
promulgated or is expected to lead to
promulgation of a final rule, and that:
(1) is a significant regulatory action
under E.O. 12866, or any successor
order; and (2) is likely to have a
significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy, or (3) is
designated by the Administrator of
OIRA as a significant energy action. For
any proposed significant energy action,
the agency must give a detailed
statement of any adverse effects on
energy supply, distribution, or use
should the proposal be implemented,
and of reasonable alternatives to the
action and their expected benefits on
energy supply, distribution, and use.
The final rule amends a factor used to
calculate CAFE compliance and is not
expected to have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. Additionally, OIRA has not
designated this rule as a significant
energy action. Accordingly, the
requirements of E.O. 13211 do not
apply.
Electric power, Energy conservation,
Motor vehicles, Research.
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of
Energy was signed on March 18, 2024,
by Jeffrey Marootian, Principal Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy, pursuant to
delegated authority from the Secretary
of Energy. That document with the
original signature and date is
maintained by DOE. For administrative
purposes only, and in compliance with
requirements of the Office of the Federal
Register, the undersigned DOE Federal
Register Liaison Officer has been
authorized to sign and submit the
document in electronic format for
publication, as an official document of
the Department of Energy. This
administrative process in no way alters
the legal effect of this document upon
publication in the Federal Register.
Signed in Washington, DC, on March 19,
2024.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S.
Department of Energy.
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, DOE amends part 474 of
Chapter II of Title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations as set forth below:
PART 474—ELECTRIC AND HYBRID
VEHICLE RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT,
AND DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM;
PETROLEUM-EQUIVALENT FUEL
ECONOMY CALCULATION
1. The authority citation for part 474
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 32901 et seq.
2. Amend § 474.2 by revising
definition for ‘‘Petroleum-equivalency
factor’’ to read as follows:
■
L. Congressional Notification
As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will
report to Congress on the promulgation
of this rule prior to its effective date.
The report will state that the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs has
determined that this rule meets the
criteria set forth in 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
VII. Approval of the Office of the
Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved
publication of this final rule.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 474
§ 474.2
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
Petroleum equivalency factor means
the values specified in § 474.3,
paragraphs (b) through (f) of this part,
which incorporate the parameters listed
in 49 U.S.C. 32904(a)(2)(B) and are used
to calculate petroleum-equivalent fuel
economy.
*
*
*
*
*
28 996 Wh
'
gal
BEV Fuel Economy=
Wh
244.75 mi
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:53 Mar 28, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4725
3. Amend § 474.3 by revising the
introductory text of paragraph (b) and
adding paragraphs (c), (d), (e), and (f) to
read as follows:
■
§ 474.3 Petroleum-equivalent fuel
economy calculation.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) For model year (MY) 2024, MY
2025, and MY 2026 electric vehicles, the
petroleum-equivalency factors are as
follows:
*
*
*
*
*
(c) For MY 2027 electric vehicles, the
petroleum-equivalency factor is 79,989
Watt-hours per gallon.
(d) For MY 2028 electric vehicles, the
petroleum-equivalency factor is 50,427
Watt-hours per gallon.
(e) For MY 2029 electric vehicles, the
petroleum-equivalency factor is 36,820
Watt-hours per gallon.
(f) For MY 2030 and later electric
vehicles, the petroleum-equivalency
factor is 28,996 Watt-hours per gallon.
§ 474.5
[Removed and Reserved]
4. Remove and reserve § 474.5.
■ 5. Revise appendix A to to 474 to read
as follows:
■
Appendix A to Part 474—Sample
Petroleum-Equivalent Fuel Economy
Calculations
Example 1: Battery Electric Vehicle (BEV)
A battery electric vehicle is tested in
accordance with Environmental Protection
Agency procedures and is found to have an
Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule
energy consumption value of 265 Watt-hours
per mile and a Highway Fuel Economy
Driving Schedule energy consumption value
of 220 Watt-hours per mile. The vehicle is
not equipped with any petroleum-powered
accessories. The combined electrical energy
consumption value is determined by
averaging the Urban Dynamometer Driving
Schedule energy consumption value and the
Highway Fuel Economy Driving Schedule
energy consumption value using weighting
factors of 55 percent urban, and 45 percent
highway:
combined electrical energy consumption
value = (0.55 * urban) + (0.45 * highway)
= (0.55 * 265) + (0.45 * 220) = 244.75
Wh/mile
The petroleum-equivalent fuel economy is:
PEF ÷ combined electrical energy
consumption value
Thus, fuel economy for the example
vehicle in MY 2030 would be:
= 118.47 MPGe
E:\FR\FM\29MRR1.SGM
29MRR1
ER29MR24.055
8452 (February 22, 2002), and DOE’s
guidelines were published at 67 FR
62446 (October 7, 2002). DOE has
reviewed the final rule under the OMB
and DOE guidelines and concludes that
it is consistent with applicable policies
in those guidelines.
22059
22060
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 62 / Friday, March 29, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
Example 2: Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicle
A plug-in hybrid electric vehicle is tested
in accordance with Environmental Protection
Agency procedures and is found to have an
Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule
energy consumption value of 265 Watt-hours
per mile and a Highway Fuel Economy
Driving Schedule energy consumption value
of 220 Watt-hours per mile in charge
depleting mode, a combined gasoline fuel
economy of 50.0 miles per gallon in charge
sustaining mode, and an all-electric range
corresponding to a percentage utilization of
60 percent travel on electricity and 40
percent travel on gasoline.
The combined electrical energy
consumption value is determined by
averaging the Urban Dynamometer Driving
Schedule energy consumption value and the
Highway Fuel Economy Driving Schedule
PHEV Fuel Economy=
[FR Doc. 2024–06101 Filed 3–28–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Office of the Comptroller of the
Currency
12 CFR Parts 24, 25, 35, and 192
[Docket ID OCC–2022–0002]
RIN 1557–AF26
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
12 CFR Parts 207 and 228
[Regulation BB; Docket No. R–1830]
RIN 7100–AG75
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE
CORPORATION
12 CFR Parts 345 and 346
RIN 3064–AG03
Community Reinvestment Act;
Supplemental Rule
Office of the Comptroller of the
Currency, Treasury; Board of Governors
of the Federal Reserve System; and
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
ACTION: Interim final rule; technical
amendments; correction.
AGENCY:
The Office of the Comptroller
of the Currency (OCC), the Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve
System (Board), and the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation (FDIC) (together
referred to as the agencies, and each,
individually, the agency) are issuing
this supplemental rulemaking related to
the agencies’ Community Reinvestment
Act (CRA) final rule issued on October
24, 2023, and published in the Federal
Register on February 1, 2024 (2023 CRA
Final Rule). The rulemaking has two
components. First, the agencies are
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:53 Mar 28, 2024
Jkt 262001
1
0 _60
118.47 MPGe
Frm 00020
Fmt 4700
= 76.5 MPGe
0.40
+ 50.00 MPG
adopting an interim final rule that
amends, and requests comment on, the
applicability date of the facility-based
assessment areas provision and public
file provision included in the 2023 CRA
Final Rule. Second, the agencies are
adopting a final rule that makes
technical amendments to the 2023 CRA
Final Rule and related regulations. In
addition to the rulemaking, this
document makes a correction to the
preamble to the 2023 CRA Final Rule
regarding the OCC’s Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
regulatory analysis.
DATES:
Effective date: This rule (including
interim final rule and technical
amendments) is effective on April 1,
2024.
Comment due date: Comments on the
interim final rule (regarding the
applicability date for §§ 25.16, 25.43,
228.16, 228.43, 345.16, and 345.43)
must be received by May 13, 2024.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be
directed to:
OCC: Commenters are encouraged to
submit comments through the Federal
eRulemaking Portal. Please use the title
‘‘Community Reinvestment Act;
Supplemental Rule’’ to facilitate the
organization and distribution of the
comments. You may submit comments
by any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal—
Regulations.gov: Go to https://
regulations.gov/. Enter ‘‘Docket ID OCC–
2022–0002’’ in the search box and click
‘‘Search.’’ Public comments can be
submitted via the ‘‘Comment’’ box
below the displayed document
information or by clicking on the
document title and then clicking the
‘‘Comment’’ box on the top-left side of
the screen. For help with submitting
effective comments, please click on
‘‘Commenter’s Checklist.’’ For
assistance with the Regulations.gov site,
please call (866) 498–2945 (toll free)
Monday–Friday, between 8 a.m. and 7
PO 00000
energy consumption value using weighting
factors of 55 percent urban, and 45 percent
highway to be 244.75 Wh/mile, which
corresponds to 118.47 miles/gal equivalent as
shown above for a BEV (using the MY 2030and-beyond PEF value of 28,997 Wh/gal).
The PHEV fuel economy is calculated by
dividing one by the sum of the percentage
utilization for petroleum and electricity
divided by their respective fuel economy.
In this case:
Sfmt 4700
p.m. ET during Federal business
weekdays, or email
regulationshelpdesk@gsa.gov.
• Mail: Chief Counsel’s Office,
Attention: Comment Processing, Office
of the Comptroller of the Currency, 400
7th Street SW, Suite 3E–218,
Washington, DC 20219.
• Hand Delivery/Courier: 400 7th
Street SW, Suite 3E–218, Washington,
DC 20219.
Instructions: You must include
‘‘OCC’’ as the agency name and ‘‘Docket
ID OCC–2022–0002’’ in your comment.
In general, the OCC will enter all
comments received into the docket and
publish the comments on the
Regulations.gov website without
change, including any business or
personal information provided such as
name and address information, email
addresses, or phone numbers.
Comments received, including
attachments and other supporting
materials, are part of the public record
and subject to public disclosure. Do not
include any information in your
comment or supporting materials that
you consider confidential or
inappropriate for public disclosure.
You may review comments and other
related materials that pertain to this
action by the following method:
• Viewing Comments Electronically—
Regulations.gov: Go to https://
regulations.gov/. Enter ‘‘Docket ID OCC–
2022–0002’’ in the search box and click
‘‘Search.’’ Click on the ‘‘Documents’’ tab
and then the document’s title. After
clicking the document’s title, click the
‘‘Browse Comments’’ tab. Comments can
be viewed and filtered by clicking on
the ‘‘Sort By’’ drop-down on the right
side of the screen or the ‘‘Refine
Results’’ option on the left side of the
screen. Supporting materials can be
viewed by clicking on the ‘‘Documents’’
tab and filtered by clicking on the ‘‘Sort
By’’ drop-down on the right side of the
screen or the ‘‘Refine Documents
Results’’ option on the left side of the
E:\FR\FM\29MRR1.SGM
29MRR1
ER29MR24.056
where MPGe is miles per gallon equivalent.
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 62 (Friday, March 29, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 22041-22060]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-06101]
========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 62 / Friday, March 29, 2024 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 22041]]
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 474
[EERE-2021-VT-0033]
RIN 1904-AF47
Petroleum-Equivalent Fuel Economy Calculation
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) publishes a final rule
that revises the value for the petroleum-equivalency factor (PEF). This
final rule revises DOE's regulations regarding procedures for
calculating a value for the petroleum-equivalent fuel economy of
electric vehicles (EVs). The PEF is used by the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) in calculating light-duty vehicle
manufacturers' compliance with the Department of Transportation's (DOT)
Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards.
DATES: This rule is effective June 12, 2024.
ADDRESSES: The docket for this rulemaking, which includes Federal
Register notices, public meeting attendee lists and transcripts,
comments, and other supporting documents/materials, is available for
review at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2021-VT-0033. All documents
in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. However, not
all documents listed in the index may be publicly available, such as
information that is exempt from public disclosure.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Kevin Stork, U.S. Department of Energy, Vehicle Technologies
Office, EE-3V, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585.
Telephone: (202) 586-8306. Email: [email protected].
Ms. Laura Zuber, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General
Counsel, Forrestal Building, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW,
Washington, DC 20585. Telephone: (240) 306-7651. Email:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction and Background
II. Public Comments on the 2023 NOPR
III. Discussion of Final Rule
A. Statutory Factors
B. Current Methodology
C. Revised Methodology
1. Approximate Electrical Energy Efficiency of EVs
2. Gasoline-Equivalent Fuel Economy of Electricity
a. Average Electricity Generation and Transmission Efficiency
b. Petroleum Refining and Distribution Efficiency
c. Annual Gasoline-Equivalent Fuel Economy of Electricity
3. Cumulative Gasoline-Equivalent Fuel Economy of Electricity
4. Fuel Content Factor
5. Accessory Factor
6. Driving Pattern Factor
7. Revised PEF Value
8. Compliance Period
9. Annual Review
IV. Responses to Additional Comments
A. Revisions to Section 474.3
B. Consideration of All Forms of Energy Conservation
C. Need for Multiple PEF Values
D. Impact of Revised PEF on Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles
E. Compliance With NHTSA and EPA Standards
F. Related Rulemakings
G. Miscellaneous
V. Revisions to 10 CFR P art 474
A. 10 CFR 474.3
B. Appendix to Part 474
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866, 13563 and 14094
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act of 1999
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 2001
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
L. Congressional Notification
VII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Introduction and Background
In an effort to conserve energy through improvements in the energy
efficiency of motor vehicles, in 1975, Congress passed the Energy
Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), Public Law 94-163. Title III of
EPCA amended the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15
U.S.C. 1901 et seq.) (the Motor Vehicle Act) by mandating fuel economy
standards for automobiles produced in, or imported into, the United
States. This legislation, as amended, requires every manufacturer to
meet applicable specified corporate average fuel economy (CAFE)
standards for their fleets of light-duty vehicles under 8,500 pounds
that the manufacturer manufactures in any model year.\1\ The Secretary
of Transportation (through the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA)) is responsible for prescribing the CAFE
standards and enforcing the penalties for failure to meet these
standards. 49 U.S.C. 32902. The Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for calculating each
manufacturer's fleet CAFE value. 49 U.S.C. 32902 and 32904.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The relevant provisions of the CAFE program, including DOE's
establishment of equivalent petroleum-based fuel economy values were
transferred to Title 49 of the U.S. Code by Public Law 103-272 (July
5, 1984). See 49 U.S.C. 32901 et seq. The authority for DOE's
establishment of equivalent petroleum-based fuel economy values was
transferred to 49 U.S.C. 32904(a)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 7, 1980, President Carter signed the Chrysler
Corporation Loan Guarantee Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-185). Section 18 of
the Chrysler Corporation Loan Guarantee Act of 1979 added a new
paragraph (2) to section 13(c) of the Electric and Hybrid Vehicle
Research, Development, and Demonstration Act of 1976 (Pub. L. 94-413).
Part of the new section 13(c) added paragraph (a)(3) to section 503 of
the Motor Vehicle Act. That subsection provides:
If a manufacturer manufactures an electric vehicle, the
Administrator [of EPA] shall include in the calculation of average fuel
economy under paragraph (1) of this subsection equivalent petroleum
based fuel economy values determined by the Secretary of Energy for
various classes of electric vehicles. The Secretary shall review those
values each year and determine and propose necessary revisions based on
the following factors:
[[Page 22042]]
(i) The approximate electrical energy efficiency of the vehicle,
considering the kind of vehicle and the mission and weight of the
vehicle.
(ii) The national average electrical generation and transmission
efficiencies.
(iii) The need of the United States to conserve all forms of
energy and the relative scarcity and value to the United States of
all fuel used to generate electricity.
(iv) The specific patterns of use of electric vehicles compared
to petroleum-fueled vehicles.
49 U.S.C. 32904(a)(2)(B).
Section 18 of the Chrysler Corporation Loan Guarantee Act of 1979
further amended the Electric and Hybrid Vehicle Research, Development,
and Demonstration Act of 1976 by adding a new paragraph (3) to section
13(c), which directed the Secretary of Energy, in consultation with the
Secretary of Transportation and the Administrator of EPA, to conduct a
seven-year evaluation program of the inclusion of electric vehicles \2\
in the calculation of average fuel economy. As required by section
503(a)(3) of the Motor Vehicle Act, DOE proposed a method of
calculating the petroleum-equivalent fuel economy of electric vehicles
utilizing a PEF in a new 10 CFR part 474 on May 21, 1980. 45 FR 34008.
The rule was finalized on April 21, 1981, and became effective May 21,
1981. 46 FR 22747. The seven-year evaluation program was completed in
1987, and the calculation of the annual petroleum equivalency factors
was not extended past 1987.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ For purposes of paragraph (a)(2) of 49 U.S.C. 32904, EPCA
defines an ``electric vehicle'' as ``a vehicle powered primarily by
an electric motor drawing electrical current from a portable
source.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE published a proposed rule for a permanent PEF for use in
calculating petroleum-equivalent fuel economy values of electric
vehicles on February 4, 1994, and obtained comments from interested
parties. 59 FR 5336. Following consideration of comments, DOE's own
internal re-examination of the assumptions underlying the proposed
rule, and existing regulations for other classes of alternative fuel
vehicles, DOE decided to modify the PEF calculation approach proposed
in 1994. The 1994 proposed rule was later withdrawn, and DOE proposed a
modified approach in a July 14, 1999, notice of proposed rulemaking. 64
FR 37905 (1999 NOPR). DOE published a final rule with a PEF of 82,049
Watt-hours per gallon on June 12, 2000, that amended 10 CFR part 474.
65 FR 36985 (2000 Final Rule). DOE has not updated 10 CFR part 474
since the 2000 Final Rule.
On October 22, 2021, DOE received a petition for rulemaking from
the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Sierra Club requesting
DOE to update its regulations at 10 CFR part 474. DOE published a
notice of receipt of the petition on December 29, 2021, and solicited
comment on the petition and whether DOE should proceed with a
rulemaking. 86 FR 73992.
In April 2023, DOE agreed that the inputs upon which the
calculations and PEF values are based were outdated and that the
technology and market penetration of EVs has significantly changed
since the 2000 Final Rule and granted the petition from NRDC and Sierra
Club. When granting the petition, DOE also published a notice of
proposed rulemaking. 88 FR 21525 (2023 NOPR).
In the 2023 NOPR, DOE proposed to update the PEF value and revise
the methodology used to calculate the PEF. Specifically, the 2023 NOPR
proposed the following revisions to the methodology:
Change the accessory factor, used to account for
petroleum-fueled on-board accessories, to 1.
Revise the generation and transmission efficiency factor
by using updated grid mix projection that account for policy changes
since June 2000 and more recent data.
Remove the fuel content factor.
In accordance with these proposed revisions, DOE proposed a revised
PEF value of 23,160 Watt-hours per gallon. 88 FR 21525, 21532. In
addition, DOE proposed that the revised PEF value would apply to model
year (MY) 2027 and later electric vehicles. 88 FR 21525, 21531. DOE
also proposed to delete 10 CFR 474.5, which requires DOE to review the
PEF value every five years. 88 FR 21525, 21533.
The public comment period for the 2023 NOPR closed on June 12,
2023. DOE received 20 comments on the proposed rule.\3\ Several
commenters, including the Alliance for Automotive Innovation
(Alliance), expressed concern that auto manufacturers would not have
sufficient lead time to incorporate changes into their plans for MY
2027 vehicles, given that the new PEF value would significantly impact
their CAFE compliance and given that manufacturing changes require
significant lead times. On September 14, 2023, DOE issued letters to
member companies of the Alliance that invited recipients to provide
data, documents, or analysis to clarify the Alliance's concerns in
relation to the proposed effective date. DOE also published a
Notification of Ex Parte Communication and Request for Comments in the
Federal Register, which stated that DOE sent the September 14, 2023,
letters and asked interested stakeholders to provide similar data,
documents, or analysis. 88 FR 67682 (Oct. 2, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ DOE received comments from an individual on October 1, 2023,
after the comment period closed. Doc. No. 36. Despite the fact that
these comments were filed late, DOE considered the issues raised in
these comments when reviewing the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE received data in response to the letters and the notification
and incorporated the data into its analysis. The letters and responses
to the letters and the notification are available in the docket.
DOE is finalizing revisions to 10 CFR part 474 and the methods to
calculate the PEF value in accordance with the statutory factors in 49
U.S.C. 32904(a)(2)(B). After considering comments, DOE is modifying the
methodology as initially proposed in the 2023 NOPR in the following
ways:
Updating the grid mix projection from the 2021 National
Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) ``95 by 2050'' Scenario to the more
current electricity generation forecast in the 2022 NREL ``Standard
Scenario Mid-Case,'' which accounts for the latest technology and
policies.
Changing the method of calculating the PEF value from
using an average of annual PEF values between MY 2027 to MY 2031 to
calculating a PEF value based on the survivability-weighted lifetime
mileage schedule of the fleet of vehicles sold during the regulatory
period.
Phasing-out the use of the fuel content factor between MY
2027 and MY 2030 rather than removing it from the PEF equation as of
the effective date of the rule, as proposed in the 2023 NOPR.
Each of these changes are discussed in detail in the following
sections.
II. Public Comments on the 2023 NOPR
DOE received comments in response to the 2023 NOPR from the
individuals and interested parties listed in Table 1. These comments
are available in the public docket for this rulemaking. The specific
issues relating to the final rule raised by the commenters are
addressed in section III of this document. A parenthetical reference at
the end of a comment quotation or paraphrase provides the location of
the item in the public record.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The parenthetical reference provides a reference for
information located in the docket for this rulemaking. (Docket No.
EERE-2021-VT-0033, which is maintained at www.regulations.gov). The
references are arranged as follows: commenter name, comment docket
ID number, page of that document.
[[Page 22043]]
Table 1--2023 NOPR Written Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commenter(s) Abbreviation Document No.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gilles DeBrouwer.............................. ................................................ 14
Vivat......................................... ................................................ 15
Anonymous 1................................... ................................................ 16
Transport Evolved............................. ................................................ 17
Tesla, Inc.................................... Tesla........................................... 18
International Council on Clean Transportation. ICCT............................................ 19
Natural Resources Defense Council and Sierra NRDC and Sierra Club............................ 20
Club.
Zero Emission Transportation Association...... ZETA............................................ 21
Ford Motor Company............................ Ford............................................ 22
National Automobile Dealers Association....... NADA............................................ 23
Porsche Cars.................................. Porsche......................................... 24
Alliance for Automotive Innovators............ Alliance........................................ 25
American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers... AFPM............................................ 26
State of California et al..................... California et al................................ 27
Our Children's Trust.......................... ................................................ 28
American Council for an Energy Efficient ACEEE........................................... 29
Economy.
International Union, United Automobile, UAW............................................. 30
Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of
America.
American Free Enterprise Chamber of Commerce AmFree et al.................................... 31
et al.
Clean Fuels Development Coalition et al....... Clean Fuels et al............................... 32
Omer Sevindir................................. ................................................ 36
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Discussion of Final Rule
A. Statutory Factors
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 32904, DOE reviewed the equivalent
petroleum-based fuel economy values for EVs, including both the current
PEF value and the methodology used to calculate that value, which are
found in 10 CFR part 474. When reviewing the equivalent petroleum-based
fuel economy values for EVs, DOE must consider four factors:
(i) The approximate electrical energy efficiency of the vehicle,
considering the kind of vehicle and the mission and weight of the
vehicle.
(ii) The national average electrical generation and transmission
efficiencies.
(iii) The need of the United States to conserve all forms of energy
and the relative scarcity and value to the United States of all fuel
used to generate electricity.
(iv) The specific patterns of use of electric vehicles compared to
petroleum-fueled vehicles.
49 U.S.C. 32904(a)(2)(B).
Based on more recent data, changes to market conditions, and
comments received in response to the 2023 NOPR, DOE is revising the
methodology used to calculate PEF and the resulting PEF value in this
final rule. DOE discusses its consideration of the statutory factors
and its conclusions in the following sections.
B. Current Methodology
10 CFR 474.3 provides the current methodology for determining the
equivalent petroleum-based fuel economy values for EVs. First, DOE
determines the EVs' urban and highway energy consumption value in Watt-
hours (Wh) per mile. To do this, DOE uses the energy consumption values
provided by the Highway Fuel Economy Driving Schedule (HFEDS) and Urban
Dynamometer Driving Schedule (UDDS) test cycles established by EPA at
40 CFR parts 86 and 600. 10 CFR 474.3(a)(1). DOE then determines the
combined energy consumption value by averaging the urban and highway
energy consumption values using a weighting of 55 percent urban and 45
percent highway. 10 CFR 474.3(a)(2). Finally, DOE converts this
combined energy consumption value (expressed in Wh per mile) to a
petroleum-equivalent fuel economy value, which is measured in miles per
gallon (mpg), by dividing the PEF (measured in Wh per gallon) by the
combined energy consumption value.
The current PEF calculation procedure converts the measured
electrical energy consumption of an electric vehicle into a gasoline-
equivalent fuel economy of electricity (Eg). 65 FR 36986,
36987. Then, the methodology multiplies the Eg by the fuel
content factor (FCF), which is intended to represent the energy content
equivalent the alternative fuel to a gallon of gasoline; the accessory
factor (AF), which represents possible use of petroleum-powered
accessories, such as cabin heater/defroster systems; and the driving
pattern factor (DPF), which represents the potential for different uses
of EVs compared to internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles. Id. The
general form of the PEF equation is:
PEF = Eg x FCF x AF x DPF
In the 2000 Final Rule, DOE used this equation to calculate the PEF
value and determined that the PEF for EVs that do not have any
petroleum-powered accessories is 82,049 Watt-hours per gallon (Wh/gal).
See 10 CFR 474.3(b)(1). For EVs that have petroleum-powered
accessories, DOE determined that the PEF is 73,844 Wh/gal. See 10 CFR
474.3(b)(2).
C. Revised Methodology
As stated previously, DOE concluded that the current PEF value and
methodology were based on outdated data and that the technology and
market penetration of EVs has significantly changed since the 2000
Final Rule. Accordingly, in the 2023 NOPR, DOE proposed a revised PEF
value and revisions to the methodology used to calculate the PEF.
Specifically, the 2023 NOPR proposed changing the accessory factor to
1.0, revising the generation and transmission efficiency factor by
using updated electrical grid mix projections, and removing the fuel
content factor. The 2023 NOPR also proposed maintaining the driving
pattern factor at 1.0.
1. Approximate Electrical Energy Efficiency of EVs
DOE considers the approximate electrical energy efficiency of EVs
in determining the PEF value pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 32904(a)(2)(B)(i).
As discussed, the current methodology converts the energy consumption
of an EV from Wh of electricity to gallons of gasoline based upon
energy consumption values provided by Highway Fuel Economy Driving
Schedule (HFEDS) and Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule (UDDS) test
cycles established by EPA at 40 CFR parts 86 and 600. See 10 CFR 474.3
and
[[Page 22044]]
474.4. In the 2023 NOPR, DOE proposed to retain this methodology
because it provided an ``accurate measure of the electrical energy
efficiency of the relevant EV during typical use and is appropriately
utilized in the PEF equation.'' 88 FR 21525, 21527.
One commenter supported maintaining the current energy efficiency
regime. Tesla, Doc. No. 18, pg. 2. In addition, although NRDC and
Sierra Club did not oppose the current methodology expressly, they
urged DOE to ``clarify whether it will use unadjusted dynamometer
testing results or adjusted values'' when measuring energy consumption
of an EV. NRDC and Sierra Club, Doc. No. 20, pg. 5. NRDC and Sierra
Club observed that dynamometer testing overstates real-world
performance for vehicles by as much as 30 percent. NRDC and Sierra
Club, Doc. No. 20, pg. 5 (citing 87 FR 25710, 25720 (May 2, 2022)).
Thus, they recommended that DOE consider using adjusted dynamometer
values to better approximate the actual electrical efficiency of EVs
for use in determining the equivalent petroleum-based fuel economy
values for EVs. NRDC and Sierra Club, Doc. No. 20, pg. 5.
Other commenters opposed retaining the current methodology and
argued that both HFEDS and UDDS test cycles are unrepresentative of
typical use cases of EVs. AFPM, Doc. No. 26, pg. 5; Clean Fuels et al.,
Doc. No. 32, pg. 3; AmFree, Doc. No. 31, pg. 4. Specifically, these
commenters claimed that HFEDS fails to capture the most typical use
case of EVs, such as commuting to and from work. AFPM, Doc. No. 26, pg.
5; Clean Fuels et al., Doc. No. 32, pg. 3-4. In addition, they asserted
that UDDS fails to capture variations in climate or extended periods of
idling. AFPM, Doc. No. 26, pg. 6; Clean Fuels et al., Doc. No. 32, pg.
4. As a result of these and other failures, these commenters argued
that these test cycles overestimate the performance of EVs. AFPM, Doc.
No. 26, pg. 6; Clean Fuels et al., Doc. No. 32, pg. 4-5. These
commenters stated that ``DOE must revisit its chosen procedure and
apply more robust and accurate test methods,'' and that DOE's decision
to retain the current methodology is arbitrary and capricious. Clean
Fuels et al., Doc. No. 32, pg. 5; AFPM, Doc. No. 26, pg. 6. The
commenters noted there are other more representative tests currently
available, like EPA's 5-cycle formula, to calculate the fuel economy of
vehicles. AFPM, Doc. No. 26, pg. 6; Clean Fuels et al., Doc. No. 32,
pg. 5; AmFree, Doc. No. 31, pg. 4.
Both of these comments regarding adjusting the dynamometer readings
or using different test cycles were addressed in DOE's methodology for
calculating the energy consumption of an EV in terms of miles per
gallon. DOE notes that DOE's methodology is aligned with EPA's
methodology for calculating the compliance fuel economy values for ICE
vehicles in the CAFE program. The adjustment and the test cycles
recommended by commenters, however, are not used to calculate fuel
economy for purposes of CAFE compliance. Rather, the recommended
adjustment and test cycles are used to calculate fuel economy for the
EPA/DOT Fuel Economy and Environment Label (window sticker).\5\ DOE
notes that 49 U.S.C. 32904(c) requires EPA to use the ``same procedures
for passenger automobiles the Administrator used for model year 1975''
to measure the fuel economy of passenger vehicles for CAFE purposes.
Pursuant to this directive, EPA uses the HFEDS and UDDS test cycles to
calculate fuel economy for ICE vehicles and does not adjust the
dynamometer results. A consistent methodology applied to all auto
manufacturers for calculating the fuel economy of ICE vehicles helps to
ensure a level playing field. Because the purpose of the PEF is to
provide a fuel economy conversion factor for EVs (so that they may be
averaged with ICE vehicles for determining CAFE performance) it is
reasonable and appropriate to keep all else as equal as possible.
Because CAFE compliance for ICE vehicles is determined using the HFEDS
and UDDS test cycles, determining EV energy consumption values using
those two same test cycles is consistent and reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Similarly, other commenters, such as Hyundai, suggested that
DOE harmonize the PEF with EPA's use of 33,705 Wh/gal used by EPA in
its fuel economy labeling. Hyundai, Doc. No. 39, pg. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this final rule, as proposed in the 2023 NOPR, DOE retains its
current methodology to convert energy consumption of an EV into gallons
of gasoline based upon energy consumption values provided by the HFEDS
and UDDS test cycles established by EPA at 40 CFR parts 86 and 600. See
10 CFR 474.3 and 474.4. DOE determines that using unadjusted
dynamometer results from the HFEDs and UDDS to calculate energy
consumption for EVs provides a calculation of fuel economy for EVs most
comparable to the existing gasoline fuel economy that EPA calculates.
Because the PEF value provides a fuel economy conversion factor for EVs
(so that they may be averaged with ICE vehicles for determining CAFE
performance), it is reasonable and appropriate to adopt a consistent
methodology that helps ensure a level playing field.
2. Gasoline-Equivalent Fuel Economy of Electricity
When comparing ICE vehicles with EVs, it is essential to consider
the efficiency of the respective upstream processes in the two relevant
energy cycles.\6\ The critical difference between the processes is that
an ICE vehicle burns its fuel on-board, and an EV burns its fuel (the
majority of electricity in the U.S. is generated at fossil fuel burning
powerplants) off-board. In both cases, the burning of fuels to produce
work is the least efficient step of the respective energy cycles.
Therefore, the 2000 Final Rule included a term, gasoline-equivalent
energy content of electricity (Eg), to express the relative
energy efficiency of the full energy cycles of gasoline and
electricity. 65 FR 36986, 36987.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ In this context ``upstream'' means everything prior to
storage of energy on the vehicle, also commonly referred to as well-
to-tank.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the current rule, the gasoline-equivalent energy content of
electricity, is calculated by multiplying the U.S. average electricity
generation efficiency (Tg), the U.S. average electricity
transmission efficiency (Tt), and the Watt-hours of energy
per gallon of gasoline conversion factor (C) \7\, and then dividing
that value by the petroleum refining and distribution efficiency
(Tp). 65 FR 36986, 36987. The equation calculating the
gasoline-equivalent energy content of electricity factor is written as
follows.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The Watt-hours of energy per gallon of gasoline conversion
factor is a standard value, 33705 Wh/gal.
\8\ The equation is revised from the form in the 2000 Final Rule
to correct a printing error in the 2000 Final Rule. The calculation
of Eg is correct in the 2000 Final Rule despite the
printing error.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR29MR24.053
In the 2000 Final Rule, DOE calculated a gasoline-equivalent energy
content of electricity factor of 12,307 Wh/gal by using the following
inputs:
[[Page 22045]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR29MR24.054
65 FR 36986, 36987.
The gasoline-equivalent energy content of electricity factor
involves the consideration of the national average electrical
generation and transmission efficiencies and the need to conserve all
forms of energy and the relative scarcity and value to the United
States of all fuel used to generate electricity. 49 U.S.C.
32904(a)(2)(B)(ii) and (iii). In the analysis that follows, DOE updates
the electricity generation and transmission efficiency factor and the
petroleum refining and distribution efficiency factor used to calculate
the gasoline-equivalent fuel economy of electricity.
a. Average Electricity Generation and Transmission Efficiency
The calculation for electricity efficiency considers production of
the energy source, generation of electricity from that source, and
transmission of the electricity to the EV charging location. The
efficiency of the production of the energy source and the generation of
electricity from that source vary widely.
In the 2023 NOPR, DOE updated its calculations of the average
generation and transmission efficiency for all fuels based on the
latest data available. In the 2023 NOPR, DOE used the efficiency data
from Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy use in
Transportation (GREET).\9\ To calculate the well-to-tank efficiency for
electricity from specific energy sources, DOE multiplied the production
efficiency,\10\ generation efficiency,\11\ and transmission efficiency
\12\ for each source. The efficiencies of electricity generated from
specific sources used in this analysis are provided in Table 2. DOE
used the same efficiencies of electricity generated from specific
sources in this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The GREET model is a life-cycle analysis tool, structured to
systematically examine the energy and environmental effects of a
wide variety of transportation fuels and vehicle technologies in
major transportation sectors (i.e., road, air, marine, and rail) and
other end-use sectors, and energy systems. Development of the GREET
model by Argonne National Laboratory has been supported by multiple
offices of DOE, DOT, and other agencies over the past 28 years. The
GREET model is available at greet.anl.gov/, doi:10.11578/GREET-Net-
2021/dc.20210903.1.
\10\ ``Production efficiency'' includes efficiencies related to
producing the raw material and transport to the electricity
generation facility.
\11\ ``Generation efficiency'' relates to the conversion of the
limited resources into electricity, e.g., by combustion, heating a
boiler, and turning a turbine.
\12\ Under GREET, electricity transmission has a national
average efficiency of 95.14 percent.
Table 2--Electricity Generation and Transmission Efficiency by Source
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Production Generation Transmission Calculated
Energy source efficiency (%) efficiency (%) efficiency (%) efficiency (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Natural gas..................................... 91.81 47.34 95.14 41.35
Coal............................................ 97.90 34.55 95.14 32.18
Oil............................................. 88.41 31.92 95.14 26.85
Biomass......................................... 97.54 21.65 95.14 20.09
Nuclear......................................... 97.40 100 95.14 92.67
Solar........................................... 100 100 95.14 95.14
Wind............................................ 100 100 95.14 95.14
Hydroelectric................................... 100 100 95.14 95.14
Geothermal...................................... 100 100 95.14 95.14
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i. Efficiency of Renewable and Nuclear Electricity Generation
In the 2023 NOPR, due to the abundance of renewable energy sources
such as wind and solar, DOE proposed treating renewable energy sources
as effectively 100 percent efficient in their generation. 88 FR 21525,
21530. DOE also treated nuclear electricity generation as effectively
100 percent efficient because, like solar and wind, there is no
practical, aggregate resource-availability limitation for nuclear
materials. 88 FR 21525, 21530.
Some commenters disagreed with DOE's proposal to treat renewable
and nuclear energy generation as effectively 100 percent efficient.
AmFree, Doc. No. 31, pg. 4-5; AFPM, Doc. No. 26, pg. 9. These
commenters asserted that there is no basis for DOE to assume renewable
or nuclear energy generation is 100 percent efficient, and therefore
DOE must revise its generation efficiencies for such energy. AmFree,
Doc. No. 31, pg. 4-5; AFPM, Doc. No. 26, pg. 9.
In response to these concerns, DOE notes that the methodology
accounts for transmission losses from such electricity sources. The DOE
interpretation of energy scarcity relies on primary energy sources. As
such, with an effectively inexhaustible supply of primary energy--sun,
wind, fissile nuclear material--it is not appropriate to use a
conversion efficiency with these sources when calculating the PEF. By
contrast, fossil energy sources used to generate electricity are large
but finite. DOE considers the combustion efficiency of electric
generation as part of the full energy lifecycle. Renewable gaseous fuel
burned for electricity, though expected to be a small contributor to
renewable electricity overall, are treated similarly to fossil natural
gas with respect to combustion efficiency. DOE is retaining the 100
percent conversion efficiency assumption for nuclear and renewable
generation (other than for renewable natural gas) in this rule.
ii. U.S. Electrical Grid Projections
As discussed in section III.C.3, in this final rule, DOE adopts a
methodology that calculates a PEF value based on the expected
survivability-weighted lifetime mileage schedule of the fleet of
vehicles sold over the regulatory period. DOE recognizes that while the
average life of a vehicle is around 15 years, the influence of a fleet
of vehicles produced in a given model lasts much longer. To capture
this influence, DOE has adopted the survivability-weighted annual
vehicle miles traveled parameters from
[[Page 22046]]
the CAFE model that establishes values for a 40-year span. Beyond 40
years, only an insignificant population of vehicles from that given
model year will remain on the road.\13\ Thus, calculating a PEF value
based on the expected fleet of EVs requires calculating electricity
generation and transmission efficiency 40 years into the future. This
methodology provides a better representation of how vehicles sold
during the regulatory period will be used than did the methodology used
in the 2023 NOPR of averaging the calculated annual PEF based on the
grid characteristics at the time the vehicles were sold. When
calculating electricity generation and transmission efficiency, DOE
weights each of the generation source-specific total efficiencies based
on that source's share of the entire U.S. electricity grid. This mix of
energy sources changes over time and is likely to continue changing in
the future. Thus, the mix of electricity generation sources is a
critical variable impacting the value of the PEF, consistent with
Congressional direction at 49 U.S.C. 32904(a)(2)(B)(ii) and (iii) to
consider the national average electrical generation efficiency and the
need to conserve all forms of energy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ In its notice of proposed rulemaking that establishes CAFE
standards for passenger cars and light trucks for MY 2027-2032,
NHTSA estimates the average maximum lifespan of such vehicles to be
40 years. 88 FR 56128 (Aug. 17, 2023); Light Duty Central Analysis,
file LD_Central_Analysis.zip, spreadsheet: parameters_ref.xlsx, on
tab ``Vehicle Age Date''. Available at www.nhtsa.gov/file-downloads?p=nhtsa/downloads/CAFE/2023-NPRM-LD-2b3-2027-2035/Central-Analysis/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 2023 NOPR, DOE considered numerous projections available in
2022 and selected the projection model 2021 Electrification 95 by 2050,
Standard Scenario, from NREL, in which the United States achieves 95
percent renewable generation of electricity by 2050 (NREL 2021 95 by
2050). 88 FR 21525, 21531. In selecting this grid projection, DOE
stated that NREL 2021 95 by 2050 is more representative of the likely
future grid mix after the effects of recent policy changes, such as
those in the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA) and the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), are fully realized,
particularly given that these policies will result in a substantial
addition of renewable resources onto the grid. In the 2023 NOPR, DOE
noted that it also considered EIA's Annual Energy Outlook (AEO)
Reference Case for 2022 (AEO 2022). DOE opted not to use AEO 2022
because it did not incorporate recent policy changes in the IRA. 88 FR
21525, 21531. While NREL 2021 95 by 2050 also did not incorporate IRA
impacts, the NREL forecast better represented expected renewable energy
growth through 2030 than the AEP 2022 forecast. However, DOE said that
for the final rule, it would consider using other projections, such as
EIA's AEO for 2023 (AEO 2023), which was not available when DOE
conducted its analysis for the 2023 NOPR.
Some commenters supported DOE's decision to use the 95 by 2050 grid
projections from NREL's 2021 forecast. Tesla, Doc. No. 18, pg. 3-4;
ICCT, Doc. No. 19, pg. 1. Other commenters believed that DOE should use
AEO 2023. NRDC and Sierra Club, Doc. No. 20, pg. 3; California et al.,
Doc. No. 27, pg. 4-5. These commenters noted that the grid projections
in AEO 2023 account for policy changes in IRA. They also observed that
NHTSA uses the EIA AEO model in the recent CAFE rulemaking. NRDC and
Sierra Club, Doc. No. 20, pg. 3. Another commenter stated that DOE
should use the ``relative scarcity'' scenario explored in the
spreadsheet that accompanied the 2023 NOPR. Alliance, Doc. No. 25, pg.
14.
For this final rule, DOE assessed the grid projections that have
become available since 2022. These include AEO 2023, which does account
for some impacts of the IRA and IIJA, and the ``relative scarcity''
scenario. After this consideration and analysis, in this final rule,
DOE continues to use the NREL model (updated for 2022 data) that it
used in the 2023 NOPR, but DOE selects the Standard Scenario Mid-Case
instead of the 95 by 2050 Scenario. Specifically, DOE is using the NREL
2022 Standard Scenario, ``Mid-case, nascent techs, current policies''
to forecast the grid mix for the final rule.
Among the factors the Secretary must consider when setting the PEF
is ``the need of the United States to conserve all forms of energy and
the relative scarcity and value to the United States of all fuel used
to generate electricity.'' 49 U.S.C. 32904(a)(2)(B)(iii). DOE believes
that Congress' directive to set a PEF and to consider the conservation
of all forms of energy, including the relative scarcity and value of
fuels used to generate electricity, are intended to ensure that average
fuel economy of a manufacturer's entire fleet recognize and account for
the full energy conservation benefits of EVs relative to ICE vehicles,
taking into account both energy conservation overall, and the relative
need for and supply constraints of different types of fuels. ``[T]he
relative scarcity and value to the United States of all fuel used to
generate electricity'' is anticipated by every forecast DOE considered
to change over time, largely in response to U.S. government policy
decisions regarding ``the need of the United States to conserve
energy.'' Renewable and other clean energy sources of electricity are
integral in addressing the need to conserve energy and improve energy
security, and so current policies are directed at increasing the
production of electricity from such energy sources. In this specific
statutory context, DOE believes it is particularly important to ensure
that the model used to estimate the future energy conservation benefit
of EVs focuses on projecting how the mix of renewable and other clean
energy generation in the grid will change over the long term. The NREL
model has this specific focus. In the 2023 NOPR, DOE selected the 2021
NREL 95 by 2050 scenario because DOE believed it was the closest
forecast to approximately capture the projected impacts of the IRA,
which had been adopted too recently to be fully incorporated into any
published projection.\14\ Since DOE published the 2023 NOPR, the NREL
2022 forecast has been published. To affect the purposes of this
statute, DOE believes the NREL 2022 Standard Mid-case scenario best
captures the impact of the IRA and IIJA on renewable and other clean
electricity generation over time. As described on NREL's website:
``[e]very year, the Standard Scenarios includes a scenario called the
Mid-case that serves as a baseline or middle-ground scenario to reflect
what might happen if current trends and conditions continue. The Mid-
case has central values for model inputs like technology and fuel costs
and how much electricity people use. In addition, the Mid-case
represents currently enacted electric sector policies.'' \15\ In
addition, the AEO scenarios have historically made relatively more
conservative assumptions regarding the growth of renewable generation,
relative to the NREL model. Because DOE believes that, for the reasons
described previously, the 2022 NREL 2022 Standard Scenario, ``Mid-case,
nascent techs, current policies'' best captures the impact of the IRA
and IIJA on renewable and other clean electricity generation on the
U.S. electrical grid for the specific purposes of this rule, DOE used
this projection in its calculation of the PEF value. DOE will annually
review forecasts for electricity generation and determine if a change
is necessary for this value for future model
[[Page 22047]]
years as required by 49 U.S.C. 32904(a)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ The NREL 2021 forecast did include impacts of some
relatively recent policies, such as the IIJA.
\15\ See www.nrel.gov/news/program/2024/nrel-releases-the-2023-standard-scenarios.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Petroleum Refining and Distribution Efficiency
In the 2023 NOPR, DOE also updated its calculations of the
petroleum refining and distribution efficiency factor to reflect the
most recent GREET data. 88 FR 21525, 21527. In the 2023 NOPR, DOE used
GREET efficiency factors to determine that crude oil production and
transportation has an efficiency of 93.96 percent, gasoline refining
has an efficiency of 87.01 percent, and gasoline transportation and
distribution has an energy efficiency of 99.52 percent. Multiplying
these three terms provides an overall well-to-tank petroleum refining
and distribution efficiency of 81.36 percent.
NRDC and Sierra Club argued that petroleum refining and
distribution efficiency should not be considered when considering the
national average electrical generation and transmission efficiency.
NRDC and Sierra Club, Doc. No. 20, pg. 4. They asserted that section
32904(a)(2)(B)(ii) only directs DOE to consider ``electrical generation
and transmission efficiencies,'' and does not direct DOE to consider
petroleum refining and distribution efficiencies or compare them to
electric ones. NRDC and Sierra Club, Doc. No. 20, pg. 4. Furthermore,
these commenters stated that because nothing in the statute requires
DOE to consider petroleum refining and distribution efficiency, DOE
should remove the term from the methodology used to calculate PEF. NRDC
and Sierra Club, Doc. No. 20, pg. 4.
Comparing electricity and gasoline on an equivalent basis requires
consideration of the full energy-cycle energy efficiency from the point
of primary energy production through end-use to power a vehicle for
both gasoline and electricity. Assessing the full energy cycle of
electricity and conventional fuel requires a holistic approach to
address energy conservation when energy losses occur at different
stages of an energy cycle for different energy products and fuels, such
as electricity and gasoline. Moreover, DOE interprets the ``need of the
U.S. to conserve energy'' as applying broadly to all forms of energy,
which includes petroleum. 49 U.S.C. 32904(a)(2)(B)(iii). Therefore, it
is appropriate to assess the full energy cycle of both gasoline and
electricity the energy is converted to a useful form at different
stages--gasoline onboard the vehicle, electricity upstream--and a
reasonable comparison of the two systems requires taking into account
the same steps.
Another commenter opposed the calculations for petroleum refining
and distribution efficiency because they believed that the data
available from the fossil fuel industry is unreliable. Transport
Evolved, Doc. No. 17, pg. 2. In this final rule, as with the 2023 NOPR,
DOE used the best data available on refining and distribution
efficiency by using the efficiency numbers in the GREET model. It is a
widely used life-cycle analysis model for vehicle technologies and
transportation fuels and has been used in regulation development and
evaluation by DOE, EPA, and DOT. The data obtained from the GREET model
are reliable.
c. Annual Gasoline-Equivalent Fuel Economy of Electricity
As discussed previously, DOE uses the average electricity
generation and transmission efficiency and the petroleum refining and
distribution efficiency to determine the gasoline-equivalent fuel
economy of electricity (Eg). In order to calculate the
electricity generation and transmission efficiency, DOE uses the 2022
NREL Standard Scenario, ``Mid-case, nascent techs, current policies''
to forecast the U.S. electrical grid mix. The annual gasoline-
equivalent fuel economy of electricity values used in this analysis are
provided in Table 3. The modeling source only goes until 2050, so DOE
assumed an unchanging grid for subsequent years.
Table 3--Annual Gasoline-Equivalent Fuel Economy of Electricity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual Eg (Wh/
Year gal)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2023.................................................... 21,407
2024.................................................... 22,299
2025.................................................... 22,880
2026.................................................... 23,481
2027.................................................... 24,897
2028.................................................... 26,449
2029.................................................... 27,498
2030.................................................... 28,595
2031.................................................... 29,000
2032.................................................... 29,404
2033.................................................... 29,788
2034.................................................... 30,171
2035.................................................... 30,412
2036.................................................... 30,651
2037.................................................... 30,717
2038.................................................... 30,781
2039.................................................... 30,836
2040.................................................... 30,889
2041.................................................... 30,613
2042.................................................... 30,349
2043.................................................... 30,041
2044.................................................... 29,747
2045.................................................... 29,490
2046.................................................... 29,243
2047.................................................... 29,011
2048.................................................... 28,787
2049.................................................... 28,434
2050 and later.......................................... 28,097
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Alliance argued that the 2000 Final Rule underestimates the
fuel economy of EVs because EVs do not use any petroleum (or only
minimal amounts through the grid) when operating in fully electric
mode. Alliance, Doc. No. 25, pg. 15. They note that the electrical grid
has only become more efficient since 2000. Therefore, they argue that
the 2027 PEF value should be higher than the 2000 PEF. This argument
both misunderstands the purpose of the PEF in the compliance
calculations and discounts the DOE's attempt to better align the PEF
with the statutory factors prescribed by Congress. The purpose of the
PEF is to convert the energy used by EVs to a miles per gallon-
equivalent in order to average EV and ICE vehicle fuel economy for
determining vehicle manufacturers' CAFE performance. Although DOE
agrees that the electrical grid has become more efficient since 2000,
in this rulemaking, DOE is holistically reviewing all of the factors
used to calculate the PEF, including the use of the fuel content
factor. The efficiency of the grid is only one input to these
calculations and does not solely determine the final result.
3. Cumulative Gasoline-Equivalent Fuel Economy of Electricity
In the 2023 NOPR, DOE explained that NHTSA's next CAFE regulation
was expected to cover MYs 2027-2031 and proposed that the proposed PEF
value would be the applicable PEF for calculating EV fuel economy when
enforcing the CAFE regulations those model years. 88 FR 21525, 21531.
To calculate a PEF value usable over the entire period covered by the
next revision of the CAFE regulations, DOE considered a forward-looking
approach based on projections for the electricity generation grid in
the future. In the 2023 NOPR, DOE only considered the annual calculated
PEF over the expected regulatory period and used an average of those
values. DOE explained that the average of the annually calculated value
of the PEF, based on calendar-year projections for the electric grid,
would be applied for MYs 2027 through 2031. 88 FR 21525, 21531.
Several commenters opposed this approach and noted that vehicles
are
[[Page 22048]]
driven for many years after their initial sale, not just the five years
considered in the 2023 NOPR. DeBrouwer, Doc. No. 14, pg. 1; ACEEE, Doc.
No. 29, pg. 1-2. On further analysis, and in response to these
comments, this final rule adopts a PEF value based on the expected
survivability-weighted lifetime mileage schedule of the fleet of
vehicles sold during the regulatory period. To determine this, DOE uses
the survivability-weighted lifetime mileage schedule derived from
NHTSA's CAFE rulemaking.\16\ The data that NHTSA used to develop the
average annual vehicle miles traveled (VMT) schedule used in its
analysis divided the light duty vehicle fleet \17\ into three
categories: passenger cars, pickup trucks, and Vans/SUVs. Each vehicle
category has different scrappage rates and annual driving patterns. For
this analysis DOE used a weighted average of 62.4 percent Vans/SUVs,
17.4 percent pickup trucks, and 20.2 percent passenger cars to generate
the average annual VMT shown in Table 4 below.\18\ DOE uses the same
average for the electric-fueled sub-fleet because DOE lacks accurate
information about individual automaker plans for electrifying their
product lines. Table 4 shows the average annual VMT expected for the
fleet of vehicles for the first forty years after initial sale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See NHTSA NPRM Draft Technical Support Document, Chapter 4,
p. 4-41, Table 4-12, ``VMT Schedule by Body Style and Age'' for
vehicle type breakdown and Section 4.2.2.3.3, ``Estimating the
Scrappage Models'', beginning on p. 4-26. NHTSA TSD available at:
www.nhtsa.gov/document/cafe-2027-2032-hdpuv-2030-2035-draft-technical-support-document.
\17\ This rule considers all passenger cars and trucks up to
8,500 pounds to be light-duty vehicles. This aligns to those
vehicles that are subject to NHTSA's CAFE regulations for passenger
cars and light trucks.
\18\ The distribution was derived from the file:
LD_Central_Analysis.zip/output/LD_ref/reports_csv/
vehicles_report.csv available at: www.nhtsa.gov/file-downloads?p=nhtsa/downloads/CAFE/2023-NPRM-LD-2b3-2027-2035/Central-Analysis/.
Table 4--Annual VMT for Light Duty Vehicle Fleet
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year after initial sale Annual VMT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1....................................................... 16,647
2....................................................... 15,989
3....................................................... 15,336
4....................................................... 14,679
5....................................................... 14,012
6....................................................... 13,331
7....................................................... 12,627
8....................................................... 11,894
9....................................................... 11,131
10...................................................... 10,334
11...................................................... 9,504
12...................................................... 8,639
13...................................................... 7,755
14...................................................... 6,873
15...................................................... 6,008
16...................................................... 5,188
17...................................................... 4,439
18...................................................... 3,773
19...................................................... 3,196
20...................................................... 2,704
21...................................................... 2,293
22...................................................... 1,953
23...................................................... 1,674
24...................................................... 1,443
25...................................................... 1,253
26...................................................... 1,096
27...................................................... 965
28...................................................... 856
29...................................................... 764
30...................................................... 686
31...................................................... 564
32...................................................... 463
33...................................................... 380
34...................................................... 312
35...................................................... 256
36...................................................... 209
37...................................................... 171
38...................................................... 139
39...................................................... 114
40...................................................... 92
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The current methodology uses the annual gasoline-equivalent fuel
economy of electricity to calculate PEF. Thus, the current PEF
methodology must be revised to calculate a PEF value based on expected
operation of the vehicles sold. To represent the expected operation of
these vehicles, DOE calculates a cumulative gasoline-equivalent fuel
economy of electricity (CEg) in Table 5. The cumulative
gasoline-equivalent fuel economy of electricity is determined by
multiplying the annual gasoline-equivalent fuel economy of electricity
by the corresponding annual share of lifetime VMT based on the
survivability-weighted lifetime mileage schedule.
Table 5--Cumulative Gasoline-Equivalent Fuel Economy of Electricity for MY 2027 EVs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual share of Partial CEg
Calendar year Vehicle age Eg lifetime VMT (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027.......................................... 1 24,898 7.94 1,976
2028.......................................... 2 26,450 7.62 2,016
2029.......................................... 3 27,498 7.31 2,011
2030.......................................... 4 28,596 7.00 2,001
2031.......................................... 5 29,000 6.68 1,937
2032.......................................... 6 29,405 6.36 1,869
2033.......................................... 7 29,789 6.02 1,793
2034.......................................... 8 30,171 5.67 1,711
2035.......................................... 9 30,413 5.31 1,614
2036.......................................... 10 30,651 4.93 1,510
2037.......................................... 11 30,717 4.53 1,392
2038.......................................... 12 30,782 4.12 1,268
2039.......................................... 13 30,836 3.70 1,140
2040.......................................... 14 30,889 3.28 1,012
2041.......................................... 15 30,613 2.86 877
2042.......................................... 16 30,349 2.47 751
2043.......................................... 17 30,042 2.12 636
2044.......................................... 18 29,747 1.80 535
2045.......................................... 19 29,490 1.52 449
2046.......................................... 20 29,243 1.29 377
2047.......................................... 21 29,011 1.09 317
2048.......................................... 22 28,788 0.93 268
2049.......................................... 23 28,434 0.80 227
[[Page 22049]]
2050.......................................... 24 28,097 0.69 193
2051.......................................... 25 28,097 0.60 168
2052.......................................... 26 28,097 0.52 147
2053.......................................... 27 28,097 0.46 129
2054.......................................... 28 28,097 0.41 115
2055.......................................... 29 28,097 0.36 102
2056.......................................... 30 28,097 0.33 92
2057.......................................... 31 28,097 0.27 76
2058.......................................... 32 28,097 0.22 62
2059.......................................... 33 28,097 0.18 51
2060.......................................... 34 28,097 0.15 42
2061.......................................... 35 28,097 0.12 34
2062.......................................... 36 28,097 0.10 28
2063.......................................... 37 28,097 0.08 23
2064.......................................... 38 28,097 0.07 19
2065.......................................... 39 28,097 0.05 15
2066.......................................... 40 28,097 0.04 12
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CEg....................................... .............. .............. ................ 28,996
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE recognizes that the value of CEg is substantially
higher than the value of Eg used in the 2000 rule (12,307
Wh/gal). This change is due to a combination of: increased fossil
generation efficiency; increased renewable generation; the assumption
of resource inexhaustibility for nuclear and renewables; increases in
electric transmission efficiency; reduction in petroleum production,
refining and distribution efficiency; and the use of a forward-looking
grid mix. By far the largest impact is due to changes to electricity
generation since the 2000 Final Rule. The grid mix used in the 2000
Final Rule had almost no non-hydropower renewable generation, while
renewables are forecasted to grow to over half of total electricity
generation by 2030. As described previously, DOE treats nuclear, solar,
wind, and hydro power as 100 percent efficient based on the effective
inexhaustibility of the energy source. In addition, fossil generation
now includes a significant amount of combined cycle generation, which
has a much higher thermal efficiency than conventional combustion for
heat generation. Changes in efficiency due to petroleum production,
refining and distribution, and electricity transmission are smaller.
4. Fuel Content Factor
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 32904(a)(2)(B), among the factors the
Secretary must consider when setting the PEF is ``the need of the
United States to conserve all forms of energy and the relative scarcity
and value to the United States of all fuel used to generate
electricity.'' 49 U.S.C. 32904(a)(2)(B)(iii). In the 2000 Final Rule,
DOE added the current 1.0/0.15 fuel content factor to the PEF to reward
electric vehicles for their ``benefits to the Nation relative to
petroleum-fueled vehicles, in a manner consistent with the regulatory
treatment of other types of alternative fueled vehicles and the
authorizing legislation.'' 65 FR 36986, 36988. In the 2000 Final Rule,
DOE explained that it chose the 1.0/0.15 ratio for the fuel content
factor (1) for consistency with existing regulatory and statutory
procedures for alternative fuel vehicles under 49 U.S.C. 32905, (2) to
provide similar treatment of all types of alternative fueled vehicles,
and (3) for simplicity and ease of use in calculating the PEF. 65 FR
36986, 36988.
In the 2023 NOPR, DOE proposed removing the fuel content factor and
requested comment on its elimination. 88 FR 21525, 21528-21530. DOE
stated that it considered the need of the United States to conserve all
forms of energy and the relative scarcity and value to the United
States of all fuel used to generate electricity in proposing to
eliminate the factor. 88 FR 21525, 21528. As discussed in the 2023 NOPR
in more detail, in considering the need for energy conservation and the
relative scarcity and value of fuels used to generate electricity, in
particular DOE emphasized the need to conserve finite petroleum
resources. 88 FR 21525, 21529-215230. Conserving petroleum resources
can be achieved through increased production and sales of EVs and
through fuel economy improvements to ICE vehicles.
In the context of the statutory directive for the PEF and the need
to conserve finite petroleum resources, DOE identified in the 2023 NOPR
three key reasons supporting removal of the fuel content factor. 88 FR
21525, 21528-21530. First, DOE explained that the fuel content factor
does not accurately represent current EV technology or market
penetration. Second, DOE stated that applying the current fuel content
factor to EVs results in miles per gallon equivalent ratings
significantly higher than ICE vehicles. This overvaluing of EVs can
allow a few EV models to provide overall compliance with CAFE
standards, which in turn permits manufacturers to maintain less
efficient ICE vehicles and disincentivizes production of additional
EVs. 88 FR 21525, 21529-21530. Third, DOE proposed that the reasoning
offered in the 2000 Final Rule in support of the use of 1.0/0.15 as a
fuel content factor was not grounded in DOE's authority to set the PEF
in section 32904, although DOE also noted that a fuel content factor
could potentially be justified under the four factors of section 32904.
88 FR 21525, 21530.
Several commenters supported the elimination of the fuel content
factor. California et al., Doc. No. 27, pg. 5; NRDC and Sierra Club,
Doc. No. 20, pg. 1-2; Tesla, Doc. No. 18, pg. 3; ICCT, Doc. No. 19, pg.
1; AFPM, Doc. No. 26, pg. 2. Specifically, California et al. and AFPM
stated that the current fuel content factor is based on an inapplicable
statutory section. California et al., Doc. No. 27, pg. 5; AFPM, Doc.
No. 26, pg. 2. In addition, NRDC and Sierra Club asserted that the
current fuel content factor ``dwarfs the rest of the PEF calculation,
and has no factual, legal, or logical connection to electricity/
petroleum equivalence.'' NRDC and Sierra Club, Doc. No. 20, pg.
[[Page 22050]]
2. Commenters noted that the fuel content factor leads to the
overvaluation of EVs, which is counter to the need to conserve energy,
particularly petroleum.
Other commenters, however, opposed the elimination of the fuel
content factor. For example, the Alliance stated that DOE should focus
on the role of the PEF as an incentive for manufacturing EVs, which
would keep DOE's analysis more closely tied to the applicable statutory
factors. Alliance, Doc. No. 25, pg. 10. Similarly, UAW asserted that
the fuel content factor is needed to continue to incentivize the
production of EVs. UAW, Doc. No. 30, pg. 1-2. The Alliance and UAW
stated that the 2023 NOPR overstated the scale of the EV market and
encouraged DOE to ``incorporate a more realistic projection of EV
adoption and charging infrastructure build-out.'' Alliance, Doc. No.
25, pg. 7-8; UAW, Doc. No. 30, pg. 2. Furthermore, the Alliance and UAW
noted that federal investment and incentives would take time to reach
maturity. Alliance, Doc. No. 25, pg. 8; UAW, Doc. No. 30, pg. 2. The
Alliance argued that EV purchase incentive provisions in IRA are
evidence that Congress believes EVs are not sufficiently
commercialized. Alliance, Doc. No. 25, pg. 10. And finally, the
Alliance noted that supply constraints and investment limitations
impair manufacturers' ability to respond rapidly to changes in the PEF
value, arguing that research and production resources are effectively
zero-sum. Alliance, Doc. No. 25, pg. 17. The Alliance stated that the
proposal could cause manufacturers to divert scarce investment
resources to ICE vehicle lines and away from EV production, and noted
the difficulty with doing even that, citing a lack of opportunity for
engine redesigns, and arguing that engine design and development cycles
are typically much longer than three years. Id.
After careful consideration of the comments, DOE concludes that
removing the fuel content factor will, over the long term, further the
statutory goals of conserving all forms of energy while considering the
relative scarcity and value to the United States of all fuels used to
generate electricity. This is because, as explained in the 2023 NOPR
and in more detail below, by significantly overvaluing the fuel savings
effects of EVs in a mature EV market with CAFE standards in place, the
fuel content factor will disincentivize both increased production of
EVs and increased deployment of more efficient ICE vehicles. Hence, the
fuel content factor results in higher petroleum use than would
otherwise occur.
DOE recognizes, however, the persuasive points made by commenters
as to how the fuel content factor will continue to incentivize EV
production in the near term. As commenters note, while EV market
penetration has dramatically increased, EVs currently represent only
approximately 10 percent of new passenger car and light truck
sales.\19\ Moreover, while the recently adopted IIJA and IRA are in
effect, the critical incentives and support for EVs and charging
infrastructure that these laws provide are in the early stages of
implementation and will become more fully operative and effective over
time. DOE agrees with commenters that there is still an opportunity to
incentivize additional EV production, and the resulting greater
petroleum conservation, through a fuel content factor over the next
several years. Thus, as explained in more detail below, DOE is
retaining the current fuel content factor through MY 2026, under a
revised statutory basis, and then gradually phasing out the fuel
content factor by MY 2030.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ DOE, Plug-in EV Sales in December of 2023 Rose to 9.8% of
All Light-Duty Vehicles Sales in the U.S., January 15, 2024.
Available at www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1325-january-15-2024-plug-ev-sales-december-2023-rose-98-all-light-duty.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE begins with the statutory text. Congress directed DOE to set
the PEF based, in part, on ``the need of the United States to conserve
all forms of energy'' and ``the relative scarcity and value to the
United States of all fuel used to generate electricity.'' 49 U.S.C.
32904(a)(2)(B)(iii). First, DOE confirms that increased use of EVs,
relative to ICE vehicles, would help the United States meet its need to
conserve all forms of energy, taking into consideration the relative
scarcity and value of all fuel used to generate electricity. As
detailed in the 2023 NOPR, EVs are substantially more energy efficient
than ICE vehicles on an energy input required basis. In addition, when
comparing EVs to ICE vehicles on the basis of their use of scarce
fuels, EVs provide even greater fuel conservation benefits when
compared to gasoline used in ICE vehicles. See 88 FR 21525, 21536
(calculating a significantly higher PEF when using a methodology that
compares only vehicle-based petroleum use and electricity production
using scarce fossil energy resources). Accordingly, an increased use of
EVs, relative to ICE vehicles, would allow the United States to get
greater transportation value from relatively scarce fuels, including
those used to generate electricity.
These individual-vehicle measures understate the magnitude of the
fuel conservation benefits of substantially increasing EV production
and use in the near term. Accelerating adoption of EVs now can
significantly further accelerate and increase EV market penetration,
due to network effects related to expanded demand for and availability
of charging infrastructure. These network effects include rapid shifts
in consumer acceptance and increased access to immediate incentives,
the redeployment of capital and human resources at the firm and country
level, accelerated technology development with greater production of
vehicles in multiple segments at scale, and increases in domestic
battery manufacturing capacity in line with projected market demand.
This has been demonstrated based on the EV adoption experience of other
countries, which tends to follow an ``S-Curve''--a long period of
relatively slow adoption followed by a rapid increase in adoption as EV
sales grow.\20\ This implies that if EV adoption is accelerated in the
near term to reach the tipping point of growth sooner, significantly
more EV adoption could result in a shorter timeframe than would
otherwise occur. The energy conservation benefits would also accelerate
commensurately. Accordingly, DOE concludes that the nation's need to
conserve all forms of energy is best served not simply by EV adoption
generally, but specifically by accelerating EV adoption in the near
term.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See International Energy Agency, Global EV Outlook 2022,
(May 2022), available at www.iea.org/reports/global-ev-outlook-2022;
Energy and Power Group, Department of Engineering Science,
University of Oxford, Forecast of electric vehicle uptake across
counties in England: Dataset from S-curve analysis, (Dec. 2021),
available at www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352340921009379?via%3Dihub; European Commission, Joint Research
Centre, Analysis and testing of electric car incentive scenarios in
the Netherlands and Norway (2020), available at
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162519301210#fig0004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Next, DOE evaluates the maturity of the EV market and the
sufficiency of the incentives, other than the fuel content factor, for
EV production and sales in the near term. As DOE stated in the 2023
NOPR, since the 2000 Final Rule, EV technology has matured and the
market share of EVs is growing. 88 FR 21525, 21528. Advances in
electrification technology have resulted in improved performance and
efficiency and reduced costs. 88 FR 21525, 21529. Commenters also noted
that technology development, infrastructure
[[Page 22051]]
deployment, and especially recent changes to Federal law, such as the
IRA and the IIJA, provide significant incentives for tremendous
investment in the entire EV ecosystem. These incentives are driving
investments in further technological development of EVs and charging
infrastructure, production (especially domestic production) of EVs,
components such as batteries and chargers, and production of supply
chain components, including critical minerals. These laws also provide
multiple substantial incentives for EV purchases and leases, private
purchases, and installation of charging infrastructure, and the build-
out of a nationwide public charging system.
It is critical to note, however, that the EV market is still small
relative to ICE vehicles, and while these incentives are already
driving massive industry investments, it will take some years for all
these investments to fully translate into production and sales.
Further, although consumer purchase incentives are currently available,
only a relatively limited number of vehicles qualify for a portion or
all of the available credits. Over the next six years, these incentives
will increasingly result in greater EV deployment on the roads, as
their effectiveness phases in over time. For example, as a result of
component sourcing requirements and developing supply chains in the EV
battery sector, DOE projected that an increasing share of electric
vehicles will benefit from IRA tax incentives between 2023 and 2032,
with a fleetwide average credit increasing from $3,900 per vehicle in
2023 to $6,000 in 2032 (nominal dollars).\21\ Similarly, DOE's IIJA-
enabled investments in enabling infrastructure, such as EV fast
charging and domestic EV component manufacturing, will scale over time
as projects are identified, permitted, and constructed. Considering the
timing over which the bulk of the IIJA and IRA EV incentives will
become fully effective, DOE concludes that there is still a fuel
conservation benefit from additional EV incentives in the near term. By
2030, DOE expects that the EV market will be sufficiently developed
that further support from the fuel content factor will be unnecessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See Department of Energy, ``Estimating Federal Tax
Incentives for Heavy Duty Electric Vehicle Infrastructure and for
Acquiring Electric Vehicles Weighing Less Than 14,000 Pounds,''
March 11, 2024. Available at https://www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2021-VT-0033.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted previously, commenters disagreed whether the fuel content
factor incentivizes or disincentivizes EV production. On the basis of
the record before it, DOE concludes that the answer is: it depends. In
other words, the effect of the fuel content factor on manufacturer EV
production will vary according to the maturity of the EV market and the
effectiveness of other available incentives at the time DOE applies the
fuel content factor and resulting PEF value. Vehicle manufacturers
indicate that the present fuel content factor is an important incentive
for current EV production. See Alliance, Doc. No. 25, pg. 7-8; Porsche,
Doc. No. 24, pg. 2. By significantly increasing the PEF, the fuel
content factor makes it relatively more cost-effective for
manufacturers to improve their fleets' average fuel economy by selling
more EVs. Where manufacturers are not yet adequately incentivized to
develop, manufacture, and market EVs, as is currently the case, an
inflated fuel content factor can increase EV adoption and the
accompanying petroleum conservation in the near term. In the context of
an emerging market for EVs, this additional near-term EV production is
disproportionately valuable in leveraging network effects and further
accelerating EV adoption and petroleum conservation. Because including
the fuel content factor when calculating the PEF value can increase EV
adoption, in the near term, which results in greater petroleum
conservation, retaining the fuel content factor in the near term is
consistent with ``the need of the United States to conserve all forms
of energy.'' See 49 U.S.C. 32904(a)(2)(B)(iii).
However, as explained in the 2023 NOPR, an ``artificially
inflate[d]'' fuel content factor may conversely allow manufacturers to
meet CAFE standards with fewer EVs and little improvement in their ICE
fleets. As also explained in the 2023 NOPR, the higher the PEF, the
greater the value of each EV for compliance purposes, and the fewer EVs
(or improvements in ICE fuel economy savings) are needed. DOE expects
this effect to predominate as the incentives for producing and selling
EVs, such as those included in IRA and IIJA, ramp up and as the EV
market grows. Once manufacturers are selling relatively large numbers
of EVs, giving each EV a higher effective fuel economy for CAFE
compliance purposes is less likely to incentivize greater EV production
and more likely simply to eliminate the need for ICE fuel economy
improvements, given the statutory structure of the CAFE program.
In the 2023 NOPR, DOE explained its view that ``current EV
technology and market penetration'' are sufficiently developed such
that further incentives for EVs through the PEF are unnecessary. 88 FR
21525, 21534. Based on DOE's review of comments and further analysis,
DOE concludes that incentives provided by IRA and IIJA, coupled with
the expansion of supporting infrastructure, such as public fast
chargers, and increasing consumer interest in EVs, will eventually
provide adequate incentives, and the anticipated network effects, to
achieve widespread EV adoption. DOE thus affirms the analysis in the
2023 NOPR that, at such time, a fuel content factor will reduce, and
eventually eliminate, the net energy conservation benefit of
incentivizing EV deployment through the fuel content factor.
Although the 2023 NOPR identified recent changes, such as IRA and
IIJA incentives, as reasons to remove the fuel content factor (88 FR
21525, 21534), because these incentives will not be fully available
when the PEF becomes effective, DOE concludes that EVs will remain
inadequately incentivized for purposes of energy conservation over the
next few years.\22\ Additionally, DOE expects a continued reduction in
battery prices from innovation and economies of scale, resulting in
lower purchase price and increased competitiveness of EVs by 2030.
Accordingly, DOE expects that incentivizing EVs through a fuel content
factor will reduce petroleum use in the near term. Based on DOE's
determination that EVs will be adequately incentivized for purposes of
energy conservation by 2030, DOE has determined that the fuel content
factor can be, and ought to be, phased out by 2030.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See, e.g., IRA, Section 50142 (provides $3 billion to DOE's
Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Loan Program through
September 30, 2028, for loans to manufacture clean vehicles and
their components in the United States); IRA, Section 50143 (provides
$2 billion to the U.S. Treasury through September 30, 2031, to
provide grants for the domestic production of EVs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE concludes that, for a limited time, retaining a fuel content
factor in the PEF calculation is likely to incentivize manufacturers'
production of EVs in the near term. DOE determines that phasing out a
fuel content factor, as compared to removing it over a single model
year, will help manufacturers continue to invest in the EV transition
and serve as a near-term incentive for vehicle manufacturers to invest
in and sell EVs, thereby contributing to the reduced consumption of
petroleum by accelerating the widespread adoption of EVs in the United
States during this pivotal time. Moreover, given the industry's concern
that revising the PEF value over the course of a single model year
could actually slow EV adoption in the near term, due to the potential
need for industry to rapidly shift investment from EV development back
to interim
[[Page 22052]]
ICE based vehicle development, a phase in of the revised value would be
more consistent with the statute and better spur the technological
transition that will ultimately result in greater energy conservation.
In addition, by phasing in a new PEF value over several years, the risk
for manufacturers of expediting their investment in EV technology is
reduced, because they are able to spread product changes (and
associated research and production dollars) over more model years.
Alleviating this risk for manufacturers is likely to result in an
increase in EV development and adoption in the near term. For these
reasons, DOE determines that immediate and complete removal of the fuel
content factor from the PEF calculation would not serve the need of the
United States to conserve energy.
In addition, DOE finds that there is an adequate statutory basis
for retaining the fuel content factor for a limited time period. As
stated in the 2023 NOPR, DOE concludes that it need not rely upon 49
U.S.C. 32905 to apply a fuel content factor to EVs. 88 FR 21525, 21530.
That provision applies to the use of alternative fuels, not to EVs.
Section 32904(a)(2)(B), which requires the Secretary to consider, among
other things, ``the need of the United States to conserve all forms of
energy and the relative scarcity and value to the United States of all
fuel used to generate electricity,'' does, however, provide a basis to
apply a fuel content factor to the PEF calculation in the circumstances
where applying such a fuel content factor would in fact conserve
energy. As discussed previously, in this final rule DOE finds that for
the immediate near term the fuel content factor serves to incentivize
EV production, and hence to conserve energy, specifically petroleum.
Accordingly, currently the fuel content factor meets the statutory
directive to set the PEF taking into account the need ``to conserve all
forms of energy and the relative scarcity and value to the United
States of all fuel used to generate electricity.'' 49 U.S.C.
32904(a)(2)(B). DOE also finds in this rule, however, that as the EV
market matures and the incentives under the IRA and IIJA become more
powerful, the fuel content factor will rapidly shift from incentivizing
EV production and energy conservation to undercutting the effectiveness
of other requirements for energy conservation. These conclusions
support the current use, and eventual phase-out, of the fuel content
factor.
Therefore, to reflect its declining net conservation benefit, the
PEF calculation methodology in this final rule will gradually increase
the denominator of the fuel content factor, starting with the currently
applicable 1.0/0.15 factor in MY 2026 and increasing the denominator to
a value of 1.00 by MY 2030. Given the date of 2030 for full phase out,
DOE will reduce the impact of the fuel content factor by increasing the
denominator of the factor by 4four equal increments of 0.2125 over MYs
2027 through 2030. The annual increase in the fuel content factor
denominator value will decrease the factor's value until it is phased
out in MY 2030. The fuel content factor for MYs 2026 to 2030 is
represented in Table 6.
Table 6--Fuel Content Factor for MY 2026 to 2030
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model year 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuel content factor................................................ 1/0.15 1/0.3625 1/0.575 1/0.7875 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Accessory Factor
The 2000 Final Rule added an accessory factor to the PEF
calculation to account for petroleum-fueled on-board accessories, such
as cabin heaters, defrosters, or air-conditioning, which were
envisioned as an approach to avoid low energy-density and/or low power-
density limitations of battery technology at the time.\23\ No EVs
currently produced include such accessories and it is unlikely that
future EVs will include them. Furthermore, plug-in hybrid electric
vehicles (PHEVs) petroleum-fueled on-board accessories are distinct
from gasoline consumption, with a fuel economy weighted according to
the expected percentage of driving attributed to charge-depleting and
charge-sustaining modes. Therefore, in the 2023 NOPR, DOE proposed to
set the accessory factor equal to 1.00 in its calculation. Two
commenters supported setting the accessory factor to 1. NRDC and Sierra
Club, Doc. No. 20, pg. 7; California et al., Doc. No. 27, pg. 3-4.
These commenters agreed with DOE's determination that no EVs in
production use petroleum powered accessories. No commenter opposed
setting the accessory factor equal to 1.00. Accordingly, as proposed in
the 2023 NOPR, DOE sets the accessory factor equal to 1.00 in its PEF
calculation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ For example, in the mid-1990s, the experimental Ford
Ecostar vehicle, a two-door, small van, included a diesel-powered
heater while being powered primarily by a sodium-sulfur battery with
notable power density limitations and a very high operating
temperature.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Driving Pattern Factor
In the 2000 Final Rule, DOE established a driving pattern factor to
account for the statutory criterion in 49 U.S.C. 32904(a)(2)(B)(iv).
The purpose of the driving pattern factor is to recognize the fact that
electric vehicles may be used differently than gasoline vehicles,
primarily due to their shorter range and longer ``refueling'' times.
Then-existing EPA regulations, however, did not make driving-pattern-
based adjustments to the fuel economy of various classes of gasoline
vehicles when calculating a manufacturer's CAFE value, even though
gasoline-powered vehicles are also used in many different ways. 64 FR
37907, 37908. Therefore, DOE set the driving pattern factor at 1.00
because it believed that EVs offer capabilities like those of
conventional gasoline-powered vehicles. 65 FR 36986, 36987. In the 2023
NOPR, DOE did not propose a change to the driving pattern factor and
proposed keeping the driving pattern factor at 1.00. 88 FR 21525,
21530. DOE stated that it continued to believe that EVs are
equivalently capable vehicles that are likely to be used similarly to
gasoline-powered or hybrid-electric vehicles. 88 FR 21525, 21530.
DOE received comments that supported the proposed driving pattern
factor. For example, NRDC, Sierra Club, the Alliance, and California et
al., supported a driving pattern factor of 1.0 and agreed that current
EVs are full utility vehicles. NRDC and Sierra Club, Doc. No. 20, pg.
7; Alliance, Doc. No. 25, pg. 27; California et al., Doc. No. 27, pg.
6.
By contrast, AFPM opposed the proposed driving pattern factor and
asserted that the driving patterns and use of ICE vehicles are
different from that of EVs, primarily due to range considerations for
EVs. AFPM, Doc. No. 26, pg. 16. AFPM asserted that DOE should analyze
specific patterns of use of EVs compared to ICE vehicles. AFPM, Doc.
No. 26, pg. 16. In its comments, AFPM claimed that EVs are more likely
to be driven shorter distances for purposes such as commuting or
running
[[Page 22053]]
errands, as compared to ICE vehicles, which are more associated with
longer trips and towing. AFPM, Doc. No. 26, pg. 17.
In addition, AFPM cited a study by iSeeCars.com that examined used-
vehicle listings showing that used-EVs had driven fewer miles than
used-ICE vehicles.\24\ However, a more recent study \25\ noted that the
iSeeCars.com study methodology is biased toward examining older
vehicles with lower EV ranges because it explored used-EV listings from
2016-2022 from the secondary market, and the more recent study
advocated for updating the iSeeCars.com study to reflect newer EVs. A
range of annual miles have been found in previous studies of BEV use
ranging from 6,300 miles per year to 12,522 miles per year.\26\ Another
study by University of California-Davis researchers found that long-
range BEVs are driven significantly more than short-range BEVs and more
than ICE vehicles.\27\ That same study uncovered other factors
influencing the number of miles that EVs are driven, such as how many
additional ICE vehicles are operated within a household. Many early EV
adopters owned several vehicles, thus reducing the miles operated by
each vehicle. While some EVs are currently driven less than comparable
conventional vehicles, the difference between them is clearly
shrinking. Moreover, current and growing EV ranges support DOE's
position that EVs are equivalently capable vehicles likely to be used
similarly to ICE vehicles or hybrid electric vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ iSeeCars, The Most and Least Driven Electric Cars.
Available at www.iseecars.com/most-driven-evs-study.
\25\ Zhao et al., ``Quantifying electric vehicle mileage in the
United States'', Joule, Volume 7, Issue 11, 15 November 2023, pg.
2537-2551. Available at doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2023.09.015.
\26\ Davis, L.W., How much are electric vehicles driven? Appl.
Econ. Lett. 26, 1497-1502 (2019), available at www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13504851.2019.1582847; Tal, G., Raghavan, S.S.,
Karanam, V.C., Favetti, M.P., Sutton, K.M., Ogunmayin, J.M., Lee,
J.H., Nitta, C., Kurani, K., Chakraborty, D. et al., advanced plug-
in electric vehicle travel and charging behavior final report
(2020), available at csiflabs.cs.ucdavis.edu/~cjnitta/pubs/
2020_03.pdf; Burlig, F., Bushnell, J., Rapson, D., and Wolfram, C.,
Low energy: estimating electric vehicle electricity use. AEA Pap.
Proc. 111, 430-435 (2021), available at www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/pandp.20211088; Rush, L., Zhou, Y., and Gohlke,
D., Vehicle residual value analysis by powertrain type and impacts
on total cost of ownership (2022), available at www.osti.gov/biblio/1876197; Jia, W., and Chen, T.D., Beyond adoption: examining
electric vehicle miles traveled in households with zero-emission
vehicles. Transp. Res. Rec. 2676, 642-654 (2022), available at
journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/03611981221082536; Chakraborty, D.,
Hardman, S., and Tal, G., Integrating plug-in electric vehicles
(PEVs) into household fleets-factors influencing miles traveled by
PEV owners in California. Travel Behaviour and Society 26, 67-83
(2022), available at doi.org/10.1016/j.tbs.2021.09.004.
\27\ UC Davis, Advanced Plug-in Electric Vehicle Travel and
Charging Behavior Final Report, April 10, 2020. Available at
csiflabs.cs.ucdavis.edu/~cjnitta/pubs/2020_03.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, as proposed in the 2023 NOPR, DOE maintains the
driving pattern factor at 1.00 in this final rule. DOE continues to
believe that current EVs are equivalently capable vehicles that are
likely to be used similarly to gasoline-powered or hybrid-electric
vehicles. In addition, the deployment of a national charging network,
enabled by the DOT's National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure program
along with additional private investment, will help ensure EVs can
continue to match the utility and driving demands of ICE vehicles. DOE
maintains that current EVs are full-utility vehicles, capable of
comparable performance and range to conventional counterparts.
7. Revised PEF Value
As discussed in the preceding sections, DOE concluded that the
current PEF value and methodology were based on outdated data and that
the technology and market penetration of EVs has significantly changed
since the 2000 Final Rule. In this final rule, DOE uses the following
equation to calculate the PEF:
PEF = CEg x FCF x AF x DPF
Where CEg, or cumulative Eg, is the sum of
annual gasoline-equivalent energy content of electricity
(Eg) over the 40-year survivability-weighted lifetime
mileage schedule (in Wh/gal), FCF is the fuel content factor (unitless
and taking the value indicated in Table 6, above), AF is the accessory
factor (unitless and equal to 1), and DPF is the driving pattern factor
(unitless and equal to 1). In Sections III.C.3, III.C.4, III.C.5, and
III.C.6, DOE calculated the values for CEg, FCF, AF, and DPF
respectively. The CEg is 28,996 Wh/gal and AF and DPF are
each 1.0. In addition, the final rule gradually reduces the fuel
content factor, starting with the currently applicable 1.0/0.15 factor
in MY 2026 and phasing out to a factor of 1.0/1.00 by MY 2030, see
Section III.C.4 for a full discussion. Table 7 provides the inputs for
MY 2024 to MY 2030 EVs. The final rule adopts the PEF values for the
model years specified in Table 7.
Table 7--Revised PEF Values for MY 2024-MY 2030 EVs and Later
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model year CEg FCF AF DPF PEF
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2024-2026....................... \a\ 12,307 1/0.15 \b\ 1.0 1.0 82,049
2027............................ 28,996 1/0.3625 1.0 1.0 79,989
2028............................ 28,996 1/0.575 1.0 1.0 50,427
2029............................ 28,996 1/0.7875 1.0 1.0 36,820
2030 and later.................. 28,996 1.0 1.0 1.0 28,996
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ 12,307 Wh/gal is the Eg for MY 2024-2026, not the CEg as the revised PEF methodology does not apply to MY
2024-2026 EVs.
\b\ Assumes no petroleum-powered accessories for MY 2024-2026 EVs.
Several commenters, mainly auto manufacturers and their
representatives, opposed the revised PEF value.\28\ Some commenters
argued that DOE should maintain the PEF established in the 2000 Final
Rule. Porsche, Doc. No. 24, pg. 1; NADA, Doc. No 23, pg. 2-3; UAW, Doc.
No. 30, pg. 1. They noted that the consistent PEF has provided
regulatory certainty to automakers and that the PEF is an important
planning tool and regulatory incentive in the context of CAFE
compliance strategies that rely on the existing PEF to improve
efficiency. Porsche, Doc. No. 24, pg.1; NADA, Doc. No. 23, pg. 2-3.
NADA claimed that unless CAFE standards are lowered, changing the PEF
as proposed will force automobile manufacturers to alter CAFE
compliance strategy by reverting to investing more in costly ICE
[[Page 22054]]
vehicle technology improvements or incur penalties. NADA, Doc. No 23,
pg. 2. Porsche stated that if PEF must change, then the change should
be phased in to reduce the effect on auto manufacturers. Porsche, Doc.
No. 24, pg. 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ DOE notes that these commenters opposed the revised PEF
value proposed in the 2023 NOPR. In this final rule, the revised PEF
value differs from the PEF value proposed in the 2023 NOPR.
Specifically, the final rule retains the fuel content factor and
phases it out over MY 2027 to MY 2030. In addition, the final rule
uses an updated NREL projection of the electrical grid. Overall,
these differences result in a greater PEF value for MY 2027 to MY
2030 EVs than proposed in the 2023 NOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE has a specific task of developing a PEF value that accounts for
EV efficiency, national electrical generation and transmission
efficiencies, conservation of all energy types and the relative
scarcity and value of all fuels used to generate electricity, and EV
driving patterns compared to petroleum-fueled vehicles. Although the
Department has not changed the PEF value for over 23 years, DOE has
statutory authority to review the PEF value on an annual basis. After
reviewing the current PEF value and inputs, DOE determined that it was
necessary to revise the PEF value consistent with the statutory factors
identified in section 32904(a)(2)(B) and described above in greater
detail. The revised PEF value reflects updated inputs upon which PEF
values are calculated and advancements in the technology and market
penetration of EVs since the 2000 Final Rule.
8. Compliance Period
As noted in the 2023 NOPR, DOE proposed that the new PEF value take
effect with MY 2027 vehicles. 88 FR 21525, 21531. DOE explained that
NHTSA's next CAFE regulation was expected to cover MYs 2027-2031 and
that the proposed PEF value would be the applicable PEF for calculating
EV fuel economy for those model years. 88 FR 21525, 21531. DOE stated
that having a fixed PEF value for the CAFE standard period improves
NHTSA's ability to set CAFE standards that are the maximum feasible
average fuel economy level and provides greater certainty to
stakeholders from year to year. 88 FR 21525, 21531. DOE requested
comment on this approach.
DOE received comments on this approach from numerous and diverse
stakeholder groups, including non-governmental organizations, auto
manufacturers and their representatives, energy and agricultural
interest groups, and members of the public. Some commenters, such as
NRDC and Sierra Club, supported the proposed effective date and agreed
that DOE should conduct its most in-depth reviews of the PEF to
coincide with anticipated CAFE rulemakings. NRDC and Sierra Club, Doc.
No. 20, pg. 6.
In contrast, most auto manufacturers and automotive industry
representatives opposed the proposed effective date and asserted that
incorporating PEF-driven changes into existing product plans for MY
2027 vehicles would be challenging. The Alliance explained that several
years of lead time is necessary to incorporate technologies into new
vehicles, electric or ICE. Alliance, Doc. No. 25, pg. 17. In
particular, the Alliance noted that by the time the PEF rule is
finalized, it is likely to be near the market introduction of MY 2025
vehicles and asserted that ``[e]ngine design and development cycles are
typically much longer than three years.'' Alliance, Doc. No. 25, pg.
17.
On September 14, 2023, DOE issued letters to member companies of
the Alliance that invited recipients to provide data, documents, or
analysis to clarify the concerns the Alliance expressed on behalf of
its member companies in its response to comments on the 2023 NOPR in
relation to the proposed effective date. DOE received responses from
several Alliance member companies that provided data on how the
proposed PEF value could affect their ability to comply with proposed
CAFE standards for MYs 2027 to MY 2031. Specifically, Hyundai, Toyota,
Stellantis, Mitsubishi, and the Alliance indicated that the proposed
PEF value could lead to challenges complying with the proposed CAFE
standards. Alliance, Doc. No. 25, pg. 6, 10, 11; Hyundai Doc. No. 38,
pg. 1; Toyota, Doc. No. 54, pg. 1; Stellantis, Doc. No. 53, pg. 6-7;
Mitsubishi, Doc. No. 50, pg. 1 Alliance, Doc. No. 25, pg. 6, 10, 11.
In response to this request for clarification on the lead-time
challenges expressed by the Alliance on behalf of its member companies,
several commenters opposed delaying the implementation date beyond what
was proposed in the 2023 NOPR. These commenters echoed comments from
AFPM and stated that DOE lacks authority to postpone the effective date
because DOE is required to review the PEF annually. See Tesla, Doc. No.
18, pg. 2; NRDC and Sierra Club, Doc. No. 20, pg. 2; AmFree et al.,
Doc. No. 31, pg. 3. Additionally, these commenters also observed that
lead time challenges are not included amongst the statutory factors DOE
must consider when reviewing the PEF. Tesla, Doc. 18, pg. 2; AmFree et
al., 31, pg. 2.
Although DOE is sensitive to the concerns of auto manufacturers, 49
U.S.C. 32904 clearly identifies the factors DOE must consider when
reviewing the PEF. DOE has a specific task of developing a PEF that
accounts for EV efficiency, national electrical generation and
transmission efficiencies, conservation of all energy types and the
relative scarcity and value of fuels used to generate electricity, and
EV driving patterns compared to petroleum-fueled vehicles. See 49
U.S.C. 32904(a)(2)(B). While NHTSA is required to provide 18 months of
lead time for new CAFE standards per 49 U.S.C. 32902, lead time is not
included in the factors that DOE must consider in its required annual
review of the PEF. DOE is not required to consider lead time. However,
DOE believes that applying the revised PEF beginning with MY 2027
vehicles is reasonable This will provide automotive manufacturers with
more time to incorporate a new PEF than is required under the mandate
that DOE review the PEF each year and determine if revisions to the PEF
are required. Moreover, as DOE explained in the 2023 NOPR, applying
revised PEF values to a predictable schedule provides greater certainty
to stakeholders from year to year. Accordingly, as proposed in the 2023
NOPR, the revised PEF value will apply beginning with MY 2027 EVs.
9. Annual Review
In the 2023 NOPR, DOE stated that the statutory directive for an
annual review is sufficient to require DOE to review the PEF.
Accordingly, DOE proposed to delete section 10 CFR 474.5, which
currently requires DOE to review 10 CFR part 474 every five years. 88
FR 21525, 21533. DOE stated that it would review the PEF value annually
and if DOE determined that the PEF value needed to be changed, DOE
would initiate a rulemaking to revise the value PEF appropriately. DOE
also noted its intention to seek stakeholder input for its annual
reviews through available methods (e.g., requests for information). 88
FR 21525, 21533.
Several commenters opposed the deletion of 10 CFR 474.5. NRDC and
Sierra Club, Doc. No. 20, pg. 6; California et al., Doc. No. 27, pg. 7-
8. These commenters acknowledged that DOE must review the PEF value on
an annual basis and supported DOE's intention to seek stakeholder input
during these annual reviews. However, they stated that Sec. 474.5
requirements for public participation and publication are warranted to
ensure DOE fulfills its statutory responsibilities to review the PEF.
NRDC and Sierra Club, Doc. No. 20, pg. 6; California et al., Doc. No.
27, pg. 7-8. Instead of deleting Sec. 474.5, NRDC and Sierra Club
suggested that DOE revise Sec. 474.5 to reflect the review process
described in the 2023 NOPR. NRDC and Sierra Club, Doc. No. 20, pg. 6.
DOE does not believe additional regulation regarding public review
is necessary for DOE to meet its statutory responsibilities. The public
is
[[Page 22055]]
authorized to petition DOE should DOE neglect its duties.\29\ In
addition, if DOE determines that it is necessary to change the PEF
value, this will require revisions to 10 CFR part 474, which would
require DOE to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking and request
comments. Thus, any revisions to the PEF value or changes to the
methodology will be published in the Federal Register and the public
may file comments, making the language in Sec. 474.5 requiring public
participation and publication unnecessary. Accordingly, in this final
rule, DOE deletes Sec. 474.5 as proposed in the 2023 NOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ AFPM stated that its comments to the 2023 NOPR are also a
petition for a rulemaking to update the PEF for 2024/25. DOE will
undertake an annual review process. Therefore, AFPM's petition is
premature at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE also received comments that expressed concern that DOE would
only change the revised PEF value for MYs 2027-2031 if there is a
``compelling reason'' to change the PEF calculation. AFPM, Doc. No. 26,
pg. 4 (citing 88 FR 21525, 21533). However, AFPM noted that the statute
does not require a compelling reason to change the PEF value. AFPM,
Doc. No. 26, pg. 4. DOE agrees that 49 U.S.C. 32904 does not require a
``compelling reason'' to change the PEF calculation. However, DOE did
not intend to imply such a requirement exists. Rather, as explained
previously, in this final rule, DOE provides the PEF values for MYs
2024 EVs and later. The 2023 NOPR expressed DOE's view that it was
unlikely that over the near term, annual reviews will identify
sufficient changes in the inputs to warrant revising the PEF value.
Regardless, if DOE concludes during an annual review that grid mix
projections or any other changes result in a PEF value that
meaningfully differs from the revised PEF values set forth in this
final rule, DOE will take steps to revise the PEF accordingly.
IV. Responses to Additional Comments
A. Revisions to Section 474.3
One commenter noted that the 2023 NOPR proposed revisions to 10 CFR
474.3 that remove all description of the PEF value that applies to EVs
prior to MY 2027. Alliance, Doc. No. 25, pg. 27. It was not DOE's
intention to imply that there would be no PEF value from the effective
date of the final rule to MY 2027. Accordingly, DOE revises Sec. 474.3
to retain the current regulatory description relating to the PEF value
that applies to EVs prior to MY 2027. This clarification requires
revisions to the definition of the ``petroleum-equivalency factor'' in
10 CFR 474.2. DOE revises the definition of ``petroleum-equivalency
factor'' to reference the new paragraphs in Sec. 474.3 that provide
the revised PEF values applicable to MY 2027 EVs and later.
B. Consideration of All Forms of Energy Conservation
Commenters suggested that DOE needed to consider all forms of
energy conservation. AFPM, Doc. No. 26, pg. 12-16. For example, AFPM
asserted that DOE did not account for resource depletion associated
with transitioning to renewable electricity (e.g., constraints on
critical minerals for EV batteries and copper for transmission wiring),
energy used to develop and manufacture EVs and infrastructure, and
barriers to new renewable energy projects. AFPM suggested that DOE
consider lifecycle energy demand associated with production of
batteries, minerals, concrete, transition and storing, and charging
infrastructure.
DOE notes in response that energy use associated with production of
vehicles and components are incorporated in the lifecycle analysis
methodology within GREET, which does include energy use of all
associated vehicle materials. Charging infrastructure does not impact
vehicle fuel economy, with the exception of grid losses, which are
accounted for. Other factors, such as commodity pricing and supply, are
beyond the factors DOE is directed to consider.
In contrast, the Alliance asserted that DOE's rulemaking should
focus only on the lifetime petroleum consumption of passenger vehicles.
However, such a limited focus is not supported by the statute.
Developing ``equivalent petroleum based fuel economy values[,]'' as
required in 49 U.S.C. 32904, requires DOE to develop a way to equate EV
fuel economy in miles per kWh with a miles per gasoline gallon
equivalent. If Congress wanted DOE to only consider petroleum
consumption of EVs in calculating PEF, it would not have required DOE
to consider the national average electrical generation and transmission
efficiencies. 49 U.S.C. 32904(a)(2)(B)(ii). In addition, Congress would
not have identified four distinct factors for DOE to consider when
reviewing the equivalent petroleum-based fuel economy values of EVs. In
particular, the statutory language about ``the need of the United
States to conserve all forms of energy and the relative scarcity and
value to the United States of all fuel used to generate electricity''
would be superfluous. DOE must consider all of the factors presented by
Congress and it cannot isolate a single factor, such as petroleum
consumption, and use it exclusively when calculating the PEF value.
However, this final rule does give special consideration to the
capability of EVs to conserve scarce fuels like petroleum, including by
retaining a fuel content factor through 2030, as discussed in Section
III.C.4.
C. Need for Multiple PEF Values
AFPM also asserted that one PEF for all EVs of different types and
sizes is inappropriate, and instead, there should be PEF values that
reflect actual energy efficiency of various classes of EVs during real
world operation. However, the PEF is not designed to reflect the actual
energy efficiency of various classes of EVs. Rather, the PEF value is a
conversion factor between the forms of energy that are used in a
vehicle, specifically to convert a Watt-hour of electricity into a
gallon of gasoline for purposes of fuel economy regulation. The energy
efficiency of various classes of EVs are determined by calculating the
EV's combined electrical energy consumption value. An EV's combined
energy consumption value is not considered when calculating the PEF
value, but it is part of the equation to calculate the EV's petroleum-
equivalent fuel economy. 10 CFR 474.3(a). To determine an EV's
petroleum-equivalent fuel economy, one divides the appropriate PEF
value by the EV's combined energy consumption value. 10 CFR
474.3(a)(3).
Because the combined electrical energy consumption value already
accounts for the energy efficiency of different types and sizes of EVs,
DOE determines that having multiple PEF values is unnecessary here. DOE
agrees, however, that 49 U.S.C. 32904(a)(2)(B) would allow DOE to apply
various factors to the CEg when calculating the PEF value
for ``various classes of electric vehicles,'' if DOE determined that
such factors were necessary. For example, 49 U.S.C. 32904(a)(2)(B)(iv)
requires DOE to consider ``the specific patterns of use of electric
vehicles compared to petroleum-fueled vehicles.'' In this final rule,
DOE determines that current classes of EVs are equivalently capable
vehicles that are likely to be used similarly to ICE vehicles.
Accordingly, DOE maintains a driving pattern factor as 1.0. However, if
there were a class of EVs that are used differently than ICE vehicles,
then DOE could include a different driving pattern factor to reflect
this different use when calculating the PEF value for such vehicles.
DOE will monitor the field and consider whether including different
driving pattern
[[Page 22056]]
factors for different classes of EVs is appropriate during its annual
reviews.
D. Impact of Revised PEF on Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles
Some stakeholders commented on the application of the PEF to Plug-
in Hybrid EVs (PHEVs) and argued that PHEVs were disproportionately
advantaged by the new PEF. Tesla, Doc. No. 18, pg. 4; ZETA, Doc. No.
21, pg. 2. Specifically, they asserted that revised PEF value would
decrease the fuel economy of PHEVs to approximately 60 to 75 percent of
their current levels. However, according to these commenters, the
revised PEF value would decrease the fuel economy of battery EVs (BEVs)
to approximately 30 percent of their current levels. These commenters
stated that DOE should address this ``skewed incentive'' because the
revised PEF value would favor the inefficient PHEVs over more efficient
BEVs. Tesla, Doc. No. 18, pg. 4; ZETA, Doc. No. 21, pg. 2.
The PEF value is used to convert the measured electrical energy
consumption of an EV into a gasoline-equivalent fuel economy of
electricity. For PHEVs, which consume both electricity and petroleum,
PEF only applies to the measured electrical energy consumption and does
not apply to the energy consumption of petroleum. Accordingly, the
impact of a decreased PEF value on the fuel economy of a PHEV is less
than the impact of a decreased PEF value on the fuel economy of a BEV,
which consumes only electricity. In addition, the fuel economy of a BEV
is still significantly greater than that of a PHEV. Accordingly, under
the revised PEV value, auto manufacturers are still incentivized to
invest in the more efficient BEVs.
E. Compliance With NHTSA and EPA Standards
Several commenters expressed concerns that the revised PEF value
would negatively affect auto manufacturers' ability to comply with
NHTSA's CAFE standards and EPA's standards related to greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions. Ford and the Alliance asserted that the proposed PEF
value would cause the NHTSA and EPA compliance programs to become
misaligned. Alliance, Doc. No. 25, pg. 21; Ford, Doc. No. 22, pg. 2.
Several commenters stated that the revised PEF would expose auto
manufacturers to additional penalties associated with noncompliance
with the NHTSA and or EPA compliance programs. Ford, Doc. No. 22, pg.
2; Alliance Doc. No. 25, pg. 6, 10, 11.
DOE has carefully considered the impact of the revised PEF value
under the factors in section 32904. The imposition of any penalties
associated with noncompliance with the CAFE and GHG programs is not
within the considerations required by section 32904(a)(2)(B) and is
therefore outside the scope of this rulemaking. Because NHTSA and EPA
are responsible for the CAFE and GHG compliance programs, those
agencies are in the best position to consider any such concerns from
commenters.
F. Related Rulemakings
Several commenters expressed concerns with the timing of the DOE's
rulemaking and noted that EPA and NHTSA were considering their GHG and
CAFE standards. For example, the Alliance asserted that DOE should
defer action on the 2023 NOPR to allow NHTSA and EPA to finalize their
pending rulemakings first.\30\ Porsche also objected to the publication
of 2023 NOPR prior to the release of the proposed CAFE rule.
Specifically, Porsche argued that DOE is prejudging the relevancy of
the PEF value to future CAFE standards that had not been proposed at
the time of the 2023 NOPR. Porsche, Doc. No. 24, pg. 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Alliance, Doc. No. 25, pg. 24. DOE notes that several auto
manufacturers and their representatives made similar arguments in
their letters responded to the September 14, 2023, letters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE is obligated to complete the PEF rulemaking without further
delay, given that an assessment of the PEF value is several years past
due. In the 2023 NOPR, DOE acknowledged that the inputs upon which the
calculations and PEF values in current 10 CFR part 474 are based are
outdated, and the technology and market penetration of electric
vehicles has significantly changed since the 2000 Final Rule. 88 FR
21525, 21526. DOE is statutorily mandated to review the PEF annually
and to revise it as necessary. Such review is neither contingent upon
nor tied to NHTSA and EPA rulemakings, and any impact of the PEF value
on other programs is not part of the factors DOE must consider.
Accordingly, DOE is not deferring this statutorily required action to
update the PEF.
G. Miscellaneous
DOE received a number of comments that are outside the scope of its
authority or outside the scope of this rulemaking. For example,
Transport Evolved argued that automakers should not be permitted to
transfer CAFE credits from year-to-year or with other automakers.
Transport Evolved, Doc. No. 17, pg. 2. In addition, Transport Evolved
stated that CAFE calculations should account for the size of vehicles,
specifically by reducing the benefit for ``larger, heavier, more
inefficient vehicles.'' Transport Evolved, Doc. No. 17, pg. 2. However,
these comments from Transport Evolved relate to standards or programs
administered by other federal agencies, NHTSA's CAFE program and the
greenhouse gas and fuel economy calculations of EPA and NHTSA, and are,
therefore, outside the scope of this rulemaking.
Our Children's Trust stated that the revised PEF value would
authorize a level of GHG emissions that exceed levels safe for
children. Our Children's Trust, Doc. No. 28, pg. 1. The PEF value does
not authorize (or limit) GHG emissions. In this final rule DOE
addresses the statutorily mandated factors for consideration in
establishing the PEF value. The comments expressed concerns outside the
scope of the PEF or the statutory factors.
UAW suggested that DOE incorporate a more realistic projection of
EV adoption and charging infrastructure in the considerations, with an
eye towards ensuring domestic manufacturing and the relevant supply
chain. UAW, Doc. No. 30, pg. 2. In section III.3, DOE explained its
methodology for deriving the PEF value.
Omer Sevindir asserted that the change to the PEF will hinder the
ability of individuals who prefer ICE vehicles to acquire them. Doc.
No. 36, pg. 1. The PEF value does not dictate market strategy for
automakers. Each automaker selects its own manufacturer-specific CAFE
compliance strategy and determines the vehicle models it will offer for
sale.
An anonymous commenter suggested that DOE nationalize the oil and
gas industry. This comment is not relevant to the scope of this
rulemaking.
V. Revisions to 10 CFR Part 474
A. 10 CFR 474.3
In the 2023 NOPR, DOE proposed revising Sec. 474.3 by revising
paragraph (b) and adding paragraph (c). Proposed paragraph (b) stated
that the PEF value is 23,160 Watt-hours per gallon. 88 FR 21525, 21539.
Proposed paragraph (c) provided that the PEF value applies to MY 2027
and later EVs. 88 FR 21525, 21539. As previously discussed, DOE
received comments that stated the proposed revisions to Sec. 474.3
would remove all description of the PEF value that applies to EVs prior
to MY 2027. Alliance, Doc. No. 25, pg. 27. It was not DOE's intention
to imply that there would be no PEF value from the effective date of
the final rule to MY
[[Page 22057]]
2027. Accordingly, DOE revises Sec. 474.3 to retain the current
regulatory description relating to the PEF value that applies to EVs
prior to MY 2027. Specifically, DOE revises paragraph (b) to clarify
that the current PEF value applies to pre-MY 2027 EVs. DOE also adds
paragraph (c)-(f) to provide PEF values for MY2027 to MY 2030 and later
vehicles. These revised PEF values reflect the decreasing fuel content
factor that applies to MY 2027 to MY 2030 EVs.
The revisions to Sec. 474.3 also necessitate revisions to the
definition for ``petroleum equivalency factor'' in Sec. 474.2 to
include references to new paragraphs (c)-(f).
B. Appendix to Part 474
In the 2023 NOPR, DOE also proposed revisions to the appendix to
part 474. The proposed revisions to the sample petroleum-equivalent
fuel economy calculations reflected the proposed revised PEF. In the
final rule, DOE amends the appendix to part 474 to reflect the
revisions to the PEF methodology and PEF value adopted in the final
rule. For example, the sample calculation reflects the revised PEF
value for MY 2029, which includes a fuel content factor of 1/0.7875. In
addition, the DOE revises the appendix to clarify that the fuel content
factor is part of the calculation of PEF, not the calculation of
petroleum-equivalent fuel economy. Instead, to calculate the petroleum-
equivalent fuel economy, one divides the PEF by the combined electrical
energy consumption value.
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866, 13563 and 14094
Executive Order (``E.O.'') 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and
Review,'' 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), as supplemented and reaffirmed by
E.O. 13563, ``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,'' 76 FR 3821
(Jan. 21, 2011) and amended by E.O. 14094, ``Modernizing Regulatory
Review,'' 88 FR 21879 (April 11, 2023), requires agencies, to the
extent permitted by law, to (1) propose or adopt a regulation only upon
a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs
(recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) tailor regulations to impose the least burden on society,
consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account,
among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of
cumulative regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative
regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits
(including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety,
and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity); (4) to the
extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying
the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must
adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct
regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the
desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing
information upon which choices can be made by the public. DOE
emphasizes as well that E.O. 13563 requires agencies to use the best
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future
benefits and costs as accurately as possible. In its guidance, the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (``OIRA'') within the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has emphasized that such
techniques may include identifying changing future compliance costs
that might result from technological innovation or anticipated
behavioral changes.
For the reasons stated in this preamble, this regulatory action is
consistent with these principles. As a preliminary matter, we note that
the PEF is a numeric value determined through a highly technical
analysis, which bounds DOE's discretion in deriving the value. Once
calculated, the PEF has no independent effects, but serves as an input
to calculations that other agencies perform. Thus, the general costs
and benefits that could be attributed to these revisions are somewhat
removed from this action, and DOE has not attempted to quantify them
here. From a qualitative perspective, however, as discussed in section
III.C, DOE expects the decision to retain a fuel content factor over
the next several years, when combined with the revised PEF value and
methodology to result in greater petroleum conservation by
incentivizing EV production and adoption. On the other hand, the
phaseout of the fuel content factor and the use of the revised PEF
value may lead some manufacturers to incur additional costs, because of
the potential effects of the revised PEF value on the average fuel
economy of their fleets. The fact that the fuel content factor is
phased out over four years, however, should have the effect of
mitigating any such costs.
Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also requires agencies to submit
``significant regulatory actions'' to the OIRA for review. OIRA has
determined that this action constitutes a significant regulatory action
within the scope of section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, this
action was subject to review by OIRA.
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires the
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) for
any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the
agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
As required by E.O. 13272, Proper Consideration of Small Entities in
Agency Rulemaking, 67 FR 53461 (Aug. 16, 2002), DOE published
procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that the
potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly
considered during the rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. The Department
has made its procedures and policies available on the Office of General
Counsel's website: www.energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel.
The final rule revises DOE's regulations on electric vehicles
regarding procedures for calculating a value for the petroleum-
equivalent fuel economy of EVs for use in the CAFE program administered
by DOT. Once calculated, the PEF has no independent effects, but serves
as an input to calculations that other agencies perform. Because this
final rule does not directly regulate small entities but instead only
amends a factor used to calculate the average fuel economy of a
manufacturer's entire fleet, DOE certifies that this final rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities, and, therefore, no regulatory flexibility analysis is
required.\31\ Mid-Tex Elec. Co-Op, Inc. v. F.E.R.C., 773 F.2d 327
(1985). Accordingly, DOE certifies that this rule would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,
and, therefore, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required. DOE
transmitted a certification and supporting statement of factual basis
to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration
for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ DOE notes that passenger vehicle manufacturers that
manufacture fewer than 10,000 vehicles per year can petition NHTSA
to have alternative CAFE standards. See 49 U.S.C. 32902(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
The final rule does not impose new information or record keeping
requirements. Accordingly, OMB
[[Page 22058]]
clearance is not required under the Paperwork Reduction Act. (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.).
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
DOE analyzed this regulation in accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (``NEPA'') and DOE's NEPA implementing
regulations (10 CFR part 1021). DOE's regulations include a categorical
exclusion for amending an existing rule or regulation that does not
change the environmental effect of the rule or regulation being
amended. 10 CFR part 1021, subpart D, appendix A5. This rulemaking
qualifies for categorical exclusion A5 because this final rule, which
amends an existing rule or regulation does not change the environmental
effect of the rule or regulation being amended, no extraordinary
circumstances exist that require further environmental analysis, and it
otherwise meets the requirements for application of a categorical
exclusion. See 10 CFR 1021.410. Because this rule revises and updates
the PEF value to ensure that it continues to serve the statutory
purpose of conserving energy and conserving petroleum, given changes in
circumstances that would diminish the effectiveness of the prior PEF
value over time, this rule does not change the environmental effect of
the prior rule. Thus, DOE concludes that this rulemaking to amend 10
CFR part 474 does not change the environmental effect of 10 CFR part
474. In addition, no extraordinary circumstances exist that would
require further environmental analysis and the final rule otherwise
meets the requirements for application of categorical exclusion A5.
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999),
imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing
policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism
implications. The E.O. requires agencies to examine the constitutional
and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the
policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess the
necessity for such actions. The E.O. also requires agencies to have an
accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and
local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have
federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement
of policy describing the intergovernmental consultation process it will
follow in the development of such regulations. See 65 FR 13735. DOE
examined this final rule and determined that it will not preempt State
law and will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
Government. No further action is required by E.O. 13132.
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
With respect to the review of existing regulations and the
promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of E.O. 12988, ``Civil
Justice Reform,'' 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), imposes on Federal
agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1)
eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to
minimize litigation; and (3) provide a clear legal standard for
affected conduct, rather than a general standard and promote
simplification and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of E.O. 12988
specifically requires that executive agencies make every reasonable
effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) clearly specifies its
preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for
affected conduct, while promoting simplification and burden reduction;
(4) specifies its retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines
key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity
and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney
General. Section 3(c) of E.O. 12988 requires executive agencies to
review regulations in light of applicable standards in section 3(a) and
section 3(b) to determine whether they are met, or it is unreasonable
to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the required review and
determined that, to the extent permitted by law, the final rule does
meet the relevant standards of E.O. 12988.
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub.
L. 104-4) requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal
regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the
private sector. For a proposed regulatory action likely to result in a
rule that may cause the expenditure by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million
or more in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202
of UMRA requires a Federal agency to publish a written statement that
estimates the resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the
national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a) and (b)). The section of UMRA also
requires a Federal agency to develop an effective process to permit
timely input by elected officers of State, local, and tribal
governments on a proposed ``significant intergovernmental mandate'' and
requires an agency plan for giving notice and opportunity for timely
input to potentially affected small governments before establishing any
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. On March 18, 1997, DOE published a statement of policy on
its process for intergovernmental consultation under UMRA (62 FR 12820)
(also available at www.energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel). This
final rule contains neither an intergovernmental mandate nor a mandate
that may result in the expenditure of $100 million or more in any year
by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, so these requirements under the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act do not apply.
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act
of 1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act of 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a
Family Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family
well-being. This final rule would not have any impact on the autonomy
or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE
concludes that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking
Assessment.
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
DOE has determined, under E.O. 12630, ``Governmental Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,'' 53 FR
8859 (Mar. 18, 1988), that this final rule will not result in any
takings which might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment to
the United States Constitution.
J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
2001
Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note) provides for agencies to review most
disseminations of information to the public under guidelines
established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by
OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR
[[Page 22059]]
8452 (February 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR
62446 (October 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed the final rule under the OMB
and DOE guidelines and concludes that it is consistent with applicable
policies in those guidelines.
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to
OIRA, a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy
action. A ``significant energy action'' is defined as any action by an
agency that promulgated or is expected to lead to promulgation of a
final rule, and that: (1) is a significant regulatory action under E.O.
12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a significant
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, or (3) is
designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action.
For any proposed significant energy action, the agency must give a
detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy supply,
distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented, and of
reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on
energy supply, distribution, and use. The final rule amends a factor
used to calculate CAFE compliance and is not expected to have a
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy. Additionally, OIRA has not designated this rule as a
significant energy action. Accordingly, the requirements of E.O. 13211
do not apply.
L. Congressional Notification
As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will report to Congress on the
promulgation of this rule prior to its effective date. The report will
state that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has
determined that this rule meets the criteria set forth in 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
VII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this final
rule.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 474
Electric power, Energy conservation, Motor vehicles, Research.
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on March 18,
2024, by Jeffrey Marootian, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated authority
from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature
and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in
compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the
undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to
sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as
an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative
process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon
publication in the Federal Register.
Signed in Washington, DC, on March 19, 2024.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE amends part 474 of
Chapter II of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth
below:
PART 474--ELECTRIC AND HYBRID VEHICLE RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND
DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM; PETROLEUM-EQUIVALENT FUEL ECONOMY
CALCULATION
0
1. The authority citation for part 474 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 32901 et seq.
0
2. Amend Sec. 474.2 by revising definition for ``Petroleum-equivalency
factor'' to read as follows:
Sec. 474.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
Petroleum equivalency factor means the values specified in Sec.
474.3, paragraphs (b) through (f) of this part, which incorporate the
parameters listed in 49 U.S.C. 32904(a)(2)(B) and are used to calculate
petroleum-equivalent fuel economy.
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec. 474.3 by revising the introductory text of paragraph (b)
and adding paragraphs (c), (d), (e), and (f) to read as follows:
Sec. 474.3 Petroleum-equivalent fuel economy calculation.
* * * * *
(b) For model year (MY) 2024, MY 2025, and MY 2026 electric
vehicles, the petroleum-equivalency factors are as follows:
* * * * *
(c) For MY 2027 electric vehicles, the petroleum-equivalency factor
is 79,989 Watt-hours per gallon.
(d) For MY 2028 electric vehicles, the petroleum-equivalency factor
is 50,427 Watt-hours per gallon.
(e) For MY 2029 electric vehicles, the petroleum-equivalency factor
is 36,820 Watt-hours per gallon.
(f) For MY 2030 and later electric vehicles, the petroleum-
equivalency factor is 28,996 Watt-hours per gallon.
Sec. 474.5 [Removed and Reserved]
0
4. Remove and reserve Sec. 474.5.
0
5. Revise appendix A to to 474 to read as follows:
Appendix A to Part 474--Sample Petroleum-Equivalent Fuel Economy
Calculations
Example 1: Battery Electric Vehicle (BEV)
A battery electric vehicle is tested in accordance with
Environmental Protection Agency procedures and is found to have an
Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule energy consumption value of 265
Watt-hours per mile and a Highway Fuel Economy Driving Schedule
energy consumption value of 220 Watt-hours per mile. The vehicle is
not equipped with any petroleum-powered accessories. The combined
electrical energy consumption value is determined by averaging the
Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule energy consumption value and the
Highway Fuel Economy Driving Schedule energy consumption value using
weighting factors of 55 percent urban, and 45 percent highway:
combined electrical energy consumption value = (0.55 * urban) +
(0.45 * highway) = (0.55 * 265) + (0.45 * 220) = 244.75 Wh/mile
The petroleum-equivalent fuel economy is:
PEF / combined electrical energy consumption value
Thus, fuel economy for the example vehicle in MY 2030 would be:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR29MR24.055
[[Page 22060]]
where MPGe is miles per gallon equivalent.
Example 2: Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicle
A plug-in hybrid electric vehicle is tested in accordance with
Environmental Protection Agency procedures and is found to have an
Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule energy consumption value of 265
Watt-hours per mile and a Highway Fuel Economy Driving Schedule
energy consumption value of 220 Watt-hours per mile in charge
depleting mode, a combined gasoline fuel economy of 50.0 miles per
gallon in charge sustaining mode, and an all-electric range
corresponding to a percentage utilization of 60 percent travel on
electricity and 40 percent travel on gasoline.
The combined electrical energy consumption value is determined
by averaging the Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule energy
consumption value and the Highway Fuel Economy Driving Schedule
energy consumption value using weighting factors of 55 percent
urban, and 45 percent highway to be 244.75 Wh/mile, which
corresponds to 118.47 miles/gal equivalent as shown above for a BEV
(using the MY 2030-and-beyond PEF value of 28,997 Wh/gal).
The PHEV fuel economy is calculated by dividing one by the sum
of the percentage utilization for petroleum and electricity divided
by their respective fuel economy.
In this case:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR29MR24.056
[FR Doc. 2024-06101 Filed 3-28-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P