Environmental Protection Agency
Fuel Economy Label
Phase 2 Focus Groups
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Fuel Economy Label
Phase 2 Focus Groups
Office of Transportation and Air Quality
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
and
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
United States Department of Transportation
Prepared for EPA by
PRR, Inc.
EPA Contract No. GS-23F-0364P
Task Order 0001
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
EPA-420-R-10-904
August 2010
-------
Table of Contents
Introduction 3
Current Label Use 7
Factors influencing vehicle choice 7
Current fuel economy label use 9
Current fuel economy label on hybrid vehicles 10
Electric Vehicles 13
Awareness about electric vehicles 13
Desirable fuel economy label information for electric vehicles.. 14
Fuel economy label metrics for electric vehicles 16
Extended Range Electric Vehicles 23
Awareness about extended range electric vehicles 23
Desirable fuel economy label information
for extended range electric vehicles 24
Fuel economy label metrics for
extended range electric vehicles 27
Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles 35
Awareness about plug-in hybrid electric vehicles 35
Desirable fuel economy label information
for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles 36
Fuel economy label metrics for plug-in
hybrid electric vehicles 37
Comparison Across Vehicle Types 43
Overall Summary 45
Appendices 53
Appendix A: Moderator Guide 53
Appendix B-. Participants' Profile 62
Appendix C: Current Label 70
Appendix D: Prius Label 70
Appendix £.- EV Label Elements 71
Appendix F-. EV Label Elements Tally 73
Appendix G: Teaching Tool Handout 75
Appendix H: EREV Label Elements 76
Appendix /.- EREV Label Elements Tally 78
Appendix J: PHEV Label Elements 82
Appendix K: PHEV Label Elements Tally 85
Appendix L-. At-A-Glance Comparison Across Technologies 87
Phase 2 Focus Groups
-------
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
ntroduction
Background
In 2006, EPA updated how the city and highway fuel economy
values are calculated to better reflect typical real-world driving
patterns and provide more realistic fuel economy estimates. In
addition, EPA redesigned the fuel economy label to make it more
informative for consumers. The redesigned label more prominently
featured annual fuel cost information, provided contemporary and
easy-to-use graphics for comparing the fuel economy of different
vehicles, used clearer text, and included a Web site reference to
www.fueleconomy.gov which provided additional information.
EPA is now initiating a new rule making to ensure that American
consumers continue to have the most accurate, meaningful and
useful information, as well as an understanding of how the labeled
vehicle impacts the environment. In 2006 EPA did not include a
consumption-based metric in the new label design, however EPA
did recognize at that time that a distance-based metric such as
MPG can be misleading and that a fuel consumption metric might
be more meaningful to consumers. In this rulemaking, EPA wants
to 'gallons per 100 miles' as a potential fuel consumption metric
on the label. Additionally, EPA wishes to provide metrics that
are relevant and useful for advanced technology vehicles, such as
Electric Vehicles, Extended Range Electric Vehicles and Plug-in
Hybrid Electric Vehicles.
Phase 2 Focus Groups
-------
To help inform the creation of the new label, EPA engaged PRR
Inc. to work with them in the design and implementation of several
information gathering protocols including:
Literature review
Focus groups (in 3 phases, including pre-group online
surveys)
Online survey of new vehicle buyers
Expert panel
It was decided to use a three-phase approach for the focus groups
in order to accommodate the sheer amount of information required
to be covered in the focus groups, as well as to use each phase to
inform the next phase on overall label design in regard to both
content and look. The three phases were designed to address the
following issues:
Phase I - Use of the current label and design of the label for
internal combustion engine vehicles
Phase II - Understandability of metrics for advanced
technology vehicle labels
Phase III - Assessment of full label designs and messaging
testing for educational/marketing campaign
This document provides a preliminary overview of the Phase II
focus groups and is designed specifically to inform the next phase
of focus groups. It is not intended as a comprehensive report of
results from the Phase II focus groups; that will come at the end of
all three phases of focus groups in the form of a full, comprehensive
report. It should be noted that all results reported here refer to
the focus group discussions, except when specifically identified as
results from the pre-group online survey.
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
Methodology
Focus groups are the optimum approach to use when the task
calls for qualitative, in-depth understanding of consumer's
understanding of fuel economy labels. Focus groups allow for
probing around such issues as why some label designs are more
understandable, how label designs would be used in the vehicle
purchase process, and which label metrics are most important to
consumers. The focus group discussion can also provide insights
about how a label design may nudge consumers toward greater
use of the fuel economy label, as well as nudging them toward the
purchase of more fuel-efficient vehicles.
Eight focus groups were convened between April 5th and 15th,
2010 in the cities of Seattle, Chicago, Houston and Charlotte. In
each city, two groups (one male, one female) were conducted in
English and each lasted for two hours. A moderator guide was used
to structure the focus group discussions (see Appendix A).
Participants were recruited from databases developed and
maintained by the focus group facility used in each city. Twelve
persons were recruited for each group, with the assumption that
eight to ten would be present for participation. With the exception
of the male group in Seattle (which had seven participants), the rest
of the groups consisted of eight participants each. In order to screen
out 'professional focus group participants,' only those who had not
participated in a focus group in the last six months were included.
In addition, participants were required to demonstrate evidence
that they had purchased a new vehicle (not a used or pre-owned
vehicle; not a motorcycle; not a 'Cash for Clunkers' purchase) in
the last 12 months and had been the sole or primary decision maker
with regard to this new vehicle purchase. Internet accessibility was
also a requirement, so that they could complete the pre-group
online survey. To ensure a good cross-section, participants were
selected that specifically differed in terms of: type of new vehicle,
price range of new vehicle, distance typically travelled daily, if they
had seriously considered an advanced technology vehicle before
purchasing their vehicle, and demographics (see Appendix B for
participant profiles).
Phase 2 Focus Groups
-------
Participants were asked to complete an online survey before they
took part in the focus group discussions. The purpose of the online
survey was to obtain additional information regarding their vehicle
purchase process, the role of fuel economy in their purchase decision,
how they used the current fuel economy label, and motivators and
barriers to their purchasing advanced technology vehicles. The pre-
group online survey did not present new label designs (these were
covered exclusively in the focus groups). It should be noted that
the pre-group online surveys are not meant to be representative
of new vehicle buyers in general (since focus group participants
are in many ways unique), but rather to provide additional
information about these specific participants. The online survey
was approximately 12 to 15 minutes in length and was completed
by 95 of the recruited participants. Of those who had completed
the online survey, 31 male recruits and 32 female recruits in total
participated in the focus group discussions. While there were some
no-show cases for each group, those who participated in the group
discussions were selected to ensure a good mix of participants with
regard to their age, education, ethnicity, the type of new vehicle
they recently purchased, the price range of their new vehicle, the
distance they typically travelled daily in their new vehicle, and
if they had seriously considered an advanced technology vehicle
before making their purchase.
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
Current Label Use
Factors influencing vehicle choice
Participants across all the groups were asked about the top two
factors that influenced their vehicle choice, whether they had
considered fuel efficiency during the purchase process, and whether
there were other factors that stopped them from buying a vehicle
that in all other ways met their needs.
Top factors in vehicle choice
Participants explained that their vehicle choice was primarily
governed by the type of vehicle1 they wanted or needed. Because they
had a good idea of the type of vehicle they were looking to purchase,
they searched for information that was pertinent to the particular
vehicles that fit their needs and used the information to help narrow
their choices to the vehicle they subsequently purchased. As detailed
below, participants stated they considered very specific criteria when
shopping. It is also interesting to note that even if all criteria were
satisfied, with rare exceptions, they would not purchase a vehicle
that did not meet their aesthetic standards.
The online survey revealed that 88% of those surveyed (N=88)
had a specific type of vehicle in mind when they started the
purchase process, and the majority (90%) stated that they ended
up purchasing the same type of vehicle. Yet, when specifically asked
which vehicles they considered before making their final purchase
decision, participants did not stick to one particular vehicle
type, but selected vehicles across typical EPA vehicle classes that
"/ knew I wanted a SUV and a
6-cyUnder engine. I knew I was
limited to a few choices. From
there, it was comfort, then
price." - Houston Female
Note that when thinking of "type of vehicle" participants thought in relatively broad terms such as SUVs, minivans, sport cars,
trucks, economy cars, and midsize cars. Many participants also defined vehicle type as those vehicles that fit my needs, which,
for example, could include all vehicle type that carry at least seven passengers. These definitions of vehicle types differ from
EPA's definition of vehicle class.
Phase 2 Focus Groups
-------
"/ haul things for my business.
I wanted good gas mileage, but
also fold down seats, space."
- Seattle Female
"I bought a hybrid. I had good
luck with Toyota in the past,
and wanted to stick with
Toyota."-Seattle Male
suited their particular needs and wants. According to the online
survey results, once participants had determined which vehicles
they were interested in, comfort to drive the vehicle was the next
most important factor. (9.1 on a 1 to 10 scale, where 1 was 'not
important at all' and 10 was 'very important'). The next top ten
factors (all fairly close in importance) influencing their vehicle
purchase decision included safety (mean importance rating = 9),
price/affordability (8.8), reliability (8.7), interior and exterior
appearance (8.6), performance (8.5), gas mileage/fuel economy
(8.4), warranty (8.2), size/interior volume (8.0), brand name (7.6)
and seating capacity (7.4).
The focus group discussions reflected this as well. Across all cities,
most participants said that when considering the vehicles they
were interested in, they next considered factors such as price, fuel
economy, comfort, safety, reliability, appearance, and performance,
etc. when making their final vehicle purchase decision.
Across all groups, the majority of participants confirmed that they
had considered fuel efficiency in the decision of which vehicle they
chose to buy. With regard to the factors that would stop them from
buying a vehicle that in all other ways met their needs, responses
included high vehicle price, bad appearance, unavailability, and
negative brand reputation.
b. The part played by fuel economy
In the online survey fuel economy emerged to be the 7th most
important factor that respondents considered when making a
vehicle purchasing decision and it was rated a '7' or higher (on a
10 point importance scale) by 86% of respondents (n = 88). Close
to two-thirds (65% in the online survey) reported that they had
searched for fuel economy information before buying their most
recent new vehicle. Multiple sources were consulted to gather fuel
economy information. Most commonly used sources included
manufacturers' websites (69%), fuel economy label on vehicles
(62%), Consumer Reports (41%), auto dealers (36%), Edmunds.
com (29%), consulted others with similar vehicles (26%), auto
magazines (16%), government websites (16%) and television ads
(16%). It should be noted that many, if not most, of these sources
are consulted prior to visiting a car lot and the fuel economy label.
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
With few exceptions focus group participants indicated that the
environmental impact of the vehicle did not affect the type of vehicle
they purchased. Even those who indicated they had considered a
hybrid vehicle often discounted it for other factors such as vehicle
price and fuel economy when purchasing their new vehicle.
No major differences were found in the priority of factors that
influenced people's vehicle choice based on geographic location
or gender.
Based on the above findings, it may be said that participants
reported starting with a specific vehicle or vehicle type in mind
that fit their individual needs, They then searched for information
relevant to those specific vehicles. Assuming the vehicle meets their
affordability threshold and aesthetic preference participants looked
for information on factors such as comfort, safety, reliability, fuel
economy, performance, etc. that they considered important to their
final vehicle purchase decision (regardless of gender or geographic
location). It should be noted that participants' views of vehicle type
varied by their individual needs and preferences and did not match
EPA's typical vehicle classes. While fuel economy also figures high
on the consideration list, other factors such as safety, reliability,
past experience with the brand, etc. also have a strong influence on
the purchase decision. At this time, environmental impact does not
seem to influence vehicle preference considerably.
Current fuel economy label use
Participants in all the groups were asked if they had used the
fuel economy label (see Appendix C) when deciding on their new
vehicle purchase. The moderator handed out individual copies of
the current fuel economy label to the participants. They were then
asked how they had used it, when in the vehicle choice process did
they use it, and what information on the label had influenced their
purchasing decision.
While the online survey found that two-thirds (66.6%) considered
the fuel economy label to be important (rated a '7' or more on a
10-point importance scale) in helping them to choose the make and
model of their new vehicle, the focus group discussions revealed
that some of these participants had only briefly glanced at the
label and did not use it extensively when deciding on their new
"/ used it as a comparison, but
not as a deciding factor."
- Houston Female
"The environment was a side
benefit [of the hybrid], it was
economics mainly."
- Charlotte Male
Phase 2 Focus Groups
-------
"/ looked at it, but it wouldn't be
a deciding factor. Even if I found
a car I liked, even if it was less
efficient, I would just deal with
it."- Houston Female
"The fuel rating things are
worthless for this part of the
country. It's different, because
of our hills. You'll never get the
advertised fuel economy."
- Seattle Male
"I usually look at city and
highway, and then compare to
other vehicles in class."
- Seattle Female
"I looked at it when I went to
test drive it. I looked at it for
reassurance, I guess."
- Chicago Male
vehicle purchase. Many of the participants explained that they had
researched the vehicles in their consideration set before they visited
the dealers, were selective about going to only those dealers who
sold these vehicles, and had looked at the fuel economy label only
when they viewed vehicles at the dealerships. Further, they mainly
used the label to get city and highway gas mileage estimates and
used the information to compare among the different vehicles they
were considering for purchase.
No major city or gender differences were found with regard to
people's use of the fuel economy label.
Based on the above findings, it may be said that participants currently
use the fuel economy label after they have selected a specific type
of vehicle and done other research. The label is primarily used to
compare city and highway gas mileage estimates among different
vehicles under consideration for purchase.
Current fuel economy label on hybrid
vehicles
In this section, participants were asked to identify hybrid vehicles
that they were aware of and whether they had noticed that these
hybrid vehicles used the same fuel economy label as a conventional
gasoline engine vehicle. The moderator then handed out individual
copies of a Toyota Prius fuel economy label and asked them whether
they knew why these labels were similar. Following this discussion,
the moderator handed out individual copies and read out loud the
following statement to explain how the hybrid worked:
"A Gasoline hybrid uses gasoline to propel the vehicle. It can
recoup some energy through regenerative braking. It does not plug
in to charge the battery."
Across all groups, Toyota Prius was the hybrid vehicle most
frequently mentioned. Other hybrid vehicles on the market that
were mentioned included those by Lexus, Honda and Ford.
10
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
Participants indicated that they had not noticed that hybrid vehicles
used the same fuel economy label as the conventional gasoline
engine vehicle. When asked about the reason behind the similarity
in these labels in spite of the difference in vehicle technologies,
a few participants said that it was due to the use of gasoline as
fuel in both types of vehicles. Participants appeared to understand
the workings of a hybrid with some confusion about when or if
they operated on electricity only and when re-charging took place
during vehicle operation.
In short, while most participants were aware of hybrids such as the
Toyota Prius on the market and had a basic understanding of how
they worked, few knew that they used the same fuel economy label
as the conventional gasoline engine vehicle.
Phase 2 Focus Groups 11
-------
12 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
Electric Vehicles
Awareness about electric vehicles
Gauging participants' awareness about electric vehicles was the
first critical step towards designing a fuel economy label for electric
vehicles. Awareness played an important role in understanding how
knowledgeable they were with regard to electric vehicles and how
these functioned. Participants across all the groups were asked if
they were aware of any totally electric vehicles (EVs) that were on
the market or that were coming on the market.
Chevy Volt, Nissan Leaf and Tesla were the vehicles that participants
thought of when asked about their awareness of EVs that were
coming onto the market. It should be noted that the Chevy Volt
is not an all-electric vehicle, but rather an extended range electric
vehicle that also has a gasoline engine.
Male participants in Houston and female participants in Seattle
appeared to be more aware of EVs that were on the market (or
were coming on the market shortly) as compared to other groups.
In both these groups, more participants recalled the names of EVs,
as compared to the other groups. Interestingly, female participants
in Houston and Chicago stated that they were aware of EVs being
released in the market but were not able to recall the names of
these vehicles. A few participants thought the Smart Car was an
electric vehicle.
With regard to city differences, participants in Chicago appeared
to be less aware of EVs coming on the market as compared to
other cities. Women participants in Chicago could not recall any
EV brand and only one male participant mentioned Tesla.
Phase 2 Focus Groups 13
-------
In short, participants were aware of EVs that (coming) on the market.
Further, gender differences were found in Houston where male
participants showed greater awareness of EVs (coming) on the market
as compared to women participants. In addition, women participants
in Seattle also came across as being more aware of the EVs (coming)
on the market as compared to men participants in Seattle. With regard
to location, Chicago participants appeared to be less aware of EVs
(coming) on the market as compared to other cities.
Desirable fuel economy label information
for electric vehicles
In this part of the discussion, the moderator read out loud the
following description of electric vehicles to participants:
"Electric Vehicles use electricity stored in batteries to propel the
vehicle. The battery is charged by plugging it into an electrical
outlet. This could be a standard electric outlet or a high voltage
custom-installed charging station for more rapid charging. Like
hybrid vehicles, some energy is recouped through regenerative
braking. The vehicle travels until the charge is depleted or it is
re-charged. There is no option to run it on gasoline."
Participants across all groups indicated that they understood the
concept of EVs based on the description that was read to them.
They were then asked to identify the information that they would
want to see on a fuel economy label if they were considering the
purchase of an EV
Across all the groups, the following information was most
frequently identified:
Range/distance on charge ("how far can one go on a fully
charged battery"; "how many miles can one travel on a fully
charged battery"; "what is the distance one could travel per
fully charged battery"; "miles on full charge"; "miles per
minutes of charging"; "what is the range of a fully charged
battery"; "range of battery for highway and city")
Cost of charging ("how much does it cost to fully recharge
the battery"; "how much will my electricity bill go up to
charge the battery"; "what is the impact of charging on the
14 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
electricity bill"; "how much does it cost to charge it at charge
stations"; "what is the cost to rapidly charge the battery";
"what is the estimated annual cost of charging the battery")
Time to charge ("how long would it take to recharge the
battery")
Battery cost, life and replacement ("what is the maintenance
cost of the batteries"; "what is the battery life"; "how many
charges per battery"; "how long will the battery last"; "what
is the durability of the battery"; "how soon does one have
to replace the battery"; "what is the cost of replacing the
battery"; "what is the warranty on the battery")
Charging system/plug for charging ("how will you charge
the battery"; "what is impact on charging based on the
type of plug used to charge"; "what is the type of plug one
needs to charge the car"; "does one need a special outlet
plug"; "where can it be plugged for charging"; "what are
the rules for charging the battery?")
Other information that some participants identified included
vehicle performance ("how fast can it go from 0 to 60?"; "what
is the impact of speed/power on charge?"); safety of EVs; impact
of battery on seating capacity, load capacity and accessory use;
information on emergency charging and help with breakdown;
environmental impact of discarding the battery; and sensitivity to
weather and electronic interference.
When asked to select the three factors that were most important,
participants indicated distance on charge, cost of charging and time
to charge.
No major gender differences were found with regard to the
information that participants wanted to see on the fuel economy
label for EVs. Interestingly, both male and female participants in
Chicago showed more interest in information related to the impact
of weather on battery performance as compared to other cities.
The Chicago participants were interested in knowing how the
temperature differences affected the performance of batteries in
summer and winter seasons.
"What happens if you're in the
middle of nowhere, will AAA be
able to recharge the battery?"
- Chicago Female
"With the range, just like the
fuel, I'd like to know high and
low, and the difference how
I drive makes, similar to the
difference between city and
highway driving."
- Houston Male
"I would want to know how
much electricity it will use, like
how Energy Star appliances tell
you how much it will cost per
year." - Houston Female
Phase 2 Focus Groups
15
-------
"What happens if I'm driving
somewhere and I only have a
limited time to recharge? How
long will it take to recharge is
important." - Chicago Male
Based on the findings above, it may be said that participants thought
the most important information to include on the label for electric
vehicles included range, cost of charging, and time to charge. Also of
interest was: battery cost, battery life and replacement costs, and plug
type for charging. While no gender differences were found across the
groups, participants in Chicago were more interested in knowing
how temperature differentials affected the performance ofEVs.
Fuel economy label metrics for electric
vehicles
Participants were provided a list of potential label elements (see
Appendix E). They were asked to utilize this list, along with the
list they generated as a group during the previous discussion, and
individually write or sketch a potential label design using those
elements that they thought were most important to them. They
were also invited to add any additional elements that they thought
were important. A group discussion followed whereby participants
worked together to design a single label for an EV using the
elements that they had each identified as most important.
The following were the key findings across all groups for EVs
(please see Appendix F for tally):
Charging time
Participants across all groups stated that charging time
was a crucial piece of information that they wanted to
see on the fuel economy label. In essence, they wanted to
know whether charging the battery in an EV was a time
consuming process.
No major gender or city differences were found with regard
to participants' preference for wanting to see charging time
information on the fuel economy label for EVs.
The following are design and wording suggestions provided
by participants:
16
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
Participants in the Houston female group suggested
using 'charging time for a completely depleted battery'
instead of 'charging time' as the headline for this
section of the label. According to them, 'charging
time for a completely depleted battery' sounded more
specific and accurate.
Participants in the Seattle male group suggested using a
larger font for the phrase 'Using 220v outlet'. According
to them, it was critical that people understood if a
particular outlet was required.
Range
Participants across all groups stated that range was a
crucial piece of information that they wanted to see on
the fuel economy label for EVs. This was also in line with
the previous discussion where they stated that information
regarding 'distance on charge' was important for them.
In all groups, participants wanted to understand how far they
could go on a fully charged battery. They expressed concern
about having access to charging when away from home.
Further, with the exception of female participants in
Houston and male participants in Charlotte, participants
stated that they wanted to see city and highway estimates as
well as a combined estimate of range on the fuel economy
label for EVs. Participants explained that having all three
estimates provided insights for individual differences in
city and highway driving while also providing a sense
of expectation for combined driving. Participants who
only wanted the city and highway range estimates on the
label explained that they either drove in the city or on the
highway, and hence knowing these estimates was sufficient
for them. Some others added that they never paid attention
to the combined range estimate on the current label and
were less likely to seek such information in the future.
"It's not really like any other
car, its miles per charge, not
MPG, it's a complete paradigm
shift. This range is probably
important, how far you go on
a charge. There isn't room
for error; it has to be awfully
accurate."- Chicago Male
Phase 2 Focus Groups
17
-------
"If I were to plug in at home,
how much would my electric
bill increase?" - Seattle Female
"You would have to give it a rate
per kilowatt hour, because here,
energy is very expensive. It may
not be as expensive elsewhere."
- Houston Female
"Per mile seems like it would be
more manageable to estimate.
People drive widely different
mileage. "-SeattleMale
"When I got to the grocery
store, I always look at the unit
cost, cents per mile is the same
idea." - Seattle Female
"Everyone's electricity varies
depending on how much they
use. You need something to
figure it out yourself."
- Houston Female
"I used monthly, because I
pay monthly on my car."
- Seattle Male
"If I have a regular car and see
this car on the lot, annual cost
provides a means to compare."
- Houston Male
2. Chicago male group also liked the
annual city and highway fuel cost
metric.
Fuel cost
Participants across all groups stated that fuel cost was a
crucial piece of information that they wanted to see on
the fuel economy label for EVs. This was also in line with
the previous discussion in which participants stated that
information on the 'cost of charging' was important.
In all the groups, participants enquired about how much
it was going to cost them to charge the batteries in an EV.
In essence, they wanted to know whether there was going
to be a big difference in the amount of money they were
currently spending on electricity and the amount that they
would spend if they were regularly charging an EV.
With regard to preference in expressing fuel cost on the
label, 'per mile' emerged to be the preferred fuel cost
metric by more of the groups (Chicago male2 and female
group, Charlotte male group, Seattle male and female2
group). According to participants, a per-mile metric gave
them the cost information that they could use to accurately
calculate their specific cost estimates based on their driving
patterns. Of those who preferred the annual fuel cost metric
(Houston groups, Seattle female group, and Chicago male
group), they said that they liked it because it was similar to
the estimate on the current label and they were comfortable
thinking in terms of annual cost. Of those who preferred
the monthly metric (Charlotte female group and Seattle
male3 group), they said that it helped them because it was
most in sync with how they think of other household costs
(such as rent, mortgage, car payments etc.).
A majority of the participants across most groups
preferred both city and highway estimates of the fuel cost.
They explained that they primarily drove in the city or on
highway and did not need a combined estimate for fuel
cost. Some added that they had never paid attention to the
combined fuel cost estimate on the current label and were
not likely to seek such information in the future.
Seattle female group also liked the
combined annual fuel cost metric.
4 Seattle male group also liked the
per mile city and highway fuel cost
metrics.
18
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
Importantly, participants in most of the groups strongly
suggested that instead of the term 'fuel cost', the metric
needed to be called 'electricity cost'. According to them, the
word fuel does not easily apply to electricity.
In addition, participants across all groups also said that
it was important to make clear that "estimated fuel cost
based on 15,000 miles per year at 12 cents per kW-hour"
to provide information on the basic assumptions on which
these numbers were estimated.
Many participants had a strong negative reaction to kWh
indicating they would rather it not be used and that they
do not think in those terms even when looking at their
home electricity usage.
Fuel consumption
Participants across all the groups indicated an interest in
seeing fuel consumption information on the label for EVs.
'MPGe' emerged as the most popular fuel consumption
metric (preferred by all the male groups and Charlotte
female5 group) followed by 'kW-hrs per 100 miles' and
'kW-hrs per mile'. According to those who preferred
MPGe, they liked it because they were familiar with the
concept of MPG and it was easier for them to think of
electric energy in equivalent terms. Those who preferred
'kW-hrs per 100 miles' (female participants in Charlotte
and Houston) said that the numbers looked similar to the
estimates for their current gasoline powered vehicles and
that they were familiar with thinking in such terms. Those
who preferred 'kW-hrs per mile' (Charlotte male6 group
and Chicago female group) said that they wanted to know
how much energy their vehicle consumed per mile and that
they could figure out the rest of the math for themselves.
"/ think by the time these cars
get out we'll be more used to
this, but this doesn't mean
anything to me right now. Keep
it simple."- Charlotte Male
"I feel that would be more
beneficial for my use, because
I don't understand kilowatt
hours." - Chicago Female
"If you really want to know
what something costs, what
does'MPGe'tell you?"
- Houston Female
"You're getting more miles per
gallon, but you're not filling your
car with gallons, so I don't really
see the value in it."
- Houston Male
5 Charlotte female group wanted both MPGe and kW-hrs
per 100 miles as the consumption metrics on the label and
suggested using smaller font for MPGe metric.
Charlotte male group wanted both MPGe and kW-hrs per
miles as the consumption metrics on the label and suggested
using smaller font for MPGe metric.
Phase 2 Focus Groups
19
-------
"This car is an environmental
statement. Most people who
are going to buy this car want
something to say it's an eco-car.
I guarantee the person who
buys this car wants to see this
information" - Chicago Female
It is important to note that in Seattle many individuals
thought that MPGe was a cost-equivalence metric. In
subsequent groups this was not an issue and a description
was added to clarify any misunderstandings.
The Chicago male group wanted combined city/highway
estimates only. The Chicago female group and Houston
male group wanted all the three estimates - city, highway,
and combined. Participants in all the remaining groups
said that they wanted only the city and highway estimates
of fuel consumption. They explained that they either drove
in the city or on the highway and that they did not need a
combined estimate for fuel consumption. Some added that
they had never paid attention to the combined estimate
on the current label and were less likely to seek such
information in the future.
Some of the other suggestions included:
A few participants across different groups suggested
adding the definition on MPGe to the label. According
to them, not many people were aware of MPGe and
needed this information to use the fuel consumption
metric correctly.
Participants in most groups suggested that instead
of 'fuel consumption', the metric needed to be called
'electricity consumption'. According to them, the latter
sounded more appropriate for electric vehicles.
Participants in the Chicago male group suggested
adding the combined annual and per mile fuel cost
in this section along with the qualifier information
"estimated fuel cost based on 15,000 miles per year at
12 cents per kW-hour". According to these participants,
having all this information under one heading made
understanding and comparison easier.
Environmental impact
All groups seemed less enthusiastic about the environmental
impact metric as compared to the above discussed metrics.
Those who supported the idea of including environmental
impact information on the label explained that people
20
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
who bought EVs were more likely to be motivated
by environmental reasons and would want to see this
information during the decision-making process.
The slider bar without the CC>2 grams per mile format was
the preferred metric for environmental impact as chosen
by the Houston groups and the Chicago male group.
According to these participants, the slider bar format
without the CC>2 grams per mile was simple, informative
and visually appealing. Male participants in Charlotte
indicated that they did not want an environmental metric
on the label.
Those who preferred the 'rating out of 10 'metric (female
participants in Charlotte and Chicago and male participants
in Chicago7), said that it was simple, straightforward
and uncluttered. Those who liked the leaf format (male
participants in Seattle) said that it was visually appealing
and in sync with the environmental impact theme. Further,
a few participants in the Seattle female group suggested
the label could carry a measure that was indicative of how
much the vehicle saved in 100 Ibs of CC>2 for each year.
Further, participants in the Seattle groups also wanted
information on battery life on the fuel economy label
for EVs. They wanted the label to carry information on
average battery life and average cost to replace the battery.
With regard to gender differences, women participants
appeared to be more interested than males in wanting to
see environmental impact information on the fuel economy
label for EVs.
In summary, itmay be said that participants wanted to see information
on charging time, range (city, highway and combined range estimates),
'electricity' cost (city and highway per mile estimates) and qualifier
information, and 'electricity' consumption (city and highway MPGe
estimates) on the fuel economy label for EVs.
Participants said that charging time was important because it gave
them an idea about how time consuming the process was. For range,
they wanted to see city, highway and combined range estimates on
the fuel economy label for EVs because these estimates gave them a
"From what I'm gathering, an
electric car won't have any C02
emissions, so why put it on
there?" - Houston Female
"The 1-10 scale is more
simplistic. I don't understand
meaning of '888.' It seems
arbitrary." - Houston Male
"I don't need to know the actual
grams per mile, I just need to
know how it compares with
other cars [i.e. the 1-10 scale]."
-Houston Male
7 They also wanted to add the
sliding bar (1-888 grams of
COi) in this group.
Phase 2 Focus Groups
21
-------
sense of whether the batteries in EVs held enough charge for them
to travel desired distances without worrying about charging the
batteries en-route or getting stranded.
For cost, participants wanted to see city and highway per mile
'electricity' cost and qualifier information on the fuel economy
label for EVs because they wanted to know how much it was going
to cost them to travel a mile, and whether or not these vehicles were
cost-effective.
For consumption, participants wanted to see city and highway
MPGe estimates of 'electricity' consumption on the fuel economy
label for EVs. While fuel economy was one of the top factors that
influenced participants' vehicle choice, the equivalency of MPGe
with MPG and their familiarity and ease of thinking in terms of
MPG made MPGe appealing.
Environmental impact was not as important for many participants.
While women participants showed more enthusiasm for environmental
information as compared to men, no one metric emerged to be
preferred by all groups. However, many preferred the slider bar
without the CC>2 grams per mile format because they found it to be
more informative and visually appealing than other formats.
Participants agreed that the word "fuel" should be avoided when
describing electricity and kWh as a metric should be avoided when
possible.
22 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
Extended Range
Electric Vehicles
Awareness about extended range
electric vehicles
Gauging participants' awareness about extended range electric
vehicles was the first critical step towards designing a fuel economy
label for extended range electric vehicles. Awareness played an
important role in understanding how knowledgeable they were
with regard to these vehicles and how these vehicles functioned.
In this part of the discussion, the moderator handed out individual
copies and read aloud the following description of extended range
electric vehicles (EREVs) to participants:
"An EREV has 2 modes of operation and can be plugged in to
charge the battery.
1. It uses wall electricity to propel the vehicle (like an EV)
until the wall electricity is used up.
2. Once the stored wall electricity is used up, it runs like
a gasoline hybrid, using gasoline to propel the vehicle
with some regenerative braking.
Important: daily driving distance can GREATLY affect amount
of gasoline used. Can go all the way from zero gasoline (if
shorter commutes and plenty of recharging) to entirely gasoline
(if longer drives and no recharging)."
Participants were then asked if they were aware of any EREVs that
were on the market or that were coming onto the market.
Phase 2 Focus Groups 23
-------
"For me, the gas back up
instills a sense of security that
I'm not going to get stranded
somewhere."- Seattle Male
"Keep the word hybrid in there,
because everyone knows what
that is." - Chicago Male
"Empty battery sounds
negative." Charlotte Male
Participants across different groups had several questions after they
read and heard the description of EREVs. Although they understood
that EREVs charge the battery by plugging into an electricity
source, they required further explanation to understand how these
were different from hybrids and EVs, how it would benefit them
to purchase an EREV, what was the utility of the EREV, what was
the charge storage capacity in EREV batteries, and what did the
term "wall electricity" mean. No one was able to name any EREVs
that were on the market or that were coming onto the market. The
moderator then told that the Chevy Volt was an example of an
EREV that would be available shortly.
In short, participants were not aware of any vehicles using this
technology and did not readily understand how vehicles using this
technology operated. This was true even though limited information
about EREVs had been provided in the pre-group online survey.
Desirable fuel economy label information
for extended range electric vehicles
In this part of the discussion, participants were asked to suggest
terms that could be used to describe an EREV and its two modes
of operation in a better way, and to identify the information that
they would want to see on the fuel economy label of an EREV. The
moderator distributed the teaching tool handout (see Appendix G)
to participants to aid their understanding of how the technology
worked and to help illustrate how driving distance impacted the
operation and fuel cost efficiency of EREVs. They were then asked
to confirm their understanding of how EREVs operated.
Description of EREV modes on the label
Most participants across the different groups liked the terms
"electricity" and "gasoline" to describe the EREVs two operational
modes. According to them, these terms were simple, straightforward
and easy to understand. Other terms suggested by participants to
describe the gasoline operation of an EREV included "hybrid",
"gasoline back-up", "depleted mode", and "no-charge". Terms
suggested to describe the electric operation of an EREV included
"reverse hybrid", "full charge", and "electric mode". The terms
suggested by participants to describe the merged mode for both
(electric and gas) operations in EREVs included "super hybrid",
24
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
"dual power", "e before g", and "e 2 g". The term "discharge" was
unpopular and was especially not favored by female participants
across all groups.
Metrics for the EREV label
When asked about the information that they would want to see on
the fuel economy label of an EREV, the participants mentioned the
following label elements that they considered to be most important
and wanted to see on the EREV label:
For electric mode of operation:
Range/distance on charge ("how far can one go on a
fully charged battery"; "how many miles can one travel
on a fully charged battery"; "what is the distance one
could travel per fully charged battery"; "miles on full
charge"; "miles per minutes of charging"; "what is the
range of a fully charged battery"; "range of battery for
highway and city")
Cost of charging ("how much does it cost to fully
recharge the battery"; "how much will my electricity
bill go up to charge the battery"; "what is the impact
of charging on the electricity bill"; "how much does it
cost to charge it at charge stations"; "what is the cost
to rapidly charge the battery"; "what is the estimated
annual cost of charging the battery")
Time to charge ("how long would it take to recharge
the battery")
Battery cost, life and replacement ("what is the
maintenance cost of the batteries"; "what is the battery
life"; "how many charges per battery"; "how long will
the battery last"; "what is the durability of the battery";
"how soon does one have to replace the battery";
"what is the cost of replacing the battery"; "what is the
warranty on the battery")
Charging system/plug for charging ("how will you charge
the battery"; "what is impact on charging based on the
type of plug used to charge"; "what is the type of plug
one needs to charge the car"; "does one need a special
Phase 2 Focus Groups 25
-------
"Everyone has had gas engines
their whole lives. Most people
have a feel for what they can do.
This is a learning process. You
have to have more information
for these cars, it's new, and we
need information to understand
it."- Houston Male
outlet plug"; "where can it be plugged for charging";
"what are the rules for charging the battery?")
For gasoline mode of operation:
Range/distance on gas ("Miles per gallon"; "range for gas")
Gas cost estimate ("annual gas cost")
For merged electric and gasoline operation:
merged range ("what is the merged (electric and gas)
metric for distance", "full to empty range"; "what is
the city and highway range in merged mode")
merged cost ("what is the merged (electric and gas)
metric for cost")
Other desirable EREV information suggested by participants
included impact of charge on vehicle performance ("how fast
can it go from 0 to 60?"; "what is the impact of speed/power on
charge?"); safety of EREVs; impact of battery on seating capacity,
load capacity and accessory use; information on emergency charging
and help with breakdown; environmental impact of discarding the
battery; sensitivity to weather and electronic interference; size of
the batteries; and size of the gas tank.
Of all the above mentioned items, those that were most important
to participants included range, cost and charging time.
No major gender or city differences were found with regard to the
information that participants stated (unaided) they wanted to see
on the fuel economy label for EREVs.
Participants across all the groups found the teaching tool handout to
be very useful in understanding the overall functioning of EREVs, the
impact of driving distance on an EREVs efficiency, and how driving
distance impacted the numbers that would appear on the fuel economy
label for EREVs. They understood that driving shorter distances while
relying entirely on electricity could be more cost-efficient in an EREV
as compared to long distances that require gasoline operation. Many
participants across different groups expressed that the EREV (blue)
bar chart and the distance-cost matrix used in the handout were very
informative and suggested that similar information be made available
to educate people about EREVs.
26
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
Based on the findings above, it may be said that participants liked
the terms "electricity" and "gasoline" to describe the two operational
modes in the EREV because these were simple, straightforward and
easy to understand. Information identified as the most important
for label included distance on electricity-only and the total (electric
and gas) range, the cost to charge, cost of gas, and total (electric and
gas cost), time to charge, battery cost, battery life and replacement
costs, and plug type for charging. Participants understood that driving
shorter distances could be more cost-efficient in an EREV as compared
to long distances. No gender or city differences were found.
Fuel economy label metrics for extended
range electric vehicles
Participants were provided a list of potential label elements (see
Appendix H). They were asked to utilize this list, along with the
list they generated as a group during the previous discussions, and
think of a potential label design using those elements that they
thought were most important to them. They were also invited to
add any additional elements that they thought were important. A
group discussion followed whereby participants worked together
to design a single label for an EREV using the elements that they
had each identified as most important.
Following are the key findings across all groups (please see
Appendix I for tally of label elements chosen):
Charging time
Participants across all groups stated that charging time was
a crucial piece of information that they wanted to see on
the fuel economy label.
Participants in all groups wanted to know how long it
would take to fully charge the battery in an EREV. No
major gender or city differences were found with regard to
participants' preference for wanting to see charging time
information on the fuel economy label for EREVs.
Phase 2 Focus Groups 27
-------
"Range is a big issue for me. I
want to know how far I can get on
a charge before I'm kind of out
there with no place to plug my
car in." - Chicago Male
"I like to separate the electric
and gas component. Your car is
designed to use electricity first.
We should know what it can do
until that is exhausted. "
Seattle Male
"Most people are buying this
car for the electricity, the gas is
insurance."-Charlotte Male
"For the EREV, to me, combined
means your combined gas/
electric consumption, not your
city highway/consumption, that's
what is confusing."
- Charlotte Female
Range
Participants across all groups stated that range was a
crucial piece of information that they wanted to see on
the fuel economy label for EREVs. They restated that
information regarding 'distance on electricity-only mode,
gas-only mode and the merged range (the overall range
that could be achieved when the vehicle operated on
electric and then on gasoline)' was important for them.
Participants were more interested in range estimates for
the electric mode than for the gasoline mode. This was
because they wanted to know how far they could go before
the gasoline operation kicked in.
For the electric mode of operation, the majority of
participants in Charlotte, Houston and the Chicago
male group stated that they wanted to see both the city
and highway range estimates on the EREV label. They
explained that they were used to looking at the city and
highway estimates on the current label and would look for
these estimates in the new labels.
More male participants (in Seattle, Chicago and Houston)
were interested in seeing the combined (city and highway)
range estimate for electric mode as compared to the women
participants (only Seattle female group showed interest
in this metric). The provision to see an estimate without
doing the math themselves was considered convenient and
helpful to these individuals.
For the gasoline mode of operation, both of the Houston
groups, the Seattle male group and the Charlotte female
group were interested in seeing the city and highway range
estimates on the label as compared to just a combined
range estimate. As before, these participants said that they
were used to looking at the city and highway estimates on
the current label and would look for these same estimates
in the new labels as well.
As for the merged range (electric and gasoline) that could
be achieved in EREVs, participants in Chicago groups
and the Houston male group wanted to see city range
estimates, highway range estimates, as well as combined
28
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
(city and highway) range estimates on the label. According
to them, having all these estimates was useful for everyone
irrespective of individual differences in city and highway
driving ratios. Male participants in Seattle only wanted to see
the combined (city and highway) range estimate. According
to them, the opportunity to see an estimate without doing
the math themselves was convenient and helpful.
Fuel cost
Participants across all groups stated that fuel cost was a
crucial piece of information that they wanted to see on the
fuel economy label for EREVs. This was also in line with
the previous discussion where they stated (unaided) that
information on cost of charging, gas cost and merged cost
(gas + electric) was important to them.
While fuel cost was an important factor in participants'
vehicle choice and a fuel cost metric was something that they
wanted to see on the EREV label, no consensus was reached
with regard to the preference of metrics to express fuel cost
on the label. However, the majority of participants across
all the groups said that they liked separate cost metrics
for the electric mode and the gasoline mode, and would
prefer a merged (electric and gas modes) cost metric only
as additional information if there was room on the label.
According to them, it was helpful to know the electricity
cost estimate separately from the merged (electric and
gasoline) estimate because they could more easily determine
how charging the EREV would affect their electricity bill.
The following fuel cost metrics were preferred by the
different groups:
For electric-only operation, a per-mile estimate
that combined the city and highway estimates was
preferred. Those participants (Seattle groups and
Chicago male group) who liked this metric said that
they were driving on both city roads and highways
and it was useful for them to have combined city and
highway estimates. They also said that knowing the
combined cost per mile estimate would provide them
the base information for doing the math themselves.
"Need information for long
distance drivers to understand
what the car is doing so they can
calculate costs."
- Charlotte Female
"If you're doing your budget, you
need to know how much more
your electric bill is and how
much less your gas bill is."
- Charlotte Female
Phase 2 Focus Groups
29
-------
These participants preferred the
city and highway annual fuel
cost estimates for electric-only
mode, and the combined annual
fuel cost estimate for gas-only
mode on the EREV label.
9 These participants preferred
the combined annual fuel cost
estimate for electric-only mode
on the EREV label.
10 These participants preferred
combined monthly fuel cost
estimates for electric -only mode
and gasoline only mode on the
EREV label.
For gasoline operation, a per-mile estimate broken down
into the separate city and highway estimates were preferred
over others. Those participants (male participants in
Seattle and Charlotte) who liked this metric said that they
were used to seeing separate city and highway gas cost
estimates on the current label. Further, they added that
knowing the 'per mile' estimate would provide them the
base information for doing the math themselves.
For those who liked an average of the electric and
gasoline cost estimates merged together into one value,
the metric 'annual gas + electric cost' was preferred
over other metrics. Those participants (male groups
in Chicago and Houston) who liked this estimate
said that they wanted to see fewer numbers on the
label. Further, they added that they wanted a single
cost metric that they could use to compare different
vehicles irrespective of whether it was based on
gasoline, electricity, or both.
Interestingly, some participants (Houston female group8 and
Chicago male group9) said that they preferred an annual
metric for fuel cost on the EREV label. According to them,
they were familiar with an annual cost estimate on the
current fuel economy label and wanted a similar metric on
the new labels. Additionally, a few participants (Charlotte
female group10) said that they liked a monthly metric for
fuel cost on the EREV label, explaining that the monthly
estimate would be useful to include with their other monthly
household costs (such as monthly auto loan payment).
In addition, participants across all groups said that it was
important to add the qualifier information "estimated
fuel cost based on 15,000 miles per year at 12 cents per
kW-hour and $3.00 per gallon" for people to know the
assumptions on which these numbers were estimated.
Fuel consumption
Participants across all groups stated that fuel consumption
was a crucial piece of information that they wanted to see
on the fuel economy label for EREVs. This was also in line
30
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
with the previous discussion where they stated (unaided)
that information on gas mileage and distance per fully
charged battery in EREVs was important for them.
As before, the majority of the participants across all the
groups stated that they would like to see separate fuel
consumption metrics for electric and gas modes and would
prefer a merged estimate (electric and gas modes) metric
only as an add-on, if there was room on the label.
With regard to the metric for the electric mode, 'MPGe'
emerged as the most popular fuel consumption metric
followed by 'kW-hrs per 100 miles'. According to those
who preferred MPGe, they liked it because they were
familiar with the concept of MPG and it was easier for
them to think of electric energy in equivalent terms.
Further, of those who liked the MPGe metric, most said
that they wanted to see city and highway MPGe estimates
instead of the combined MPGe estimate. They explained
that they were used to seeing separate city and highway
estimates on current label and wanted the new label for
EREVs to resemble it. Those few who preferred 'kW-hrs
per 100 miles' (female participants in Houston) said that
the numeric values looked similar to the estimates for their
current gasoline powered vehicles and that they were used
to thinking in such numbers.
As for the preferred metric for the gasoline mode, MPG
emerged as the most popular fuel consumption metric
across the different groups. Those participants who liked
MPG said that they were familiar with the concept of
MPG. Here again, most wanted a separate MPG estimate
for city and highway and did not seem too enthusiastic
about a combined MPG estimate.
For those who liked a merged value of the electric and
gasoline consumption estimates together into one value,
'MPGe of gas + electric' combined emerged as the most
popular fuel consumption metric in both Chicago groups and
the Houston male group. According to these participants,
the metric 'MPGe of gas + electric' could be used to compare
different vehicles irrespective of the technology.
"Until we all understand what this
means, they need to dumb the
label down." - Chicago Female
Phase 2 Focus Groups
31
-------
"/ think C02 is important, but the
number doesn't mean much."
- Seattle Male
"C02 I don't think the general
public will understand it."
- Charlotte Female
"You have to read the scale to
understand what the numbers
mean, but the leaves say
environment."- Charlotte Female
The following additional suggestions were made by some
participants:
Participants in the Seattle female group and Chicago
male group suggested adding the distance-cost matrix
and blue bar chart from the teaching tool handout
to the label. They said that these graphics could
serve as useful aids in explaining the concept of fuel
consumption in EREVs.
Participants in the Chicago female group suggested
adding separate city and highway 'MPGe of gas +
electric' estimates for the merged (electric and gas) fuel
consumption estimate in EREVs. According to them, it
was helpful to see the city and highway breakdowns in
addition to the combined (city and highway) estimate for
merged (electric and gas) fuel consumption in EREVs.
Environmental impact
Participants across the different groups seemed less
enthusiastic about the environmental impact metric as
compared to the above discussed metrics. Those who
supported the idea of including environmental impact
information on the label explained that people who bought
EREVs were more likely to be motivated by environmental
reasons and would want to see this information during the
decision-making process.
The slider bar without the CC>2 grams per mile format
emerged to be the preferred environmental metric for those
in the Houston groups, Seattle female group and Chicago
male group. According to these participants, the slider
bar format without the CC>2 grams per mile was simple,
informative and visually appealing.
Those who liked the 'number rating' (out of 10) without
the CC>2 grams per mile format (female participants in
Chicago), said that it was simple, straightforward and
'uncluttered'. Those who liked the leaf format (male
participants in Seattle and female participants in Charlotte)
said that it was visually appealing and was consistent with
the environmental impact theme.
32
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
Male participants in Charlotte indicated that they did
not want an environmental metric on the label while
participants in the Seattle groups wanted information on
battery life and average cost to replace the battery.
In summary, it may be said that participants wanted to see
information on charging time, range, fuel cost and fuel consumption
on the fuel economy label for EREVs. They were less enthusiastic
about including an environmental impact metric on the label as
compared to these metrics.
Participants said battery charging time was important because it let
them know if they would have enough time to charge between trips.
For range, they wanted to see city and highway estimates for each
mode of operation separately. For the merged range (the overall
range that could be achieved when the vehicle operated on electric
and then on gasoline), participants wanted city and highway as
well as combined (city and highway) estimates. According to them,
having all these estimates gave them a more complete sense of how
far they could travel on the EREV.
For cost, participants wanted to see separate estimates for electric
and gasoline modes and preferred a merged cost estimate as an add-
on to these estimates only if there was room on the labels. Further,
participants indicated that they preferred the 'per mile' estimates
for electric and gasoline modes because it more easily allowed them
to do the math for their specific driving requirements. They also
wanted the total annual gas and electric cost as well as the qualifier
information ("estimated fuel cost based on 15,000 miles per year at
12 cents per kW-hour and $3.00 per gallon") on the fuel economy
label for EREVs.
For fuel consumption, participants wanted separate estimates for
electric and gasoline modes on the fuel economy label for EREVs
and preferred a merged consumption estimate as an add-on to
these estimate if there was room on the labels. Participants also
indicated that they preferred the city and highway MPG estimate
for gasoline mode, city and highway MPGe estimate for electric
mode, and the 'MPGe for electric + gas consumption' for merged
fuel consumption on the label for EREVs. The equivalency of
MPGe with MPG and their familiarity and ease of thinking in
terms of MPG, made MPGe appealing to the participants.
Phase 2 Focus Groups 33
-------
With regard to the environmental impact, participants were less
enthusiastic about this metric as compared to the other metrics.
With regard to format preference, many preferred the slider bar
without the CC>2 grams per mile format because they found it to be
more informative and visually appealing over others.
Participants agreed that the word "fuel" should be avoided when
describing electricity.
34 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
Plug-In Hybrid Electric
Vehicles*
Awareness about plug-in hybrid electric
vehicles
Gauging participants' awareness about plug-in hybrid electric
vehicles was the first critical step towards designing a fuel economy
label for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. Awareness played an
important role in understanding how knowledgeable they were
with regard to these vehicles and how these vehicles functioned.
In this part of the discussion, the moderator handed out individual
copies and read out loud the following description of plug-in hybrid
electric vehicles (PHEVs) to participants:
"A PHEV has 2 modes of operation and can be plugged in to
charge the battery.
1. It uses wall electricity intermingled with some gasoline to
propel the vehicle until the wall electricity is used up.
2. Once the stored wall electricity is used up, it runs like a
gasoline hybrid, using gasoline to propel the vehicle with
some regenerative braking.
Important: daily driving distance can GREATLY affect amount
of gasoline used. "
Participants were asked to refer to the PHEV mode in the teaching
tool handout (refer back to Appendix G) and then asked if they
were aware of PHEVs that were on the market or that were coming
on the market. * By PHEVs, we are specifically
referring to blended PHEVs.
Phase 2 Focus Groups 35
-------
11 Note that only 'blended'
(electric with gas) and 'gasoline'
(after battery power is depleted)
modes of operation was
discussed for PHEVs. In regards
to 'merged' metrics (where
numbers for operation under
'blended' and 'gasoline' modes
are combined), this issue was
not discussed in the PHEV
section of the discussion as
this issue had been addressed
under the EREV discussion.
Participants repeatedly stated
that no matter what ended
up being included on the fuel
economy labels, it should be
consistent across vehicle types
so to ease comparisons across
vehicle technologies.
12, Note that such use of the term
"hybrid" to describe the blended
mode of operation in PHEVs
would not be the same as used
in the context of a conventional
hybrid vehicle. In fact, the
gasoline mode in PHEVs is
the operational mode that is
technologically similar to how
conventional hybrids function.
Participants across different groups had several questions when
they read and heard the description of blended PHEVs. Although
they understood that PHEVs charge by plugging into an electricity
source, they required additional discussion to understand how
these were different from hybrids and EREVs, how it would
benefit them to purchase PHEVs, and how the batteries operated in
PHEVs. No one in any of the groups was aware of any PHEVs that
were on the market or that were coming onto the market. When
the moderator mentioned Prius PHEV as an example of the PHEVs
that was coming onto the market, participants said that they were
not aware of it.
In short, participants were not really aware of the concept of blended
PHEVs and had limited information about blended PHEVs based
on what they had learned about them in the pre-group online survey.
As a result, participants had several questions regarding how PHEVs
operate and how they differed from hybrid vehicles.
Desirable fuel economy label information
for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles11
In this part of the discussion, participants were asked to suggest
alternative terms that could be used to describe the PHEVs two
modes of operation and identify the information that they wanted
to see on the fuel economy label of a PHEV.
Description of PHEV modes on the label
Participants across the different groups liked the terms "hybrid"
and "gasoline" to describe the two PHEV operational modes.
According to them, the term "hybrid" explained the blended mode
of operation and the term "gasoline" explained the gasoline-only
mode of operation.12 Other terms that were suggested to describe
the overall operations included "gas assisted phase 1 mode and
battery assisted phase 2 mode" and "continuous dual mode".
Metrics for the PHEV label
The following information was most frequently identified as
important and desirable to include on the fuel economy label:
36
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
For blended (electric and gasoline) mode of operation:
Range ("what is the distance on charge and gas";
"miles on full charge and full tank"; "gasoline and
battery range")
Cost ("what is the combined (electric and gas) metric
for cost")
For gasoline-only mode of operation:
Range/distance on gas ("Miles per gallon"; "range for gas")
Gas cost estimate ("annual gas cost")
Participants wanted similar information for PHEVs as they did for
the EVs and EREVs. Most important to participants were range,
cost and charging time. Additionally, participants requested the
label for PHEVs include the size of the gas tank.
No major gender or city differences were found with regard to the
information that participants stated (unaided) they wanted to see
on the fuel economy label for PHEVs.
Based on the findings above, it may be said that participants liked
the terms "hybrid" and "gasoline" to describe the two operational
modes of PHEVs because these were simple and descriptive of how
the PHEVs function in the blended mode and the gasoline-only mode.
Further, the information that they thought was most important and
needed to be on the label for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles included
distance [in blended (electric and gas) mode and gas only mode], cost
(of charging for blended mode and gas mode functioning), and time
to charge. No gender or city differences were found.
Fuel economy label metrics for plug-in
hybrid electric vehicles
Participants were provided a list of potential label elements (see
Appendix J). Using the distributed list and the list generated by the
group they worked as a team to design a label for PHEVs.
Across all groups the following key elements were most desired:
(see Appendix K for tally):
"It sounds like we're talking about
the same things [as EREV]"
- Chicago Male
"We're still using separate electric
and gas, it's just the vehicle is
running it differently. I would still
want to know the same stuff."
- Charlotte Female
Phase 2 Focus Groups
37
-------
"You can pretty much calculate
from below half full when you
need to get gas with your own
experience with the car. Now you
have two things...when do I need
to charge, when do I fill the tank?
Are you just going to do it more
than you need to, or be stressed
about it, lose confidence in the
car?" - Seattle Male
Charging time
Participants felt it was critical to know how long it would
take to fully charge the battery in a PHEV. They wanted
to know whether charging the battery in the PHEV would
meet their driving needs.
No major gender or city differences were found with regard
to participants' preference for wanting to see charging time
information on the fuel economy label for PHEVs.
Range
Participants wanted the label to show the PHEVs blended
(electric and gasoline) range for a fully charged battery, and
to show how far the PHEV could go in gasoline-only mode.
Interestingly, more participants were interested in learning
about the PHEV range estimates for the blended mode. This
was because they wanted to know how fuel efficient a PHEV
was as compared to a traditional gasoline powered vehicle.
For the blended (electric and gasoline) mode of operation,
the Chicago female group and Houston male group wanted
to see city range, highway range, as well as combined
(city and highway) range estimates on the PHEV label.
According to them, having all these estimates was useful
for everyone irrespective of individual differences in city
and highway driving ratios. Participants in the Seattle male
group and the Chicago male group wanted to see only the
combined (city and highway) range estimate on the label.
According to them, the opportunity to see an estimate
without doing the math themselves was convenient and
helpful. Seattle male group further explained that they
wanted the PHEV label to resemble the EREV label for
consistency in label design and hence wanted the same
metrics that they chose for EREV label to be on the PHEV
label. The female participants in Charlotte wanted separate
city and highway range estimates as opposed to combined
(city and highway) range estimates for blended mode of
operation on the label. According to them, they were used
to seeing these two estimates separately on the current
label and would look for the same on newer labels.
38
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
As for the gasoline mode of operation, participants in the
Houston male and female groups were interested in seeing
the city and highway range estimates on the label for
PHEVs. As before, these participants said that they were
used to looking at the city and highway estimates on the
current label and would look for these estimates in the new
labels as well.
Fuel cost
Participants across all groups stated that fuel cost was a
crucial piece of information that they wanted to see on the
fuel economy label for PHEVs. This was consistent with
the previous discussion where they stated (unaided) that
information on cost of charging, blended operation (gas +
electric) cost, and gas operation cost and cost for merged
(gas + electric) was important for them.
Many participants said they preferred a metric for blended
mode on the fuel cost section of the PHEV label. They
explained that because the PHEV was a "super-hybrid"
that functioned in the blended mode for the first 50 miles
and then used gasoline as its main fuel source for the
remaining miles, it was more important to know the fuel
cost for the blended mode in PHEVs.
With regard to the preferred fuel cost metric for blended
mode, many liked the combined (city and highway) per mile
estimate. Those participants (Seattle groups and Chicago
male group) who liked this metric said that they were driving
on both city roads and highways and it was useful for them
to have combined city and highway estimates. Moreover,
many of these participants added that they wanted the
PHEV label to resemble the EREV label for consistency in
label design and hence wanted the same metrics that they
chose for EREV label to be on the PHEV label.
This was followed by combined (city and highway) annual
estimate for the blended mode as indicated by some in
the Seattle female group and in the Houston male group.
According to these participants, they were used to seeing an
annual fuel cost estimate on the current label and wanted
something similar on the newer labels. Moreover, they
"Just the combined, so there's
not so much information."
- Chicago Male
"You want the same information
for all the labels."
- Chicago Female
Phase 2 Focus Groups
39
-------
"Need combined fuel
consumption, because the car
won't work without gasoline."
- Charlotte Female
13 These participants preferred the
city and highway annual fuel cost
estimates for the gas-only mode
and the blended (electric and gas)
mode on the PHEV label.
14 These participants preferred
combined (city and highway)
monthly fuel cost estimates for
blended mode and gasoline only
mode on the PHEV label.
wanted a combined estimate because it was simple and
easier to compare different vehicles using one consolidated
fuel metric.
Interestingly, some participants (Houston female group13)
said that they preferred separate city and highway metrics
for annual fuel cost on the PHEV label. According to them,
they were driving either on city roads or on highways,
and it was useful for them to have separate city and
highway breakdowns of their fuel cost. A few participants
(Charlotte female group14) said that they liked a monthly
metric for fuel cost on the PHEV label because monthly
estimates were useful in budgeting with their other monthly
household costs (such as monthly auto loan payment).
Participants across all groups also said that it was
important to add the qualifier information "estimated fuel
cost based on 15,000 miles per year at 12 cents per kW-
hour and $3.00 per gallon" for people to know the basic
assumptions on which these numbers were estimated.
Fuel consumption
Participants said that they preferred a fuel consumption
metric for the blended mode over the gasoline only mode
on the PHEV label. They explained that because the PHEV
was a "super-hybrid" that functioned in the blended mode
for the first 50 miles and then used gasoline as its main fuel
source for the remaining miles, it was most important to
know the fuel consumption for the blended mode as well
as the consumption metric for gasoline-only mode.
With regard to the metric for blended mode in PHEVs, city
and highway 'MPGe of gas + electric' estimate emerged
to be the most popular fuel consumption metric across
all groups, closely followed by combined 'MPGe of gas +
electric' estimate. According to those who liked the city
and highway 'MPGe of gas + electric' estimate, they were
used to seeing separate city and highway estimates on
the current label and wanted the new label for PHEVs to
resemble it. Those who liked the combined 'MPGe of gas
+ electric' estimate said that they wanted a single estimate
that could be used to compare fuel consumption across
different PHEVs.
40
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
Most participants preferred MPG for the gasoline mode
because they were familiar with the concept of MPG. Here
again, most wanted a separate MPG estimate for city and
highway and seemed less enthusiastic about a combined
MPG estimate.
Participants in the Seattle female group suggested adding
the orange bar chart (see Appendix G) from the teaching
tool handout to the label. They said that these graphics
could serve as useful aids in explaining the concept of fuel
consumption in PHEVs.
Environmental impact
Participants across the different groups seemed less
enthusiastic about the environmental impact metric as
compared to the above discussed metrics.
The 'number rating' (out of 10) without the CC>2 grams
per mile count format emerged to be the preferred metric
for environmental impact chosen by female participants in
Charlotte and Chicago, and male participants in Houston.
According to these participants, this rating was simple,
straightforward and uncluttered.
Those who liked the slider bar without the CC>2 grams per
mile format (female participants in Seattle and Houston),
said that it was simple and visually appealing. Those who
liked the leaf format with the CC>2 grams per mile count
(male participants in Seattle and female participants in
Charlotte) said that it was visually appealing and was
consistent with the environmental impact theme. Male
participants in Charlotte indicated that they did not want
an environmental metric on the label.
In summary, it may be said that participants wanted to see
information on charging time, range, fuel cost and fuel consumption
on the fuel economy label for PHEVs. They were less enthusiastic
about the inclusion of the environmental impact metric on the label
as compared these metrics. This was similar to what was seen in the
EV and EREV label design preference.
"As we work through the
transition, it's really important for
the agencies to educate us and
give the tools so that when we
walk on the lot and we are trying
to be more environmentally aware
of what we are doing, the labels
need to help us understand why
they are a better option, but it
needs to be in a metric that we
understand."- Chicago Female
Phase 2 Focus Groups
41
-------
Participants indicated that battery charge time was important
because it gave them information on how to accommodate their
driving requirements. To illustrate range, they wanted to see
combined (city and highway) estimates for the blended (electric and
gas) mode of operation. For the gasoline only mode, participants
wanted city and highway estimates of range. According to them, all
these estimates gave them a more complete sense of how far they
could drive the PHEV.
For both fuel cost and consumption, participants wanted to see
combined (city and highway) estimates for the blended mode of
operation. They explained that because the PHEV was a "super-
hybrid" that functioned in the blended mode for the first 50 miles
and then used gasoline as its main fuel source for the remaining
miles, it was more important to know the fuel consumption and
cost while in blended mode. While a combined (city and highway)
per mile estimate for the mode emerged as the most popular fuel
cost estimate, separate city and highway 'MPGe of gas + electric'
estimates for blended mode emerged to be the most popular fuel
consumption metrics across most groups. The equivalency of MPGe
with MPG and their familiarity and ease of thinking in terms of
MPG made MPGe appealing to the participants.
Participants were less enthusiastic about an environmental metric
as compared to the other metrics. With regard to format preference,
many preferred the number rating (out of 10) without the CC>2
grams per mile count format because they found it to be simple,
straightforward and visually appealing over others.
42 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
Comparison Across
Vehicle Types
When asked if it was important to be able to compare across
different types of vehicle technologies (conventional gasoline
powered vehicles, EVs, EREVs and PHEVs), virtually every
participant said yes15. They indicated that they wanted to use the
information to compare different vehicles across technologies in
their consideration and therefore be able to make an informed
decision. They added that they wanted labels that were easy to
read and understand and consistent in content and design across
different vehicle technologies. This meant using same/similar label
elements for describing fuel economy in a vehicle irrespective of
whether it was a conventional gasoline powered vehicle, EV, EREV
or PHEV. The majority of participants thought that fuel cost and
fuel consumption were the two critical elements on the labels that
would allow them to compare all the different types of vehicles as
part of their decision process.
With regard to participants' preference for expressing metrics
using bookend approach (i.e. separate estimates for each mode of
operation) versus merged approach (i.e. one estimate for all modes
of operation) for purposes of comparison, most wanted the merged
estimate as an add-on to bookend estimates only if there was room
on the labels.
When asked if it was important to have a label that explained in more
detail how a particular type of vehicle worked, most participants
said that they would not want this type of information on the fuel
economy label. Instead, they would look for it on websites or on
informational brochures.
"What you put on the sticker
needs to be simple, basic,
because it's going to scare a
lot people away from the car if
there are too many figures."
- Chicago Male
15 Participants in the Houston
female group were not asked this
question because the group ran
out of time.
Phase 2 Focus Groups
43
-------
44 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
Overall Summary
Gender and Location Affects
Based on the results of these Phase 2 focus groups, no systematic
gender or city location differences were found. Those reported here
appear to be random, but will be further tracked and reviewed as
Phase 3 of the focus groups is completed.
Vehicle Choice Process and Current Label Use
The findings in the Phase 2 focus group supported the vehicle
choice process identified in Phase 1.
Buyers actively began the vehicle purchasing process with specific
vehicles or vehicle type in mind that fit their individual needs. They
then searched for information relevant to those particular vehicles.
Assuming the vehicle met their affordability threshold and aesthetic
preference, and had positive brand reputation and was available on
the market, information on factors such as comfort, safety, reliability,
fuel economy, performance, warranty, size, seating capacity, etc.
became critical in influencing one's vehicle choice regardless of one's
gender or location. It should be noted that participants' views of
vehicle type varied by their individual needs and preferences and did
not match EPA's typical vehicle classes.
Participants used the current fuel economy label to compare
different vehicles within the same type, primarily relying on city
and highway gas mileage estimates. While fuel economy figured
high on the consideration list, it was considered along with other
factors (such as comfort, safety, reliability, size, performance, brand
name, past experience with the brand, etc.) in comparing different
vehicles in the consideration set. Environmental impact did not
seem to significantly impact vehicle choice.
Phase 2 Focus Groups 45
-------
Participants were well-aware of hybrid technology and brands such
as the Toyota Prius that are currently on the market. They had a
basic understanding of the technology, but also did not understand
how the battery and gasoline work together to power the vehicle.
They were not aware that hybrids currently use the same fuel
economy label as conventional gasoline engine vehicles.
Electric Vehicles
Some participants were able to recall a few electric vehicles (EVs)
that are coming onto the market. The focus group discussions
included basic information on the technology which provided a
foundation for participants to know more about EVs.
With regard to the fuel economy label for EVs, information on range,
charging time, electricity cost and consumption were important to
participants. They wanted to see each of these elements on the fuel
economy label.
Range gives them a sense of how far they can go on a fully charged
battery. They wanted to see this information broken out for city,
highway, and combined. Charging time tells them how it long it
takes to charge the EV battery and if they can accommodate it
within their schedules. All three of these estimates gave participants
a sense of whether the batteries in EVs will hold enough charge for
them to travel desired distances.
With regard to fuel cost in EVs, participants strongly recommended
calling it 'electricity cost' on the label because they did not readily
associate the word 'fuel' with electricity. Participants wanted to
see city and highway cost per mile information in addition to the
qualifier information "estimated fuel cost based on 15,000 miles
per year at 12 cents per kW-hour" on the label. Knowing the cost
to travel a mile will allows them to calculate whether these vehicles
are cost-effective or not in regard to their personal annual miles
traveled and local cost for electricity. To understand consumption
estimates, participants wanted to see city and highway MPGe
estimates. While fuel economy was one of the important factors
that influenced participants' vehicle choice, the equivalency of
MPGe with MPG and their familiarity and ease of thinking in
terms of MPG made MPGe appealing.
46 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
Environmental information was currently not sought after for many
participants as their vehicle choice was not largely influenced by
environmental impact. Although participants did not feel strongly
about including such an environmental metric, many preferred the
slider bar without the CC>2 grams per mile format. They found this
format to be more informative and visually appealing over other
formats. Further, women participants were more enthusiastic about
including an environmental impact metric as compared to men.
Extended Range Electric Vehicles
Participants were not aware of the concept of extended range
electric vehicles (EREVs) and had limited information about EREVs
based on what they had learned in the pre-group online survey. As
a result, they had several questions regarding how EREVs operate
and how they differ from hybrid vehicles.
As participants learned how EREVs worked in the focus groups,
they preferred the terms "electricity" and "gasoline" to describe the
two operational modes. According to them, these terms are simple,
straightforward and easily understood. It was clear to participants
that driving shorter distances can be more cost-efficient in an EREV
as compared to long distances.
For EREVs, participants thought that range, charging time, fuel
cost and fuel consumption were most important and needed to
be included on the EREV label. Environmental impact was less
important and they were less enthusiastic about including an
environmental impact metric on the EREV label compared to these
other metrics.
For range, they wanted to see city and highway estimates for
electric-only and gasoline-only modes of operation. Charging
time was important because it gives them information about how
time consuming the battery charging process will be and if they
can accommodate it within their schedules. For the merged range
estimate (an average of the electric and gasoline range estimates
combined together into one value), they wanted city, highway, and
combined (city and highway) estimates on the fuel economy label.
According to them, all these estimates give them a more complete
sense of how far they can travel in an EREV.
Phase 2 Focus Groups 47
-------
Participants wanted to see separate fuel cost estimates for electric and
gasoline modes on the fuel economy label and preferred a merged)
cost estimate (an average of the electric and gasoline cost estimates
combined together into one value) as an add-on only if there was
room on the label. Participants preferred 'per mile' estimates for
electric-only mode and gasoline-only mode because these metrics are
indicative of how much it is going to cost them to travel a mile and
are useful in figuring out their own personal costs based their typical
mileage. They also wanted the qualifier information ("estimated fuel
cost based on 15,000 miles per year at 12 cents per kW-hour and
$3.00 per gallon") on the fuel economy label.
With regard to fuel consumption, participants wanted separate
estimates for electric and gasoline modes and preferred a merged
consumption estimate (an average of the electric and gasoline
consumption estimates combined together into one value) as an
add-on if there is room on the label. As for the metric for fuel
consumption, participants preferred the city and highway MPG
estimate for gasoline mode, city and highway MPGe estimate for
electric mode, and the 'MPGe for electric + gas consumption' for
total fuel consumption. The equivalency of MPGe with MPG and
their familiarity and ease of thinking in terms of MPG made MPGe
appealing to them.
Participants were less enthusiastic about the environmental metric
as compared to the other metrics. However, with regard to format,
many preferred the slider bar without the CC>2 grams per mile
format as they found it to be informative and visually appealing
over others.
Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles
Participants were not aware of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles
(PHEVs) and had limited information about PHEVs based on what
they had learned about them in the pre-group online survey. As
a result, participants had several questions regarding how PHEVs
operate and how they differ from hybrid vehicles and EREVs.
As participants learned how PHEVs worked in the focus groups,
they preferred the terms "hybrid" and "gasoline" to describe the
two operational modes because these are simple and descriptive of
how PHEVs function in the blended and gasoline-only modes.
48 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
As for the fuel economy label for PHEVs, participants thought that
charging time, range, fuel cost and fuel consumption were most
important. Environmental impact was less important and they
were less enthusiastic about including an environmental impact
metric on the EREV label compared these other metrics.
According to participants, charging time was important because it
gives them information about how time consuming the charging
process is and if they can accommodate it within their schedules. For
range, they wanted to see combined (city and highway) estimates
for blended (electric and gas) mode of operation. With regard to the
metrics for range, participants wanted city and highway estimates
for the gasoline-only modes of operation on the fuel economy label.
According to them, all these estimates give them a more complete
sense of how far they can travel in a PHEV.
For both fuel cost and consumption, participants wanted to see
combined (city and highway) estimates for the blended mode of
operation. Participants described the PHEV as a "super-hybrid"
that functions in the blended mode for the first 50 miles and then
uses gasoline as its fuel source for the remaining miles, it was more
important to participants to know the fuel consumption and cost
for the blended mode in PHEVs. Combined (city and highway)
cost per mile for the blended mode was the most preferred fuel
cost estimate. With regard to fuel consumption, city and highway
'MPGe of gas + electric' estimates for blended mode was the most
preferred metric. The equivalency of MPGe with MPG and their
familiarity and ease of thinking in terms of MPG made MPGe
appealing to the participants.
Participants were less enthusiastic about the environmental metric
as compared to the other metrics. However, with regard to format
preference, many preferred the 'rating out of 10' without the CC>2
grams per mile format as they found it to be simple, straightforward
and visually appealing over other formats.
Comparison Across Vehicle Types
Participants thought that it was important to be able to compare
across different types of vehicle technologies (conventional gasoline
powered vehicles, EVs, EREVs and PHEVs). They wanted labels
that are easy to read and understand and consistent in content and
design across different vehicle technologies.
Phase 2 Focus Groups 49
-------
16 This section does not include
a discussion on comparison
of blended mode in PHEVs
(because no such corresponding
mode exists for EVs or EREVs),
or comparison of merging of
operations in EREVs and PHEVs
(because the PHEV section did
not involve a discussion around
the merging of the blended and
the gas operations)
17 Most preferred per mile estimates
for EVs and EREVs.
Participants thought that fuel cost and fuel consumption were the
two critical elements on the labels that will allow them to compare
all the different types of vehicles. When it comes to explaining in
more detail how a particular type of vehicle works, participants
want this type of information on websites or on informational
brochures instead of the fuel economy label.
Preferred Metrics by Vehicle Type
When looking at the preferred metrics by vehicle type it was found
that16: (To see this information in a table format see Appendix L.)
Charging time: All the groups wanted charging time across
all the labels.
Range:
For 'electric only' mode: More groups wanted
city, highway and combined (city and highway)
range estimates for EVs than EREVs. This may be
explained by the fact that EVs run on electricity only
and hence participants attached sole importance to
these estimates. On the other hand, EREVs use both
electricity and gasoline to propel the vehicle, and
hence each mode received distributed attention from
participants.
For 'gas only' mode: More groups wanted separate city
and highway range estimates for EREVs than PHEVs.
Fuel cost:
For 'electric only' mode: More groups wanted city,
highway and/or combined (city and highway) fuel
cost estimates17 for EVs than EREVs. This may be
explained by the fact that EVs run on electricity only
and hence participants attached sole importance to
electric only estimates. On the other hand, EREVs use
both electricity and gasoline to propel the vehicle, and
hence each mode received distributed attention from
participants.
50
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
For 'gas only' mode: More groups wanted separate city
and highway cost estimates for EREVs than PHEVs.
Fuel consumption:
For 'electric only' mode: More groups wanted city,
highway and/or combined (city and highway) fuel
consumption estimates18 for EVs than EREVs. This
may be explained by the fact that EVs run on electricity
only and hence participants attached sole importance
to these estimates. On the other hand, EREVs use
both electricity and gasoline to propel the vehicle, and
hence each mode received distributed attention from
participants.
For 'gas only' mode: More groups wanted separate city
and highway MPG estimates for EREVs than PHEVs.
Environmental impact:
The slider bar format was preferred by a comparable
number of groups for the EV and EREV labels,
For PHEVs, most groups preferred rating number out
of 10
For all vehicle types, the majority of groups preferred
an environmental measure that did not include a CC>2
grams per mile metric.
18 Most preferred MPGe estimates
for EVs and EREVs.
Phase 2 Focus Groups 51
-------
52 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
Appendices
Appendix A: Moderator Guide
Introduction (8 minutes)
Moderator introduces herself/himself.
[Explain:] A focus group is a group discussion where we can learn
more in-depth about peoples' ideas and opinions (compared to
telephone or written surveys).
My job is to facilitate the discussion and make sure that everyone
has an opportunity to speak and to make sure that no one
dominates the conversation.
Mention observers in separate room. Our discussion today
is being recorded. These recordings allow us to write a more
complete report, and to make sure we accurately reflect your
opinions.
Housekeeping - Toilets and refreshments.
Mention ground rules:
There is no right or wrong answer; we're interested in your
honest and candid opinions and ideas.
Our discussion is totally confidential. We will not use your
name or contact information in any report.
Please only speak one at a time, so that the recorder can
pick up all your comments.
It is important to tell YOUR thoughts, not what you think
others will think, or what you think others want to hear.
Please turn off cell phones
Your stipend will be provided as you leave.
Relax and enjoy
Thank you all for participating in the survey we sent to you in advance.
Today we will continue the discussion talking about new car purchases.
Any questions before we begin?
Phase 2 Focus Groups 53
-------
Let's start off by getting to know a little more about each other.
I'd like us to go around the room with each person answering the
following questions (Listed on poster chart):
Your first name
When did you buy your last new vehicle?
What make and model did you buy?
Did you consider buying a hybrid, or clean diesel, or some
other alternative fuel vehicle?
Current Label Use (10 minutes)
1. What were the top two things that influenced your vehicle choice?
Could I see a show of hands of those who considered fuel efficiency
in the decision of which vehicle you chose to buy?
Are there other things that you haven't mentioned that would
stop you from buying this vehicle that in all other ways meets
your needs? (Listen for and probe on things like performance,
attractiveness, 'cool factor', impact on the environment, etc.)
2. Did you use the fuel economy label when deciding on your new
vehicle purchase? Why or why not? How did you use it? When in
the vehicle choice process did you use it? (Handout copies of the
existing fuel economy label) and ask what information on the label
most influenced their purchasing decision.
3. What are some of the hybrid vehicles that are on the market today?
If you look at these vehicles on a new car lot you will see that
hybrid vehicles use the same fuel economy label as a conventional
gasoline engine vehicle. (Handout copies of a Prius fuel economy
label Why is that? (Listen for their understanding of how hybrids
work and then explain that:
(Handout copies and read the following statement)
A Gasoline hybrid uses gasoline to propel the vehicle. It can recoup some
energy through regenerative braking. Does not plug in to charge the
battery. Validate that they understand this.
Electric Vehicles (27 minutes)
Now we're going to talk about Electric Vehicles.
4. Are you aware of any totally electric vehicles that are on the market
or that will be coming on the market? (Listen for Nissan Leaf.)
54 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
Read the following (Handout copies and read the following statement):
Electric Vehicles use electricity stored in batteries to propel the
vehicle. The battery is charged by plugging it into an electrical
outlet. This could be a standard electric outlet or a high voltage
custom-installed charging station for more rapid charging. Like
hybrid vehicles, some energy is recouped through regenerative
braking. The vehicle travels until the charge is depleted or it is re-
charged. There is no option to run it on gasoline.
5. If you were considering the purchase of an Electric Vehicle, what
information do you want to see on the Fuel Economy Label?
(Capture list on poster chart) Now let's identify the top two most
important. (Listen for items such as range, fuel efficiency, fuel cost,
and environmental impact.) If battery life comes up and its related
replacement cost - ask why that is important relative to the entire
lifetime cost of gasoline they pay for in a conventional gasoline
vehicle.
6. (Pass out a blank label template and puzzle pieces for EV) For the
next couple minutes I'd like you to look at the list of elements on
the poster chart that we discussed as well as these potential label
elements (puzzle pieces). Using only those that are important to
you sketch or write down how you might design the label (Have
the participants individually work on this for 3 minutes. If they are
struggling with this move to the group discussion exercise).
Now let's work together to design a label for Electric Vehicles
using the elements you each identified. (Utilize a large board that
is a blank label with pre-created elements (the puzzle pieces) that
can be stuck on the board - blank pieces will also be created for
additional elements that the group identifies). Probe on use of City
and Highway for some of the metrics, e.g., consumption, MPGe,
range. There is likely to be a difference in these values across the
two conditions.
a. kwhr/100 miles (or another consumption measure)
b. miles per gallon equivalent - MPGe
If not mentioned, ask about a vehicle that gets 300
MPGe. Probe on:
What does MPGe mean to you? After they answer,
moderator to explain that MPGe is an energy
efficiency measure, with 34 kW-hr of energy = 1
gallon of gas.
Do you think this is useful considering an electric
vehicle does not consume gallons? Why or Why not?
Should MPGe be on the label? Why or why not?
Phase 2 Focus Groups 55
-------
c. Fuel cost (Probe on annual, per month, weekly, cents per
mile, cents per 100 miles.)
d. Range
e. Charging time
f. Info on how to charge
g. Environmental impact
7. Once label elements have been added, probe on the following:
Does this give them the information they need?
Do they need all of this info?
Do they need additional info?
Do you want a technology description on the label?
Ask client if they have any additional questions regarding Electric Vehicle
discussion.
Extended Range Electric Vehicle (30 minutes)
Now we're going to talk about another type of vehicle that some refer to
as an Extended Range Electric Vehicle.
(Handout copies and read the following statement. Leave the conventional
vehicle label and just designed EV label showing for reference.)
An EREV has 2 modes of operation and can be plugged in to charge
the battery.
1. It uses wall electricity to propel the vehicle (like an EV) until
the wall electricity is used up.
2. Once the stored wall electricity is used up, it runs like a
gasoline hybrid, using gasoline to propel the vehicle with some
regenerative braking.
Important: daily driving distance can GREATLY affect amount of
gasoline used. Can go all the way from zero gasoline (if shorter
commutes and plenty of recharging) to entirely gasoline (if longer
drives and no recharging) Validate that they understand this.
8. Are you aware of any Extended Range Electric Vehicles that are on the
market or that will be coming on the market? (Listen for Chevy Volt.)
9. Use EREV teaching tool here to point directly to the two modes .
56 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
10. How can we better describe this? If the label has electric mode
information on one side and gasoline mode on the other, how should
the two sides of the label be labeled? What should we call the two
modes? (Write suggestions on poster chart. Listen and suggest the
following if not mentioned - then get a show of hands vote on the
most preferred from just the list below and probe on why.)
Full Battery and Empty Battery
Electricity and Gasoline
All Electric and Gasoline
Charged and Discharged
Other?
11. If you were considering the purchase of an Extended Range Electric
Vehicle, what information would you want to include on the Fuel
Economy Label? (Refer back to list created for EV and ask them
which of these they would want and to add others needed.) Now
let's identify the top two most important. (Listen for items such as
range, fuel efficiency, fuel cost, and environmental impact.)
12. Is it important to you to understand that some of these things will
be different depending on the mode of operation? Why or why not?
(Use 'EREV Mode Teaching Tool' (blue example) as a handout to get
them to see the impact of different mode configurations.)
13. (Pass out copies of the EREV puzzle pieces) Now let's work together
to design a label for Extended Range Electric Vehicle using the
elements you identified as well as the elements on the "puzzle
pieces". (Utilize a large board that is a blank label with pre-created
elements as listed below, that can be stuck on the board - blank
pieces will also be created for additional elements that the group
identifies).
a. Range
b. Fuel efficiency
c. Fuel cost
d. Environmental impact.
Phase 2 Focus Groups 57
-------
MODERATOR NOTE: . Additionally, EVERY time an MPGe value is
chosen ask the following questions:
-Why did you chose MPGe?
-What will you use it for?
-Remind them of why (if this is true) they did not like it/trust it/
found it confusing in the initial conversation of MPGe in the EV section,
then ask again/confirm whether they still want to chose MPGe now.
14. Once label elements have been added, probe on the following:
Does this give them the information they need?
Do they need all of this info?
Do they need additional info?
Do they need City and Highway, even if values are close?
(Recognize impact of wanting City and Highway on quantity of
information.)
Do you want a technology description on the label?
15. Driving distance has huge impact on most of the numbers you
placed on the labeldoes that matter in your vehicle choice or in
understanding the label?
(Look at EREV Mode Teaching Tool with merged info) Is this
helpful? Why or why not?
16. In order to compare across vehicle types would it help to merge
some of this information for vehicles that have two modes of
operation? Or is it better to keep these separate?
For total cost:
Do the "bookends" of all-electric and all-gasoline numbers give
enough info? Why or why not? Or do you want us to make some
assumptions about what percentage of time you will drive in
each mode of operation and merge that to come up with a
blended number? (show examples here of actual bookend and
blended numbers)
Electric mode annual cost - $618
Gasoline mode annual cost - $1,194
Merged annual cost - $889
For energy/fuel consumption:
Do the "bookends" of all-electric and all-gasoline numbers give
enough info? Why or why not? Or, do you want us to make
some assumptions about what percentage of time you will drive
in each mode of operation and merge that to come up with a
58 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
blended number? (show examples here of actual bookend and
blended numbers)
Electric mode-98 MPGe
Gasoline mode-38 MPG
Merged-56 MPGe
Ask client if they have any additional questions about Extended Range
Electric Vehicles.
PHEV Vehicles (25 minutes)
Now we're going to talk about a label for what is known as a Plug In
Hybrid Electric Vehicle, also referred to as PHEVs.
(Handout copies and read the following statement).
A PHEV has 2 modes of operation and can be plugged in to charge
the battery.
1. It uses wall electricity intermingled with some gasoline to
propel the vehicle until the wall electricity is used up.
2. Once the stored wall electricity is used up, it runs like a
gasoline hybrid, using gasoline to propel the vehicle with some
regenerative braking.
Important: daily driving distance can GREATLY affect amount of
gasoline used. Validate that they understand this. (Refer to PHEV
Mode Teaching Tool for example)
17. Are you aware of any Plug In Hybrid Electric Vehicles that are on
the market or that will be coming on the market? (Listen for Prius
PHEV.)
18. How can we better describe this? If the label has electric mode
information on one side and gasoline mode on the other, how
should the two sides of the label be labeled? What should we call
the two modes of operation in a PHEV? (Write the following on
poster chart and add others that they suggest - then get a show of
hands vote on the most preferred from just the list below and probe
on why.)
Full Battery and Empty Battery
Electricity and Gasoline
Mostly Electric (with some gasoline) and Gasoline
Charged and Discharged
Phase 2 Focus Groups 59
-------
19. If you were looking considering the purchase of a Plug-In Hybrid
Electric Vehicle, what information do you want to include on the
Fuel Economy Label? (Refer back to list created for EV and EREV
and ask them which of these they would want and to add others
needed to either add others needed.) Now let's identify the top two
most important. (Listen for items such as range, fuel efficiency, fuel
cost, and environmental impact.)
20. (Pass out copies of the PHEV puzzle pieces) Now let's work
together to design a label for just the electric mode (since gas
operation is identical to EREV) of a Blended Plug in Hybrid Electric
Vehicle using the elements you identified as well as the elements
on the "puzzle pieces" (Utilize a large board that is a blank label
with pre-created elements as listed below, that can be stuck on the
board - blank pieces will also be created for additional elements
that the group identifies).
a. Range
b. Fuel efficiency
c. Fuel cost
d. Environmental impact
MODERATOR NOTE: . Additionally, EVERY time an MPGe value is
chosen ask the following questions:
-Why did you chose MPGe?
-What will you use it for?
-Remind them of why (if this is true) they did not like it/trust it/
found it confusing in the initial conversation of MPGe in the EV section,
then ask again/confirm whether they still want to chose MPGe
21. Once label elements have been added, probe on the following:
If the full battery mode of the PHEV had a small all-electric
range (a few miles), would you want that on the label even if
the all electric range is not guaranteed. (Example, if you step on
the accelerator really hard during this small electric range, you
would probably start to use some gasoline.)
Does this give them the information they need?
Do they need all of this info?
Do they need additional info?
Do you want a technology description on the label?
(Note: this section is particularly tricky and where we most need
to get inputthe balance between providing enough info so that
people can make the right choice for their driving needs and making
60 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
it understandable is our greatest challenge. It will be important to
make sure they know, if they tend toward simple, what they are
giving upand probe on whether that matters to them or not. Refer
to their list of potential elements as a discussion guide in probing
this area)
Ask client if they have any additional questions about PHEVs.
Comparison Across Vehicle Types (15 minutes)
22. Show all three labels that were developed. For each, ask what
are the two most important pieces of information? (moderator to
identify these by circling these or crossing out the others.
23. Is it important to be able to compare across these different types
of vehicles, meaning conventional, electric, extended range
electric, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles? Why or why not? Or is it
more important to have a label that explains in more detail how a
particular type of vehicle works?
24. Is there a particular element of these labels that would allow
you to compare all the different types of vehicles as part of your
decision process? What would that be? (Probe on fuel cost and fuel
consumption.)
25. Do you care what is behind the ratings (4 out of 5 stars, or 9 out
10, etc.) or do you just want a rating to use as you compare vehicle
to vehicle? Why?
26. Should the current label for gasoline vehicles be revised to make it
easier to compare with the labels for these other kinds of vehicles?
Why or why not?
Wrap-Up (5 minutes)
27. Is there information that we have not discussed today that would
influence you to choose a fuel efficient vehicle?
28. Anything else you would like our clients to know about your
thoughts about fuel economy labels?
Phase 2 Focus Groups 61
-------
Appendix B: Participants' Profile
Seattle Male Group
Q9. Type Q10. How is this Qll. Distance in Q12. Price range Q13. Age range
of vehicle vehicle powered? miles of typical of new vehicle
purchased daily travel in the
vehicle
Q14. Education Q15. Ethnicity
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Passenger Car
Passenger Car
Passenger Car
Passenger car
Passenger car
Passenger Car
Passenger Car
SUV
Gasoline Powered
Vehicle
Gasoline powered
vehicle
Hybrid
Hybrid
Gasoline Powered
Vehicle
Hybrid
Hybrid
Gasoline Powered
Vehicle
10-19 Miles
20-29 Miles
10-19 Miles
40+ miles
Less than 10
miles
30-39 Miles
30-39 miles
40+ Miles
$20,000-
$30,000
$20,000-
$30,000
$20,000-
$30,000
$20,000-
$30,000
$20,000-
$30,000
$40,000-
$50,000
$20,000-
$30,000
$20,000-
$30,000
65 +
65 +
65 +
65 +
20-34
50-64
35-49
35-49
Some College or
College Graduate
Some College or
College Graduate
Some College or
College Graduate
Some College or
College Graduate
Some College or
College Graduate
Some College or
College Graduate
Some College or
College Graduate
Some College or
College Graduate
Caucasian
Caucasian
Caucasian
Caucasian
Hispanic
Caucasian
Asian
Caucasian
-------
Seattle Female Group
Q9. Type Q10. How is this Qll. Distance in Q12. Price range Q13. Age range Q14. Education Q15. Ethnicity
of vehicle vehicle powered? miles of typical of new vehicle
purchased daily travel in the
vehicle
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Passeni
Passeni
Passeni
Passeni
Passeni
Passeni
Passeni
SUV
?er Car
let Car
?er Car
?er Car
let Car
?er Car
let Car
Gasoline
Vehicle
Gasoline
Vehicle
Gasoline
Vehicle
Gasoline
Vehicle
Gasoline
Vehicle
Gasoline
Vehicle
Gasoline
Vehicle
Gasoline
Vehicle
Powered
Powered
Powered
Powered
Powered
Powered
Powered
Powered
40+ Miles
20-29
10-19
20-29
10-19
20-29
20-29
Miles
Miles
miles
Miles
Miles
Miles
40+ Miles
$30,
$40,
$20,
$30,
$20,
$30,
$20,
$30,
Less
$15,
$40,
$50,
$40,
$50,
$20,
$30,
,000-
,000
,000-
,000
,000-
,000
,000-
,000
than
,000
,000-
,000
,000-
,000
,000-
,000
20-34
20-34
35-49
20-34
20-34
35-49
50-64
35-49
Some College or
College Graduate
Some College or
College Graduate
Some College or
College Graduate
Some College or
College Graduate
Some College or
College Graduate
Some College or
College Graduate
Some College or
College Graduate
Some College or
College Graduate
Caucasian
Mixed Race
Caucasian
Caucasian
Asian
Asian
Caucasian
Caucasian
-------
Chicago Female Group
Q9. What type of Q10. How is this Qll. What is the Q12. Price range Q13. Age
vehicle did you vehicle powered? distance in miles of new vehicle
purchase? of your typical
daily travel in
this vehicle?
Q14. Education Q15. Ethnicity
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Passenger car
SUV
SUV
Passenger car
Passenger car
Passenger car
Station wagon or
minivan
Passenger car
Gasoline powered
Gasoline powered
Gasoline powered
Gasoline powered
Gasoline powered
Gasoline powered
Gasoline powered
Gasoline powered
20-29 miles
20-29 miles
10-19 miles
20-29 miles
10-19 miles
10-19 miles
30-39 miles
Less than 10
miles
$30-40k
$20-30k
$20-30k
$15-20k
$15-20k
$20-30k
$20-30k
$20-30k
35-49
20-34
35-49
50-64
35-49
50-64
35-49
35-49
Some college or
college graduate
Some college or
college graduate
Some college or
college graduate
Some college or
college graduate
Some high school
or high school
graduate or GED
Some college or
college graduate
Some college or
college graduate
Some high school
or high school
graduate or GED
African American
Caucasian
African American
Caucasian
Caucasian
Caucasian
Caucasian
African American
-------
Seattle Male Group
Q9. What type of Q10. How is this Qll. What is the Q12. Price range Q13. Age
vehicle did you vehicle powered? distance in miles of new vehicle
purchase? of your typical
daily travel in
this vehicle?
Q14. Education Q15. Ethnicity
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Passenger car
SUV
Passenger car
Passenger car
Passenger car
Passenger car
Passenger car
Passenger car
Gasoline powered
Gasoline powered
Gasoline powered
Hybrid
Gasoline powered
Hybrid
Gasoline powered
Gasoline powered
30-39 miles
10-19 miles
10-19 miles
30-39 miles
40 or more miles
20-29 miles
Less than 10
miles
30-39 miles
$30-40k
$30-40k
$50k+
$30-40k
$20-30k
$20-30k
$15-20k
Less than $15k
20-34
35-49
20-34
20-34
20-34
50-64
35-49
50-64
Some college or
college graduate
Some college or
college graduate
Some college or
college graduate
Graduate degree
Graduate degree
Graduate degree
Some high school
or high school
graduate or GED
Some college or
college graduate
Asian
African American
African American
Caucasian
Caucasian
Caucasian
Caucasian
Hispanic
-------
Houston Female Group
Q9. What type of Q10. How is this Qll. What is the Q12. Price range Q13. Age
vehicle did you vehicle powered? distance in miles of new vehicle
purchase? of your typical
daily travel in
this vehicle?
Q14. Education Q15. Ethnicity
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Passenger Car
Passenger Car
SUV
SUV
SUV
SUV
SUV
Passenger Car
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Less than 10
Miles
40 or more miles
20-29 Miles
40 or more miles
20-29 Miles
40 or more miles
20-29 Miles
30-39 miles
$25k
$25k
$32k
$35k
$30-40k
$40-50k
$20-30k
$30-40k
50-64
35-49
35-49
35-49
35-49
20-34
35-49
50-64
Some College or
College Graduate
Some College or
College Graduate
Some College or
College Graduate
Some College or
College Graduate
Some College or
College Graduate
Some College or
College Graduate
Graduate Degree
Some College or
College Graduate
Caucasian
African American
Caucasian
Hispanic
Caucasian
Caucasian
Asian
Caucasian
-------
Houston Male Group
Q9. What type of Q10. How is this Qll. What is the Q12. Price range Q13. Age
vehicle did you vehicle powered? distance in miles of new vehicle
purchase? of your typical
daily travel in
this vehicle?
Q14. Education Q15. Ethnicity
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
SUV
Passenger Car
SUV
SUV
Passenger Car
Passenger Car
Pickup Truck
SUV
Gasoline powered
Gasoline powered
Gasoline powered
Diesel powered
Gasoline powered
Gasoline powered
Gasoline powered
Gasoline powered
20-29 miles
30-39 miles
20-29 miles
30-39 miles
10-19 miles
20-29 miles
30-39 miles
40 or more miles
$40-50k
$15-20k
$40-50k
$20-30k
$21k
$14k
$30k
$20k
20-34
50-64
65+
50-64
20-34
35-49
20-34
20-34
Some college or
college graduate
Some college or
college graduate
Some college or
college graduate
Some college or
college graduate
Some college or
college graduate
Some college or
college graduate
Some college or
college graduate
Some college or
college graduate
Asian
Caucasian
Caucasian
Caucasian
Hispanic
African American
Caucasian
Caucasian
-------
Charlotte Female Group
Q9. What type of Q10. How is this Qll. What is the Q12. Price range Q13. Age
vehicle did you vehicle powered? distance in miles of new vehicle
purchase? of your typical
daily travel in
this vehicle?
Q14. Education Q15. Ethnicity
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Passeni
Passeni
Passeni
SUV
Passeni
Passeni
Passeni
Passeni
?er Car
let Car
let Car
?er Car
let Car
let Car
?er Car
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Hybrid
Hybrid
powered
powered
powered
powered
powered
powered
20-29
miles
40 or more miles
10-19
10-19
20-29
miles
miles
miles
40 or more miles
20-29
miles
40 or more miles
Less than $15k
Less than $15k
$20-$30k
$20-$30k
$20-$30k
$15-$20k
$20-$30k
$20-$30k
35-49
50-64
50-64
35-49
35-49
20-34
35-49
35-49
Some college or
college graduate
Some college or
college graduate
Some high school
or high school
graduate or GED
Graduate degree
Some college or
college graduate
Some college or
college graduate
Some college or
college graduate
Some college or
college graduate
Caucasian
Caucasian
Caucasian
Caucasian
Caucasian
African American
Asian
Caucasian
-------
Charlotte Male Group
Q9. What type of Q10. How is this Qll. What is the Q12. Price range Q13. Age
vehicle did you vehicle powered? distance in miles of new vehicle
purchase? of your typical
daily travel in
this vehicle?
Q14. Education Q15. Ethnicity
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Passeni
Passeni
SUV
Passeni
SUV
Passeni
Passeni
SUV
?er Car
let Car
?er Car
?er Car
let Car
Hybrid
Hybrid
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
powered
powered
powered
powered
powered
powered
40 or more miles
40 or more miles
40 or more miles
20-29 miles
10-19 miles
40 or more miles
10-19 miles
40 or more miles
$20-$30k
$20-$30k
$30-$40k
$15-$20k
$30-$40k
Less than $15k
$15-$20k
$20-$30k
50-64
35-49
35-49
20-34
35-49
50-64
20-34
50-64
Some college or
college graduate
Some college or
college graduate
Some college or
college graduate
Some college or
college graduate
Some college or
college graduate
Some college or
college graduate
Some college or
college graduate
Some college or
college graduate
Caucasian
Caucasian
Caucasian
Caucasian
Caucasian
Caucasian
Caucasian
Caucasian
-------
Appendix C: Current Label
Current Label
EPA Fuel Economy Estimates
CITY MPG
18
Expected range
for most drivers
15 tu 21 MP'1-,
HIGHWAY MPG
Estimated
Annual Fuel Cost
$2,039
based on 15,000 miies
at $2.60 per gallon
Combined Fuel Economy
This Vehicle
21
the FREE Fuel Economy Guide at dealer* <
Expected range
for most drivers
21 to 29 MPG
Your actual
mileage will vary
depending on how you
drive and maintain
your vehicle.
'.fueleconomy.gov
Appendix D: Prius Label
Current Label
EPA Fuel Economy Estimates
CITY MPG
51
Expected range
for most drivers
43 to 59 MPG
rg
Estimated
Annual Fuel Cost
$780
based on 15.000 miles
at $2.60 per gallon
Combined Fuel Economy
This Vehicle
50
12 WSO
All Midsize Cars
FREE Fuel Economy Guide at dealer* or www.fi
HIGHWAY MPG
48
Expected range
for most drivers
40 to 56 MPG
Your actual
mileage will vary
depending on how you
drive and maintain
your vehicle.
ialeconomy.gov '\$''
70
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
Appendix E: EV Label Elements
EV Label: Categories & Metrics
Charging Time
Battery charge time
12 hours (Using 220» outlet)
Fuel Consumption
City
O O kW-hrs per
OO 100 miles
City
OO kW-hrs
.OO per mile
City
3f\ miles per
,\J kW-hr
City
102 MPGe
City
/1QRnkWhrs
M- \y O \J per year
Highway
O O kW-hrs per
OO 100 miles
Highway
0 O kW-hrs
.OO per mile
Highway
2O miles per
.O kW-hr
Highway
94 MPGe
Highway
^4nokWhr3
vJ^+Uvy per year
Combined
O A kW-hrs per
OH1 100 miles
Combined
0/1 kW-hrs
,O*T per mile
Combined
2Q miles per
.?y kW-hr
Combined
y O MPGe
Combined
CH CO kW-hrs
O 1 \J\J per year
Range
On a full charge, vehicle can travel approximately:
City Highway Combined
1 1 0 Miles OO Miles 1 00 Miles
Fuel Cost
City
JpOy4 Annual
City
$.04 per Mile
City
\P»DU per Month
Highway
$648 Annual
Highway
\P.04 per Mile
Highway
$54 per Month
Combined
$6 1 8 Annual
Combined
$.04 perMile
Combined
vpU 2. per Month
Estimated fuel cost based on 1 5,000 miles
per year at 1 2 cents per kW-hour.
Phase 2 Focus Groups
71
-------
3 EV Label: Environment Metrics
Environment
CO,
Rating
0 Grams
(Zero) permik
USCPA Certified
5 out of 5 (5 is best)
Includes greenhouse gases and other air pollutants.
Rating
I/SOW Certified
SmartWay
5 out of 5 (5 is best!
Includes greenhouse gases and other air pollutants.
CO:, Rating
f\ , , Grams Worst
rlfYi
IHll'ACKTllfiKl \J^V
Includes greenhouse gases and other air pollutants.^
Rating
KYOTSI
Inn ^^
1 I I I I I I I I I A° X
Includes greenhouse gases and other air pollutants.
usimcmfmt
-SmartWay
CO,
Rating
0 Grams
(Zero) per mile
vriie
s SmartWay
10
out of 10
[10 is best]
Includes greenhouse gases
and other air pollutants
Rating
10
OUt Of 10
OU O usmc~nM
[10 is best] *vSmartWay>
Includes greenhouse gases
and other air pollutants
72
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
Appendix F: EV Label Elements Tally
EV: Charging Time and Range
Charging time
Range: "On a full charge, until
the battery is exhausted, vehicle
can travel"
Separate City &
Highway
Combined (city
and highway)
Seattle Chicago Charlotte
Female
X
X
X
Male
X
X
X
Female
X
X
X
Male
X
X
X
Female
X
X
X
Male
X
X
Houston
Female
X
X
Male
X
X
X
Total
8
8
6
EV: Fuel Cost
Separate City &
Highway
Combined City &
Highway
Annual
Per mile
Monthly
Annual
Per mile
Monthly
Seattle
Female
X
X
Male
X
X
Chicago
Female
X
X
Male
X
X
X
Charlotte
Female
X
X
Male
X
Houston
Female
X
Male
X
Total
2
3
2
3
3
1
Phase 2 Focus Groups
73
-------
EV: Fuel Consumption
ELECTRIC ONLY
kW-hrs per
100 miles
kW-hrs
per mile
miles per
kW-hrs
MPGe
kW-hrs
per year
City and highway
Combined
City and highway
Combined
City and highway
Combined
City and highway
Combined
City and highway
Combined
Seattle
Female
Male
Chicago
Female
X
X
Male
X
Charlotte
Female
X
X
Male
X
X
Houston
Female
X
Male
X
X
Total
2
2
1
3
2
EV: Environmental Impact
Leaves
Slider Bar
Rating
Number
out of 10
With C02 grams per
mile count
Without CC>2 grams
per mile count
With C02 grams per
mile count
Without C02 grams
per mile count
With CC>2 grams per
mile count
Without CC>2 grams
per mile count
Seattle
Female
Male
X
Chicago
Female
X
Male
X
X
Charlotte
Female
X
Male
Houston
Female
X
Male
X
Total
1
3
1
2
74
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
Appendix G: Teaching Tool Handout
Understanding Modes of Operation
Fully chargaJ,
full tank of gas
F Empty 1\ If run continuously or not recharged,
I Battery [j ctlargs depleted after 30 miles
EREV
All-Electric Ranga uses battery only
34 kW-hr of electricity per 100 miles
$.041 per mile*
Extended Range uses gas
2.7 galonsper 100 miles(38 MPG)
$.08 per mile'
Fully chafed,
full tank of gas
If run continuously or not recharged,
charge depleted after 50 mi las
No AII-EI-Mtrio Rung*, uses tatb^ry and gas untl batt*y depleted Extended Range uses gas
1 gallon 988+25 kW-tr of electricity pH 100 mites I 2.7 gallons per 100 miles (38 MPG)
At 4B2 mites,
gas tank empty
At 51 0 miles,
gas tank empty
Consumption for EREV
MikH Driven Total Total
(beginning whh Electricity Gasoline Cost*
lylldwga) Used iJtW+rl Used (golem)
10
20
30
40
50
80
70
BO
ae
10.2
10.2
to.2
10.2
0
0
0
0.3
0.5
O.S
1.1
1.4
$041
$0.82
$1.22
$2.03
$2.85
$3.65
$446
$5.27
34 kW-hr perl 00 miles for fret 30 mlea
2.7 gallone per 100 milee after first 30 miles
Miles 0 10 20 30 40 50
*AII mileage cost estimates assume $.12 per kW-hr and $3.00 per gallon.
60
70
110
120
-------
Appendix H: EREV Label Elements
EREV Label: Electric Categories & Metrics
Charging Time
Battery charge time
4 hours (Using 220v outlet)
Electricity:
City
Q Q
O O
kW-hrs per
100 miles
Highway
Q £> kW-hrs per
OO
100 mile
City
Highway
Combined
kW-hrs per
100 miles
QO kW-hrs
O O per mile
kW-hrs
per mile
City
f\ miles per
.\J kW-hr
Highway
2Q miles per
.O
Combined
per mile
kW-hr
City
1 \J 2. MPGe
Highway
9 4 MPGe
City
A Q R O kw hr
*+ & O4 per Month
Combined
$618 Annual
Combined
$.04 per Mile
Combined
CpO ^ per Month
Estimated fuel cost based on 15,000 miles per year at
12 cents per kW-hour and $3.00 per gallon.
76
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
J EREV Label: Gasoline Categories & Metrics
Fuel Consumption G..oime:
City
OD MPG
City
2O gallons per
. O 1 00 miles
City
r\ o Q aa||on-f
, \J S Q per mile
City
A -4 fj gallons
T- I / per year
Highway
40 MPG
Highway
2C gallons per
O 100 miles
Highway
noRsaibni
B \J S \J per mile
Highway
Q H R 9allons
O / O Per year
Combined
OO MPG
Combined
2t~7 gallons per
. / 100 miles
Combined
n o 7 8aiion'?
, \J S j per mile
Combined
O Q Q gallons
vj y O per year
Fuel Consumption
Combined
-j O kW- _|_ -j O gallons per
100 miles
Combined
1O kW-hrs per i Q f\
O 100 miles ' OL/MPG
Combined
56
MPGe of
gas + electric
EREV Label: Environment Metrics
Environment
CO,
Rating
00001
4,5 out of 5 (5 is best)
Includes greenhouse gases and other air pollutants.
Rating
SmartWay
4.5 out of 5 (5 is best)
Includes greenhouse gases and other air pollutants
CO,
Rating
Grams Worst
permle
o
Includes greenhouse gases and other air pollutants.
Rating
worst
1I I I I I I I l(§)
In dudes greenhouse gases and other air pollutants.
Best
|10
FUG) COSt Gasoline:
Highway Combined
City
vj> 1,2 O 0 Annual v|> 1, 1 2 O Annual
$1,194AnnUa,
City Highway Combined
$.08 perMile $.08 perMile $.08 perMile
City Highway
\pl U4 per Month \py4perMonth
Combined
Fuel Cost
Combined
$889
Annual
gas + electric
CO2
1C f\ Grams
OVJ per mile
Rating
IK FPA Terrified
9
out of 1 0
[1 0 is best]
Includes greenhouse gases
and other air pollutants
Rating
out of 1 0
[1 0 is beet]
Includes greenhouse gases
and other air pollutants
US CPA Certified
SmartWay
Phase 2 Focus Groups
77
-------
Appendix I: EREV Label Elements Tally
EREV: Charging Time And Range
Charging time
01
BO
c
ro
oc
ELECTRIC ONLY
:"0n a full
charge, until
the battery
is exhausted,
vehicle can
travel"
GASOLINE ONLY:
"Without a
charge, until all
fuel is exhausted,
vehicle can
travel"
MERGED
ESTIMATE FOR
BOTH MODES:
"From full
charge, until all
fuel is exhausted,
vehicle can
travel"
Separate
City&
Highway
Combined
(city and
highway)
Separate
City&
Highway
Combined
(city and
highway)
Separate
City&
Highway
Combined
(city and
highway)
Seattle
Female
X
X
Male
X
X
X
X
Chicago
Female
X
X
X
Male
X
X
X
X
X
Charlotte
Female
X
X
X
Male
X
X
Houston
Female
X
X
X
Male
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Total
8
5
4
4
1
3
4
78
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
EREV: Fuel Cost
ELECTRIC ONLY
Separate City &
Highway
Combined City &
Highway
Annual
Per mile
Monthly
Annual
Per mile
Monthly
GASOLINE ONLY
Separate City &
Highway
Combined City&
Highway
Annual
Per mile
Monthly
Annual
Per mile
Monthly
MERGED COST FOR BOTH MODES
Combined
Seattle
Female
X
Male
X
X
Chicago
Female
Male
X
X
X
Charlotte
Female
X
X
Male
X
X
Houston
Female
X
X
Male
X
Total
1
1
1
3
1
2
1
1
2
Phase 2 Focus Groups
79
-------
EREV: Fuel Consumption
ELECTRIC ONLY
kW-hrs per
100 miles
kW-hrs per
mile
miles per
kW-hrs
MPGe
kW-hrs per
year
City and highway
Combined
City and highway
Combined
City and highway
Combined
City and highway
Combined
City and highway
Combined
GASOLINE ONLY
MPG
gallons per
100 miles
gallons per
mile
gallons per
year
City and highway
Combined
City and highway
Combined
City and highway
Combined
City and highway
Combined
MERGED CONSUMPTION
FOR BOTH MODES
kW-hrs + gallons per 100 miles
kW-hrs per 100 miles + MPG
MPGe of gas + electric
Seattle
Female
X
Male
X
Chicago
Female
X
Male
X
X
X
X
Charlotte
Female
X
X
Male
X
X
Houston
Female
X
X
Male
X
Total
1
2
1
6
1
3
80
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
EREV: Environmental Impact
Leaves
Slider Bar
Rating
Number
out of 10
With CC>2 grams per
mile count
Without C02 grams
per mile count
With CC>2 grams per
mile count
Without CC>2 grams
per mile count
With C02 grams per
mile count
Without CC>2 grams
per mile count
Seattle
Female
X
Male
X
Chicago
Female
X
Male
X
Charlotte
Female
X
Male
Houston
Female
X
Male
X
Total
1
1
4
1
Phase 2 Focus Groups
81
-------
Appendix J: PHEV Label Elements
PHEV Label: Charged Battery Electric Categories & Metrics
Charging Time
Battery charge time
4 hours (Using 220v outlet)
Fuel Consumption Ei.ctridty:
City
(~\ A kW-hrs per
^ H- 1 00 miles
City
Q A kW-hrs
^ ^T per mile
City
4f) miles per
,Z- kW-hr
City
101MPGe
City
O C r\C\ kW-hrs
OOUU per year
Highway
Q ""7 kW-hrs per
Z. 1 100 miles
Highway
Q rj kW-hrs
. ^ / per mile
Highway
3!^ miles per
. / kW-hr
Highway
1 ^OMPGe
Highway
4n^nkwhrs
*T VJ\J\J per year
Combined
O C^ kW-hrs per
^O 100 miles
Combined
O K kW-hrs
. jL. \-J per mile
Combined
3C\ miles per
.C/ kW-hr
Combined
1 OO MPGe
Combined
0 O C\ O kW-hrs
O O w O per year
Range
On a full charge, until battery is exhausted, vehicle can travel:
City
O 2. Miles
Highway
4 / Miles
Combined
O U Miles
Fuel COSt Electricity:
City
$43 2 Annual
City
vp.029perMile
City
\POD per Month
Highway
$486 Annual
Highway
$. 03 2 per Mile
Highway
$41 per Month
Combined
$456 Annual
Combined
$.030 per Mile
Combined
IpOO per Month
Estimated fuel cost based on 1 5,000 miles per year at
12 cents per kW-hour and $3.00 per gallon.
82
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
PHEV Label: Charged Battery Gasoline Categories & Metrics
Fuel Consumption Gasoline:
City
y / MPG
City
1/\ gallons per
,\J 100 miles
City
n ~i r\ gaiion-?
, \J I \J per mile
City
1 RR9albns
| \J\Jperyear
Highway
1 U 1 MPG
Highway
1^^ gallons per
.U 100 miles
Highway
AHA gallons
,\J | \J per mile
Highway
1 A QBallorls
| «+ v? per year
Combined
y y MPG
Combined
1^ gallons per
. \J 100 miles
Combined
AHA gallons
,^,7 | \J per mile
Combined
IfT (~) gallons
O *L per year
FUel COSt Gasoline:
Highway Combined
City
Annual
vpOUO Annual
City
Highway
$.01 9per Mile $.020perMile
City
Highway
$296 Annual
Combined
Jp.020per
Mile
Combined
per Month
per Month Cp ^_ O per Monti
Fuel Consumption
City
Highway
Combined
A Q MPGe of C O MPGe of C 'J MPGe of
^T \y gas + electric \J \J gas + electric \J j gas + electric
Fuel Cost ISSK
City
\P / ^O Annual
City
Ij>.OO per Mile
City
vpbOperMonth
Highway
Jp /O9 Annual
Highway
Ip.OO per Mile
Highway
vf>DD per Month
Combined
Jp /OO Annual
Combined
ip.UO per Mile
Combined
vpOO per Month
PHEV Label: Depleted Battery Gasoline Categories & Metrics
Range
From a full charge, until all fuel is exhausted, vehicle can travel:
City
Highway
Mile
Combined
Miles
Fuel Consumption SSS""*
City
O D MPG
City
2O gallons per
.O 100 miles
City
A O Q aalbns
,\J ^O per mile
City
A H 7 gaiions
*T I / per year
Highway
40 MPG
Highway
2pT gallons per
. O 1 00 miles
Highway
nORgallonf
. \J S ^J per mile
Highway
O TJ pr gallons
O / O Per year
Combined
OO MPG
Combined
2I~) gallons per
. / 100 miles
Combined
A. O 7 gallons
. \J s j per mile
Combined
O Q Q gallons
O \j O Per year
FUel COSt gas only:
City Highway Combined
$1,250Annua, $ 1, 1 2 5Annual $1,194
'Annual
City Highway Combined
$.08 perMile $.08 per Mile $.08 per Mile
City
Highway
Combined
U4 per Month
per Month
vpS/Cy
per Month
Phase 2 Focus Groups
-------
PHEV Label: Environment Metrics
Environment
CO,
Rating
-|5Q Grams
per mile
#M Certified
oooot
4,5 out of 5 (5 is best)
Includes greenhouse gases and other air pollutants.
Rating
4.5 out of 5 (5 is best)
Includes greenhouse gases and other air pollutants.
CO, Rating
-4 C /> Grams Worst
per mi e -j I
Best
lie
Includes greenhouse gases and other air pollutants.
Rating
nor si
MINIM
Includes greenhouse gases and other air pollutants.
^ USmC*rtil*d
-SmartWay
C02
IfT r\ Grams
\~J V/ per mile
TjSj US EPA Certified
^vSmartWay
Rating
Rating ^^
^^ out of 1 0
^^V [10 is best]
Includes greenhouse gases
and other air pollutants
9 out of 10
[10 is best]
Includes greenhouse gases
and other air pollutants
^S) USCPACtrtiftrd
^vSmartWay
84
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
Appendix K: PHEV Label Elements Tally
PHEV: Charging Time and Range
Charging time
01
BO
c
ro
oc
BLENDED (GAS/
ELECTRIC) MODE:
On a full charge,
until the battery is
exhausted, vehicle
can travel "
GASOLINE ONLY:
"Without a
charge, until all
fuel is exhausted,
vehicle can travel"
Separate
City&
Highway
Combined
(city and
highway)
Separate
City&
Highway
Combined
(city and
highway)
Seattle
Female
X
Male
X
X
Chicago
Female
X
X
X
Male
X
X
Charlotte
Female
X
X
Male
X
Houston
Female
X
X
Male
X
X
X
X
X
Total
8
3
4
2
1
PHEV: Fuel Cost
BLENDED MODE
Separate City
& Highway
Combined City
& Highway
Annual
Per mile
Monthly
Annual
Per mile
Monthly
GASOLINE ONLY
Separate City
& Highway
Combined City
& Highway
Annual
Per mile
Monthly
Annual
Per mile
Monthly
Seattle
Female
X
X
Male
X
Chicago
Female
Male
X
Charlotte
Female
X
Male
X
X
Houston
Female
X
X
Male
X
Total
1
1
2
3
1
1
1
Phase 2 Focus Groups
85
-------
PHEV: Fuel Consumption
BLENDED MODE
MPGe
of gas +
electric
City and highway
Combined
GASOLINE ONLY
MPG
gallons per
100 miles
gallons
per mile
gallons
per year
City and highway
Combined
City and highway
Combined
City and highway
Combined
City and highway
Combined
Seattle
Female
Male
X
Chicago
Female
X
X
X
X
Male
X
X
Charlotte
Female
X
Male
X
X
Houston
Female
X
X
Male
X
Total
5
4
3
1
PHEV: Environmental Impact
Leaves
Slider Bar
Rating
Number
out of 10
With C02 grams
per mile count
Without C02
grams per mile
count
With C02 grams
per mile count
Without C02
grams per mile
count
With C02 grams
per mile count
Without C02
grams per mile
count
Seattle
Female
X
Male
X
Chicago
Female
X
Male
Charlotte
Female
X
X
Male
Houston
Female
X
Male
X
Total
2
2
3
86
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
Appendix L At-A-Glance Comparison Across Technologies
EV EREV PHEV
(# of groups) (# of groups) (# of groups)
Charging time
8
8
8
Range
Electric only
Gas Only
Separate City and Highway
Combined City and Highway
Separate City and Highway
Combined City and Highway
8
6
n/a
n/a
5
4
4
1
n/a
n/a
2
1
Fuel Cost
c
o
u
QJ
LU
~E
o
(D
ID
Separate City &
Highway
Combined City &
Highway
Separate City &
Highway
Combined City &
Highway
Annual
Per mile
Monthly
Annual
Per mile
Monthly
Annual
Per mile
Monthly
Annual
Per mile
Monthly
2
3
2
3
3
1
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
1
1
1
3
1
2
1
1
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
1
1
1
Phase 2 Focus Groups
87
-------
EV EREV PHEV
(# of groups) (# of groups) (# of groups)
Fuel Consumption
>.
c
o
u
4->
U
0)
LLJ
>.
c
o
t/>
ro
(D
kW-hrs per 100
miles
kW hrs per mile
miles per kW hrs
MPGe
kW-hrs per year
MPG
Gallons per 100
miles
Gallons per mile
Gallons per year
City and highway
Combined
City and highway
Combined
City and highway
Combined
City and highway
Combined
City and highway
Combined
City and highway
Combined
City and highway
Combined
City and highway
Combined
City and highway
Combined
2
2
1
3
2
1
2
1
6
1
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
3
1
Environmental impact
Leaves
Slider Bar
Rating Number
out of 10
With CC>2 grams per mile
count
Without C02 grams per mile
count
With C02 grams per mile
count
Without CC>2 grams per mile
count
With C02 grams per mile
count
Without C02 grams per mile
count
1
3
1
2
1
1
4
1
2
2
3
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
------- |