Environmental Protection Agency
Fuel Economy Label
Phase 3 Focus Groups
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Fuel Economy Label
Phase 3 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-10-905
August 2010
-------
Table of Contents
Introduction 3
Gasoline Engine Vehicle Label Designs 9
Understandability of vehicle label designs 9
Using the label to determine vehicle fuel efficiency 12
Suggestions to improve the vehicle label 13
Electric Vehicle Label Designs 15
Understandability of vehicle label designs 15
Using the label to determine vehicle fuel efficiency 20
Suggestions to improve the vehicle label 21
Extended Range Electric Vehicle 23
Understandability of vehicle label designs 23
Using the label to determine vehicle fuel efficiency 27
Suggestions to improve the vehicle label 28
Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicle 29
Understandability of vehicle label designs 29
Using the label to determine vehicle fuel efficiency 32
Suggestions to improve the vehicle label 33
Using Labels To Compare Across Technologies 35
Elements of vehicle label most useful in
comparing across technologies 35
Which vehicle label design is best for comparing
across technologies? 35
What information is not needed when
comparing across technologies 38
Environmental Metrics 39
Environmental metrics preferences 39
Inclusion of pollutants generated from
charging electric vehicles 42
Annual Cost and Annual Gallons Assumptions 43
Placement of the Fuel Economy Label
within the Monroney Label 45
Overall Summary 47
Phase 3 Focus Groups
-------
Appendices 51
Appendix A: Moderator Guide 51
Appendix B: Participants' Profiles 60
Appendix C-. Gasoline Engine Labels
Understandability Handout 76
Appendix D: Gasoline Engine Labels Understandability Tally.... 78
Appendix £.- Gasoline Engine Labels Fuel Efficiency Handout... 81
Appendix F: Gasoline Engine Labels Fuel Efficiency Tally 82
Appendix G: Electric Vehicle Labels
Understandability Handout 83
Appendix H: Electric Vehicles Labels Understandability Tally... 84
Appendix /.- Electric Vehicle Labels Fuel Efficiency Handout 87
Appendix J: Electric Vehicles Labels Fuel Efficiency Tally 88
Appendix K: Extended Range Electric Vehicle
Labels Understandability Handout 89
Appendix L EREV Labels Understandability Tally 90
Appendix M-. EREV Labels Fuel Efficiency Handout 93
Appendix N: EREV Labels Fuel Efficiency Tally 94
Appendix 0: PHEV Labels Understandability Handout. 95
Appendix P-. PHEV Labels Understandability Tally 96
Appendix Q: PHEV Labels Fuel Efficiency Handout 99
Appendix R: PHEV Labels Fuel Efficiency Tally 100
Appendix S: Comparing Across Technology Option A Handout.... 101
Appendix T. Comparing Across Technology Option A Tally 102
Appendix U: Comparing Across Technology Option B Handout 103
Appendix V: Comparing Across Technology Option B Tally 104
Appendix W: Comparing Across Technology Option C Handout...105
Appendix X: Comparing Across Technology Option C Tally 106
Appendix Y: Environmental Metrics Handout 107
Appendix Z: Environmental Metrics Tally 108
Appendix AA: Environmental Metrics Option F Handout Ill
Appendix AB: Monroney Label Handout 112
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 and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) are now initiating a new rulemaking 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. With the introduction
of advanced technology vehicles on the market the agencies must
provide metrics that are relevant and useful for vehicles such as
Electric Vehicles, Extended Range Electric Vehicles and Plug-in
Hybrid Electric Vehicles.
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
Phase 3 Focus Groups
-------
It was decided to use a three-phase approach for the focus groups
in order to accommodate the 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, as well as content and
design of the label for internal combustion engine vehicles
• Phase II - Understandability of and preference for metrics
for advanced technology vehicle labels
• Phase III - Assessment of full label designs in regard to
content and look
This document provides an overview of the Phase III focus groups
and is designed specifically to refine the full label designs. It is not
intended as a comprehensive report of results from the Phase III
focus groups; that will come in the form of a full comprehensive
report incorporating the results of all three phases of the focus
groups, including the results of the pre-group online surveys. It
should be noted that all results reported here refer to the focus
group discussions.
Methodology
Focus groups are the optimum approach to use when the task calls
for qualitative, in-depth understanding of consumers' understanding
of fuel economy labels. Focus groups allow for probing around such
issues as why some label designs are more understandable, how
such 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 influence consumers' use of the fuel economy label, as
well as helping consumers to identify the most fuel-efficient and
environmentally friendly vehicles that meet their needs.
Sixteen focus groups were conducted between May 17th and 27th,
2010 in the cities of Seattle, Chicago, Houston and Charlotte. In
each city, four groups (two male, two 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).
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
Participants were recruited from within panels 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 May 17th Seattle female group (which had six participants),
May 24th Houston male group (which had five participants) and
May 25th Houston male group (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. In addition, participants
must have been the sole or primary decision maker with regard
to this new vehicle purchase. Having internet access was also a
requirement so that they could complete the pre-group online
survey. To ensure a good cross-section of participants, each focus
group included individuals representing diversity in: type of new
vehicle, price range of new vehicle, distance they typically travelled
daily in this new vehicle, if they had seriously considered an
advanced technology vehicle before purchasing their vehicle, and
demographics (see Appendix B for participant profiles).
For the Phase III focus groups, participants were asked to provide
input on fuel economy label designs for conventional gas, EV, EREV
and PHEV technologies. The fuel economy label designs used for
the Phase III focus groups were based on input received during the
Phase I and Phase II focus groups and input from EPA and NHTSA
officials. Participants were asked to evaluate three different fuel
economy label designs for the four different vehicle technologies.
Each fuel economy label design contained similar information, but
differed in presentation, lay-out, and some of the metrics used.
• Option A labels focused on the use of colored boxes to
separate information. On the left side of the label, the top
box presented fuel economy and the bottom box presented
consumption and cost information. The right side of the label
was one long box that presented environmental information.
The Optin A label used stars to rate both fuel economy and
environmental impact, and provided a combined MPG/
MPGe metric along with gallons per hundred miles.
Phase 3 Focus Groups
-------
• Option B labels focused on making the fuel metric stand
out. Information was presented from left to right. The
box on the left presented information on fuel economy,
consumption and cost, while the box on the right presented
environmental information. The Option B label used
also provided combined and separate city and highway
fuel consumption information, used the kWh metrics to
represent vehicle electric operation fuel consumption,
included a Smartphone scan code, and used leaves to display
the environmental impact information. For vehicles that
used electric operation, information on electric vehicle
range and charge time was prominently displayed in their
own box on the right above the environmental information
box.
• Option C labels focused on providing a large combined
mileage MPG/MPGe fuel metric to show fuel
consumption. Information was presented from left to
right, but used one large box on top to presented mileage
information. Below that box, consumption and cost
was presented in a box on the left and environmental
information was provided in a box on the right. Option
C labels did not provide separate city and highway MPG/
MPGe numbers, but did provide a gallons per hundred
miles metric. Leaves were again used to display the
environmental impact information. Unique to Option C
labels was the fuel economy comparison slider bar, and the
electric range and charge graphic.
To provide adequate time for participants to discuss each label
design, each focus group focused on three of the four different
vehicles technologies. Which three vehicle technologies were
included was rotated amongst the focus groups to provide equal
coverage of all four vehicle technologies. To allow for appropriate
comparisons to be made, one male and one female group in each
city were asked about the same three vehicles technologies in the
same order.
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
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 alternative fuel
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 were 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 176 of the recruited participants. Of those who
had completed the online survey, 60 male recruits and 62 female
recruits participated in the focus group discussions. The complete
results for this online survey can be found in the Pre-Focus Group
Online Survey Report.
Phase 3 Focus Groups
-------
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
Gasoline Engine Vehicle
Label Designs
Understandability of vehicle label designs
Participants in twelve of the sixteen groups were asked to provide
input on gasoline vehicle label designs1. For this discussion, the
moderator handed out individual copies of three different gasoline
vehicle label designs (see Appendix C). The moderator asked each
participant to indicate which label they viewed as most and least
understandable (see Appendix D for tally) and to explain their
rationale for choosing the most and the least understandable designs.
The majority of the participants in eleven of the twelve groups found
Option B to be the most understandable. Option B was picked as the
most understandable by all four Charlotte groups, all four Seattle
groups, the male Chicago group, and the two Houston groups that
viewed the gasoline vehicle labels. Participants explained that this
option was perceived as the most understandable because it provided
them with separate city and highway fuel economy estimates just like
the current EPA label. They explained that they usually looked for
the "two big numbers" (i.e., city/highway MPGs) on the label for the
Fuel Economy &
Environmental Information
Fuel Economy, Consumption & Cost
Rating 'among all vehicles;
*****
Q£MPG
b O 22 32
combined cl'v nigh™y
586=
$1,641
Environment
Wl
0001
347%...
sit www.fueleconomy.gov
•o.
Option B
"It was the only that gave
me city and highway."
- Charlotte Male
"Not everyone drives highway,
need to know city driving too."
- Charlotte Female
Four groups (two female and
two male) in both Charlotte and
Chicago, and two groups (one
female and one male) in both
Seattle and Houston.
Phase 3 Focus Groups
-------
"Ifs laid out better, easier on the
eyes."- Charlotte Female
"All the information in the square
is pretty much what I'm looking
for, mileage and what my cost
will be. I'm less concerned about
environmental issues."
- Charlotte Male
"It is easy to find cost and
consumption in this format."
- Chicago Male
fuel economy of the vehicle. When they were asked if they preferred a
combined (city and highway) estimate over separate city and highway
estimates, most reported preferring the latter. They explained that
people had different driving styles (city versus highway driving) and
seeing each estimate gave them the basic information to do the math
and calculate fuel economy for their particular case. They also liked
having the annual cost and consumption information provided in a
prominent location, which made it easy to find and read.. Participants
added that they liked the layout used in Option B because the side-
by-side layout format was simple, easy to read and appealing, and the
arrangement of fuel economy, cost and consumption information in one
box and the environment related information in a separate box worked
well for them. Participants also stated that they liked the use of leaves to
represent the vehicle's environmental rating. Some participants indicated
that the yellow color used in Option B grabbed their attention. Most
participants across groups indicated that they liked the Smartphone
interactive scan code on Option B and thought it would be useful in
accessing information easily. This is significant since the moderators
intentionally did not draw participants' attention to this feature.
Although participants were fairly evenly split between Option A
and Option C as the least understandable label, seven of the groups
selected Option C, while five groups selected Option A as the least
understandable label.
About half of all participants and seven of the twelve focus groups
(two male Charlotte groups, one female Seattle group, one female
Houston group, and one female and two male Chicago groups)
found Option C to be the least understandable. Participants that
found this option least understandable stated that the information
on the label was difficult to interpret at a glance, especially the grey
MPG comparison slider bar graphic. Participants also stated that
Fuel Economy and
. Environmental Impact Estir
Option C
10
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
they thought there was too much information on the label. They also
did not like the top-to-bottom format used in this option. Instead,
but preferred the side-by-side format used in Option B. The use of
color on the label to separate information was preferred over the
use of black and white. For the participants that did like this option
(about one-quarter of the total), they stated that they liked the MPG
comparison slider bar (since it provided the range of worst to best),
the presentation of the estimated annual fuel cost in its own box,
and the estimated monthly fuel cost (because it helped them to
think of their fuel spending at the monthly level similar to how they
budgeted other living costs). Some participants added that they liked
the way environmental information was presented because the leaf
design was well suited to the environment theme. In addition, having
a combined metric for CO2 and other pollutants worked well for
some participants because it was simple and sufficient for them to
judge how a vehicle fared as compared to others with regard to the
environmental impact.
• CD A Fuel Economy &
L n/"\ Environmental Inf
, Environmental Information
Fuel Economy
***
26
586-=" $1,641
w.liialeconomy.gov to calculate estimates
lijed for your driving, and to download the
nomy Guide (also available at dealers).
Environment
Rating among all vehicles
—***_
347=.
Option A
Close to half of the participants found Option A to be the
least understandable. Option A was also picked as the least
understandable by five of the twelve focus groups (one male and two
female groups in Charlotte, one male Seattle group, and one male
Houston group). These participants explained that they thought
this option was the least understandable because it used "too many
colors," looked "too busy," and did not present information in an
organized way. They added that the information was not separated
well, and no particular information stood out prominently in this
design option. It also did not provide them with separate city and
highway fuel consumption estimates, which is information that
the participants were very interested in having available. Some
"/ like the comparison bar- gives
me the range of the worst and the
best." - Chicago Male
"The environment part uses green
leaves. I like that." - Chicago Male
"There's too much going on."
- Charlotte Female
Phase 3 Focus Groups
11
-------
"/ don't know anyone who thinks
that way." - Charlotte Male
"It's always easy to look at the
dollar amount." - Seattle Male
participants also indicated that the font used in this option was
"not bold enough." When probed about the use of gallons per 100
miles as a fuel consumption metric, most participants in all the
groups said that they preferred it less than MPG as they were not
familiar with it.
No major city or gender differences were found with regard to
participants' perceived understanding of gasoline engine vehicle
label designs.
Based on the above findings, it can be said that Option B was
perceived as the most understandable overall vehicle label design
for gasoline vehicles and that participants were split between
Option A and Option C as the least understandable design. In
essence, for gasoline engine vehicles, participants preferred a label
design that gave them separate city and highway fuel consumption
estimates, provided annual cost and consumption information, and
was presented in a side-by-side format.
Using the label to determine vehicle fuel
efficiency
The moderator passed out individual copies of three pairs of
gasoline vehicle labels (one pair of labels for each of the three
design options discussed above) to the participants (see Appendix
E). Each label pair was identical except that one was for a more fuel
efficient vehicle. The goal of this exercise was to determine whether
the participants were able to use the information on the labels to
determine which vehicle was more fuel efficient within each pair, to
understand what information they used to make that determination,
and whether any information caused misunderstanding.
The majority of participants across all groups were easily able to
determine which gasoline vehicle was most fuel efficient for each
pair (see Appendix F for tally). Higher MPG and lower fuel costs
were used by participants to determine which vehicle was most
fuel efficient. Some participants also looked at gallons per hundred
miles and CO2 emissions. All but a few participants correctly chose
Options A2, Bl, and C2 as the most fuel efficient.
12
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
No major city or gender differences were found with regard to
participants' use of the labels to determine vehicle fuel efficiency.
Based on the above findings, it can be said that regardless of
label design, participants relied primarily on MPG and fuel cost
information to correctly determine which vehicle was most fuel
efficient. Some participants also looked at gallons per hundred
miles and CO2 emissions to make fuel efficiency judgments.
Suggestions to improve the vehicle label
The following suggestions were provided by participants across
groups to improve the label design for gasoline engine vehicles:
• Use different font size with larger and bolder font for more
critical information:
• Emphasize city and highway MPG estimates by using
larger and bolder font
• Reduce the font size for combined MPG estimate
• Reduce the font size for estimated gallons per year
• Include Smartphone interactive scan code
• Do not use stars for environmental ratings (as in Option A)
• Use a side-by-side format (as in Option B)
• Include the gas pump symbol (as in Option C)
PhaseS Focus Groups 13
-------
14 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
Electric Vehicle Label Designs
Understandability of vehicle label designs
Participants in twelve2 of the sixteen groups were asked to provide
input on electric vehicle (EV) label designs. The moderator
distributed individual copies and read out loud the following
description of an electric vehicle and confirmed that participants
understood how such vehicles function:
"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 station for more rapid charging. Like hybrid
vehicles, some energy is recovered when the brakes are applied.
The vehicle travels until the charge is depleted, or it is re-charged.
There is no option to run it on gasoline."
For this discussion, the moderator handed out individual copies
of three different electric vehicle label designs (see Appendix G).
The moderator asked each participant to indicate which label they
viewed as most and least understandable (see Appendix H for tally)
and to explain why.
Interestingly, for electric vehicles, the majority of the groups
thought that Option C was both the most understandable and
the least understandable vehicle label. Option C was selected as
most understandable by seven (all Houston groups, the two Seattle
male groups, and the Charlotte male group) of the twelve focus
groups. Option C was selected as least understandable by five
(the Charlotte female group, the two Seattle female groups, and
the Chicago male group) of the twelve focus groups. Two more of
2. Four groups each (two female
the groups (one Houston female group, and the Chicago female and two male) in both Seattle
group) were undecided on which of the three options were least and Houston, and two groups
. 111 each (one female and one male)
understandable. m both charlotte and chicago
Phase 3 Focus Groups
15
-------
"/ like the graphic on the range
and the charging capabilities.
It was nicely laid and easy to
understand." - Chicago Male
"I like the green at the bottom
that shows on a fully charged
battery how far you can travel
because it's there, it's a picture,
so people don't have to really to
guess what it means by having
to convert kW-hr or trying to
figure out what I'm going to get
city vs. highway."
- Houston Female
"I liked that it [Option C] gave
you the equivalent gallons per
month that you utilize, because
most of us still think in terms of
gasoline. It gives me more of a
benchmark about what I would
be paying to run an electric car
per month, opposed to what I
would spend on 13 gallons of
gasoline a month."
- Houston Male
Option C
Those participants who thought that Option C was the most
understandable stated that it was well organized and very
informative. They thought it was "less cluttered," "clear," easy
to read, and had good graphics (especially the range & charge
graphic). Most useful was the large MPGe number and the annual
fuel cost and consumption information. Participants also liked
Option C because it carried charging time information. According
to participants, charging time was a crucial piece of information
especially for EVs and it was essential for the label to carry this
information. Participants liked how this information was presented
on the label in the range and charge bar graphic.
When the moderator asked if they understood what MPGe was,
most were not sure, but assumed it was some way of comparing
electric power with gasoline power. While there were some who
reported reading its description on the label, others guessed it
to be an electric-equivalent of MPG ("MPG-electric," "MPG-
equivalent"). Many participants also liked the use of the large font
for the MPGe numbers which made it easy to find on the label.
Most individuals did not read the description even if they had
noticed the asterisk placed next to the MPGe.
Many participants liked the estimated monthly fuel cost in addition
to the annual fuel cost on the label. According to them, it was
consistent with how they plan and monitor their budgets (monthly)
and allowed them to project how their budget would change for
each month if they bought the vehicle. Some participants also
reported liking the format used in Option C. They explained that
they liked the fuel cost, consumption and economy information in
a black and white format because it looked straightforward and
16
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
to-the-point. The use of green color for the environmental elements
was symbolic of the environment theme. Further, some participants
mentioned liking the symbol of the plug and thought that it was
intuitive and well suited for electric vehicles. A few participants
mentioned liking the comparison bar used to compare vehicles
within its class and among all vehicles, but suggested including a
clearer description of what "within class" stood for - whether it
was comparing vehicles that were based on the same technology or
those that were of the same size/type of vehicle.
For the participants that found Option C least understandable, the
black and white format did not appeal to them and they did not
like the grey MPGe comparison bar. They also struggled with what
the MPGe metric and charge time meant. With regard to MPGe,
participants described that they had a hard time equating electricity
to gallons and struggled with how to estimate their cost for electricity.
As for charge time, a few female participants thought that it referred
to how long one could drive the vehicle. A few participants in one of
the Seattle male groups struggled with the vehicle charge time and
range graphic because they did not understand that it was trying
to provide information that was different than the estimate ('98
MPGe') for combined city/highway driving.
Fuel Economy &
Environmental Information
Fuel Economy, Consumption & Cost
Rating <*m^eaii voidest
***** 5,153;
miles
per kVV-hr
3.0 2.8
$618
Visit www.fueleconomy.gov
Calculate personalized driving estir
Download the Fuel Economy Guifli
(also available at dealers)
Smartphone Intel
s Scan code for more infc
about this vehicle ortoc
it'.vith nh:i;
Range
99
OO0OO
Option B
Option B was found to be least understandable by a majority of the
participants, but just one Seattle male group and one Houston male
group (2 of 12) definitively selected it as the least understandable
label design. Also, two more of the groups (one Houston female
group, and the Chicago female group) were undecided on which of
the three options were least understandable. The Charlotte female
group and the two Seattle female groups found Option B most
understandable (3 out of 12).
"Jo me, this 2.9 miles per kW-
hr [referring to Option B], if I'm
comparing it to a gasoline car,
that doesn't help me, where
as the 98 MPG [as presented
in Option C], my brain knows
MPG." - Houston Female
"I don't need to know how many
gallons its equivalent to, I don't
really care about that, I just
need to know overall how much
it's going to cost for the month."
- Houston Male
Phase 3 Focus Groups
17
-------
"It goes back to what you were
saying about focusing on key
information, which is range.
Most people wouldn't be able
to tell you how many kW-hr
they use each month in their
homes, so it's a very ambiguous
measure of energy usage."
- Houston Male
All focus groups conducted in Seattle, Charlotte, and two of the
groups conducted in Houston were shown a version of the Option
B label that used a kW-hr per 100 miles as the fuel economy metric,
rather the miles per kW-hr metric shown above. Groups that were
shown the kW-hr per 100 miles metric tended to struggle with
the concept of a smaller number indicating better fuel efficiency
rather than a larger number as with MPG for gasoline powered
vehicles. To determine if a different representation of the kW-hr
metric would improve its understandability, miles per kW-hr was
used on the Option B labels shown to two of the Houston groups
and all of the Chicago groups. The change in this kW-hr did cause
less confusion when participants were asked to choose which of
two vehicles was more fuel efficient, but did not change which
label option the groups selected as most and least understandable.
Regardless of the presentation of the kW-hr metric, Option B faired
the same in overall understandability in relation to Options A or C.
Those participants who found Option B most understandable did so
because it provided them separate city and highway fuel economy
estimates. They explained that they typically looked for the "two
big numbers" (i.e., city/highway fuel economy estimates) for vehicle
fuel efficiency information on the label. Some participants said that
they liked the layout used in Option B. According to them, the
placement of fuel economy, consumption, and cost in a separate
box, as well as range, and environment in separate boxes was well
organized and made it easier for them to read and understand. In
addition, participants liked the Smartphone interactive code on
Option B and thought it was very useful. Those participants who
found Option B to be the least understandable said that they did not
like kW- hr as a metric for fuel consumption as they were unfamiliar
with what a kW-hr represented. Those groups that viewed labels
with the kW-hr per 100 miles metric struggled with the concept
that a smaller number meant better fuel efficiency (as opposed
to MPG where the bigger number indicates a more fuel efficient
vehicle). The groups that viewed labels with the miles per kW-hr
metric, understood that the bigger number represented a more fuel
efficient vehicle, but again they struggled with understanding what
a kW-hr presented and how to equate that with MPG.
18
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
Option A was not selected as either the most or least understandable
label design by a majority of the participants or groups. The Chicago
female and male groups found it most understandable (2 of 12),
while the Charlotte female group, one Houston female group, and
one Houston male group (3 of 12) found it least understandable.
Also, as explained for Options C and B, three of the groups (one
Houston female group, one Seattle male group and the Chicago
female group) were undecided on which of the three options were
least understandable.
Fuel Economy &
, Environmental Information
Fuel Economy
QQ Mp(g-e'd
\3Q c?™/H^d
O^kW-hrs/IOOmi.
All Electric Range
153=-.
Electric Vehicle
Environment
******
n Si,
\j ,,-i ,,,ii-
$618-
Option A
Participants who found Option A least understandable did so
because it used the same font size for all the numbers irrespective
of whether these numbers were viewed as critical or not. This made
it unappealing to them as they wanted critical information such
as fuel economy and range to appear more prominent than other
information. Participants also said that they did not like the color
format (use of red color) and the star rating system used in this
option ("too many stars"). Many also said that Option A was less
informative because it did not carry charging time information and
the Smartphone interactive scan code on the label.
No major city or gender differences were found with regard to
participants' understanding of electric vehicle label designs.
Based on the above findings, it can be said that Option C was perceived
as both the most and least understandable electric vehicle label design.
Participants thought Option C was the most understandable because
it was well organized and easy to read. It contained the information
that was important to them like the charge time and the MPGe. They
also liked the estimated annual and monthly fuel cost, and the black
"It didn't give enough
information. It was kind vast
and flat, blah." - Houston
Female
"The focus is in the wrong
place. The things I would be
looking at, I would want to
know how far I can go on a full
charge." - Houston Female
"It has no information on
charging."-Chicago Male
Phase 3 Focus Groups
19
-------
and white format. Participants who thought Option C was the least
understandable did not like the black and white format, or the grey
fuel economy comparison bar, and struggled with the MPGe metric.
Using the label to determine vehicle
fuel efficiency
The moderator passed out individual copies of three pairs of electric
vehicle labels to the participants (see Appendix I). Each label pair
was identical except that one was for a more fuel efficient vehicle.
The goal of this exercise was to determine whether the participants
were able to use the information on the labels to determine which
vehicle was the more fuel efficient in each pair, to understand what
information they used to make that determination, and whether
any information was misunderstood.
All but a few participants were able to easily determine the most
fuel efficient vehicle for Options A and C (see Appendix J for tally).
For Option A, participants who chose correctly based their choice
on MPGe, and fuel consumption and cost estimates. Those who
chose incorrectly reported using KW-hr per 100 miles as their basis
of comparison and thought that a bigger number stood for a better
estimate. For Option C, participants who chose Option C2 (which
was the more fuel efficient vehicle) as the more fuel efficient vehicle
based their choice on MPGe, and fuel consumption and cost
estimates. A few who chose Option Cl as the more fuel efficient
vehicle thought that the annual cost estimates indicated annual
dollar savings per vehicle and that a bigger number therefore stood
for a more fuel efficient vehicle.
For Option B, participants in the groups that viewed Option
B labels with the kW-hr per 100 miles metric struggled with
determining which vehicle was more fuel efficient. About 40% of
the participants in those groups did not correctly select the more
fuel efficient vehicle. Most of these participants used the larger kW-
hr per 100 miles, rather than smaller number as more fuel efficient
because they related it larger MPG numbers indicating more fuel
efficient vehicles. Those participants that correctly chose the more
fuel efficient vehicle stated that they relied on the annual cost and/
or they correctly applied the kW-hr per 100 miles metric by stating
that the vehicle that used the least amount of electricity was the
most fuel efficient.
20 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
All but one of the participants in groups that viewed Option B labels
with the miles per kW-hr metric was able to correctly determine
which vehicle was more fuel efficient. This was due to the larger
miles per kW-hr number indicating the more fuel efficient vehicle.
These participants also used the annual fuel cost and consumption
information to make their selection.
Based on the above findings, it can be said that participants used
MPGe, annual fuel costs and consumption information to correctly
determine which vehicle was more fuel efficient for Options A and
C. For Option B, the participants used the kW-hr metrics along with
the annual fuel cost and consumption information, but struggled
with correctly applying the 'kW-hr/100 miles' metric. Participants
who were shown the miles per kW-hr metric were able to correctly
apply it and select the more fuel efficient vehicle.
Suggestions to improve the vehicle label
The following suggestions were provided by participants across
groups to improve label design for EVs:
• Use MPGe estimates instead of KW-hr estimates on the label
• Include charging time information
• Include Smartphone interactive scan code
• Include monthly as well as annual fuel cost estimates
• Do not use white printing on a black or colored background
because it is very difficult to read
• Use leaves, not stars for environmental metrics
• Use the electric plug icon
• Group all fuel economy information together
PhaseS Focus Groups 21
-------
22 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
Extended Range Electric
Vehicles
Understandability of vehicle label designs
Participants in twelve3 of the sixteen groups were asked to provide
input on extended range electric vehicle (EREV) label designs. The
moderator distributed individual copies and read out loud the
following description of an extended range electric vehicle and
confirmed that participants understood how EREVs functioned:
"An EREV has two 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 and
some energy is recovered when the brakes are applied.
Important: Daily driving distance can GREATLY affect the
amount of gasoline used. It can go all the way from zero gasoline
(with shorter commutes and plenty of recharging) to entirely
gasoline (with longer drives and no recharging.)"
For this discussion, the moderator handed out individual copies
of three different extended range electric vehicle label designs (see
Appendix K). The moderator asked each participant to indicate
which label they viewed as most and least understandable (see
Appendix L for tally) and to explain why.
Four each (two female and
two male) in both Seattle and
Houston, and two groups each
(one female and one male) in
both Charlotte and Chicago.
Phase 3 Focus Groups
23
-------
"It looks familiar, gives a lot of
good information, and clearly
separates electric and gas."
- Chicago Male
"Colors don't do a lot for me, just
the facts."- Charlotte Male
"I like the range and charge bar
graph. It clearly tells you how
far you can go on a full tank
and full charge for each mode,
and how long it takes to charge
up the battery completely."
- Chicago Male
"I like the side by side
comparison."- Houston Female
"It's the only one that says
'environmental impact estimate.'
The others say 'environmental
information.' I think as we move
forward our environmental
impact is going to be critical for
About half of the participants found Option C to be the
most understandable. Option C was also picked as the most
understandable by six (all four Houston groups, and one male and
one female Seattle group) of the twelve focus groups. The Chicago
male group was unable to come to any consensus on which label
design was most or least understandable.
Fuel Economy and
Environmental Impact Estimates
Mileage A||.E|ectric Operation Gas Operation
MPG
* JSL, SUi^run ^S&y.r 13 pJJS, r,
Range & Charge \ /
>JIIJIB!nri:M.!.MI.IA.^nl Emended Range (gas) '
Comparison
Environment
KZTSSr
00000 111
Option C
Participants who thought Option C was the most understandable
stated that this option was the most informative and found the
format appealing, including how the information was presented
on the label with similar information together in boxes. They liked
how information for gas and electric operation was presented side-
by-side, but separately. They also liked the range and charge bar
illustration and the use of MPGe to describe fuel economy. When
the moderator asked if they understood what MPGe was, most were
not sure, but assumed it was some way of comparing electric power
with gasoline power. While some reported reading its description
on the label, others guessed it to be an electric-equivalent of MPG
("MPG-electric,""MPG-equivalent").
Some participants also said that they liked the fuel economy
comparison bar within class and among all vehicles used in this
option. According to them, it was useful in comparing vehicles.
Some also mentioned that they found the vehicle range and charge
graphic to be helpful in understanding how EREVs functioned with
regard to distance traveled and transition from electric mode to gas
mode. A few participants also added that the range information
was better presented in Option C as compared to other options
because it clearly demonstrated how the vehicle used electricity
to travel the initial distance and then changed to gasoline mode
24
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
when the vehicle ran out of charge in a graphical form. Those
participants who found Option C the least understandable stated
that it was difficult to find information on this label which made it
time consuming to read.
Participants and groups were split between Option A and Option B
as the least understandable, but six (two female and one male Seattle
group, and two female and one male Houston group) of the twelve
groups found Option A as the least understandable, while only four
(Charlotte female group, Charlotte male group, one Houston male
group, and one Chicago female group) of the twelve groups found
Option B to be the least understandable. Again, the Chicago male
group was unable to come to any consensus on which label design
was most or least understood.
Participants who found Option A to be the least understandable
stated that it was less informative (did not provide information
regarding charging time), looked "too busy" (too many stars),
was "too colorful," and the fonts used in this option were not
distinguishable. The information provided was complicated
and difficult to understand, and they could not easily find the
information they were interested in. The participants who found
Option A most understandable did so because they liked the colors
and format, and thought that the information was easy to read.
Fuel Economy &
, Environmental Information
le {also available al dealers). end maintain your vehicle. energv equivalent 'r^P?'
Option A
"The white fine print on the black
label is hard to see and read." -
Chicago Male
"I didn't like that it [Option A]
had a merged total cost."
- Houston Male
"It [Option A] doesn't say
combined range [full range of
both modes]."- Houston Male
"It doesn't say how long it takes to
charge the car."- Houston Male
"[Option A] The distinction
between the electric and the gas,
it's too complicated."
- Houston Female
"I like things that are easy to
look and give you information
right away. The little environment
leaves down there, stars, it just
works better for me."
- Seattle Female
Phase 3 Focus Groups
25
-------
"/ think if you're going to try to
get folks thinking in this mindset
you need have both [kW-hr and
MPG] on there so they are used
to seeing, and then eventually
you would phase MPG out once
folks understand it and are used
to seeing it."
- Charlotte Male
"The first thing you see is the
kW-hr. For me it just didn't
seem as apparent, for the things
I would be looking at. It has
charge time, but you have to
really look for it. It was not as
obvious to me."
- Seattle Female
Participants who found Option B to be the least understandable
thought it was "not well organized," "looked cluttered," and "did
not clearly separate information based on different modes of
operation." Regardless of whether the group viewed the Option B
label with the kW-hr per 100 miles metric, or with the miles per
kW-hr metric, participants stated that they found the kW-hr metric
to be confusing, and did not know how to compare or combine it
with the MPG metric to determine overall fuel efficiency. Instead,
they suggested using MPGe estimates to describe fuel economy on
the label because it could be analogous with MPG. Those that liked
Option B said that it was also more informative than the other
options because it provided battery charge time information.
. C DA Fuel Economy &
Q l/~\ Environmental Information
[Fuel Economy, Consumption & Cost
All-Electric (wtwn fully charged) Annua| Consumption & C.
t 2.9™",'"" 2731 + 187
kW-hrs per year gallons t
Gas Only .i . •• •. , , $851
PT. ^J ^J Estimate based on 15,000 mil.
m O O MPG Ci"'3S±h
.ESMPGe.
Visit www.fueleco
.ov Smartphone Interacti
nalized driving esli mates Scan code lor more inform-ati..
• Download ttie Fuel Economy Guide about this vehicle or to compa
Range
30n.es
Environment
Other Air Polulants
111
Option B
No major city or gender differences were found with regard to
participants' understanding of extended range electric vehicle label
designs.
Based on the above findings, it can be said that Option C was
perceived as the most understandable extended range electric
vehicle label design. Participants who thought Option C was the
most understandable thought this option was the most informative,
the format appealing, and liked how the information was presented
in separate boxes. They liked how information for gas and electric
operation was presented side-by-side, but separately. They also
liked the range and charge bar illustration and the use of MPGe to
describe fuel economy.
26
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
Using the label to determine vehicle fuel
efficiency
The moderator passed out individual copies of three pairs of extended
range electric vehicle labels to the participants (see Appendix M).
Each label pair was identical except that one was for a more fuel
efficient vehicle. The goal of this exercise was to determine whether
the participants were able to use the information on the labels to
determine which vehicle in each pair was more fuel efficient, and to
understand what information they used to make that determination
and whether any information was misunderstood.
All but a few participants were able to determine the more fuel
efficient vehicle for all three label design options (see Appendix
N for tally). For Option A, participants used MPGe, MPG and
annual fuel cost, and consumption numbers to determine that A2
was the most fuel efficient vehicle. For Option B, participants used
annual cost, the fuel economy consumption and cost star rating,
and MPG to determine that Bl was the most fuel efficient vehicle.
Participants that viewed Option B labels with the kW-hrs per 100
miles metric did not rely on it to help them determine the more
fuel efficient vehicle. Participants that viewed Option B labels with
the miles per kW-hr metric also did not rely on it to make their
selection, but some participants did use it to confirm their choice
after looking at annual cost and consumption and MPG numbers.
For Option C, participants used MPGe, MPG, average annual fuel
cost and consumption numbers, and the comparison slider bar to
determine Cl was the more fuel efficient vehicle.
Based on the above findings, it can be said that participants relied
on annual fuel and cost numbers, MPG and MPGe the most to
determine which vehicles were more fuel efficient. They did not rely
on either of the kW-hr metrics presented to make their selections.
Phase 3 Focus Groups 27
-------
Suggestions to improve the vehicle label
The following suggestions were provided by participants across
groups to improve label design for EREVs:
• Use MPGe estimates instead of kW-hr estimates on the label
• Include charging time information
• Include Smartphone interactive scan code
• Don't use multiple colors in the color format (like Option
A). Instead, use variations of same colors to distinguish
between the different modes
• Include comparison slider bar
• Do not use star rating system for environmental metrics
28 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
Plug-In Hybrid Electric
Vehicles
Understandability of vehicle label designs
Participants in twelve4 of the sixteen groups were asked to provide
input on plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) label designs. The
moderator distributed individual copies and read out loud the
following description of an extended range electric vehicle and
confirmed that the participants understood how PHEVs functioned:
A PHEV has two 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 and
some energy is recovered when the brakes are applied.
Important: Daily driving distance can GREATLY affect the
amount of gasoline used.
For this discussion, the moderator handed out individual copies
of three different plug-in hybrid electric vehicle label designs (see
Appendix O). The moderator asked each participant to indicate
which label they viewed as most and least understandable (see
Appendix P for tally) and to explain why.
4 Four each (two female and two
male) in both Charlotte and
Chicago, and two groups each
(one female and one male) in
both Seattle and Houston.
Phase 3 Focus Groups
29
-------
"The consumption and cost were
easy to read. It [Option A] is a
nice layout out."- Chicago Male
"The colors draw your attention;
it's easier on your eyes [Option
A]."- Charlotte Female
"Having the visual with the gas
hose, it's just instant [Option A]."
- Charlotte Female
"Option A was my favorite. I think
we live in a society that gives us
star ratings."- Charlotte Male
"Looks like a kid's book."
- Houston Female
The first female group in
Charlotte were split between
Option A (preferred by 4 out
of 8 participants) and Option
C (preferred by 4 out of 8
participants)
The majority of the participants and groups were split between Option
A and Option C as the most understandable. Option A was selected by
almost half of the participants and seven (one male and both female
Charlotte groups5, and all four Chicago groups) of the twelve focus
groups as most understandable. Option C was also selected by almost
half of the participants and six (two female and one male Charlotte
group, one male Seattle group, one female and one male Houston
group) of the twelve focus groups as the most understandable.
Participants who found Option A to be the most understandable
liked how it was laid out and how it was easy to read the information
on the label from left to right. They liked the use of color and felt
it did a good job of separating the different types of information.
They also liked how the label showed the combined modes of
operation for cost and consumption in a separate box and used the
plug and gas hose graphics to show the operation modes.
Fuel Economy &
. Environmental Information
Electric* Gas
Fuel Economy
/> C MPG..
bo sir
Gas Mode
Fuel Economy
OO MPG o —I
< >< combined / I gallons'
O O CiVHwy £. . I 100 mi.
Rating among ill v.hklw
Option A
30
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
Participants who found Option C to be the most understandable
liked how it used separate boxes to show the blended gas + electric
and separate gas cost and consumption information. They also
liked how those boxes used arrows to point to the range and
charge graphic, and the use of MPG and MPGe. Those participants
who found Option C as least understandable said that the 'zebra
pattern' used to depict the blended mode for PHEVs in the range
and charge graphic on Option C was difficult to read.
Fuel Economy and
Environmental Impact Estimates
Mileage Qas + E|ectrjc Operation Gas Operation
MPG
2.7?s=r
S65,Ti "3g
S229 $737 B2lif, |ijii4|lilw
per year in all-electric operation
Range & Charge \
Bland-?'IGMS,ElBctrisR*
Extended Range (gas)
Comparison
Environment
Option C
The majority of the participants and groups found Option B to be
the least understandable. This included over half of the participants
and seven (all four Charlotte groups, the male Seattle group, the
male Houston group, and one male Chicago group) of the twelve
focus groups. Participants stated that they found Option B the least
understandable because it was cluttered and they found it hard to
find information on the label. They also did not find a combined gas
and electric fuel economy metric which they wanted. Participants
in the groups that viewed Option B with the kW-hr per 100 miles
metric, and those in groups that viewed Option B with the miles per
kW-hr metric both struggled with how to combine kWh and MPG
and found the use of MPG and MPG + kWh confusing. Some groups
also struggled with how to show that overall vehicle fuel efficiency
could be impacted by how often you charge the vehicle. That is, the
more often it is charged, the less gas the vehicle uses because it would
be operated in its gas + electric mode more often. They wondered
how this concept could be shown on the fuel economy label.
"It gives you the most important
information first."
- Charlotte Male
"I also like where it [Option C]
shows that if you run strictly
on gas, you can expect roughly
398 gallons per year, versus the
229 if you the gas and electric
combined. To me that would
matter, how much gas you have
to pump." - Houston Female
"I like the separation of gas and
electric from gas in Option C. The
range and charge bar chart is a
better representation of how far
the car can go."- Chicago Male
"The stripes in Option C are
difficult to read and it is really
difficult to find information."
- Chicago Male
"It's [Option C] like what they
have on appliances, if they all
had that, I wouldn't need any of
the other numbers."
- Charlotte Female
"The arrows point down to range
and charge."- Seattle Female
Phase 3 Focus Groups
31
-------
"Ifs [Option B] not side by side,
you can't make a comparison."
- Charlotte Female
"The electric gas mileage is not
intuitively obvious, at least while
looking quickly at it."
- Charlotte Male
"The range took up too much
space; the others show the
information more efficiently."
-Charlotte Male
"Everything is on here that you
need, but you have to search a
little bit more to find it. My eyes
didn't go exactly where I wanted
them to go." - Seattle Female
(Cc^C DA Fuel Economy &
L Environmental Information
Dual Fuel Vehicle:
Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle
Fuel Economy, Consumption & Cost
,.5aJa ***** ™;::
Gas+EI
•
"2 JZ7Sv~r4 Slip,
GaS Only rwh^t.sryls.mptvj $858
Q^ OO Estimate based on 15,000 mile.
•> oo MPG sr«sh2."7;rtir:dto
(ourvshicle. 'J3 7 kW-Hrt. 1 gallon gasollns .snurgyequh
Range
| Gas Only, vehicle can travel about:
50™,.
I Electric only: first 11 miles
Charge time
gasoline energy eqarralenl.
Visit www.fueleconomy.gov Smartphone Interactive Q
• Download the Fuel Economy Guide about this vehicle or to compare 5
(also available at dealers! It with others. L
Environment
Option B
Although overall the participants and the groups were split
between Options A and C as the most understandable PHEV
label, females preferred Option C, while males preferred Option A.
Additionally, all four Charlotte groups picked Option B as the least
understandable, and all four Chicago groups picked Option A as
the most understandable.
Eased on the above findings, it can be said that Option A and
Option C were perceived as the most understandable. For both
label designs, participants liked how the information was laid out
and grouped together to make it easy to read and understand.
They liked the use of boxes to separate information and liked the
use of the MPG and MPGe metrics. Participants found Option B
least understandable because they thought it was hard to find the
information they were interested in on the label and struggled with
how to use and compare the MPG and kWh metrics - no matter
which kW-hr metric was presented.
Using the label to determine vehicle fuel
efficiency
The moderator then passed out individual copies of three pairs of
plug-in hybrid electric vehicle labels to the participants (see Appendix
Q). Each label pair was identical except that one was for a more fuel
efficient vehicle. The goal of this exercise was to determine whether
the participants were able to use the information on the labels to
determine which vehicle in each pair was more fuel efficient, and to
understand what information they used to make that determination
and whether any information was misunderstood.
32
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
All but a few participants were able to correctly determine
the most fuel efficient vehicle for all of the three Options (see
Appendix R for tally). For Option A, participants used annual fuel
cost and consumption numbers, MPG and MPGe, and range to
determine that A2 was the more fuel efficient vehicle. For Option
B, participants used annual fuel cost and consumption numbers to
determine that Bl was the more fuel efficient vehicle. For Option
C, participants used annual fuel cost and consumption numbers,
MPGe and MPG, and the grey fuel economy comparison bar to
determine C2 was the more fuel efficient vehicle.
Based on these results it can be said the participants relied most on
fuel cost and consumption numbers, and MPG and MPGe metrics
to determine which vehicles were more fuel efficient.
Suggestions to improve the vehicle label
The following suggestions were provided by participants across
groups to improve label designs for PHEVs:
• Use MPGe as a metric for electric operation of the vehicle
• Don't use stars - many equate them with vehicle safety ratings
• Make sure all print is readable
• Include time needed to recharge vehicle battery
• Change the 'zebra pattern' in the Option C blended fuel
part of the range graphic
Phase 3 Focus Groups 33
-------
34 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
Using Labels To Compare
Across Technologies
Elements of vehicle label most useful in
comparing across technologies
The majority of participants across all groups said that it was
important to be able to compare across vehicle technologies.
When the moderator asked the participants about the elements
of the vehicle labels that would be most helpful for comparing
vehicles with different technologies, the elements that came up
in all the groups were fuel economy (MPG, MPGe), range, cost
(estimated annual cost) and consumption (estimated gallons per
year) information.
Which vehicle label design is best for
comparing across technologies?
To understand how consumers would use vehicle labels to compare
vehicles of differing technologies, the moderator typically selected
the label design option that the group chose most often throughout
the exercises as the most understandable for this exercise. Among the
sixteen groups, each of the different label design options was used
several times for this exercise. The goal of this exercise was to gain
a better understanding of the type of information on the label that
participants would use to compare across different technologies.
Each group considered just the three vehicle technologies that they
had discussed during the focus group to make these comparisons.
"Because its different
technologies, you have to
compare on costs. Otherwise
it's apples to oranges."
- Charlotte Male
Phase 3 Focus Groups
35
-------
"/ figure regardless of the length
of the trip, the electric is always
cheapest."- Charlotte Male
"I think a lot more education is
needed for consumers to really
understand the benefits of electric
vehicles."- Seattle Female
Information used to compare vehicles across
technologies
For this exercise the moderator provided each participant a handout
that showed the vehicle label for all vehicle technologies for the
vehicle label design option selected for the exercise. Each participant
was asked to use this information to determine which vehicle
technology would be best for each of the following situations.
• Which type of vehicle is better for a trip of 30 miles?
• Which type of vehicle is better for a trip of 50 miles?
• Which type of vehicle is better for a round trip of 100 miles?
• Which type of vehicle is most environmental friendly?
Seven groups (Seattle male group 1, Seattle female group 2, Seattle
male group 2, Charlotte female group 2, Houston female group 1,
Houston female group 2, and Houston male group 2) used vehicle
label design Option C (see Appendix W) for this exercise. The
majority of participants chose EV for 30 miles and 50 miles because
they could drive that far on a charge. The majority of participants
chose the EREV for 100 miles because they could drive on electric
power some of the way and its MPGe was higher than the MPGe
for the PHEV The participants stated that they primarily used
electric range to compare the vehicles and make their selections.
They also used fuel cost (estimated annual cost), mileage (MPG,
MPGe), and CO2 grams per mile. All but one participant chose the
EV as the most environmentally friendly because there would be no
CO2 emissions from the vehicle (see Appendix X for tally).
Six groups (Seattle female group 1, Charlotte female group 1,
Charlotte male group 1, Houston male group 1, Chicago female
group 2 and Chicago male group 2) used vehicle label design Option
A (see Appendix S) for this exercise. The majority of participants
chose the EV for 30 miles, Participants were split between the
EV or PHEV for the 50 mile trip because they noted that the EV
would travel the entire way with no emissions, and the PHEV had
a 50 mile range to travel as a hybrid. The majority of participants
also chose, the PHEV for 100 miles. The majority of participants
selected the EV as the most environmentally friendly (see Appendix
36
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
T for tally). Like those groups that used Option C for this exercise,
participants used the information on the label to maximize the use
of electricity to travel the specified distance. The participants stated
that they primarily used electric range to compare the vehicles and
make their selections. They also used fuel cost (estimated annual
cost), consumption (estimated gallons per year), mileage (MPG/
MPGe), and CO2 grams per mile information. When the EV was
an available choice, all participants selected the EV as the most
environmentally friendly vehicle. If the EV was not a choice for the
group, they split their choices between the EREV and the PHEV as
the most environmentally friendly vehicle.
Three groups (Charlotte male group 2, Chicago female group 1
and Chicago male group 1) used vehicle label design Option B
(see Appendix U) for this exercise. The Charlotte group used the
Option B label with the kW-hr per 100 metric, while the two
Chicago groups used the miles per kW-hr metric. The two Chicago
groups also did not have the EV as an available choice for this
exercise. The majority of participants chose the EREV for 30 miles,
the PHEV for 50 miles and 100 miles, and the EREV as the most
environmentally friendly (see Appendix V for tally). As with all the
groups, the participants tried to maximize the use of electric power
for the specified distance within their available choices. For these
three groups, the participants stated that they primarily used electric
range to compare the vehicles and make their selections. They also
used fuel cost (estimated annual cost), mileage (MPG/MPGe), and
the CO2 grams per mile information. The two Charlotte groups did
not have EV as an available choice, so they were split between the
EREV and the PHEV as the most environmentally friendly vehicle.
In summary, it can be said that no matter the label design used by
the group, participants made choices based on maximizing the use
of electric power for the distance traveled. The information they
used to make these choices were electric range of the vehicle, MPG
and MPGe numbers, estimated annual fuel costs, and CO2 grams
per mile. When the EV was a choice, participants chose that vehicle
technology as the most environmentally friendly. When the EV was
not an option, participants were split between the EREV and PHEV.
Phase 3 Focus Groups 37
-------
"It [carbon emissions information]
means nothing to me. Again,
it depends on the way that
electricity is produced in your
town. If its coal it's one thing,
wind power another. How can you
determine if it's environmentally
friendly or not?" - Charlotte Male
"To me, to have the cost of the
electric and the cost of the gas
separately, and not a combined
average, is more confusing."
- Houston Female
"You know, I bought a gasoline
engine car because I don't
understand any of this."
- Seattle Female
What information is not needed when
comparing across technologies
Considering the label design option used for the previous exercise,
the moderator asked the participants to consider what information
included on the labels was not needed to compare across vehicle
technologies. No consensus was reached among the groups,
although participants provided some suggestions. Many stated that
they did not like or use the star ratings, and others did not find
gallons per hundred miles to be a useful metric. Other suggestions
included getting rid of the costs per month because annual costs
were sufficient, and getting rid of the grey fuel economy bar because
it was hard to understand what was being compared.
38
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
Environmental Metrics
Environmental metrics preferences
For this discussion, the moderator handed out individual copies of
a sheet with five different presentations of environmental metrics
(see Appendix Y). The goal of this exercise was to help determine
what information and format is most useful for comparing the
environmental impacts of different vehicles. The environmental
metrics for this exercise were presented to participants separately,
not within the context of the larger fuel economy label. Participants
were asked to individually rank their first and second choice for which
presentation was most understandable (see Appendix Z for tally).
Across all the groups, Option C emerged as the most understandable
design for the environmental metric on the fuel economy label,
closely followed by Option A. Option C was picked as the most
understandable option (rated as "#1" or "#2") by female participants
(both female groups in Charlotte, Seattle female group 1, Houston
female group 2) more often as compared to male participants
(Charlotte male group 1, Houston male group 1, and Chicago male
group 1). According to the participants who liked Option C, it
was simple, easy to understand, and more informative (it provided
information separately for CO2 and other pollutants) than the option
that carried a combined rating for CO2 and other pollutants (Option
D). Many participants also reported liking the leaf layout used in
Option C and said that it was symbolic of the environment theme.
Those who liked Option A said that it was easy to understand
("read like a thermometer"), and more informative (it provided
information separately for CO2 and other pollutants) than the
option that carried a combined rating for CO2 and other pollutants
(Option D). Male groups (Charlotte male group 2, Seattle male
group 1, Houston male group 2 and Chicago male group 2) liked
Option A more often as compared to female groups (both Houston
female groups and Chicago female group 1).
"It covers all the information-
gives a better breakdown and
ratings."-Chicago Male
"I like the leaves and it tells me
right away that I am looking at
environment." -Chicago Male
"Option A is easiest to read. I
don't need to know how many
C02 grams." - Houston Male
"1 out of 10 is very easy to
understand." - Charlotte Male
"The scale is familiar, 1 - 10 is
familiar. It's simple, easy."
- Houston Female
Phase 3 Focus Groups
39
-------
Environment
Rating imeng >ll .*h.:l«
C02
-SmartWay
Option A
Environment
Ratlllt) among all vehicles
4 out of 5 15 6. baol)
Includes £Fd»ntauM paw,
•nd •: th»f nr pdluiartts
347^,
Option D
"/ liked that it [Option E]
identified what the worst case
scenario, you know where the
347 falls in relation to the
scale." - Houston Male
"It's simple [Option D],
it combines the C02 and
pollutants, without having that
extra comparison to make."
- Houston Female
Environment
Rating >ir»ngilU«hiclos
C02
****
4 OUt Of 6 15 istwsl)
Cth«f Aif Pollutants
***^
347 SSL..
^>sitiarfVVfy-
Environment
Rating .n,,.i,9 .
COz
0££0t
OtharAJrPolbtante
000t
347^,
"SiwTVVby
Option B
Option C
Environment
Rating »n.:.r,gaii .u,,
-------
The ten groups (one Seattle male group, one Chicago female group,
both of the Houston female and Chicago male groups and all of
the Charlotte groups) of the sixteen groups that were interested
in Options A and/or E were also shown "Option F" handout (see
Appendix AB) and asked if they liked it better than either Option A
or Option E. The majority of participants in the Seattle male group,
Chicago female group, Charlotte male group 1, and Houston female
groups stated they would have picked Option F if it had been
available. Option F was also preferred by half of the participants
in each of the Charlotte female groups. For the two Chicago male
groups, Option F was viewed as a more attractive choice by only
1 participant in each group. None of the participants in Charlotte
male group 2 chose Option F as their preferred option.
The moderator then explained to the participants that the 'CO2
grams per mile' slider scale shown in this option was an absolute
scale with the tail ends representing the best ("178 g/miles") and
worst ("888 g/miles") environment-friendly vehicles that were
currently available in the market across all vehicle class. On the
other hand, the 'other air pollutants' slider scale was a relative scale
that calibrated all vehicles on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 representing
the worst case and 10 representing the best case across all vehicle
classes. When the participants were subsequently probed with
regard to what they thought about these scales, most said this did
not matter to them as long as the information was clearly explained.
They explained that they wanted something that was easy and
quick to read and understand. Additionally, for those participants
that preferred Option F, they were more comfortable having both
a relative and absolute scale represented on the environmental
label as opposed to an absolute scale for CO2 and leaves for other
pollutants (as in option E).
When participants were asked their views on the use of SmartWay
logo on the environmental metrics options, almost all stated that
they did not know to what it referred. However, once it was
explained, they liked it. Some said that it was like "EnergyStar for
vehicles" and explained that it would be something you could look
for when shopping for vehicles that would let you know right away
that it was an environmentally friendly vehicle, without having to
understand the rest of the environmental information on the label.
Phase 3 Focus Groups 41
-------
"It's hard to account for regional
things."- Charlotte Male
"It's going to be understood by
the way you buy your power.
When I buy the power for my
house, I have the choice to
choose green. So I choose to
buy green, that's the choice I
make at that point. So I don't
think it's necessary to put it on
the vehicle." - Houston Female
"You have to clarify, otherwise
that will come back to you."
- Charlotte Female
Inclusion of pollutants generated from
charging electric vehicles
The moderator then asked the participants whether they thought
anything might be missing from the environmental ratings that
they had looked at. The moderator probed the groups to determine
whether anyone realized that these environmental ratings did
not take into account the pollutants emitted from power plants
that generated the electricity to charge the vehicle battery. When
the moderator asked directly whether participants thought this
pollution was included in the environmental information on the
vehicle fuel economy labels, about half of the participants across all
the groups indicated that they had realized that it was not included.
The moderator then asked the participants whether they thought
this label should include information on pollutants created
from generating electricity to charge the vehicle battery. Most
participants reported that this point was not that important to
them. Many participants discussed how you would not include the
pollutants created to generate the gas for your car as part of the
pollutants created by your car, so why include the pollutants from
generating electricity to charge a car battery. Many participants,
especially those in the Seattle groups, pointed out that the amount
of pollutants created from generating the electricity needed to
charge vehicle batteries varies greatly depending on the power
source. For example, in the Pacific Northwest most power comes
from hydroelectric plants which are much cleaner than power
created by coal plants in the other parts of the country. Generally,
participants stated that they did not think this information needed
to be included on the vehicle labels, but thought it would be helpful
to have this information available on a website.
The moderator then asked whether they liked the phrase 'the
environmental ratings are based on tailpipe emissions" being added
to the fuel economy label. Almost all participants in all the groups
stated that that terminology was acceptable, although many did
not think it was necessary.
Although the Seattle groups were a bit more passionate about this
subject, there were no specific gender or city differences in terms of
how this information should be included on the vehicle label.
42
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
Annual Cost and Annua
Gallons Assumptions
The moderator asked the participants to consider whether they had
a preference on the annual mileage assumption used to calculate
the annual cost and annual gallon information used on the fuel
economy labels. Participants were asked to consider whether it
made any difference to them if these calculations were based on
the average number of miles driven by U.S. consumers during the
first year they owned their vehicle (15,000 miles), or the average
number of miles driven annually by all U.S. drivers (12,000 miles).
The majority of participants stated that this did not matter to them
as long as the basis used was consistent and clearly explained. A
few participants stated that they thought that using 15,000 miles
would be a better assumption to have on the label because they
drove at least 15,000 miles each year. The few who stated that they
preferred the annual cost and annual gallon assumption based on
12,000 miles said that they drove their vehicles for more than a
year from their time of purchase and assumption based on 12,000
miles was a more accurate assumption in their case.
No major city or gender differences were found with regard to
participants' preference for the annual mileage assumption used to
calculate the annual cost and annual gallon information used on
the fuel economy label.
"It doesn't matter. It's a tool to
compare one vehicle to the next.
I'm really only using it to see if
it's more efficient or not."
- Charlotte Female
Phase 3 Focus Groups
43
-------
44 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
Placement of the Fuel
Economy Label within the
Monroney Label
The moderator showed participants three different options for
placement of the fuel economy label within the Monroney Label
(see Appendix AB). The options included placing the fuel economy
label in the upper right, lower left, or upper left area of the
Monroney label.
The majority of participants across most groups chose the upper
right as the best placement for the fuel economy label. This
included participants that were left-handed. According to those
who liked upper right as the best placement, price and other vehicle
specifications such as safety ratings were more critical to them
and they wanted to see that information before the fuel economy
information on the Monroney label.
The participants who liked upper left as the best placement for
fuel economy label explained that they considered fuel economy
as a very important consideration in their vehicle purchase and
wanted to see it at a prominent place on the Monroney label. Their
thinking was that people read from left to right and therefore this
placement made the most sense. Only a handful of participants
across any of the groups liked the placement of the fuel economy
label on the lower left side of the Monroney label.
In addition, when asked if they thought the Monroney label itself
should be larger, almost all participants stated that the size was fine as
presented. Just a few participants stated they thought it should be bigger.
No major city or gender differences were found with regard to
participants' preference for label size and placement.
"The price is most important, so
that's what I want to see first. It
doesn't matter how economical
it is if I can't afford it." -
Charlotte Female
"It's the second most important
thing for what you're buying."
- Charlotte Male
"I want to see the features of
what I'm buying first. Odds are
that I already know about gas
mileage...! just want to know the
features."- Houston Female
"You read left to right."
- Charlotte Female
"If what you're trying to sell is
the efficiency, that's where my
eye goes first." - Charlotte Male
"It's not important when you put
it in the bottom."-Houston Male
"It's at the bottom, your eye doesn't
go there."- Houston Female
Phase 3 Focus Groups
45
-------
46 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
Overall Summary
Understandability of label design options
When considering all vehicle technologies, Option C was chosen
most often as the most understandable label design. Option C was
selected as the most understandable for electric vehicles, extended
range electric vehicles, and by the six female groups for the plug-in
hybrid electric vehicles. The groups selected Option B as the most
understandable label design for gasoline engine vehicles, and Option
A was selected by the six male groups as most understandable for
plug-in hybrid electric vehicles.
Gasoline vehicle labels
Option B was perceived as the most understandable gasoline engine
vehicle label design. Participants were split between Option A and
Option C as the least understandable design. Participants preferred
Option B because they wanted the separate city and highway fuel
consumption estimates and the annual cost and consumption
information, and liked how the information was laid out in a side-
by-side format.
Electric vehicle labels
Option C was perceived as both the most and the least understandable
electric vehicle label design. Participants who thought Option C
was the most understandable said it was well organized and easy
to read. It contained the information that the participants stated
was important to them such as charge time and MPGe, they liked
the estimated annual and monthly fuel cost, and the black and
white format. Participants who thought Option C was the least
understandable did not like the black and white format or the grey
fuel economy comparison bar and struggled with the MPGe metric.
Phase 3 Focus Groups 47
-------
Extended range electric vehicle labels
Option C was perceived as the most understandable extended range
electric vehicle label design. Participants who thought Option C
was the most understandable thought this option was the most
informative and found the format appealing including how the
information was presented on the label with related information
together in separate boxes. They liked how information for gas
and electric operation was presented side-by-side (but in separate
boxes), the range and charge bar illustration, and the use of MPGe
to describe fuel economy.
Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle labels
Option A and Option C were both perceived as the most
understandable plug-in hybrid electric vehicle designs. Option A was
chosen as the most understandable primarily by the six male groups,
while Option C was chosen as the most understandable primarily
by the six female groups. For both label designs, participants
liked how the information was laid out and grouped together to
make it easy to read and understand. They liked the use of boxes
to separate information and liked the use of the MPG and MPGe
metrics. Participants found Option B least understandable because
they found it hard to find the information they were interested in on
the label and struggled with how to use MPG with kW-hr metrics.
Using the fuel economy labels to
determine vehicle fuel efficiency
Generally, for all label design options and vehicle technologies,
participants were able to determine which of the vehicles was the
most fuel efficient when comparing labels across design options.
Participants used MPG, MPGe. annual fuel cost and consumption
information, kW-hr per 100 miles, miles per Kw-hr, and CO2
emissions. For Options A and C, all but a few participants were
easily able to determine which was the most fuel efficient vehicle.
For Option B, participants in the groups that viewed the label with
the kW-hr per 100 miles metric struggled more with determining
which was the most fuel efficient vehicle. This was especially true for
EVs where forty percent were unable to determine which vehicle was
the most fuel efficient. This was because participants struggled with
48 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
the concept that a lower kW-hr per 100 miles number is more fuel
efficient. This problem was not as prevalent for these groups when
they did this exercise with the EREV and PHEV Option B labels
because they could rely on the MPG numbers in addition to the
annual fuel cost and consumption numbers. Participants in groups
that viewed the Option B label design that used the miles per kW-
hr metric did not experience this same difficulty because the larger
miles per kW-hr number indicated the more fuel efficient vehicle.
Suggestions to improve the vehicle label
designs
The following participant suggestions to improve the vehicle label
designed were consistent across all label design options and vehicle
technologies. More specific suggestions for each vehicle technology
can be found within the body of this memorandum.
• Use larger font sizes for the most critical pieces of
information like MPG and MPGe, and annual fuel cost
and consumption information
• Avoid the use of white text on black or colored backgrounds
• Use the MPG and MPGe metrics to show fuel economy
• Include separate MPG and MPGe for city and highway
travel on gasoline and electric vehicles (more important to
participants then having a combined city/highway number)
• Include Smartphone interactive scan code
• Do not use stars for environmental ratings
• Use a side-by-side format for different fuel modes
• Include the gas pump and plug-in graphics
• Change 'within class' language to reflect actual class (mini-
vans, SUVs, etc.)
• Use terms 'best' and 'worst' in comparisons
Phase 3 Focus Groups 49
-------
Using fuel economy label to compare
across vehicle technologies
Participants were asked to determine the most fuel efficient vehicle
to use for a 30 mile, 50 mile, and 100 mile trip. Each group
was asked to choose among the three vehicle technologies they
discussed in their group. For each situation, participants used the
information available on the vehicle labels to make their choices
based on maximizing the use of electric power for the distance
to be traveled. Participants used the electric range of the vehicle,
MPG and MPGe numbers, estimated annual fuel costs, and CO2
grams per mile to make their choices. Participants chose the EV
then the EREV for the 30 mile trip, the EV then the PHEV for the
50 miles trip, and the majority were split between the EREV and
PHEV, with a few choosing the EV, for the 100 mile trip. In terms
of choosing which vehicle was the most environmentally friendly,
when the EV was a choice for the group, participants chose that
vehicle technology as the most environmentally friendly. If the
EV was not a choice for the group, participants split their choices
between EREV and PHEV.
Annual cost and gallons assumptions
Participants in all groups expressed no real preference between
using the 15,000 miles per year that drivers typically drive their
new cars during their first year of ownership, or the 12,000 miles
that all drivers drive on average each year to calculate annual fuel
consumption and cost information. Participants stated it didn't
matter as long as it was consistent and the assumption used was
clearly stated on the vehicle label.
Placement of the fuel economy label
within the Monroney label
Almost all participants stated that they preferred the fuel economy
label be placed in the upper right corner of the Monroney label.
In addition, almost all participants stated that the size of the fuel
economy label was fine as it was, with just a few participants stating
it should be larger.
50 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
Appendices
Appendix A: Moderator Guide
Introduction (7 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.
• Mention observers in separate room. As you know from when
we recruited you, 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
and the fuel economy label that appears on all new vehicles. Any questions
before we begin?
Phase 3 Focus Groups 51
-------
• 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?
• Did you consider buying a hybrid, or clean diesel, or some
other alternative fuel vehicle?
• Do you drive more city, highway, or combined?
• About how many miles do you drive a year?
(THREE OF THE FOLLOWING 4 VEHICLE TECHNOLOGIES WILL BE
COVERED IN EACH GROUP. THE ORDER OF PRESENTATION WILL
BE ROTATED ACROSS GROUPS. TOTAL TIME SPENT ON THESE 3
TECHNOLOGIES WILL BE 75 MINUTES.)
Moderator starts off by letting them know that the fuel economy label
appears within what is called a Monroney label (show large version of this
on the wall; hand out copies in actual size to each participant so they can
see the size of the fuel economy label within the larger label). Moderator
to regularly remind them to keep this in mind as we work through the
remainder of the focus group.
Now we are going to take a look at some fuel economy label designs for
3 different vehicle types. (For each of the groups, three out of the four
technologies were discussed)
Gasoline Engine Vehicle Label Designs (25 minutes)
1. (Hand out the gasoline engine label work sheet #1 and the
individual copies of the designs. Show them the 3 options on
large boards.)
a. Please indicate on your worksheet which option is most
understandable and which is least understandable. For
each choice write brief bullet points explaining why.
b. (Then show two versions of each of the 3 label designs,
each pair identical in every way except that one label will
be for a vehicle that is more fuel efficient.) On the same
worksheet I would like you to identify the vehicle which is
more fuel efficient from each label pair and what you are
basing that on.
(Tally results from section 'a' above and this section
and open up to discussion). Probe on how the vehicles in
each pair compare in regard to the following metrics: fuel
consumption, fuel cost, and environmental impact. This
52 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
probing needs to uncover any misunderstandings.
• If costs are broken out by city/highway or just
combined, draw their attention to this and probe on
which they prefer.
c. Of these designs, which most clearly demonstrates the fuel
efficiency of the vehicle?
2. What top 2 pieces of information did you get from the labels?
Can you suggest improvements to these label designs, not
just in how they look, but also in regard to content? Probe
on metrics or other information that would increase their
understanding and how that would influence their choice of a
fuel efficient vehicle.
Collect worksheets and ask client if they have any questions at this time.
Electric Vehicle Label Designs (25 minutes)
Read the following (Handout copies and read the following statement:
Leave the conventional vehicle label showing for reference.)
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 recovered when the brakes are
applied. The vehicle travels until the charge is depleted or it is re-
charged. There is no option to run it on gasoline.
3. (Hand out the EV label work sheet #2 and the individual copies
of the designs. Show them the 3 options on large boards.)
• Please indicate on your worksheet which option is most
understandable and which is least understandable. For
each choice write brief bullet points explaining why.
• (Then show two versions of each of the 3 label designs,
each pair identical in every way except that one label will
be for a vehicle that is more fuel efficient.) On the same
worksheet I would like you to identify the vehicle which is
more fuel efficient from each label pair and what you are
basing that on.
• (Tally results from section 'a' above and this section
and open up to discussion). Probe on how the vehicles in
each pair compare in regard to the following metrics: fuel
consumption, fuel cost, and environmental impact. This
probing needs to uncover any misunderstandings.
Phase 3 Focus Groups 53
-------
• If costs are broken out by city/highway or just
combined, draw their attention to this and probe on
which they prefer.
• Which of the designs would most influence you to
purchase a fuel efficient vehicle? Why? Listen for and
probe on any misunderstandings of metrics.
4. What top 2 pieces of information did you get from the labels?
Can you suggest improvements to these label designs, not
just in how they look, but also in regard to content? Probe
on metrics or other information that would increase their
understanding and how that would influence their choice of a
fuel efficient vehicle.
Collect worksheets and ask client if they have any questions at this time.
Extended Range Electric Vehicle Label Designs (25 minutes)
Read the following (Handout copies and read the following statement:
Leave the conventional vehicle label and 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 and some
energy is recovered when the brakes are applied.
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.
5. (Hand out the EREV engine label work sheet #3 and the
individual copies of the designs. Show them the 3 options on
large boards.)
a. Please indicate on your worksheet which option is most
understandable and which is least understandable. For
each choice write brief bullet points explaining why.
b. (Then show two versions of each of the 3 label designs,
each pair identical in every way except that one label will
be for a vehicle that is more fuel efficient.) On the same
worksheet I would like you to identify the vehicle which is
more fuel efficient from each label pair and what you are
basing that on.
54 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
(Tally results from section 'a' above and this section
and open up to discussion). Probe on how the vehicles in
each pair compare in regard to the following metrics: fuel
consumption, fuel cost, and environmental impact. This
probing needs to uncover any misunderstandings.
• If costs are broken out by city/highway or just
combined, draw their attention to this and probe on
which they prefer.
c. Of these designs, which most clearly demonstrates the fuel
efficiency of the vehicle?
6. What top 2 pieces of information did you get from the labels?
Can you suggest improvements to these label designs, not
just in how they look, but also in regard to content? Probe
on metrics or other information that would increase their
understanding and how that would influence their choice of a
fuel efficient vehicle.
Collect worksheets and ask client if they have any questions at this time.
Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle Label Designs (25 minutes)
(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 and
some energy is recovered when the brakes are applied.
Important: daily driving distance can GREATLY affect amount
of gasoline used. Validate that they understand this.
7. (Hand out the PHEV label work sheet #4 and the individual
copies of the designs. Show them the 3 options on large boards.)
a. Please indicate on your worksheet which option is most
understandable and which is least understandable. For
each choice write brief bullet points explaining why.
b. (Then show two versions of each of the 3 label designs,
each pair identical in every way except that one label will
be for a vehicle that is more fuel efficient.) On the same
worksheet I would like you to identify the vehicle which is
more fuel efficient from each label pair and what you are
basing that on.
Phase 3 Focus Groups 55
-------
(Tally results from section 'a' above and this section
and open up to discussion). Probe on how the vehicles in
each pair compare in regard to the following metrics: fuel
consumption, fuel cost, and environmental impact. This
probing needs to uncover any misunderstandings.
• If costs are broken out by city/highway or just
combined, draw their attention to this and probe on
which they prefer.
c. Which of the designs would most influence you to
purchase a fuel efficient vehicle? Why? Listen for and
probe on any misunderstandings of metrics.
8. What top 2 pieces of information did you get from the labels?
Can you suggest improvements to these label designs, not
just in how they look, but also in regard to content? Probe
on metrics or other information that would increase their
understanding and how that would influence their choice of a
fuel efficient vehicle.
9. What top 2 pieces of information did you get from the labels?
Can you suggest improvements to these label designs, not
just in how they look, but also in regard to content? Probe
on metrics or other information that would increase their
understanding and how that would influence their choice of a
fuel efficient vehicle.
Collect worksheets and ask client if they have any questions at this time.
Using Labels to Compare Across Technologies (14 minutes)
10. Is there a particular part of the label that would help you
compare across vehicle technologies? Probe on fuel cost and
fuel consumption. Is there something that would work better?
MODERATOR: ASK GROUP WHICH LABEL DESIGN TO USE FOR THIS
NEXT EXERCISE. IF NO CONSENSUS, WORK TO TEST THE TOP PICKS.
THE LABEL DESIGN TYPE TO BE USED IN THE EXERCISE NEEDS
TO ENSURE THAT EACH DESIGN IS USED AT LEAST ONCE (AND
PREFERABLY TWICE) ACROSS ALL FOCUS GROUPS .
11. Show participants a label for each of the three vehicle types
and pass out worksheet #5.
• Please indicate on your worksheet:
• Which type of vehicle is better for a trip of 30 miles?
• Which type of vehicle is better for a trip of 50 miles?
56 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
• Which type of vehicle is better for a round trip of 100
miles?
• Which type of vehicle is most environmentally friendly?
(Possible Tally)
Then open up to discussion and probe on what information they
used to compare and make their choices.
12. Looking across the labels you preferred for each technology,
are there portions of the labels that could be removed without
affecting your ability to compare within or across vehicle
technologies?
• Could the design of the label be modified to assist you in
making these comparisons?
• Is the information you would want to see for comparison
purposes easily found on label?
13. If group has not reached a consensus on a label design that
is the same for all technologies, moderator to display the
choice options from the group and tell them to work to reach
consensus. Probe on eventual level of agreement -- is it a fairly
strong consensus vs. "I can live with that design."
Collect worksheets.
Environmental Metrics (15 minutes)
Now we'd like to explore some ways to communicate the environmental
impact of vehicles.
14. (Hand out worksheet #6) Show participants the 4 possible
metrics (see below) and ask them to individually rank their
preference for understanding and to briefly explain why they
chose their #1 and #2 rankings. Tally results in regard to
how many ranked each option as their number 1 or number
2 choices. Then open to discussion regarding reasons behind
their preferences. Probe group on what the metric information
meant to them to see if they understood, which one was most
intuitive, does it provide enough information, and which one
they would be most likely to use.
Also probe on their reaction to the following:
• Leafs and stars and 0-10 rating bars are a relative scale
(comparisons to other vehicles rather than objective
measure for a specific vehicle)
Phase 3 Focus Groups 57
-------
• Rating criteria could change each year as the fleet of
vehicles improved, that is, a vehicle with a certain
emissions level in one year might get 4 leafs, but the
next year might only get 3 leafs if the technology did not
change
(1) 2 enviro ratings which are relative -1-10 for both
C02 and Air Pollution (Label A)
(2) 1 enviro rating which is relative for C02 (using
stars) and another that is relative (using stars) for air
pollution (Label B)
(3) 2 enviro ratings depicted by leafs for both C02 and Air
Pollution (Label C)
(4) A mixed approached-- leafs for air pollution but
absolute number for C02 (Label D)
15. For vehicles that run on electricity, the environmental ratings do
not take into account any pollutants emitted from the power plant
that generated the electricity to charge the battery. Probe on:
• How many realized that (show of hands)?
• Should that information be on the fuel economy label?
(show of hands) Why or why not?
• Is the following language sufficient - "The environmental
ratings are based on tailpipe emissions." Why or why not?
Collect worksheets.
Annual Cost and Annual Gallons Assumptions (3
minutes)
16. Moderator to point to the "annual cost number and annual
gallons" and indicate that this is based on the average number
of miles driven by a U.S. consumer the first year they own
their new vehicle. Get their reaction to this.
Then ask if EPA instead based the annual estimate for both the
annual gallons of gasoline used and the cost on the average
annual miles driven by all US drivers (which is closer to
12,000). Get reaction to this. Probe on why or why not?
58 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
Monroney Label Placement (3 minutes)
17. Show 3 versions of Monroney label with the EPA fuel economy
label in different locations. Ask for show of hands as to which
version they would find:
• Most useful and why?
• Most appealing and why?
(Probe on left-handed and right-handed person issue.)
18. What do you think about the size of the fuel economy label?
(Listen for and probe on whether it needs to be bigger and why
or why not.)
Wrap-Up (3 minutes)
19. Is there information that we have not discussed today that
would influence you to choose a fuel efficient vehicle?
20. Anything else you would like our clients to know about you
thoughts about fuel economy labels?
Ask client if they have any last questions.
Phase 3 Focus Groups 59
-------
Appendix B: Participants' Profile
Seattle female group: May 17th, 2010
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
Passenger car
SUV
Passenger car
Passenger car
Station Wagon or
mini van
SUV
Gasoline
Gasoline
Hybrid
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
20-29
20-29
10-19
20-39
40+
10-19
$20K- less than
$30K
$20K- less than
$30K
$20K- less than
$30K
$20K- less than
$30K
$30K - less than
$40K
$20K- less than
$30K
65 +
35-49
50-64
50-64
50-64
50-64
Graduate degree
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
White/non
Hispanic
White/non
Hispanic
White/non
Hispanic
Black/non
Hispanic
White/non
Hispanic
White/non
Hispanic
-------
Seattle male group: May 17th, 2010
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
SUV
Station wagon or
minivan
Passenger car
Station wagon or
minivan
SUV
Passenger car
Passenger car
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Hybrid
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
40+ miles
10-19 miles
Less than 10
20-29
Less than 10
Less than 10
20-29 miles
20-29 miles
$30K - less than
$40K
$40K - less than
$50K
$30K - less than
$40K
$20K- less than
$30K
$20K- less than
$30K
$30 K - less than
$40K
$30K - less than
$40K
$20K- less than
$30K
20-34
50-64
50-64
50-64
35-49
50-64
50-64
50-64
Graduate degree
Some college or
college graduate
Graduate degree
Some college or
college graduate
Some college or
college graduate
Graduate degree
Some college or
college graduate
Some college or
college graduate
White/non
Hispanic
White/non
Hispanic
White/non
Hispanic
White/non
Hispanic
White/non
Hispanic
White/non
Hispanic
White/non
Hispanic
White/non
Hispanic
-------
Seattle female group: May 18th, 2010
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
Pickup Truck
Pickup Truck
Passenger Car
Pickup Truck
Passenger Car
SUV
SUV
Passenger Car
Gasoline
Gasoline
Hybrid
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Hybrid
10-19 miles
Less than 10
Miles
20-29 Miles
Less than 10
Miles
30-39 miles
10-19 miles
10-19 miles
40+ Miles
$30K - less than
$40K
$40K - less than
$50K
$20K- less than
$30K
$30K - less than
$40K
$20K- less than
$30K
$30K - less than
$40K
$30K - less than
$40K
$20K- less than
$30K
35-49
50-64
65 +
35-49
35-49
65+
65+
50-64
Some college or
college graduate
Graduate Degree
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
White/Non-
Hispanic
White/Non-
Hispanic
White/Non-
Hispanic
White/Non-
Hispanic
Hispanic
White/Non-
Hispanic
White Non-
Hispanic
White Non-
Hispanic
-------
Seattle male group: May 18th, 2010
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
Other
SUV
Station wagon or
minivan
SUV
Passenger car
Station wagon or
minivan
Passenger car
Passenger car
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Less than 10
Less than 10
Less than 10
Less than 10
20-29 miles
10-19 miles
Less than 10
20-29 miles
$30K - less than
$40K
$20K- less than
$30K
$20K- less than
$30K
$20K- less than
$30K
$20K- less than
$30K
$20K- less than
$30K
$15K- less than
$20K
$20K- less than
$30K
50-64
50-64
35-49
50-64
35-49
50-64
35-49
50-64
Some college or
college graduate
Graduate Degree
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
White/Non-
Hispanic
White/Non-
Hispanic
White/Non-
Hispanic
White/Non-
Hispanic
Hawaiian/Pacific
Islander
White/Non-
Hispanic
Asian
White/non
Hispanic
-------
Charlotte female group: May 19th, 2010
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
SUV
SUV
Passenger Car
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
20-29
30-39
10-19
30-39
40+
30-39
20-29
40+
$15-$20k
$40-$50k
$40-$50k
$15-$20k
$30-$40k
$20-$30k
$30-$40k
$15-$20k
50-64
35-49
50-64
20-34
35-49
20-34
50-64
35-49
Some college or
college graduate
Some college or
college graduate
Some college or
college graduate
Some college or
college graduate
Graduate degree
Graduate degree
Some college or
college graduate
Some college or
college graduate
White/Non-
Hispanic
White/Non-
Hispanic
White/Non-
Hispanic
White/Non-
Hispanic
White/Non-
Hispanic
White/Non-
Hispanic
African American
White/Non-
Hispanic
-------
Charlotte male group: May 19th, 2010
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
SUV
Passenger Car
SUV
Passenger Car
Passenger Car
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Hybrid
Gasoline
Gasoline
40+
40+
40+
30-39
20-29
30-39
40+
10-19
$20-$30k
$20-$30k
$30-$40k
$20-$30k
$20-$30k
$30-$40k
$20-$30k
$15-$20k
50-64
50-64
20-34
20-34
35-49
20-34
35-49
35-49
Some high school
or high school
graduate or GED
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
Hispanic
White/Non-
Hispanic
African American
White/Non-
Hispanic
White/Non-
Hispanic
African American
White/Non-
Hispanic
African American
-------
Charlotte female group: May 20th, 2010
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
Passenger Car
Passenger Car
Passenger Car
Crossover
Passenger Car
SUV
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
20-29
40+
less than 10
less than 10
20-29
30-39
20-29
40+
$20-$30k
$15-$20k
$15-$20k
$30-$40k
$30-$40k
$20-$39k
$15-$20k
$20-$30k
35-49
50-64
65+
50-64
50-64
35-49
50-64
20-34
Some college or
college graduate
Some high school
or high school
graduate or GED
Some college or
college graduate
Some college or
college graduate
Graduate degree
Some college or
college graduate
Some college or
college graduate
Some college or
college graduate
White/Non-
Hispanic
White/Non-
Hispanic
White/Non-
Hispanic
White/Non-
Hispanic
White/Non-
Hispanic
White/Non-
Hispanic
White/Non-
Hispanic
White/Non-
Hispanic
-------
Charlotte male group: May 20th, 2010
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
Passenger Car
Passenger Car
Passenger Car
Passenger Car
Passenger Car
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Hybrid
Gasoline
Hybrid
Gasoline
20-29
10-19
20-29
Less than 10
40+
Less than 10
30-39
10-19
$20-$30k
$30-$40k
$20-$30k
$15-$20k
$20-$30k
$20-$30k
$20-$30k
$30-$40k
20-34
35-49
65+
35-49
50-64
20-34
20-34
50-64
Some college or
college graduate
Graduate degree
Some college or
college graduate
Graduate degree
Some college or
college graduate
Some college or
college graduate
Graduate degree
Graduate degree
White/Non-
Hispanic
White/Non-
Hispanic
White/Non-
Hispanic
Hispanic
White/Non-
Hispanic
African American
White/Non-
Hispanic
African American
-------
Houston female group: May 24th, 2010
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
Passeni
SUV
Passeni
SUV
Passeni
?er Car
let Car
?er Car
let Car
let Car
?er Car
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
10-19
10-19
30-39
40+
20-29
30-39
40+
30-39
$15-20k
$30-40k
$15-20k
$30-40k
$20-30k
$20-30k
$20-30k
$15-20k
20-34
50-64
20-34
20-34
35-49
50-64
65 +
35-49
Graduate degree
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
Asian
African American
African American
White/Non
White/Non
White/Non
White/Non
White/Non-
Hispanic
-------
Houston male group: May 24th, 2010
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?
1 SUV
Gasoline
40+
$20-30k
35-49
Q14. Education Q15. Ethnicity
Graduate degree African American
2 Crossover
Gasoline
40+
$20-30k
20-34
Some college or
college graduate
White/Non-
Hispanic
3 Passenger Car Gasoline
40+
$15-20k
50-64
Some college or
college graduate
White/Non-
Hispanic
4 Passenger Car
Hybrid
20-29
$30-40k
20-34
Graduate degree Middle Eastern
5 Passenger Car Gasoline
40+
$20-30k
20-34
Some college or
college graduate
White/Non-
Hispanic
-------
Houston female group: May 25th, 2010
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
Passeni
SUV
SUV
SUV
Passeni
?er Car
let Car
?er Car
let Car
let Car
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Flex Fuel
40+
30-39
40+
10-19
40+
20-29
10-19
40+
$20-30k
$30-40k
$30-40k
$15-20k
$30-40k
$30-40k
$30-40k
$30-40k
35-49
50-64
20-34
50-64
35-49
35-49
35-49
35-49
Some college or
college graduate
Some college or
college graduate
Some college or
college graduate
Graduate degree
Graduate degree
Some college or
college graduate
Some college or
college graduate
Graduate degree
White/Non-
Hispanic
White/Non-
Hispanic
African American
White/Non-
Hispanic
African American
Hispanic
Hispanic
African American
-------
Houston male group: May 25th, 2010
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
Passenger Car
SUV
Pickup Truck
Passenger Car
Pickup Truck
SUV
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
30-39
40+
30-39
10-19
20-29
20-29
30-39
30-39
$20-30k
$15-20k
<$15k
$30-40k
$20-30k
$20-30k
$20-30k
$20-30k
20-34
20-34
20-34
50-64
20-34
20-34
50-64
50-64
Graduate degree
Some college or
college graduate
Some college or
college graduate
Some college or
college graduate
Some college or
college graduate
Graduate degree
Some high school
or high school
graduate or GED
Some college or
college graduate
White/Non-
Hispanic
Hispanic
Hispanic
Hispanic
White/Hispanic
White/Non-
Hispanic
African American/
White/Non-
Hispanic
-------
Chicago female group: May 26th, 2010
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
Minivan
Passenger car
SUV
Passenger car
Passenger car
Passenger car
Passenger car
SUV
Gasoline
Flex fuel
Gasoline
Hybrid
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
10-19 miles
40 or more miles
40 or more miles
40 or more miles
30-39 miles
40 or more miles
40 or more miles
10-19 miles
$30-40k
$20-30k
$30-40k
$30-40k
$20-30k
$15-20k
$20-30k
$20-30k
50-64
35-49
35-49
50-64
50-64
20-34
50-64
50-64
Some college or
college graduate
Some college or
college graduate
Graduate degree
Some college or
college graduate
Graduate degree
Some college or
college graduate
Some high school
or high school
graduate or GED
Graduate degree
White/Non-
Hispanic
White/Non-
Hispanic
White/Non-
Hispanic
African American/
White/Non-
Hispanic
Asian
White/Non-
Hispanic
White/Non-
Hispanic
-------
Chicago male group: May 26th, 2010
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
SUV
Passenger car
Passenger car
Passenger car
Passenger car
Passenger car
SUV
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Less than 10
miles
40 or more miles
40 or more miles
30-39 miles
10-19 miles
40 or more miles
20-29 miles
40 or more miles
$40-50k
$20-30k
$40-50k
$20-30k
$20-30k
$20-30k
$15-20k
$30-40k
20-34
20-34
35-49
20-34
35-49
20-34
35-49
50-64
Some college or
college graduate
Graduate degree
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
Asian
White/Non-
Hispanic
White/Non-
Hispanic
White/Non-
Hispanic
White/Non-
Hispanic
White/Non-
Hispanic
White/Non-
Hispanic
White/Non-
Hispanic
-------
Chicago female group: May 27th, 2010
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
SUV
Passenger car
SUV
Passenger car
Passenger car
SUV
Passenger car
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
20-29 miles
20-29 miles
10-19 miles
10-19 miles
40 or more miles
20-29 miles
10-19 miles
20-29 miles
$20-30k
$40-50k
$15-20k
$40-50k
$30-40k
$20-30k
$30-40k
$30-40k
35-49
35-49
50-64
20-34
20-34
35-49
20-34
35-49
Some college or
college graduate
Graduate degree
Some college or
college graduate
Some college or
college graduate
Some college or
college graduate
Graduate degree
Some high school
or high school
graduate or GED
Graduate degree
Hispanic
White/Non-
Hispanic
White/Non-
Hispanic
Asian
White/Non-
Hispanic
White/Non-
Hispanic
Asian
White/Non-
Hispanic
-------
Chicago male group: May 27th, 2010
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
Pickup truck
Passenger car
Passenger car
Passenger car
SUV
Station wagon or
mini van
SUV
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
30-39 miles
20-29 miles
20-29 miles
10-19 miles
10-19 miles
Less than 10
miles
10-19 miles
20-29 miles
$20-30k
$30-40k
$20-30k
$20-30k
$20-30k
$20-30k
$20-30k
$30-40k
20-34
50-64
50-64
50-64
20-34
35-49
20-34
50-64
Some college or
college graduate
Some college or
college graduate
Graduate degree
Some college or
college graduate
Graduate degree
Some college or
college graduate
Graduate degree
Graduate degree
White/Non-
Hispanic
White/Non-
Hispanic
White/Non-
Hispanic
White/Non-
Hispanic
White/Non-
Hispanic
White/Non-
Hispanic
White/Non-
Hispanic
White/Non-
Hispanic
-------
Appendix C: Gasoline Engine Labels Understandability Handout
Gas Vehicle Labels
B
P DA Fuel Economy &
EH \.r\ Environmental Information
Fuel Economy
26
3.9
MPG
combined
City/Hwy
Rating among all vehicles
***
3 out of 5 (5 is best]
Combined fuel economy for this cla;
ranges from 10 to 50.
Gasoline Vehicle
Environment
Rating among all vehicles
mLion, A A A
3 out of 5 i.5 is best)
gallons/100 mi.
Consumption & Cost
4 out of 5 (5 is best)
o/i ~7 jsu
O ^T / par mil-
$1,641
i estimates based on 15,000 miles par year at $2.80 par galloi
/isit www.fueleconomy.gov to calculate estimates
lersonalized for your driving, and to download the
Fuel Economy Guide (also available at dealers).
Your actual mileage will vary
depending on how you drive
and maintain your vehicle.
i^»jjh) C DA Fuel Economy &
Environmental Information
Fuel Economy, Consumption & Cost
Rating ''among all vehicles)
***
3 out of 5(5 is best)
MPG
22 32
Combined citv highway
Combined fuel economy for this
class ranges from 10 to 50 MPG.
$1,641
Annual cost based on
15,000 miles per year
at $2.80 per gallon
Environment
Plating among all vehicles
Other Air Pollutants
00000
3 out of 5 i5 is best)
Greenhouse Gases
00000
3. E out of E (5 Is bast)
co2
grams/mile
Your actual mileage will vary depending on how you drive and maintain you r vehicle.
Visit www.fueleconomy.gov
• Calculate personalized driving estimates
• Download the Fuel Economy Guide
(also available at dealers}
Smartphone Interactive '
Scan code for more information
about this vehicle or to compare
It with others.
76
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
P DA Fuel Economy and
1_ F,r~\ Environmental Imt
Gasoline Vehicle
.586
annual gallons annual cost
49 cidllons per month $137 per month
Phase 3 Focus Groups
77
-------
Appendix D: Gasoline Engine Labels Understandability Tally
Option 1A
Option IB
Option 1C
Seattle Female Group: 05/17/2010 1
Most Understandable 4
Least Understandable 0
2
2
0
4
Seattle Male Group: 05/17/2010
Most Understandable 2
Least Understandable 5
3
0
3
3
Seattle Female Group: 05/18/2010 - Not Used for this Group
Seattle Male Group: 05/18/2010 - Not Used for this Group
Female Most Understandable
Female Least Understandable
Male Most Understandable
Male Least Understandable
Overall Most Understandable
Overall Least understandable
Group Most Understandable
Group Least Understandable
1 1 1 1
Charlotte Female Group: 05/19/2010
Most Understandable
Least Understandable
0
6
5
1
3
1
Charlotte Male Group: 05/19/2010
Most Understandable
Least Understandable
0
2
7
1
1
5
Charlotte Female Group: 05/20/2010
Most Understandable
Least Understandable
0
4
6
1
2
3
78
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
Option 1A Option IB
Charlotte Male Group: 05/20/2010
Most Understandable
Least Understandable
Female Most Understandable
Female Least Understandable
Male Most Understandable
Male Least Understandable
Overall Most Understandable
Overall Least understandable
Group Most Understandable
Group Least Understandable
Houston Female Group: 05/24/2010
Most Understandable
Least Understandable
Houston Male Group: 05/24/2010
Most Understandable
Least Understandable
Houston Female Group: 05/25/2010 - Not Used for this Group
Houston Male Group: 05/25/2010 - Not Used for this Group
Female Most Understandable
Female Least Understandable
Male Most Understandable
Male Least Understandable
Overall Most Understandable
Overall Least Understandable
Groups Most Understandable
Groups Least Understandable
Option 1C
Phase 3 Focus Groups
79
-------
Option 1A
Option IB
Option 1C
Chicago Female Group: 05/26/2010
Most Understandable
Least Understandable
0
6
6
0
2
2
Chicago Male Group: 05/26/2010 |
Most Understandable
Least Understandable
1
2
4
2
3
4
Chicago Female Group: 05/27/2010 |
Most Understandable
Least Understandable
2
2
6
2
0
4
Chicago Male Group: 05/27/2010 |
Most Understandable
Least Understandable
1
2
4
2
3
4
Female Most Understandable
Female Least Understandable
Male Most Understandable
Males Least Understandable
Overall Most Understandable
Overall Least understandable
Groups Most Understandable
Groups Least Understandable
COMBINED TALLY FOR ALL GROUPS
Female Most Understandable
Female Least Understandable
Male Most Understandable
Male Least Understandable
Overall Most Understandable
Overall Least Understandable
Groups Most Understandable
Groups Least Understandable
80
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
Appendix E: Gasoline Engine Labels Fuel Efficiency Handout
Gas Vehicle Labels
Which is more fuel efficient?
A1
^ue! Economy &
Environmental Information
Fuel Economy
Gasoline Vehicle •
Environment
A2
Fue\ Economy &
Environmental Information
26
O^ y
MPG
City/Hwy
fitting tmong t»
***
-****,
347 St
Fuel Economy
28
3.5S
MPG
Ctty/Hwy
H«Jng among ill vehklsj
Gaeoline Vehicle •
Environment
"'
$1,480!
•,-SnvirlWay
B1
Fuel Economy &
Environmental Information
B2
Fuel Economy, Consumption & Cost
Rating »».,.IIMMCM)
529
combined
MPG
25 34
wfrom 10 loffi MPG .
3 13 say
• Download Eheftjet Economy Guide
"_P DA
Fuel Economy &
Environmental Information
Fuel Economy, Consumption & Cost
Rating lifting >« «M
-------
Appendix F: Gasoline Engine Labels Fuel Efficiency Tally
Option 1A1 Option 1A2 Option 1B1 Option 1B2 Option 1C1 Option 1C2
ieattle Female Group: 05/17/2010
ieattle Male Group: 05/17/2010
ieattle Female Group: 05/18/2010 - Not Used for this Group
ieattle Male Group: 05/18/2010 - Not Used for this Group
Most fuel efficient 013
Charlotte Female Group: 05/19/2010
Charlotte Male Group: 05/19/2010
Charlotte Female Group: 05/20/2010
Charlotte Female Group: 05/20/2010
Most fuel efficient
Houston Female Group: 05/24/2010
Houston Male Group: OS/24/2010
Houston Female Group: 05/25/2010 - Not Used for this Group
Houston Male Group: 05/25/2010 - Not Used for this Group
Most fuel efficient
Chicago Female Group: 05/26/2010
Chicago Male Group: 05/26/2010
Chicago Female Group: 05/27/2010
Chicago Male Group: 05/27/2010
Most fuel efficient
COMBINED TALLY FOR ALL GROUPS
82
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
Appendix G: Electric Vehicle Labels Understandability Handout
Electric Vehicle Labels
B
P DA Fuel Economy &
C. I./°°\ Environmental In!
Environmental Information
Fuel Economy
98
34
MPGe"
combined
City/Hwy
kW-hrs/100 r
AN Electric Range
Rating among all vehicles
*****
5 out of 5 (5 is besti
Combined fuel economy lor this class
range; from 10 to 109
Electric Vehicle
Environment
Rating among all vehicles
*****
5 out of 5 15 is best!
—*****
OCOj
grams
per mi
•^SnwtWay
Visit wwwlueleconomv.gov to calculate estimates Your actual mileage will vary *33.7 kW-Hrs =
personalized for your driving, and to download the depending on how you drive 1 gallon gasoline
Fuel Economy Guide (also available at dealers). and maintain your vehicle. energy equivalent
Fuel Economy &
Environmental Information
Electric Vehicle
Fuel Economy, Consumption & Cost
2.9
combined
miles
per kW-hr
3.0 2.8
$618
Annual cost based on
15.000 miles per year at
12 cents per kilowatt hour
Combined fuel economy for this
class ranges from 10 to 109 MPGe*.
TTiis vehicle gets 98 MPGe.
Visit www.fueleconomv.gov Smartplione Interactive [
Calculate personalized driving estimates Scan code for more Information i
Download the Fuel Economy Guide about this vehicle orto compare •
(also available at dealers) ftwffil others.
Range
On a full charge, vehicle
99,
Environment
es
Gre
00000
P D A Fuel Economy and
C. I /^ Environmental Imp
Environmental Impact Estimates
Mileage
Phase 3 Focus Groups
-------
Appendix H: Electric Vehicles Labels Understandability Tally
Option 2A
Option 2B
Option 2C
Seattle Female Group: 05/17/2010 1
Most Understandable
Least Understandable
2
1
2
2
2
3
1 Seattle Male Group: 05/17/2010
Most Understandable
Least Understandable
2
1
2
6
4
1
Seattle Female Group: 05/18/2010
Most Understandable
Least Understandable
2
2
3
2
3
3
Seattle Male Group: 05/18/2010
Most Understandable
Least Understandable
3
3
1
2
4
3
Female Most Understandable
Female Least Understandable
Male Most Understandable
Male Least Understandable
Overall Most Understandable
Overall Least understandable
Group Most Understandable
Group Least Understandable
Charlotte Female Group: 05/19/2010 - Not used for this Group
Charlotte Male Group: 05/19/2010 - Not used for this Group
Charlotte Female Group: 05/20/2010
Most Understandable
Least Understandable
Charlotte Male Group: 05/20/2010
Most Understandable
Least Understandable
Female Most Understandable
Female Least Understandable
Male Most Understandable
Male Least Understandable
Overall Most Understandable
Overall Least Understandable
Groups Most Understandable
Groups Least Understandable
84
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
Option 2A
Option 2B
Option 2C
Houston Female Group: 05/24/2010 |
Most Understandable
Least Understandable
0
6
3
2
5
0
Houston Male Group: 05/24/2010 |
Most Understandable
Least Understandable
0
2
2
1
3
2
Houston Female Group: 05/25/2010
Most Understandable
Least Understandable
1
2
3
3
4
3
Houston Male Group: 05/25/2010
Most Understandable
Least Understandable
1
2
1
5
6
1
Female Most Understandable
Female Least Understandable
Male Most Understandable
Male Least Understandable
Overall Most Understandable
Overall Least Understandable
Groups Most Understandable
Groups Least Understandable
Chicago Female Group: 05/26/2010 - Not used for this Group
Chicago Male Group: 05/26/2010 - Not used for this Group
Chicago Female Group: 05/27/2010
Most Understandable
Least Understandable
Chicago Male Group: OS/27/2010
Most Understandable
Least Understandable
Female Most Understandable
Female Least Understandable
Male Most Understandable
Male Least Understandable
Overall Most Understandable
Overall Least Understandable
Groups Most Understandable
Groups Least Understandable
Phase 3 Focus Groups
85
-------
Option 2A
Option 2B Option 2C
COMBINED TALLY FOR ALL GROUPS
Female Most Understandable
Female Least Understandable
Male Most Understandable
Male Least Understandable
Overall Most Understandable
Overall Least Understandable
Groups Most Understandable
Groups Least Understandable
86
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
Appendix I: Electric Vehicle Labels Fuel Efficiency Handout
Electric Vehicle Labels
Which is more fuel efficient?
A1
Fuel Economy fit
Environmental Information
A2
Fuel Economy
Environment
109
*****
Fuel Economy &
Environmental Information
Fuel Economy
98
34 m
MPGe*
City/Hwy
*****
Environment
Poling among .11 vehkloi
All Electric Range
Fuel Eoonomy Guide nl;o Available m d«l*ra. and msinrain your vehicle, energy equivalent ''§^ '*^l
B1
Fuel Economy &
Environmental Information
B2
Fuel Economy, Consumption & Cost
Rating .^orgaiivmilaeo
***** 5'153"
618
|| Range
""99-
Charge time
2.9
miles
per kW-hr
3.0 2.8
1:1,.:..
ww,fuolaconorny.gov Smartphon* Intaractive [T ^
Environnient
"£0066 'aoaa a
Fuel Economy &
Environmental Information
Fuel Economy, Consumption & Cost
****** 4,620"
$654
B3B.
3.3
miles
perkW-hr
3.4 3.0
ItTiir jmm rflNBgewlllnnrilapiinrtlng an how you flr
yourwhlOs. -3S.7W«4)r>- r jJllon g«clln* mwgft
Visit www.f»0FeconDmy.gov Smartphone lntei*clrv* [T T
OCO-
grtr
Fuel Economy and
Environmental Impact Estimates
Phase 3 Focus Groups
-------
Appendix J: Electric Vehicles Labels Fuel Efficiency Tally
Option 2A1 Option 2A2 Option 2B1 Option 2B2 Option 2C1 Option 2C2
Seattle Female Group: 05/17/2010
Seattle Male Group: 05/17/2010
Seattle Female Group: 05/18/2010
Seattle Male Group: 05/18/2010
Most fuel efficient 29
Charlotte Male Group: 05/19/2010
Charlotte Female Group: 05/19/2010
Charlotte Male Group: 05/20/2010 - Not Used for this Group
Charlotte Female Group: 05/20/2010 - Not Used for this Group
Most fuel efficient 13 3
Houston Female Group: 05/24/2010
Houston Male Group: OS/24/2010
Houston Female Group: 05/25/2010
Houston Male Group: 05/25/2010
Most fuel efficient
Chicago Female Group: 05/26/2010 - Not used for this Group
Chicago Male Group: 05/26/2010 - Not used for this Group
Chicago Female Group: 05/27/2010
Chicago Male Group: OS/27/2010
Most fuel efficient
COMBINED TALLY FOR ALL GROUPS
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
Appendix K: Extended Range Electric Vehicle Labels
Understandability Handout
EREVVehicle Labels
P DA Fuel Economy &
C n/~\ Environmental Inl
. Environmental Information
[Dual Fuel:
1 ' tended Range E|-
Electric Mode
Fuel Economy
Gas Mode
Fuel Economy
OO MPG *-i —i
<>< combined } / -laMon;
\_JU Clty'Hwy ^. . / 100ml.
vehicles
Visit www.fualeconomy.gou to calculate estimates Your actual mileage will vary "33.7 kW-Hrs = -^ik'
personalized for your driving, and to download the depending on how you drive 1 gallon gasoline j^_^(j [
Fuel Economy Guide (also available at dealers). and maintain your vehicle.
B
Fuel Economy &
Environmental Information
[Fuel Economy, Consumption & Cost
Rating if if if if i ^"£10^",
n, ,11 ,.»«! "JJ* ffjj* Thi?v,hict, 0,1, K MPG..
-EleCtriC MOT UHrdiinMI Aimu«l Consumption 8, Cost
2731 +187
kW-hrs per year gallons per year
an b*^ . .mpt* $851
Estimate based on 15,000 miles per
r, ,ir, ^ yearatS2.80 peraallonand 12 cents per
M PG kilowan hour, split between both modes
Gas Only I
Visitwww.fueleconomy.gov
• Downioad the Fuel Economy Guide
(also available al dealers!
Smartphone Interactive
about this vehicle or to rampart !*
it with others.
Range
On a full charge, before switching to
Gas Only vehicle can travel about:
Environment
Other Air Polutants Greenhouse Gases
111 CO,
III gramsymile
•£i l/SIBlr.FTF/™rf
^SmartWay-
^ue' Economy and
Environmental Impact Estimates
Mileage /\n_E|ectrjc operation Gas Operation
When battery is fully charged, first 30 rnilee only. When electridty is used up, vehicle runs
MPG
B38
2.7 IKS
in all-sIectric operation
Range & Charge \ /
IJIIJM4IJJ:M.I.Ml.}:U;:|Al Extended Range (gas)
rompanson
Phase 3 Focus Groups
-------
Appendix L EREV Labels Understandability Tally
Option 3A
Option 3B
Option 3C
Seattle Female Group: 05/17/2010 1
Most Understandable
Least Understandable
0
3
2
2
4
1
| Seattle Male Group: 05/17/2010 |
Most Understandable
Least Understandable
2
4
1
3
5
1
Seattle Female Group: 05/18/2010 1
Most Understandable
Least Understandable
1
6
6
0
1
2
Seattle Male Group: 05/18/2010 1
Most Understandable
Least Understandable
2
2
3
2
3
3
Female Most Understandable
Female Least Understandable
Male Most Understandable
Male Least Understandable
Overall Most Understandable
Overall Least understandable
Group Most Understandable
Group Least Understandable
Charlotte Male Group: 05/20/2010 - Not used for this Group
Charlotte Female Group: 05/19/2010
Most Understandable
Least Understandable
5
2
0
3
3
3
Charlotte Male Group: 05/19/2010
Most Understandable
Least Understandable
Charlotte Female Group: 05/20/2010 -
5
1
Not used for this Group
2
5
1
2
90
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
Female Most Understandable
Female Least Understandable
Male Most Understandable
Male Least Understandable
Overall Most Understandable
Overall Least Understandable
Groups Most Understandable
Groups Least Understandable
Houston Female Group: OS/24/2010
Most Understandable
Least Understandable
0
5
2
3
6
0
Houston Male Group: 05/24/2010
Most Understandable
Least Understandable
0
4
1
1
4
0
Houston Female Group: 05/25/2010
Most Understandable
Least Understandable
0
4
1
3
7
1
Houston Male Group: 05/25/2010
Most Understandable
Least Understandable
0
2
1
5
7
1
Female Most Understandable
Female Least Understandable
Male Most Understandable
Male Least Understandable
Overall Most Understandable
Overall Least Understandable
Groups Most Understandable
Groups Least Understandable
Phase 3 Focus Groups
91
-------
Chicago Female Group: 05/26/2010 - Not used for this Group
Most Understandable
Least Understandable
Chicago Male Group: 05/26/2010 - Not used for this Group
Most Understandable
Least Understandable
Chicago Female Group: OS/27/2010 - Not used for this Group
Chicago Male Group: 05/27/2010 - Not used for this Group
Female Most Understandable
Female Least Understandable
Male Most Understandable
Male Least Understandable
Overall Most Understandable
Overall Least Understandable
Groups Most Understandable
Groups Least Understandable
COMBINED TALLY FOR ALL GROUPS
Female Most Understandable
Female Least Understandable
Male Most Understandable
Male Least Understandable
Overall Most Understandable
Overall Least Understandable
Groups Most Understandable
Groups Least Understandable
92
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
Appendix M: EREV Labels Fuel Efficiency Handout
EREVVehicle Labels
Which is more fuel efficient?
A1
Fuel Economy &
Environmental In
Electric Mode ^JB—
Fuel Economy
98 ii- 34r
B1
Fuel Economy &
Environmental Information
Dual FuelVehicle
Fuel Economy, Consumption & Cost
All-Electric .wtunrullycnarg
H O Omilespei
T V I O I- ',V.| =!
al Consumption & Cw.t
. * JZL-.
GasOnly^,^..™,,,, $767 ^
[,.![--,• v«f«*2-*P"g»llo'' Jnd12«ntsp<
IVIrlj kilowaa hour. If.lil b««*«i both mod?
Viiit www.fueieconomy.gov SmaFtphone Interactivi
Range
'I'll ifull .haiy- htt...r.',,
•«hid* can fro.'
30-
102^-
C1
I^IPPA FuelEconomyand
*#?' L 1 A^ Environmental Imp
onmental Impact Estimates
Mileage
All-Electric Operation
» 134 $540
"- r
Gas Operation
__
Range & Charge y
fJIEJkk..I4ill.!-IJ|.!:iif.^l Extended Range .gasi
Comparison
""00000
A2
g!S| p DA Fuel Economy *
Electric Mode
Fuel Economy
11 OSES
I I ^.tt,yH
B2
Fue! Economy &
Environmental Information
Fuel Economy, Consumption & Cost
Annual Consumption & Coi
t2.9s!
. Only lv.non Banor, Ii emp^
HOOMPG
, * sl!Z.v«.
$851
Range
Goo Only, vqfiK-le ten travel abnjt:
ffffffff
111 »L
C2
(1^1 P PA FU81 EconomV and
S*r L_ r /^ Environmental Imp
Environmental Impact Estimates
Mileage
All-Electric Operation
153 9618
Gas Operation
peration
"
Range & Charge y
fJM^H.J.IJtLI.!.|:H.! ».r-!Al Extended Rangeig^i
d 398 $1,114
«""-'"«' '
Compaiison
^L
0O000
111
COj grirnwr
Phase 3 Focus Groups
93
-------
Appendix N: EREV Labels Fuel Efficiency Tally
Seattle Female Group: 05/17/2010
Seattle Male Group: 05/17/2010
Seattle Female Group: 05/18/2010
Seattle Male Group: 05/18/2010
Most fuel efficient
Charlotte Female Group: 05/19/2010
Charlotte Male Group: 05/19/2010
Charlotte Male Group: 05/20/2010 - Not Used for this Group
Charlotte Female Group: 05/20/2010 - Not Used for this Group
Most fuel efficient 1 l<"
Houston Female Group: 05/24/2010
Houston Male Group: OS/24/2010
Houston Female Group: 05/25/2010
Houston Male Group: 05/25/2010
Most fuel efficient
Chicago Female Group: 05/26/2010
Chicago Male Group: OS/26/2010
Chicago Female Group: OS/27/2010 - Not used for this Group
Chicago Male Group: OS/27/2010 - Not used for this Group
Most fuel efficient 0 16
COMBINED TALLY FOR ALL GROUPS
94
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
Appendix 0: PHEV Labels Understandability Handout
PHEVVehicle Labels
B
P DA Fuel Economy &
|!_ n/"\ Environmental Information
Electric + Gas Mo
Fuel Economy
S,-»****i
Combined fuel economy for this dan
ftango Onm lull *a,ge. using . blend P- /-»
ofelectricityegas vehicle ^\ II
can travel approximately: miles
Gas Mode
Fuel Economy
Srwd O "7 gallon*'
Citv/Hwv ^ . / 100 ml.
E ny i r o nm e n t
Rating among all vehicles
lo calculate esti
personalized for your driving, and to download
Fuel Economy Guide (also available at dealers),
"s^C DA F"el Economy &
— trAAF
L Environmental Information
Dual Fuel Vehicle:
Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle
Fuel Economy, Consumption & Cost
™.2±s *****
5 out of 5 (6 Is best!
GaS-f Electric (when charged.
This vehicle gets 53 MPGe,
ual Consumption & Cost
177o
kW'hrs per v
231
Gas Only Iwhen b«wv M *mpty) $358
te based on 15 000 miles per
yearat$2.80pergall0nand12centSper
kilowatt hour, split between both modes
/our veh
Visit www.fueleconomY.gov
• Caicul^le perapnotiwdAi'vinjjatirfH
• Download the Fuel Economy Guide
(also available at dealers]
Smartphone Interactive
B Scan code for more information i
about this velvets otto compare 1(
itwkh others.
Range
On a full i^iarge, before switching to
Gas Only, vehicle can travel about:
OU
miles
Electric only: first 11 miles
Charge time
Environment
Fuel Economy and
Environmental Impact Estimates
Gasoline-Electricity
Mileage
Gas + Electric Operation Gas Operation
MPGe QvOrt MPG
S65iM;tk B38
combined citv'hwy
a 229 $737
Range & Charge W \f
Blander! GjP&Jfb'^ffKqdfhsfjF A Emended Range
Comparison
Environment
Phase 3 Focus Groups
-------
Appendix P: PHEV Labels Understandability Tally
Option 4A
Seattle Female Group: 5/17/2010 - Not used for this Group
Seattle Male Group: 5/17/2010 - Not used for this Group
Option 4B
Seattle Female Group: 5/18/2010
Most Understandable
Least Understandable
Seattle Male Group: 5/18/2010
Most Understandable
Least Understandable
Female Most Understandable
Female Least understandable
Male Most Understandable
Male Least Understandable
Total
Overall Most Understandable
Overall Least Understandable
Groups Most Understandable
Groups Least Understandable
Charlotte Female Group: 05/19/2010
Female Most Understandable
Female Least Understandable
Male Most Understandable
Male Least Understandable
Overall Most Understandable
Overall Least Understandable
Groups Most Understandable
Groups Least Understandable
Option 4C
Most Understandable
Least Understandable
4
2
0
5
4
1
Charlotte Male Group: 05/19/2010
Most Understandable
Least Understandable
6
0
2
6
0
2
Charlotte Female Group: 05/20/2010
Most Understandable
Least Understandable
3
1
0
6
5
1
Charlotte Male Group: 05/20/2010
Most Understandable
Least Understandable
3
2
1
4
4
2
96
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
Option 4A
Houston Female Group: 5/24/2010 - Not used for this Group
Houston Male Group: 5/24/2010 - Not used for this Group
Option 4B
Female Most Understandable
Female Least Understandable
Male Most Understandable
Male Least Understandable
Overall Most Understandable
Overall Least Understandable
Groups Most Understandable
Groups Least Understandable
Option 4C
Houston Female Group: 5/25/2010
Most Understandable
Least Understandable
0
6
1
2
7
0
Houston Male Group: 5/25/2010
Most Understandable
Least Understandable
Total Female Most Understandable
Female Least Understandable
Male Most Understandable
Male Least Understandable
Overall Most Understandable
Overall Least Understandable
Groups Most Understandable
Groups Least Understandable
1
2
0
6
1
2
3
8
0
1
0
6
1
2
0
6
1
8
0
1
7
0
7
0
7
0
14
0
2
0
Chicago Female Group: 05/26/2010
Most Understandable
Least Understandable
3
2
2
2
3
4
Chicago Male Group: 05/26/2010
Most Understandable
Least Understandable
4
2
1
4
3
2
Chicago Female Group: 05/27/2010
Most Understandable
Least Understandable
6
0
2
4
0
4
| Chicago Male Group: 05/27/2010
Most Understandable
Least Understandable
5
1
2
1
1
6
Phase 3 Focus Groups
97
-------
Option 4A Option 4B Option 4C
COMBINED TALLY FOR ALL GROUPS
Female Most Understandable
Female Least Understandable
Male Most Understandable
Male Least Understandable
Overall Most Understandable
Overall Least Understandable
Groups Most Understandable
Groups Least Understandable
98
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
Appendix Q: PHEV Labels Fuel Efficiency Handout
PHEVVehicle Labels
Which is more fuel efficient?
Electric+Gas Mocle^K
Fuel Economy
58=. 22=.
Gas Mode .
Fuel Economy
35 Sir 2.9?sr
Envir
ivironment
Ruing iin«ig ail «anMit
a~ *•***•<
I mmtSudTcananTf.gav lo oakulale estimate tour nrtu.l milmgc will vniy 'SaJIrW-Hri.
B1
Fuel Economy &
Environmental Information
Fuel Economy, Consumption & Cost
Rating +^+++ ^''T^rT'^MPr -
OlU«tllCliH ** ^ ^ " ^ r«lfl.. ,,,m H. .,,l_.i MHrf
» 99*
-* MPG
Gas Only nt_
• OO
5.8
Annual Conwimption & Co=.t
1770 + 231
kW-hrs p« y*ar gallons p*r ysn
•-«. $858
EHirnatpbavl on 1GOCO mils;- p«
y«r ««JO p-r gallon «ld 12«n»p«
O V miie=.
Electric only: firat 11 milee
it www.fuelvcononiiY.gDV Smartphon0 lnt»ractivs |F Vi
B2
•^s'"-iP PA Fuel. Economv&
'*.-^;> L F/~\ Environmental Information
Fuel Economy, Consumption & Cost
hl;6 2224yM|+ 248 _v_
,„.„..„„„ $960
Vouf i-aildi -33.7 KW.Hn . I gallon g*ann 111*3, apliM*
Visit www.fu4lecortDrny.gov Smartphona Interactive |T -j
Dual Futl Vehicle
Range
On a fjichar,^ trfli-
50,,
Electric only first 11 mils
Charge time
C1
, Environmental Impact Estii
IRjglWhlclB
Gjsollne-Eloctiicitv
C2
'K^l1 P PA
^H-p C lf~\
Environmental Impact Es
Mileage
Gas + Electric Operation
1.7?^
J 260 $848
'Sr
Range & Cliarge
Gas Operation
hi 428 $1,197
V
^ ExtenaeORanS^ga
Comparison
»~l © 1«>~
J?W|W 1046m
Mileage
Gas + Electric Operation
ftj.5^,
?229 $737
Gas Operation
UOO
0
d 398 $1.114
2.7*8-
MB
Comparison
Airwng 91 vin
Both rrxxBi Im
*
B'li'iM JTr in.riLrTO^i^iJigroiiJiviiiLiiiLr
^^^y^m.^^^^4j^
Phase 3 Focus Groups
-------
Appendix R: PHEV Labels Fuel Efficiency Tally
Option 4A1 Option 4A2 Option 4B1 Option 4B2 Option 4C1 Option 4C2
Seattle Female Group: 05/17/2010 - Not used for this Group
Seattle Male Group: 05/17/2010- Not used for this Group
Seattle Female Group: 05/18/2010
Seattle Male Group: 05/18/2010
Most fuel efficient
Charlotte Female Group: 05/19/2010
Charlotte Male Group: 05/19/2010
Charlotte Female Group: 05/20/2010
Charlotte Male Group: 05/20/2010
Most fuel efficient 6 26
Houston Female Group: OS/24/2010 - Not used for this Group
Houston Male Group: 05/24/2010 - Not used for this Group
Houston Female Group: 05/25/2010
Houston Male Group: 05/25/2010
Most fuel efficient |
Chicago Female Group: 05/26/2010
Chicago Male Group: 05/26/2010
Chicago Female Group: 05/27/2010
Chicago Male Group: 05/27/2010
Most fuel efficient 2
COMBINED TALLY FOR ALL GROUPS
100
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
Appendix S: Comparing Across Technology Option A Handout
Comparing Across Technologies
A1
JSk C DA Fuel Economy &
^yC. ir\ Environmental In)
Environmental Information
Fuel Economy
26
3.9
MPG
City/'H wy
Hating among all vehicles
***
Gasoline Vehicle •
Environment
Rating among .11 chicles
gallona'100 mi.
* out of S •'& II E4tG
ri****
* out M (
347
ViDrtwww.fueler.ononTy.gov to c-sfculale ^slimates Your actjal mileage will vary
Fud Ec-onomy Guide • .-.i. . available at dealerM. and maintain your veh tele.
A2
Fuel Economy &
Environmental Information
Fuel Economy
Q ft c"mb^d
\J \J City.'Hwy
OM1 kW-hrs/IOOrni
All Electric Range
Rating among all vehicles
*****
Sous »f? : :..:•
•. "fuNi ~-l ftj« *ii-< loin, fcr Llil. ..1 j.-.
Electric Vehicle
Environment
Rating among all vehicle?
*****
Ops.
pcwonaliiedfor your driving, and to download th« d*p«nilirig on how you drive 1 gallcn gasoline Jfa
Fuel Economy Guids [also available al dealers). and maintain your vehiole. energy equivalent ^fl
Fuel Economy &
Environmental Information
A4
Electric+Gas Mode^iv
Fn-l Econoniy
1 7 twjT
I 'S
Gas Mode
Fuel Economy
a»*****
penonalizrd for your driving, and to download t)
mileige will van/ *33.7 kW+lrc -
depending on how you drive 1 gallon gasoline
and maintain your • In I- energy equivalent
-------
Appendix T: Comparing Across Technology Option A Tally
30 miles
50 Miles
100 miles
Environment Friendly
1 GAS EV EREV PHEV GAS EV EREV PHEV GAS EV EREV PHEV GAS EV EREV PHEV
<
z
0
Q_
0
Seattle
Female
Group 1
Charlotte
Female
Group 1
Charlotte
Male
Group 1
Houston
Male
Group 1
Chicago
Female
Group 2
Chicago
Male
Group 2
05 IN/A
0 5 N/A 3
0 N/A 8 0
0 3 2 N/A
0 6 N/A 2
0 8 N/A 0
DBDD
0 6 ON/A
0 N/A 2 6
0 N/A 2 6
04 IN/A
0 2 N/A 6
0 7 N/A 1
2 2 2 N/A
0 N/A 2 6
0 N/A 2 6
0 2 3 N/A
4 IN/AS
3 0 N/A 4
0 6 0 N/A
0 N/A 4 4
0 N/A 4 4
0 5 ON/A
0 7 N/A 1
1 5 N/A 1
-------
Appendix U: Comparing Across Technology Option B Handout
Comparing Across Technologies
B1
;""»"\ C DA Fuel Economy &
-V trAEn
L Environmental Information
Fuel Economy, Consumption & Cost
Rating latncng ill tttfllcuil
***** 586?
Gasoline Vehicle
B2
MPG
22 32
$1,641
w yoj drivB w*a maMah yotr wihlcl*.
Visit www.fuelecpnorny.gov
* Cwwn toad IhsFu^Ewnccny Guide
[also waiUbla 01 dedkrsl
Environment
Fuel Economy &
Environmental Information
:uel Economy, Consumption & Cost
Electric Vehicle
*****
E a* at S IS I* bssll
2j^% miles
^1 per kW-hr
• W3.0 2.8
combined ^ hi9hwav
ct»» ranges from 10 lo 1C* MPGe'.
Thn chicle gpti 9g MPi>.
5,153^
$618
Annual -.:•-,< based on
15,000 miles per year at
12 cant* per kilowatt hour
Range
On a full charge
99
v v n
12 hours
,UihB JKW iiulHt
Visit www.fue1economy.gov Smaftptxtne Interactive [
• Calculate personalized driving estimates Soan code for more inFormaion .'
• Download th<- Rid EoonomyGuido aboutthisvahiote
Environment
Fuung jmcoj aivuNcru
B3
Fuel Economy &
Environmental Information
Fuel Economy, Consumption& Cost
Dual Fuel Vehicle:
Enttnctod Rang. EkctrfcVfchfcfe
B4
A A j A J F,,.I ,,,...:.-„,,-,, !l,(. .1-,:-.
TT^ W W f range-, from 10 to 103 MPGe*.
All-Electric ,.*h«i nj
This vehiote gels W MPGe.
al Consunption & Cost
¥2.9 SSI'" 2731 ,187
kW-hf* p« y*ar gallons per y
Gas Only iwh-n uti^ b 6mplv:. $851
Estimate bated on 15j>3Dni
HA Dr» V«« « S2SD p«
M PG kilowatt hour, s
Visit w^wiw. fuetecanoimy.gov Smartphone Interactive
. Calculate pw*or,alir«) drying *Mimatei Scan «hicl>
V1*it w^ivw. fueleconomy.gov
* Calajlatepenonaliosd driving estimat
fi
fe
Smartphone Interattiv* |
s Scon tode For rnon- in Format iin
Rana
Only, vehicle oan irevsl about
nae
El««tnc only: first 11 miles
Charge time
Environment
10700
1 O / .1 V,
o
CO
-------
Appendix V: Comparing Across Technology Option B Tally
Environment Friendly
CD
Z
o
Q_
O
Charlotte
Male
Group 2
Chicago
Female
Group 1
Chicago
Male
Group 1
0 6 N/A 2
1 N/A 7 0
0 N/A 6 2
0 5 N/A 3
0 N/A 4 4
0 N/A 2 6
1 4 N/A 3
1 N/A 1 6
0 N/A 1 7
N/A 0
0 N/A 8 6
0 N/A 7 1
=! X.
-------
Appendix W: Comparing Across Technology Option C Handout
Comparing Across Technologies
C1
•rfvjl I"" DA Fuel Economy and
^Sf C, I/A Environmental Imp
Environmental Impact Estimates
Gasoine Vehicle
MPG Comparison SS&'.
SQMltn.p, 18...1 V
• JlOOmli* W:rnl
J^Sfc r" DVV Fuej Economy and
ISsT C rVA Environmental Imp
Environmental Impact Estimates
Mileage
*98
C3
C DA Fuel Economy and
C I /A Environmental Imc
Environmental Impact Estimates
Mileage
All-Electric Operation
MPGe-
t 153 $618
™911-
Range & Charge \/
Gas Operation
QOO
OO
'
MPG
2.7-ar
(orrblnsd (tty'hw,'
ft 398 $1,114
V
:omparison
Environment
C4
Fuej Economy and
Environmental Impact Estimates
Mileage
Gas + Electric Operation
'/iitian bZEiry Is. tJly <:nargKI. nr .1 ED mIM only
MPGe-
J229 $737
^r9al M
Range & Charge \l
Got & Electric
Gas Operation
'
up, v4tikla runt on
MPG
2.7-ar
ft 398 $1,114
"'""""'"'
v
Extended Flange igasi
Comparison
Environment
roS^BnUrgKlF1"* ^*V bnwrtVV^jr
00000 137
-------
Appendix X: Comparing Across Technology Option C Tally
30 miles
50 Miles
100 miles
Environment Friendly
o
z
o
Q_
O
Charlotte
Female
Group 2
Seattle
Male Group
1
0 5 N/A 3
0 0 8 N/A
Seattle
Female N/A
Group 2
Seattle
Male Group N/A
2
Houston
Female
Group 1
Houston
Female
Group 2
Houston
Male Group N/A
2
530
730
07 IN/A
N/A 7 1 0
0 0
0 6 N/A 2
0 8 2 N/A
N/A 7 0 1
N/A 7 1 0
1 6 2 N/A
N/A 2 2 4
N/A 1 25
0 0 N/A
0 1 7 N/A
N/A 3 5 0
N/A 0 7 1
0 3 5 N/A
N/A 0 7 1
N/A 7 0 1
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A 0
0 N/A
0 0
0 0
0 N/A
0 0
N/A 7 0 1
-------
Appendix Y: Environmental Metrics Handout
Environmental Metrics
Environment
RtftllHJ amccg fi)lv«Hcl«
B
Environment
Rating
C02
****
Other Air PdluUnts
***]
347^
Environment
Rating i
CO2
00001
is.j.i outants-
0n-.«hid*-,
00001
9ndoth#r ar polutanb.
347
CO,
Environment
itinj
S32
.,
0061
3.6 out It..',,. b«t.t
SmartWay
Phase 3 Focus Groups
107
-------
Appendix Z: Environmental Metrics Tally
LABEL A
LABEL B
LABEL C
LABEL D
LABEL E
Seattle Female Group: 05/17/2010 1
Rated as #1
Rated as #2
Total
2
0
2
3
0
3
0
4
4
1
1
2
i
i
2
Seattle Male Group: 05/17/2010
Rated as #1
Rated as #2
Total
5
2
7
2
3
5
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
2
3
Seattle Female Group: 05/18/2010
Rated as #1
Rated as #2
Total
1
2
3
2
3
5
5
1
4
0
2
2
0
0
0
Seattle Male Group: 05/18/2010
Total
Rated as #1
Rated as #2
Total
Rated as "ttl"
Rated as "#2"
Overall
2
2
4
10
6
16
0
2
2
MM
8
15
1
2
3
^•^•1
8
14
1
0
1
^•^H
3
5
4
2
6
^•^H
5 |
11 1
Charlotte Female Group: 05/19/2010
Rated as #1
Rated as #2
Total
1
0
1
1
3
4
3
4
7
1
0
1
3
1
4
Charlotte Male Group: 05/19/2010 |
Rated as #1
Rated as #2
Total
2
1
3
1
3
4
2
3
5
1
1
2
2
0
2
Charlotte Female Group: 05/20/2010 |
Rated as #1
Rated as #2
Total
0
2
2
0
3
3
3
3
6
3
0
3
2
0
2
108
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
LABEL A
LABEL B
LABEL C LABEL D
LABEL E
Charlotte Male Group: 05/20/2010
Total
Rated as ttl
Rated as #2
Total
Rated as "ttl"
Rated as "#2"
Overall
5
1
6
8
IB
12
1
0
1
3
•••1
12
0 0
4 1
4 1
8 5
I^^B
22 7
2
2
4
9
•^•B^H
•a
Houston Female Group: 05/24/2010
Rated as #1
Rated as #2
Total
2
0
2
0
3
3
3 2
5 1
8 3
3
0
3
Houston Male Group: 05/24/2010
Rated as #1
Rated as #2
Total
2
0
2
1
0
1
1 1
3 1
4 2
0
1
1
Houston Female Group: 05/25/2010
Rated as #1
Rated as #2
Total
3
1
4
2
1
3
1 2
3 2
4 4
0
1
1
Houston Male Group: 05/25/2010
Total
Rated as #1
Rated as #2
Total
Rated as "ttl"
Rated as "#2"
Overall
6
1
7
13
2
1
3
5
0 0
0 2
0 2
5 5
0
4
4
3
Chicago Female Group: 05/26/2010
Chicago Male Group: 05/26/2010
Phase 3 Focus Groups
109
-------
Chicago Female Group: OS/27/2010
Chicago Male Group: OS/27/2010
110
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
Appendix AA: Environmental Metrics Option F Handout
Environmental Metrics
Environment
Rating among all vehicle;
COo Ofsxt
«M.^ f-\-lllll-J
Phase 3 Focus Groups
111
-------
Appendix AB: Monroney Label Handout
Monroney Label
CHRYSLER.
300C
For more information visit: www.chrysler.com
orcalll-SOO-CHRYSLER
EPA Fuel Economy Estimates
ntu tsmstn iiMd new IPA mwwl! Wjiwliijirtli Wl nwts
CITY MPG
15
b««M,««,
12M u unj
Estimated
Annual Futl Co*t
$2,335
an KtftOea
CemWrwd Fu* (ocoomy
18
A. iABMO*M
HIGHWAY MPG
23
EqKM^.
•5S5T
V««IHIMI
Mlugl «tll vvy
(tafM^xtng w »w* you
yourMMcte.
H « SUGGlSltS RDAH PHICI OF
PH8FAMTI3M
MKMI 2KV UN I«i» Ctiw«
PARTS CONTENT INFORMATION
FOR VEHICLES IN THIS CARLINE:
US./C*HAOIAH PARTS CONTENT: 74%
* * * * *
*****
Ont-Twnue M (Wm *M»t
FOR THIS VEHICLE:
FINAL ASSEMBLY POINT:
BRAMPTON. ONTARIO. CANADA
COUNTRY OF CHIG Hi:
ENGINE. MEXICO
TRANSMISSIOW: GERMANY
'. ", ...;';.! AM
CfSTIII 1TIDll CHMCE
Front Seal Not Rated
Rear Seal Not Rated
AHMW DM* (MI CO « I»J MQ«
l*«n runnnM UMM
O.B C9 I'D 30
HOMffitUffM
CvOta wwcowit IK* Ait OMto ta i aw * »• *««K
w m yftjr ««wf » nmai tor
IM taw Htourxow •.
------- |