While DOE did not expressly incorporate scarcity in the 1999 NOPR and the June 2000 Final Rule, DOE added the current 1.0/0.15 fuel-content factor, in part, to help address scarcity issues by rewarding electric vehicles' benefits to the Nation relative to petroleum-fueled vehicles, in a manner consistent with the regulatory treatment of other types of alternative fueled vehicles and the authorizing legislation. Id. at
65 FR 36988. DOE explained that it chose the 1.0/0.15 ratio for the fuel-content factor (1) for consistency with existing regulatory and statutory procedures for alternative fuel vehicles under
49 U.S.C. 32905, (2) to provide similar treatment of all types of alternative fueled vehicles, and (3) for simplicity and ease of use in calculating the PEF. In the July 1999 NOPR, DOE examined
49 U.S.C. 32905, which prescribes procedures for determining the petroleum-equivalent fuel economy of non-EV alternative fueled vehicles. DOE noted that two of the most common light-duty liquid alternative fuels at that time were M85 (85 percent methanol and 15 percent unleaded gasoline by volume) and E85 (85 percent ethanol and 15 percent unleaded gasoline by volume).[
6]
Under section 32905, the petroleum equivalent fuel economy of E85 and M85 powered vehicles is determined by dividing the measured fuel economy value by 0.15. DOE also noted that section 32905 extends this approach to gaseous fueled vehicles (
e.g., compressed natural gas), whereby a conversion factor is applied, and the resulting figure divided by 0.15 to obtain the petroleum equivalent fuel economy.
DOE commented in the July 1999 NOPR that the true energy efficiency of both liquid and gaseous fueled alternative fuel vehicles is intentionally and substantially overstated by the methods specified in section 32905, since only 15 percent of their actual energy consumption is accounted for in determining their petroleum-equivalent fuel economy, and that the use of the 0.15 factor for both vehicle types provides a similar regulatory treatment to both types of alternative fuel vehicles.
DOE then determined to include the 1.0/0.15 factor into its PEF calculation, noting that this would be the most equitable approach among alternative fuel vehicles and that all alternative fuel types help the Nation avoid having all its transportation “eggs” in the petroleum “basket.” Id. DOE noted, however, that EVs would still enjoy favorable regulatory treatment under DOE's proposal because EVs are exempt from caps on the amount alternative fuel vehicles are allowed to contribute to raising a manufacturer's overall fleet fuel economy.
Id. at
65 FR 36989.
