Grab our RSS Feed

U.S. House of Representatives Reach Compromise on Energy Bill

December 1st, 2007 | Posted in: Politics

It was announced late yesterday by Rep. John D. Dingell (D-MI), Chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce that the House of Representatives finally reached a consensus on the new CAFE standards bill.

They have agreed upon a combined 35 mpg standard by 2020 and still maintainig a distinciotn between cars and trucks; the automakers will like that.

Incentives will also be included for building biofuel vehicles.

The final document will be written over the weekend.

Source (House Energy Committee)

Popularity: 1%

(No Ratings Yet)

Loading ...

Posted by: Lyle

40 Responses to “U.S. House of Representatives Reach Compromise on Energy Bill”

Rashiid Amul Says:
December 1st, 2007 at 12:08 pm

I’m mixed on this.
I think CAFE is a waste, but if it is done right, maybe not.

For example: 35 mpg is ridiculously low.
But if it includes technology like the Volt which gets 53.333 MPG by taking 640/12, then I’m okay with CAFE. In this case the standards will be easily surpassed by the year 2020. Especially if all cars are plug-ins.

However, if it doesn’t include the mileage using the plug-in, then CAFE is going to hurt the plug-in technology because the car makers will have to concentrate on the ICE.

Overall, I would say I don’t like CAFE.
Phil Toney Says:
December 1st, 2007 at 12:10 pm

Other news sources say this Congressional “deal” represents an improvement of the fleet fuel efficiency of U.S. cars and light trucks of 40 percent by 2020. But even if they meet the law’s mandate, the fuel efficiency of the American car fleet will still lag far behind that of other major industrialized countries. According to the NY Times, European auto companies, for example, must average 40 miles per gallon and China requires a 35 m.p.g. standard. So the new legislation, even if passed, hardly makes us the world leaders in fuel economy. I therefore plan to be emailing & phoning my U.S. Senators & Representatives to let them know it’s CRITICAL that they pass this legislation, and I want to encourage everyone else here to do the same. It would help assure the Chevy Volt will be marketing success!
Guy Incognito Says:
December 1st, 2007 at 1:11 pm

The Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards were set at 25 mpg in 1985.
When its all said and done, it will have taken 35 years to raise the CAFE standards by 10 mpg.
This is a disgrace.
law Says:
December 1st, 2007 at 1:33 pm

I have a feeling that the CAFE MPG requirements will increase before we hit 2020. We might see 35 mpg CAFE in 2015 or sooner, just a guess. Let this legislation pass, it may become normal for a car company to surpass CAFE standards in order to get people to buy their cars, in the end the american people can help determine the fuel efficiency of the auto fleet by buying fuel efficient cars.
D.J. Says:
December 1st, 2007 at 2:27 pm

Corporate America at it’s finest. I’m ebarrassed to be an American. The auto industry can easily get better mileage than that in a much shorter time period. Simply pathetic.
AES Says:
December 1st, 2007 at 2:49 pm

Measuring MPG is going to become a really murky concept - how will miles per gallon equivalent (MPGE) be factored into the equation?

The other thing I wonder about (and this REALLY REALLY relates to the Volt) is this:

-If I am in a series hybrid, and I am stuck in traffic, and the APU/genset kicks in to recharge the battery, it will be turning at an elevated rate relative to the other cars sitting next to me. Except they will just be idling uselessly, while the gasoline/E85/diesel I’m burning into electrical energy will essentially be being “credited” for later use when traffic lightens up.

However, when traffic lightens up (after an hour or so), it will superficially appear as if I’ve burned 2+ gallons of fuel over the course of 1 mile of a traffic, or 0.5 mpg.

So how will this be addressed in the law? And importantly, how will it be addressed in emissions regulations/tests which mandate an emissions at idle test?
Dan Says:
December 1st, 2007 at 4:32 pm

Depending on how well the Volt does and how much battery technology improves this could be meaningless legislation. I don’t think regulations are a legitimate driver of innovation, the market is. The furthest the government should go with regards to fuel economy is raising gas taxes, subsidizing fuel efficient vehicles (the Volt in 2010) and taxing inefficient ones. The last two are already being done. Regulations are too easy to get way wrong and end up stifling innovation.
Phil Toney Says:
December 1st, 2007 at 4:59 pm

Re: Dan #7 - The Europeans figured out how to write MEANINGFUL legislation decades ago, which is why the average fuel economy in the EU is already 40 mpg. The single most effective measure that has brought down motorists’ fuel use in Europe is taxation. On the average, 60 percent of the price European drivers pay at the pump goes to their governments in taxes.

So if the U.S. also heavily taxed gasoline, our infrastructure crisis (aging bridges, roads, etc) would be an appropriate place to invest those tax revenues; and simple economics would accelerate the trend toward electrically-driven vehicles in the U.S.
Brian M Says:
December 1st, 2007 at 5:07 pm

Phil #7:

Did you read Dan’s comment? You’re both saying the same thing.
Grizzly Says:
December 1st, 2007 at 5:56 pm

I’ll say this. There has been a lot of talk on this board about a gas tax to increase fuel efficiency, which I think might be a mistake.

One good thing about CAFE is that if it stays rigid or increases, OPEC won’t be likely to kill electric cars by dropping the floor on crude.
Dave G Says:
December 1st, 2007 at 6:00 pm

Phil #8,

I agree totally.

One clarification: As Ronald Regan used to say “It’s not a gas tax, it’s a user fee”. Why use income taxes to pay for roads and bridges?

WRT CAFE, I don’t think it will work. World demand for oil is increasing too rapidly for this to be effective.

One thing that would work is if all new cars were E85 capable. Once a critical mass of people own E85 cars, competition will force gas station owners to sell it. Barak Obama has proposed a mandate that all new cars be E85 capable, and that the government pay the $100 per new car required to make this possible. I think this would work a lot faster than CAFE. In the end, the government expense of $100 per new car would probably be more than offset by the boost to the economy, and therefore additional tax revenue, that getting off oil would provide.

Of course, range extended EVs are the best way to kick the oil habit, since we don’t have to wait for an E85 infrastructure to proliferate. But at this point, I have no idea how the government could mandate the use of this type of vehicle.
canehdian Says:
December 1st, 2007 at 6:33 pm

AES, #6,
if your engine is running off of electricity and you’re stopped, it wont use any power (or verrrrrrrrrry little). The engine would only be on if you’re past the 40miles all-electric
or the radio/ac are on and sapping all the power
AES Says:
December 1st, 2007 at 7:43 pm

#11-Canuck

DUH I’m past the 40 mile range - that’s the entire premise of my question. Genset/APU has kicked in to recharge the battery cuz I’m at 30-40% SOC - but I’m stuck in traffic, with the electric motor stopped, but the gasoline engine howling away at 3000rpm on the generator. Obviously this is a very different fuel consumption situation than the person next to me idling in a Honda Civic, who’s consuming less gas than me at that moment in time - but all their gas is being completely wasted.

Similarly, the Volt’s emissions would higher - but it’s NOT a true “idle” versus the conventional car.

Clearly, the new types of hybrid cars and existing vehicle regulations are based on very different preconceptions.

For example: the Prius actually fails the Georgia emissions test because it shuts off at idle, and a technicality is invoked which makes it automatically fail.
Jimmy Says:
December 1st, 2007 at 7:51 pm

AES #12:

I could be wrong but I believe I read the Volt ICE only replenishes electricity used to run the car. If the car is not moving …no or very little electricity is being used so the ICE would not run. I don’t believe the ICE is intended to recharge the battery …only to provide power to the battery for real time usage. The battery gets recharged when you plug it in at home.

Please let me know if my facts are incorrect.

Thanks,

Jimmy
Grizzly Says:
December 1st, 2007 at 7:57 pm

AES,

I think I see what you’re saying, and agree that instantaneously it’s difficult to compute. You’re stopped at a light and the ICE is running but not totally wasted because it’s storing energy in the battery.

I’ve got to believe that this type of thing will be measured in a long cycle where there will be instances like this as well as others where the ICE is power the AC motor, and others where it’s operating as a BEV and over some std cycle they’ll be averaged. A little like a std OBDii cycle where it’s not measured over time but through a series of conditions.
AES Says:
December 1st, 2007 at 8:10 pm

Jimmy #13-

As I understand it, the role of the ICE is to provide AVERAGE power. If it were creating power on demand for the engine (cruise power AND acceleration power), it would have to vary its rpm and load accordingly. That would be horrible for its efficiency. Constant speed and load is best.

The ICE is supposed to provide around 70hp. Typically only 50hp is needed to sustain a car at 55mph cruising speed - which leaves an extra 20 to go into recharging the battery. You’d need that extra energy on reserve in case you need to accelerate or run hotel loads off the battery.
Jimmy Says:
December 1st, 2007 at 8:17 pm

Thanks for setting me straight. I have no idea how they would measure this situation. If it were me and I was just sitting there stuck in traffic …I would turn off the car.

Thanks again.
zivbnd Says:
December 1st, 2007 at 8:44 pm

AES, I think that Jimmy was right, mostly. You may have missed a few months ago when we were all asking this very question, and if you search for the graph on the battery charging, and if you read the comments from GM, apparently the battery goes from 80% to 30%, then the ICE turns on and off to maintain the 30% state of charge til you get home and plug it in for the cheaper electricity off the grid. So, yes, the ICE may be on when you idle, but it averages out because it has a good chance of being off when you are driving… I think I am agreeing with Grizzly.
The ICE doesn’t vary its RPM or load, it operates at peak efficiency, pops you up from 30% charge to 40% (est.), turns off, you drive 8 more miles, so your state of charge drops from 40% to 30%, it turns on, repeat…
kent beuchert Says:
December 1st, 2007 at 8:53 pm

CAFE will probably accomplish the same thing it did last time, which is to say, nothing. People who want large vehicles will simply buy used cars if new ones aren’t available, or simply not buy anything, and keep what they’ve got.
The only time carbuyers deserted the big iron in droves was during the gas crisis of the early 70’s. The current price of gasoline simply isn’t high enough to change
the behavior of enough people. The average driver probably buys about 800 gallons of gas per year @ 13,500 miles/17MPG. Add a buck to the price of gasoline and he’s only spending 800 dollars more a year, for a vehicle that often costs over $33,000.
AES Says:
December 1st, 2007 at 9:15 pm

ziv - I am WELL aware of the charging regimen, as it’s a conservative one intended to maximize battery life. It’s identical to the one on the EV1 turbine series hybrid. The only real difference between what you describe and what I did is that the genset only operates at 30-40%, instead continuing to charge past 40%. Either way, there is surplus power from a 70hp genset, and the genset cannot be allowed to be providing power on demand.

Grizzly, by contrast, seems to implied that the genset never charges the battery at all. So I think you and I are essentially in agreement.
Dave G Says:
December 1st, 2007 at 10:16 pm

AES,

The Volt ICE varies its RPMs to match the required load of the electric motor, as described here:
http://www.gm-volt.com/2007/08/29/latest-chevy-volt-battery-pack-and-generator-details-and-clarifications/
(read next to last paragraph).

So, when stopped in traffic, the ICE would either run at very low RPM or shut off.
zivbnd Says:
December 1st, 2007 at 10:23 pm

AES, there was a post earlier that seemed to say two different things, one in the graph and something entirely different in the text. Do you remember this one, because the graph is why I thought that the ICE would cycle between 30% and 40% (est.). But the text says something entirely different and to me, less logical.
http://www.gm-volt.com/2007/08/29/latest-chevy-volt-battery-pack-and-generator-details-and-clarifications/
If the ICE keeps charging the batteries past 40% or 35%, you are paying at a 50mpg rate, which is about 3-4 times as expensive as charging the car from the grid. I could understand the ICE charging the battery at a stoplight when the car next to it is idling, but why would you want to have the ICE charging the battery if you might be blocks from home and nearly free energy? Wouldn’t it be better to have the ICE cycle at its most efficient rpm to charge the battery in a series of short bursts? I am not being snide, I thought I understood what GM was doing, despite the two different ideas presented in the link above, but you seem to be taking it to another level and I am not sure I understand where you are going, i.e. ’surplus power from a 70 hp genset’. Will the battery overheat if it is forced to charge at a rate commensurate to a 70 hp ICE?
Just when I think I am getting a good feel for this system, I learn that I don’t know what I don’t know.
Dave G Says:
December 1st, 2007 at 10:36 pm

zivbnd,

Yes, If the 53Kw generator ran at full power the battery would be damaged by overheating, as described here:
http://www.gm-volt.com/2007/08/29/latest-chevy-volt-battery-pack-and-generator-details-and-clarifications/
(read 3rd to last paragraph).
Marty McFly Says:
December 2nd, 2007 at 12:06 am

The way I read the thread, there is no “idle”, only “on and “off”.

Assuming the battery has reached its’ 30% SOC threshold and the vehicle is stopped, there should be no power requirement for the battery to provide energy to the electric motor.

Therefore, there should be no power requirement for the ICE to provide energy to the generator.

You’re now in “off” mode (not idle) and get to save your 2 gallons of gas.

Only issue I see is the ICE starting up everytime you touch the pedal (while at the 30% SOC level).

I would like to hear more about the Volt’s “charge sustaining mode”.
Marty McFly Says:
December 2nd, 2007 at 12:23 am

Lyle, is this something new?

Post #24 (my post) appears to be censored:
___________________________________________
Marty McFly Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
___________________________________________

Kind of ironic - this happening in a politics thread.
james Says:
December 2nd, 2007 at 12:50 am

cafe is a joke (but better than nothing i guess), the only thing that will make greens work is if they are cheaper than oil, either by actual price or artificially.
anyone tracking a barrel of oil’s price lately?
opec sees the green (tech) handwriting on the wall, and will/is increase(ing) production until the pain threshold is hit.
however, the volt and nano solar, and companies like them, may have/will have moved that pain threshold down to about 30 or 40 bucks a barrel. i doubt (but maybe) if opec is willing to go that low.
Don Says:
December 2nd, 2007 at 12:56 am

I tried my google-fu to see what the current method for fuel economy testing is. This is what I could find. http://www.tc.gc.ca/programs/environment/fuelpgm/testing/menu.htm

“The Federal Test Procedure (FTP) is a standardized laboratory test method used in Canada and the United States for new vehicle testing. Selected pre-production prototypes of new vehicle models are driven by a trained driver in a laboratory on a dynamometer. The same test parameters and driving cycles are used to ensure that each vehicle is tested under identical conditions, and that the results are consistent and repeatable.

The FTP is composed of two tests; for fuel efficiency purposes they may be referred to as the city test and the highway test.

The city test simulates a 12-kilometre, stop-and-go trip with an average speed of 32 kph and a top speed of 91 kph. The test runs for 23 minutes and includes 18 stops. Approximately 4 minutes of test time are spent idling to represent waiting at traffic lights. This test begins from a cold engine start which is similar to starting a vehicle after it has been parked overnight. When the test is completed, the test cycle starts again with a hot engine start and the first 8 minutes of the test are repeated. This simulates restarting a vehicle after it has been warmed up, driven, and then stopped for a short time. It’s from a Canada site but states that as of its posting it was the same procedure in the United States. I know the US one has changed some but still …

The highway test simulates a 16-kilometre trip with an average speed of 77 kph and a top speed of 97 kph. The test runs for 13 minutes and does not include any stops, however, the speed varies to simulate different kinds of rural and highway roads. This test begins from a hot engine start.”

Also this - http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:OtTktAwsezIJ:cta.ornl.gov/data/tedb26/Spreadsheets/Table4_27.xls+ftp+fuel+test+cycle+method&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=60&gl=us&client=firefox-a

Such a method if let stand would give the Volt an infinity mpg rating! Clearly EREVs will have to be handled as special cases.
james Says:
December 2nd, 2007 at 12:56 am

24 marty, if we all used your flux capacitor car, we wouldn’t have these problems. : )

anyway marty, yep, big brother is everywhere!
AES Says:
December 2nd, 2007 at 1:56 am

Dave G-

That post about variable RPM seemed actually to be speculation instead of confirmed fact, and as I recall it actually sparked a bit of of a discussion. From an engineering POV, varying the RPM seems like it would be very inefficient, and defeat the entire point of the exercise.

Ziv- sorry for causing confusion - maybe this will prompt a Lyle email or phone call to GM for clarification though.

By “surplus power” I meant that 70 horsepower from the ICE is more than is needed to maintain the car at cruising speed. Lowering (or raising) the power output would cause it to be outside the engine’s “sweet spot” where it is the most energy efficient, so to me it would make more sense to use power from the generator to drive the wheels, and anything extra fills the battery up beyond 30%.

As far as never charging beyond 40%, I have no objection to that.

As far as charging the batteries at the ICE’s full power - the batteries could actually probably handle that JUST FINE. The A123 cells can be recharged in 15 minutes to begin with. Charging them beyond 80% capacity is a different issue - that might risk overcharging them and overheating them, and that is a legitimate concern.

Not to add more confusion, but I actually saw the Volt at the LA auto show last weekend, and GM’s people were actually talking about implementing a quick charge scheme off of the ICE or the grid. They said a quick charge would take up about 18-20 mins and 3/4 gallons of fuel.
AES Says:
December 2nd, 2007 at 2:02 am

Just checked the original post, and it seems like 53kW (70hp) would actually rarely be used, (unless under the aforementioned and apochryphal “quick charge”).

The engine’s job will be to maintain the battery at a SOC of 30%, and will do so by continuously matching the average power requirement of the car once it is turned on. Those energy requirements will roughly be about 8 kWh in the city, and 25 kWh on the highway.

So it’s a charge-sustaining operation at around 3000 rpm probably. Note the use of the phrase “average power requirement” which fits what I was describing earlier about the rpm staying constant.
Dave G Says:
December 2nd, 2007 at 7:29 am

AES,

I’m confused. We have word from GM in August that the gas engine is variable RPM. Do we have any other info from GM since then to contradict that?

As far as efficiency, I think a variable speed turbocharged Miller cycle gas engine would be very efficient, especially considering it only has to deliver average power. The real issue for me is that the Volt only uses gasoline when it absolutely has to. If the ICE starts charging the battery even 10% when I’m close to my driveway, then it’s wasting gas.
AES Says:
December 2nd, 2007 at 6:15 pm

Dave G-

I’m sure it will be variable to some degree, but that it won’t be changing speed every time you go up and down by 5mph.

I actually spoke to GM spokesperson today at the EVS symposium and couldn’t get a straight answer from her, other than that all the power is routed through the battery.

So I guess we’ll have to wait and see what the engineers come up with.

As I understand it, most series hybrids out there (buses, etc) are on strictly single-speed regimens.
Don Says:
December 2nd, 2007 at 9:30 pm

I had posted earlier the best source I could find on the current test cycle for fuel economy. Or in other words how they come up with those federal mpg ratings. In that post I noted that since it appeared that current test cycle method would give EREVs a mpg rating of infinity, that the method would no doubt be modified to consider real world use of EREVs and PHEVs.

Now there is this about an Argonne lab presentation this week- http://www.evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=16827&url=
with this to be presented:
“Test procedures and benchmarking: Blended-type and EV-capable plug-in hybrid electric vehicles” This out of the lab that is”the lead U.S. Department of Energy laboratory for modeling, simulation, benchmarking and testing for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles.”

“Each of the papers will be available at http://www.transporation.anl.gov shortly after they have been presented.”

In case anyone is interested.
Don Says:
December 2nd, 2007 at 9:40 pm

As to the discussion about the rpms of the ICE, please excuse this if it only reveals how much I am not an engineer, but could it be that once the SOC is 30% or less the engine turns on and stays on, revving at a speed required to meet the power needs of the last x period of time and readjusting to a new constant rpm every x amount of time? (As opposed to having a fixed rpm and being on for variable amounts of time.)

And AES, could you listen in to that Argonne presentation and give us the Cliff Notes please? If it fits your schedule that is. Thanks!
mykallb Says:
December 2nd, 2007 at 11:35 pm

I’ve got to believe that like many GM cars and their electrical systems, the Volt will run off the battery continuously, and replenish the aforementioned when necessary. How else would you feed the induction motor w/ “average power” and have instantaneous power on demand? Some complicated “switching” device?

This is where Li-ion pulls away from Nimh. These acceleration “spikes” will have much less effect on the potentially stable Li-ion than they would on Nimh.

A properly designed program will “anticipate” future needs and even supply the batt above 30% when the need anticipates “heavy” demand.

It’s important that the Volt be SW controlled. It was mentioned before, but essentially all problems could always be addressed with a simple “flash” of the firmware. There will no doubt be problems, especially with the aggressive release date, but with a SW system by no means will they be either necessarily “expensive” or “permanent”.

M.
RB Says:
December 3rd, 2007 at 7:20 am

#6 said

“Measuring MPG is going to become a really murky concept - how will miles per gallon equivalent (MPGE) be factored into the equation?”

MPG may be hard to figure out for a particular vehicle, especially over a short interval, for the reasons given. However, for GM or some other company the bedrock concept is clear enough: MPG is total miles traveled (of the cars sold) divided by total gallons used (by the cars sold). Determining a numerical value requires some estimates but is no more elusive than what is done now, and maybe less so.
noel park Says:
December 3rd, 2007 at 1:19 pm

Marty McFly, #25:

I noticed the same thing.

Lyle:

What’s that? Just curious. I checked back and it seemed that my comments went up all right, so no problem, but it did seem strange.
Don Says:
December 3rd, 2007 at 9:58 pm

Working link to the Argonne papers - http://www.transportation.anl.gov/media_center/evs23_papers.html

The papers themselves are pdfs. Maybe someone like AES can explain it better to me, but it seems that the methods are still a work in progress. This is what I can figure out from it anyway. They are very aware of the issue of variable mpg based on mileage traveled:

“The caution from EPA that ‘your mileage may vary’ takes on a whole new meaning if your driving style and especially your daily driving distances can change your fuel economy by a factor of 2-3. The changes are remarkably distorted when a range-extender PHEV is considered. Consider the specifications of the GM Volt concept PHEV; your mileage may vary – from 50 MPG (driving long distances, or you forgot to charge) to infinity (no fuel consumed makes an undefined MPG level).”

Their method seems to be to use a “mileage weighted probability curve” which they also refer to as a “utility factor (UF)” to determine for fleet wide use what percent of travel is actually in charge depleting mode (all EV in the case of the Volt) vs in charge sustaining mode, and weight those together.

So if I understand this right (and please help me AES or anyone else better at this my now aching brain is!) then the Volt’s EPA MPG for CAFE purposes would be something like this according to their example curve: the percent of the fleet’s time in EV only times the zero plus the percent spent in charge-depleting time the gallons used per mile which is 1/50 or 0.02:
(0.60*0g/m + .40*0.02g/m)/1 = 0.008g/m = 125mpg rating. (That’s if I read that curve right as meaning that they believe that 60% of daily driving would be under 40 miles range and 40% over that. I wonder if I got that wrong though as I thought a much greater percent was under 40 miles/day … again help from those with better minds for this than mine would be appreciated.)
AES Says:
December 3rd, 2007 at 10:42 pm

I’m still looking over the documents from Argonne. It’s a lot…

Nonetheless, my observation so far is that converting EV mode and hybrid mode into mpge ratings just isn’t done (yet).

For example, in evaluating performance of PHEVs, there’s this document:

http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/HV/399.pdf

They analyzed plug-in conversions, and they looked at electricity consumption and gasoline consumption as totally separate quantities. Almost like a two-part efficiency rating. Google.org does the same thing for their plug-in initiative.

However, there’s more to this than mpg. Emissions control is also important.

The emissions of the plug-in Priuses actually went UP versus the production version. This was because the engine was doing lots of starts/stops and under more infrequent conditions, due to the increased use of the electric motor. As a result, the catalytic converter could never warm up properly, and it couldn’t control the emissions as normal.

They did look at a quasi-series PHEV from Renault - the only test subject that wasn’t based a parallel hybrid architecture. I say quasi because the ICE couldn’t sustain the battery at a certain SOC -it just made it drain more slowly. But I got the sense that they ignored emissions on the Renault because it was a Euro city car platform that would never come to the US anyway.

I think looking at emissions of a series hybrid plug-in vs parallel plug-in would be very interesting. If the series’ engine is subjected to fewer start/stops, and is on for a more sustained duration, its emissions might be superior to the parallel.

Just my two cents. let me know what you think.
Don Says:
December 4th, 2007 at 8:08 am

I’m particularly needing your help with section 4.3 (p 8 of the pdf) of the “Testing and Benchmarks” article … its the last in the list. Am I interpreting their MWP curve correctly? Does that indeed say that at an all electric range (AER) of 40 that only 60% of all mileage traveled would be considered in electric mode? I though that it was much higher of a percent than that. That’s the number I used to come up with the 125 mpg rating. If the real number is higher then the mpg rating is much higher too.

Also, does their PHEVx range rating explain how Ford is using the term “equivalent electric range” for their being tested JCI-Saft PHEV?

As to emissions: They are at least aware of the challenges and are considering testing separately in each mode. I think that you are right - a PHEV with a prolonged AER (like the EREV Volt) would do better on overall emissions than a PHEV with a blended cycle.

U.S. House of Representatives Reach Compromise on Energy Bill

40 Responses to “U.S. House of Representatives Reach Compromise on Energy Bill”

Leave a Reply

Recent Posts