Petition Federal Trade Commission for EPA Range Only

[TonyWilliams]

I would like to begin a campaign to petition the FTC to make a rule change to only allow manufacturers and dealers to use EPA range only in their advertising and verbal "promises" of range for electric vehicles.

I would advice that we foster support within our own community (Plug In America, Electric Auto Assc, Tesla drivers, etc.).



Federal Trade Commission
Office of the Secretary, Room H–113 (Annex N)
600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20580

(202) 326–2889


http://www.ftc.gov/os/fedreg/2011/05/110524altfuelsrule.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct 92 or Act)

1 established federal programs that encourage the development of alternative fuels and alternative fueled vehicles (AFVs). Section 406(a) of the Act directed the Commission to establish uniform labeling requirements for alternative fuels and AFVs. Under the Act, such labels should provide ‘‘appropriate information with respect to costs and benefits [of alternative fuels and AFVs], so as to reasonably enable the consumer to make choices and comparisons.’’

2 In addition, the required labels must be ‘‘simple and, where appropriate, consolidated with other labels providing information to the consumer.’’

3 In response to EPAct 92, the Commission published the Alternative Fuels Rule in 1995, addressing both alternative fuels and AFVs.

4 The Rule requires labels on fuel dispensers for non-liquid alternative fuels, such as electricity, compressed natural gas, and hydrogen.

5 The labels for electricity provide the dispensing system’s kilowatt capacity, voltage, and other related information. The labels for other non-liquid fuels disclose the fuel’s commonly used name and principal component (expressed as a percentage).

The Rule also requires labels on new and used AFVs that run on... electricity. The labels for new AFVs disclose the vehicle’s estimated cruising range (i.e., the travel distance on a single charge or tank of fuel), general factors consumers should consider before buying an AFV, and toll free telephone numbers and Web sites for additional information from the Department of Energy (DOE) and NHTSA.

Comments should also address whether vehicle specific information (e.g., cruising range) is appropriate for used AFV labels. For example, will an electric vehicle’s original cruising range estimate, as determined by the manufacturer, remain valid when the vehicle is later sold in the used market?

IV. General Questions for Comment
In addition to the specific issues discussed in Section II, the Commission solicits comment on the following questions related to the Rule:
(1) Is there a continuing need for the Rule as currently promulgated? Why or why not?
(2) What benefits has the Rule provided to consumers? What evidence supports the asserted benefits?
(3) What modifications, if any, should the Commission make to the Rule to increase its benefits to consumers?
(a) What evidence supports your proposed modifications?
(b) How would these modifications affect the costs and benefits of the Rule for consumers?
(c) How would these modifications affect the costs and benefits of the Rule for businesses, particularly small businesses?
(4) What impact, if any, has the Rule had on the flow of appropriate information to consumers about alternative fuels and AFVs?
(5) What significant costs has the Rule imposed on consumers? What evidence supports the asserted costs?
(6) What modifications, if any, should be made to the Rule to reduce the costs imposed on consumers?
(a) What evidence supports your proposed modifications?
(b) How would these modifications affect the costs and benefits of the Rule for consumers?
(c) How would these modifications affect the costs and benefits of the Rule for businesses, particularly small businesses?
(7) Please provide any evidence that has become available since 2005 concerning consumer perception of AFV and non-liquid alternative fuel labeling. Does this new information indicate that the Rule should be modified? If so, why, and how? If not, why not?
(8) Please provide any evidence that has become available since 2005 concerning consumer interest in alternative fuel and AFV labeling. Does this new information indicate that the Rule should be modified? If so, why, and how? If not, why not?
(9) What benefits, if any, has the Rule provided to businesses, and in particular to small businesses? What evidence supports the asserted benefits
(10) What modifications, if any, should be made to the Rule to increase its benefits to businesses, and particularly to small businesses?
(a) What evidence supports your proposed modifications?
(b) How would these modifications affect the costs and benefits of the Rule for consumers?
(c) How would these modifications affect the costs and benefits of the Rule for businesses?
(11) What significant costs, including costs of compliance, has the Rule imposed on businesses, particularly small businesses? What evidence supports the asserted costs?
(12) What modifications, if any, should be made to the Rule to reduce the costs imposed on businesses, particularly on small businesses?
(a) What evidence supports your proposed modifications?
(b) How would these modifications affect the costs and benefits of the Rule for consumers?
(c) How would these modifications affect the costs and benefits of the Rule for businesses?
(13) What evidence is available concerning the degree of industry compliance with the Rule? Does this evidence indicate that the Rule should be modified? If so, why, and how? If not, why not?
(14) Are any of the Rule’s requirements no longer needed? If so, explain. Please provide supporting evidence.
(15) What modifications, if any, should be made to the Rule to account for changes in relevant technology, including development of new alternative fuels, or economic conditions?
(a) What evidence supports the proposed modifications?
(b) How would these modifications affect the costs and benefits of the Rule for consumers and businesses, particularly small businesses?
(16) Does the Rule overlap or conflict with other federal, state, or local laws or regulations? If so, how?
(a) What evidence supports the asserted conflicts?
(b) With reference to the asserted conflicts, should the Rule be modified? If so, why, and how? If not, why not?
(c) Is there evidence concerning whether the Rule has assisted in promoting national uniformity with respect to the rating, certifying, and posting the rating of non-liquid alternative fuels and AFV labeling? If so, please provide that evidence.
(17) Are there foreign or international laws, regulations, or standards with respect to the rating, certifying, and posting the rating of non-liquid alternative fuels and AFV labeling that the Commission should consider as it reviews the Rule? If so, what are they?
(a) Should the Rule be modified to harmonize with these foreign or international laws, regulations, or standards? If so, why, and how? If not, why not?
(b) How would such harmonization affect the costs and benefits of the Rule for consumers and businesses, particularly small businesses?

 

[KJD]

I agree Nissan should stick to the EPA numbers on the window of the car in all publications.
The range of a Nissan Leaf is 73 miles NOT 100 miles as claimed.

 

[TonyWilliams]

I agree Nissan should stick to the EPA numbers on the window of the car in all publications.
The range of a Nissan Leaf is 73 miles NOT 100 miles as claimed.

Great. Most agree. What are we going to do, proactively, to fix that?

 

[GeekEV]

Agreed.

At least give more comprehensive calculators on the website like Tesla does. You can choose driving type, desired speed, ambient temp, climate control usage, and car model. There's even little buttons around the car for changing wheel size, windows up or down and lights on or off. It's very cool, try them out: http://www.teslamotors.com/goelectric#range" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[abasile]

I agree that it's better to advertise 73 miles than 100 miles. However, as with efficiency (MPG and MPGe) ratings, one single number doesn't really provide the full picture. I'd rather see EV range ratings expressed as City/Highway/Combined. IIRC, the LEAF's MPGe, expressed this way, is 106/92/99. The range might be something like 86/68/73 (just a wild guess).

 

[TonyWilliams]

This is my second go around trying to drum up support for this idea. Yes, a city and highway range sounds great, and a projected range in XX years.

At the risk of over complication, a "worst case" in cold weather in XX years.

 

[ydnas7]

I would like to begin a campaign to petition the FTC to make a rule change to only allow manufacturers and dealers to use EPA range only in their advertising and verbal "promises" of range for electric vehicles.

This has severe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; untended consequences.

Firstly it would become illegal for a company like Tesla to provide range estimates like the following, http://www.teslamotors.com/goelectric#roadtrips" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; particularly since their online presence is their store.

It would probably even be illegal for Elon Musk to explain range as per this blog post http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/model-s-efficiency-and-range" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Nissan would be prohibited from supplying explanatory information like http://www.nissanusa.com/leaf-electric-car/range" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Essentially it would be a 'chilling effect' on disclosure from EV companies.

But the worst part is slow down in innovation that forcing EV manufacturers to predict for outliers in battery fade. At best, battery fade is a complex interaction of rate, temperature and SOC. Thats battery technology, and Nissan has (ironically) the most experience with EV batteries, yet they still got Phoenix wrong. There are 2 more cathode chemistry jumps required, the last of which (Envia type oxygen release cathodes http://www.npc.org/FTF_Topic_papers/17-Advanced_Batteries.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ) is only very early. Any definitive outliers will not be known and delaying for those delays the entire market.

GM Volt's battery is an example of why this is a bad idea, GM Volt's battery costs approx. as much as a LEAF battery but only is allowed to provide half the range of a LEAF battery.

 

[mkjayakumar]

Just because it is complex doesn't mean you get a license to lie..

 

[Smidge204]

Just because it is complex doesn't mean you get a license to lie..

It's not a lie, that's the point.

For example, Nissan originally said, in some of their documentation, that you could get over 100 miles per charge given certain, relatively ideal conditions. Guess what? Many people have managed 100+ miles under good conditions!

The problem is twofold, IMHO: One that the EPA rating, and how it is calculated, is misunderstood by the public. Two that the factors that influence EV range are also misunderstood by the public.

Should EV manufacturers be more prudent/cautious/pessimistic in their marketing? Absolutely. But I don't think it's inherently dishonest to claim that your vehicle can drive X miles on a single charge when it absolutely can achieve that range under the appropriate conditions, providing those conditions are clearly stated as well.

Maybe the petition should be to make EV manufacturers be clearer about the details of their range claims, because the EPA range is just as opaque to the average consumer as anything else. Replacing one opaque range claim with another opaque range claim does not address the underlying issue.
=Smidge=

 

[surfingslovak]

But I don't think it's inherently dishonest to claim that your vehicle can drive X miles on a single charge when it absolutely can achieve that range under the appropriate conditions, providing those conditions are clearly stated as well.

Yes, absolutely. The problem with the LA4 cycle is that it's just not unrealistic for most drivers here in US. There are Nissan specialists on record misstating the parameters of this test, and suggesting that the average speed is more than double of what it actually is (19.6 mph). There are clearly people at Nissan, who themselves don't know what LA4 really implies. How can you expect the average buyer to do better?

Maybe the petition should be to make EV manufacturers be clearer about the details of their range claims, because the EPA range is just as opaque to the average consumer as anything else. Replacing one opaque range claim with another opaque range claim does not address the underlying issue.
=Smidge=

The thing is, the average consumer doesn't care. They just need a number that they can rely on, and possibly exceed. It's unfortunate that given the freedom the current arrangement affords, many, if not all, automakers resorted to making some fantastic range claims. That's understandable, since it helps to sell cars. But that's just not fair to consumers. The EPA numbers are no panacea, but it's a framework many are used to, and it has worked reasonably well as standard industry practice for non-EVs.

 

[davewill]

It's not a lie, that's the point. ...

It is a lie. Absolutely. We've heard time and again "100 miles on average". Being a lie of omission doesn't make it any less a lie. Gasoline car makers aren't allowed to cherry pick numbers for advertising gasoline car mileage and EV car makers shouldn't be allowed to either. Tony, do you know who we have to write to?

 

[Herm]

GM Volt's battery is an example of why this is a bad idea, GM Volt's battery costs approx. as much as a LEAF battery but only is allowed to provide half the range of a LEAF battery.

Note that GM has to warrant that battery for 10 years.. I think the whole topic is stupid, you cant legislate stupidity away

 

[davewill]

... I think the whole topic is stupid, you cant legislate stupidity away

Just who's stupidity are you talking about, Herm? The "stupid" people who relied on Nissan's 100 mile claim?

 

[Smidge204]

It's not a lie, that's the point. ...

It is a lie. Absolutely. We've heard time and again "100 miles on average". Being a lie of omission doesn't make it any less a lie.

Are there official in-print claims for "100 miles on average" ? Honest question 'cause I've never seen any. Plenty of anecdotes about individuals (dealers, personnel at shows/conventions) saying that, or words to that effect, but I've never seen it in print.

Also, you not reading the fine print doesn't make it a lie of omission. At least back when they had that flash-based LEAF site, they gave at least three range scenarios explaining various travel conditions and how it impacted range. That was in print, at least.
=Smidge=

 

[mkjayakumar]

Guess what? Many people have managed 100+ miles under good conditions!

Why stop at 100? Why not make it as:

"Leaf can do 150 miles on a single charge under special conditions(*)"

* under a slight incline with a 40moh tail wind and driving at a steady 20 mph

It is still not a lie.

 

[surfingslovak]

Are there official in-print claims for "100 miles on average"

Fair enough, I will try to collect the most notorious references when I get more time this weekend. Aside from that, Nissan is advertising the LEAF with the same battery and the same driving characteristics in other markets, such Japan and Europe, with more than 100 miles of range. And that's in print, I believe. This is a very technical board, which is not representative of the entire population, and yet I'd bet that many here purchased the LEAF thinking they could get 100 miles of range, or something close to it, in their everyday driving.

It would be better to set different and more realistic expectations. I guarantee you that many, if not all, owners will feel sufficiently motivated to get as much range out of the vehicle as possible. They will all work hard to make it work, but unfortunately most of this learning process will happen after the purchase. I think everyone would be better served if buyers in the US did not get a LEAF thinking that they can drive 100 miles on a single charge as a matter of fact. Obviously, Nissan could make that happen tomorrow, but based on recent reports, it looks like they are in no hurry to educate everyone, who needs to know the true capabilities of these cars, which includes their own sales personnel.

 

[TonyWilliams]

Guess what? Many people have managed 100+ miles under good conditions!

Why stop at 100? Why not make it as:

"Leaf can do 150 miles on a single charge under special conditions(*)"

* under a slight incline with a 40moh tail wind and driving at a steady 20 mph

It is still not a lie.

Neither is blasting a LEAF outside the gravity of Earth and claiming 8 billion mile range***

*** requires optional rocket launching "range extender" at extra cost. Your mileage may vary. See dealers for details. Not valid on Mars or Neptune.

 

[TonyWilliams]

I'd bet that many here purchased the LEAF thinking they could get 100 miles of range, or something close to it, in their everyday driving.

I'm one of those. My very first interaction with LEAF was a Nissan google advertisement that claimed 100 mile range.

I specifically remember thinking, "we'll, this is from Nissan, so they won't make up some **** just to sell a car" and I starting planning how it could be driving 90 miles each way (all freeway) and save beau coup bucks.

I specifically remember saying, "If Nissan says 100 miles, it probably means 100 minimum." Needless to say, my ignorance lead me to this site that really didn't counter that thought. Heck, it had a 24kWh battery at just a bit over 4 miles/kWh that is SOOOOooooo easy to do; yes 100 miles guaranteed. Naturally, nobody had actually driven one that far (then), unless it was the news media who "easily" drove 115 miles in their preproduction car.

That was us here, we super nerds, with these conversations. Gawd help Joe SixPack to figure it out.

 

[TonyWilliams]

Tony, do you know who we have to write to?

All the contact info is in the first post.

 

[TonyWilliams]

I would like to begin a campaign to petition the FTC to make a rule change to only allow manufacturers and dealers to use EPA range only in their advertising and verbal "promises" of range for electric vehicles.

This has severe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; untended consequences.

Firstly it would become illegal for a company like Tesla to provide range estimates...

First, I don't follow the "cover the truth for the good of all" line of thinking (that frequently comes up, particularly with the "old guard" EV advocates).

Second, if somebody specified the parameters, like when Tesla says 300 miles at 55mph steady speed with no heater, etc... Ok, as long as its expressed that way.

I'm really talking about the lies; the LEAF doesn't go "100 miles on average" or just "100 miles".