California ARB holding hearing on adopting amendments to LEV III to support compliance options using new Federal GHG regulations
EPA sets bio-based diesel volumes for 2013 at 1.28B gallons

DOE seeking public comments on EV Everywhere Initial Framing Document

The US Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy is requesting public comment on its recently published EV Everywhere Initial Framing Document. (Earlier post.) Public comments on this proposed framing document must be received on or before 29 October 2012.

The EV Everywhere Grand Challenge—announced by President Obama in March—is a DOE “Clean Energy Grand Challenge” with the goal of enabling US companies to be the first in the world to produce plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs) that are as affordable and convenient for the average American family as today's gasoline-powered vehicles within the next 10 years.

The EV Everywhere Initial Framing Document was developed as a principal means of facilitating stakeholder engagement in the planning process. The framing document describes three potential combinations of PEVs and charging infrastructures, among other possible scenarios, and identifies preliminary technical targets for each of these vehicle and infrastructure scenarios. The three potential vehicle/infrastructure scenarios that might achieve the EV Everywhere goals are:

  • A plug-in hybrid electric vehicle with a 40-mile all-electric range (PHEV-40) with limited fast-charge infrastructure;

  • An all-electric vehicle with a 100-mile range (AEV-100) with significant intra-city and inter-city fast charge infrastructure; and

  • An all-electric vehicle with a 300-mile range (AEV-300) with significant inter-city fast charge infrastructure.

The framing document is intended to serve as the common framework for stakeholder engagement through public information exchanges and public comment. Questions on which DOE is seeking comment include:

  • EV Everywhere Mission and Scope. Is the mission statement, “to enable U.S. companies to be the first in the world to produce plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs) that are as affordable and convenient for the average American family as today's gasoline-powered vehicles within the next 10 years” appropriate for the technology development and deployment programs of the Department? Is the goal of developing “PEVs with a payback time of less than 5 years and sufficient range and fast-charging ability to allow the average American family to meet their daily transportation needs” appropriate? Is a payback time of less than 5 years the right measure of affordability or is there a more appropriate metric? Should the scope be limited to “PEVs in which the majority of miles driven are electric” or should the goal be “to maximize the national total of electric vehicle miles driven”?

  • Plug-in Electric Vehicle Scenarios. Has DOE correctly identified and structured these three scenarios? Are there other scenarios that are more appropriate?

  • US Plug-in Electric Vehicle Leadership. How can DOE activities best support leadership in plug-in electric vehicle innovation? In PEV manufacturing? In PEV deployment? How do we balance international competitiveness against international cooperation?

  • Program Definition and Management. What principles should DOE follow for allocating resources among technologies of disparate maturity and potential time to impact? How many technology options should the Department pursue, and how should the value of that diversity be weighed against timeliness, scale, and cost- effectiveness? How can DOE be more effective at each stage of the innovation chain? Are technology targets (e.g., cost or deployment targets) useful markers to orient and structure DOE activities?

  • Public/Private Partnership. What are the optimal roles for the private sector, government laboratories, and academia in accelerating PEV technology innovation? How can DOE best coordinate activities between and among these types of organizations (including the wide variety of institutions within each class)? How should we gauge the effectiveness of this coordination? How can the basic research and applied research and development coupling be optimized? Are there examples in other sectors or other countries that can serve as models? Are “technology user facilities” analogous to the Department's scientific user facilities possible, or even desirable? If so, what would be the most effective model for their operation? How can the Department best gather technology market information? How can information on private sector innovation be captured without compromising competitive advantage?

  • Non-Technical Barriers. A number of non-technical barriers—including Federal, State, and local regulations, market risks, and non-technical risks—impact the rate of deployment of PEV technologies. What role, if any, should the Department have in addressing these barriers?

The initial framing document describes each of the three scenarios in greater detail, and highlights several technologies that could contribute to success in each strategy. DOE welcomes updated technology, cost, and forecast data.




This site has many knowledgeable public comments. Example, until battery prices fall further, maybe shorter electric range goals would work.

They want author(pen name?) details and comments as an attachment - perhaps just copying the email text as a attached file.


I am concerned that with the record of picking losers, that they do not realize that “the goal [should NOT] be 'to maximize the national total of electric vehicle miles driven'?”. But it should be to minimize gas usage or even more generally applied to the root problem.

We should not have the gov any deeper in the details than necessary.

But it is obvious that the root cause is viewed as our ability to make our own decisions.

Success is apparently to be found by micro managing the people much closer than the USSR and Cuba were able to.

“The people often make poor decisions, let the gov do this for them, at almost 100% effectiveness.”


Please don't vote either..

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)