It should be noted that conclusions offered here are based primarily on responses
provided by participants in the EV reference guide questionnaire coupled with reasonable
additional diligence in terms of companion research and follow on communications with
participants and other relevant parties where appropriate. It should also be noted that the
entire reference guide including this section has been progressively refined through the
draft review process with EVE leadership and members.
4.1. High Activity Areas
Figure 27
Activity chart, overall level of electrified vehicle requirements
65. Figure 27 provides an overview of the overall level of activity by attribute, for
electrified vehicle requirements. This chart and the ones that follow (Figures 28-31) employ
a simple scoring system where responses of no requirements are assigned a numerical value
of 0, voluntary requirements are assigned a value of 1, and legislated requirements are
assigned a value of 2. There is no scoring difference between requirements that already
exist and that are being developed. For Figure 27, the total for each category has been
divided by the number of attributes in that category, providing a representative average
value for each category. In general the presence of requirements in the surveyed countries
was high with respect to vehicle-level attributes, with the exception of driver-user
information which was largely absent across the countries (China and Japan are the
exceptions). This is illustrated in Figure 28.
ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2014/81
32
Figure 28
Activity chart, vehicle attributes
4.2. Low Activity Areas
67. In general, requirements pertaining to battery-level attributes were low on the
activity spectrum (Figure 27). Figure 30 illustrates the activity level of each subattribute.
Battery re-use in particular is at present largely without any requirements whatsoever. The
exception is China which is said to be in the process of formulating appropriate standards
relating to battery post-mobility use.
ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2014/81
33
Figure 30
Activity chart, battery attributes
68. Battery durability is somewhat unaddressed by present standards, the exceptions
being China and partial coverage (HEVs) by US and Canadian laws. The activity level is
expected to increase globally. These requirements may not only address battery lifecycle
determination, but also the impact of partially deteriorated batteries on CO 2 emissions / fuel
economy.
69. Battery recycling is partially addressed, but through largely country-specific
protocols and with, therefore, little standardization from a global perspective. These
requirements are also generally non-battery-specific and tend to take the form of general
end-of-life vehicle recycling guidelines. The exception is the EC which stipulates battery-
specific requirements pertaining to permissible quantities of hazardous materials as well as
specific required recycling procedures.
70. Battery performance is partially addressed, and by a range of largely voluntary
standards established by international organizations (ISO, IEC) and other organizations
such as SAE. Thus, there is lack of standardization in regards to the required procedures
and hence outcome of battery performance testing.
71. Infrastructure attributes are also generally low in terms of their level of activity
(Figure 27), and tend to be dominated by voluntary standards. Figure 31 illustrates the
activity level of each subattribute. A number of these attributes such as off-board charging,
wireless charging, and vehicle as an electricity supply can be regarded as developing topics
in the EV domain. Given this, despite the relatively low score, requirements to properly
address these attributes are being actively and methodically pursued, in most cases through
international standards (ISO, IEC) and through the efforts of other organizations like SAE.
Figure 31
Activity chart, infrastructure attributes
ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2014/81
34
4.3. Gaps and Implications of the Analysis
4.3.1. Vehicle Attributes
72. Vehicle-level attributes despite their high global activity level, do feature some gaps.
The fact that vehicle-level attributes such as range and energy efficiency are among key
consumer buying criteria highlights the need for uniformity in their determination. Further,
against a backdrop of increasing globalization and a largely international market for import
and export of vehicles, it is essential that this uniformity be as global in nature as possible,
so that consumers can expect some reasonable degree of commonality in critical vehicle
performance attributes both across vehicle concepts and worldwide. Energy efficiency and
range are also critical input parameters to other key events such as CO 2 /fuel economy
standards compliance determination, new vehicle type approvals, and vehicle labelling
(principal method for consumer gathering of purchasing information mentioned
previously). Vehicle range and fuel economy is generally determined in accordance to SAE
procedures in the Republic of Korea and the USA. European Union member states employ
procedures stipulated in current UN-R101, with India borrowing key aspects of the
regulation in its own procedure. Japan and China specify their own procedures. The
challenge here is lack of global uniformity in regards to drive cycle and test procedures for
determination of key vehicle performance criteria. This disconnect was identified by the
UNECE and is the subject of Phase 1 of a GTR being developed under the framework of
WLTP working group. The latter features the development of a so-called Worldwide
Harmonized Light Duty Test Cycle (WLTC). Besides uniformity in the drive cycle itself,
standardization of test procedures is critical. One key aspect of this is ambient temperature
which has been shown to significantly impact range and efficiency of electrified vehicles.
Phase 2 of the GTR is expected to include provisions to address the impact of both low
ambient temperatures as well as high altitude conditions on range and energy efficiency;
however, the workplan for WLTP Phase 2 is still under development and will likely start in
2015/16. A gap still exists in accounting for the use of accessories, in particular air
conditioning, cabin heating, and vehicle exterior lighting. The L-EPPR is also working on
supplementing GTR No. 2 with energy efficiency requirements. There are currently a range
of practices concerning the operation of these auxiliary systems. For instance, the Republic
of Korea requires the heater to be operated at its maximum setting during cold testing, and
US standards capture A/C operation by default through its 5-cycle testing procedure.
Besides these differences, there is also a general lack of provisions corresponding to
advanced thermal management systems such as heat pumps or infra-red heating. The
efficiency impact of such comfort systems compared to resistive heating may influence
vehicle range and efficiency substantially. Active battery management systems employed
by different original equipment manufacturers or battery pack manufacturers as well as
driver selectable operating modes (sport, eco etc.) are also aspects that are generally not yet
fully addressed. Vehicle labelling, while widely practiced globally (high activity),
sometimes excludes electrified vehicles (the Republic of Korea, USA and EU are the
exceptions) representing another significant gap.
4.3.2. Battery Attributes
73. Battery performance determination is largely non-standard, with a mix of voluntary
standards (IEC, ISO, SAE, USABC) and some country-specific ones existing or in
development (China, Japan). Considering that battery performance is a crucial factor
effecting CO 2 emissions, fuel economy, range, and therefore the ultimate value proposition
of an electrified vehicle to a customer, this disparity in requirements represents a gap. The
battery is also the most expensive component in an EV which adds emphasis to the
importance of accurately determining its performance.
ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2014/81
35
74. Battery recycling by virtue of its widely differing requirements globally can be
considered to be gapped as well. Overall there are a limited number of requirements
relating to battery recycling globally at the present time.
75. Battery re-use post mobility represents a wide gap that will be challenging to govern
given the highly variable nature of battery wear and inherent differences in chemistry,
construction, and power management. Given that batteries dominate the cost of electrified
vehicles and are typically deemed unusable from a mobility standpoint after degrading to
between 70 and 80 per cent of fully-chargeable capacity, there is a compelling reason to
take a serious look at re-using these batteries in other applications. In order to ensure the
success of battery re-use, guidelines and regulations that govern the implementation, as
well as ensure the reliability durability of such systems are crucial. This is likely to be
challenging given that used batteries can be subject to a wide range of usage behaviors that
can in turn influence the consistency of their performance over time. There may also be a
need for additional regulation/legislation in this field to prevent misuse or abuse of
rechargeable batteries offered for second use. In addition, the question of the application of
the extended producer responsibility is raised in the case of the end of life management of
these batteries after their second use.
4.3.3. Infrastructure Attributes
76. Infrastructure attributes are generally on the path towards well specified, thorough
requirements. This effort is being led by a roadmap of ISO/IEC standards that govern the
system interface and communication protocols, and a generally well harmonized set of
standards that govern the charging and coupling interface. The gap here is one that is
temporary, and progressively closing.
4.3.4. Market Deployment Attributes
77. There are no gaps that exist in the context of regulatory incentives.
