Yeah ... so? I've said many times it's not a perfect correlation, but it's the only tool people have to compare apples to oranges. I knew you would put the "political injection to influence an outcome" spin on it due to the high level of conspiracy mindset.As always, let me point out all the errors and even give you a link
First, these metrics were made by BUREAUCRATS for POLITICS- not be engineers for technical use so any "testing and correlation" has to be reviewed to see what else is in there ( which you have not done)
They are "doing it right" FOR THE INTENDED PURPOSE (I grant you that but that purpose is NOT a legitimate equal comparison)
Now ( from the link) lets "look into it"
The unit of energy consumed is 33.7 Kilowatt hours without regard to the efficiency of conversion of heat energy into electrical energy, also measured in Kilowatt hours. The equivalence of this unit to energy in a gallon of gasoline is true if and only if the heat engine, generating equipment, and power delivery to the car battery are 100% efficient. Actual heat engines differ vastly from this assumption.
There's the first clue- the basis of comparison itself is fatally flawed. There's more
Fuel economy for CAFE purposes include an incentive adjustment for alternative fuel vehicles and plug-in electric vehicles which results in higher MPGe than those estimated for window stickers
Gee, an incentive adjustment- how "scientific"
The formula also includes a "fuel content factor" of 1/0.15 (about 6.667) to benefit electric vehicles, raising the value from 12,307 to 82,049 Wh/gal. This reward factor is intended provide an incentive for vehicle manufactures to produce and sell electric vehicles, as a higher equivalent fuel economy for EVs improves the carmaker overall fleet fuel economy levels in complying with the CAFE standards, and Congress anticipated that such an incentive would help accelerate the commercialization of electric vehicles.
Gee, a political injection to influence an outcome- That's real good hard "science"
Now let me roll up the long part about how the comparison is built ( long read)
The end computation results in MPG unit and is directly comparable to a standard internal combustion engine vehicles fuel costs for its rated MPG.
The entire "correlation" is built around "fuzzy logic" and tests with numerous uncontrolled variables leading to a COST comparison of the fuel.
When you drill down into the bas metrics, consider the points listed above.
They take a lab formula and break it down to joules ( the atomic level) then skew the data and calculation like this "dual" correlation
For EPA, this considers the tank-to-wheel for liquids and wall-to-wheel energy consumption for electricity
2 different scales and models ( each with a ton of uncontrolled variables)
And its all done in BTU ( where its stated up front its an impossible correlation)
I could go on for another hundred points but I have made my point and done it using the actual metrics.
And yes, the correlation could be better by not assuming EVs are 100% efficient in converting electrical energy into motion. But it is what it is, and frankly I doubt many people even really care much about the MPGe value on the window sticker and look at charging time, mi/kwh and total range, as well as the total cost of operating an EV vs an equivalently sized and used gasoline powered vehicle.