#50: RCB Correction:
ACEA provided a new proposal (WLTP-SG-EV-06-11) to obtain RCB correction coefficient of CS with warm condition and this is applicable for vehicles in the same family. WLTP IWG feedback was in general positive; the proposal provides a good balance between accuracy and testing burden. JPN will review this proposal and will respond before WLTP IWG meeting #9. The issue is expected to be closed after the JPN’s response. WLTP IWG Chair requested EV Chairs to provide a separate IWG document for adoption.

#55: Phase Specific calculation:
ACEA demonstrates that phase specific range calculation for PEV works well (WLTP-SG-EV-06-03). For HEVs, phase specific values could be obtained by the new proposal from ACEA, as mentioned in open issue #50. In this connection EU-COM requested more data, which JPN offered to provide. This issue could be closed in WLTP IWG meeting #9 as well, after the JPN’s response for the proposal.

#2, #56: CO2 family definition and Combined Approach:
For CO2 family definition, proposals from both ACEA and JPN have been discussed (WLTP-SG-EV-06-04, WLTP-SG-EV-06-05). For combined approach, JPN proposed a method with a midpoint in energy demand in interpolation of vehicles in a family.

ACEA proposed that the midpoint could create two new families. The concept needs to be developed further regarding definition of the midpoint.

T&E proposes to combine the two proposals from JPN and ACEA to clarify which parameters need to be considered regarding phase specific values in the combined approach.

#52: End of test criteria for PEV:
ACEA presented proposals for end of test criteria for PEV for low power and vehicles with capped speed (WLTP-SG-EV-06-07).

JPN will present position on the proposal from ACEA at WLTP IWG meeting #9.

#3: System power determination:
WLTP Subgroup EV has not the sufficient resources to develop a procedure for the determination of the combined power of HEVs within the given timeframe of WLTP phase 1B. Therefore the initiative of EVE IWG is supported to develop such a procedure in a parallel process. A mandate is currently in development under the co-leadership of Germany (H. Holdik) and Korea (D. Choi). H. Holdik gave a short presentation about the scope and tentative timeline (WLTP-SG-EV-06-08).

Thus, this issue is closed in WLTP IWG. Nevertheless it is very important that WLTP Subgroup EV provides input to the EVE group, especially which performance criteria are needed for WLTP. The possibility to extend the scope from HEVs to PEVs and conventional vehicles should be reconsidered.

#57: Utility factors:
Presentation of UF values (WLTP-SG-EV-06-12) from EU. JPN presented a proposal for GTR text (WLTP-SG-EV-06-15) that has been submitted to the drafting coordinator. As a remark from ACEA: proposal still has to be discussed within Sub group EV.

India requested that a harmonized methodology for UF development is provided in the GTR. This is helpful for CP who haven’t determined UF factors yet and might encourage CPs to use the given UFs instead of developing own ones.

WLTP IWG supported the following general approach:
1) Harmonized methodology in GTR to derive regional UF values
2) Non-harmonized UF values, based on regional parameters (overview on different regional UF values given in GTR)

Issue 2) will be raised by WLTP IWG Chair in progress report to GRPE in the general context Further political discussion regarding the of including inclusion of regional options in the GTR will take place in GRPE.

WLTP IWG Chair requested EV Chairs to provide a separate working document for IWG meeting #9. It shall include a comparison on existing methodologies for UF development and give a view on chances for harmonization.

Outcome of Annex 8 drafting meeting was not discussed .The further proceeding is connected to the general drafting issues (item 11) and the establishment of a IWG Drafting Task Force.