300 Mile+ EV Range: Better to Have, and Not Need, Than to Need and Not Have?

Proponents of electric vehicles (EVs) point to our current transportation system as a key contributor to the greenhouse gas emissions driving climate change—an accusation that is not entirely misplaced. Transportation accounted for 23% of energy-related carbon dioxide emissions worldwide in 2019 and 29% of all greenhouse gas emissions in the US. By contrast, experts broadly agree that EVs create a lower carbon footprint over the course of their lifetime than do cars and trucks fitted with internal combustion engines. Last year, for example, researchers from the universities of Cambridge, Exeter and Nijmegen in The Netherlands found that EVs are superior to gasoline powered vehicles from an environmental perspective in 95% of the world.

Against this backdrop, it is not surprising that lawmakers and regulators are looking for ways to incentivize and drive EV adoption. At the federal level, the recently enacted Inflation Reduction Act offers extensive tax credits to purchasers of new and used EVs (within limits).  At the state level, California announced that it intends to ban the sale of internal combustion engines starting in 2035, with New York following closely behind.

But it is not all blue skies ahead for EVs, as battery cost and scarcity issues continue to present challenges for manufacturers and, in turn, consumers.

As EV production scales, domestic OEMs have become increasingly vulnerable to the unstable offshore supply chain of materials critical to production of the lithium-ion battery—including graphite from China; cobalt from the Democratic Republic of the Congo; lithium from South America; and nickel, copper, phosphate, and manganese from countries where international relations are tenuous at best. This vulnerability is exacerbated by China’s growing dominance of the battery supply chain, as China directly owns many critical mines for battery production and imports almost all of Australia’s mined lithium for processing.  The Chinese role in the global supply of essential battery components is, by state design, dangerously ubiquitous.

One seemingly obvious solution to these supply chain issues is for OEMs to use the smallest possible batteries while still delivering a desirable product.  In fact, basic economics tell us that free markets are especially adept at this type of reallocation when resources become limited or scarce.  Contrary to these efficient market principles, however, OEMs are producing EVs with bigger, longer-lasting batteries and eliminating smaller models.  For example, Rivian currently only offers a Costcoesque battery choice in all of its vehicles:  the Standard pack (projected 260+ mile range), Large pack (EPA estimated 314 mile range), or Max pack (projected 400+ mile range). Not to be outdone, the new GMC Hummer EV tips the scales at 9063 pounds, with about a third of that (2923 pounds) in the battery pack, making the battery pack alone heavier than an actual Toyota Prius. Of the more than 80 EV models and their various trims currently available in the US, all but three are capable of at least 200 miles of range and nearly 40% are configured to exceed the 300 mile threshold.

So what’s driving this bigger is better battery trend?  Buying too much car has been an American tradition since the introduction of “land yachts” in the 1960s.  In fact, no theme has pervaded America’s love affair with the car quite like excess.  EV OEMs have quickly fallen in line trying to capitalize on this long-standing automotive tradition with bigger and bigger batteries that emulate the gas driven vehicles consumers have always loved in this country: powerful, roomy, and heavy cars perfectly suited for spontaneous road trips on America’s vast highways. 

Indeed, the perceived magic threshold for American EV range appears to be 300 miles. In a survey by Bloomberg, nearly two-thirds of respondents stated they need an EV with 300-plus miles of range to meet their daily driving needs, while less than 10% believed a range of less than 200 miles would suffice.  A 2021 Cox Automotive survey similarly found that potential EV purchasers were seeking an average range of 341 miles. 

But is a 300-mile range really necessary?  Do consumers really need or even want to carry around all that extra battery weight for daily trips to work and the grocery store? 

While Americans seem to think the answer is yes, driving statistics suggest the answer is no. According to the US Department of Transportation, the average American motorist drives about 40 miles per day and 95% of all car trips are less than 30 miles. American drivers’ range anxiety—the fear of being stranded with an out-of-charge vehicle—is simply not reality based. It also, quite literally, is a heavy burden. To accomplish a road trip worthy 225-250 miles of range on a single charge, an EV battery needs to be 60 kWh, weighing in at nearly half a ton! In other words, as regulators and environmentally conscious consumers strive to achieve electrification for good and valid reasons, market forces are counterintuitively driving costs for battery packs that are too big for reasonable driving needs.  These bigger battery packs also mean more greenhouse gas emissions, which seems to undermine the very reason consumers are persuaded to transition to EVs in the first place.

With the next big battery technology breakthrough (metal-air, solid-state, lithium sulphur, etc.) still uncertain and likely years away for automotive applications, the current push to add more energy storage in the form of bigger batteries appears to be misplaced. Future success in this space should be defined not by which EV has the biggest battery or longest range, but by which EV best leverages existing battery technology to maximize “green value” (profits and clean energy) while prudently balancing infrastructure and equity concerns inherent to the scaling of electrification.

In this era of battery scarcity, EVs with smaller batteries that suit our actual daily driving needs, rather than road warrior models that mirror traditional internal combustion vehicles, seem to be the obvious better choice for most people.  For some households, a single plug-in hybrid, which allows drivers to alternate between short range electrification and internal combustion, may be the best option. For example, if average daily driving needs are only 30-50 miles of range, a hybrid will serve those needs and alleviate range anxiety by allowing the user to switch to internal combustion as needed in limited use cases. Urban households may be able to satisfy their mobility needs through a mix use of public transportation, e-bikes, or shorter range EVs. 

As OEMs continue to spend countless dollars marketing EVs as an environmentally friendly transportation alternative with all the convenience—or more—of internal combustion, perhaps we need to revisit this message.  To achieve the laudable environmental goals of transportation electrification, design impetus should move from facilitating long road trips with big batteries to more efficient resource allocation.  After all, isn’t that what most of us envisioned as the true benefit of electrified transportation since the unveiling of the first EV prototypes?  Although battery scarcity is helping to redirect the conversation, getting back to this basic tenet will certainly be a challenging yet highly rewarding endeavor.

Copyright Nelson Niehaus LLC

The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Firm, its clients, or any of its or their respective affiliates. This blog post is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.