You’re out of free articles.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:
If you want an EV with great range, just drive slowly.

The last gas car I owned was underpowered. Equipped with a four-speed stick shift and an undeserved spoiler, the 1994 Ford Escort eked out all of 100 horsepower. It got you there, but it huffed a little on the way.
My current vehicle has no such struggles. The Tesla Model 3 accelerates happily thanks to its 269 horsepower, a figure that lives toward the lower end of modern EVs. It zips away from a red light thanks to the physics of a battery-powered car.
“The nice thing about electric vehicles is, they can provide full torque at zero speed, which internal combustion vehicles can't do. And that's one of the reasons why they have those improvements in terms of acceleration,” says Heath Hofmann, a professor of electrical engineering at the University of Michigan who has consulted with companies including Tesla.
The tale of my two cars is the story of the last half-century of auto engineering. Carmakers got good at delivering more power, so much so that someone behind the wheel of a family car today has as much horsepower at their feet as some sports cars of the late ‘80s and early 90s. Americans came to expect it. And now, in the burgeoning EV space, automakers chase Tesla’s success in selling electric vehicles on muscle and sex appeal by cranking out a new slate of EVs with lightning-fast zero-to-sixty times.
The green machines meant to reduce our transportation carbon emissions have become speed demons. But the specter of Americans driving mostly amped-up, super-heavy electric vehicles that are more dangerous to everyone around them has led many experts — including the chief of the National Transportation Safety Board — to fret about the direction of the EV revolution. It’s enough to make you wonder whether the swole EV could, or should, be tamed.
All that quickness comes in handy during a highway merge, sure. But like a lot of current combustion cars, the new electric vehicles are overpowered for daily driving situations, capable of acceleration bursts and top speeds that are impractical or illegal on public roads. At the same time, they also have a range problem. Extending how far they travel per charge would enhance driving quality of life, allowing people to drive further, and use their energy for ancillary applications, with less anxiety about running out.
Could the car companies churn out EVs that are optimized to go far instead of fast? Well, they could. Hofmann explains that an EV’s power depends not only on how much energy it can draw from the battery at a given time, but also on its drivetrain components, especially its electric motors. The most straightforward way to rein in an electric vehicle — to emphasize range and battery life at the expense of acceleration — would be to give it smaller motors that simply wouldn't allow for inefficient, aggressive driving. It’s (roughly) analogous to putting a smaller engine in a combustion car as opposed to a snarling, gas-guzzling block.
There are a couple of problems with that, though, starting with the car market. Last week, GM CEO Mary Barra said that electric cars under $40,000 still aren’t profitable, which is why there are so few. Vehicles that command prices above that mark are typically big, powerful machines, not economy cars whose zoom-zoom has been curtailed. Americans won’t pony up for wimpy cars.
Hofmann says there’s also an engineering quirk to consider. It turns out, he tells me, that larger electric motors tend to be more efficient than smaller ones. As a result, you might actually save a little energy by having big motors in your car, but using them conservatively, than by installing small motors that constrain your lead-footedness.
This leads us back to a familiar axiom: It’s not the car, but the driver. Much of the old wisdom about efficient driving is as true for EVs as it was for gas-burners: Driving slower saves energy, as does properly inflated tires, maintaining a constant speed instead of frequently stopping and starting, and turning down energy-sucking applications like climate control. Many new EVs reveal this truth in real time: They calculate exactly how many miles of battery life you cost yourself by driving 10 mph over the speed limit or running the air conditioning at full blast.
Speed is the big one, Hofmann says. Given that larger motors can be more efficient than small ones, the best thing to do for promoting EV range and efficiency may be to give drivers the power and hope they use it cautiously. The top-down way to make EVs go farther and drive safer would be for governments to change speed limit laws or mandate vehicles be electronically prevented from exceeding certain speeds, which unearths draconian memories of the “I Can’t Drive 55” 1970s and 80s.
It works. When I’ve driven my own EV on slower state highways — and stuck to the speed limit — I’ve been taken aback by how much I stretch the battery. That doesn’t mean a nation of speed limit flouters would happily comply.
“Really, if you wanted to force the cars to be efficient, you would limit them to go no faster than 55 miles an hour, right? Not too many people are gonna be okay with that,” Hofmann says.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Who even wants to drive more than 400 miles without taking a break to recharge — literally or metaphorically?
Take a moment to ask yourself: When was the last time you drove 300-plus miles without stopping? For reference, that means tackling a five- or six-hour journey, like L.A. to San Francisco or Houston to New Orleans, in one shot. Unless you have a bladder of steel and an obsession with making good time, there’s a good chance you’re making at least one pit stop on the way.
But if you wanted to, soon you could drive that far in one shot without burning gas.
Electric cars are reaching a point where such trips are nearly within reach. A few years ago, many if not most consumer EVs came with 200-some miles per charge. Then many automakers introduced the option to pay more for the longer-range battery, which extended driving range to 300 miles or more. Suddenly, more models have begun to top the 400-mile plateau.
The latest eye-popping range number comes from the 2027 BMW i3. This is the fully electrified version of the brand’s 3 Series, one of the icons of the automotive world. The launch version of that car comes with 440 miles of range, per the Environmental Protection Agency’s rating. It joins vehicles such as the Lucid Air, Chevy Silverado EV Extended Range, and Rivian’s Dual Max trucks and SUVs in topping 400 miles of maximum range. These are high-end EVs out of the reach of most buyers. Yet their mere availability suggests an automotive tipping point: At that point, an EV can go about as far as you’d even want to travel without a break.
To understand the importance of this milestone, remember what range numbers really mean. The EPA’s rating comes from testing an EV over a variety of driving conditions, from city stop-and-go to interstate road tripping. If you do all your driving around town, or stick to the speed limit on a 55-mile-per-hour country highway, then you might reach your car’s mileage estimate. But speed kills range. Fly down the freeway at 70 miles per hour and you won’t come anywhere close to the stated maximum.
Real-world testing makes this abundantly clear. The new Chevrolet Bolt is rated at 262 miles, impressive for a little car. Traveling 75 miles per hour, though, it makes a hair under 200 miles. In a much, much bigger vehicle, Chevy’s engineers got the Silverado EV to go 1,000 miles on a single charge by driving it 25 miles per hour; at realistic speeds, it might go 400-some. My own Tesla Model 3 has made the speed penalty abundantly clear over the years. Initially rated at 240 miles, it has never been able to travel more than about 150 miles at speeds above 70 miles per hour. Keep in mind that charging speed slows drastically as the battery approaches full. On a road trip, you’ll recharge only to 80% or 90% of capacity because it’s not worth it to wait 10 or 20 minutes for the last trickle of electricity.
The upshot: You want your EV to start with a big range number, because the number shrinks. The EPA rating is just a starting point — one that invariably wanes as the years go by. An EV with 400-plus miles of range will still have 300-some when it gets old. That’s a huge deal compared to the previous generation: Older cars that started in the 200s might see road trips become annoying ordeals if they drop below 200 “miles” per charge.
Three years ago this month, I wrote that people should buy as much EPA range as they could afford and that 300 was the magic number. That way, the real-world range you probably care about most — how long you can drive down the interstate without stopping — is at least 200 actual miles. After three hours on the road, you might be ready for a 20 or 30-minute break to stretch your legs and recharge the battery, anyway.
The arrival of more 400-mile ranges pushes EVs even closer to parity with combustion vehicles when it comes to road trip convenience. The more miles you have to work with, the more your trips and stops are decided by your own happiness and comfort rather than by the need to wait for more juice. Remember, too, that used EVs are all the rage right now as Americans seek affordable ways to avoid paying for gasoline. An older EV’s remaining range matters a lot to its second and third owner. A car that starts with 400 miles of range might still deliver an acceptable number of miles per charge even when it has hundreds of thousands of miles on the odometer.
The other thing is, battery capacity isn’t just about driving. An EV can use its stored energy for just about anything: to air-condition the dog while you eat dinner in a non-dog-friendly restaurant, to back up your home’s power supply during a blackout, to keep everyone comfortable and entertained while you wait in the parking lot, or to use its cameras to record footage of anyone who might mess with the vehicle. The more range, the more an EV can use energy for other purposes and still have plenty saved for driving.
Of course, the most powerful upshot of 400-mile electric cars is the death of range anxiety. The fear of running out of juice in the middle of nowhere — or of making an annoying number of charging stops with a lower-range EV — has kept many electric-curious buyers away. Many are turning back toward hybrid cars and even the forthcoming wave of extended-range EVs that use a gas engine as a backup generator. But worries about range and the steady but slow growth of America’s charging networks start to fade away when you realize many gasoline-burning cars would run out of fuel before your 400-mile EV hits empty.
Current conditions: The warm, springy temperatures in the Northeast and Great Lakes are set to drop by as much as 30 degrees Fahrenheit as cold air moves into the region • Telekitonga and Telekitokelau, two of the northernmost atolls in the Kingdom of Tonga, are facing severe winds from Tropical Cyclone Vaianu • The death toll from the floods deluging southern and eastern Afghanistan topped 110.

Over the weekend, President Donald Trump renewed his on-again, off-again threat to borrow a tactic from Russia’s playbook in Ukraine and bomb Iran’s power plants. As I told you in yesterday’s newsletter, Trump set a deadline of Tuesday night — tonight — for Tehran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz or face the bombardment of its key civilian infrastructure. The Wall Street investment research firm Citrini Research sent an analyst to the strategic chokepoint with a briefcase of $15,000 in cash, Cuban cigars, and Zyn nicotine packs, and produced a report that concluded that billions of dollars in cargo were still passing through the Strait — but only if linked to the Iranian government or to Chinese vessels. On Monday, Iranian authorities halted two Qatari tankers that attempted to cross the narrow waterway out of the Persian Gulf. “Iranians want the regime gone and they don’t want the country destroyed,” one expert told the hawkish Free Press writer Eli Lake. “Now they fear that the country will be destroyed and the regime will remain.”
It’s unclear whether Washington would target the Bushehr nuclear plant, Iran’s first and only civilian atomic power station. Built by the Russians, the single-reactor station came online in 2011, just months after the Fukushima disaster, and was before the war undergoing an expansion. Russia’s state-owned Rosatom has decried the absence of global outrage over U.S. and Israeli missiles landing near the plant as a double standard, given that the Kremlin’s own occupation of Ukraine’s top nuclear plant drew widespread condemnation. On Saturday, however, the International Atomic Energy Agency said that a projectile fragment had killed a plant worker in the fourth and latest strike near the power station. On Sunday, the World Health Organization sounded the alarm over the safety of the plant. “The latest incident involving the Bushehr nuclear power plant is a stark reminder: a strike could trigger a nuclear accident, with health impacts that would devastate generations,” WHO director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus wrote in a post on X.
If you thought Stephen Miller’s influencer wife embracing solar and the Trump administration declining to appeal its big offshore wind legal losses meant the president had turned the page on his anti-renewables agenda, think again. The fiscal year 2027 budget proposal the White House released Friday highlights “plans to continue waging its longstanding war against renewable energy and climate initiatives while boosting support for artificial intelligence and fossil fuels,” E&E News reported. In a fact sheet entitled, “Ending the Green New Scam,” the White House says “President Trump is committed to eliminating funding for the globalist climate agenda while unleashing American energy production.” The document thrice refers to renewable energy as “unreliable.” Overall, the budget proposed slashing non-military spending by the federal government roughly 10%, or $73 billion.
The White House’s budget proposal is, of course, more of a statement of priorities than anything else, and cuts that steep are unlikely to pass through Congress. The administration has, meanwhile, outlined the biggest boost to military spending in modern history, raising the budget to $1.5 trillion.
A gunman fired more than a dozen shots into an Indianapolis lawmaker’s home early Monday morning, leaving behind a note on the doormat reading “no data centers.” City Council member Ron Gibson, a third-term Democrat and native of Indiana’s largest city, had voted in favor last week of approving construction of a 75-megawatt data center on a lot that The Indianapolis Star described as having “sat idle for years and did little for economic development in the neighborhood.” The roughly 14-acre property appears on Google Earth to be an empty dirt lot surrounded by an auto body shop, a payday lender, and a gas station. In a statement to The Indianapolis Recorder, Gibson said that while he understood that public service meant withstanding criticism from those who disagree with his decisions, this attack was unlike anything he ever expected. He said his eight-year-old son was in the house. “Just steps from where those bullets struck is our dining room table, where my son had been playing with his Legos the day before. That reality is deeply unsettling,” Gibson said. “This was not just an attack on my home, but endangered my child and disrupted the safety of our entire neighborhood.”
Local opposition to data centers has erupted across the country over the past year, leading to what Heatmap’s Robinson Meyer documented as a wave of cancellations.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
Until recently, the plastics industry was in the doldrums. Amid surging scrutiny of the environmental and health impacts of plastics’ global waste crisis, cheap natural gas and a vast network of suppliers had kept prices for materials such as polyethylene low. Then came the Iran War. Now it’s a boom. High demand has chemical giant Dow running its “crackers” — plants that heat ethane, a component of natural gas, to more than 1,700 degrees Fahrenheit to crack the molecule into hydrogen and ethylene, the basic building block of the plastics such as polyethylene — near full capacity, The Wall Street Journal reported. Shares in Dow and rival LyondellBasell are up nearly 80%. “In my career of almost 30 years of covering chemicals, I have never, ever seen price hikes this steep and this quick,” Hassan Ahmed, a partner at Alembic Global Advisors, told the newspaper.
Polestar, the Swedish-based and Chinese-owned automaker, is betting that the land of big cars will be the land of big electric cars. By the end of this year, the Polestar 3, the company’s flagship electric SUV and its largest battery-powered vehicle, will be assembled exclusively in the U.S. InsideEVs noted that this will make the model the only American-made electric vehicle in Polestar’s portfolio. The Polestar 3 is currently built in Chengdu, China, and Volvo’s Ridgeville plant in South Carolina. By the end of the year, Polestar will end its Chinese production, according to CarBuzz.
Panama emerged as one of the world’s most significant new players in the copper market right as demand for the metal was surging. Then, in 2023, anti-mining protests shut down First Quantum’s Cobre Panama mine. Since then, the facility has sat idle. But on Tuesday, the Panamanian government is expected to issue permits that will allow for the removal and processing of copper ore stockpiled at the site, La Estrella de Panamá reported.
Rob goes deep on one of the most intriguing — and consequential — questions of the energy transition with Breakthrough Energy’s Alice Yake.
How do utilities decide what they want — and need — to build? It’s one of the most important problems driving the data center and clean energy conversations right now. But it’s hard to get a sense of what constraints and ideas actually drive utility decisionmaking from the inside.
Alice Yake is the vice president of GRIDS at Breakthrough Energy, and the former senior vice president of system strategy and chief planning officer at Xcel Energy in Colorado. On this episode of Shift Key, she walks us through a half century of the grid’s biggest decisions — what constraints utilities and planners thought they faced, what choices they made, and what it means for the future. She also discusses Breakthrough’s work to build an open-source grid planning tool and how it could
Shift Key is hosted by Robinson Meyer, the founding executive editor of Heatmap News.
Subscribe to “Shift Key” and find this episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon, or wherever you get your podcasts.
You can also add the show’s RSS feed to your podcast app to follow us directly.
Here is an excerpt from their conversation:
Robinson Meyer: We tell a story about liquified natural gas being ... The U.S. was preparing to import a ton of LNG, correct? That’s why we built a lot of terminals. And then after fracking happened and we were able to access gas and shale, we had to reverse-engineer all of them so that we could export LNG. But of course, we expected all these power plants to fall off the map, too.
Alice Yake: Exactly. And so that’s why we ended up with a system that was overbuilt. And, you know, different stories, people like to demonize — it’s like, the utilities push this. No, it was a national call to action because of this hypothesis around the availability of this type of fuel. And those plants were no longer going to be assets that we could use. So now we end up in this situation where we’re at the tail end of the energy crisis, we’ve overbuilt the system, and we’re investing in efficiency. And so therefore, then we don’t need as much and we’ve overbuilt. So we have a lot of time to grow into this. But prices went up because all that capital had been spent, right? And the prices went up. And so therefore, people started looking at, well, what can we do about this? Well, how do we build a market that makes the prices come down or have people compete? And so a lot of this was happening at the same time. You saw telecom deregulate. You saw other industries — you know, pipeline infrastructure. You know, all of those things were happening. This was the grand idea at that point in time that this was going to save people money.
I would argue it did in some places, it didn’t in others, right? And we’ve learned from that as well. But then it stabilized because how much have people really paid attention to their electric bill in the past 20 years? Not a ton, right? When we have bad storms or there’s some kind of excursion or maybe natural gas prices spiked or something along those, that’s when they were looking at it. I remember coming into the utility sector 15 years ago and one of the comments was, what’s the average amount of time that people spend thinking about their utility? It was 12 minutes a year, 12 minutes a year, one minute a month when they had to pay their bill and whether that was writing a check. And then when it got automated, you know, it was even smaller. It was maybe doing your budgeting every month, one minute a month. So that tells you a lot about how stable it was, right? And also where prices were.
Now you can’t go a day without seeing a headline about rising energy prices and what’s happening. And so moving forward through time, where we got to was, is, we had all this infrastructure. So we really, we didn’t have to be good at building a whole lot anymore. We didn’t build a ton of plants. If you look at the grass or the transmission infrastructure, but we know that we need it. And we also know that it’s aged now because do your math. If you go back, it was built in the 1970s and 80s. We’re now looking at things that are on average, 55 years old with asset lives of around 60 years. So that means you have a lot of things that you have to replace.
It’s not unique to the utility sector or the energy sector either look at our highways look at our water infrastructure this is happening across the board and for those of you that are math nerds and financial out there you go back to the rules of Bondbright which are applied to utilities and straight line depreciation we had a really expensive brand new system like we were talking about in the 80s now we’ve got our 55-year-old gremlin clunker that takes a lot of maintenance investment, but we have to buy a new car. And when you buy a new car, you have to spend the new capital, right? And when you spend that new capital, you start your depreciation over. So right now we have a really old system that’s low cost, but we have to replace a ton of it.
You can find a full transcript of the episode here.
Mentioned:
California Burning, by Katherine Blunt
Jesse’s paper on uncertainty-aware grid planning in the real world
James Bonbright’s landmark work on public utility rates
This episode of Shift Key is sponsored by ...
Lunar Energy is building the technology to turn homes into active participants in the power system. Learn more about Lunar’s vision of the future at lunarenergy.com.