It’s pretty rare for an editorial to get results almost instantly after it’s been written, but the one The Post published on March 17 — “Mr. Biden should push plug-in hybrids, not just EVs” — is one such unicorn. The editorial argues that the Environmental Protection Agency’s new vehicle standards should have “a short transitional Policy” to allow sales of plug-in hybrid vehicles.
Good news! The EPA standards announced Wednesday start in 2027 and run for six years. They will require a gradual lowering of carbon pollution from cars, SUVs and pickups. By 2032 — after a “transitional phase” — the average vehicle an automaker sells will need to be 50 percent less polluting compared with 2027.
Sure, the EPA and many outside analysts predict that automakers will meet this goal by selling many more fully electric vehicles. After all, a recent Atlas Public Policy report shows that the total cost of buying and owning the five most popular gasoline-powered cars in the country is now more expensive than buying their electric equivalents. That’s because sticker prices for these electric cars are coming down and fuel and maintenance costs are so much lower. Sales of EVs are booming — and are expected to keep growing.
But the EPA standards don’t require an automaker to use any particular technology. If an automaker can achieve these pollution reductions with a combination of plug-in hybrid and cleaner gasoline engines, then it can have at it. What’s important is reducing pollution; given the climate crisis we all can see, there should be no going back on that.
Luke Tonachel, White Plains, N.Y.
The author is a senior strategist for transportation at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Delaying the electric vehicle transition would be a disservice to American consumers, public health and the climate.
The Post’s March 17 editorial claims that President Biden’s EV goals are “unrealistic” and that he should embrace plug-in hybrids as an “alternative electrification path.” But that pessimistic assessment ignores the facts: Americans purchased a record 1.2 million electric vehicles in 2023. Electric cars represented 5.9 percent of the vehicle market in 2022, 7.6 percent in 2023 and, according to some analysts, should hit 10 percent of car sales this year. All the more reason not to hit the breaks.
The Editorial Board also fell victim to an illusion created by automakers such as Toyota and General Motors that are lobbying relentlessly against EVs. In 2024, a plug-in hybrid car is just not cutting-edge clean technology. As a recent Post article acknowledged, “some studies show that drivers use their plug-in hybrids as regular hybrids, almost never charging them.” That defeats the health or climate benefits that come from plugging in.
Rather than pushing for the status quo, automakers should prioritize manufacturing affordable EVs. A 2023 Washington Post-University of Maryland poll shows EV cost is a key barrier for U.S. adults.
The Editorial Board claims that accelerating the shift to EVs would “produce backlash against the Biden administration’s entire climate change strategy.” This opinion failed to recognize the urgent need for climate action. The transportation sector is the largest U.S. source of greenhouse gas emissions, and plug-in hybrid vehicles still run on gas. The best path forward is for manufacturers to ramp up the transition to full EVs.
Katherine Garcia, Washington
The author is director of the Clean Transportation for All campaign of the Sierra Club.
I am dismayed that it took The Post so long to come to the obvious conclusion outlined in its March 17 editorial on plug-in hybrid cars. Economics and foreign policy have suggested for years that the Biden administration’s electric vehicle policy was social engineering at its worst and profoundly flawed on every possible dimension.
It never made sense geopolitically to increase our dependence on a supply chain dominated by China, which makes 80 percent of the world’s supply of battery cells and almost 60 percent of the batteries for electric vehicles. And despite the best of intentions, given the complexity of these products, that fact is not something that can be willed away in the next few years regardless of any magical requirements for domestic content.
The policy doesn’t make sense economically, either, as some EVs have higher sticker prices before rebates and such cars cost more to insure. Using cost-benefit analysis might have brought the Editorial Board to this conclusion sooner. And it might invite future questions: How much does the Biden policy cost in subsidies for every ton of carbon dioxide not emitted? And is that affordable and worthwhile?
Robert Speidel, McLean
I’ve owned a plug-in hybrid sport-utility vehicle since September 2020. I wanted to offer a few observations for other prospective owners after what I’ve learned from driving it for 60,000 miles.
- The higher purchase price (vs. the “regular” hybrid model) was largely offset by a $7,500 federal tax credit. Depending on certain details of the purchase, existing federal purchase and lease tax credits may apply to new and used plug-in hybrids. Certain state and utility incentives might as well.
- Use cheap electricity rather than gas whenever possible. My car’s 40 to 50 miles of electric range is easily topped off overnight at home using Level I supply. Public or office-based Level I and Level II charging is also typically cheap and often free.
- Running on gas outside the DMV area, my vehicle averages 38 miles per gallon in hybrid mode. That’s far better for my wallet and the environment than the 21 miles per gallon I averaged with my previous internal combustion engine-only SUV. All together, I average 900 miles between fill-ups.
Neither all-electric nor all-gasoline vehicles meet everyone’s needs and wants. The Biden administration can and should leverage consumer demand, not fight it.
Douglas Greenhaus, Arlington
No doubt, as the Editorial Board wrote on March 17, plug-in hybrids help with addressing climate change. However, the world’s leading climatologists argue that we must move quickly and do everything possible to urgently address our greatest challenge. Miles per gallon for hybrids average in the high 40s or higher, whereas EVs typically average more than twice that, over 100 miles per gallon equivalent.
Our moderately priced Tesla Model Y fully charges in about 30 minutes, and, with ample super chargers available, we easily travel long distances from our home in Delaware without concern, whether to Boston or Siesta Key in Florida. Let’s embrace renewables, conserve, recycle, adjust our thermostats, walk or bike, drive hybrids and EVs, and do all we can to address that which shapes the contours of the 21st century more than any other.
Peter Kleppinger McLean, Lewes, Del.
Finding ways to move forward on good climate legislation is important to our well-being and to ensure we leave behind a livable planet for our grandkids. Agreeing to some compromises along the way is also essential in keeping the momentum going in the right direction. Therefore, I’m glad to see the Biden administration update its proposal on planet warming emissions and EV transitions.
Although, I would have liked to see quicker EV timelines, if estimates are correct, the amount of carbon reduction, fine particulate reduction and reductions in premature deaths are still very significant. Perhaps the timeline will be met sooner with all the incentives and public charging infrastructure work that will be accomplished because of the Inflation Reduction Act.
In any event, we need our elected officials to continue to find ways to pass more legislation that addresses climate-related issues. The negative effects on our society are too large to ignore. Climate induced and exacerbated storms are costly in terms of property damage, economic disruptions and lives lost. Appropriate legislation by our elected officials is indispensable.
Jonathan Light, Laguna Niguel, Calif.
So, which is it?
The March 21 front-page article “U.S. sets tough limits on gas cars” illustrated how challenging it can be to capture a complex issue in a short headline.
There is considerable debate among various interest groups about whether these rules goes too far or not far enough in addressing this important problem. Post headlines have lurched from one side of the debate to the other. The subhead on Page 1 (“Emissions rules are bid to speed up shift to EVs”) is directly contradicted by the jump headline on Page 9 (“In nod to unions, EPA gives automakers more time on EVs”). Both statements can’t be true.
Wayne McDaniel, Columbia
