I think the article does speak towards this somewhat. For example: > The focus on increasing EVs' range is contributing to their relatively high prices. Unlike

I think the article does speak towards this somewhat. For example: > The focus on increasing EVs' range is contributing to their relatively high prices. Unlike with gas cars, the more you pay for an EV, the more range you can expect to receive. That's partially true. The most fuel efficient vehicles have traditionally been the cheapest cars, those given small engines and the least amount of heavy noise dampening and luxury items. But it's not always true that paying more for an EV will get you more range. $70-90k for a F150 Lightning will get you less range than a smaller, less expensive Hyundai Ioniq 6. Within classes / makes, though, it's generally true that you pay more for more range, which is a flip from ICE. https://www.visualcapitalist.com/longest-range-evs-2023/ https://www.visualcapitalist.com/longest-range-evs-2023/ > EVs can be an important part of the fight against the climate crisis, but America's EV plan needs to lean into what these cars do well: short daily trips that can be taken in small, affordable cars. People who frequently take long trips can take advantage of hybrid cars. Hybrids by themselves already make a good deal of sense. While some may argue that the complexity could reduce reliability, the Prius has actually been one of the most reliable vehicles you can buy. Maybe your daily driver does not need to be your "everything for every situation" vehicle. But this is an old argument we'll likely never win against the American car buying public. SUVs (and increasingly large ones) already do almost everything you could ever need, even if the vast majority of the time, all they do is move a single person around. And the same can be said for those huge 4 door trucks (with small beds).