Governments on both coasts of the U.S. want to persuade the small percentage of drivers who use the most gas to switch to electric vehicles – and some leaders are taking the first steps toward incentives to make it happen.

Research shows the top 10% of drivers in the U.S. use almost one-third of the nation’s gas. These noncommercial drivers log long miles, sometimes in inefficient vehicles like SUVs and trucks, guzzling serious amounts of gas and producing a lot of carbon dioxide.

Some are commuters who can’t afford to move closer to work; others are more affluent recreational drivers hauling boats or campers. All burn an outsized amount of gas.

As the world rushes to stop releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere to stave off the worst effects of global warming, some cities and states are focusing on encouraging these “gasoline superusers” to go electric.

Earlier this month the city of Burlington, Vermont, passed a groundbreaking law creating incentives to help high-volume gasoline users.

In recent days, Washington state released a report investigating what it calls “high consumption fuel users” and what it would take to motivate them to switch.

California State Assembly member Phil Ting has proposed incentives specifically targeted at getting working- and middle-class people who drive long distances to shift from gas-powered to electric-powered vehicles for the past two years − and he says he won’t give up.

Others wonder whether these efforts are coming too early in the evolution of electric vehicles.

“I think it’s a great idea, it just needs more work,” said John Paul Helveston, a professor of engineering at George Washington University who studies accelerating the transition to electric vehicles. “You can’t just give people money − you’ve got to have the (charging) infrastructure and an actual vehicle option they want to switch to.”

It could be that such programs are too early because there’s not yet enough awareness of the cost-savings EVs could represent for people who drive a high number of miles – simply because they don’t know about them.

In focus groups he has done in California, few people had even heard of electric cars, said Scott Hardman, assistant director of the Electric Vehicle Research Center at the University of California, Davis.

Electric vehicle companies aren’t aggressively marketing themselves right now because they don’t have to. “Demand exceeds supply. They’re selling all the vehicles they’re producing, so there’s no need to promote them,” he said. Gas ‘superusers’ produce a surprising amount of CO2

The idea behind the efforts comes from a report first issued in 2021 by Coltura, an energy nonprofit. The report sought to answer this question: “What’s the fastest way to lower carbon dioxide emissions from transportation?”

Electric vehicle incentive programs nationally have focused on raising the percentage of Americans switching to carbon-free cars and trucks, but “really it’s ‘How can we reduce gasoline use?’” said Rob Sargent, Coltura’s strategic adviser.

Their findings spelled it out:

Gasoline accounts for one-sixth of U.S. carbon emissions, and U.S. drivers burn 35% of all the gasoline in the world.
10% of U.S. drivers burn 32% of all gasoline.
These "superusers" burn on average 1,500 gallons of gas a year compared with regular users' 409.

If the goal is to lower carbon dioxide production, getting the people who drive most to switch to electric matters more than getting more people into electric vehicles – a lot more.

Coltura’s estimates found that if all the biggest gasoline users shifted to electric, it would take 97 million vehicles to cut U.S. emissions from light-duty vehicles by 50%.

If those same heavy gasoline users are the last ones to convert to EVs, it would require 233 million vehicles to achieve the same reduction in CO2 emissions. ‘Me switching to an EV makes a much bigger difference’

Those numbers intrigued Ting because he commutes between San Francisco and Sacramento, and the idea made intuitive sense.

“I’m a superuser,” he said. “I drive 20,000 miles a year. So me switching to an EV makes a much bigger difference than someone driving 6,000 miles a year.”

In 2022 and again in 2023, he introduced bills to the state Legislature that create incentives for low- and middle-income people who drive the most to buy electric vehicles. Both failed, but he’s not giving up.

Other California measures have long targeted the most polluting cars. The first of these was the state’s clean vehicle rebate program, colloquially known as “Cash for Clunkers.”

These began in California in 2009 with the goal of buying the oldest, most polluting cars in the state and crushing them to take them off the roads. Such programs have since spread nationwide as states realized they could entice drivers to scrap older, dirtier cars for relatively small amounts of money.

Today the state’s Clean Cars for All program doesn’t just give people money to get those vehicles off the road, it also offers incentives to get those same drivers to buy a newer and less polluting vehicle, one that’s not more than 8 years old. There’s additional money if they buy an electric vehicle.

Combining the various programs that are available, a California resident driving an older, polluting car could get as much as $19,500 toward buying a newer, cleaner vehicle, along with state help on financing. For a family of four, the income limit would be about $83,000.

Though the current program isn’t focused on gasoline superusers, because it’s aimed at lower-income drivers, it “will inherently grab many of the superusers,” said Lisa Macumber, chief of the state’s Air Quality Board’s Equitable Mobility Incentives Branch. Some gas superusers are commuters with thin budgets

In California, the burden of long commutes tends to fall heaviest on exactly the people who aren’t buying EVs, Ting said.

“We should be creating more of an incentive for people who are forced to drive further because they’re not wealthy, because they have to live further out to find a house they can afford,” Ting said.

Households that make more than $200,000 a year were the most likely to buy EVs, according to the National Highway Travel Survey. But they also drive the least. On average, EV drivers log 10,000 miles a year, compared with superusers’ 30,348.

Living farther out to find affordable housing and working in fields like construction where job sites are often far away are more common for gasoline superusers, Coltura found.

Current tax incentives focus on making electric vehicles more affordable for middle- and low-income Americans, no matter how much or little they drive. Other gas guzzlers are affluent boaters, travelers

Washington state was also intrigued by the Coltura findings and set out to investigate who was burning the most gas and why. Its findings suggest programs will need to be done on a state-by-state basis.

In Washington, 10% of drivers consumed 26% of the fuel, and the bottom 50% of drivers burned less than top the 10%. Superusers drove 25,370 miles a year compared with 8,535 for non-gasoline superusers.

The state found that 6.3% of its drivers were burning 1,000 gallons of gas or more a year, and 86% of them drove SUVs, pickups or vans.

Possibly because of the number of people who own boats or routinely drive into the mountains, Washington’s “high consumption fuel users” as the state calls them, tended to be slightly higher-income than drivers overall and were actually more interested than the general public in shifting to an EV.

For these drivers, having a vehicle that can tow or do well in extreme conditions was important.

The research found that building out the state’s EV charging infrastructure would help encourage gasoline superusers to shift as more of their preferred vehicles – trucks and SUVs – become available in electric models.

Another possibility was offering electric vehicle lease rebates for those driving more than the 12,000 miles usually allowed on vehicle leases. What do the proposed laws do?

Burlington, Vermont (passed)

Subsidize EVs for people who burn more than 1,000 gallons of gas a year.

California (proposed)

Would require state-funded EV incentive programs to maximize the displacement of gasoline by focusing on gas superusers who are also low- and moderate-income.

Washington state (study). Policy suggestions included:

More charging stations, EV purchase incentives and free emergency towing or recharging services would help persuade high-consumption fuel users to switch to EVs.
A possible 5 cents a mile for every electric mile driven incentive, capped at $3,000 a year.
Using financial incentives to encourage people leasing cars (who tend to be high-mileage drivers) to lease EVs.

Isn’t it better to drive old cars into the ground?

Common wisdom has been that people should drive their old gas cars until they die because it takes so much energy to build a new car. But that logic changes for gasoline superusers because they burn so much fuel.

“In less than a year they emit more carbon than it takes to make a car,” said Matthew Metz, Coltura founder.

In terms of lower carbon emissions, it makes sense to shift to an EV, especially if you drive a lot, Hardman said. “A huge portion of the emissions associated with a gasoline vehicle are linked to use.”

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    51 year ago

    From my perspective, the thing most preventing people from converting to EV is the prohibitive costs. I saw a discussion awhile back where someone claimed they could easily buy a used EV for around $20k and they didn’t understand why everyone wasn’t dumping their gas-guzzlers for such a “fantastic deal”. People quickly pointed out that the only way you could actually get a used EV for such a low price was if the batteries were about dead, and replacement could cost nearly as much!

    OK so with the market expending, costs for EVs will of course continue to come down. However the idea that common folks should be expected to drop the majority of their yearly income on a used vehicle that might only last a few more years… that to me just shows an arrogant amount of privilege in the person who had made the comment. I feel like the goal for getting people into electrics should be to flood the market for those who can actually afford the prices, until you have used vehicles available to the rest of us in the $1000-$2000 range, and where people can expect to get 5-10 years out of their investment. The market for EVs has to come down to something similar to what we see gas-powered cars at today. Even with what I consider the low price of the current used market, there are still a LOT of families who can be completely financially devastated when their car dies. Among other things, people who work multiple jobs have a tight schedule between them, and the idea of taking 2-3 times longer to travel by riding a bus would likely result in them losing one of their jobs. Personal vehicles are required because of all these low-end jobs where the managers refuse to hire their employees full time.

    Anyway, I just think we’re not going to see a significant shift to EVs until such time as there is a reasonable used market. And that of course relies on the development of batteries that don’t fade over time, so we have a ways to go.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      31 year ago

      What’s also funny is the article claiming to also be targeting higher income individuals who are towing boats and the like - yeah, there are zero EVs today that can handle that task unless the lake you are going to is like 15-20 minutes away and if towing a camper, be ready to stop every 60-80 miles and that’s with a nearly $100k fully equipped, extended battery F150 Lightning.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    31 year ago

    Seeing some comments claiming that families can be financially devastated by a dead car is awful. We shouldn’t need to own a car. There should be equitable transportation options to get around…

    • @tallwookie
      link
      11 year ago

      in a large city/suburbs there are several options but the majority of the country (and probably abour half of the population) exists outside of large cities/suburbs - where driving 50+ miles a day is pretty normal.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        11 year ago

        According to the census, the majority of the country lives in urban areas. Not sure what they classify as urban vs what you’re talking about though.

        Also, I lived in the second most populous city in my state and public transportation took 4x as long to get to work. Insanity. I was pretty much forced to buy a car.

        • @tallwookie
          link
          11 year ago

          huh. I live in the suburbs of the most populous city in my state & while mass transit takes longer than driving, it’s not 4x. maybe 15 minutes more in the mornings. commuting back home takes a lot longer though.

  • @zombuey
    link
    2
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    this is all so fucking stupid. EV’s do not fit the bill for any of these scenarios. An EV cannot haul a boat that includes the ford lightning its been tried. An EV is neither affordable or economical for a delivery driver unless he has multiple vehicles. A Hybrid might work in both these scenarios. The downtime a lone would not be reasonable. EV’s have major drawbacks we haven’t even addressed yet we just pretend they don’t exist. How do we recycle the batteries? They have to be replaced every 7 years and its 20k+ to do that. How is your delivery driver gonna be able to afford that.

    • drphungky
      link
      11 year ago

      We have a motorhome, not a towed RV like most people, but I try to stay abreast of the happenings because I feel a little guilty about how much gas it uses when we take it out. We’re nowhere near the top 10% though, and I find it shocking that boat and RV towers compare to those who commute an hour+ every day, even with the higher consumption. Are people taking their boats out every single weekend?

      In any event, transitioning commuters to electric is sort of well understood and working well, and more subsidies will definitely help get over the path dependency jump. But if towers are truly a huge chunk, like you said, there isn’t a replacement yet. Toyota’s supposed super batteries that are a few years out might help, but personally I think the way forward is electric assist towing. Thor was looking into it and has a concept electric assist Airstream, and there’s a startup called Lightship doing it as well. To me, that’s the way forward. RVs are all already outfitted with batteries, and a bigger battery pack is almost only an improvement (just cost and weight issues, really). Boat trailers would be trickier since they’re lowered into water and usually more barebones than an RV, but I could definitely see it working there too.

      • @zombuey
        link
        11 year ago

        Don’t get me wrong I really hope we find a working alternative. I honestly still think hydrogen was a workable alternative. It’s still nowhere near gas but atleast its better. Battery though just isn’t there. I do believe we can make a battery tech that is sufficient to power our vehicles but its not one we are currently using.

  • Another Person
    link
    21 year ago

    At this point I think legislation should be passed forcing car companies to sell hybrids and gas cars at the same price. And then over the next 20 years gradually encourage hybrid and EV purchasing by taxing gasoline only cars. And then after 20 years ban the sale of new gasoline cars. And then 20 years after that ban the sale of used gasoline cars. And then 20 years after that ban hybrids.

    I know it’ll never happen and it’ll never work and I’ll be over politicized but I can dream.