EVs in winter

Guest column: Cold weather and electric vehicles — separating fact from fiction

While Houston isn't known as the coldest of climates, you still might want to review this myth-busting guest column. Photo via Pexels

Winter range loss is fueling this season’s heated debate around the viability of electric vehicles, but some important context is needed. Gasoline cars, just like their electric counterparts, lose a significant amount of range in cold weather too.

According to the Department of Energy, the average internal combustion engine’s fuel economy is 15 percent lower at 20° Fahrenheit than it would be at 77° Fahrenheit, and can drop as much as 24 percent for short drives.

As the world grapples with the implications of climate change and shifts toward sustainable technologies, it's important to put the pros and cons of EVs and traditional gas vehicles in perspective. And while Houston isn't known as the coldest of climates, you still might want to review this information.

The Semantics of Energy Consumption Hide the Real Issue: Cost

First, let's talk about the language. When discussing gas vehicles in cold climates, the conversation often centers around "fuel efficiency." It sounds less threatening, doesn't it? But in reality, this is just a euphemism for range loss, something for which EVs are frequently criticized.

Why does that matter? Because for most drivers who travel less than 40 miles a day, what range loss really means is higher fueling costs. When a gas vehicle loses range, it costs a lot more than the same range loss in an EV. For example, at $3.50 a gallon, a car that gets 30 MPG in warm weather and costs $46.67 to go 400 miles suddenly costs $8.24 more to drive the same distance. By contrast, an EV plugging in at $0.13 per kWh usually costs $13 to go 400 miles and bumps up to a piddly $16.25 even if it loses 20 percent efficiency when the temperature drops.

Some EV models lose 40 percent in extreme cold. OK, tack on another $3. That still leaves almost $30 in the driver’s pocket. Over the course of a year, those savings pile up.

Let’s Call It What It Is: Fear Mongering

Any seismic shift in technology comes with consumer hesitancy and media skepticism. Remember when everyone was afraid to stand in front of microwaves and thought the waves would make the food unsafe to eat? Or how, just a decade or so back everyone was talking about how cell phones could spontaneously explode?

Fear of new technology is a natural psychological response and to be expected. But it takes the media machine to turn consumer hesitation into a frenzy. Any way you slice it, 2023 was one big platform for expressing fears around EVs. Headline-grabbing tales of EV woes often lacked context or understanding of the technology. In a highly partisan landscape where EVs have been dubbed liberal leftist technology, what should be seen as a miraculous pro-American, pro-clean-air, pro-energy independence, pro-cost saving advancement is getting a beating in the press. In this environment, every bit of “bad EV news” spirals out into an echo-chamber of confirmation bias.

For example, Tesla’s recent software update was hyped as a 2 million vehicle “recall” even though the software was updated over the air without a single car needing to leave the driveway. Hertz's recent decision to reduce its Tesla fleet was seen by many as a referendum on the cars’ quality but was actually a decision based on Hertz’s miscalculations around repair costs and a mismatch in their projections of consumer demand for EV rentals.

While the cost of repairs might be higher, maintenance and fuel costs are still much lower than gas vehicles. EVs are better daily-use cars than rentals because while our country’s public charging infrastructure is still lagging, home charging is a huge benefit of EV ownership. Instead, the Hertz move and the negative coverage are further spooking the public.

The Truth About EVs

Despite the challenges, it's crucial to acknowledge the environmental advantages of EVs. For instance, EVs produce zero direct emissions, which significantly reduces air pollution and greenhouse gasses. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EVs are far more energy efficient than gas-powered cars, converting more than 77 percent of electrical energy from the grid to power, compared to 12-30 percent for gasoline vehicles.

This efficiency translates to a cleaner, more sustainable mode of transportation. And stories of EVs stranded in Chicago aside, generally they perform well in cold weather, as clearly demonstrated in Norway. In Norway, the average temperature hovers a solid 10 degrees lower than in the U.S. Yet 93 percent of new cars sold there are electric. The first-ever drive from the north to the south pole was also completed by an electric vehicle. The success story of EVs in Norway and demonstration projects in harsh winter climates serve as a powerful counterargument to the notion that EVs are ineffective in cold weather.

So where does this leave us? The discourse around EVs and gasoline vehicles in cold weather needs a more balanced and factual approach. The range loss in gasoline vehicles is a significant issue that mirrors the challenges faced by EVs. By acknowledging this and understanding the broader context, we can have a more informed and equitable discussion about the future of automotive technology and its impact on our environment.

---

Kate L. Harrison is the co-founder and head of marketing at MoveEV, an AI-backed EV transition company that helps organizations convert fleet and employee-owned gas vehicles to electric, and reimburse for charging at home.

Trending News

A View From HETI

Exxon Mobil and Chevron made big profits in spring 2026. Photo via Chevron

American oil and gas giants raked in massive spring profits while fighting between Iran and the U.S. impeded petroleum shipments and consumers around the world paid more for fuel and confronted shortages.

The conflict, now in its sixth month, halted most shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow waterway that previously served as a delivery route for a fifth of the world's oil and natural gas. With global supplies constrained, prices for Brent crude, the international standard, soared from about $70 to above $100 a barrel for much of March, April and May, and at one point reached $126.

The money that oil companies accrued between the beginning of April and the end of June could receive extra scrutiny this year. Gasoline, diesel and jet fuel prices climbed sharply during that period, increasing costs for drivers and airline passengers. Supplies ran low in some countries, leading to sporadic fuel rationing in Australia and government office closures in Nepal and Sri Lanka.

Spring, Texas-based Exxon Mobil reported that its second quarter profits doubled to $14.53 billion, boosted by record diesel production. The oil giant brought in $116.02 billion in revenue, up 42%.

Chevron, based in Houston, nearly quadrupled its profits to $12.07 billion and revenue jumped 56% to $70.06 billion.

Six of Europe’s largest oil companies posted combined first-quarter profits of $22 billion, more than 40% higher than last year.

“There are constituencies around the world who are having a very good crisis, and the oil producers are one of them,” said Patrick Galey, fossil fuels lead at Global Witness, a nonprofit organization that investigates environmental issues. “When you compare that to the hundreds of millions of people who are struggling with rolling blackouts, with electricity curbs, rationing, waiting in line for food queues, or the disruption to fertilizers and the potential impact that that has on food prices, we don’t think that it’s a justifiable price for the rest of the world to be paying.”

Lawmakers propose taxing major oil producers for war windfalls

Energy companies such as Exxon and Chevron do not set the price of American oil, which ricocheted from $68 to $115 a barrel during the quarter. It’s driven by supply and demand, and what traders, refiners and other buyers are willing to pay.

Nevertheless, Democrats in Congress introduced bills in March to tax major oil producers for profits they show from 2026 onward and have the tax proceeds redistributed to consumers.

“It’s fair to put a windfall profits tax on inordinate windfall profits rather than cut off children’s food programs,” Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, a Rhode Island Democrat who introduced the Senate version of the legislation.

Whitehouse's measure and a companion bill introduced by U.S. Rep. Ro Khanna of California would amend the U.S. tax code to impose a per-barrel tax on companies that produced or imported at least 300,000 barrels of oil per day in 2025.

“We cracked $4 again per gallon last weekend in gas stations that I drove by, and that’s a big expense, particularly for families that get their income from driving around from job to job in the work van or the work truck,” Whitehouse said.

The average price for a gallon of regular gasoline in the U.S., which was below $3 before the U.S. and Israel launched attacks on Iran, reached $4.11 Friday, July 31, about $1 more than last year at this time.

The UK and other European countries implemented temporary windfall profits taxes on fossil fuel companies in 2022. The UK extended that to 2030, according to Tax Foundation Europe.

“Penalizing the businesses who stood by those countries and provided that product going forward is very short-sighted,” Exxon CEO Darren Woods said in a call with investors Friday. “We canceled investments that we had planned for Europe based on the last time they passed a windfall profits tax.”

Refineries rake in cash while consumers pay more for fuel

Outfits such as Exxon and Chevron, which also own refineries, are in the best position to profit from the current market conditions, said Tom Seng, assistant professor of energy finance at Texas Christian University.

Refineries turn oil into gasoline, diesel, jet fuel and home heating oil. Higher prices for those products meant Chevron’s quarterly refinery profit was six times as big in 2026, despite processing less crude and selling less products.

“The return on refining, on a percentage basis, has skyrocketed,” Seng said. “Oil right now is priced what it is priced because of the Iran war. But in the meantime, the refineries are making money hand over fist.”

The global refining market is under-supplied, and with countries such as Russia and China no longer exporting, companies like Exxon and Chevron have to pick it up, said Rob Thummel, senior portfolio manager at Tortoise Capital. “The world is going to be short jet fuel, diesel and gasoline, so we’ll probably continue to see higher profits there.”

Globally, not all refineries have been able to get the supply of crude oil they need to meet demand since the conflict began, said Timothy Fitzgerald, a University of Tennessee professor of business economics who studies the petroleum industry.

As a result, refineries that have ample oil to work with, including those in the U.S., are turning high profits, particularly when they make jet fuel and diesel, which is priced about 41% higher in the U.S. than before the Strait of Hormuz was blocked.

"If you’re a company that owns a bunch of refinery capacity, things look pretty good," Fitzgerald said.

American refineries are running at near-full capacity and poised to benefit because some refineries in the Middle East and Russia were damaged. And Asia can't get the amount of Middle East oil needed for refining.

“Ultimately, users of the energy services pay,” Fitzgerald said. “Consumers, people like you and me buying retail motor gasoline or diesel fuel or airplane tickets. But it also means that almost everything else we buy has an embedded energy content to it ... and this is where you start to worry about it driving increases in costs.”

Not all oil and gas companies benefit in the same way

In the present geopolitical environment, some companies are winners while others are losers, Fitzgerald said.

“If you’re a company like a U.S. (oil) producer, even a U.S.-based international company like an Exxon or Chevron who’s got lots of production outside the Gulf, things are good. You’re selling your product at a higher price,” he said.

But companies in the Middle East that are not able to benefit from higher prices because they are struggling to get their liquefied natural gas out of the Persian Gulf or have a lot of damaged oil fields or processing facilities have a very different take on recent events, Fitzgerald added.

“Your ability to sell anything and the volume that you may be getting out is so curtailed that your revenues are way down and you’re incurring higher transportation costs and security costs,” he said.

Exxon and Chevron weren’t as profitable in the first quarter due to the way oil is traded; the first real opportunity they had to take advantage of higher prices oil was in April. Companies that had a lot of oil stored in floating tankers and available for spot-market trading, including some European ones, were able to benefit from March’s higher oil prices, Seng said.

Trending News