Plug-in hybrids use far more gasoline in the real world than regulatory agencies account for, according to a new analysis of data by the International Council on Clean Transportation, the research group that broke the Volkswagen dieselgate scandal.
The ICCT analyzed data both from Fuelly, an app which helps drivers track their fuel efficiency, and from the California Bureau of Automotive Repair (BAR). It then compared this data to regulatory agency estimates and found that PHEVs are not driving on electric power nearly as often as the EPA had assumed they are.
This could have significant implications for the way plug-in hybrid cars are regulated since they seem to produce more emissions and use more gasoline in practice than previously thought.
The data showed that PHEVs spend 26-56% less time in all-electric drive mode (this is called the “utility factor”), and therefore consume 42-67% more fuel than EPA labeling suggests.
Further, the unbiased data from BAR looked worse than the self-reporting data from Fuelly:
Researchers think this is because self-reported MPG data will skew towards drivers who pay more attention to efficiency, and thus are more likely to drive in a more efficient manner and remember to plug in their cars. But the data from BAR doesn’t include this bias, so in reality, PHEV shortcomings probably skew on the high end of these percentage estimates.
The ICCT had even more drastic results in an earlier study in Europe. In that study, fuel usage and emissions for PHEVs were 3-5 times higher than WLTP estimates suggested. Part of this was due to company cars where a company would pay for fuel, but not electricity, and thus were never plugged in, but were purchased by the company in order to get PHEV incentives. But even for non-company cars, the disparity between WLTP and real-world estimates was even larger than in the US.
Research lead Aaron Isenstadt showed us a table of the best- and worst-performing PHEV models, and pointed out that, as expected, “range-extended” models (like the i3 and Volt) which focus on using the engine as a backup generator for an ample battery tended to have higher electric usage. Whereas PHEVs with vestigial batteries like the original Plug-in Prius, or where the target customer was less environmentally-minded like the Range Rover and Panamera, were barely ever plugged in.
BestEDS
BAR data (MY19+, automatic collection)
Electric drive share
Fuelly data (MY11+, user-reported)
Electric drive share
1st
2019 Chevrolet Volt
0.623
2014 BMW i3 REX
0.900
2nd
2019 Volvo S60 AWD
0.548
2016 BMW I3 REX
0.875
3rd
2022 BMW 530e Sedan
0.499
2017 BMW i3 REX
0.864
4th
2021 BMW 330e xDrive
0.486
2015 BMW I3 REX
0.824
5th
2019 Volvo XC60 AWD
0.442
2016 Cadillac ELR
0.807
WorstEDS
BAR data (MY19+, automatic collection)
Electric drive share
Fuelly data (MY11+, user-reported)
Electric drive share
5th
2020 BMW 530E
0.116
2014 Porsche Panamera S E-Hybrid
0.115
4th
2022 Volvo XC90 T8 AWD Recharge
0.080
2013 Toyota Prius Plug-in Hybrid
0.113
3rd
2020 Land Rover Range Rover PHEV
0.062
2014 Toyota Prius Plug-in Hybrid
0.082
2nd
2022 Hyundai Tucson Plug-in Hybrid
0.054
2014 Honda Accord Plug-in Hybrid
0.045
1st
2022 Kia Niro Plug-in Hybrid
0.051
***
0.000
*** 5 models showed higher overall fuel consumption than their label CS fuel consumption, resulting in presumed/default 0% EDS
Isenstadt said that the only model he would consider a high-achiever is the BMW i3 REX. Other models fell far short of expected EPA numbers. The EPA generally expects PHEVs to use electric drive 80% of the time or more (though this scales up and down based on battery size), and only the i3 crossed the EPA’s bar.
The i3 was notable for its large (~100 mile) battery and small, optional engine (with a corresponding very small gas tank). This resulted in it being treated more like an electric car with occasional gas capability, as opposed to many of today’s PHEVs which operate in blended mode.
We also spoke with Stephanie Searle, the study’s project manager, about the results. She wanted to highlight just how large the disparity was between regulatory and real-world numbers – not just a few percent, but more than 50%.
Searle noted that the BAR numbers were the first time ICCT had used unbiased, non-self-reported numbers in its analysis, and the fact that they were worse than the self-reported numbers means that the problem is perhaps worse than previous research indicates. She considers the BAR numbers to be more robust, but also noted that even the self-reported numbers from Fuelly, where you would expect efficiency-conscious drivers to live, showed a massive disparity.
Policy recommendations
The ICCT hopes that its research will influence policy around PHEVs by providing regulators with more data about the actual carbon reductions (or relative lack thereof) achieve by PHEV deployment.
The ICCT issued five specific recommendations to the EPA:
Adjust the regulatory utility factor downwards for PHEVs to reflect current real- world performance.
Require in-use data reporting for specific PHEV models to receive a higher utility factor reflective of said in-use data
Adopt minimum electric driving range requirements, similar to California’s range requirements for zero-emission vehicle crediting in its Advanced Clean Cars II regulation
Adopt maximum engine power-to-weight limits
Establish a higher utility factor corresponding to the purchase of PHEV by drivers with demonstrated home chargers or manufacturer assistance with charging access
It also recommended that manufacturers could incentivize regular charging by assisting with home charger installation and by actively reporting cost of driving to users, and that tax administrators could incentivize PHEV purchases by restricting tax credits to PHEV models which display high utility factors. The US government recently expanded EV tax credits in the Inflation Reduction Act, allowing even small-battery (>7kWh) PHEVs access to the full $7,500 credit, a contrast to ICCT’s recommendations.
Will EPA follow California?
Further, the EPA is currently considering new emissions rules for 2027 and later model year vehicles. It’s expected to announce them this coming spring.
Searle hoped that these coming rules would be heavily influenced by California’s recent “Advanced Clean Cars II” standard. When that standard was unveiled, we at Electrek said it could be better, but part of California’s reason for making easier rules was because it wanted to set a standard that could be applied to other states in the country where EV sales aren’t as high as in CA.
The new California rules ban the sale of new gas cars after 2035, but allow up to 20% of new vehicles to be PHEVs. These PHEVs do need to meet minimum range requirements, in the hopes that cars with larger batteries will be more likely to be plugged in.
These findings show that even those California rules might overestimate the emissions reductions from PHEVs, and more consideration should be put into how to maximize the percentage of time people spend on electric drive, rather than using gasoline.
Do PHEVs matter?
All that said, this grousing over PHEVs may not matter much in the long run. ICCT says production costs are dropping faster for BEVs than PHEVs, which means all this may be a moot point in the future. Since PHEVs are basically two cars in one, falling battery prices may make BEVs an even clearer better choice for both buyers and manufacturers. PHEVs are currently rather popular in Europe, with similar market share as BEVs (partially due to the company car effect mentioned above), but have lagged far behind BEVs in the US, and it doesn’t look like they’re going to catch up.
But as long as we are in the current battery-constrained production scenario we are in, the ICCT’s new data will help regulators understand the relative carbon reduction potential of PHEVs as compared to BEVs, and that the benefit of PHEVs may be smaller than previously expected.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.
A trader on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange during the first session of the new year on January 2, 2025, in New York City, U.S.
Timothy A. Clary | Afp | Getty Images
The U.S. joining the war between Israel and Iran might seem like a geopolitical flashpoint that would send markets tumbling. Instead, investors are largely shrugging off the escalation, with many strategists believing the conflict to be contained — and even bullish for some risk assets.
As of 1 p.m. Singapore time, the MSCI World index, which tracks over a thousand large and mid-cap companies from 23 developed markets, declined only 0.12%. Safe havens are also trading mixed, with the Japanese yen weakening 0.64% against the dollar, while spot gold prices slipped 0.23% to $3,360 per ounce. The dollar index, which measures the U.S. dollar against a basket of currencies, rose 0.35%.
“The markets view the attack on Iran as a relief with the nuclear threat now gone for the region,” said Dan Ives, managing director at Wedbush, adding that he sees minimal risks of the Iran-Israel conflict spreading to the rest of the region and consequently more “isolated.”
While the gravity of the latest developments should not be dismissed, they are not seen as a systemic risk to global markets, other industry experts echoed.
On Saturday, U.S. President Donald Trump said that the United States had attacked Iranian nuclear sites. Traders are now keeping a close eye on any potential countermeasures from Iran following the U.S. strikes on its nuclear facilities.
Iran’s potential closure of the Strait
Iran’s foreign minister warned that his country reserved “all options” to defend its sovereignty. According to Iranian state media, the country’s parliament has also approved closing the Strait of Hormuz, a pivotal waterway for global oil trade, with about 20 million barrels of oil and oil products traversing through it each day.
“It all depends on how Iran responds,” said Peter Boockvar, chief investment officer at Bleakley Financial Group. “If they accept the end of their military nuclear desires… then this could be the end of the conflict and markets will be fine,” he told CNBC. Boockvar is not of the view that Iran will carry out the disruption of global oil supplies.
The worst-case scenario for markets would occur if Iran were to close the Strait, which is unlikely, said Marko Papic, chief strategist at GeoMacro Strategy.
“If they do, oil prices go north of $100, fear and panic take over, stocks go down ~10% minimum, and investors rush to safe havens,” he said.
However, markets are subdued now given the “limited tools” that Tehran has at its disposal to retaliate, Papic added.
The idea of shutting down the Hormuz waterway has been a recurring rhetoric from Iran, but it has never been acted upon, with experts highlighting that it is improbable.
In 2018, Iran warned it could block the Strait of Hormuz after the U.S. pulled out of the nuclear deal and reinstated sanctions. Similar threats were made earlier in 2011 and 2012, when senior Iranian officials — including then-Vice President Mohammad-Reza Rahimi — said the waterway could be closed if Western nations imposed more sanctions on Iran’s oil exports due to its nuclear activities.
“Tehran understands that, if they were to close the Strait, the retaliation from the U.S. would be swift, punitive, and brutal,” Papic added.
In a similar vein, Yardeni Research founder Ed Yardeni said the latest events have not shaken his conviction in the U.S. bull market.
“Geopolitically, we think that Trump has just reestablished America’s military deterrence capabilities, thus increasing the credibility of his ‘peace through strength’ mantra,” he said, adding that he is targeting 6,500 for the S&P 500 by the end of 2025.
While predicting geopolitical developments in the Middle East is a “treacherous exercise,” Yardeni believes that the region is in for a “radical transformation” now that Iranian nuclear facilities have been destroyed.
Oil prices jumped more than 7% on Friday, hitting their highest in months after Israel said it struck Iran, dramatically escalating tensions in the Middle East and raising worries about disrupted oil supplies.
Eli Hartman | Reuters
Oil markets are entering a new phase of uncertainty after the U.S. entered the war between Iran and Israel, with experts warning of triple-digit prices.
Investors are closely watching for Iran’s reaction following the U.S.’ strikes on its nuclear facilities, with Iran’s foreign minister warning his country reserved “all options” to defend its sovereignty.
Oil futures were up over 2% as of early Asia hours. U.S. WTI crude rose more than 2% to $75.22 per barrel, while global benchmark Brent was up nearly 2% at $78.53 per barrel.
“There is real risk of the market experiencing unprecedented supply disruptions over coming weeks, of a much more severe nature than the oil price shock in 2022 in wake of the Ukraine war,” said MST Marquee’s senior energy analyst Saul Kavonic.
While the market reaction post U.S. strikes has been less aggressive, relative to just over a week ago when Israel launched airstrikes against Iran, industry watchers believe that the latest developments usher in a new era of volatility for the oil markets, especially as they await for potential Iranian countermeasures.
Threats of blocking Strait of Hormuz, after Iran’s parliament approved closing it as per state media, have added to market jitters.
This time feels different, given the barrage of missiles that have been fired for over a week and now the direct involvement of the USA.
Andy Lipow
Lipow Oil Associates
The strait, which connects the Persian Gulf to the Arabian Sea, is a critical artery for global oil trade with about 20 million barrels of oil and oil products passing through it per day. That makes up almost one-fifth of global oil shipments.
If Iran does close the Strait of Hormuz, Western forces will likely “directly enter the fray” and try to reopen it, Kavonic told CNBC, adding that oil prices could approach $100 per barrel and retest the highs seen in 2022, if the closure goes beyond more than a few weeks.
“Even a degree of harassment of passage through the Strait, short of a full closure, could still see a serious heightening of oil prices,” said the senior energy analyst.
Kavonic’s view is echoed by other industry experts.
The U.S. and allied military would eventually reopen the Strait, but if Iran employed all its military means, the conflict could “last longer than the last two Gulf Wars,” said Bob McNally, president of Rapidan Energy Group. And should Iran decide to attack Gulf energy production or flows, it has the capability to disrupt oil and LNG shipping, resulting in sharp spike in prices.
“A prolonged closure or destruction of key Gulf energy infrastructure could propel crude prices to above $100,” he said.
Stock Chart IconStock chart icon
Performance of oil benchmarks in the past year
The CBOE crude oil volatility index, which measures the market’s expectation of 30-day volatility in crude oil prices, is at March 2022 levels it hit shortly after Russia invaded Ukraine.
While there has been some level of uncertainty with regards to how developments in the Middle East could play out for oil supplies, Lipow Associates’ Andy Lipow noted that the current developments carry a different weight.
“This time feels different, given the barrage of missiles that have been fired for over a week and now the direct involvement of the USA,” he said, adding oil could hit $100 per barrel should exports through the Strait of Hormuz be affected.
While an attempt to block the Hormuz waterway between Iran and Oman could have profound consequences for the wider economy, threats of blocking the strait have mostly been rhetorical, with experts saying that it is physically impossible to do so.
“So the picture is a little bit mixed, and I think traders will err on the side of caution, not panicking unless there is more real evidence to do,” said Vandana Hari, founder and CEO, Vanda Insights.
Iran in 2018 threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz amid heightened tensions after the U.S. exited the nuclear deal and reinstated sanctions. Similar threat were issued in 2011 and 2012, when senior Iranian officials — among them then–Vice President Mohammad-Reza Rahimi — warned of a possible closure if Western nations imposed more sanctions on Iran’s oil exports over its nuclear activities.
Additionally, it is worth noting that Iranian energy infrastructure has not been a target thus far even with the recent conflagrations, said Rebecca Babin, senior energy trader at CIBC Private Wealth.
“It appears that both sides have an incentive to keep oil out of the line of fire, at least for now,” she said.
U.S. and Israeli flags projected on the historic walls of the Old City near Hebron Gate in Jerusalem, Israel, on June 22, 2025.
Gazi Samad | Anadolu | Getty Images
United States on Saturday conducted air strikes on three of Iran’s nuclear sites, entering Israel’s war against Tehran. The timing was unexpected. On Thursday, U.S. President Donald Trump said he was still considering U.S. involvement and would arrive at a decision “within the next two weeks.”
Financial and political analysts had largely taken that phrase as code word for inaction.
“There is also skepticism that the ‘two-week’ timetable is a too familiar saying used by the President to delay making any major decision,” wrote Jay Woods, chief global strategist at Freedom Capital Markets.
Indeed, Trump has commonly neglected to follow up after giving a “two week” timeframe on major actions, according to NBC News.
And who can forget the TACO trade? It’s an acronym that stands for “Trump Always Chickens Out” — which describes a pattern of the U.S. president threatening heavy tariffs, weighing down markets, but pausing or reducing their severity later on, helping stocks to rebound.
“Trump has to bury the TACO before the TACO buries him … he’s been forced to stand down on many occasion, and that has cost him a lot of credibility,” said David WOO, CEO of David Woo Unbound.
And so Trump followed up on his threat, and ahead of the proposed two-week timeline.
“There will be either peace, or there will be tragedy for Iran far greater than we have witnessed over the last eight days,” Trump said on Saturday evening.
But given Trump’s criticism of U.S. getting involved in wars under other presidents, does America bombing Iran add to his credibility, or erode it further?
Oil jumps but bitcoin slumps Oil prices jumped Sunday evening in the U.S., its first trading session after Saturday’s strikes. U.S. crude oil rose $1.76, or 2.38%, to $75.60 per barrel, while global benchmark Brent was up $1.80, or 2.34%, to $78.81 per barrel. Meanwhile, bitcoin prices briefly dipped below the $99,000 mark Sunday, its lowest level in more than a month, before paring losses. It’s now trading around $100,940, down 1.5%.
[PRO] Eyes on inflation reading Where markets go this week will depend on whether the conflict in the Middle East escalates after the U.S.’ involvement. Investors should also keep an eye on economic data. May’s personal consumptions expenditure price index, the Federal Reserve’s preferred gauge of inflation, comes out Friday, and will tell if tariffs are starting to heat up inflation.
And finally…
Iranian flags fly as fire and smoke from an Israeli attack on Sharan Oil depot rise, following Israeli strikes on Iran, in Tehran, Iran, June 15, 2025.
Senior Israeli officials said this week that their military campaign against Iran could trigger the fall of the regime, an event that would have enormous implications for the global oil market.
There are no signs that the regime in Iran is on the verge of collapse, said Scott Modell, CEO of the consulting firm Rapidan Energy Grop.
But further political destabilization in Iran “could lead to significantly higher oil prices sustained over extended periods,” said Natasha Kaneva, head of global commodities research at JPMorgan, in a note to clients this week.
There have been eight cases of regime change in major oil-producing countries since 1979, according to JPMorgan. Oil prices spiked 76% on average at their peak in the wake of these changes, before pulling back to stabilize at a price about 30% higher compared to pre-crisis levels, according to the bank.