The FUD accusations seem a bit hasty here. The linked Senate hearing doesn't seem to contain negative things about BEVs (it only criticizes the "narrow focus" on them), but instead opts for including hybrid and hydrogen, with the argument being that "recent data shows that plug-in hybrids can achieve nearly the same or better GHG reductions than BEVs depending on your daily driving patterns, the carbon in the electri…
>depending on your daily driving patterns This is the key point. Modern highly efficient turbocharged 4 cylinder ICE vehicles can be equally or more efficient than a hybrid in the right circumstances as well. But the vast majority of driving is city streets <45mph, where ICE can't even come close to BEV.
There's been quite a few studies questioning the current focus on EVs with ranges of 400km and more. Largely because they are so heavy and are therefore not very energy efficient. The argument is that most peoples daily commute is less than 50km (in Europe), but they still by an overly heavy EV for the 5-10 times a year they go on longer trips. Instead a plugin hybrid could be much more efficient, because you can use it in EV mode for your commutes, but you can still use the car for long trips, without the significant weight (and corresponding inefficiency) increases of an EV. I suspect this is very much a function of the driving pattern, and I suspect in the mid-term future this will change with more efficient battery technology.