... EV curb weight: late model Teslas ~

hybrids still burn gas. they may slow climate change if everyone drove them, but we will reach the same inevitable end.
bev's can and will be fueled by renewables. ultimately, it's too late to save the planet, and people who hate bev's usually have an ulterior motive, because science cannot explain their actions or opinions.

 

Careful!
Don't let the sciencologists hear you say that!

I like to pick on EVangelists as much as the next guy but of all the many ways that BEVs fall short of being a real-world substitute for a PHEV or proper automobile you cannot fault them for being heavier than a willowy bean shaped 5-pax, FWD people hauler.
Even Subies haven't been adult-sized since the last time that we had a President that wasn't suffering from age-related cognitive decline!

I've owned and loved an MX-5 and to me there are only a hand full of things that are more fun to play with than a properly balanced, RWD, three pedal car.
HOWEVER (comma!!!)
The Lotus Elise WAS a 2-door, 2 seat, rag-topped roadster capable of hauling 2 people and one computer bag.
They're the automotive equivalent of a European soccer player.
Expensive AF for what you get.
Requires lots of maintenance and pampering.
AT BEST, slightly underpowered. (Less BHP than a Prius.)
Lots of drama.
Somewhat entertaining on a manicured pitch (sometimes)
Useless on real-world streets.

Hence the use if the word "WAS"
One famous example was used as a 'test slug' for a falcon rocket and it had to be extensively modified even for that humble purpose.

 

Lots of tire and brake particulates whereas EPA considers particulates extreme toxic, but we should make exception for politically correct particulates. It is those particulates that we do NOT want to be exposed that are the outrage if over zero.

 

FORTUNATELY.......
What is the Chevron deference and why has it been overruled?
This means that the outrage industrial complex will have to make new laws the old fashioned way (constitutionally) instead of apparatchiks pulling new rules and regs out of their colons.

I'm thinking that while BEVs and PHEVs may be statistically heftier than their wireless counterparts, regenerative braking means less brake particulates. ALSO the billiard-ball hard LRR tires that the eco-chic cars wear probably shed fewer pounds of rubber per mile than the fat-tire summer-use only tires that the tuners are rolling.

So...
Size matters.
Range matters.

Weight???
Not so much.
One illegally overloaded and un-tarped gravel truck will wipe away the sins of a whole counties worth of BEVs and PHEVs.

 

Why not regulate vehicle size/weight instead of fuel?

 

Vehicles ARE regulated AND taxed by weight.

The only difference is that in addition to skating out on the road maintenance taxes, the EVangelists have managed to get a lot of tax kickbacks for BEVs and some PHEVs.
They are nearly as loathsome as bicyclists - but at least BEVs can operate on the normal roads that they don't pay for instead of brow-beating people into building them a whole new set of lanes and single-use roads that they don't have to pay for.

 

Is that worse than the indirect subsidies of the oil industry?

 

Until a study measures these from an EV, it is a perhaps.

Regen braking greatly reduces brake particles. Some EVs can come to a stop using just regen.

Heavier cars should mean more tire wear, but the heavy vehicles in past studies were all trucks. Being unaerodynamic, they have turbulent wakes. That resuspends more particles from the road, including tire ones from other cars. Models using those study results may not apply to aerodynamic cars.

As for the EPA's politics, there were gasoline cars that exceed the exhaust particle limits for diesels before direct injection became the norm, yet cars sold in the US don't require an exhaust filter.

On a related note, Euro6 will regulate tire and brake particle emissions.