Just for anyone reading this thread ... I've found it a best practice to watch my buffer and if I start losing some, I slow down to get it back up. After that buffer is far in excess of anything I could use, then I quit worrying so much. So in your case, if I was going 65 and I was dealing with hills, I would have slowed down to 55 until I knew, beyond a doubt, that I had enough range.
55 might not seem practical to you, but then I don't think 15% buffer is enough if you're not willing to drop speed when necessary. You said it yourself. Once you got familiar with the route, you haven't run out. So when driving unfamiliar routes, more than 15% buffer would be "practical", don't you think?
Another issue that used to confuse people is the energy needed to overcome potential energy climbing
(or recovered, descending) hills. Stories like the Las Vegas to Barstow one above happen because the climb was not accounted for. Today, the Energy:Trip display does those calculations for you, correcting for ups and downs. It does even better by comparing your energy usage over the last 5-10 miles with its model and predicting your destination energy with good accuracy. I aim for 10-15% minimum energy at my destination. When getting close, I will invade that buffer. If the predicted arrival energy on the Energy:Trip screen goes below that 10-15%, I slow down. If I am well above the 10-15% threshold, I know that I have an extra buffer and can speed up, run the heat at will, open the windows, etc. After a change in driving style, I wait 5-10 miles and look at the prediction again.
If I know that there is bad wind or weather ahead
(the worst is freezing rain), I will leave a larger biffer. When charging, you can use the Energy:Trip screen as well; just be aware that during charging, it uses typical conditions, not most recent conditions. If there is bad wind or weather ahead, charge some more.
In days past
(before the Energy:Trip screen), I would calculate "Cottonwood Rated Miles" which were the battery rated miles corrected for the difference in current elevation and destination elevation with the conversion factor of 6 rated miles to 1,000 feet. As an engineer who enjoys mental math, these calculations offered great enjoyment on long drives.
By using the Energy:Trip screen recently or "Cottonwood Rated Miles" in the past, I have never been the least bit nervous of arriving at the next charging location. :biggrin:
To keep my buffer, before the Salida, CO 70 Amp J1772 went in, I have driven 53 in a 65 mph zone of the San Luis Valley where most of traffic is driving 75+. I felt a little silly and bored, but never felt unsafe, and I arrived with a reasonable reserve