Connect with us

Published

on

The US government aims to buy nearly 9,500 EVs this year, according to the Government Accountability Office (GAO). With the new update, exactly how committed is the government to going electric?

In December 2021, President Joe Biden issued an executive order to replace the entire US federal fleet with domestically-built electric vehicles.

This executive order calls for all light-duty vehicle purchases (sedans, smaller sport utility vehicles, and smaller pickup trucks) to be zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) by the end of 2027. By 2035, all new vehicle purchases will need to be ZEVs.

The transition affects roughly 380,000 vehicles within the US fleet as they become due for replacement or upgrades.

Since the announcement, agencies have revealed several deals with various manufacturers, while most agencies have developed a fleet transition strategy. As of March 2023, 26 of the 30 agencies’ plans have been approved, representing over 99% of all affected vehicles within the federal fleet.

According to the latest GAO update, the US government is targeting to buy nearly 9,500 EVs this fiscal year while deploying an additional 8,500 charging ports.

US-government-EVs
Department of Homeland Security revealing EVs (Source: DHS)

How committed is the US government to EVs?

Last year, the US government said it had replaced or bought around 45,000 vehicles in fiscal 2021. Of those, only 260 were zero-emission.

The GAO found that agencies have taken, or plan to take, the first steps to adopt EVs, including an initial assessment and workforce training.

Following the assessments, the US government agencies set targets that amount to nearly 9,500 light-duty EVs in fiscal 2023, including SUVs, pickup trucks, and sedans.

Ford-lightning-us-forests
US Forest Service Ford F-150 Lightning (Source: US Forest Service)

Several agencies have already announced purchase agreements. For example, the US Forest Service is deploying Ford F-150 Lightning electric pickups to learn more about optimal fleet size and charging infrastructure.

The report found two key factors holding agencies back from adopting EVs. The first is limited vehicle availability. For example, the Department of Transportation (DOT) initially wanted to order 430 ZEVs in fiscal 2022, but their order was scaled back due to order cancelations from manufacturers.

Another contributing factor is limited vehicle selection. Many agencies are looking for larger SUVs or pickup models to complete various tasks. According to the GSA website, the Ford F-150 Lightning SSV is the only all-electric pickup with open availability.

US-government-EVs
Ford F-150 Lightning Pro SSV (Source: Ford)

However, several electric SUVs and vans are open, including the Ford Mustang Mach-E, Tesla Model Y, and Ford Transit.

While agencies wait for availability, many of them are prioritizing deploying charging infrastructure in preparation. The 26 approved plans include intentions to install 8,536 charging ports in fiscal 2023, 77% of which are level 2.

This government report did not include the US Postal Service (USPS), which – after years of saying it would adopt EVs – finally announced plans to buy 100% electric vehicles from 2026 after facing backlash over the lack of progress.

US-government-EVs
Oshkosh USPS electric mail carrier (Source: Oshkosh)

The plans ensure that 75% of new vehicle purchases will be electric over the next several years leading up to 2026. The USPS expects to acquire at least 66,000 EVs from defense contractor Oshkosh as it begins to transition over its fleet of over 220,000 vehicles.

In addition, the USPS said it would purchase 21,000 commercial off-the-shelf EVs to jumpstart the transition. The agency announced in February the first of those contracts, totaling 9,250 EVs, will go to Ford.

Electrek’s Take

With the US government aiming to buy 9,500 EVs this fiscal year, it only amounts to 2.5% of the roughly 380,000 vehicles that are due for an electric upgrade by 2028.

Even US auto buyers are transitioning to electric quicker than the government. According to the latest information from Cox Automotive, over 170,000 EVs were sold in the second quarter of 2023, accounting for 7.2% of the US auto market, up from 5.7% a year ago.

I understand supply constraints, but if the government wants to go all-electric by when they say they want to, they better get a move on.

Global research and analytics firm the ICF Climate Center predicts electrifying the entire US fleet would save $6 billion over 15 years – just another reason for the urgency.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Environment

Tesla launches accessory to Macgyver power outlets on the go on new cheaper Cybertruck

Published

on

By

Tesla launches accessory to Macgyver power outlets on the go on new cheaper Cybertruck

Tesla has launched a new accessory enabling you to “Macgyver” a couple of power outlets from the Cybertruck’s charge port.

It appears to be designed for the new cheaper Cybertruck, which doesn’t have power outlets in its bed.

Earlier this week, Tesla launched the Cybertruck Long Range RWD: a new, cheaper, and badly nerfed version of the electric pickup truck.

The new version is extremely disappointing as it is $9,000 more expensive than the Cybertruck RWD was supposed to be, and while it has more range than originally planned, Tesla has removed a ton of features, including some important ones.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

Here’s what you lose with the Cybertruck RWD:

  • You get a single motor RWD instead of Dual Motor AWD
  • You lose the adaptive air suspension
  • No motorized tonneau, but you have an optional $750 soft tonneau
  • Textile seats instead of vegan leather
  • Fewer speakers
  • No rear screen for the backseat
  • No power outlets in the bed

The last one has been pretty disappointing, as it can’t be that expensive to include, and Tesla is basically removing $20,000 worth of features for only a $10,000 difference with the Dual Motor Cybertruck.

But the automaker appears to have come up with a partial solution.

Tesla has launched a $80 ‘Powershare Outlet Adapter’ on its online store:

When combined with Tesla’s Gen 3 Mobile Connector plugged into the Cybertruck’s charge port, it gives you two 120V 20A power outlets.

Tesla describes the product:

Powershare Outlet Adapter allows you to power electronic devices using Mobile Connector and your Powershare-equipped vehicle’s battery. To use this adapter, plug Mobile Connector’s handle into your Powershare-equipped vehicle’s charge port and connect the adapter to the other end of your Mobile Connector. You can then use this adapter to plug in any compatible electronic device you want to power.

For now, Tesla says that this only works for the Cybertruck and you have to buy the $300 mobile charging connector, which doesn’t come with the truck.

Electrek’s Take

I guess it’s better than nothing, but I’m still super disappointed in the new trim. It makes no sense right now.

Not only you lose the 2x 120V, 1x 240V outlets in the bed, but you also lose the 2x 120V outlets in the cabin. Now, you can can pay $380 to have a “Macgyver” solution for 2 120V outlets in the back.

I’m convinced that Tesla designed this trim simply to make the $80,000 Cybertruck AWD look better value-wise.

It looks like Tesla took out about $20,000 worth of features while giving buyers only a $10,000 discount.

It’s just the latest example of Tesla losing its edge.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Environment

Great news: IMO agrees to first-ever global carbon price on shipping

Published

on

By

Great news: IMO agrees to first-ever global carbon price on shipping

The International Maritime Organization, a UN agency which regulates maritime transport, has voted to implement a global cap on carbon emissions from ocean shipping and a penalty on entities that exceed that limit.

After a weeklong meeting of the Marine Environment Protection Committee of the IMO and decades of talks, countries have voted to implement binding carbon reduction targets including a gradually-reducing cap on emissions and associated penalties for exceeding that cap.

Previously, the IMO made another significant environmental move when it transitioned the entire shipping industry to lower-sulfur fuels in 2020, moving towards improving a longstanding issue with large ships outputting extremely high levels of sulfur dioxide emissions, which harm human health and cause acid rain.

Today’s agreement makes the shipping industry the first sector to agree on an internationally mandated target to reduce emissions along with a global carbon price.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

The agreement includes standards for greenhouse gas intensity from maritime shipping fuels, with those standards starting in 2028 and reducing through 2035. The end goal is to reach net-zero emissions in shipping by 2050.

Companies that exceed the carbon limits set by the standard will have to pay either $100 or $380 per excess ton of emissions, depending on how much they exceed limits by. These numbers are roughly in line with the commonly-accepted social cost of carbon, which is an attempt to set the equivalent cost borne by society by every ton of carbon pollution.

Money from these penalties will be put into a fund that will reward lower-emissions ships, research into cleaner fuels, and support nations that are vulnerable to climate change.

That means that this agreement represents a global “carbon price” – an attempt to make polluters pay the costs that they shift onto everyone else by polluting.

Why carbon prices matter

The necessity of a carbon price has long been acknowledged by virtually every economist. In economic terms, pollution is called a “negative externality,” where a certain action imposes costs on a party that isn’t responsible for the action itself. That action can be thought of as a subsidy – it’s a cost imposed by the polluter that isn’t being paid by the polluter, but rather by everyone else.

Externalities distort a market because they allow certain companies to get away with cheaper costs than they should otherwise have. And a carbon price is an attempt to properly price that externality, to internalize it to the polluter in question, so that they are no longer being subsidized by everyone else’s lungs. This also incentivizes carbon reductions, because if you can make something more cleanly, you can make it more cheaply.

Many people have suggested implementing a carbon price, including former republican leadership (before the party forgot literally everything about how economics works), but political leadership has been hesitant to do what’s needed because it fears the inevitable political backlash driven by well-funded propaganda entities in the oil industry.

For that reason, most carbon pricing schemes have focused on industrial processes, rather than consumer goods. This is currently happening in Canada, which recently (unwisely) retreated from its consumer carbon price but still maintains a price on the largest polluters in the oil industry.

But until today’s agreement by the IMO, there had been no global agreement of the same in any industry. There are single-country carbon prices, and international agreements between certain countries or subnational entities, often in the form of “cap-and-trade” agreements which implement penalties, and where companies that reduce emissions earn credits that they can then sell to companies that exceed limits (California has a similar program in partnership with with Quebec), but no previous global carbon price in any industry.

Carbon prices opposed by enemies of life on Earth

Unsurprisingly, entities that favor destruction of life on Earth, such as the oil industry and those representing it (Saudi Arabia, Russia, and the bought-and-paid oil stooge who is illegally squatting in the US Oval Office), opposed these measures, claiming they would be “unworkable.”

Meanwhile, island nations whose entire existence is threatened by climate change (along with the ~2 billion people who will have to relocate by the end of the century due to rising seas) correctly said that the move isn’t strong enough, and that even stronger action is needed to avoid the worse effects of climate change.

The island nations’ position is backed by science, the oil companies’ position is not.

While these new standards are historic and need to be lauded as the first agreement of their kind, there is still more work to be done and incentives that need to be offered to ensure that greener technologies are available to help fulfill the targets. Jesse Fahnestock, Director of Decarbonisation at the Global Maritime Forum, said: 

While the targets are a step forward, they will need to be improved if they are to drive the rapid fuel shift that will enable the maritime sector to reach net zero by 2050. While we applaud the progress made, meeting the targets will require immediate and decisive investments in green fuel technology and infrastructure. The IMO will have opportunities to make these regulations more impactful over time, and national and regional policies also need to prioritise scalable e-fuels and the infrastructure needed for long-term decarbonisation.

One potential solution could be IMO’s “green corridors,” attempts to establish net-zero-emission shipping routes well in advance of the IMO’s 2050 net-zero target.

And, of course, this is only one industry, and one with a relatively low contribution to global emissions. While the vast majority of global goods are shipped over the ocean, it’s still responsible for only around 3% of global emissions. To see the large emissions reductions we need to avoid the worst effects of climate change, other more-polluting sectors – like automotive, agriculture (specifically animal agriculture), construction and heating – all could use their own carbon price to help add a forcing factor to drive down their emissions.

Lets hope that the IMO’s move sets that example, and we see more of these industries doing the right thing going forward (and ignoring those enemies of life on Earth listed above).

The agreement still has to go through a final step of approval on October, but this looks likely to happen.


Even without a carbon price, many homeowners can save money on their electricity bills today by going solar. And if you’re considering going solar, it’s always a good idea to get quotes from a few installers. To make sure you find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. It has hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high-quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use, and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and share your phone number with them. 

Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisors to help you every step of the way. Get started here. – ad*

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Environment

Podcast: new Tesla Cybertruck, tariff mayhem, Lucid buys Nikola, and more

Published

on

By

Podcast: new Tesla Cybertruck, tariff mayhem, Lucid buys Nikola, and more

In the Electrek Podcast, we discuss the most popular news in the world of sustainable transport and energy. In this week’s episode, we discuss the new Tesla Cybertruck RWD, more tariff mayhem, Lucid buying Nikola, and more.

The show is live every Friday at 4 p.m. ET on Electrek’s YouTube channel.

As a reminder, we’ll have an accompanying post, like this one, on the site with an embedded link to the live stream. Head to the YouTube channel to get your questions and comments in.

After the show ends at around 5 p.m. ET, the video will be archived on YouTube and the audio on all your favorite podcast apps:

Advertisement – scroll for more content

We now have a Patreon if you want to help us avoid more ads and invest more in our content. We have some awesome gifts for our Patreons and more coming.

Here are a few of the articles that we will discuss during the podcast:

Here’s the live stream for today’s episode starting at 4:00 p.m. ET (or the video after 5 p.m. ET):

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Trending