Biden admin debuts infrastructure plan to electrify freight by 2040, a first
The Biden Administration has released the first-ever strategy document detailing its plan to target specific freight corridors for infrastructure improvement, with the intent of helping to reach its goal of 100% zero-emission new truck sales by 2040.
The strategy is a cooperation between the Departments of Transportation and Energy (through the Joint Office of Energy and Transportation) and the Environmental Protection Agency. It’s the first attempt of the US government to identify a consistent strategy for electrifying freight transport nationwide.
The offices analyzed how medium and heavy duty freight vehicles move in America, and established priorities of what routes should be targeted first in order to maximize pollution reductions.
Heavy duty vehicles have a disproportionate effect on pollution, as large diesel engines release many more particulate emissions than light-duty vehicles do. These vehicles tend to drive along specific routes, and those routes often go through poorer communities, with 75% of truck traffic traveling on just 4% of the nation’s roads.
This means these places experience disproportionate pollution – and that we can get disproportionate gains just by cleaning up a small amount of roads, instead of targeting every road in the country haphazardly.
So this strategy does target those roads first, focusing on certain “transport hubs” between 2024-2027. Those hubs are in the largest areas for freight traffic around the country, and some associated corridors between or near the hubs. For example, the hub around the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach and the logistics centers of the Inland Empire, or the Texas Triangle, or much of the Northeastern seaboard where US population density is highest.
These areas are targeted partially due to how much traffic they see, but also other important factors like areas that experience disproportionate air quality burdens, and with a particular interest in states with policies that enable zero-emission vehicle deployment (specifically, California’s Advanced Clean Trucks rule, which several other states have adopted).
The deployment strategy goes on to connect these preliminary corridors from ’27-’30, then expand the network from ’30-’35, then complete electrification of the National Highway Freight Network from ’35-’40.
The staged deployment also recognizes the limitations of today’s technology. Currently, electric trucks are more than capable for certain tasks like drayage and last-mile delivery, but long-haul trucking and sleeper cabs just aren’t there yet due to the mass and cost of batteries. So in the short term, shorter and more frequent routes, which also tend to go through the most populated areas, will be targeted first. These routes also offer the best cost-of-ownership advantages, another factor the plan takes into account.
The strategy doesn’t just focus on BEVs though, but also acknowledges that hydrogen could help to electrify zero emission heavy duty transport. Due to hydrogen’s higher energy density, it could be useful for long-haul trucking.
But infrastructure difficulties are greater with hydrogen, because hydrogen fueling facilities are costly and rare, and there is no nationwide hydrogen distribution network already established, unlike the ones we have for diesel and electricity. So the strategy will help to identify where the best locations for hydrogen refueling facilities might land.
This strategy doesn’t commit additional money, it merely helps to direct funding, both from government and private sources, into the places that have been identified as the most ripe for electrification. Billions of dollars have already been committed by the federal government largely via President Biden’s two signature legislative accomplishments the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act. In addition, there is additional funding from state governments, and just two weeks ago the EPA committed $3 billion towards cleaning up ports (there’s a webinar about this plan’s funding opportunities tomorrow from 2-4PM EDT).
The full strategy (with ~300 pages listing corridors and port facilities) is available here.
Electrek’s Take
In our recent conversations at events related to heavy duty trucking (e.g. truck charger openings, ACT Expo, municipal truck ride&drive events, etc.), infrastructure is the main topic of conversation. A few years ago, fleets were curious about how EV trucks might be able to fit into fleets like theirs, but things have moved rapidly and now everyone is rushing to install chargers at their depots, or wondering what sort of public charging infrastructure they might be able to find.
Regulators are trying to find ways to streamline these installations, as some of them can be held up and make it difficult for trucking companies to electrify as quickly as governments want them to.
So a directive from the federal government about how to achieve these goals will give a lot of entities more clarity on how to get where we need to be, and on what to target first. There’s no reason to install a huge charging station in Sterling, North Dakota, right now if we can instead target the trucks handling a combined ~20 million TEU on the 710 in Long Beach.
And apparently this was a pretty big deal, since we got comments from every environmental organization you can dream of about this new strategy. The Sierra Club, BlueGreen Alliance, Environmental Defense Fund, International Council on Clean Transportation and more all sent us statements praising the new strategy.
As one final note, as a Californian, I particularly like the shoutout to “states with policies that enable ZEV deployment,” namely California and the states that follow our heavy duty ZEV rules.
In many ways our aggressive zero emission truck rules have set the bar nationally, and proven viability of these strategies in a state with lots of roads and which enables a lot of America’s trucks commerce (through its two largest container ports). I love that we’re leading the way on this and that the Biden Administration seems to be rapidly taking up the banner (and we’re doing pretty well on the light-duty side too).
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
After years of teasing that other automakers would license Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) system, Elon Musk has now admitted that no other automakers want to license it.
“They don’t want it!” He says.
For years, the bull case for Tesla (TSLA) has relied heavily on the idea that the company isn’t just an automaker, but an “AI and robotics company”, with its first robot product being an autonomous car.
CEO Elon Musk pushed the theory further, arguing that Tesla’s lead in autonomy was so great that legacy automakers would eventually have no choice but to license Full Self-Driving (FSD) to survive.
Back in early 2021, during the Q4 2020 earnings call, Musk first claimed that Tesla had “preliminary discussions” with other automakers about licensing the software. He reiterated this “openness” frequently, famously tweeting in June 2023 that Tesla was “happy to license Autopilot/FSD or other Tesla technology” to competitors.
The speculation peaked in April 2024, when Musk explicitly stated that Tesla was “in talks with one major automaker” and that there was a “good chance” a deal would be signed that year.
We now know that deal never happened. And thanks to comments from Ford CEO Jim Farley earlier this year, we have a good idea why. Farley, who was likely the other party in those “major automaker” talks, publicly shut down the idea of using FSD, stating clearly that “Waymo is better”.
Now, Musk appears to have given up on the idea of licensing Tesla FSD. In a post on X late last night, Musk acknowledged that discussions with other automakers have stalled, claiming that they asked for “unworkable requirements” for Tesla.
The CEO wrote:
“I’ve tried to warn them and even offered to license Tesla FSD, but they don’t want it! Crazy …
When legacy auto does occasionally reach out, they tepidly discuss implementing FSD for a tiny program in 5 years with unworkable requirements for Tesla, so pointless.”
Suppose you translate “unworkable requirements” from Musk-speak to automotive industry standard. In that case, it becomes clear what happened: automakers demanded a system that does what it says: drive autonomously, which means something different for Tesla.
Legacy automakers generally follow a “V-model” of validation. They define requirements, test rigorously, and validate safety before release. When Mercedes-Benz released its Drive Pilot system, a true Level 3 system, they accepted full legal liability for the car when the system is engaged.
In contrast, Tesla’s “aggressive deployment” strategy relies on releasing “beta” (now “Supervised”) software to customers and using them to validate the system. This approach has led to a litany of federal investigations and lawsuits.
Just this month, Tesla settled the James Tran vs. Tesla lawsuit just days before trial. The case involved a Model Y on Autopilot crashing into a stationary police vehicle, a known issue with Tesla’s system for years. By settling, Tesla avoided a jury verdict, but the message to the industry was clear: even Tesla knows it risks losing these cases in court.
Meanwhile, major automakers, such as Toyota, have partnered with Waymo to integrate its autonomous driving techonology into its consumer vehicles.
Electrek’s Take
The “unworkable requirements for Tesla” is an instant Musk classic. What were those requirements that were unachievable for Tesla? That it wouldn’t crash into stationary objects on the highway, such as emergency vehicles?
How dare they request something that crazy?
No Ford or GM executive is going to license a software stack that brings that kind of liability into their house. If they license FSD, they want Tesla to indemnify them against crashes. Tesla, knowing the current limitations of its vision-only system, likely refused.
To Musk, asking him to pay for FSD’s mistakes is an “unworkable requirement.” It’s always a driver error, and the fact that he always uses hyperbole to describe the level of safety being higher than that of humans has no impact on user abuse of the poorly named driver assistance systems in his view.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Environment
CPSC warns Rad Power Bikes owners to stop using select batteries immediately due to fire risk
In an unprecedented move, the US Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has issued a public safety warning urging owners of certain Rad Power Bikes e-bike batteries to immediately stop using them, citing a risk of fire, explosion, and potentially serious injury or death.
The warning, published today, targets Rad’s lithium-ion battery models RP-1304 and HL-RP-S1304, which were sold with some of the company’s most popular e-bikes, including the RadWagon 4, RadRunner 1 and 2, RadRunner Plus, RadExpand 5, RadRover 5 series, and RadCity 3 and 4 models. Replacement batteries sold separately are also included.
According to the CPSC, the batteries “can unexpectedly ignite and explode,” particularly when exposed to water or debris. The agency says it has documented 31 fires linked to the batteries so far, including 12 incidents of property damage totaling over $734,000. Alarmingly, several fires occurred when the battery wasn’t charging or when the bike wasn’t even in use.
Complicating the situation further, Rad Power Bikes – already facing significant financial turmoil – has “refused to agree to an acceptable recall,” according to the CPSC. The company reportedly told regulators it cannot afford to replace or refund the large number of affected batteries. Rad previously informed employees that it could be forced to shut down permanently in January if it cannot secure new funding, barely two weeks before this safety notice was issued by the CPSC.
For its part, Rad pushed back strongly on the CPSC’s characterization. A Rad Power Bikes Spokesperson explained in a statement to Electrek that the company “stands behind our batteries and our reputation as leaders in the ebike industry, and strongly disagrees with the CPSC’s characterization of certain Rad batteries as defective or unsafe.”
The company explained that its products meet or exceed stringent international safety standards, including UL-2271 and UL-2849, which are standards that the CPSC has proposed as a requirement but not yet implemented. Rad says its batteries have been repeatedly tested by reputable third-party labs, including during the CPSC investigation, and that those tests confirmed full compliance. Rad also claims the CPSC did not independently test the batteries using industry-accepted standards, and stresses that the incident rate cited by the agency represents a tiny fraction of a percent. While acknowledging that any fire report is serious, Rad maintains that lithium-ion batteries across all industries can be hazardous if damaged, improperly used, or exposed to significant water intrusion, and that these universal risks do not indicate a defect specific to Rad’s products.
The company says it entered the process hoping to collaborate with federal regulators to improve safety guidance and rider education, and that it offered multiple compromise solutions – including discounted upgrades to its newer Safe Shield batteries that were a legitimate leap forward in safety in the industry – but the CPSC rejected them. Rad argues that the agency instead demanded a full replacement program that would immediately bankrupt the company, leaving customers without support. It also warns that equating new technology with older products being “unsafe” undermines innovation, noting that the introduction of safer systems, such as anti-lock brakes, doesn’t retroactively deem previous generations faulty. Ultimately, Rad says clear, consistent national standards are needed so manufacturers can operate with confidence while continuing to advance battery safety.
Lithium-ion battery fires have become a growing concern across the US and internationally, with poorly made packs implicated in a rising number of deadly incidents.
While Rad Power Bikes states that no injuries or fatalities have been tied to these specific models, the federal warning marks one of the most serious e-bike battery advisories issued to date – and arrives at a moment when the once-dominant US e-bike brand is already fighting for survival.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Environment
Rivian’s e-bike brand launches $250 smart helmet with breakthrough safety tech and lights
ALSO, the new micromobility brand spun out of Rivian, just announced official pricing for its long-awaited Alpha Wave helmet. The smart helmet, which introduces a brand-new safety tech called the Release Layer System (RLS), is now listed at $250, with “notify for pre-order” now open on ALSO’s site. Deliveries are expected to begin in spring 2026.
The $250 price point might sound steep, but ALSO is positioning the Alpha Wave as a top-tier lid that undercuts other premium smart helmets with similar tech – some of which push into the $400–500 range. That’s because the Alpha Wave is promising more than just upgraded comfort and design. The company claims the helmet will also deliver a significant leap in rotational impact protection.
The RLS system is made up of four internal panels that are engineered to release on impact, helping dissipate rotational energy – a major factor in many concussions. It’s being marketed as a next-gen alternative to MIPS and similar technologies, and could signal a broader shift in helmet safety standards if adopted widely.
Beyond protection, the Alpha Wave also packs a surprising amount of tech. Four wind-shielded speakers and two noise-canceling microphones are built in for taking calls, playing music, or following navigation prompts. And when paired with ALSO’s own TM-B electric bike, the helmet integrates with the bike’s onboard lighting system for synchronized rear lights and 200-lumen forward visibility.
The helmet is IPX6-rated for water resistance and charges via USB-C, making it easy to keep powered up alongside other modern gear.
Electrek’s Take
This helmet pushes the smart gear envelope. $250 isn’t nothing, but for integrated lighting, audio, and what might be a true leap forward in crash protection, it’s priced to shake things up in the high-end helmet space.
One area I’m not a huge fan of is the paired front and rear lights. Cruiser motorcycles have this same issue, with paired tail lights mounted close together sometimes being mistaken for a conventional four-wheeled vehicle farther away. I worry that the paired “headlights” and “taillights” of this helmet could be mistaken for a car farther down the road instead of the reality of a much closer cyclist. But hey, we’ll have to see.
The tech is pretty cool though, and if the RLS system holds up to its promise, we might be looking at the new bar for premium e-bike head protection.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
-
Sports2 years agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports3 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Sports3 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment3 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment1 year agoHere are the best electric bikes you can buy at every price level in October 2024