Connect with us

Published

on

The Senate version of the repubilcans’ tax bill won’t just add trillions of dollars to the deficit through a massive giveaway to wealthy elites, it will also take the US Postal Service’s awesome new EVs and sell them off for pennies on the dollar, wasting money simply out of spite for vehicles that were already cleaning your air and making your community safer.

Update: The Senate parliamentarian has ruled that the body can’t force USPS to scrap these EVs, at least not without a 60-vote supermajority.

The Postal Service has used the same Grumman LLV vehicles for decades, produced from 1986-1994. So, some of these trucks are nearly 40 years old, and all of them are at least 30 years old.

The vehicles are showing their age – they get poor mileage, they break down often (or catch fire, as about 100 of the old gas guzzlers did last year), they emit significant pollution, and they have poor ergonomics.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

So, in 2015, the USPS started the process of finding a replacement.

After many bids and back-and-forth (including startups going out of business), the USPS, led by Postmaster Louis DeJoy, picked Oshkosh’s “Next Generation Delivery Vehicle” (NGDV) as the next postal vehicle (DeJoy, who was apparently not corrupt enough for the republicans, was forced out of his position in March and replaced by David Steiner, a board member of FedEx, a company that stands to benefit from republican attempts to hobble the USPS).

The NGDV is being built in a new Oshkosh facility in Spartanburg, South Carolina, hiring 1,000 additional employees in the area.

The vehicle has a goofy look to it, but it’s a goofy look for a reason.

The large window gives exceptional visibility, meaning the kids and pets that are likely to occupy residential areas are easier to see, and thus easier for drivers to avoid.

The low hood further enhances safety, by reducing damage done to a human body in a crash (unlike the land yachts which are so popular with consumers and have contributed to pedestrian deaths reaching all-time highs).

And the tall roof makes it easier for drivers to enter and exit, reducing strain on their bodies which means lower labor costs overall – less injury, drivers potentially being able to stay in their jobs longer, and so on.

But that’s just talking about the look of the vehicle – there are even more beneficial features, like much more cargo space, driver assistance safety features (around-view cameras, blind spot monitors and collision sensors), and air conditioning, something the original LLVs lacked (and which is only becoming more necessary as the planet heats up).

As for powertrain, the NGDV is available in both gas and electric options, with the gas version getting a paltry 8.6mpg (similar to the old LLVs), but the electric version being naturally much more efficient.

Electrification is a perfect choice for most delivery vehicles. These vehicles do set daily routes with lots of starting and stopping, in neighborhoods where people live and breathe, and return back to the same place every night. It’s an ideal application for EVs, for the vast majority of rotues.

Higher efficiency electric drive means money savings on fuel and maintenance for most routes. Overall, a highly electrified fleet was estimated to save taxpayers $4.3 billion over its lifetime.

But perhaps the most obvious benefit of electric mail trucks is the lack of pollution in the places where people spend most of their time: at home. (I don’t know about you, but my mail carrier’s broken truck stinks up the place every day, forcing me to close the windows as it fails to start half the time – and I’m pretty sure this is a common experience)

Despite these benefits, at first, USPS planned to buy only 10% EVs, with the remainder being gas. But after that announcement, several entities (including Electrek) pointed out that even by USPS’ uncharitable calculations, EVs would save money for the vast majority of routes (and that’s not considering health and environmental benefits).

Thankfully, reason prevailed over time, and the USPS gradually increased its plan such that it eventually said it would buy only electric trucks after 2026, with relatively few gas trucks acquired before then for the few routes that electric isn’t suitable for. It’s also supplementing those purchases with some off-the-shelf Ford E-Transits to function as delivery vehicles, with fewer custom features but an easier rollout as E-Transits are readily available.

The NGDV has suffered delays, but as the truck has finally started to roll out, it’s been enormously popular. When the truck started use last year in Atlanta, drivers immediately loved it. They loved the new features, better safety, and less stress on their bodies.

Republicans move to undo these improvements, wasting taxpayer dollars

And so, of course, republicans are now threatening this unequivocally good thing in a way that’s only going to cost taxpayers more money and ensure that your mail costs, the pollution you breathe in your home and the danger to your neighborhood all increase.

As reported by the Washington Post, Senate republicans are considering a version of the tax bill that would auction off these vehicles, at pennies on the dollar, seemingly simply out of spite for the program.

As usual, republican justifications for the billions of dollars in waste they’re proposing don’t stand up to even the slightest amount of scrutiny.

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) stated that the plan “aims to cut unnecessary costs and focus USPS on delivering mail and not achieving the environmental initiatives pushed by the Biden Administration.”

But Paul ought to know this is false, because he’s part of the Senate, the body that approved spending for these vehicles in the first place in 2022 (and, if you remember your high school civics class as Paul apparently does not, the Senate is not part of the “Biden Administration”). Nor is the USPS directly part of any presidential administration, since it is an independent federal agency, and during the bidding process was headed by Louis DeJoy, who was appointed during one Mr. Donald Trump’s first stint squatting in the White House.

Paul should also know that the bidding process started in 2015, and thus that the majority of it occurred while nobody named Biden was in the White House in the first place.

He also ought to know that most of that money is already spent, and selling off items the USPS already owns for pennies on the dollar doesn’t “save” anyone any money. Neither does having to buy all new gas vehicles, with higher fueling and maintenance costs, to replace them – this is the very definition of “unnecessary costs.”

(Update: In another lesson to Rand Paul about how the Senate works, the Senate Parliamentarian said that his USPS plan would require a 60-vote supermajority… but Congress has violated that rule recently anyway)

Worse, falling back to the old LLVs and/or restarting the bidding process for their replacement would take more time and cause more waste. And in the interim we’d be stuck with these “obsolete” vehicles (as the USPS itself calls them) which, as covered above, are inefficient, unsafe, lack features, and routinely catch fire. All of this gets in the way of the focus on delivering mail.

So, Paul is either lying or stupid, but given the letter after his name, we’re pretty sure it’s both.

The USPS rightly pointed out what a stupid idea this is, stating “The funds realized by auctioning the vehicles and infrastructure would be negligible. Much of infrastructure is literally buried under parking lots, and there is no market for used charging equipment” (hmm, tearing out charging equipment for no benefit at all? where have we heard that before…). It said this action “will seriously cripple our ability to replace an aging and obsolete delivery fleet.”

The service estimates that scrapping the 7,200 vehicles it already owns and is using would waste $1 billion, and tearing out infrastructure would cost $500 million, for a total pricetag of $1.5 billion worth of unnecessary waste – and this only accounts for money already spent, not the additional several billions in lost savings for Americans from lower fuel, labor, health and environmental costs.

USPS urged the Senate “to pause and consider the substantial harm this proposal would cause to the Postal Service and our customers, your constituents.”

But, given the republican party’s current direction, maybe that exhortation would backfire. Harm seems to be precisely what they want, as reflected in everything they’re doing these days.

If you do happen to be one of those constituents, particularly in a republican state, it might be worth giving your Senator a call and asking them to stop wasting your money and raising your mail costs by selling off money-saving vehicles that promise to clean the air of your community. Here’s where you can find your Senator’s contact info. This might be of particular interest to South Carolina Senators Lindsey Graham, (D.C. office phone (202) 224-5972, email form here) and Tim Scott (D.C. office phone (202) 224-6121, email form here), whose vote would kill jobs in their state, where the trucks are being built.

Update: There will be a House subcommittee hearing at 1PM EDT today, dealing with USPS issues as a whole, in which the EVs may or may not be mentioned. You can watch that hearing here: The Route Forward for the U.S. Postal Service: A View from Stakeholders


Among republicans’ proposed cuts is the rooftop solar credit. That means you could have only until the end of this year to install rooftop solar on your home, before republicans raise the cost of doing so by an average of ~$10,000. So if you want to go solar, get started now, because these things take time and the system needs to be active before you file for the credit.

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

Tesla owner admits to driving drunk on Full Self-Driving, proving Tesla needs to do more

Published

on

By

Tesla owner admits to driving drunk on Full Self-Driving, proving Tesla needs to do more

A Tesla owner admitted on video that he drives drunk on Full Self-Driving (FSD) – showing that Tesla doesn’t do enough to prevent abuse of its driver assist system.

29-year-old social media personality Landon Bridges went on comedian Bert Kreischer’s cooking show ‘Something’s Burning’ this week.

During the show, they were drinking, and Bridges admitted to being drunk. While visibly intoxicated, he accepted another drink from Kreischeir and then added:

“You know what’s the biggest game changer for me in 2025? I bought a Tesla, and it has Autopilot.”

Advertisement – scroll for more content

He then looked at Kreischer suggestively – hinting that you can use it when drunk.

Kreischer responded: “Does it work like that?” – suggesting that it is good enough to use while intoxicated – and then said in a drunk voice: “Tesla, take me home.”

The only answer here would be: “No, it’s a driver assistance system and the driver is always responsible for the vehicle and therefore, they can’t be intoxicated to supervise the system.”

Instead, Bridges said:

Yeah. That’s the problem. That’s literally the problem. I’ll go after it. I’ll press the home button (in the navigation system), and as long as you look forward, you are home.

He then suggested that Kreisher, known for his heavy drinking, should consider getting a Tesla with Full Self-Driving.

Here’s the part of the episode where they have the conversation:

Electrek’s Take

This is wild. He openly admits to a potential felony on a YouTube show. The way he is thinking proves that Tesla is not doing enough to communicate to its owners that FSD is not a self-driving system, but rather a driver assistance system that requires the driver’s full attention, meaning sober, at all times.

He says “Autopilot”, but the way he describes the system points to it being “Full Self-Driving (Supervised)” as Autopilot wouldn’t be able to take you through surface streets to take you home.

Tesla has been extremely careless in how it discusses its system publicly.

For example, Tesla recently tweeted that “FSD Supervised gives you back time”:

This suggests that you can do something else while driving, but this is not true based on the automaker’s own warnings and owner’s manual. The driver needs to be paying attention to the vehicle’s driving at all times and be ready to take control.

It is a direct contrast to how Tesla discusses FSD in court after being sued over the numerous accidents involving Autopilot and Full Self-Driving.

In court, Tesla is quick to remind everyone that the driver is always responsible for the vehicle and that, despite its name, Full Self-Driving is only a level 2 driver assistance system, not a level 3-5 automated driving system.

Tesla needs to bring that same energy to its communications with buyers. Otherwise, it contributes to these morons thinking that they can use FSD drunk.

I hope Bridges realizes the carelessness and the danger of his behavior and suggests that others, like Kreischer, should do it.

But it wouldn’t be the first time a Tesla owner would think it OK to use FSD while drunk. We even learned of a crash in 2022 where a Tesla employee decided to use FSD, according to a witness, after day drinking, and his drive ended in a crash, leaving him dead.

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

Continue Reading

Environment

Honda launches the N-ONE e: An $18,000 small EV that delivers big where it counts

Published

on

By

Honda launches the N-ONE e: An ,000 small EV that delivers big where it counts

It may be small, but Honda’s new EV offers “class-leading” range and more interior space than you’d expect. Honda introduced the N-ONE e on Thursday, its first electric kei car, with prices starting at just over $18,000.

Honda launches the N-ONE e, an $18,000 mini EV

It’s pretty rare to find any vehicle, let alone an all-electric one, for under $20,000 these days. In the US, the average asking price for a new car was nearly $52,000 last month.

While some of the biggest names in the auto industry, including Volkswagen, Hyundai, Kia, Ford, and GM, to name a few, are gearing up to launch more affordable EVs, Honda just got a head of the game.

Honda introduced the N-ONE e on Thursday, its first electric kei car. The N-ONE e is Honda’s second mini-EV, following the N-VAN e, launched last year. However, unlike the van, Honda’s new model is designed for passenger use rather than commercial.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

The new EV will go on sale in Japan on September 12, priced from just ¥2.7 million ($18,300). It’s based on the current gas-powered N-ONE, Honda’s retro-looking kei car sold in Japan.

Powered by the same 29.6 kWh battery as its electric van, Honda said the N-ONE e delivers “class-leading range” of up to 295 km (183 miles). That’s even more than the Nissan Sakura, Japan’s best-selling electric car with a WLTP range of up to 180 km (112 miles).

Although it may not seem like much with most EVs offering over 300 miles of range nowadays, it’s perfect for daily commutes in Japan.

Honda said the biggest challenge was ensuring it had enough space to make it fit for everyday use. To open up the interior, the company developed a thinner battery pack that lies flat beneath the floor.

It already has the most popular kei car and best-selling vehicle in Japan, the N-Box, but Honda believes its new EV could be an even bigger hit.

Mini EVs account for about 40% of new car sales in Japan. With more range, interior space, and more, Honda is betting on its small new EV to stay ahead of the competition. Honda expects the market to heat up with rival brands, including global EV leader BYD, Toyota and others, preparing to launch mini-EVs soon.

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

Continue Reading

Environment

Offshore wind has no future in the U.S. under Trump administration, Interior Secretary says

Published

on

By

Offshore wind has no future in the U.S. under Trump administration, Interior Secretary says

U.S.’ Burgum: Reducing Russian gas sales stops funding for Moscow’s war

Offshore wind has no future as a source of electricity generation in the United States under the Trump administration, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said at an energy conference in Italy this week.

“Under this administration, there is not a future for offshore wind because it is too expensive and not reliable enough,” Burgum told an audience at the Gastech conference in Milan on Wednesday.

It is the clearest statement yet from a senior Trump administration official that the president aims to shut down the nascent offshore wind industry in the U.S. Burgum oversees the leasing and permitting of offshore wind farms in federal waters as head of the Department of Interior.

President Donald Trump barred new leases for offshore wind farms on his first day in office through an executive order that was framed as “temporary.” Trump also ordered a review of permits, but the industry had hoped projects under construction would be allowed to move forward.

But Interior is “taking a deep look” at five offshore wind farms that are already under construction in the U.S., Burgum said Wednesday without naming the projects.

The offshore wind farms under construction are Revolution Wind off Rhode Island; Vineyard Wind 1 off Massachusetts; Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind; Sunrise Wind off New York; and Empire Wind also off New York.

“Yes, they were permitted but they got moved through a very fast ideologically-driven permitting process,” Burgum said at the conference in Italy.

Interior ordered Danish renewable energy company Orsted to halt construction of Revolution Wind on August 22, citing national security concerns. The project is fully permitted and 80% complete with billions of dollars invested, according to Orsted.

Energy Sec. Wright: Big demand for U.S. to displace Russian gas to Europe

Interior had issued a stop-work order for Empire Wind in April, but ultimately let the project resume construction in May after apparently striking a deal over new natural gas capacity.

Burgum told CNBC’s Brian Sullivan this week that the Trump administration is in discussions with Orsted and New England governors on Revolution Wind, though he wouldn’t say that the project might restart work.

“I can’t say for certain because some of these projects are a literal train wreck in terms of their economics,” Burgum told CNBC. “If we were to complete them then we’re just locking in billions and billions of taxpayer money which might be going to a hedge fund.”

Renewable energy executives told CNBC in August that the Trump administration’s attacks on solar and wind will lead to a power crunch that increases electricity prices.

(Learn the best 2026 strategies from inside the NYSE with Josh Brown and others at CNBC PRO Live. Tickets and info here.)

Continue Reading

Trending