Two days left to comment on EPA’s plan to raise gas prices 76c/gal, kill thousands
In July, the US Environmental Protection Agency proposed a plan to delete its scientific finding recognizing that greenhouse gases are harmful to human health, with the goal of making cars less efficient and more costly to fuel. That plan went up for public comment last month, and the public comment period closes in two days, on September 22.
At issue is the EPA’s “Endangerment Finding,” which is the scientific basis of EPA’s regulation of harmful greenhouse gases. The endangerment finding found that greenhouse gases are harmful to human health, recognizing a scientific fact that every serious person has known for a long time – but now it was at least codified into federal procedure.
The Endangerment Finding focused specifically on carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), sulfur hexaflouride (SF6), hydroflourocarbons (HFCs), nitrous oxide (N2O), and perfluourocarbons (PFCs, now more commonly known as PFAS or “forever chemicals”), all of which we are certain cause climate change and harm humans.
And, in fact, the EPA is required to regulate these pollutants by the Clean Air Act, which tells the EPA that it must work to reduce air pollution.
Lee Zeldin wants to poison you and raise your fuel costs
Despite that legal requirement, in July, Lee Zeldin, a fraudster placed into the position of chief saboteur of the EPA by a convicted felon who sought a billion-dollar bribe from the oil industry while running for an office he is Constitutionally barred from holding, announced that he would repeal this finding, flying in the face of law, science, public health and American economic interests.
Zeldin’s stated purpose for attempting to delete this finding is because if the finding is gone, it will allow him to roll back other life- and money-saving vehicle efficiency regulations. He wants to revert those regulations because they constrain the fossil fuel industry – which has given him hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes over his political career.
The specific regulations that Zeldin has his eyes on are automotive regulations put in place by the EPA under President Biden. According to the government’s own numbers, these regulations stand to save 2,000 lives per year and save Americans over $100 billion dollars per year in fuel and health costs.
In announcing his illegal plan to kill Americans and cost all of us more money, Zeldin was joined by Chris Wright, a former oil CEO who is currently the titular head of the Department of Energy. In April, Wright signed off on a DoE report which said the rollbacks sought by Zeldin would raise gas prices by 76 cents per gallon, showing that the people behind this plan know it will increase your costs and yet are shoving it down your throat anyway.
The reason gas prices would rise is because of higher demand. If vehicles are less efficient, not only will they burn more gasoline thus costing you more money and also causing more pollution, more dependency on foreign oil and higher health costs for everyone, but that gasoline will be more expensive because that’s what happens to prices of products when demand rises. And the proceeds from those higher gas prices aren’t going to anything societally beneficial, they’re rather going to line the pockets of oil elites.
Wright’s office also offered a junk report (which is wrong in 100 ways) to justify the EPA’s position, claiming wrongly that climate change isn’t all that bad. But in doing so, the DoE misinterprets data, which the author of one of the cited studies immediately pointed out that the DoE misinterpreted. So, even the stretched justifications offered for the plan are steeped in the ignorance we have come accustomed to since late January.
So far, this clearly harmful plan has only been proposed, and has been open for public comment on regulations.gov since early September, where interested members of the public can leave substantive comments on whether they support the planned regulatory change or not.
Since then, comments have been rolling in, though the docket only shows a total of 676 approved comments as of this writing. This seems exceptionally low, given that the original endangerment finding produced some 380,000 comments.
As it turns out, the EPA has actually received a total of 111,596 comments so far, but it has been approving those comments for public posting at a glacial pace. At the current rate, it will take some 30 years for the agency to sift through and approve all the comments.
We reached out to the EPA to ask what was taking so long, and it said that it was busy categorizing comments based on whether they were part of a mass comment campaign or written by individual commenters, and sorting through them for the presence of profanity (although, one wonders if profanity is really all that unjustified when it’s on a plan that will knowingly kill thousands of people per year). Many comments have been “deferred” after an initial scan, awaiting another look.
Regardless, the number of approved comments is still incredibly small compared to the total, and it’s hard not to wonder if something nefarious is happening here.
Looking through the few comments EPA has accepted, the vast majority seem to be in favor of the reasonable and both scientifically and legally correct position of maintaining the Endangerment Finding. If these are the comments that EPA deigned to allow through, even in the midst of its efforts to kill Americans, then we can imagine even more vehement opposition to its plan in the 110,920+ comments it has hidden (including this author’s… which was made as soon as the docket went up for comment, and much like this article, is forceful and truthful but not profane).
In addition to the public comment site, EPA also held a virtual public hearing, where interested members of the public could call in to make their voices heard. The vast majority of callers supported the scientifically correct position of maintaining the finding.
The comment period is also much shorter than usually expected for regulations like this, as pointed out by a comment made by the Attorneys General of several states. The comment period is likely smaller than legally required of the EPA, just another example of the EPA breaking the law to try to kill you. After this comment, EPA did extend the comment period… by one week, from September 15 to September 22. Which is still not as long as the legal requirement.
Public comments can be submitted here. In case you get lost, the docket code is EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0194.
If Zeldin pushes forward with his idea despite the inevitable public opposition to a plan to raise Americans’ costs and make their lives more deadly, the move will likely be caught up in courts for years, wasting Americans’ time and money and jeopardizing American competitiveness as the world rapidly moves towards improving vehicle efficiency without us.
Even if this clearly unwise and probably illegal move loses in court eventually, we still will have lost time in the transition – giving Zeldin’s oil masters some extra runway to sell their poison to us, and ensuring America’s competitors get a leg up in the transition to cleaner technologies while Americans remain forever poorer and sicker as a result of the republican party’s actions.
Public comments on this ridiculous plan are open through September 22 at 11:59PM EDT, 8:59PM PDT. Comments can be submitted here. In case you get lost, the docket code is EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0194. EPA has to respond to legitimate concerns made during public comment periods or else the rule could be voided, so the more substantive your comment, the better.
The 30% federal solar tax credit is ending this year. If you’ve ever considered going solar, now’s the time to act. 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.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Environment
Tesla influencers tried Elon Musk’s coast-to-coast self-driving, crashed before 60 miles
A duo of Tesla shareholder-influencers tried to complete Elon Musk’s coast-to-coast self-driving ride that he claimed Tesla would be able to do in 2017 and they crashed before making it about 60 miles.
In 2016, Elon Musk infamously said that Tesla would complete a fully self-driving coast-to-coast drive between Los Angeles and New York by the end of 2017.
The idea was to livestream or film a full unedited drive coast-to-coast with the vehicle driving itself at all times.
We are in 2025 and Tesla never made that drive.
Despite the many missed autonomous driving goals, many Tesla shareholders believe that the company is on the verge of delivering unsupervised self-driving following the rollout of its ‘Robotaxi’ fleet in Austin, which requires supervision from Tesla employees inside the vehicles, and improvements to its “Full Self-Driving” (FSD) systems inside consumer vehicles, which is still only a level 2 driver assist system that requires driver attention at all times as per Tesla.
Two of these Tesla shareholders and online influencers attempted to undertake a coast-to-coast drive between San Diego, CA, and Jacksonville, FL, in a Tesla Model Y equipped with the latest FSD software update.
They didn’t make it out of California without crashing into easily avoidable road debris that badly damaged the Tesla Model Y:
In the video, you can see that the driver doesn’t have his hands on the steering wheel. The passenger spots the debris way ahead of time. There was plenty of time to react, but the driver didn’t get his hands on the steering wheel until the last second.
In a follow-up video, the two Tesla influencers confirmed that the Model Y had a broken sway bar bracket and damaged suspension components. The vehicle is also throwing out a lot of warnings.
They made it about 2.5% of the planned trip on Tesla FSD v13.9 before crashing the vehicle.
Electrek’s Take
Tesla shareholders used to discuss this somewhat rationally back in the day, but now that Tesla’s EV business is in decline and the stock price depends entirely on the self-driving and robot promises, they no longer do.
I recall when Musk himself used to say that when you reach 99% self-driving, it is when the “march of the 9s” begins, and you must achieve 99.999999999% autonomy to have a truly useful self-driving system. He admitted that this is the most challenging part as the real-world is unpredictable and hard to simulate – throwing a lot of challenging scenario at you, such as debris on the road.
That’s where Tesla is right now. The hard part has just started. And there’s no telling how long it will take to get there. If someone is telling you that they know, they are lying. I don’t know. My best estimate is approximately 2-3 years and a new hardware suite.
However, competition, mainly Waymo, began its own “march of the 9s” about five years ago.
Tesla is still years behind, and something like this drive by these two Tesla influencers proves it.
I was actually in a similar accident in a Tesla Model 3 back in 2020. I rented a Model 3 on Turo for a trip to Las Vegas from Los Angeles.
I ended up driving over a blown-out truck tire in the middle of the road like this. I was Autopilot, but I don’t know if the car saw it. I definitely saw it, but it was a bit late as I was following a truck that just drove over it. I had probably less than 2 seconds to react. I applied the brakes, but my choices were driving into a ditch on the right or into a car in the left lane.
I managed to reduce the force of the impact with the braking, but the vehicle jumped a bit like in this video. There wasn’t really any damage to the front, but the bottom cover was flapping down. I taped it together at the next gas station and I was able to continue the trip without much issue.
However, after returning it to the Turo owner and having the suspension damage evaluated by Tesla, the repair job was estimated to be roughly $10,000. I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s a similar situation with this accident.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
![Stellantis' new EV battery tech will put it ahead of – well, EVERYONE [video]](https://i0.wp.com/electrek.co/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2025/09/Peugeot-E-3008_MAIN.jpg?resize=1200,628&quality=82&strip=all&ssl=1)
Chrysler parent company Stellantis is calling its new, Intelligent Battery Integrated System (IBIS) system a breakthrough technology that will make future EVs lighter, more efficient, and quicker. Now, that “breakthrough” tech is now moving from concept to reality.
Co-developed with Saft, Sherpa Engineering, Université Paris-Saclay, and Institut Lafayette, Stellantis’ IBIS embeds the charger and inverter functions directly into the battery pack, an integration that results in reduced design complexity, interior space savings, and lifetime easier maintenance.
That improved efficiency carries on to the battery’s second life, too. IBIS facilitates the reuse of electric vehicle batteries in second-life battery energy storage systems (BESS) applications by reducing the need for extensive (and expensive) reconditioning.
“This project reflects our belief that simplification is innovation,” explains Ned Curic, Chief Engineering and Technology Officer at Stellantis. “By rethinking and simplifying the electric powertrain architecture, we are making it lighter, more efficient, and more cost-effective. These are the kinds of innovations that help us deliver better, more affordable EVs to our customers.”
Key IBIS benefits
- up to 10% energy efficiency improvement (WLTC cycle) and 15% power gain (172 kW vs. 150 kW) with the same battery size
- reduces vehicle weight by ~40 kg and frees up to 17 liters of volume, enabling better aerodynamics and design flexibility
- early results show a 15% reduction in charging time (e.g., from 7 to 6 hours on a 7 kW AC charger), along with 10% energy savings
- easier servicing and enhanced potential for second-life battery reuse in both automotive and stationary applications
Those benefits stem from the fact that EVs spend a lot of time and energy converting Alternating Current (AC) to Direct Current (DC) and back again with the – that’s true whether we’re talking about a L2 home charger or energy harvested from regenerative braking. Doing away with that process and the hardware that goes along with it could unlocks significant weight and efficiency benefits, with some estimates indicating that an IBIS car could weigh in at 40 kg less than a conventionally-equipped BEV, while still offering similar range and performance.
IBIS has been in development for several years, with the first proof-of-concept for stationary applications being built in 2022. The news today, however, is that the first fully functional, IBIS-equipped battery electric vehicle (BEV) is finally ready to hit the road.
Stellantis’ researchers installed the system under one of the company’s new Peugeot E-3008 electric crossovers. Guilt on the STLA Medium platform, the prototype follows years of design, modeling, and simulation by both Stellantis and Saft, and (if all goes well) could pave the way for the integration of IBIS technology into Stellantis’ electric and hybrid production vehicles by the end of this decade.
Stellantis IBIS EV battery tech
SOURCE | IMAGES: Stellantis.
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.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Coca-Cola’s bottling partners in India are going electric, three wheels at a time. The company just announced a major expansion of its electric delivery fleet, adding thousands of electric three-wheeled vehicles (often called e-rickshaws or electric tuk-tuks) to its logistics operations across the country.
These compact electric vehicles are already a common sight on India’s roads, used for everything from passenger transport to last-mile cargo deliveries. Now Coca-Cola’s bottlers are ramping up their use of these efficient EVs as part of a broader sustainability and welfare initiative dubbed “Vividhta ka Uphaar,” which translates to “a gift of diversity.”
According to the company, the rollout is already underway, with more than 5,000 electric three-wheelers integrated into delivery routes in cities such as Ahmedabad, Bhubaneswar, Bhopal, and more. The vehicles not only reduce tailpipe emissions but also lower noise pollution and operating costs, making them a win for both the company and the communities they serve.
Coca-Cola joins a growing list of multinational corporations turning to electric tuk-tuks to clean up their delivery fleets in Asia. IKEA has deployed similar electric three-wheelers in India and other Southeast Asian countries as part of its push to achieve zero-emissions deliveries. Amazon and Flipkart have also experimented with three-wheeled EVs to reach urban customers on tight, traffic-clogged streets.
While North America often focuses on four-wheeled electric trucks and vans for commercial use, much of the developing world relies on these nimble three-wheeled workhorses. Affordable, maneuverable, and easy to charge, electric rickshaws are a natural fit for dense cities with hot climates – especially where small businesses and large corporations alike need efficient last-mile solutions.
Electrek’s Take
These types of EVs can’t come soon enough. They use electric drivetrains that are closer in size to an electric bicycle than an electric delivery truck or van (usually 2-4kW motors and 3-5 kWh batteries), yet can carry loads closer in size to those same trucks and vans.
Sure, they can’t carry quite the same tonnage, but they’re often more appropriately sized for the kind of last-mile delivery that so many companies require.
I actually bought an electric tuk-tuk back in 2023 and found it to be the perfect ‘city truck’ for my lifestyle, where I live car-free in a city and my wife and I travel by e-bike and e-motorcycle. For the few times we need to actually haul stuff, an electric tuk-tuk or rickshaw gives truck-like capacity in a smaller and more efficient vehicle. What’s not to like?!
Images via: Coca-Cola
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment12 months agoHere are the best electric bikes you can buy at every price level in October 2024