News
What will happen to Obama’s National EV Charging Corridor initiative?
As part of an eight year commitment to combat climate change, increase access to clean energy technologies, and reduce U.S. dependence on oil, the Obama administration unveiled a series of executive actions to establish 48 national electric vehicle (EV) charging corridors on U.S. highways. But will the proposed EV charging corridors, which were announced in early November, 2016, stand up to the formidable will of Donald Trump’s transitional head of the EPA, Myron Ebell?
Ebell is director of the Center for Energy and Environment at the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute and is the lead voice of U.S. climate deniers. He chairs the Cooler Heads Coalition, which comprises over two dozen non-profit groups in this country and abroad that question global warming “alarmism” and oppose “energy rationing” policies. Ebell’s role on the Trump team has been interpreted by many, including Scientific American, National Geographic, and the New York Times, as a sign that the next administration will be looking to drastically reshape the climate policies that the EPA has pursued under the Obama administration.
Since President Obama took office, the number of plug-in EV models has increased from one to more than twenty, battery costs have decreased 70 percent, and the number of EV charging stations has grown from less than 500 in 2008 to more than 16,000 in 2016. Described as “creating a new way of thinking about transportation that will drive America forward,” the National Electric Vehicle Charging Corridors on U.S. Highways initiatives were intended to create 48 designated EV routes which would cover nearly 25,000 miles in 35 states.
The National Electric Vehicle Charging Corridors on U.S. Highways initiative is part of a larger Obama administration plan to lower EV purchase costs through increasing automotive manufacturers’ demand. By promoting EV innovation and adoption and expanding the national EV infrastructure, the Obama administration has fostered a climate in which more than $1 million and 1,211,650 gallons in potential annual fuel savings could be accrued. However, Trump has indicated that his administration will work to remove EPA environmental regulations as a way of allowing American business to thrive.
Trump consistently has been vocal in his skepticism of climate change science, which calls for the shift in U.S. fuel consumption to alternative sources like decentralized electricity.
While on the campaign trail, Trump had focused on lifting restrictions on oil and gas instead of looking to U.S. clean energy and an eventual reduction of reliance on fossil fuels. Trump stated that lifting fossil fuel restrictions would increase GDP by more than $127 billion, add about 500,000 jobs, and increase wages by $30 billion each year over over seven years. Those figures come from the Institute for Energy Research, a nonprofit that advocates for a free-market approach to energy and claims there is an “enormous volume of sensationalized, simplistic and often plain wrong information” on climate change.
“This is not academic research and would never see the light of day in an academic journal. The pioneering research … from years ago is rarely employed any more by economists,” said Thomas Kinnaman, chair of the Economics Department at Bucknell University, who reviewed the IER report. Kinnaman’s analysis was confirmed by Peter Maniloff, assistant professor of economics at the Colorado School of Mines, who said the IER study is based on a questionable assumption. “The IER report assumes that policy restrictions are the major factor holding back coal, oil, and gas production.” He went on to describe the rationale as more to do with straightforward economics,” he said. “Domestic oil drilling on available land has dropped by three-quarters since 2014 due to low prices.”
Another area in which the Obama administration sought to promote EV clean energy was the release of up to $4.5 billion in loan guarantees to support commercial-scale deployment of innovative EV charging facilities. In support, nearly 50 industry members signed onto a “Guiding Principles to Promote Electric Vehicles and Charging Infrastructure” agreement. Thirty-eight new businesses, non-profits, universities, and utilities committed to provide EV charging access for their workforces, with 24 state and local governments partnering with the Administration to increase the procurement of EVs in their fleets.
Investment in such a robust network of charging facilities contradicts energy policy promoted by Ebell, who has said that “a lot of third, fourth and fifth rate scientists have gotten a long ways” by embracing climate change. He frequently mocks climate leaders like Al Gore and has called the movement the “forces of darkness” because “they want to turn off the lights all over the world.”
Ebell has been a voice in the ear of Congress with his opposition to President Obama’s Clean Power Plan. This is a series of policy initiatives designed to lower emissions from fossil fuel generating plants, particularly those that still rely on coal to generate electricity. The United States Department of Transportation (DOT) would be the liaison among the administration, states, localities, and the private sector for the EV corridors. Already, 28 states, utilities, vehicle manufacturers, and change organizations have committed to accelerating the deployment of an EV charging infrastructure on the DOT’s corridors. The goal is that these initial corridors would serve as a basis for “coast to coast zero emission mobility on our nation’s highways.”
Obama caricature [Source: globalwarming.org]
Earlier, Ebell had written a blog post stating that the Obama administration’s Existing Source Performance Standards contained within the Clean Power Plan were “colossally costly” and “obviously illegal.” His post includes the mashup of President Obama.
To ascertain optimal national EV charging deployment scenarios, including along DOT’s designated fueling corridors, the United States Department of Energy (DOE) is in the midst of conducting two studies. Developed with national laboratories and with input from a range of stakeholder, the first is a national EV infrastructure analysis that identifies the optimal number of charging stations for different EV market penetration scenarios. The second will provide best practices for EV fast charging installation, including system specifications as well as siting, power availability, and capital and maintenance cost considerations.
The future of U.S. coast to coast zero emission mobility on our nation’s highways is in serious jeopardy with President Trump in the White House.
Tesla is being sued by the family of the woman who was killed in a Texas crash involving a Model 3. The driver, who is also being sued, claimed the vehicle was operating on Autopilot mode, but Tesla executives have come out challenging that claim, stating that the driver of the vehicle overrode the system.
The lawsuit was filed by 76-year-old Martha Avila’s daughter and her husband, who allege a “design defect” involving a Tesla and a failure to warn. The suit alleges negligence against Tesla and the driver, Michael Butler.
Butler “stated he was operating with an automated driving assistance system engaged at the time of the crash,” the Harris County Sheriff’s Office said in a statement. He showed no signs of intoxication and was cooperative, the Sheriff’s Office said, according to NBC News.
Just after reports of the crash and numerous headlines that immediately blamed Tesla’s Autopilot suite, both Tesla CEO Elon Musk and Head of AI Ashok Elluswamy challenged that. Musk said the crash made “no sense” given that Tesla Autopilot and Full Self-Driving do not travel at the speeds the door cameras captured the car traveling at, which Tesla says was 73 MPH.
Tesla finally clarifies fatal Texas crash, confirms driver manually overrode acceleration
Elluswamy also revealed that Tesla data showed Butler overrode the system by pressing the accelerator to 100%, and that the pedal was compressed fully even after the car had crashed. Tesla has not released this data to the public, likely because it is communicating with agencies like the NHTSA on an investigation.
The suit uses a Washington Post analysis of government data that “identified at least 17 fatal incidents linked to Tesla Autopilot.”
This is far from the first time an accident has been blamed on Autopilot. A fatal crash in Texas was blamed on Autopilot several years ago, but when Tesla released data to the NTSB, which was investigating the crash, Autopilot was not available where the crash occurred, and Autosteer was never enabled, meaning the car was manually controlled at the time of the accident.
“Application of the accelerator pedal was found to be as high as 98.8 percent,” the NTSB said in their findings. The highest recorded speed in the five seconds leading up to the impact was 67 miles per hour. The area where the crash occurred is residential, and Texas State laws… pic.twitter.com/XGD97NHVZ2
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) March 18, 2026
More information on the accident will be released as Tesla works with agencies to find the cause of the crash. From personal experience, it is hard to imagine Tesla Autopilot or FSD operating in this manner. It drives sometimes too cautiously in residential areas in parking lots, at least in my experience. Speeding happens, but at this rate in this type of area, it is hard to believe.
We look forward to more details being released with time.
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) has awarded the 2025-2026 Tesla Cybertruck crew cab pickup its highest honor: Top Safety Pick+. This marks the Cybertruck as the only full-size pickup to achieve this distinction in recent evaluations.
The award applies specifically to vehicles built after April 2025, following structural upgrades including front underbody reinforcements and footwell modifications.
These changes enabled strong performance in updated crash tests. The Cybertruck earned “Good” ratings in the small overlap front (driver and passenger sides), updated moderate overlap front, and updated side tests—core requirements for the Top Safety Pick+ designation.
It also secured acceptable or good headlights across trims and a “Good” rating for its standard front crash prevention system in pedestrian scenarios, along with acceptable or good performance in vehicle-to-vehicle testing.
The Cybertruck avoided every single pedestrian collision, including:
- Daytime child crossing
- Nightitime adult crossing
- Night parallel adult
In IIHS pedestrian front crash prevention tests, @Cybertruck avoided every single collision – daytime, nighttime & different angles
It was also the only pickup to earn Top Safety Pick+ (highest award) in 2026https://t.co/BNPqT9TbsW pic.twitter.com/M6nwDisBFK
— Tesla (@Tesla) June 24, 2026
In the large pickup category, competitors such as the Toyota Tundra received only a standard Top Safety Pick, while the Ford F-150 and Ram 1500 did not qualify for either award. This positions the Cybertruck as a standout in occupant protection and crash avoidance among its peers.
Credit: IIHS
Ironically, the same vehicle celebrated for superior U.S. safety performance remains banned from public roads in the United Kingdom and much of Europe. Regulators there cite the Cybertruck’s sharp external edges and highly rigid stainless-steel construction as failing pedestrian-protection standards. European and UK rules require rounded surfaces on protruding parts to minimize injury risk in collisions with vulnerable road users.
Critics also point to the truck’s substantial weight and unyielding body structure, which some argue could transfer more force to other vehicles or pedestrians rather than absorbing it.
Tesla’s engineering philosophy underpins the Cybertruck’s strong IIHS results. The vehicle features a distinctive stainless-steel exoskeleton made from ultra-hard 30X cold-rolled stainless steel. This provides exceptional structural rigidity and a robust safety cage that resists deformation in side impacts and rollovers.
Engineers designed integrated load paths to channel crash forces away from the occupant compartment while allowing controlled energy absorption in key zones. Post-April 2025 refinements to the front underbody further optimized performance in overlap crashes.
Complementing the passive structure is Tesla’s advanced active safety suite, including the standard Collision Avoidance Assist system with automatic emergency braking. This contributed directly to the vehicle’s strong front crash prevention scores. The skateboard platform and low center of gravity also enhance stability and handling, reducing the likelihood of certain crashes.
The IIHS recognition highlights how Tesla’s combination of high-strength materials, structural innovation, and software-driven safety systems can deliver top-tier protection in rigorous testing. While global regulatory differences on design and pedestrian interaction continue to limit the Cybertruck’s availability outside North America, its U.S. safety credentials set a new benchmark for full-size pickups.
Elon Musk
SpaceX’s newest Starmind will make earth data centers obsolete
Elon Musk confirmed Starmind as SpaceX’s AI satellite constellation name, targeting one million orbital compute nodes.
Elon Musk confirmed that Starmind will be the official name of SpaceX’s planned AI satellite constellation, following a trademark filing by xAI that surfaced earlier this week. Starmind is what’s being described to the FCC as a constellation of up to one million AI satellites
It’s worth noting that SpaceX’s Starlink communication satellite and Starmind are built on the same orbital infrastructure concept but serve entirely different purposes. Starlink is a connectivity network, with satellites receiving and relaying data between points on Earth, and functioning as a high-speed internet backbone in space. The satellites themselves do not process or think, and move information from one place to another, the same function a fiber cable performs underground.
SpaceX just forced Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile to team up for the first time in history
Starmind, on the other hand, is something completely different, and tather than moving data, its satellites would compute data through artificial intelligence and directly in orbit using onboard processors powered by large solar arrays. Where a Starlink satellite is essentially a very fast pipe, a Starmind satellite is a server. The practical implication is that Starmind would allow AI models to run inference, process queries, and generate outputs from space, then beam results down to users anywhere on Earth within milliseconds, and without the data ever needing to travel to a terrestrial data center.
Starship will be able to carry 30 to 50 AI1 satellites per launch, delivering the equivalent of dozens of server racks per flight, with no land acquisition, no power grid approval, and no cooling infrastructure required on the ground.
SpaceX is pursuing this new technology as terrestrial data centers are running into hard limits such as lack of physical space, community opposition, and power and water consumption at a scale that is increasingly difficult to permit. Space has unlimited solar power, natural vacuum cooling, and no zoning boards. Musk said in a June 8 video presentation that he expects space to become the lowest-cost location to deploy AI compute within two to three years. Two AI1 prototypes are scheduled to launch in early 2027, with volume production targeted for the end of that year at a new facility called Gigasat.
The real world applications Starmind enables extend well beyond powering Grok. A constellation of orbiting AI processors could run inference workloads for any paying customer, anywhere on Earth, with latency measured in milliseconds rather than the seconds associated with ground-based cloud routing across continents. Starmind, if it scales as described, would make SpaceX the landlord of AI compute the same way Starlink made it the landlord of satellite internet.
Tesla and driver sued by family of woman killed in Texas crash: what we know
Tesla Cybertruck is officially the safest pickup, IIHS says
