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.
Elon Musk said today on X that Teslas will start to learn your individual preferences. This is something that he seemed to hint toward earlier this month when he said parking was by far the biggest reason drivers intervene with Full Self-Driving.
Musk made the comment in response to notable Tesla influencer Whole Mars, who said that his vehicle will sometimes disobey the settings he has enabled for his car. He responded to the post, stating that “The car will start to remember your specific interventions and match each person’s individual preferences.”
The car will start to remember your specific interventions and match each person’s individual preferences
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 18, 2026
This is something that could be perhaps one of the biggest ways Tesla could minimize or even work closer toward eliminating interventions altogether. While FSD does a lot of things really well, many people intervene a vast majority of the time not due to major or critical safety errors.
Instead, many take over because the car is doing something that they do not like as a preference; it might park in a parking spot that is not preferred by the driver, it might linger too long in the left lane on the highway (a personal favorite), or it could even take a route that the driver does not like.
These all lead to interventions, but they are not triggered by a major safety issue. Instead, it’s just preference.
READ OUR REVIEW OF TESLA’S LATEST FSD VERSION:
Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.3.5 Early Impressions: new features and early performance
If Teslas could start to learn the personal preferences of the person who owns them, interventions will truly begin to be less frequent. Some of this is already pretty evident, in my opinion. Teslas use a neural network to learn behaviors and accumulate data to improve performance.
For months now, we’ve tracked FSD’s performance at “Except Right Turn” stop signs, something that is very common in Pennsylvania, but many of our readers located in other parts of the U.S. have never heard of. FSD handles one Except Right Turn stop sign very well, one that I travel past frequently. Others that I do not navigate through as often do not have as confident a performance. It seems like the cars might already be doing this to an extent.
🚨 Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.3 proceeds through an Except Right Turn Stop Sign pic.twitter.com/YemRSlens7
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 8, 2026
That example is also for something that is a street sign and not necessarily a driver preference; however, I still feel it is worth mentioning because it only handles that commonly passed Except Right Turn stop sign with true confidence. Others it still seems to struggle with.
This could be one of Tesla’s big moves toward full autonomy, and it could be a pathway to truly unsupervised driving. Every day, millions of cars on the road travel at a human driver’s personal preferences with no incident. Why can’t autonomous vehicles still cater to a passenger’s preferences while being autonomous? Tesla seems to have the idea that it would be possible.
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has sharply criticized legacy media outlets for what he describes as selective and biased reporting on vehicle accidents involving Tesla. In a recent X post, DeSantis questioned why headlines routinely spotlight the Tesla brand in crash stories, even when human error is the clear cause, while similar incidents with other automakers often receive generic treatment.
A prime example is the June 19, 2026, fatal crash in Katy, Texas. A Tesla Model 3 driven by Michael Butler struck a brick home at high speed, killing 76-year-old Martha Avila inside. Initial reports and headlines prominently featured “Tesla crash” and referenced the driver’s claim that an automated driving-assistance system was engaged.
Many outlets quickly speculated that Full Self-Driving or Autopilot were the cause of the crash, immediately blaming the suites for the accident shortly after it happened.
However, Tesla responded shortly after the accident with vehicle data that showed Butler manually overrode the system by pressing the accelerator to 100 percent, reaching 73 MPH in a residential area, more than double the speed limit. The accelerator remained floored after impact.
Tesla finally clarifies fatal Texas crash, confirms driver manually overrode acceleration
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) later confirmed these findings, and Butler now faces manslaughter charges. His phone searches also included queries like “Tesla FSD too timid,” suggesting he may have intervened aggressively. Despite this, many headlines continued to center Tesla’s technology rather than the driver’s actions.
DeSantis highlighted a Washington Post headline, which was labeled, “Newly released photo shows wreckage of Tesla crash that killed grandmother.”
Do legacy media outlets typically use headlines involving the make of a car in a crash or is that only for Tesla?
It would be one thing if the self-driving malfunctioned but the crash was purely human-induced.
Seems like these outlets want to associate Tesla with crashes as… pic.twitter.com/EmfyeYiuv6
— Ron DeSantis (@RonDeSantis) July 17, 2026
The subheadline noted the driver overrode assistance and floored the accelerator, yet the brand name dominated the framing. He asked whether legacy outlets typically name the make of a car in routine crashes or reserve that treatment for Tesla to push a narrative.
This pattern appears widespread. Crashes involving Ford, Chevrolet, or Toyota vehicles frequently appear as “pickup truck slams into home” or “fatal car crash kills pedestrian” without brand specifics, especially absent new technology angles.
High-profile Ford F-150 or Chevy Silverado incidents tied to large sales volumes often escape brand-callout scrutiny. In contrast, Tesla stories consistently lead with the manufacturer, amplifying perceptions of risk despite data showing strong overall safety performance:
🚨 Why do Tesla Owners get so defensive over the narrative of crashes involving Teslas? https://t.co/aX7ogtjTCR pic.twitter.com/KO4QWaLOKl
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 24, 2026
Tesla’s own 2025 Impact Report indicates vehicles using FSD logged 0.19 major incidents per million miles, roughly eight times fewer than the U.S. average. Models like the Model Y also rank among the safest in IIHS and NHTSA testing for occupant protection. Critics argue disproportionate coverage ignores these statistics and driver behavior factors, such as younger or more aggressive Tesla owners in some studies.
DeSantis frames this as part of a broader political agenda against innovative American companies like Tesla. By consistently naming Tesla while downplaying others, media outlets risk eroding public trust and shaping perceptions detached from the evidence of human error in most cases.
As autonomous technology evolves across the industry, consistent and factual reporting will be essential to separate real safety concerns from narrative-driven coverage.
Tesla entered two new markets this week by advancing its presence in Latvia (Europe) and officially launching operations in Uruguay (South America), marking a rapid dual-continent expansion.
These moves underscore the company’s strategy to tap into emerging EV markets with supportive policies, renewable energy grids, and growing demand for sustainable transport.
Latvia: Strengthening the Baltic Footprint
In Latvia, Tesla has built on its earlier registration of Tesla Latvia SIA in late 2025 with recent steps toward full operations, including job postings for a service center and representation in Riga. This aligns with broader Baltic expansion following Lithuania’s model of pop-up stores and service centers.
Coming to Latvia https://t.co/XNkQQJ2O6a pic.twitter.com/yS9kpcNky1
— Tesla Europe, Middle East & Africa (@teslaeurope) July 17, 2026
EV penetration in Latvia stands at around 7 percent for BEVs in new passenger car registrations. 2025 data showed 1,602 BEVs out of about 22,500 total, or 7.1 percent, with combined plug-ins nearing 19 percent. Growth has been steady but below the European average, supported by government subsidies and infrastructure development. Tesla models like the Model 3 lead local EV registrations.
Vehicles for the Latvian market will likely be sourced from Gigafactory Berlin or Gigafactory Shanghai. Charging infrastructure is robust for the region as well, with over 400- 2,000 public points, with Tesla Superchargers in Riga, Jūrmala, and along Via Baltica routes offering up to 250 kW.
Uruguay: Third South American Country
Tesla teased its Uruguay arrival with “Estamos llegando,” or, “We are arriving,” on social media, followed by an official presentation scheduled for mid-July.
Hola Uruguay 🇺🇾
Nuestros Model 3 y Model Y están cada vez mas cerca! pic.twitter.com/FR41fsA7um
— Tesla Latinoamérica (@Tesla_LatAm) June 30, 2026
The company established Tesla Uruguay SAS, homologated Model 3 and Model Y (three versions each), and appointed local leadership. This makes Uruguay Tesla’s third official South American market after Chile and Colombia.
Uruguay boasts one of Latin America’s highest EV penetrations, with battery-electric vehicles exceeding 20 percent market share recently, driven by tax incentives, high fuel prices, and a nearly 95-100 percent renewable electricity grid. Hundreds of Teslas already operate via grey imports, but official sales bring warranties, service, and support.
Vehicles will be imported from Gigafactory Shanghai, enabling competitive pricing for Model 3 and Model Y. Charging plans include Supercharger development alongside existing infrastructure, leveraging the country’s green energy advantage for affordable operation.
Tesla Superchargers follow Model 3 and Model Y to South American country
Tesla’s Dual Continent Expansion
Tesla’s simultaneous push into Latvia and Uruguay demonstrates efficient scaling: prioritizing service and infrastructure first, then direct sales in high-potential niches. In Europe, it fills Baltic gaps; in Latin America, it counters Chinese dominance while leveraging renewables.
This dual move signals Tesla’s ambition to accelerate global EV adoption amid varying regional paces. By addressing local needs, like subsidies in Latvia or incentives and green grids in Uruguay, Tesla not only boosts volumes but advances its mission of sustainable energy.
For investors and consumers, it highlights resilience and opportunity in diverse markets, potentially paving the way for further growth in underserved regions. With strong fundamentals in both, these entries could yield long-term gains as EV transitions mature worldwide.
Elon Musk says your Tesla will start to learn your individual preferences
Ron DeSantis calls out media bias in Tesla crash coverage
