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
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Four Raptor engines failed to ignite at T-zero, forcing SpaceX to scrub Starship Flight 13 Thursday.
SpaceX scrubbed the Starship Flight 13 launch attempt Thursday evening at the last possible moment, after four of the Super Heavy booster’s 33 Raptor 3 engines failed to ignite during the startup sequence. The 90-minute window had opened at 6:45 p.m. EDT from Starbase in Boca Chica, Texas, and the countdown had proceeded without issue all day, with more than 11.5 million pounds of liquid methane and liquid oxygen being fully loaded into the rocket before the automated abort triggered. SpaceX’s launch directors posted on X, “Standing down from today’s flight test attempt,” and shut down the livestream shortly after.
Musk confirmed the root cause within hours. “Some of the engines didn’t start, triggering an automatic launch abort,” he wrote on X. “To be confident of a good flight, 2 Raptors will be removed and replaced. Most probable launch timing is early next week.” SpaceX engineers began draining propellant tanks immediately and Booster 20 was rolled back to its hangar for inspection.
The timing adds a layer of significance that did not exist during any of the previous 12 Starship flights. This is the first time SpaceX has attempted to launch Starship since the company made its stock market debut in June, listing under ticker SPCX at $135 per share. Public investors are now watching every Starship outcome in real time, and a last-second abort carries more visibility than it would have six months ago.
Flight 13 was designed to be one of the most consequential tests in the program’s history. It was set to carry 20 Starlink V3 satellites, the first operational payload Starship has ever attempted to deploy. Six of those satellites carried external cameras to photograph Starship’s heat shield from the outside during flight, which would act as a self-inspection approach SpaceX has never attempted before. The mission also needed to complete a Raptor engine relight in space, a step SpaceX skipped on Flight 12 in May after losing an engine during ascent. That Flight 12 booster also flipped 90 degrees off course during its boostback burn when five engines failed to reignite.
SpaceX has not announced an official next launch date. Musk’s “early next week” window points to July 21 or 22 at the earliest, pending the engine swap and a return to the pad.
Elon Musk flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.
Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.
BREAKING: Elon Musk acquires Jacksonville power company APR Energy in a deal valued at more than $1,000,000,000.00.
— Polymarket Money (@PolymarketMoney) July 15, 2026
Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.
APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.
APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.
The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.
The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.
Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
