News
USPS says full-EV fleet not possible by 2033, requires $2.3B in additional investments
The United States Postal Service said in its December 2021 Environmental Impact Statement report that committing to a fully-electric fleet of 75,000 mail delivery vehicles would require an additional $2.3 billion investment. Additionally, the USPS may not be willing to commit to more than ten percent of its new fleet to electric powertrains as the government agency says it “is not achievable.”
The report was published on January 7th and details potential alternatives to its plan to purchase between 50,000 and 165,000 new vehicles that will “replace existing delivery vehicles nationwide that have reached the end of their service life.” In February 2021, the USPS announced a contract award to Oshkosh Defense, LLC for the production of the “Next-Generation Delivery Vehicles,” or NGDVs. The NGDVs will consist of at least 10 of having battery-electric powertrains. The remainder would have internal combustion engines.
The USPS is considering alternatives for comparison, which include 100 percent of the new vehicles being “commercial-off-the-shelf” (COTS) ICE vehicles, or 100 percent COTS electric cars. These are referred to in the report as Alternative 1.1 and 1.2, respectfully.
The current plan is for the USPS to begin replacing between 50,000 to 165,000 new vehicles. Ten percent will be EVs, at the minimum. The plan will take ten years to complete and will begin in 2023, as the first NGDV will make deliveries sometime in 2023. “The actual timeline and quantities of NGDV purchased and delivery vehicle types replaced would be contingent upon the Postal Service’s operational needs, including individual carrier route needs, and financial position,” the report says.
Credit: USPS
However, it appears unlikely that the USPS will commit to increasing the share of EVs in its fleet due to affordability reasons. In its report, it states that, while it understands BEVs are better for the environment, funding would not allow the USPS to make any significant changes to the current plan. The USPS states that its preferred alternative is actually the Proposed Action, which is to purchase and deploy up to 90 percent ICE NGDVs with 10 percent BEV NGDVs. “This Preferred Alternative is also the most achievable given the Postal Service’s financial condition, as the ICE NGDV is significantly less expensive than the BEV NGDV and does not have the same route length and other operational constraints as the BEVs. Finally, the 90 percent ICE NGDV Preferred Alternative would result in less fuel consumption and reduced direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions as compared to the existing delivery vehicles being replaced,” the report adds.
Realizing that a full fleet of BEVs is better for the environment, as it would reduce “about 200 percent fewer direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions than the 90 percent ICE NGDV” plan, the financial situation does not allow for it. The USPS says that “committing to purchase more than 10 percent BEV NGDV as part of the Preferred Alternative is not achievable, absent additional funding, as the 100 percent BEV NGDV Preferred Alternative is $2.3 billion more expensive than the 90 percent ICE NGDV Preferred Alternative for an order of 75,000 vehicles.” If the USPS wanted to transition all 165,000 vehicles to BEV powertrains, it would cost an additional $1 billion.
The USPS does have a third alternative: No action. The Postal Service will likely not commit to this option, but it does state that, “Utility service and infrastructure in place at Postal Service facilities currently are meeting service demands.”
The full report is available below.
Usps+Ngdv+Feis Dec+2021 by Joey Klender on Scribd
I’d love to hear from you! If you have any comments, concerns, or questions, please email me at joey@teslarati.com. You can also reach me on Twitter @KlenderJoey, or if you have news tips, you can email us at tips@teslarati.com.
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.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli responded to rumors of an imminent bankruptcy that was reportedly being mulled after a report stated the automaker was working with the firm AlixPartners to iron out its next steps.
The company felt a massive loss on Wall Street yesterday, as the report essentially pushed the stock down as much as 55 percent on Tuesday.
The report, published initially by Eletric-Vehicles.com, claimed Lucid was essentially in dire straits and was told by AlixPartners, a commonly used restructuring advisor, to either take shares private or file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
Lucid’s head of Communications, Nick Twork, immediately challenged the report and stated the company “has sufficient liquidity to carry its operations well into next year.”
Now, the company’s CEO is chiming in as well, stating that the report is “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Napoli said:
“Lucid is not considering bankruptcy or a transaction to take the company private. Those reports are false. The Board did not explore either scenario. Period.
As disclosed in our most recent quarterly filing, Lucid has sufficient liquidity to fund its operations well into next year.
We work with outside advisors to improve operational performance and execution. They are not advising Lucid on a take-private transaction or bankruptcy, and any suggestion that they have recommended either course of action to management or the Board is false.
My priority is clear: turn this company around. That is where the leadership team and I are focused.
I look forward to providing a full update during our quarterly earnings call on August 4th.”
🚨 Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli calls rumors of financial issues “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Read his full remarks here: https://t.co/t3Pg1NHvzy pic.twitter.com/LvHUPhO4Qf
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 15, 2026
It seems pretty clear that Lucid is confident things will be okay, and, to be honest, they should not have much to worry about, especially considering the company has been backed by the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) for years. It has solid financial backing, and its sales, while weak, are pretty much right on par with a company of this age.
Lucid also sent a Cease & Desist letter to the publication for their report.
Lucid shares have rebounded nicely and are up nearly 21 percent at the time of publication. As soon as the company dispelled the rumors of bankruptcy yesterday, the stock began to climb back toward more reasonable levels.
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
