The United Auto Workers union, sixteen states, and four environmental groups recently filed lawsuits against the United States Postal Service (USPS). The groups aim to stop the Postal Service’s plan to purchase and produce gas-powered delivery vehicles to update its fleet.
Background
The USPS announced it would spend up to $11.3 billion on up to 165,000 gas-powered NGDVs. The Biden Administration urged the Postal Service to reconsider its plans. President Biden had ordered federal agencies to phase out the purchase of gas-powered vehicles, and the USPS makes up a third of the U.S. government fleet.
In March, the USPS received criticism from U.S. lawmakers in the House Oversight Committee for its gas-powered Next Generation Delivery Vehicles (NGDV). The Committee sent a letter to the USPS Inspector General requesting an investigation into the agency’s NGDV order. According to the Committee’s letter, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the White House Council for Environmental Quality (CEQ), and numerous environmental stakeholders were concerned that the USPA did not meet NEPA obligations with its gas-powered NGDV fleet.
The USPS responded to EPA feedback with a record of decision (ROD), which outlined the Postal Service’s decision to purchase and deploy 50,000 to 165,000 NGDVs over the next ten years. The agency stated that the NGDV fleet would be a mix of ICE and battery electric delivery vans. Electric vehicles would make up at least 10% of the agency’s fleet. However, the Postal Service also determined that ICE NGDVs were the “most achievable” replacements for its existing fleet.
USPS Lawsuits by States
As per Reuters, sixteen states, led by New York and California, filed a lawsuit against the USPS for its flawed and unlawful environmental analysis of the NGDV program. The lawsuit also accuses the Postal Service of signing the contracts to purchase the gas-powered NGDV before completing a draft environmental review.
According to the CEQ, the Postal Service’s final review for the NGDV program was “flawed in some ways that cannot be so easily remedied.” For example, USPS estimated that the gas-powered NGDVs would get 29.9 miles per gallon, but the EPA discovered that the vehicles would only get 14.7 miles per gallon or less.
UAW and NRDC Lawsuit
Besides the states lawsuit, the UAW filed a joint lawsuit with the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), claiming the USPS “failed on multiple levels” when it evaluated and finalized the contract for the NGDVs. The two parties demand that the agency stop producing the next-generation delivery vehicles. As per the complaint, the UAW and NRDC stated that the NGDV contract is “based on an unlawfully deficient environmental analysis issued after the Postal Service had already decided on a course of action.”
The two parties also criticized the agency’s Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The UAW and NRDC claim that the Postal Service did not consider the impact NGDV production — opposed to the operation — would have on the local environment. The EIS did not disclose that the vehicles would be produced in South Carolina by Oshkosh Defense, a Wisconsin-based contractor.
“With this contract, USPS and Oshkosh Defense abandoned the Wisconsin workers that built the company and failed taxpayers with a sham process to evaluate the environmental and community impacts of these vehicles. The USPS’s Next Generation Delivery Vehicle is an opportunity for the Biden administration to reverse-court and make real investments in both a cleaner future and good union jobs The contract as it currently stands fails on both accounts. It’s time to halt production and start the procurement process over,” said Ray Curry, president of the United Auto Workers.
The Teslarati team would appreciate hearing from you. If you have any tips, reach out to me at maria@teslarati.com or via Twitter @Writer_01001101.
Tesla just gave what is perhaps its biggest signal yet that the launch of the Cybercab, its autonomous ride-hailing-geared car, is imminent.
The Cybercab has been spotted outside of Gigafactory Texas in massive numbers over the past few days, with hundreds of units being stored on property just days after the vehicle received a Certificate of Conformity from the EPA.
Today, things were a bit different.
Cybercabs spotted on Giga Texas property today had an addition: a Cybercab decal on the side, reminiscent of the “Robotaxi” ones that were placed on Model Ys just as the company launched its ride-sharing platform about a year ago.
Giga Texas drone operator Joe Tegtmeyer noticed the change today:
Tesla Cybercabs are now getting “Cybercab” logos on the side of them!
Tesla did the same with Model Ys that were given “Robotaxi” logos: https://t.co/DanANtw1m7 pic.twitter.com/FqOhH0S9Ks
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 19, 2026
Tesla could be signaling that the Cybercab is preparing to enter the Robotaxi fleet in the coming weeks or months with this move. It seems more symbolic than anything; Tesla is ready to throw Cybercabs in the ride-hailing platform just as it did with Model Ys last year.
The addition of the Certificate of Conformity awarded to the Cybercab is another major factor working to Tesla’s advantage. The company now has permission from the EPA to allow the vehicle to operate on public roads and enter the chain of commerce. It’s officially street legal.
Tesla Cybercab specs revealed: range, curb weight, range ratings, and more
The big question that remains is whether Tesla will be able to operate the car without a safety monitor, especially considering it plans to put the car out there without a steering wheel or pedals. With the Cybercab only having a seating capacity of two, it is hard to believe Tesla will even consider putting a Safety Monitor in the car.
It did recently self-certify as Level 4 and has the ability to operate driverless vehicles in the State of Texas under a law that took effect on May 28. You can read more about that here:
Tesla’s Robotaxi dreams just took a massive step toward reality
We’d imagine Cybercabs will be on the roads as soon as July, but August will likely be a better estimate of when the car will be entered into the Cybercab fleet. It all depends at where Tesla is, as they’ve truly prioritized safety with the rollout of the Robotaxi platform.
Elon Musk has publicly questioned Moody’s credit assessments following the rating agency’s decision to assign SpaceX a Baa1 investment-grade rating, two notches above Tesla’s Baa3. The comments came amid discussions comparing the two companies’ financial profiles.
SpaceX earned its first-time Baa1 rating with a stable outlook from Moody’s. The agency highlighted the company’s leadership in orbital launches, the growing recurring revenue from its Starlink satellite network, strong vertical integration, U.S. government contracts, and emerging opportunities in AI infrastructure.
These factors were cited as supporting robust cash flows, margin expansion, and financial flexibility.
Musk responded directly: “Tesla’s credit rating is ridiculously low tbh,” and added, “Yeah, makes no sense. Tesla has over $40B in cash, no debt, and is consistently profitable!” His remarks underscored Tesla’s balance sheet strength and profitability at a time when many traditional automakers continue to report losses in the shift to electric vehicles.
Yeah, makes no sense.
Tesla has over $40B in cash, no debt and is consistently profitable!
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 19, 2026
Tesla maintains a leading position in the global EV market, with diversification into energy and storage, battery technology, and robotics through projects like Optimus. Recent financial updates show the company generated positive free cash flow of $1.4 billion in Q1 2026, supported by operating cash flow of $3.9 billion. Cash and short-term investments stood at approximately $44.7 billion.
Moody’s has affirmed Tesla’s Baa3 issuer rating with a stable outlook in periodic reviews, acknowledging the company’s EV leadership, technology strengths, including AI for autonomous vehicles, solid profitability, and strong liquidity.
Tesla (TSLA) scores Baa3 Moody’s rating for ‘stable’ outlook
However, the agency has also noted challenges in the automotive segment and expectations for margin pressures.
Musk’s critique highlights a common debate about how traditional rating methodologies apply to high-growth, capital-intensive technology companies. SpaceX benefits from long-term government-backed contracts and diversified, recurring revenue streams, while Tesla’s valuation reflects heavy investment in future technologies such as autonomy and robotics.
Both ratings remain investment-grade, yet the one-notch difference has fueled online discussion about potential inconsistencies in evaluating innovative firms.
The exchange comes as SpaceX explores financing options following its recent valuation milestones, while Tesla continues executing on its multi-year roadmap. Musk’s pointed response serves as a reminder that credit ratings, though influential for borrowing costs, represent one lens through which markets assess corporate strength—and that company leaders often view their financial positions through the lens of long-term innovation and cash generation rather than short-term risk metrics alone.
A new report from Reuters claims that a transport authority in Sweden is pushing back against the approval of Tesla’s Full Self-Driving suite because it will travel over speed limits.
The report says the Swedish Transport Administration (TRV) recommends the European Union votes against FSD’s approval. TRV believes it should not be approved until Tesla disables FSD’s ability to speed.
TRV sent a letter to the European Union’s Technical Committee on Motor Vehicles (TCMV), which is set to meet on June 30 to discuss the potential approval of the Tesla FSD suite in the country. Tesla, which has received various approvals in Europe over the past two months, has not provided a comment.
Teslas operating on FSD do travel over the speed limit, depending on the Speed Profile that is chosen. Drivers have the ability to disengage FSD at any point; Tesla specifically states that those supervising the suite are responsible for its actions.
Let’s cut to the chase: humans operating any vehicle speed almost daily in the United States. Realistically, speed limits in the U.S. are more frequently treated as speed minimums. However, other countries are different, and driving behaviors are less aggressive.
TRV believes that “allowing automated systems to systematically exceed legal speed limits…risks undermining both the legal framework and the expected safety benefits of vehicle automation,” the report stated. It’s surprising that Tesla has not received this claim from other countries previously.
This could be a good argument to bring Max Speed back, the setting that previously allowed the driver to choose the absolute fastest the car would travel.
This would still put the responsibility of supervision in the hands of the driver. It would allow the driver to choose whether the car would travel over the speed limit or not, acknowledging that they set the speed, and if they get pulled over, there would be no ability to argue it.
However, it does not seem as if this is something Tesla will do, especially considering many U.S. drivers have requested the feature in an effort to eliminate speeding or at least tone it down. The company has not shown any interest in bringing it back.
Tesla has approvals for FSD in Europe in Estonia, Lithuania, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Belgium.
Tesla Cybercab launch is imminent after latest sighting at Giga Texas
Elon Musk says this part of Tesla ‘makes no sense’
