Connect with us

News

USPS Inspector General asked to investigate agency’s decision favoring gas delivery vans over EVs

(Credit: Mick Akers)

Published

on

A group of U.S. lawmakers in the House Oversight Committee sent a letter to the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) Inspector General (IG), requesting an investigation into the agency’s order for Next Generation Delivery Vehicles (NGDV). 

In a letter dated Monday, March 14, Democrats in the House Oversight Committee asked IG Tammy L. Whitcomb to investigate the Postal Service’s compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). They questioned if the USPS complied with NEPA’s requirements for environmental reviews before finalizing its NGDV contract. 

“We write to request that the Postal Service Office of Inspector General (OIG) initiate an investigation into the Postal Service’s compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, particularly the filing of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Next Generation Delivery Vehicle,” wrote the Members. 

“The Environmental Protection Agency, the White House Council for Environmental Quality and numerous environmental stakeholders have raised concerns that the Postal Service did not meet its NEPA obligations during its contracting process for the NGDV. These significant concerns warrant an investigation by the OIG.”

Advertisement

Background

The USPS received some criticism from the Biden Administration after it announced plans to spend up to $11.3 billion on as many as 165,000 gas-powered NGDVs. The Biden Administration urged the Postal Service to reconsider its plans to buy mostly internal combustion engine (ICE) delivery vehicles to upgrade its fleet. 

The USPS fleet makes up a third of the U.S. government fleet. President Biden ordered all federal agencies to phase out the purchase of gasoline-powered vehicles. Even though the Postal Service is an independent agency, its fleet’s transition to electric vehicles would symbolize the current administration’s determination to move away from fossil fuels. 

After receiving some pushback from the Biden Administration about its NGDV plans, the Postal Service issued a statement on February 6, announcing its plans to submit an initial order for 5,000 electric delivery vans. The agency also shared its goals to achieve 70% fleet electrification within the decade. 

The Issue

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the White House Council for Environmental Quality (CEQ), and other environmental stakeholders are concerned that the Postal Service did not meet NEPA obligations when it announced a 10-year contract with Oshkosh to manufacture fossil fuel-powered NGDVs. 

The EPA pointed out that critical features in the contract were not disclosed in the Postal Service’s final review or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the NGDV program. The CEQ observed that the agency’s final review was “flawed in some ways that cannot be so easily remedied.” 

Advertisement

The New York Times discovered some evidence that supported the CEQ’s claims. The Postal Service estimated that the NGDVs would get 29.9 miles per gallon in its review. However, the EPA found that the vehicles would only get 14.7 miles per gallon or even less if air conditioning was factored into the equation. 

The Postal Service’s (Current) Stance

USPS published a 340-page Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) under the NEPA process on January 7, 2022. The Postal Service later completed a record of decision (ROD), which featured the agency’s response to feedback from the EPA on the potential environmental impact of the NGDV program.

In its ROD, the Postal Service outlines its decision to purchase and deploy 50,000 to 165,000 NGDVs over the next ten years. It details that the NGDV fleet will be a mix of ICE and battery electric vehicle (BEV) delivery vans. All-electric NGDVs will make up at least 10% of the fleet. The Postal Service determined that ICE NGDVs were the “most achievable” alternative to replacing its existing fleet rather than BEV NGDV, given its financial condition. 

“…BEV NGDV(s) ha(ve) a significantly higher total cost of ownership than the ICE NGDV, which is why the Preferred Alternative being implemented does not commit to more than 10 percent BEV NGDV. Finally, the Postal Service notes that the Preferred Alternative as implemented contains the flexibility to significantly increase the percentage of BEV NGDV should additional funding become available from any source,” stated the USPS in its latest ROD.

Advertisement

USPS Inspector General asked to investigate agency’s decision favoring gas delivery vans over EVs by Maria Merano on Scribd

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.

Maria--aka "M"-- is an experienced writer and book editor. She's written about several topics including health, tech, and politics. As a book editor, she's worked with authors who write Sci-Fi, Romance, and Dark Fantasy. M loves hearing from TESLARATI readers. If you have any tips or article ideas, contact her at maria@teslarati.com or via X, @Writer_01001101.

Advertisement
Comments

News

Tesla China January wholesale sales rise 9% year-on-year

Tesla reported January wholesale sales of 69,129 China-made vehicles, as per data released by the China Passenger Car Association.

Published

on

Credit: Tesla China

Tesla China reported January wholesale sales of 69,129 Giga Shanghai-made vehicles, as per data released by the China Passenger Car Association (CPCA). The figure includes both domestic sales and exports from Gigafactory Shanghai.

The total represented a 9.32% increase from January last year but a 28.86% decline from December’s 97,171 units.

China EV market trends

The CPCA estimated that China’s passenger new energy vehicle wholesale volume reached about 900,000 units in January, up 1% year-on-year but down 42% from December. Demand has been pressured by the start-of-year slow season, a 5% additional purchase tax cost, and uncertainty around the transition of vehicle trade-in subsidies, as noted in a report from CNEV Post.

Market leader BYD sold 210,051 NEVs in January, down 30.11% year-on-year and 50.04% month-on-month, as per data released on February 1. Tesla China’s year-over-year growth then is quite interesting, as the company’s vehicles seem to be selling very well despite headwinds in the market. 

Advertisement

Tesla China’s strategies

To counter weaker seasonal demand, Tesla China launched a low-interest financing program on January 6, offering up to seven-year terms on select produced vehicles. The move marked the first time an automaker offered financing of that length in the Chinese market.

Several rivals, including Xiaomi, Li Auto, XPeng, and NIO, later introduced similar incentives. Tesla China then further increased promotions on January 26 by reinstating insurance subsidies for the Model 3 sedan. The CPCA is expected to release Tesla’s China retail sales and export breakdown later this month.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Tesla’s Apple CarPlay ambitions are not dead, they’re still in the works

For what it’s worth, as a Tesla owner, I don’t particularly see the need for CarPlay, as I have found the in-car system that the company has developed to be superior. However, many people are in love with CarPlay simply because, when it’s in a car that is capable, it is really great.

Published

on

Credit: Michał Gapiński/YouTube

Tesla’s Apple CarPlay ambitions appeared to be dead in the water after a large amount of speculation late last year that the company would add the user interface seemed to cool down after several weeks of reports.

However, it appears that CarPlay might make its way to Tesla vehicles after all, as a recent report seems to indicate that it is still being worked on by software teams for the company.

The real question is whether it is truly needed or if it is just a want by so many owners that Tesla is listening and deciding to proceed with its development.

Back in NovemberBloomberg reported that Tesla was in the process of testing Apple CarPlay within its vehicles, which was a major development considering the company had resisted adopting UIs outside of its own for many years.

Nearly one-third of car buyers considered the lack of CarPlay as a deal-breaker when buying their cars, a study from McKinsey & Co. outlined. This could be a driving decision in Tesla’s inability to abandon the development of CarPlay in its vehicles, especially as it lost a major advantage that appealed to consumers last year: the $7,500 EV tax credit.

Tesla owners propose interesting theory about Apple CarPlay and EV tax credit

Although we saw little to no movement on it since the November speculation, Tesla is now reportedly in the process of still developing the user interface. Mark Gurman, a Bloomberg writer with a weekly newsletter, stated that CarPlay is “still in the works” at Tesla and that more concrete information will be available “soon” regarding its development.

While Tesla already has a very capable and widely accepted user interface, CarPlay would still be an advantage, considering many people have used it in their vehicles for years. Just like smartphones, many people get comfortable with an operating system or style and are resistant to using a new one. This could be a big reason for Tesla attempting to get it in their own cars.

Tesla gets updated “Apple CarPlay” hack that can work on new models

For what it’s worth, as a Tesla owner, I don’t particularly see the need for CarPlay, as I have found the in-car system that the company has developed to be superior. However, many people are in love with CarPlay simply because, when it’s in a car that is capable, it is really great.

It holds one distinct advantage over Tesla’s UI in my opinion, and that’s the ability to read and respond to text messages, which is something that is available within a Tesla, but is not as user-friendly.

With that being said, I would still give CarPlay a shot in my Tesla. I didn’t particularly enjoy it in my Bronco Sport, but that was because Ford’s software was a bit laggy with it. If it were as smooth as Tesla’s UI, which I think it would be, it could be a really great addition to the vehicle.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla brings closure to Model Y moniker with launch of new trim level

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

With the launch of a new trim level for the Model Y last night, something almost went unnoticed — the loss of a moniker that Tesla just recently added to a couple of its variants of the all-electric crossover.

Tesla launched the Model Y All-Wheel-Drive last night, competitively priced at $41,990, but void of the luxurious features that are available within the Premium trims.

Upon examination of the car, one thing was missing, and it was noticeable: Tesla dropped the use of the “Standard” moniker to identify its entry-level offerings of the Model Y.

The Standard Model Y vehicles were introduced late last year, primarily to lower the entry price after the U.S. EV tax credit changes were made. Tesla stripped some features like the panoramic glass roof, premium audio, ambient lighting, acoustic-lined glass, and some of the storage.

Last night, it simply switched the configurations away from “Standard” and simply as the Model Y Rear-Wheel-Drive and Model Y All-Wheel-Drive.

There are three plausible reasons for this move, and while it is minor, there must be an answer for why Tesla chose to abandon the name, yet keep the “Premium” in its upper-level offerings.

“Standard” carried a negative connotation in marketing

Words like “Standard” can subtly imply “basic,” “bare-bones,” or “cheap” to consumers, especially when directly contrasted with “Premium” on the configurator or website. Dropping it avoids making the entry-level Model Y feel inferior or low-end, even though it’s designed for affordability.

Tesla likely wanted the base trim to sound neutral and spec-focused (e.g., just “RWD” highlights drivetrain rather than feature level), while “Premium” continues to signal desirable upgrades, encouraging upsells to higher-margin variants.

Simplifying the overall naming structure for less confusion

The initial “Standard vs. Premium” split (plus Performance) created a somewhat clunky hierarchy, especially as Tesla added more variants like Standard Long Range in some markets or the new AWD base.

Removing “Standard” streamlines things to a more straightforward progression (RWD → AWD → Premium RWD/AWD → Performance), making the lineup easier to understand at a glance. This aligns with Tesla’s history of iterative naming tweaks to reduce buyer hesitation.

Elevating brand perception and protecting perceived value

Keeping “Premium” reinforces that the bulk of the Model Y lineup (especially the popular Long Range models) remains a premium product with desirable features like better noise insulation, upgraded interiors, and tech.

Eliminating “Standard” prevents any dilution of the Tesla brand’s upscale image—particularly important in a competitive EV market—while the entry-level variants can quietly exist as accessible “RWD/AWD” options without drawing attention to them being decontented versions.

You can check out the differences between the “Standard” and “Premium” Model Y vehicles below:

@teslarati There are some BIG differences between the Tesla Model Y Standard and Tesla Model Y Premium #tesla #teslamodely ♬ Sia – Xeptemper

Continue Reading