News
USPS Inspector General asked to investigate agency’s decision favoring gas delivery vans over EVs
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.”
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.”
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.
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.
Tesla’s Supercharger Diner in Los Angeles dominated the company’s global usage rankings after just one year, proving the concept is more than just a one-off novelty location that will fade away.
The performance could incite the company to build more locations, something that CEO Elon Musk has hinted at for some time.
Tesla’s Supercharger Diner delivered 21.2 GWh of energy in its first year of operation, the company’s head of Charging, Max de Zegher, revealed on X. Of the top 10 most utilized Supercharger locations in Tesla’s global infrastructure, the Diner in Los Angeles was the most used by drivers, and it wasn’t particularly close:
Tesla Diner opened exactly 1 year ago. Inspiring that futuristic places like this exist.
It’s our highest usage Supercharger in the world: 21.2 GWh delivered in a year, 1.6k sessions/day.
Top 10 Superchargers by energy delivered: https://t.co/9YvJ8lw696 pic.twitter.com/koB3AUJHws
— Max (@MdeZegher) July 21, 2026
On its launch day one year ago, nobody was too sure what the Tesla Diner would be about. It seemed like an interesting concept, and considering it had been in the works for years, it was a highly anticipated launch that many were looking forward to.
Based on its success, we could see additional Diners with Superchargers built throughout the United States, and potentially beyond. Musk has said on several occasions that the company would be willing to bring the Diner idea to more markets.
Tesla makes major change at Supercharger Diner amid epic demand
Of the markets that Musk has mentioned, both Palo Alto and Austin have come to be perceived as ideal selections. However, there are no concrete plans as of now to build new Supercharger Diners anywhere; the location on Santa Monica Boulevard will remain the exclusive spot to pick up Tesla-inspired eats, at least for the time being.
Tesla short sellers won big following the company’s massive fall on Wall Street after it reported subpar Earnings on Wednesday.
Tesla short sellers collected about $4.12 billion in single-day profits on Thursday, according to Bloomberg. Shares fell as much as 15 percent during Thursday’s session. It closed as one of the worst days for Tesla on Wall Street in the past three years.
Investors sold off the stock after Tesla said it would aggressively direct its spending toward AI and its Optimus robot project. The company had record revenues, which were driven by one of the strongest quarters in terms of vehicle deliveries in company history.
However, it missed EPS estimates by reporting just $0.33, a far cry from the $0.53 analysts expected.
S3 Partners reported that about 3 percent of Tesla’s outstanding stock is sold short. Managing Director at S3, Ihor Dusaniwsky, provided the short seller’s potential profit, as well as another figure: shorts have likely had paper gains of $8.92 billion this year, as Tesla shares are down 30 percent in 2026.
Tesla (TSLA) Q2 2026 earnings results: miss on EPS, beat on revenue
Tesla has burned short sellers many times in the past, but the company’s latest Earnings Call was a chance for those skeptics to taste some payback. Although the company gave some very transparent information regarding future projects, the rollout of Robotaxi, Optimus, and Semi, many investors took their profits on Thursday.
Notable short sellers like Michael Burry have been transparent about their skepticism around Tesla shares. Burry just revealed three weeks ago that he had opened up a new short on the stock, stating he shorted Tesla shares at $416.22. “Happy it jumped back to this level,” he said in a blog post.
At the time of publication, Tesla shares were down about 3 percent and the stock was trading at $309.92.
Tesla’s long-standing saga regarding its door handles and a manual release has entered its latest chapter, and as a result, a big change is coming.
On Friday, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) denied Tesla’s petition that was seeking a defect investigation into roughly 180,000 Model 3 vehicles for an issue involving the emergency mechanical door release.
🚨 The NHTSA denied a petition from Tesla that would have thrown out concerns regarding its door handles.
NHTSA said Tesla’s petition did not present evidence of a safety-related defect warranting an investigation. The agency said a rulemaking process would be a better strategy. pic.twitter.com/j6PzUBM1mT
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 24, 2026
NHTSA said that Tesla’s petition did not present evidence of a safety-related defect in the door handles or their emergency releases. Instead, the agency determined that it would rather solve the issue of the lack of labeling or location of emergency mechanical door releases and the federal safety rules that govern them.
Essentially, the NHTSA wants to create and enforce rules that would require automakers to make emergency door latch releases more clearly labeled in a car. Despite a Tesla having manual door releases on all four passenger doors, many people do not know they exist or how they work.
Tesla addresses door handle complaints with simple engineering fix
In recent times, Tesla has faced some criticism involving its door handles, specifically because some occupants have reported that they are unable to exit their vehicles after losing power. The door handles on a Tesla are electronically operated, but in the event that the 12V battery dies, there is a manual release that can be used.
The NHTSA only identified a single complaint involving the mechanical door releases: a 2022 Model 3 owner said the release was concealed and unlabeled after the vehicle lost power after a front-end collision. It has also already started to create a separate rulemaking process to make emergency door-egress systems more obvious.
It should be noted that all Teslas have mechanical emergency door releases, but they are placed in various locations as the vehicles have aged and been redesigned from year to year. Refer to the safety manual for your vehicle if you have any confusion about where the emergency releases are and how they work.
Tesla’s Supercharger Diner probably just secured more locations
Tesla short sellers win big after shares fall after earnings
