Ukraine sees new virtue in wind power: It's harder to destroy

EV charging anxiety reflects concerns beyond range anxiety, focusing on charging infrastructure, fast chargers, and network reliability during road trips, from Tesla Superchargers to Electrify America stations across highways in the United States.

Key Points

EV charging anxiety is worry about finding reliable fast chargers on public networks, not just limited range.

✅ Non-Tesla networks vary in uptime and plug-and-charge reliability.

✅ Charging deserts complicate route planning on long highway stretches.

✅ Sync stops: align rest breaks with fast chargers to save time.

With electric cars, people often talk about "range anxiety," and how cars with bigger batteries and longer driving ranges will alleviate that. I just drove an electric car from New York City to Atlanta, a distance of about 950 miles, and it taught me something important. The problem really isn't range anxiety. It's anxiety around finding a convenient and working chargers on America's still-challenged EV charging networks today.

Back in 2019, I drove a Tesla Model S Long Range from New York City to Atlanta. It was a mostly uneventful trip, thanks to Tesla's nicely organized and well maintained network of fast chargers that can fill the batteries with an 80% charge in a half hour or less. Since then, I've wanted to try that trip again with an electric car that wasn't a Tesla, one that wouldn't have Tesla's unified charging network to rely on.
I got my chance with a Mercedes-Benz EQS 450+, a car that is as close to a direct competitor to the Tesla Model S as any. And while I made it to Atlanta without major incident, I encountered glitchy chargers, called the charging network's customer service twice, and experienced some serious charging anxiety during a long stretch of the Carolinas.

Long range
The EPA estimated range for the Tesla I drove in 2019 was 370 miles, and Tesla's latest models can go even further.

The EQS 450+ is officially estimated to go 350 miles on a charge, but I beat that handily without even trying. When I got into the car, its internal displays showed a range estimate of 446 miles. On my trip, the car couldn't stretch its legs quite that far, because I was driving almost entirely on highways at fairly high speeds, but by my calculations, I could have gone between 370 and 390 miles on a charge.

I was going to drive over the George Washington Bridge then down through New Jersey, Delaware, Virginia then North Carolina and South Carolina. I figured three charging stops would be needed and, strictly speaking, that was correct. The driving route laid out by the car's navigation system included three charging stops, but the on-board computers tended push things to the limit. At each stop, the battery would be drained to a little over 10% or so. (I learned later this is a setting I could adjust to be more conservative if I'd wanted.)

But I've driven enough electric cars to have some concerns. I use public chargers fairly often, and I know they're imperfect, and we need to fix these problems to build confidence. Sometimes they aren't working as well as they should. Sometimes they're just plain broken. And even if the car's navigation system is telling you that a charger is "available," that can change at any moment. Someone else can pull into the charging spot just a few seconds before you get there.
I've learned to be flexible and not push things to the limit.

On the first day, when I planned to drive from New York to Richmond, Virginia, no charging stop was called for until Spotsylvania, Virginia, a distance of nearly 300 miles. By that point, I had 16% charge left in the car's batteries which, by the car's own calculation, would have taken me another 60 miles.

As I sat and worked inside the Spotsylvania Town Centre mall I realized I'd been dumb. I had already stopped twice, at rest stops in New Jersey and Delaware. The Delaware stop, at the Biden Welcome Center, had EV fast chargers, as the American EV boom accelerates nationwide. I could have used one even though the car's navigation didn't suggest it.

Stopping without charging was a lost opportunity and it cost me time. If I'm going to stop to recharge myself why not recharge the car, too?
But that's the thing, though. A car can be designed to go 350 miles or more before needing to park whereas human beings are not. Elementary school math will tell you that at highway speeds, that's nearly six hours of driving all at once. We need bathrooms, beverages, food, and to just get out and move around once in a while. Sure, it's physically possible to sit in a car for longer than that in one go, but most people in need of speed will take an airplane, and a driver of an EQS, with a starting price just north of $100,000, can almost certainly afford the ticket.

I stopped for a charge in Virginia but realized I could have stopped sooner. I encountered a lot of other electric cars on the trip, including this Hyundai Ioniq 5 charging next to the Mercedes.

I vowed not to make that strategic error again. I was going to take back control. On the second day, I decided, I would choose when I needed to stop, and would look for conveniently located fast chargers so both the EQS and I could get refreshed at once. The EQS's navigation screen pinpointed available charging locations and their maximum charging speeds, so, if I saw an available charger, I could poke on the icon with my finger and add it onto my route.

For my first stop after leaving Richmond, I pulled into a rest stop in Hillsborough, North Carolina. It was only about 160 miles south from my hotel and I still had half of a full charge.

I sipped coffee and answered some emails while I waited at a counter. I figured I would take as long as I wanted and leave when I was ready with whatever additional electricity the car had gained in that time. In all, I was there about 45 minutes, but at least 15 minutes of that was used trying to get the charger to work. One of the chargers was simply not working at all, and, at another one, a call to Electrify America customer service -- the EV charging company owned by Volkswagen that, by coincidence, operated all the chargers I used on the trip -- I got a successful charging session going at last. (It was unclear what the issue was.)

That was the last and only time I successfully matched my own need to stop with the car's. I left with my battery 91% charged and 358 miles of range showing on the display. I would only need to stop once more on way to Atlanta and not for a long time.

Charging deserts
Then I began to notice something. As I drove through North Carolina and then South Carolina, the little markers on the map screen indicating available chargers became fewer and fewer. During some fairly long stretches there were none showing at all, highlighting how better grid coordination could improve coverage.

It wasn't an immediate concern, though. The EQS's navigation wasn't calling for me to a charge up again until I'd nearly reached the Georgia border. By that point I would have about 11% of my battery charge remaining. But I was getting nervous. Given how far it was between chargers my whole plan of "recharging the car when I recharge myself" had already fallen apart, the much-touted electric-car revolution notwithstanding. I had to leave the highway once to find a gas station to use the restroom and buy an iced tea. A while later, I stopped for lunch, a big plate of "Lexington Style BBQ" with black eyed peas and collard greens in Lexington, North Carolina. None of that involved charging because there no chargers around.

Fortunately, a charger came into sight on my map while I still had 31% charge remaining. I decided I would protect myself by stopping early. After another call to Electrify America customer service, I was able to get a nice, high-powered charging session on the second charger I tried. After about an hour I was off again with a nearly full battery.

I drove the last 150 miles to Atlanta, crossing the state line through gorgeous wetlands and stopping at the Georgia Welcome Center, with hardly a thought about batteries or charging or range.

But I was driving $105,000 Mercedes. What if I'd been driving something that cost less and that, while still going farther than a human would want to drive at a stretch, wouldn't go far enough to make that trip as easily, a real concern for those deciding if it's time to buy an electric car today. Obviously, people do it. One thing that surprised me on this trip, compared to the one in 2019, was the variety of fully electric vehicles I saw driving the same highways. There were Chevrolet Bolts, Audi E-Trons, Porsche Taycans, Hyundai Ioniqs, Kia EV6s and at least one other Mercedes EQS.

Americans are taking their electric cars out onto the highways, as the age of electric cars gathers pace nationwide. But it's still not as easy as it ought to be.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Ontario EV Clean Electricity Plan aligns EV adoption with clean power, natural gas phaseout, and grid decarbonization, cutting greenhouse gas emissions. Parties propose net-zero by 2030 as IESO warns rising gas use undermines climate gains.

Key Points

A plan to link EV growth to a cleaner grid by phasing out gas, boosting renewables, and targeting net-zero power.

✅ Parties back EVs; most pledge gas phaseout by 2030

✅ IESO projects quadrupled grid emissions under more gas

✅ Clean power needed to maximize EV climate benefits

Ontario’s political leaders are unanimously promoting electric vehicles (EVs) in their election platforms, even as Ontario's EV charging network remains only partially complete by a recent deadline. But if the electricity that powers those vehicles continues to come from burning fossil fuels, the province won’t reap the full environmental benefit of EVs, the Ontario Clean Air Alliance says.

“If we’re going to get the maximum benefit of electric vehicles, we’ve got to have a clean electricity supply,” said Jack Gibbons, chair of the alliance.

The environmental advocacy group surveyed the province’s Progressive Conservative, Liberal, NDP and Green parties about where they stand on generating electricity from natural gas, a fossil fuel. Only three committed to phasing out Ontario’s gas plants, a step seen as essential for supporting Canada's EV goals over time.

The NDP promised an electricity grid with net-zero emissions by 2030, while federal targets like the 2035 EV sales mandate shape transport electrification as well. The Liberals pledged to bring electricity emissions "as close to zero as possible by 2030.” The Green Party plans to make Ontario’s electricity “emission-free as quickly as possible,” aiming for a gas phaseout by 2030. The Progressive Conservatives did not answer the survey and did not respond to requests for comment from Canada’s National Observer.

Affordability and reliability were the top concerns for all three parties that responded, including the cost of expanding EV charging stations across the province.

Ontario used to get 25 per cent of its electricity from coal-fired power plants, even as 2019 fossil-fuel electricity share remained significant nationwide. However, in 1997, Gibbons formed the alliance to campaign against coal, and the province’s last coal-fired plant closed in 2014, leaving Ontario with one of North America’s cleanest electricity systems. At the time, Gibbons said, transitioning to gas-fired electricity made sense.

Now, Doug Ford’s Progressive Conservatives plan to double-down on gas-fired electricity generation to meet future demand, despite a looming energy storage supply crunch that is reshaping planning. As a result, planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions from electricity generation will more than quadruple by 2030, according to Ontario’s Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO).

If that happens, Ontario will lose 30 per cent of the progress it made by phasing out coal.

“If you have an increasing percentage of your electricity generated with fossil fuels, that undermines the activities of a variety of sectors in the society,” said Peter Tabuns, NDP candidate for Toronto-Danforth and former NDP energy and climate critic. “Ford's position of not committing to greening the system undermines the goals.”

In 2020, the alliance spearheaded a campaign calling on the Ford government to phase out the province’s gas plants. Thirty-two municipalities supported the campaign, and in Northern Ontario, Sudbury eco groups say sustainability is key to the grid's future. Many cities have said they will not be able to meet their own goals to fight climate change unless Ontario stops using fossil fuels for electricity.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

U.S. Solar-Plus-Storage Growth 2021-2024 highlights rising battery storage co-location with solar PV, grid flexibility, RTO/ISO market signals, and ITC incentives, enabling peak shaving, firming renewable output, and reliable night-time power.

Key Points

Summary of U.S. plans pairing battery storage with solar PV, guided by RTO/ISO markets, grid needs, and ITC policy.

✅ 9.4 GW (63%) co-located with solar PV by 2024

✅ 97% of standalone capacity sited in RTO/ISO regions

✅ ITC improves project economics and grid services revenue

Of the 14.5 gigawatts (GW) of battery storage power capacity planned to come online amid anticipated growth in solar and storage in the United States from 2021 to 2024, 9.4 GW (63%) will be co-located with a solar photovoltaic (PV) solar-plus-storage power plant, based on data reported to us and published in our Annual Electric Generator Report. Another 1.3 GW of battery storage will be co-located at sites with wind turbines or fossil fuel-fired generators, such as natural gas-fired plants. The remaining 4.0 GW of planned battery storage will be located at standalone sites.

Historically, most U.S. battery systems have been located at standalone sites. Of the 1.5 GW of operating battery storage capacity in the United States at the end of 2020, 71% was standalone, and 29% was located onsite with other power generators.

Most standalone battery energy storage sites have been planned or built in power markets that are governed by regional transmission organizations (RTOs) and independent system operators (ISOs). RTOs and ISOs can enforce standard market rules that lay out clear revenue streams for energy storage projects in their regions, which promotes the deployment of battery storage systems. Of the utility-scale pipeline battery systems announced to come online from 2021 to 2024, 97% of the standalone battery capacity and 60% of the co-located battery capacity are in RTO/ISO regions.

Over 90% of the planned battery storage capacity outside of RTO and ISO regions will be co-located with a solar PV plant. At some solar PV co-located plants, the batteries can charge directly from the onsite solar generator when electricity demand and prices are low. They can then discharge electricity to the grid when peak demand is higher or when solar generation is unavailable, such as at night.

Although factors such as cloud cover can affect solar generation output, solar generators, now the number three renewable source in the U.S., in particular can effectively pair with battery storage because of their relatively regular daily generation patterns. This predictability works well with battery systems because battery systems are limited in how long they can discharge their power capacity before needing to recharge. If paired with a wind turbine, for example, a battery system could go days before having the opportunity to fully recharge.

Another advantage of pairing batteries with renewable generators is the ability to take advantage of tax incentives such as the Investment Tax Credit (ITC), which is available for solar projects, and other favorable government plans supporting deployment.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Home Solar Cost vs Utility Bills compares electricity rates, ROI, incentives, and battery storage, explaining payback, financing, and grid fees while highlighting long-term savings, rate volatility, and backup power resilience for homeowners.

Key Points

Compares home solar pricing and financing to utility rates, outlining savings, incentives, ROI, and backup power value.

✅ Average retail rates rose 59% in 20 years; volatility persists

✅ Typical 7.15 kW system costs $18,950 before incentives

✅ Federal ITC and state rebates improve ROI and payback

When shopping for a home solar system, sometimes the quoted price can leave you wondering why someone would move forward with something that seems so expensive. 

When compared with the status quo, electricity delivered from the utility, the price may not seem so high after all. First, pv magazine will examine the status quo, and how much you can expect to pay for power if you don’t get solar panels. Then, we will examine the average cost of solar arrays today and introduce incentives that boost home solar value.

The cost of doing nothing

Generally, early adopters have financially benefited from going solar by securing price certainty and stemming the impact of steadily increasing utility-bill costs, particularly for energy-insecure households who pay more for electricity.

End-use residential electric customers pay an average of $0.138/kWh in the United States, according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA). In California, that rate is $0.256/kWh, it averages $0.246/kWh across New England, $0.126/kWh in the South Atlantic region, and $0.124/kWh in the Mountain West region.

EIA reports that the average home uses 893 kWh per month, so based on the average retail rate of $0.138/kWh, that’s an electric bill of about $123 monthly, or $229 monthly in California.

Over the last 20 years, EIA data show that retail electricity prices have increased 59% across the United States, with evidence indicating that renewables are not making electricity more expensive, suggesting other factors have driven costs higher, or 2.95% each year.

This means based on historical rates, the average US homeowner can expect to pay $39,460 over the next 20 years on electricity bills. On average, Californians could pay $73,465 over 20 years.

Recent global events show just how unstable prices can be for commodities, and energy is no exception here, with solar panel sales doubling in the UK as homeowners look to cut soaring bills. What will your utility bill cost in 20 years?

These estimated bills also assume that energy use in the home is constant over 20 years, but as the United States electrifies its homes, adds more devices, and adopts electric vehicles, it is fair to expect that many homeowners will use more electricity going forward.

Another factor that may exacerbate rate raising is the upgrade of the national transmission grid. The infrastructure that delivers power to our homes is aging and in need of critical upgrades, and it is estimated that a staggering $500 billion will be spent on transmission buildout by 2035. This half-trillion-dollar cost gets passed down to homeowners in the form of raised utility bill rates.

The benefit of backup power may increase as time goes on as well. Power outages are on the rise across the United States, and recent assessments of the risk of power outages underscore that outages related to severe weather events have doubled in the last 20 years. Climate change-fueled storms are expected to continue to rise, so the role of battery backup in providing reliable energy may increase significantly.

The truth is, we don’t know how much power will cost in 20 years. Though it has increased 59% across the nation in the last 20 years, there is no way to be certain what it will cost going forward. That is where solar has a benefit over the status quo. By purchasing solar, you are securing price certainty going forward, making it easier to budget and plan for the future.

So how do these costs compare to going solar?

Cost of solar

As a general trend, prices for solar have fallen. In 2010, it cost about $40,000 to install a residential solar system, and since then, prices have fallen by as much as 70%, and about 37% in the last five years. However, prices have increased slightly in 2022 due to shipping costs, materials costs, and possible tariffs being placed on imported solar goods, and these pressures aren’t expected to be alleviated in the near-term.

When comparing quotes, the best metric for an apples-to-apples comparison is the cost per watt. Price benchmarking by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory shows the average cost per watt for the nation was $2.65/W DC in 2021, and the average system size was 7.15 kW. So, an average system would cost about $18,950. With 12.5 kWh of battery energy storage, the average cost was $4.26/W, representing an average price tag of $30,460 with batteries included.

The prices above do not include any incentives. Currently, the federal government applies a 26% investment tax credit to the system, bringing down system costs for those who qualify to $14,023 without batteries, and $22,540 with batteries. Compared to the potential $39,460 in utility bills, buying a solar system outright in cash appears to show a clear financial benefit.

Many homeowners will need financing to buy a solar system. Shorter terms can achieve rates as low as 2.99% or less, but financing for a 20-year solar loan typically lands between 5% to 8% or more. Based on 20-year, 7% annual percentage rate terms, a $14,000 system would total about $26,000 in loan payments over 20 years, and the system with batteries included would total about $42,000 in loan payments.

Often when you adopt solar, the utility will still charge you a grid access fee even if your system produces 100% of your needs. These vary from utility to utility but are often around $10 a month. Over 20 years, that equates to about $2,400 that you’ll still need to pay to the utility, plus any costs for energy you use beyond what your system provides.

Based on these average figures, a homeowner could expect to see as much as $12,000 in savings with a 20-year financed system. Homeowners in regions whose retail energy price exceeds the national average could see savings in multiples of that figure.

Though in this example batteries appear to be marginally more expensive than the status quo over a 20-year term, they improve the home by adding the crucial service of backup power, and as battery costs continue to fall they are increasingly being approved to participate in grid services, potentially unlocking additional revenue streams for homeowners.

Another thing to note is most solar systems are warranted for 25 years rather than the 20 used in the status quo example. A panel can last a good 35 years, and though it will begin to produce less in old age, any power produced by a panel you own is money back in your pocket.

Incentives and home value

Many states have additional incentives to boost the value of solar, too, and federal proposals to increase solar generation tenfold could remake the U.S. electricity system. Checking the Database of State Incentives for Renewables (DSIRE) will show the incentives available in your state, and a solar representative should be able to walk you through these benefits when you receive a quote. State incentives change frequently and vary widely, and in some cases are quite rich, offering thousands of dollars in additional benefits.

Another factor to consider is home value. A study by Zillow found that solar arrays increase a home value by 4.1% on average. For a $375,000 home, that’s an increase of $15,375 in value. In most states home solar is exempt from property taxes, making it a great way to boost value without paying taxes for it.

Bottom line

We’ve shared a lot of data on national averages and the potential cost of power going forward, but is solar for you? In the past, early adopters have been rewarded for going solar, and celebrate when they see $0 electric bills paid to the utility company.

Each home is different, each utility is different, and each homeowner has different needs, so evaluating whether solar is right for your home will take a little time and analysis. Representatives from solar companies will walk you through this analysis, and it’s generally a good rule of thumb to get at least three quotes for comparison.

A great resource for starting your research is the Solar Calculator developed by informational site SolarReviews. The calculator offers a quote and savings estimate based on local rates and incentives available to your area. The website also features reviews of installers, equipment, and more.

Some people will save tens of thousands of dollars in the long run with solar, while others may witness more modest savings. Solar will also provide the home clean, local energy, and U.S. solar generation is projected to reach 20% by 2050 as capacity expands, making an impact both on mitigating climate change and in supporting local jobs.

One indisputable benefit of solar is that it will offer greater clarity into what your electricity bills will cost over the next couple of decades, rather than leaving you exposed to whatever rates the utility company decides to charge in the future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

New Mexico Energy Transition Act advances renewable energy, battery storage, energy efficiency, and demand response to boost grid reliability during climate change-fueled heatwaves, reducing emissions while supporting solar and wind deployment.

Key Points

A state policy phasing out power emissions, scaling renewables and storage, bolstering grid reliability in extreme heat.

✅ Replaces coal generation with solar plus battery storage

✅ Enhances grid reliability during climate-driven heatwaves

✅ Promotes energy efficiency and demand response programs

While temperatures hit record highs across much of the West in recent weeks and California was forced to curb electricity service amid heat-driven grid strain that week, the power stayed on in New Mexico thanks to proactive energy efficiency and conservation measures.

Public Service Company of New Mexico on Aug. 19 did ask customers to cut back on power use during the peak demand time until 9 p.m., to offset energy supply issues due to the record-breaking heatwave that was one of the most severe to hit the West since 2006. But the Albuquerque Journal's Aug. 28 editorial, "PRC should see the light with record heat and blackouts," confuses the problem with the solution. Record temperatures fueled by climate change – not renewable energy – were to blame for the power challenges last month. And thanks to the Energy Transition Act, New Mexico is reducing climate change-causing pollution and better positioned to prevent the worst impacts of global warming.

During those August days, more than 80 million U.S. residents were under excessive heat warnings. As the Journal's editorial pointed out, California experienced blackouts on Aug. 14 and 15 as wildfires swept across the state and temperatures rose. In fact, a recent report by the University of Chicago's Climate Impact Lab found the world has experienced record heat this summer due to climate change, and heat-related deaths will continue to rise in the future.

As the recent California energy incidents show, climate change is a threat to a reliable electricity system and our health as soaring temperatures and heatwaves strain our grid, as seen in Texas grid challenges this year as well. Demand for electricity rises as people depend more on energy-intensive air conditioning. High temperatures also can decrease transmission line efficiency and cause power plant operators to scale back or even temporarily stop electricity generation.

Lobbyists for the fossil fuel industry may claim that the service interruptions and the conservation requests in New Mexico demonstrate the need for keeping fossil-fueled power generation for electricity reliability, echoing policy blame narratives in California that fault climate policies. But fossil fuel combustion still is subject to the factors that cause blackouts – while also driving climate change and making resulting heatwaves more common. After an investigation, California's own energy agencies found no substance to the claim that renewable energy use was a factor in the situation there, and it's not to blame in New Mexico, either.

New Mexico's Energy Transition Act is a bold, necessary step to limit the damage caused by climate change in the future. It creates a reasonable, cost-saving path to eliminating greenhouse gas emissions associated with generating electricity.

The New Mexico Public Regulation Commission properly applied this law when it recently voted unanimously to replace PNM's coal-fired generation at San Juan Generating Station with carbon-free solar energy and battery storage located in the Four Corners communities, a prudent step given California's looming electricity shortage warnings across the West. The development will create jobs and provide resources for the local school district and help ensure a stronger economy and a healthier future for the region.

As we expand solar and wind energy here in New Mexico, we can help ensure reliable electricity service by building out greater battery storage for renewable energy resources. Expanding regional energy markets that can dispatch the lowest-cost energy from across the region to places where it is needed most would make renewable energy more available and reduce costs, despite concerns over policy exports raised by some observers.

Energy efficiency and demand response are important when we are facing extraordinary conditions, and proven strategies to improve electricity reliability show how demand-side tools complement the grid, so it is unfortunate that the Albuquerque Journal made the unsubstantiated claim that a stray cloud will put out the lights. It was hot, supplies were tight on the electric grid, and in those moments, we should conserve. We should not use those moments to turn our back on progress.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

USPS Electric Mail Trucks promise zero-emission delivery, lower lifecycle and maintenance costs, and cleaner air. Congressional funding in Build Back Better would modernize the EV fleet and expand charging infrastructure, improving public health nationwide.

Key Points

USPS Electric Mail Trucks are zero-emission delivery vehicles that cut costs, reduce pollution, and improve health.

✅ Lower lifetime fuel and maintenance costs vs gas trucks

✅ Cuts greenhouse gas and NOx emissions in communities

✅ Expands charging infrastructure via federal investments

The U.S. Postal Service faces serious challenges, with billions of dollars in annual losses and total mail volume continuing to decline. Meanwhile, Congress is constantly hamstringing the agency.

But now lawmakers have an opportunity to invest in the Postal Service in a way that would pay dividends for years to come: By electrifying the postal fleet.

Tucked inside the massive social spending and climate package lumbering through the Senate is money for new, cleaner postal delivery trucks. There’s a lot to like about electric postal trucks. They’d significantly improve Americans’ health while also slowing climate change. And it just makes sense for taxpayers over the long term; the Postal Service’s private sector competitors have already made similar investments, as EV adoption reaches an EV inflection point in the market. As Democrats weigh potential areas to cut in President Joe Biden’s Build Back Better plan, this is one provision that should escape the knife.

To call the U.S. Postal Service’s current vehicles “clunkers” would be an understatement. These often decades-old trucks are famous for having no airbags, no air conditioning and a nasty habit of catching fire. So the Postal Service’s recent decision to buy 165,000 replacement trucks is basically a no-brainer. But the main question is whether they will run on electricity or gasoline.

Electric vehicles are newer to the market and still carry a higher sticker price, as seen with electric bus adoption in many cities. But that higher price buys concrete benefits, like lower lifetime fuel and maintenance costs and huge reductions in pollution. Government demand for electric trucks will also push private markets to create better, cheaper vehicles, directly benefiting consumers. So while buying electric postal trucks may be somewhat more costly at first, over the long term, failing to do so could be far costlier.

At some level, this is a straightforward business decision that the Postal Service’s competitors have already made. For instance, Amazon has already deployed some of the 100,000 electric vans it recently ordered, and FedEx has promised a fully electric ground fleet by 2040, while nonprofit investment in electric trucks is accelerating electrification at major ports. In a couple of decades, the Postal Service could be the only carrier still driving dirty gas guzzlers, buying expensive fuel and paying the higher maintenance costs that combustion engines routinely require. Consumers could flock to greener competitors.

Beyond these business advantages, zero-emission vehicles carry other big benefits for the public. The Postal Service recently calculated some of these benefits by estimating the climate harms that going all-electric would avoid, benefits that persist even where electricity generation still includes fossil-generated electricity in nearby grids. Its findings were telling: A fully electric fleet would prevent millions or tens of millions of dollars’ worth of climate-change-related harms to property and human health each year of the trucks’ lifetimes (and this is probably a considerable underestimate). The world leaders that recently gathered at the global climate summit in Glasgow encouraged exactly this type of transition toward low-carbon technologies.

A cleaner postal fleet would benefit Americans in many other important ways. In addition to warming the planet, tailpipe pollutants can have dire health consequences for the people who breathe in the fumes. Mail trucks traverse virtually every neighborhood in the country and often must idle in residential areas, so we all benefit when they stop emitting. And these localized harms are not distributed equally. Some parts of the country — too often, low-income communities of color — already have poor air quality. Removing pollution from dirty mail trucks will especially help these overburdened and underserved populations.

The government’s purchasing power also routinely inspires companies to devise better and cheaper ways to do business. Investments in aerospace technologies, for instance, have spilled over into consumer innovations, giving us GPS technologies and faster, more fuel-efficient passenger jets. Bulk demand for cleaner trucks could inspire similar innovations as companies clamor for government contracts, meaning we all could get cheaper and better green products like car batteries, and the American EV boom could further accelerate those gains.

Additionally, because postal trucks are virtually everywhere in the country, if they go electric, that would mean more charging stations and grid updates everywhere too, and better utility planning for truck fleets to ensure reliable service. Suddenly, that long road trip that discourages many would-be electric car buyers may be simpler, which could boost electric vehicle adoption.

White House climate adviser Gina McCarthy talks with EVgo CEO Cathy Zoi before the start of an event near an EVgo electric car charging station.
ENERGY

The case for electrifying the postal fleet is strong from both a business and a social standpoint. Indeed, even Postmaster General Louis DeJoy, who was appointed during the Trump administration, supports it. But getting there is not so simple. Most private businesses could just borrow the money they need for this investment and pay it back with the long-term savings they would enjoy. But not the Postal Service. Thanks to its byzantine funding structure, it cannot afford electric trucks’ upfront costs unless Congress either provides the money or lets it borrow more. This is the primary reason it has not committed to making more than 10 percent of its fleet electric.

And that returns us to the Build Back Better legislation. The version passed by the House sets aside $7 billion to help the Postal Service buy electric mail trucks — enough to electrify the vast majority of its fleet by the end of the decade.

Biden has made expanding the use of electric vehicles a top priority, setting an ambitious goal of 100 percent zero-emission federal vehicle acquisitions by 2035, and new EPA emission limits aim to accelerate EV adoption. But Sen. Joe Manchin has expressed resistance to some of the climate-related subsidies in the legislation and is also eager to keep costs down. This provision, however, is worthy of the West Virginia Democrat’s support.

Most Americans would see — and benefit from — these trucks on a daily basis. And for an operation that got its start under Benjamin Franklin, it’s a crucial way to keep the Postal Service relevant.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News