Is the Big Turnoff of Federal EV Chargers Truly Under Way?
President Trump has stopped charging station subsidies and wants to roll back the Biden-era plan to reach 50% EVs sold in the US by 2030.
NPR cited an internal GSA memo saying, 'All existing charging stations that are deemed not to be mission-critical should be disconnected from the network and turned off.'
Trump's directive could result in many federal EVs being sold off at bargain prices, costing the government up to $1 billion, according to some reports.
Despite having Elon Musk at his right hand—and personally buying a Tesla recently—President Donald Trump doesn't much like EVs.
'They don't go far. They cost a fortune,' he said at one rally. In Iowa he said, 'Electric cars are good if you have a towing company.' And in Michigan, 'You go all-electric so you can drive for 15 minutes before you have to get a charge.'
In his first term, Trump tried unsuccessfully to take away California's ability to set stricter fuel economy/emissions standards, and now he's working on that again.
In office for the second time, he's stopped charging station subsidies and wants to roll back the Biden-era plan to reach 50% EVs sold in the US by 2030.
But is he actually going much further and disconnecting existing federal chargers and selling off the government's EV fleet? Maybe, but it depends on your interpretation of cryptic government directives.
Wasting no time, on January 20, Trump issued an executive order titled 'Unleashing American Energy' that vowed to eliminate the 'electric vehicle (EV) mandate' and promote true consumer choice, which is essential for economic growth and innovation, 'by removing regulatory barriers to motor vehicle access.'
This was followed by a sweeping General Services Administration (GSA) order issued shortly after Trump took office. The GSA manages 650,000 vehicles, about two-thirds of the federal fleet.
The GSA directive implementing Trump's executive order said the 'policy allows GSA to support customer agency mission-critical vehicle charging using existing equipment at federally owned facilities under GSA's jurisdiction, custody, and control and to discontinue the use of non-mission critical EVSE [chargers].'
In a letter to Trump, Representative Debbie Dingell (D-MI) stated, 'Your administration claims to be committed to eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse, but dismantling federal charging stations and offloading the federal EV fleet is fiscally irresponsible.'
On March 12, NPR cited an internal GSA memo from Michael Peters, the Trump-appointed commissioner of the GSA's Public Buildings Service, stating, 'All existing charging stations that are deemed not to be mission-critical should be disconnected from the network and turned off.'
Orders for new EVs and charging stations were reportedly 'temporarily suspended,' according to an internal memo from GSA Acting Administrator Stephen Ehikian.
That 'mission critical' order is, of course, subject to interpretation. A federal agency might say all of its EVs are necessary to fulfill its mandate, or it could say none of them are.
Colorado Public Radio reported on March 12 that all of the 22 charging stations at 11 places on the Denver Federal Center campus were being shut down. That news was picked up widely in national publications and on YouTube. The Big Turnoff had started!
If Trump is indeed planning to shut down every federal charging station and sell all government EVs, it would take as many as 8,000 Level Two chargers out of service.
It also would result in many EVs being sold off at bargain prices, costing the government up to $1 billion, according to some reports.
But nothing that sweeping has actually happened yet. The GSA's acting press secretary, Will Powell, issued a statement at the end of February saying the agency was still determining what was and wasn't mission critical. 'At this time, no action has been taken regarding EVSE at federal buildings across the country,' his statement said.
And for Autoweek, the GSA elaborated a little, saying, 'Some EVSE were turned off at the Denver Federal Center as a result of a contract cancelation in compliance with [the] Executive Order. No other action has been taken at this time regarding existing EVSE. GSA is working with our partners to confirm existing equipment is mission critical.'
It's not clear how many of the Denver center's chargers are now disconnected, but many are apparently inoperable now.
A member of the 60-member Denver Electric Vehicle Council, Aaron Botnick, told Autoweek via email, 'According to [the locate-a-charger app] PlugShare, the ChargePoint unit was used on March 13, but the 20x plugs OpConnect units were last reported used on Feb 28. Obviously, that's just those that reported on PlugShare.' Neither ChargePoint nor OpConnect responded to queries.
Jorge Pineda, acting public information officer for the Rocky Mountain Region of the GSA (which includes Denver), did not respond. Colorado has more than 150,000 EVs on the road. In the state, one in four new cars is electric.
It's likely that there's no actual plan for the whole federal fleet right now, but one is probably forthcoming, and indeed it's not likely to be EV-friendly. 'We ended the last administration's insane electric vehicle mandate, saving our auto workers and companies from economic destruction,' Trump said in his report to Congress.
The federal government's intent toward EVs is presumably very important to Washington-based groups such as the Electrification Coalition and the Zero Emission Transportation Association, but their public response to Trump's broadsides has been very muted.
The groups are in a bind, because they're trying to preserve access to federal officials, grants, and programs.
Alex Gibson, ZETA's director of communications, did not return repeated phone calls.
After Trump launched his attack on EVs during the report to Congress, the group's executive director, Albert Gore (a Tesla veteran), stuck its neck way out and opined, 'We look forward to working with the Trump administration to deliver a domestic manufacturing policy environment that enables the United States to remain the world's automotive economic powerhouse for years to come.'
In an interview, Ben Prochazka, Electrification Coalition executive director, told Autoweek that the issue is 'the overall cost benefit of vehicle electrification. Having a grid that is domestically developed and diverse is good for US security, and it's good to have EVs operating in the federal sector.'
Prochazka said his group is working 'to help remove the ideological differences that exist with EVs. Any step that helps make that happen is a good step.'
The full federal picture is still somewhat chaotic, but it's clear that, since Trump's ascension to the Oval Office, the somewhat bumpy path to electrification has some brand-new lane blockages.
Do you agree with the Trump administration targeting all EV chargers built with tax dollars, or just those at federal buildings? Please comment below.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
30 minutes ago
- Forbes
Tesla Misses Robotaxi Launch Date, Goes With Safety Drivers
A vehicle Tesla is using for robotaxi testing purposes in Austin, Texas, US, on Friday, June 20, ... More 2025.. Photographer: Eli Hartman/Bloomberg Tesla's much-anticipated June 22 'no one in the vehicle' Robotaxi launch in Austin is not ready. Instead, Tesla has announced to its invite-only passengers that it will operate a limited service with Tesla employees on board the vehicle to maintain safety. Tesla will use an approach that was used in 2019 by Russian robotaxi company Yandex, putting the safety driver in the passengers seat rather than the driver's seat. (Yandex's robotaxi was divested from Russian and now is called AVRide.) Having an employee on board, commonly called a safety driver, is the approach that every robocar company has used for testing, including testing of passenger operations. Most companies spend many years (Waymo spent a decade) testing with safety drivers, and once they are ready to take passengers, there are typically some number of years testing in that mode, though the path to removing the safety driver depends primarily on evaluation of the safety case for the vehicle, and less on the presence of passengers. Tesla has put on some other restrictions--rides will be limited to 6am to midnight (the opposite of Cruise's first operations, which were only at night) and riders come from an invite-only list (as was also the case for Waymo, and Cruise and others in their early days.) Rides will be limited to a restricted service area (often mistakenly called a 'geofence') which avoids complex and difficult streets and intersections. Rides will be unavailable in inclement weather, which also can happen with other vehicles, though fairly rarely today. Tesla FSD is known to disable itself if rain obscures some of its cameras--only the front cameras have a rain wiper. The fleet will be small. Waymo started testing with safety drivers in 2009, gave rides to passengers with safety drivers in 2017, and without safety drivers in 2020 in the Phoenix area. Cruise had a much shorter period with passengers and safety drivers. Motional has given rides for years but has never removed the safety driver. Most Chinese companies spent a few years doing it. Giving passengers rides requires good confidence in the safety of the system+safety driver combination, but taking the passengers does not alter how well the vehicle drives, except perhaps around pick-up and drop-off. (While a vehicle is more at liberty to make hard stops with no passengers on board, I am aware of no vehicle which takes advantage of this.) As such we have no information on whether Tesla will need their safety drivers for a month or a several years, or even forever with current hardware. Passenger's Seat vs. Driver's Seat Almost all vehicles use a safety driver behind the wheel. Tesla's will be in the passenger seat, in a situation similar to that used by driving instructors for student human drivers. While unconfirmed by Tesla, the employee in the passenger seat can grab the wheel and steer. Because stock Teslas have fully computer controlled brake and acceleration, they might equip the driver with electronic pedals. Some reports have suggested they have a hand controller or other ways to command the vehicle to brake. There is no value to putting the safety driver on the passengers side. It is no safer than being behind the wheel, and believed by most to be less safe because of the unusual geometr20 November 2024, Berlin: A prototype of the Tesla Cybercab stands in a showroom in the Mall of Berlin. Photo: Hannes P. Albert/dpa (Photo by Hannes P Albert/picture alliance via Getty Images)y. It's hard to come up with any reason other than just how it looks. Tesla can state the vehicles have 'nobody in the driver's seat' in order to attempt to impress the public. The driving school system works, so it's not overtly dangerous, but in that case there's an obvious reason for it that's not optics. Tesla Cybercab concept. With only 2 seats and no controls, not very suitable for a safety driver. ... More These are not being used in Tesla's Austin pilot. That said, most robocar prototypes, including Tesla supervised FSD, are reasonably safe with capable safety drivers. A negligent and poorly managed safety driver in an Uber ATG test vehicle killed a pedestrian in Tempe, Arizona when the safety driver completely ignored her job, but otherwise these systems have a good record. The combination of Tesla Autopilot and a supervising driver has a reasonable record. (The record is not nearly as good as some people think Tesla claims. Every quarter, Tesla publishes a deeply misleading report comparing the combination of Tesla Autopilot plus supervisor to the general crash rate, but they report airbag deployments for the Teslas mostly on freeways and compare it without general crash numbers on all roads for general drivers. This makes it seem Autopilot is many times safer than regular drivers when it's actually similar, a serious and deceitful misrepresentation.) As noted, Yandex, now AVRide, has used safety drivers in the passenger seat, and has done so in Austin--also speculated to be mostly for optics, though there are some legal jurisdictions where companies shave made this move because the law requires safety drivers and they hope to convey an aura of not needing them. This has also been the case in China.) When Cruise did their first 'driverless' demo ride in San Francisco, they had an employee in the passengers seat. So Tesla has been ready to run with safety drivers for years. What's tested here isn't the safety of the cars, but all the complexity of handling passengers, including the surprising problems of good PuDo (Pick-up/Drop-off.) Whether Teslas can operate a safe robotaxi with nobody onboard, particularly with their much more limited sensor hardware, remains to be seen. Other Paths To Launch Tesla apparently experimented with different paths to getting out on the road before they are ready to run unsupervised. In particular, vehicles were seen with the passenger seat safety driver, and also being followed by a 'chase car' with two on board. Reports also came of Tesla planning for 'lots of tele-ops' including not just remote assistance (as all services do) but remote supervision including remote driving. We may speculate that Tesla evaluated many different approaches: Because Elon Musk promised 'nobody in the car' and 'unsupervised' in the most recent Tesla earnings call, there was great pressure to produce #1, but the Tesla team must have concluded they could not do that yet, and made the right choice, though #3 is a better choice than #4. They also did not feel up to #2, which is commonly speculated to be what other companies have done on their first launch, later graduating to #1 #5 just looks goofy, I think the optics would not work, and it's also challenging. Remote driving is real and doable--in spite of the latency and connectivity issues of modern data networks--but perhap Tesla could not get it ready in time. All teams use remote assistance operators who do not drive the cars, but can give them advice when they get confused by a situation, and stop and ask for advice. Even Waymo recently added a minor remote driving ability for low-speed 'get the car out off the road' sort of operations. I have recommended this for some time. It is worth noting the contrast beween Cruise's 'night only' launch and Tesla's mostly-daytime one. Cruise selected the night because there is less traffic and complexity. LIDARs see very well at night. Tesla's camera-based system has very different constraints at night and many fear it's inferior then. On the other hand Tesla will operate in some night hours and with more cars and pedestrians on the street. The question for Tesla will be whether the use of safety drivers is a very temporary thing, done just because they weren't quite ready but needed to meet the announced date, or a multi-year program as it has been for most teams. Tesla is famous for not meeting the forecast ship dates for its FSD system, so it's not shocking that this pattern continues. The bigger question is whether they can do it at all. Tesla FSD 13, the version available to Tesla owners, isn't even remotely close to robotaxi ready. If Tesla has made a version which is closer, through extra work, training and severe limitations of the problem space, it's still a big accomplishment. This will be seen in the coming months. Two robocar teams had severe interactions with pedestrians. Both those teams, and one pedestrian, are dead. Tesla knows they must not make mistakes.
Black America Web
34 minutes ago
- Black America Web
President Donald Trump Orders Bombing Of 3 Iran Nuclear Sites, Democrats Frozen Out From Intel
Source: HAYI / Getty After initially stating to mull the decision for a time, President Donald Trump ordered the bombing of three nuclear sites in Iran on Saturday (June 21), which has escalated the conflict to unprecedented levels. Top Democratic Party officials say that they were not briefed on President Trump's actions, and a national address from the former business mogul claimed a total annihilation of Iran's nuclear weapons production capabilities. As seen in an NBC News report, President Trump boasted of the bombing of three sites in Iran, Fordo, Natanz, and Isfahan, which the administration framed as the epicenter of Iran's nuclear weapons production. This comes as the two countries are locked in a long-distance skirmish that has left over 400 dead in Iran and over 24 dead in Israel. 'We have completed our very successful attack on the three Nuclear sites in Iran, including Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan,' Trump wrote on Truth Social shortly after the attack. The move garnered praise from several GOP officials, including Speaker Mike Johnson, who stated that Congress would have taken too long to give its approval to Trump. Democratic Party Sen. John Fetterman praised Trump's actions, writing on X, 'Iran is the world's leading sponsor of terrorism and cannot have nuclear capabilities. I'm grateful for and salute the finest military in the world.' Fetterman's stance differs from those of his party, many of whom said that they were left out of briefing talks ahead of the strikes. Rep. Thomas Massie, a Republican congressman out of Kentucky, called Trump's actions 'unconstitutional' via social media. Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia wrote on X of the bombing, 'The American public is overwhelmingly opposed to the U.S. waging war on Iran. And the Israeli Foreign Minister admitted yesterday that Israeli bombing had set the Iranian nuclear program back 'at least 2 or 3 years'. So what made Trump recklessly decide to rush and bomb today? Horrible judgment. I will push for all Senators to vote on whether they are for this third idiotic Middle East war.' House Minority Leader Rep. Hakeem Jeffries of New York shared in a statement, 'President Trump misled the country about his intentions, failed to seek congressional authorization for the use of military force and risks American entanglement in a potentially disastrous war in the Middle East.' United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres also took to X to give a statement regarding the strikes: I am gravely alarmed by the use of force by the United States against Iran today. This is a dangerous escalation in a region already on the edge – and a direct threat to international peace and security. There is a growing risk that this conflict could rapidly get out of control – with catastrophic consequences for civilians, the region, and the world. I call on Member States to de-escalate and to uphold their obligations under the @UN Charter and other rules of international law. At this perilous hour, it is critical to avoid a spiral of chaos. Source: Pool / Getty Late Saturday night, Trump was flanked by Vice President JD Vance, Defense Secretary Jim Hegseth, and State Secretary Marco Rubio, praising the efforts of the military strike. 'I want to thank the Israeli military for the wonderful job they've done, and most importantly, I want to congratulate the great American patriots who flew those magnificent machines tonight and all of the United States military on an operation the likes of which the world has not seen in many, many decades,' President Trump said. On X, the reaction to the Iran bombing and the fear of retaliation cast gloom across the social media network. We've got reactions below. — Photo: Getty President Donald Trump Orders Bombing Of 3 Iran Nuclear Sites, Democrats Frozen Out From Intel was originally published on Black America Web Featured Video CLOSE
Chicago Tribune
39 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
What to know about the conflict between Israel and Iran, and the US intervention
ATHENS, Greece — The United States inserted itself into Israel's war against Iran, bombing three of the Islamic Republic's key nuclear sites overnight. U.S. President Donald Trump asserted that the sites were 'completely and fully obliterated,' and warned there would be additional strikes if Iran retaliates. The U.S. strikes came after a week of open conflict between Israel and Iran, sparked by Israel's sudden barrage of attacks against Iran's nuclear and military structure. US strikes 3 Iranian nuclear sites, inserting itself into Israel's war with IranIsraeli strikes began on June 13. Targeting Iranian military and nuclear sites, they killed several top military officials and nuclear scientists. Iran retaliated by firing hundreds of missiles and drones at Israel, some of which penetrated the country's vaunted multi-tiered air defense system. The war so far has killed hundreds of people and wounded more than 1,000 in Iran and killed two dozen and wounded hundreds in Israel. Iran insists its nuclear program is only for peaceful purposes. But Israel views it as an existential threat and has said its military campaign is necessary to prevent Iran from building an atomic weapon. Although U.S. intelligence agencies have assessed that Tehran is not actively pursuing a bomb, Trump and Israeli leaders have argued it could quickly assemble a nuclear weapon, making it an imminent threat. The region has been on edge for the past two years as Israel seeks to annihilate the Hamas militant group, an Iranian ally, in the Gaza Strip, where war still rages after Hamas' Oct. 7, 2023, attack on southern Israel. Here's what to know about the conflict between Israel and Iran, and the United States' intervention: Trump announced the overnight 'massive precision strikes' on Iran's Fordo, Isfahan and Natanz nuclear sites in a televised address to the nation from the White House. Describing them as 'a spectacular military success,' he said they had 'completely and fully obliterated' the nuclear sites. Iran, he said, would now have to make peace. Iran's Atomic Energy Organization confirmed the attacks, but insisted its nuclear program will not be stopped. Iran and the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency said there were no immediate signs of radioactive contamination at the three locations following the strikes. The nuclear fuel enrichment site at Fordo is buried deep beneath a mountain, and the attack against it used bunker-buster bombs designed to penetrate the ground before exploding, a U.S. official said, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss military operations. Only the United States has the 30,000-pound (13,600-kilogram) munition and the stealth bombers used to deliver them. Trump warned there would be additional strikes if Tehran retaliated against U.S. forces, while Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu praised Trump's decision to attack. Iran launched a barrage of missiles against Israel overnight and into Sunday, with Israeli authorities reporting that more than 80 people were wounded, the vast majority of them lightly. Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said the time for diplomacy had passed and his country had the right to defend itself. 'The warmongering, a lawless administration in Washington is solely and fully responsible for the dangerous consequences and far-reaching implications of its act of aggression,' he said in a news conference in Istanbul. 'They crossed a very big red line by attacking nuclear facilities.' How Tehran might retaliate remains unclear, but an Iranian response could mean a wave of attacks on U.S. forces in the Middle East, an attempt to close a key bottleneck for global oil supplies or a dash to develop a nuclear weapon. U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said he was 'gravely alarmed' by the United States' use of force, and called the strikes a 'dangerous escalation.' World leaders issued calls for diplomacy. 'There is a growing risk that this conflict could rapidly get out of control — with catastrophic consequences for civilians, the region and the world,' Guterres said in a statement on X. 'I call on Member States to de-escalate.' Nations react to US strikes on Iran with many calling for diplomacyThe European Union's foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, said Iran must not be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon, but urged restraint. 'I urge all sides to step back, return to the negotiating table and prevent further escalation,' she said in a social media post. Kallas will chair a meeting of the 27-nation bloc's foreign ministers in Brussels on Monday, with the Israel-Iran war high on the agenda. Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen, who had threatened to resume attacks on U.S. vessels in the Red Sea if the Trump administration joined Israel's military campaign, called on other Muslim nations to form 'one front against the Zionist-American arrogance.' Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had warned the U.S. on Wednesday that strikes against Iran would 'result in irreparable damage for them.' The Israeli military said Saturday it was preparing for the possibility of a lengthy war, while Iran's foreign minister warned before the U.S. attack that American military involvement 'would be very, very dangerous for everyone.'
