It looks like it's being suspended while new guidelines are are produced.
To me, this makes sense. The program produced "more than 30" EV charging stations, which doesn't seem like a ton given that they've had 3+ years to do it. That's with over $1.5B spent already, according to https://driveelectric.gov/state-plans
I think it's reasonable to reform a program that's dramatically failing to meet its goal.
What would you expect? The funding has been available for ~2 years, and it takes about 2 years to plan & build & connect EV stations. The vast majority of those stations are still in progress.
Looking at the Q4 2024 update, 9 states haven't even put out solicitations for EV installations yet, and 8 plus Peurto Rico just handed out their first money in Q4 2024. Those stations would be expected to come online in 2026.
Of course that now won't happen, the cancellation ensures the money will have been wasted.
The product development lifecycle for big, well integrated, software-complex infrastructure hardware I would assume is not short. Actual roll out would likely tail that significantly.
By comparison to some of the other actions afoot now, this doesn't feel like the worst. But it sure feels like it's in the same category of absolutely foolhardy, spiteful, and harmful Deconstruction & smashing of the State.
I'd suspect that if it takes 2 years to plan and build and connect EV stations, that's a problem, and we should review what's causing it to happen so slowly.
It took us 2 years to add bog standard expansions to our factory, and we had amazing people who were trained efficiency engineers hand holding every hiccup.
It took 6 months for the power upgrade portion to happen after we submitted it to the power company (no government involvement at play).
The standards came out in March 2023. Project proposals were drawn up not just for individual sites and charging hardware but for whole corridors and networks and lots of related infrastructure. Many were submitted in 2024 and got approval. Funds were starting to get disbursed for approved projects. Those projects are at various stages of construction with a few being completed.
Once again, it's not just the plans to build and connect individual EV stations. If you already have a place to put it and the electricity capacity available that part shouldn't take more than a few months. This wasn't about just anyone wanting to install a charger submit a quick proposal and get grant money. It was to make a coordinated system of chargers along with all the other related infrastructure to support them. To ensure chargers got installed in the places where its more complicated to get them deployed, and ensure they were deployed with reliable hardware and plenty of support infrastructure.
Sorry but have you ever worked on a large scale project? There are numerous things to address, from placement, to design, to hiring, to scheduling - all before construction can even begin. When taking how Republicans keep trying to dismantle programs as they are being built it's a miracle even that many stations have come to fruition so far.
No, that money hasn't been spent yet. The money has been __allocated__ but it's taken a very long time for states to come up with and get plans passed locally at which point only then would the money be spent.
I suspect the money is going out before the charging stations are being built - but if it's taking 3 years to build them, that's kind of a problem in its own right.
I don't mind the government spending money to do stuff, but spending money to not do stuff feels bad.
It is not three years to build them. It's not like the initial plan got created in 2022 and then it's time to grab shovels, pull cables, and pour concrete. There is a lot of planning required for states to create corridors and what not. Most of the projects only got approved in the last year or so. Several states only just got their proposals submitted.
Most of the money spent so far was only spent in this last year.
The money has been _allocated_ but it hasn't been _spent_ yet and that's because it's taken a very long time for _States_ to come up with proposals that can be funded.
It's just taken much too long to happen, but that's at the state level (the Fed Gov is allocating the money but the States are managing it).
There are allocated funds that will be expanding the network pretty hardcore this year.. unfortunately now after that it will dwindle but between this and next year I'd expect to see a fair amount of NEVI stations as states implement their plans.
No surprise with this. Again 4C here we come. The young people should be out protesting daily, but they are probably to busy paying off loans that are burying them.
I feel for the youth and wish I could have done more when I was young.
I actually think this is a plan to get rare earth resources.
I also think that it is an obviously extreme position that then will then obviously fail, but then the United States will fall back to "Canada and Greenland can only sell rare earth rights to the United States" to lock China out.
I heard that Trump is refashioning the CIA to focus on the West, which could be understood as including a focus Canada. I can sort of imagine the turbulence we may start to see in Canada's political realm as a result of such shift of the CIA's priorities and operations to Canada in the service of achieving Trump's goals:
> "His aide said Trump’s CIA will have a greater focus on the western hemisphere, targeting countries not traditionally considered adversaries of the US, according to the Journal."
I'm of the opinion that youth protests (of any kind) for niche complaints (basically anything that your normie voter can't really get behind) only strengthens the executive. Protests are a great way to hook up and feel good, but I don't believe it moves the needle. Trump loves protests.
No one knows what the NEVCP is/or does. When Trump threatens Social Security payments (which he won't), then the People will rise up. In the meantime, enjoy the time off from work/school, the spring weather is lovely.
I have time to protest but I don't really see the point right now. I participated in the largest protests I've ever seen in 2017 and they accomplished nothing. Everybody with the power to do something about this at the moment blatantly does not give a shit and has already said so publicly.
I work for a small company trying to reduce emissions so none of my colleagues need convincing. I am still organizing action on climate change outside of work, I just don't feel particularly hopeful about it right now.
That's really not the point. Not everyone is paying attention, ANY messaging at all that dissuades the public from going EV instead of ICE is actively harmful. Anyone advocating against Tesla is letting their emotions hurt the fight against global warming. And the only explanation I can come up with, is that they don't actually believe in global warming. Because if they did, they would swallow their anger, and favor every measure that advances the fight against global warming.
Maybe you should think about it a while longer. Or find a friend who's better at coming up with ideas to help.
There are about a zillion other explanations. Maybe they think that "ANY messaging that encourages EVs dissuades the public from going public transport" and that's harmful. Maybe they see other EV makers as preferable to Tesla. Maybe they care deeply about global warming but just as you said, are letting their anger get in the way of that goal. Maybe they see the immediate harms of Musk's policies as a more urgent problem than climate change.
There's a tremendous leap between "Not supporting Tesla because of Musk" and climate denialism.
> There's a tremendous leap between "Not supporting Tesla because of Musk" and climate denialism.
Not really. Because it doesn't matter if you choose to support an alternative EV maker. If you actively campaign against Tesla you are hurting EV sales. There are Tesla's built today that should be purchased instead of ICE vehicle. Anything you do that stops someone else (even if you're not going to buy them yourself) is actively hurting the fight against global warming.
The only reason you would hurt the fight against global warming, is that you don't think it's as important as your reason for hating Musk. And that's a form of denialism. You're denying (if only to yourself) that climate change is going to cause death and destruction.
Banning cars entirely would help global warming more than encouraging people to use EVs.
There is nothing internally inconsistent about weighing the pros and cons and deciding what measures are and aren't worth the benefit considering the drawbacks.
Musk is currently fighting to further global warming. Sitting Congress members are, as we speak, being denied access to EPA headquarters as he dismantles the organization. I live in Washington DC, every government employee who works on anything vaguely environmental is preparing to be fired (or has been already). References to climate change have been scrubbed from nearly every government website. His deputies are currently inside NOAA, and the soon-to-be OMB director was a primary author of Project 2025 which calls for NOAA to be dismantled. He is tacitly supporting America's withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, which is about to cause a domino effect of other countries quitting ("why should we commit to anything if the richest country in the world isn't going to").
It is not counterproductive to not want to financially support this person. He has already declared he's going to end EV subsidies, a much more damaging move than a theoretical handful of people deciding not to buy an EV, and he has repeatedly shown that the only thing he cares about is money. The majority party in Congress is not going to stop him, the president is not going to stop him, the only thing that will stop him is the prospect of losing money.
> ANY messaging at all that dissuades the public from going EV
It isn't about messaging. It's what the current administration (which Musk is a part of) is doing.
This article is about the current administration stopping funding for EV chargers.
> Not everyone is paying attention
Yes. You should start paying attention. If you're serious about the fight against global warming, if you truly believe it's an existential threat, then you can no longer buy Tesla.
> Anyone advocating against Tesla is letting their emotions hurt the fight against global warming
The capitalist class is driving climate change. If hurting one of the capitalist's brands by criticizing its CEO is the difference between success and failure in the fight against global warming, then the fight is already lost.
BTW, we're not going to consume our way out of global warming. We should be getting away from a two cars in every driveway culture if we're going to get serious about addressing the climate emergency.
Not true at all. There are several profitable Chinese EV companies, and if you're only talking about cars available in the US for some reason, Stellantis and GM are making money on their EVs. And obviously Ford, Hyundai, Chevrolet, etc. are profitable overall.
I suppose the word "profitable" is open to some interpretation, but I stand by what I said above. I will not bother to cite the numerous financial reports about many of the companies you've mentioned, losing significant amounts of money on each EV sold. In some cases, the losses have been staggering.
One example: In 2024, the Ford Lightning was produced at a loss of $132,000 per vehicle.
Hyundai built a US factory to get the tax credit, so Elmo is trying to get rid of it. We will see how profitable Tesla is as sales are dropping massively all over the world.
Nothing Elon says or does aligns with Tesla's master plan anymore. I can take my money elsewhere until their crony-filled board does the needful and dumps him. Rivian R2 is going to be amazing.
No True Scotsman fallacy. You're declaring that people aren't true scotsmen (believers in climate change) if they advocate against Tesla because the leader of that company is causing significant geopolitical harm.
If Tesla is harmed, then mindshare/marketshare/investment can simply migrate to other companies.
It's not that easy... there is inertia, investment, mindshare and messaging. What some fraction of the public will hear, no matter how clear your messaging, is not Fuck Tesla, they will hear, Global Warming isn't that big a deal.
You are literally saying that hurting Musk is more important than the fight against global warming. That sends the wrong message. And you would only be willing to send that message if you don't truly believe that climate change is an existential threat.
Nobody complains about how shitty the landlord is when their apartment is on fire, they just get busy putting out the fire and protecting their family and property.
> What some fraction of the public will hear, no matter how clear your messaging, is not Fuck Tesla, they will hear, Global Warming isn't that big a deal.
They're already getting that when the leader of Tesla is in bed with the political party that denies climate change. You're also comparing a theoretical harm with an active and ongoing one.
All my arguments hold even if Musk and Trump are the devil incarnate. In fact, they may be the devil that convinces people to take their eye off the ball of climate change. They are exploiting people's emotions and hatred to do damage to the fight against climate change.
It doesn't matter what Musk Tweets, It doesn't matter how shitty Trump is. If you use that as an excuse to do anything less that 100% of what you can to help in the fight against climate change, then you are a climate change denier who doesn't really believe we're in a fight for our lives.
His political views don't matter, actions are what matter. As long as you know he isn't using your money to buy the United States government and remove the EPA, you can feel confident that your purchase will not be counterproductive.
Everyone has a priority stack. Given a choice between the immediate threat of Musk and the dismantling of the federal government and supporting Musk and fighting global warming, the choice is clear.
Exactly. We're surrounded by closeted climate change deniers who don't actually believe the results of climate change will be catastrophic.
What does it cost anyone to support Tesla, or at least stay quiet about any opposition you feel toward them? Nothing. But people are so emotional that they'd rather speak out against Tesla than swallow their anger. And the only explanation for that, is they do not really believe in climate change.
Is this the program that was started in 2022, supposedly to last 5 years, and has hardly built anything?
This seems like slow progress.
> The Federal Highway Administration said 37 electric vehicle charging stations have been completed with funds from the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.
> This claim likely comes from a March Washington Post article about the electric vehicle charging program’s slow rollout. But 30 more stations have been completed since the Post’s article
It's a mixed bag. Tesla's charging network is a pretty big revenue center but it could hurt car sales (along with going so hard for the American right which is souring the brand image with the groups of people actually buying electric cars).
Nothing makes me more angry with Trump/Elon/GOP than measures that take us backward in terms of fighting climate change. It's the future of our children and grandchildren, and their children, that we're talking about -- they are going to bear the consequences, and we know the consequences will be severe! It's not about beliefs or political leanings, it's just science. I can handle most of the rest of the DOGE stupidity, but this is the one that makes my blood boil.
There are also more immediate problems. Think about this: we are on the cusp of the bird flu epidemic, and he nominated an antivaxxer for secretary of health and human services.
True. Interestingly, RFK is the one Trump nominee that I have the least problems with because I agree very strongly with him on big food corps pushing unhealthy garbage on society -- there seems to be very little political will to solve the problem of unhealthy food especially by those who can't afford healthy food (which is expensive!). And then we wonder why we're so unhealthy as a society.
So stupid. We are going to get run over by the Chinese, Europeans, and probably everyone else in this space just so Trump can reward some idiots in Texas who want to pump CO2 for three more years.
It’s a four year term. I wouldn’t count on mid-terms saving you. Vast majority of the seats up for election at midterm will be in safe districts. (Yayyy gerrymandering!)
No sense in buyer’s remorse at this point. We just have to find some way to make the best of the situation.
We do need some changes though. Consider this, the allotted pres-vice pres pairings were the best the current system could come up with. So changes should really be made, so that in the future we encourage more competence in candidates for office here in the US.
Of course, now I think about it more fully, office holders would have to make those changes. So I guess I wouldn’t count on that happening either.
Even a Democratic majority in Congress will not help, these people have already demonstrated they do not care about Congress. The only thing that would help is a large enough majority to impeach and remove the president, which is obviously not going to happen.
These federally funded programs are corrupt. Let the free market build these electric vehicle chargers if people want them. Do not force me to participate in your political desires by taking my money at gunpoint.
We should let the free market build all the roads as well. People will pay private corporations for the highways if they really want them. Do not force me to participate in your political desires for your roads by taking my money at gunpoint.
These chargers don't necessarily require subsidies to exist. The subsidies are to jump start and accelerate their development along strategic corridors.
But yes, gasoline production and distribution gets a lot of subsidies.
Do roads require subsidies to exist? Won't the free market just build all the roads people demand? Do you support the corruption of the government taking MY money at GUNPOINT to build YOUR roads? Or maybe there's a point in building out infrastructure that isn't directly and immediately profitable.
Your link is to the production of ethanol (and biodiesel) not gasoline, which is mandated by the government to be mixed in with gasoline. No one in the gasoline industry actually wants this mandate.
Turn off Fox News man. You are being sold this story so that billionaires can cut them or privatize them (aka steal the money from them or direct it towards their companies).
My wife works for the government and she can't even get a cup of free coffee from the government because it is considered a private benefit that doesn't work towards their mission.
I have friends who work for the federal government. They told me that they "work from home" and literally do nothing to collect six figure paychecks except for a conference call every few months.
When was the last time Bezos or Gates or Buffett held a gun to your head and said give me your money? We have no choice but to give the government any amount of money it wants even if the services it provides are negative.
People freely choose to pay other folks for goods and services, and if those folks offer a truly game changing experience, sometimes they become billionaires.
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/nevi/resources/state-pl...
It looks like it's being suspended while new guidelines are are produced.
To me, this makes sense. The program produced "more than 30" EV charging stations, which doesn't seem like a ton given that they've had 3+ years to do it. That's with over $1.5B spent already, according to https://driveelectric.gov/state-plans
I think it's reasonable to reform a program that's dramatically failing to meet its goal.